From: MUVMS3::_IN%"campbelld%apsu.dnet@net.Vanderbilt.Edu" 10-JUN-1993 12:16:34.65
To: @editors
CC:
Subj: HOST #1 fyi
Return-path:
Received: from net.Vanderbilt.Edu by MARSHALL.WVNET.EDU with PMDF#10196; Mon, 7
Jun 1993 05:19 EDT
Received: from APSU.DECnet MAIL11D_V3 by net.Vanderbilt.Edu (VUCC.17-May-1991)
id AA24370; Mon, 7 Jun 93 03:54:13 -0500
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 03:54:12 -0500
From: campbelld%apsu.dnet@net.Vanderbilt.Edu (RICHARD JENSEN)
Subject: HOST #1 fyi
To: @editors
Message-id: <9306070854.AA24370@net.Vanderbilt.Edu>
X-Envelope-to: yea003
+----------------------------------+
| HOST: An Electronic Bulletin |
| for the History and Philosophy |
| of Science and Technology |
|----------------------------------|
| Volume 1, Number 2 |
| Spring/Summer |
| June, 1993. |
| ISSN # 1192-084 X. |
+----------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Institute for the History | Produced by IHPST through |
| and Philosophy of Science | the HOST BBS on EPAS and |
| and Technology, Room 316, | E-Mail, through INTERNET at |
| 73 Queen's Park Crescent, | JSMITH@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA |
| Toronto, Ontario, Canada. | IHPST@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA |
| M5S1K7 [IHPST]. |-----------------------------|
| Phone: (416) 978-5047. | Editors: Julian A. Smith |
| Fax: (416) 978-3003. | Gordon H. Baker |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+------------+
| Contents |
+------------+
Subscriber's Information
About our Contributors
Articles/Works in Progress
(1) Peter J. Burkholder:
Alciun of York's _Propositiones ad Acuendos Juvenes_; ("Propositions
for Sharpening Youths"); Introduction and Commentary.
(2) Peter J. Burkholder:
_Propositiones Alcuini Doctoris Caroli Magni Imperatoris ad Acuendes
Juvenes_; _Propositions of Alciun, A Teacher of Emperor Charlemagne,
for Sharpening Youths_; Translation.
(3) Sharon Low:
Richard Goldschmidt and William Bateson: Opposition to the Classical
Conception of the Gene; Obstructionists or Visionaries?
Electronic Resources
(1) Julian A. Smith:
LISTSERVER Mailing Lists/Discussion Groups on BITNET/INTERNET for
the Historian and Philosopher of Science and Technology.
(2) Julian A. Smith:
Using "Newsgroups" through BITNET/INTERNET.
Book Reviews
(1) _Storms of Controversy: The Secret Avro Arrow Files Revealed_, by
Palmiro Campagna.
(2) _The People's Railway: A History of Canadian National_, by Donald
MacKay.
(3) _The American Way of Birth_, by Jessica Mitford
(4) _Loss of Eden: A Biography of Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh_,
by Joyce Milton.
(5) _The Art of Medieval Technology_, by Richard W. Ungur.
(6) _Hidden Attraction: The Mystery and History of Magnetism_, by
Gerrit L. Verschuur.
(7) _Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry -- And Made
Himself the Richest Man in America_, by Stephen Manes and Paul
Andrews.
(8) _The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic
Frontier_, by Bruce Sterling.
Information for Authors
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+--------------------------+
| Subscriber's Information |
+--------------------------+
HOST: An Electronic Bulletin for the History and Philosophy of Science
and Technology,is produced by the Institute for the History and Philosophy
of Science and Technology (or IHPST) at Victoria College, Room 316, 73
Queen's Park Crescent, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S
1K7. HOST appears 2 times a year, Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter, and
contains articles, works in progress, research notes, communications,
book reviews, electronic resources, and news of interest to the
profession.
The HOST Bulletin is distributed in several formats. Copies through E-
Mail (INTERNET at JSMITH@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA or GBAKER@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA) are
available free. Printed copies ($8) or disk copies ($5) may also be
ordered from IHPST at the address above, and by telephone at 416-978-5047,
or fax at 416-978-3003. Inquiries, subscription orders, submissions, and
review copies of books should be sent to IHPST, addressed
to the HOST Bulletin editors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+------------------------+
| About our Contributors |
+------------------------+
Gordon H. Baker is a B.A. candidate at IHPST, and an editor of the HOST
Bulletin. Mr. Baker's research interests include 19th century medicine, and
the history of science in Canada.
Julian A. Smith is a Ph.D. candidate at IHPST, and a History of Science
Instructor at Ryerson Polytechnical University, Toronto. He is also one of
the editors of the HOST Bulletin. Mr. Smith's research interests include
medieval physics, 19th century medicine, astronomy and cartography in
Canada, and the history of mathematics.
Sharon Low has recently completed her undergraduate degree at the
University of Toronto's Trinity College. She specializes in zoology, has a
psychology major and is interested in Biological Rhythms (the subject of
her thesis). She is now taking graduate level studies in neuroscience in
the United States. Her paper on Goldschmidt and Bateson (in this journal)
was the winner of the 1992 IHPST Undergraduate Essay Competition.
Peter Burkholder was recently a graduate student (MA) at IHPST, but has
recently transferred his Doctoral studies to the University of Minnesota in
Minneapolis. His interests are in medieval studies and the history of
mathematics.
Steven Walton is a graduate student (MA) at IHPST. He has completed an
M.A. in Engineering at Cornell University. His interests are in medieval
studies and the history of technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+----------------------------+
| Articles/Works in Progress |
+----------------------------+
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alciun of York's _Propositiones ad Acuendos Juvenes_
("Propositions for Sharpening Youths")
Introduction and Commentary
By Peter J. Burkholder
Received May, 1992
Revised March, 1993
Introduction
In the year 782, Alcuin of York (735-804) was summoned to the court of
Charlemagne in Frankia. By this point, the Frankish king's domain covered
much of modern France; Lombardy had been subjected; authority had been
established on the Spanish March; and Bavaria was soon to be Christianized.
With his sphere of influence thus extended, Charlemagne was able to turn
his interests to the revitalization of education among his peoples. It was
for this reason that Alcuin's presence was requested on the Continent.
Alcuin, also known by his Latin name of Albinus, was born in Northumbria
in the year of the Venerable Bede's death.[1] He spent time studying in
Italy and taught at the cathedral school of York before assuming his place
at the court of Charlemagne in 782. Alcuin played an integral part in the
so-called "Carolingian Renaissance," founding the palace school at Aix-la-
Chapelle where the seven liberal arts were taught according to the
educational system of Cassiodorus (ca. 490-580). His most important
writings were his revisions of the Vulgate and his voluminous letters,[2]
the latter being collated in the ninth century as a model of Latin
composition. Alcuin eventually assumed the position of abbot at the abbey
of St-Martin of Tours where he founded an important library and school, and
where he remained until his death on May 19, 804.
During the course of his tenure, Alcuin is credited with having written a
set of mathematical exercises entitled "Propositiones ad acuendos juvenes"
or "Propositions for Sharpening Youths." These problems and their
solutions, 53 in number, serve as valuable evidence of the state of
mathematical education under the Carolingian kings. To the best of my
knowledge, a complete translation of, and commentary on, the Propositions
has never been undertaken, while scholarly treatment of them has been
cursory at best. It is hoped that such an endeavor will shed new light on
our knowledge of medieval mathematics and mathematical education. Before
delving into the Propositions themselves, however, discussion of the
problem of authorship is offered.
The Problem of Authorship
The composition of the Propositions can only be tentatively attributed to
Alcuin. The most compelling reason to ascribe them as such is the title
given at the head of the manuscript used for the Migne edition:
"Propositiones Alcuini doctoris Caroli Magni imperatoris ad acuendos
juvenes."[3] This particular manuscript is a codex from the monastery
Augia Dives, known today as Richenau near Constance, Switzerland. The
monastery was secularized in 1803, with the manuscripts being dispersed
between Karlsruhe, London, Stuttgart, St. Paul in Carinthia, and Zurich.[4]
The manuscript is described by the editor as being "very old," but this is
by no means conclusive evidence of its origin.[5]
J.A. Giles, who edited Bede's works in which a version of the
Propositions appears,[6] judges that the style of the queries is
sufficiently like that of Alcuin to imply that he was indeed the original
author.[7] Conversely, the literary manner in which the Propositions are
stated is very unlike anything produced by Bede, and thus cannot be
considered his. Corroborating evidence that Alcuin may have been the
author of the Propositions comes from a letter sent to Charlemagne in which
Alcuin states, "I have sent to your Excellency...some simple arithmetical
problems for reason of pleasure."[8] Such testimony is, of course,
tenuous, for Alcuin's authorship of the Propositions is in no way assured
simply because he sent a copy of them to his king.
There is other evidence, though inconclusive, which indicates that the
Propositions may have been penned by Alcuin. In an interesting
mathematical correspondence which took place around 1025, two monks of
Cologne and Liege make reference to a work entitled _Albinus_ the Latinized
form of Alcuin's name.[9] The context in which the work is used is a
debate over the relation of a square's side to its diagonal. Although the
Propositions specifically treat no such problems, there are instances of
geometrical methods employed for questions of land measurement and
circumference. Thus, we have an instance where Alcuin's Propositions may
have been widely utilized in the early eleventh century, and commonly
known as his work.
As stated, there is evidence suggesting that the Propositions may have
been the work of the Venerable Bede (672-735). An almost word-for-word
version of this treatise appears under the heading "Incipiunt aliae
propositiones ad acuendos juvenes" in Bede's works.[10] If this were
indeed the case, Alcuin obviously could not have been the original author.
However, it is worth noting that Bede never makes any mention of the
Propositions, even in his own listing of his works. Moreover, Giles cites
a number of scientific writings attributed to Bede, including the
Propositions, which must be considered unauthentic.[11] For these reasons,
Bede's version of the Propositions appears in Migne under the heading
"Dubious and Spurious Works."
Based on a manuscript at Leyden,[12] Smith argues that the probable
compiler of the Propositions was a monk named Ademar or Aymar of the
ancient house of Chabanais, who lived from 988 to 1030. The problems
contained therein seem to be based on Aesop's Fables, begun by Aesop
himself in Samos during the seventh century B.C., and modified by Babrius
around the third century. What the connection is between Aesop's and
Alcuin's works is not readily apparent, and Smith fails to elaborate on his
point. However, based in part on the method of presentation, Thiele
believes that Ademar did indeed author the Propositions.[13]
Except for Giles, scholars are reluctant to give Alcuin credit for
production of the Propositions, mainly on the grounds that he contributed
little or nothing of originality to learning, and because the vast majority
of his writings were works on theology. Thus, Alcuin assumes the typical
medieval scholastic role as transmitter of knowledge, not producer of new
material. A comprehensive study of the various manuscripts would no doubt
help determine the actual author of the Propositions.
The Problems Themselves
The fifty-three problems which make up the Propositions follow a basic
general pattern: a brief heading, a statement of the problem, a request
for an answer to the problem, and a solution. There can be little doubt
that the problems were read aloud,[14] possibly with the students copying
them down on papyrus, tree bark or parchment.[15] A call for a response
was then elicited of the form, "Let him say, he who is able..." Some of
the problems such as those pertaining to logic exercises could have been
deciphered with no recourse to writing; others involving drawn out
arithmetic computations could have taken quite some effort to compute,
particularly when working with clumsy Roman numerals.
There is no strict categorical framework for the problems, although
clusters of certain types appear intermittently. Only two problems (1 &
26) pertain to rates and distances, the first being a very odd hypothetical
situation involving a snail's arduous and drawn out trek to a luncheon; the
second and more advanced problem involves a dog's pursuit of a hare,[16]
and actually involves two rates over differing distances. It is as
follows:
There is a field which is 150 feet long. At one end stood a dog, at
the other, a hare. The dog advanced behind the hare, namely, to chase the
hare. But whereas the dog went nine feet per stride, the hare went [only]
seven. Let him say, he who wishes, How many feet and how many leaps did
the dog take in pursuing the fleeing hare until it was caught?
Alcuin's solution is ingenious, though cryptic. Whereas we might solve
such a problem by two equations and two unknowns, Alcuin notes that the
differing rates of the animals is the key to the entire problem:
The length of the field was 150 feet. Taking half of 150 makes 75. The
dog was covering nine feet per stride, and nine times 75 makes 675. The
dog thus ran this many feet in chasing the rabbit until it caught the
rabbit with its tenacious teeth. And indeed, because the rabbit went seven
feet per stride, take 75 seven times. This is how many feet the fleeing
rabbit travelled before being caught.
The reason for dividing the field in half may not be so clear, but it
simply corresponds to partitioning the field by the difference of the
animals' feet per stride, in this case, two. Alcuin then takes the
measurement obtained by thus dividing and multiplies it by the respective
rates of dog and hare to arrive at the correct answer.
This method can be generalized as follows. The dog must always cover the
space between it and the hare (d1) plus the additional distance covered by
the hare (d2). If the dog's rate is r1, then the equation describing the
distance traversed by the dog is given by d1+d2=r1t. (1) In a similar
fashion, the hare's flight is denoted by d2=r2t. (2) Substituting the
value of d2 in (2) into (1) yields d1+r2t=r1t. Thus d1=t(r1-r2). (3) From
(1), we know that t=(d1+d2)/r1, and putting this value of t into (3)
results in d1=(d1+d2)(r1-r2)/r1. Rearranging this equations yields
d1+d2=r1d1/(r1-r2). This is exactly what Alcuin's method does. It says
that the total distance covered by, for instance, the dog is simply the
intervening expanse divided by the difference of the two animals' rates,
times the dog's rate. It is easy to see the advantages that such a method
offers in an oral instruction setting.
A much larger corpus of problems (e.g. 2, 3, 4) might best be described
as those of an unknown quantity. In each exercise, the reader is told that
a certain quantity of people, animals or objects, if doubled, tripled, or
in some other way arithmetically manipulated, adds up to 100. A typical
example is problem 36:
A certain old man greeted a boy, saying to him: "May you live, boy, may
you live for as long as you have [already] lived, and then another equal
amount of time, and then three times as much. And may God grant you one of
my years, and you shall live to be 100." Let him solve, he who can, How
many years old was the boy at that time?
The answer is a bit trickier than it might appear at first glance, for it
must be remembered that it is difficult to use base-10 arithmetic in
solving a problem dealing with a 12-month year:
When [the old man] said "may you live for as long as you have lived,"
[the boy] had [already] lived eight years, three months. Another equal
number of years would make 16 years, six months, while another equal span
makes 33 years. Three times this makes 99 years, which with one more year
added makes 100.
It would have been a rather simple affair for Alcuin to have invented
such an exercise by starting with 100 and working backwards, and then
extrapolating the procedure to other problems of the same genre. A
slightly more complicated query of this type can be found in problem 40,
where portions of the original quantity are doubled, halved, and then
added:
A certain man saw from a mountain some sheep grazing and said, "O that I
could have so many, and then just as many more, and then half of half of
this [added], and then another half of this half. Then I, as the 100th
[member], might head back to my home together." Let him solve, he who can,
How many sheep did the man see grazing?
Again, such a scenario could have easily been derived by beginning with
100, and then arithmetically manipulating it until the desired problem was
in order:
36 sheep were first seen by the man when he said, "O that I could have so
many." Adding an equal number makes 72, and a half of half of this, that
is, of 36, makes 18. And again, a half of this, that is, of 18, makes
nine. Therefore add 36 and 36, making 72. Add to this 18, which makes 90.
Then add nine to 90, making 99. The man himself added to these will be the
100th one.
The only precaution which would be necessary would be to make sure that
fractions do not occur, and this could be easily checked.
A third type of problem which Alcuin presents to the student is that of
dividing quantities amongst various parties. This sometimes involves the
division of an inheritance between sons, as in problem 12:
A certain father died and left as an inheritance to his three sons 30
glass flasks, of which 10 were full of oil; another 10 were half full,
while another 10 were empty. Divide, he who can, the oil and flasks so
that an equal share of the commoditites should equally come down to the
three sons, both of oil and glass.
There is little doubt that anyone, whether trained in mathematics or not,
could solve such a problem. One need only pour all of the oil into a
central vat and divide the liquid and glass equally from there. However,
as an exercise, Alcuin demonstrates how such a division might be
accomplished without recourse to such crude means:
There are three sons and 30 glass flasks. However, of the flasks, 10 are
full [of oil], 10 half full, and 10 empty. Take three times 10, which
makes 30, so each son shall receive 10 flasks as his portion. Divide up
the three portions, that is, give to the first son 10 half [filled] flasks,
to the second son five full and five empty [flasks]. Do the same for the
third son, and the brothers' portions of glass and oil shall be the same.
Questions pertaining to division of an estate are traceable back to Roman
law and what is known as the Testament Problem.[17] Roman precepts made
definite provisions for the division of property upon a father's death, and
thus we find problems like number 35. Here, a father leaves behind a
pregnant wife, with instructions for division of his inheritance in the
case of either a boy or girl being born. To complicate matters, opposite
sex twins are produced. A long-winded solution of how the father's
possessions are to be divided follows.
These types of problems seem to stress logic more than arithmetic skills.
The exercises involving distribution of corn by a head of household
(paterfamilias) to his servants are slightly more complicated, as differing
amounts of corn are allowed for men, women and children:
A certain head of household had 30 servants whom he ordered to be given
30 modia of corn as follows: The men should receive three modia; the
women, two; and the children, a half [modium]. Let him solve, he who can,
How many men, women and children were there?
As in the problems dealing with an unknown quantity, Alcuin had to be
sure that his numbers worked out evenly in the end. Note, too, that he
treats fractional measurements here, as each child receives half a modium
of corn:
If you take thrice three, you get nine; if you take two five times, you
get 10; and if you take half of 22, you get 11. Thus, three men received
nine modia; five women received 10; and 22 children received 11 modia.
Adding three and five and 22 makes 30 servants. Likewise, nine and 11 and
10 makes 30 modia. Hence there are 30 servants, and 30 modia [of corn].
Problems of exactly the same type, but with varying numbers of servants
and corn, can be found in exercises 32 and 34, indicating that it was the
procedure which Alcuin wished his pupils to understand.
Alcuin's logic problems, or slight variations of them, can still be found
today in textbooks and on examinations. The most famous no doubt is the
conundrum of the man, she-goat, wolf and cabbage which needed to be ferried
across a river. (Problem 18) As only two passengers fit in the boat at
once, and since certain combinations of animals and vegetable cannot be
left alone, the reader is left to solve how a successful transport might
take place. Alcuin assumes the role of ferryman and leads us through the
problem step by step:
...I would first take the she-goat and leave behind the wolf and the
cabbage. When I had returned, I would ferry over the wolf. With the wolf
unloaded, I would retrieve the she-goat and take it back across. Then, I
would unload the she-goat and take the cabbage to the other side. I would
next row back and take the she-goat across. The crossing should go well by
doing thus, and absent from threat of slaughter.
Problems of exactly this type appear in exercises 17, 19 and 20 as well.
In each case, a long explanation of how a successful transnavigation might
be performed is offered.
Other logic problems are more straightforward and exhibit a certain
amount of humor. The answer to Alcuin's problem of how many footprints an
ox makes in the last furrow is, of course, none, "because the ox goes in
front of the plow and the plow follows it. For however many footprints the
ox makes on the ploughed earth by going first, so many the plough following
behind destroys by ploughing." (Problem 14) Another question of this type
entails a man who wishes to slaughter 300 pigs in three days, but with a
odd number being butchered per day -- a problem which Alcuin states "is
indissoluble and composed for rebuking." (Problem 43)
Alcuin's problems pertaining to area are of particular interest. They
consist of queries as to how many measurements or objects can fit inside of
a larger confine. Certain exercises we might define as dealing with
acreage, although such a term is not entirely accurate for measurements of
aripenna, the standard land quantity.[18] Other problems are of no
immediate practical value whatsoever, and are thus clearly meant as purely
mathematical exercises. Take for example the question of how many
rectangular houses can fit within a circular city (problem 29):
There is a city which is 8000 feet in circumference. Let him say, he who
is able, How many houses should the city contain, such that each [house] is
30 feet long, and 20 feet wide?
Solution:
The city measures 8000 feet around, which is divided into proportions of
one-and-a-half to one, i.e. 4800 and 3200. The length and width of the
houses are [also] of these [dimensions]. Thus, take half of each of the
above [measurements], and from the larger number there shall remain 2400,
while from the smaller, 1600. Then, divide 1600 into twenty [parts] and
you will obtain 80 times 20. In a similar fashion, [divide] the larger
number, i.e. 2400, into 30 pieces, deriving 80 times 30. Take 80 times 80,
making 6400. This many houses can be built in the city, following the
above-written proposal.
Essentially, what Alcuin does is to force the ratio of the length to
width of each house onto the city. Thus, as each house measures 30x20, the
ratio of length to width is 3:2. Alcuin breaks up the circumference of the
town into two pieces such that their ratio is 3:2 as well. Having done
this, he simply straightens out the pieces and sets them perpendicular to
one another. This, however, yields an unclosed figure. He thus divides
each side in two and rearranges the four sides in order to make a closed
structure. The ratio of 3:2 is preserved since 4800/2:3200/2 equals 3:2.
Now Alcuin has a rectangular town with a circumference of 8000 feet, and
whose dimensions are proportional to the dimensions of the houses. From
there, the problem of the number of houses which can fit in the town is
trivial.
The most obvious shortcoming of Alcuin's method is that the area enclosed
by different curves of equal length is not the same. The area of a circle
is given by pi-r-squared, whereas the area for a rectangle is denoted by
length times width. Thus, the area enclosed by a circle with a
circumference of 8000 feet is roughly 5,092,958 square feet, whereas a
rectangle measuring 1600 by 2400 encloses only 3,840,000 square feet -- a
difference of over 1.2 million square feet. The only conclusion which can
be drawn is that Alcuin was unaware of the consequences of modifying shape,
as he employs the same methodology in problems 27 and 28. In addition, we
need only note the absence of allowance for streets to realize the purely
hypothetical nature of such a problem.
There is further evidence that Alcuin's Propositions sought merely to
stir the minds of their readers as opposed to serving as a handbook for
quotidian problems. Glaring examples of this are exercises 13 and 41, both
of which teach the lesson of geometric growth.[19] In the former, a
servant is ordered by his king to assemble an army from 30 villages as
follows:
He should bring back as many men [from each successive village] as he had
taken there. Thus, [the servant] came to the first village alone; he came
with one other person to the next; three people came to the third, etc...
Such a gathering can be mathematically modelled by the relation N=2^(v),
where v is each successive village and N is the number of people assembled.
Hence, the total number of villagers conscripted would be given as S 2^(v),
with the summation beginning at v=0 and continuing to v=30 -- a figure
representing an army which was far beyond the capabilities of even the
richest or most ambitious of kings to field. Alcuin's solution gives
figures up to v=15, while the edition ascribed to Bede continues all the
way to v=30, although with errors beginning at v=22. Neither attempts to
sum the figures, nor is it expected that a student would be expected to;
rather, it was the process which undoubtedly lay at the heart of the
problem.
A similar hypothetical problem demonstrates the idea of arithmetic
progression. It has been related that when Gauss (1777-1855) was a young
student, his mathematics teacher one day instructed the class to add the
numbers one through 100. No sooner had the assignment been made than Gauss
somehow magically produced the correct figure of 5050. How had he done it?
The key to the problem is to realize that by adding corresponding low and
high figures, a simple multiplication problem unfolds. Thus, 1+100=101;
2+99=101; 3+98=101;...;49+52=101; 50+51=101. It is manifest from this that
one need only multiply the constant sum, 101, by 50, the number of sums.
In this way, the correct response of 5050 is obtained.
Alcuin's ladder problem (42) shows that this concept was already known
by the ninth century:
There is a ladder which has 100 steps. One dove sat on the first step,
two doves on the second, three on the third, four on the fourth, five on
the fifth, and so on up to the hundredth step. Let him say, he who can,
How many doves were there in all?
Solution:
There will be as many as follows: Take the dove sitting on the first
step and add it to the 99 doves sitting on the 99th step, thus getting 100.
Do the same with the second and 98th steps and you shall likewise get 100.
By combining all the steps in this order, that is, one of the higher steps
with one of the lower, you shall always get 100. The 50th step, however,
is alone and without a match; likewise, the 100th stair is alone. Add them
all and you will have 5050 doves.
We can see that with only slight modification, the above-described
concept was in place almost a thousand years before Gauss dazzled his
schoolteacher. Perhaps the young Gauss wasn't so clever after all!
Conclusion and Topics for Further Study
Whether or not Alcuin himself authored the Propositions may never be
known, but this is not of great consequence. The Propositions are
interesting problems in their own right and reveal the general state and
method of mathematical instruction around the time of Charlemagne. A
thread of continuity with classical education can be discerned in these
puzzles as well as the influence of Barbarian values of practical methods
for everyday problems. However, it must be concluded that the Propositions
sought only to instill various simple methods in its users, this being
accomplished by repeated problems of the same genre.
It should not be concluded that the Propositions are indicative of the
general state of mathematics during the eighth or ninth centuries. We have
prima facie evidence[20] that these problems were utilized primarily for
didactic purposes; thus, to argue that the Propositions are an example of
the poor state of mathematics is erroneous. While such a conclusion may be
justified, it by no means is a necessary deduction from the evidence at
hand.
The Propositions are also potentially valuable for the economic and
social insight they offer, and a spreadsheet of various weights and
measures which appear throughout the problems is included as an appendix.
Whether or not these values are consistent with contemporary conditions
awaits another study.
An Introduction to the Translations
In translating the 53 problems and answers of the Propositions, I have
utilized the Migne edition of Alcuin's works. I have annotated this text
and supplied alternate or additional versions of problems as they appear in
Bede's supposed previous work. Where differences occur, a footnote is
provided beginning with "Bede," hence referring the reader to Bede's
edition. A further comparison with Heruagius's edition of Bede's writings
revealed only trivial discrepancies, and thus alternate readings from this
work have been omitted.
A quality translation must be true both to the original language and the
language into which the material is converted. With this is mind, I have
tried to keep verb tenses consistent according to English usage despite
Alcuin's variations within a given problem. English words which have been
read into the Latin are contained within square brackets [ ] and are
either interpretive or corroborated by Bede's edition. Certain words
referring to weights and measures (e.g. aripennum, denarius, solidus) have
been left in the original. Though aripennum might be rendered "arpent" and
solidus a "sous," such translations either do little in helping us grasp
what is involved in the usage, or are modernly deceitful.
References
[1] Since the Propositions to be discussed cannot be ascribed to Alcuin
with certainty, I will offer only a very brief biographical account of the
man. Secondary literature on Alcuin is plentiful. See for example Stephen
Allott, _Alcuin of York_, (York, 1974); L. Wallach, _Alcuin and
Charlemagne_, (New York, 1959); Eleanor Duckett, _Alcuin, A Friend of
Charlemagne_, (New York, 1951); C.J.B. Gaskoin, _Alcuin: His Life and
Works_, (Cambridge, 1904); Andrew West, _Alcuin and the Rise of the
Christian Schools_, (London, 1893); and Frederick Lorenz, _The Life of
Alcuin_, Jane Slee, trans., (London, 1837). For a listing of Alcuin's
texts and translations, see George Sarton, _Introduction to the History of
Science_, 3 vols., (Baltimore, 1927), vol. 1, part 1, pp. 528-529.
[2] See Rolph Page, _The Letters of Alcuin_, (New York, 1909).
[3] _Alcuini opera omnia_, J.P. Migne, ed., vol. 2, found in _Patrologiae
latinae cursus completus..._, vol. 101, (Paris, 1863).
[4] Frederick Hall, _A Companion to Classical Texts_, (Oxford, 1913), pp.
294 & 342.
[5] D.E. Smith tells us that the oldest manuscript of the problems dates
from the eleventh century. _History of Mathematics_, 2 vols., (New York,
1923; reprint, 1951), vol. 1, p. 186.
[6] One such manuscript ascribing the Propositions to Bede is _Codex
Latinus Monacensis_, no. 14272. Its origin is either tenth or eleventh
century. See _Catalogus codicum Latinorum bibliothecae regiae monacensis_,
(Hildesheim, 1975), vol. 2,2, pp. 152-153. (This is the only ascription to
Bede noted by Lynn Thorndike, _A Catalog of Incipits of Medieval Scientific
Writings_, (Cambridge, MA, 1963).)
[7] Giles, ed., _The Miscellaneous Works of Venerable Bede, in the Original
Latin_, 6 vols., (London, 1843), vol. 6, p. xiv.
[8] "Misi excellentiae vestrae...aliquas figuras arithmeticae subtilitatis,
laetitiae causa." Migne, op. cit., vol. 100, letter 101, col. 314, dated
anno 800.
[9] An edition of the correspondence, along with scholarly commentary, can
be found in Paul Tannery's _Memoires scientifiques_, vol. 5 of _Sciences
exactes au moyen-age-, (Paris, 1922), pp. 264-288. An earlier partial
edition is contained in Jules Clerval's _Les Ecoles de Chartres au moyen-
age, du ve au xvie siecle_, (Paris, 1895; reprint, Geneva, 1977), pp. 459-
464. I have studied these letters anew and hope to make my findings
available in the near future in a paper entitled "Speculum geometricae
undecimo saeculo: The Mathematical Correspondence of Ragimbold of Cologne
and Radulf of Liege, ca. 1025."
[10] Migne, op. cit., vol. 90, cols. 667-676. These also appear in volume
one of Joannes Hervagius's edition of Bede's _Opera Bedae Venerabilis..._,
8 vols. bound in 4, (Basil, 1563), but are not included in Giles's edition.
The most notable difference between Bede's version and that of Alcuin is
the lack of solutions for problems 36-53 in the former.
[11] Giles, op. cit., vol. 6, pp. ix-xv.
[12] Georg Thiele, ed., _Der Illustrierte lateinische Aesop in der
Handschrift des Ademar_, Codex Vossianus Lat. Oct. 15, Fol. 195-205,
(Leiden, 1905).
[13] Ibid., pp. 23-25.
[14] Vera Sanford specifically places Alcuin's Propositions under the
rubric "Verbal Problems." _A Short History of Mathematics_, (Boston,
1930), pp. 212-213.
[15] For the materials available to schoolchildren, see Pierre Riche,
_Education and Culture in the Barbarian West, Sixth through Eighth
Centuries_, trans. from the third edition by John Contreni, (Columbia, SC,
1976), pp. 458-462.
[16] Smith describes this problem as being "already ancient" by Alcuin's
time, but fails to cite any precedents. Op. cit., 187. Sanford dates
pursuit problems to Roman legionaries, whose stride was so uniform that
time schedules could be worked out for marching from place to place. Op.
cit., pp. 217-218.
[17] See Sanford, op. cit., pp. 218-219.
[18] The use of aripenna and the smaller perticae, of course, implies that
such measurements were standard and well-known to all. From problem 25, we
can deduce that one aripennum equals 184.53 perticae.
[19] Sanford regards problems of geometric progression as some of the
oldest types of mathematical endeavors, and cites extant Babylonian tablets
from ca. 2000 b.c. to this effect. Op. cit., pp. 174-176.
[20] See problem 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Propositiones Alcuini Doctoris Caroli Magni
Imperatoris ad Acuendes Juvenes_ [1]
_Propositions of Alciun, A Teacher of Emperor
Charlemagne, for Sharpening Youths_
Translation
By Peter J. Burkholder
Received May, 1992
Revised March, 1993.
I. propositio de limace.
Limax fuit ab hierundine invitatus ad prandium infra leucam unam. In die
autem non potuit plus quam unam unciam pedis ambulare. Dicat, qui velit,
in quot diebus [2] ad idem prandium ipse limax perambulabat?
1. proposition concerning the snail.
A snail was invited by a swallow to lunch a league away. However, it could
not walk further than one inch per day. Let him say, he who wishes, How
many [years and] days did it take for the snail to walk to that lunch?
Sequitur solutio de limace.
In leuca una sunt mille quingenti passus; vii d pedes xc unciae. Quot
unciae, tot dies fuerunt, qui faciunt annos ccxlvi, et dies ccx.
Here follows the solution of the snail.
In one league, there are 1500 passus [3]. 7500 feet [equals] 90,000
inches. There are as many days as there are inches, that is, 246 years, 210
days.
II. propositio de viro ambulante in via. [4]
Quidam vir ambulans per viam vidit sibi alios homines obviantes, et dixit
eis: Volebam [5], ut fuissetis alii tantum, quanti estis; et medietas
medietatis; et hujus numeri medietas [et rursum de medietate medietas];
tunc una mecum c fuissetis. Dicat, qui velit, quanti fuerunt, qui in prima
ab illo visi sunt?
2. proposition of the man walking in the street.
A certain man walking in the street saw other men coming towards him, and
he said to them: "O that there were so many [more] of you as you are
[now]; and then half of half of this [were added]; and then half of this
number [were added], and again, a half of [this] half. Then, along with
me, you would number 100 [men]." Let him say, he who wishes, How many men
were first seen by the man?
Solutio de eadem propositione.
Qui imprimis ab illo visi sunt, fuerunt xxxvi. Alii tantum lxxii. Medietas
medietatis xviii. Et hujus numeri medietas sunt viiii. Dic ergo sic:
lxxii et xviii fiunt xc. Adde viiii, fiunt xcviiii. Adde loquentem, et
habebis c.[6]
Solution of the same proposition.
Those who were first seen by the man were 36 in number; double this would
be 72. A half of half of this is 18, and a half of this number makes 9.
Therefore, say this: 72 and 18 makes 90. Adding 9 to this makes 99.
Include the speaker and you shall have 100.
III. propositio de duobus proficiscentibus.[7]
Duo homines ambulantes per viam, videntesque ciconias, dixerunt inter se:
Quot sunt? Qui conferentes numerum dixerunt: Si essent aliae tantae; et
ter tantae, et medietas tertii, adjectis duobus, c essent. Dicat, qui
potest, quantae fuerunt, quae imprimis ab illis visae sunt?
3. proposition concerning the two travellers.
Two men were walking in the street when they noticed some storks. They
asked each other, "How many are there?" Discussing the matter, they said:
"If [the storks] were doubled, then taken three times, and then half of the
third [were taken] and with two more added, there would be 100." Let him
say, he who is able, How many [storks] were first seen by the men?
Solutio de ciconiis.
xxviii et xviii,[8] et tertio sic: fiunt lxxxiiii. Et medietas tertii
fiunt xiiii. Sunt in totum xcviii. Adjectis duobus, c apparent.
Solution concerning the storks.
28 taken three times makes 84. Half of a third makes 14. Thus, in total
there are 98. By adding two, there are 100.
IV. propositio de homine et equis.[9]
Quidam homo vidit equos pascentes in campo, optavit dicens: Utinam essetis
mei, et essetis alii tantum, et medietas medietatis; certe gloriarer super
equos c. Discernat, qui vult, quot equos imprimis vidit ille homo
pascentes?
4. proposition concerning the man and the horses.
A certain man saw some horses grazing in a field and said longingly: "O
that you were mine, and that you were double in number, and then a half of
half of this [were added]. Surely, I might boast about 100 horses." Let
him discern, he who wishes, How many horses did the man originally see
grazing?
Solutio de equis.
xl equi erant, qui pascebant. Alii tantum fiunt lxxx. Medietas medietatis
hujus, id est, xx, si addatur, fiunt c.
Solution concerning the horses.
There were 40 horses grazing; double this makes 80. A half of half of
this, i.e. 20, if added, makes 100.
V. propositio de emptore denariorum.[10]
Dixit quidam emptor:[11] Volo de centum denariis c porcos emere; sic
tamen, ut verres x denariis ematur; scrofa autem v denariis; duo vero
porcelli denario uno. Dicat, qui intelligit, quot verres, quot scrofae,
quotve porcelli esse debeant, ut in neutris numerus nec superabundet, nec
minuatur?
5. proposition concerning the buyer and his denarii.
A certain buyer said: "I want to buy 100 pigs with 100 denarii in such a
way that a mature boar is bought for 10 denarii; a sow for five denarii;
and two small female pigs for one denarius." Let him say, he who knows,
How many boars, sows, and small female pigs should there be so that there
are neither too many nor too few of either [pigs or denarii]?
Solutio de emptore.
Fac viiii scrofas et unum verrem in quinquaginta quinque denariis; et lxxx
porcellos in xl. Ecce porci xc. In residuis v denariis, fac porcellos x,
et habebis centenarium numerum in utrisque.
Solution concerning the buyer.
Buy nine sows and one boar with 55 denarii, and 80 small female pigs with
40; behold, 90 pigs. With the remaining five denarii, buy ten small female
pigs, and you shall have 100 pigs for 100 denarii.
VI. propositio de duobus negotiatoribus c solidos habentis.
Fuerunt duo negotiatores, habentes c solidos communes, quibus emerent
porcos. Emerunt autem in solidis duobus porcos v, volentes eos saginare,
atque iterum venundare, et in solidis lucrum facere. Cumque vidissent
tempus non esse ad saginandos porcos, et ipsi eos non valuissent tempore
hiemali pascere, tentavere venundando, si potuissent, lucrum facere, sed
non potuerunt; quia non valebant eos amplius venundare, nisi ut empti
fuerant, id est, ut de v porcis duos solidos acciperent. Cum hoc
conspexissent, dixerunt ad invicem: Dividamus eos. Dividentes autem et
vendentes, sicut emerant, fecerunt lucrum. Dicat, qui valet, imprimis quot
porci fuerunt; et dividat ac vendat et lucrum faciat, quod facere de simul
venditis non valuit.
6. proposition of the two businessmen who had 100 solidi.
There were two businessmen who had 100 solidi between them, with which they
bought some pigs. For two solidi, they bought five pigs, wishing to fatten
them and to sell them again at a profit. But when they saw that the time
was not right to fatten the pigs, and being unable to pasture them over the
winter, they tried to make a profit by selling them. However, they were
unsuccessful because they could only sell the pigs for what they had paid
(i.e., five pigs for two solidi). When they realized this, they said to
each other, "We shall divide the pigs." But by dividing and selling the
pigs for as much as they had paid, they made a profit. Let him say, he who
can, How many pigs were there at first, and how did the men divide and sell
for a profit that which they could not do together?
Solutio de porcis.
Imprimis ccl porci erant, qui c solidis sunt comparati, sicut supra dictum
est, in duobus solidis v porcos: quia sive quinquagies quinos, sive
quinquies l dixeris, ccl numerabis. Quibus divisis unus tulit cxxv, alter
similiter. Unus vendidit deteriores tres semper in solido; alter meliores
duos in solido. Sic evenit, ut is qui deteriores vendidit, de cxx porcis
xl solidos est consecutus.[12] Qui vero meliores, lx solidos est
consecutus; quia de inferioribus xxx semper in x solidis; de melioribus
viginti autem in x solidis sunt venundati: et remanserunt utrisque v
porci, ex quibus ad lucrum iiii solidos et duos denarios facere potuerunt.
Solution concerning the pigs.
There were 250 pigs to begin with. These were bought for 100 solidi, as
stated above, at the price of two solidi per five pigs. Because whether
you say "50 times five" or "five times 50," you arrive at 250. One man
sold three inferior pigs at a price of one solidi; the other, two better
pigs per solidi. Thus it happened that he who sold the inferior pigs
obtained 40 solidi for 120 pigs, whereas the better pigs brought in 60
solidi. This is because it was always 30 inferior pigs for ten solidi, and
20 better pigs for ten solidi. For each man, there remained five pigs,
from which they could make four solidi and two denarii in profit.
VII. propositio de disco pensante libras xxx.
Est discus qui pensat libras xxx sive solidos dc, habens in se aurum,
argentum, aurichalcum, et stannum. Quantum habet auri, ter tantum habet
argenti. Quantum argenti, ter tantum aurichalci. Quantum aurichalci, ter
tantum stanni. Dicat, qui potest, quantum in unaquaque specie pensat?
7. proposition concerning the plate weighing 30 pounds.
There is a plate weighing 30 pounds or 600 solidi. In it, there is gold,
silver, brass and tin. It has three times are much silver as gold, three
times as much brass as silver, and three times as much tin as brass. Let
him say, he who can, How much does each type of metal weigh?
Solutio.
Aurum pensat uncias novem: argentum ter incias viiii, id est, libras duas
et tres uncias. Aurichalcum pensat ter libras duas et [ter] iii uncias, id
est, libras vi et viiii uncias. Stannum pensat ter libras vi, et ter
uncias viiii, hoc est, libras xx, et iii uncias. viiii unciae, et ii
librae cum iii unciis: et vi librae cum viiii unciis: et xx librae cum
iii unciis adunatae, xxx libras efficiunt.
Solution.
The gold weighs nine ounces. The silver weighs three times this, i.e. two
pounds, three ounces. The brass weighs three times two pounds, three
ounces, i.e. six pounds, nine ounces. The tin weighs three times six
pounds, nine ounces, i.e. 20 pounds, three ounces. Nine ounces, and two
pounds, three ounces, and six pounds, nine ounces, and 20 pounds, three
ounces, taken together, make 30 pounds.
Item aliter ad solidum. Aurum pensat solidos argenteos xv. Argentum ter
xv, id est, xlv. Aurichalcum ter xlv, id est, cxxv. Stannum ter cxxxv,
hoc est, ccccv. Junge ccccv, et cxxxv: et xlv: et xv; et invenies dc,
qui sunt librae xxx.
Another method. The gold weighs 15 silver solidi. The silver is three
times the gold, i.e. 45. The brass is three times 45, i.e. 125 [sic]. The
tin is three times 135, i.e. 405. Add 405 and 135 and 45 and 15, and you
will get 600 [solidi], which equals 30 pounds.
VIII. propositio de cupa.
Est cupa una, quae c metretis impletur capientibus singulis modia tria;
habens fistulas iii. Ex numero modiorum tertia pars et vi per unam
fistulam currit: per alteram tertia pars sola: per tertiam sexta tantum.
Dicat nunc, qui vult, quot sextarii per unamquamque fistulam cucurrissent.
8. proposition concerning the cask.
There is a cask which has three cracks in it. It is filled with 100
metretae, each holding three modia. Of the modia, a third and sixth part
run out through one crack. Through another [crack], only a third part runs
out. Only a sixth part runs out of the third crack. Let him say now, he
who wishes, how many sextarii ran out through each crack.
Solutio.
Per primam fistulam iii dc sextarii cucurrerunt. Per secundum ii cccc.[13]
Per tertiam i cc.
Solution.
3600 sextarii run through the first crack; 2400 through the second; and
1200 through the third.
IX. propositio de sago.
Habeo sagum habentem in longitudine cubitos c, et in latitudine lxxx. Volo
exinde per portiones sagulos facere, ita ut unaquaeque portio habeat in
longitudine cubitos v, et in latitudine cubitos iiii. Dic, rogo, sapiens,
quot saguli exinde fieri possint?
9. proposition concerning the cloak material.
I have a material for cloaks which is 100 cubits long, 80 cubits wide.
From it, I wish to make smaller cloaks from portions in such a way that
each portion is five cubits in length and four cubits wide. I ask you to
tell me, wise one, How many smaller cloaks can be made from [the material]?
Solutio.
De quadrigentis octogesima pars v sunt; et centesima iiii. Sive ergo
octuagies v, sive centies iiii duxeris, semper cccc invenies. Tot sagi
erunt.[14]
Solution.
An eightieth part of 400 is five, and a hundredth part, four. Therefore,
whether you measure off 80 [lengths] of five [cubits], or 100 of four, you
shall always arrive at 400. There shall be this many cloaks.
X. propositio de linteo.[15]
Habeo linteamen unum longum cubitorum lx, latum cubitorum xl. Volo ex eo
portiones facere, ita ut unaquaeque portio habeat in longitudine cubitos
senos, et in latitudine quaternos, ut sufficiat ad tunicam consuendam.
Dicat, qui vult, quot tunicae exinde fieri possint?
10. proposition concerning the linen cloth.
I have a single linen cloth which is 60 cubits long, 40 cubits wide. I
wish to make it into smaller portions, each being six cubits in length,
four cubits in width, so that each piece is ample for making a tunic. Let
him say, he who wishes, How many tunics can be made [from the larger
piece]?
Solutio. [16]
Decima pars sexagenarii vi sunt. Decima vero quadragenarii iiii sunt. Sive
ergo decimam sexagenarii, sive decimam quadragenarii decies miseris, centum
portiones vi cubitorum longas; et iiii cubitorum latas invenies.
Solution.
One tenth of 60 is six, and a tenth of 40 is four. Therefore, whether you
shall have taken ten times a tenth of 60 [cubits] or ten times a tenth of
40, you will arrive at 100 portions of six cubits in length, and four
cubits wide.
XI. propositio de duobus hominibus sorores accipientibus.
Si duo homines ad invicem, alter alterius sororem in conjugium sumpserit;
dic, rogo, qua propinquitate filii eorum sibi pertineant?
11. proposition concerning the two men marrying [one another's] sister.
If two men should marry one another's sister, tell me, I ask, What will be
the sons' relations to each other?
Solutio ejusdem. [17]
Verbi gratia: si ego accipiam sororem socii mei, et ille meam, et ex nobis
procreentur filii; ego denique sum patruus filii sororis meae; et illa
amita filii mei. Et ea propinquitate sibi invicem pertinent.
Solution of the same [proposition].
As stated, if I should marry my friend's sister, and he should marry mine,
sons would be produced by us. Thus, I shall be the paternal uncle of my
sister's son, and she shall be my son's maternal aunt. The relation of the
two men [to the sons] shall be the same.
XII. propositio de quodam patrefamilias et tribus filiis ejus.
Quidam paterfamilias moriens dimisit [18] haereditatem tribus filiis suis,
xxx ampullas vitreas, quarum decem fuerunt plenae oleo. Aliae decem
dimidiae. Tertiae decem vacuae. Dividat, qui potest, oleum et ampullas,
ut unicuique eorum de tribus filiis aequaliter obveniat tam de vitro, quam
de oleo.
12. proposition concerning a certain father and his three sons.
A certain father died and left as an inheritance to his three sons 30 glass
flasks, of which 10 were full of oil; another 10 were half full, while
another 10 were empty. Let him divide, he who can, the oil and flasks so
that an equal share of the commodities should equally come down to the
three sons, both of oil and glass.
Solutio.
Tres igitur sunt filii, et xxx ampullae. Ampullarum autem quaedam x sunt
plenae, et x mediae, et x vacuae. Duc ter decies; fiunt xxx. Unicuique
filio veniunt x ampullae in portionem. Divide autem per tertiam partem,
hoc est, da primo filio x semis ampullas, ac deinde da secundo v plenas et
v vacuas. Similiter dabis tertio, et erit trium aequa germanorum divisio
tam in oleo, quam in vitro.
Solution.
There are three sons and 30 glass flasks. However, of the flasks, 10 are
full [of oil], 10 half full, and 10 empty. Take three times 10, which
makes 30, so each son shall receive 10 flasks as his portion. Divide up
the three portions, that is, give to the first son 10 half [filled] flasks,
to the second son five full and five empty [flasks]. Do the same for the
third son, and the brothers' portions of glass and oil shall be the same.
XIII. propositio de rege.
Quidam rex jussit famulo suo colligere de xxx villis exercitum, eo modo ut
ex unaquaque villa tot homines sumeret quotquot illuc adduxisset. Ipse
tamen ad villam primam solus venit; ad secundam cum altero; jam ad tertiam
tres venerunt. Dicat, qui potest, quot homines fuissent collecti de xxx
villis.
13. proposition concerning the king.
A certain king ordered his servant to gather an army from 30 villages as
follows: He should bring back as many men [from each successive village]
as he had taken there. Thus, [the servant] came to the first village
alone; he came with one other person to the next; three people came to the
third. Let him say, he who is able, how many men were collected from the
30 villages.
Solutio. [19]
In prima igitur mansione duo fuerunt; [20] in secunda iiii, in tertia viii,
in quarta xvi, in quinta xxxii, in sexta lxiiii, in septima cxxviii, in
octava cclvi, in nona dxii, in decima i xxiiii, in undecima ii xlviii, in
duodecima iiii xcvi, in quarta decima xvi ccclxxxiiii. In quinta decima
xxxii dcclxviii, etc.
Solution.
In the first village, there were two [people]; in the second, four; in the
third, eight; in the fourth, 16; in the fifth, 32; in the sixth, 64; in the
seventh, 128; in the eighth, 256; in the ninth, 512; in the 10th, 1024; in
the 11th, 2048; in the 12th, 4096; in the 14th, 16, 384; in the 15th, 32,
768; etc.
XIV. propositio de bove.
Bos qui tota die arat, quot vestigia faciat in ultima riga?
14. proposition concerning the ox.
How many footprints in the last furrow does an ox make which has been
plowing all day?
Solutio.
Nullum omnino vestigium facit bos in ultima riga, eo quod ipse praecedit
aratrum, et hunc aratrum sequitur. Quotquot enim hic praecedendo in
exculta terra vestigia figit,[21] tot ille subsequens excolendo resolvit.
Propterea illius nullum reperitur vestigium in ultima riga.
Solution.
An ox makes no footprints whatsoever in the last furrow. This is because
the ox goes in front of the plow, and the plow follows it. For however
many footprints the ox makes on the ploughed earth by going first, so many
the plough following behind destroys by ploughing. On account of this, no
footprints appear in the last furrow.
XV. propositio de homine.
Quaero a te ut dicas mihi quot rigas factas habeat homo in agro suo, quando
de utroque capite campi tres versuras factas habuerit?
15. proposition concerning the man.
I ask you in order that you might tell me, How many furrows might a man
have in his field if he shall have made three turns at each head of the
field?
Solutio.
Ex uno capite campi iii. Ex altero iii, quae faciunt rigas versuras vi.
Solution.
Three [furrows] from one head of the field, and three from the other,
making six plowed furrows.[22]
XVI. propositio de duobus hominibus boves ducentibus.
Duo homines ducebant boves per viam, e quibus unus alteri dixit: Da mihi
boves duos; et habeo tot boves quot et tu habes. At ille ait: Da mihi et
tu duos boves, et habeo duplum quam tu habes. Dicat, qui vult, quot boves
fuerunt, quot unusquisque habuit.
16. proposition concerning the two men leading oxen.
Two men were leading oxen along the road when one said to the other, "Give
me two oxen, and I shall have as many oxen as you." Then the other said,
"You give me two oxen, and I shall have twice as many as you." Let him
say, he who wishes, how many oxen there were, and how many each man had.
Solutio.
Prior, qui dari sibi duos rogavit, boves habebat iiii. At vero, qui
rogabatur, habebat viii. Dedit quippe rogatus postulanti duos, et
habuerunt uterque sex. Qui enim prius acceperat, reddidit duos danti
priori, qui habebat sex, et habuit viii, quod est duplum a quator, et illi
remanserunt iiii, quod est simplum ab viii.
Solution.
At first, the man who asked for two to be given to him had four oxen. But
indeed, the man who was asked had eight. Of course, having been asked, he
gave two to the one asking, and each of the two had six. For the man who
first asked returned two to the one first giving (who now had six), and he
had eight, which is double four, and four remained to that one, which is
half of eight.
XVII. propositio de tribus fratribus singulas habentibus sorores.
Tres fratres erant qui singulas sorores habebant, et fluvium transire
debebant (erat enim unicuique illorum concupiscentia in sorore proximi
sui), qui venientes ad fluvium non invenerunt nisi parvam naviculam, in qua
non potuerunt amplius nisi duo ex illis transire. Dicat, qui potest,
qualiter fluvium transierunt, ne una quidem earum ex ipsis maculata sit?
17. proposition concerning the men [23] who had unmarried sisters.
There were three men, each having an unmarried sister, who needed to cross
a river. Each man was desirous of his friend's sister. Coming to the
river, they found only a small boat in which only two persons could cross
at a time. Let him say, he who is able, How did they cross the river, so
that none of the sisters were defiled by the men?
Solutio.
Primo omnino ego et soror mea introissemus in navem et transfretassemus
ultra; transfretatoque fluvio dimisissem sororem meam de nave, et
reduxissem navem ad ripam. Tunc vero introissent sorores duorum virorum,
illorum videlicet, qui ad littus remanserant. Illis igitur feminis navi
egressis, soror mea [quae prima transierat], intraret, navemque reduceret
ad nos. Illa egrediente foras, duo in navem fratres intrassent, ultraque
venissent. Tunc unus ex illis una cum sorore sua navem ingressi ad nos
transfretassent. Ego autem et ille, qui navigaverat, sorore mea remanente
foras, ultra venissemus. Nosque ad littora vectos, una ex illis duabus
quaelibet mulieribus, ultra navem reduceret, sororeque mea secum recepta
pariter ad nos ultra venissent. Et ille, cujus soror ultra remanserat,
navem ingressus eam secum reduceret. Et fieret expleta transvectio nullo
maculante contagio. [24]
Solution.
First of all, my sister and I got into the boat and crossed. Having
crossed the river, I let my sister out and recrossed the river. Then the
sisters of the two men who remained on the bank got in. When these women
had gotten out of the boat, my sister, who had already gone across, got in
and brought the boat back to us. She then got out, and the two brothers
crossed in the boat. Then, one of the brothers and his sister crossed over
to us. However, I and the brother who piloted the boat went across while
my sister remained behind. When we had been taken to the [other] side, one
of the other women took the boat back across, and my sister came across to
us with her at the same time. Then the man whose sister had remained on
the other side got in the boat and and brought it back with her. Thus the
crossing was accomplished, with no one being defiled.
XVIII. propositio de homine et capra et lupo.
Homo quidam debebat ultra fluvium transferre [25] lupum, capram, et
fasciculum cauli. Et non potuit aliam navem invenire, nisi quae duos
tantum ex ipsis ferre valebat. Praeceptum itaque ei fuerat ut omnia haec
ultra illaesa transire potuit? [26]
18. proposition concerning the man, the she-goat, and the wolf.
A certain man needed to take a wolf, a she-goat and a load of cabbage
across a river. However, he could only find a boat which would carry two
of these [at a time]. Thus, what rule did he employ so as to get all of
them across unharmed?
Solutio.
Simili namque tenore ducerem prius capram et dimitterem foris lupum et
caulum. Tum deinde venirem, lupumque transferrem: [27] lupoque foris misso
capram navi receptam ultra reducerem; capramque foris missam caulum
transveherem ultra; atque iterum remigassem, capramque assumptam ultra
duxissem. Sicque faciendo facta erit remigatio salubris, absque voragine
lacerationis.
Solution.
In a similar manner, I would first take the she-goat and leave behind the
wolf and the cabbage. When I had returned, I would ferry over the wolf.
With the wolf unloaded, I would retrieve the she-goat and take it back
across. Then, I would unload the she-goat and take the cabbage to the
other side. I would next row back, and take the she-goat across. The
crossing should go well by doing thus, and absent from the threat of
slaughter.
XIX. propositio de viro et muliere ponderantibus [plaustri pondus onusti].
De viro et muliere, quorum uterque pondus habebat plaustri onusti, duos
habentes infantes inter utrosque plaustrali pondere pensantes fluvium
transire debuerunt. Navem invenerunt quae non poterat ferre plus nisi unum
pondus plaustri. Transfretari faciat, qui se putat posse, ne navis
mergatur.
19. proposition concerning the man and his wife, [each] weighing as much
as a loaded cart.
A man and his wife, each the weight of a loaded cart, who had two children
each the weight of a small cart, needed to cross a river. However, the
boat they came across could only carry the weight of one cart. Let him
devise [a way] of crossing in order that the boat should not sink.
Solutio.
Eodem quoque ordine, ut superius. Prius intrassent duo infantes et
transissent unusque ex illis reduceret navem. Tunc mater navem ingressa
transisset. Deinde filius ejus reduceret navem. Qua transvecta frater
illius navim ingressus ambo ultra transissent, rursusque unus ex illis ad
patrem reduceret navem. Qua reducta, filio foris stante, pater transiret:
rursusque filius, qui ante transierat, ingressus navim eamque ad fratrem
reduceret: jamque reductam ingrediantur ambo et transeant. Tali
subremigante ingenio erit expleta navigatio forsitan sine naufragio.
Solution.
Also in the same manner, first, the two children get in [the boat] and
cross; one of them then brings the boat back. Then the mother gets in the
boat and crosses; her son brings the boat back. With the boat back, the
brother of this one gets in the boat and both cross; one of them then
brings the boat back to the father. When the boat has returned and with
the son on the bank, the father may cross. Then the brother who had gone
across before get in the boat and brings it back to his brother. Now with
the boat returned, both brothers get in and cross. By such a clever plan
of crossing, the navigation can perhaps take place without the boat
sinking.
XX. propositio de hirtitiis.[28]
De hirtitiis masculo et femina habentibus duos natos libram ponderantibus,
flumen transire volentibus.
20. proposition concerning the hirtitii.
A masculine and feminine [....] who had two children weighing [29] a pound
wished to cross a river.
Solutio.
Similiter, ut superius, transissent prius duo infantes, et unus ex illis
navem reduceret; in quam pater ingressus ultra transisset; et ille infans,
qui prius cum fratre transierat, navim ad ripam reduceret, in quam frater
illius rursus ingressus ambo ultra venissent; unusque propterea ex illis
foras egressus; et alter ad matrem reduceret navim: in quam mater ingressa
ultra venisset: qua egrediente foras, filius ejus, qui ante cum patre
transierat, navim rursus ingressus eam ad fratrem ultra reduceret; in quam
ambo ingressi ultra venissent, et fieret expleta transvectio nullo
formidante naufragio.
Solution.
Again, as above, first the two children go across. One of them brings back
the boat, in which the father crosses. Then, the child who had first gone
across with his brother brings the boat back to the river, and he and his
brother both go across. One of them gets out on the [opposite] shore; the
other takes the boat back to the mother. The mother gets in and crosses.
When she has unloaded at the [opposite] shore, her son, who had previously
crossed with his father, gets in the boat again and takes it over to his
brother. Both brothers get in and cross. A crossing can be carried out
thusly, free from dread of accident.
XXI. propositio de campo et ovibus in eo locandis.
Est campus qui habet in longitudine pedes cc, et in latitudine pedes c.
Volo ibidem mittere oves; sic tamen ut unaquaeque ovis habeat in longo
pedes v, et in lato pedes iv. Dicat, rogo, qui valet, quot oves [30]
ibidem locari possint?
21. proposition concerning the field and the sheep to be placed in it.
There is a field which is 200 feet long, 100 feet wide. I want to put
sheep in it as follows: Each sheep should have [an area] five feet long
and four feet wide. Let him say, I ask he who is able, How many sheep can
be put in such a place?
Solutio.
Ipse campus habet in longitudine pedes cc. Et in latitudine pedes c. Duc
bis [31] quinquenos de cc, fiunt xl. At deinde c divide per iiii. Quarta
pars centenarii xxv. Sive ergo xl vicies quinquies; sive xxv quadragies
ducti, [32] millenarium implent numerum. Tot ergo ibidem oves colfocari
[33] possunt.
Solution.
The field is 200 feet long and 100 feet wide. Divide 200 by five, making
40. Then, divide 100 by four, a fourth part of which is 25. Hence,
whether 40 times 25, or 25 times 40, the number 1000 is obtained. This
many sheep can inhabit such a place.
XXII. propositio de campo fastigioso.
Est campus fastigiosus, qui habet in uno latere perticas c, et in altero
latere perticas c, et in fronte perticas l, et in medio perticas lx, et in
altera fronte perticas l. Dicat, qui potest, quot aripennas [34] claudere
debet?
22. proposition concerning the slanting field.
There is a slanting field which is 100 perticae on each side, 50 perticae
on one front, 60 perticae in the middle, and 50 perticae on the other
front. Let him say, he who is able, How many aripennae does [this field]
enclose?
Solutio.
Longitudo hujus campi c perticis, et utriusque frontis latitudo l, medietas
vero lx includitur. Junge utriusque frontis numerum cum medietate, et
fiunt clx. Ex ipsis assume tertiam partem, id est, liii, et multiplica
centies, fiunt v ccc. Divide [35] in xii aequas partes, et inveniuntur
ccccxli. [36] Item eosdem divide in xii partes, et reperiuntur xxxvii.
Tot sunt in hoc campo aripenni. [37]
Solution.
The field is 100 perticae in length, 50 perticae on each front, and 60
perticae in the middle. Add the length of each front with the middle,
making 160. Take one third of this, that is, 53, and multiply it by 100,
making 5300. Divide this into 12 equal parts, and you arrive at 441.
Likewise, divide this into 12 equal parts, and you get 37. There are this
many aripenni in the field.
XXIII. propositio de campo quadrangulo.
Est campus quadrangulus qui habet in uno latere perticas xxx, et in alio
perticas xxxii, et in fronte perticas xxxiiii, et in altera perticas xxxii.
Dicat, qui potest, quot aripenni in eo concludi debent?
23. proposition concerning the quadrangular field.
There is a field which is 30 perticae on one side, 32 perticae on another,
34 perticae in the front, and 32 perticae on the remaining side. Let him
say, he who can, How many aripenni are contained in such a field?
Solutio.
Duae ejusdem campi longitudines faciunt lxii. Duc dimidiam lxii, fiunt
xxxi. Ac duae ejusdem campi latitudines junctae fiunt lxvi. Duc vero
mediam de lxvi, fiunt xxxiii. Duc vero [38] terties semel, fiunt i xx.
Divide per duodecimam partem bis sicut superius, hoc est, de mille viginti,
duc per xii, fiunt lxxxv, rursusque lxxxv divide per xii, fiunt vii. Sunt
ergo in hoc aripenni numero septem.
Solution.
Two lengths of this field make 62 [perticae]. Half of 62 makes 31. But
[the other] two sides of the field added together make 66. Half of 66
makes 33. Take [33] 31 times, making 1020. Divide [1020] twice by 12 as
above, first getting 85, then 85 by 12, making 7. Thus there are seven
aripenni in this field.
XXIV. propositio de campo triangulo.
Est campus triangulus qui habet in uno latere perticas xxx, et in alio
perticas xxx, et in fronte perticas xviii. [39] Dicat, qui potest, quot
aripennos concludere debet?
24. proposition concerning the triangular field.
There is a field which is 30 perticae on one side, 30 perticae on another,
and 18 perticae in the front. Let him say, he who can, How many aripenni
must be contained [in such a field]?
Solutio.
Junge duas longitudines istius campi, et fiunt lx. Duc mediam de lx, fiunt
xxx, et quia in fronte perticas xviii habet, duc mediam de xviii, fiunt
viiii. Duc vero novies triginta, fiunt cclxx. Fac exinde bis xii, id est,
divide cclxx, per duodecimam, fiunt xxii et semis; atque iterum xxii et
semis per duodecimam divide partem....[40] fit aripennis unus et perticae
x, et dimidia.
Solution.
Adding two lengths of the field makes 60. Removing half of 60 makes 30.
Because there are 18 perticae in front, take half of this away, making
nine. Taking nine times 30 makes 270. Then, divide [270] by twelve,
making 22-and-a-half. Again, divide 22-and-a-half by twelve, [making two,
[41] with four left over, which is a third of 12. Thus there are two
aripenna in this amount and three parts of a third aripennum.] This makes
one aripennum, and 10-and-a-half perticae.
XXV. propositio de campo rotundo.
Est campus rotundus, qui habet in gyro perticas cccc. Dic quot aripennos
capere debet?
25. proposition concerning the round field.
There is a round field which contains 400 perticae in its circle. Tell me,
How many aripenni ought it to hold?
Solutio.
Quarta quidem pars hujus campi, qui cccc includitur perticis est c, hos si
per semetipsos [42] multiplicaveris, id est, si centies duxeris, x millia
fiunt, hos in xii partes dividere debes; etenim de x millibus duodecima est
dcccxxxiii, quam cum item in xii partitus fueris, invenies lxviiii. Tot
enim aripennis hujusmodi campus includitur. [43]
Solution.
A quarter of this field, which contains 400 perticae, is 100. If you
multiply [100] by 100, you get 10,000, which you must divide into 12 parts.
For indeed, a twelfth of 10,000 is 833, which when again partitioned into
twelfths gives 69. [44] This many aripenni are included in the field.
XXVI. propositio de cursu cbnks. bc. fvgb. lfp:rks. [45]
Est campus qui habet in longitudine pedes cl. In uno capite stabat canis,
et in alio stabat lepus. Promovit namque canis ille post illum, [46]
scilicet leporem currere. Ast ubi ille canis faciebat in uno saltu pedes
viiii, lepus transmittebat vii. Dicat, qui velit, quot pedes quotque
saltus canis persequendo, et lepus fugiendo, quoadusque comprehensus est,
fecerunt? [47]
26. proposition concerning the chase of the dog and the flight of the
hare.
There is a field which is 150 feet long. At one end stood a dog, at the
other, a hare. The dog advanced behind [the hare], namely, to chase the
hare. But whereas the dog went nine feet per stride, the hare went [only]
seven. Let him say, he who wishes, How many feet and how many leaps did
the dog take in pursuing the fleeing hare until it was caught?
Solutio.
Longitudo hujus videlicet campi habet pedes cl. Duc mediam de cl, fiunt
lxxv. Canis vero faciebat in uno saltu pedes viiii, quippe lxxv novies
ducti fiunt dclxxv, tot pedes leporem consequendo [48] canis cucurrit,
quoadusque eum comprehendit dente tenaci. At vero quia lepus faciebat
pedes vii, in uno saltu, duc ipsos lxxv septies. [49] Tot vero pedes lepus
fugiendo peregit, donec consecutus est.
Solution.
The length of this field was 150 feet. Taking half of 150 makes 75. The
dog was covering nine feet per stride, and nine times 75 makes 675. The
dog thus ran this many feet in chasing the rabbit until it caught the
rabbit with its tenacious teeth. And indeed, because the rabbit went seven
feet per stride, take 75 seven times. This is how many feet the fleeing
rabbit travelled before being caught.
XXVII. propositio de civitate quadrangula.
Est civitas quadrangula quae habet in uno latere pedes mille centum; et in
alio latere pedes mille; et in fronte pedes dc, et in altera pedes dc. Volo
ibidem tecta domorum ponere, sic, ut habeat unaquaeque casa in longitudine
pedes xl, et in latitudine pedes xxx. Dicat, qui velit, quot casas capere
debet?
27. proposition concerning the quadrangular city.
There is a quadrangular city which has one side of 1100 feet, another side
of 1000 feet, a front of 600 feet, and a final side of 600 feet. I want to
put some houses there so that each house is 40 feet long and 30 feet wide.
Let him say, he who wishes, How many houses ought the city to contain?
Solutio.
Si fuerunt duae hujus civitatis longitudines junctae, facient ii c.
Similiter duae, si fuerunt latitudines junctae, faciunt i cc. Ergo duc
mediam de i cc, faciunt [50] dc, rursusque duc mediam de ii c, fiunt i l.
Et quia unaquaeque domus habet in longitudine [51] pedes xl, et in lato
xxx: deduc [52] quadragesimam partem de mille l, fiunt xxvi. Atque iterum
assume tricesimam de dc, fiunt xx. Vicies ergo xxvi ducti, fiunt dxx. Tot
domus capiendae sunt.
Solution.
If the two lengths of this city were joined together, they would measure
2100 [feet]. Likewise, if the two sides were joined, they would measure
1200. Therefore, take half of 1200, i.e. 600, and half of 2100, i.e. 1050.
Because each house is 40 feet long and 30 feet wide, take a fourtieth part
of 1050, making 26. Then, take a thirtieth of 600, which is 20. 20 times
26 is 520, which is the number of houses to be contained in the city.
XXVIII. propositio de civitate triangula.
Est civitas triangula quae in uno habet latere pedes c, et in alio latere
pedes c, et in fronte pedes xc, volo enim ibidem aedificia domorum
construere, [53] sic tamen, ut unaquaeque domus habeat in longitudine pedes
xx, et in latitudine pedes x. Dicat, qui potest, quot domus capi debent?
28. proposition concerning the triangular city.
There is a triangular city which has one side of 100 feet, another side of
100 feet, and a third of 90 feet. Inside of this, I want to build a
structure of houses, however, in such a way that each house is 20 feet in
length, 10 feet in width. Let him say, he who can, How many houses should
be contained [within this structure]?
Solutio.
Duo igitur hujus civitatis latera juncta fiunt cc, atque duc mediam de cc,
fiunt c. Sed quia in fronte habet pedes xc, duc mediam de xc, fiunt xlv.
Et quia longitudo uniuscujusque domus habet pedes xx, et latitudo ipsarum
pedes x, duc xx partem in [54] c, fiunt v. Et pars decima quadragenarii iv
sunt. Duc itaque quinquies iiii, fiunt xx. Tot domos hujusmodi captura
[55] est civitas.
Solution.
Two sides of the city joined together make 200; taking half of 200 makes
100. But because the front is 90 feet, take half of 90, making 45. And
since the length of each house is 20 feet while the width is 10, take 20
into 100, making five. A tenth part of 40 is four; thus, take four five
times, making 20. The city is to contain this many houses in this way.
XXVIIII. propositio de civitate rotunda.
Est civitas rotunda quae habet in circuitu pedum viii millia. Dicat, qui
potest, quot domos capere debet, ita ut unaquaeque habeat in longitudine
pedes xxx, et in latitudine pedes xx?
29. proposition concerning the round city.
There is a city which is 8000 feet in circumference. Let him say, he who
is able, How many houses should the city contain, such that each [house] is
30 feet long, and 20 feet wide?
Solutio.
In hujus civitatis ambitu viii millia pedum numerantur, qui sesquialtera
proportione dividuntur in xxxx dccc, et in iii cc. In illis autem
longitudo domorum; in istis latitudo versatur. Subtrahe itaque de utraque
summa medietatem, et remanent de majori ii cccc: de minore vero i dc. Hos
igitur i dc divide in vicenos et invenies octoagies viginti, rursumque
major summa, id est ii cccc, in xxx partiti, octoagies triginta
dinumerantur. Duc octoagies lxxx, et fiunt vi millia cccc. Tot in
hujusmodi civitate domus, secundum propositionem supra scriptam, construi
[56] possunt.
Solution.
This city measures 8000 feet around, which is divided into proportions of
one-and-a-half to one, i.e. 4800 and 3200. The length and width of the
houses are to be of these [dimensions]. Thus, take half of each of the
above [measurements], and from the larger number there shall remain 2400,
while from the the smaller, 1600. Then, divide 1600 into twenty [parts]
and you will obtain 80 times 20. In a similar fashion, [divide] the larger
number, i.e. 2400, into 30 pieces, deriving 80 times 30. Take 80 times 80,
making 6400. This many houses can be built in the city, following the
above-written proposal.
XXX. propositio de basilica.
Est basilica quae habet in longitudine pedes ccxl, et in lato pedes cxx.
Laterculi vero stratae ejusdem unus laterculus habet in longitudine uncias
xxiii, hoc est, pedem unum et xi uncias. Et in latitudine uncias xii, hoc
est, pedem i. Dicat, qui velit, quot laterculi eamdem debent implere?
30. proposition concerning the basilica.
There is a basilica which is 240 feet long, 120 feet wide. One tile of the
tiled basilica is 23 inches long, that is, one foot, 11 inches, while being
12 inches wide, i.e. one foot. Let him say, he who wishes, How many tiles
are needed to cover the basilica?
Solutio.
cxl pedes longitudinis implent cxxvi laterculi; et cxx pedes latitudinis
cxx laterculi; quia unusquisque laterculus in latitudine pedis mensuram
habet. Multiplica itaque centum vicies cxxvi, in xv cxx [57] summa
concrescit. Tot igitur in hujusmodi basilica laterculi pavimentum
contegere possunt.
Solution.
126 tiles build 140 [sic] feet of length, [58] and 120 tiles, 120 feet of
width, because each brick measures one foot in length. Thus, multiply 120
by 126, obtaining 15,120. Therefore in this way so many tiles are able to
cover the ground of the basilica.
XXXI. propositio de canava. [59]
Est canava quae habet in longitudine pedes c, et latitudine pedes lxiiii.
Dicat, qui potest, quot cupas capere debet? ita tamen, ut unaquaeque cupa
habeat in longitudine pedes vii, et in lato, hoc est in medio pedes iiii,
et pervius unus habeat pedes iiii. [60]
31. proposition concerning the wine cellar.
There is a wine cellar which is 100 feet long and 64 feet wide. Let him
say, he who can, How many casks can it hold, given that each cask is seven
feet long and four feet wide, and given that there is an aisle four feet
wide in the middle [of the cellar]?
Solutio.
In centum autem quaterdecies vii numerantur, in lxiiii vero sedecies
quaterni continentur, ex quibus iiii ad pervium reputantur, [61] quod in
longitudinem ipsius canavae ducitur. [62] Quia ergo in lx quindecies
quaterni sunt; et in centum quaterdecies septeni; duc quindecies xiiii,
[63] fiunt ccx. Tot cupae juxta suprascriptam magnitudinem in hujusmodi
canava [64] contineri possunt.
Solution.
There are fourteen sevens in 100, and sixteen fours in 64, of which four
are needed for the aisle which runs the length of this cellar. And since
there are fifteen fours in 60, and since there are fourteen sevens in 100,
take 15 times 14, making 210. This many casks can be stored in the type of
wine cellar described above. [65]
XXXII. propositio de quodam patrefamilias.
Quidam paterfamilias habuit familias xx. Et jussit eis dare [66] de annona
modios xx. Sic jussit, ut viri acciperent [67] modios ternos, et mulieres
binos, et infantes singula semodia. Dicat, qui potest, quot viri, aut quot
mulieres, vel quot infantes esse debent? [68]
32. proposition concerning a certain head of household.
A certain head of household had 20 servants. He ordered them to be given 20
modia of corn as follows: The men should receive three modia; the women,
two; and the children, half a modium. Let him say, he who can, How many
men, women and children must there have been?
Solutio.
Duc semel ternos, fiunt iii, hoc est, unus vir ut modios accepit.
Similiter et quinquies bini, fiunt x, hoc est, quinque mulieres acceperunt
modia [69] x. Duc vero septies binos, fiunt xiiii, hoc est xiiii infantes
acceperunt modios vii. Junge ergo i et v et xiiii, fiunt xx. Hae sunt
familiae xx. Ac deinde junge iii et vii et x, fiunt xx, haec sunt modia
xx. Sunt ergo simul familiae xx, et modia [70] xx.
Solution.
Take one three times which makes three; that is, each man received this
many modia. Likewise, take five twice, making 10; in this way, five women
received 10 modia. Then, take two seven times, making 14; thus, 14
children received seven modia. Add one and five and 14, making 20; this is
the number of servants. Then, add three and seven and 10, this being the
number of modia. Thus there are 20 servants and 20 modia [of corn].
XXXIII. propositio de alio patrefamilias erogante suae familiae annonam.
Quidam paterfamilias habuit familias xxx, quibus jussit dari de annona
modios xxx. Sic vero jussit, ut viri acciperent modios ternos, et mulieres
binos, et infantes singula semodia. Sovat, qui potest, quot viri, aut quot
mulieres, quotve infantes fuerunt?
33. proposition concerning another head of household distributing corn to
his servants.
A certain head of household had 30 servants whom he ordered to be given 30
modia of corn as follows: The men should receive three modia; the women,
two; and the children, a half modium. Let him solve, he who can, How many
men, women and children were there?
Solutio.
Si duxeris ternos ter, fiunt viiii. Et si duxeris quinquies binos, fiunt
x, ac deinde duc vicies bis semis, fiunt xi, hoc est, viri iii acceperunt
modia viiii, et quinque mulieres acceperunt x, et xxii infantes acceperunt
xi modia. Simul juncti iii et v, et xxii faciunt familias xxx. Rursusque
viiii et xi, et x, simul juncti faciunt modia xxx. Quod sunt simul
familiae xxx, et modii xxx. [71]
Solution.
If you take thrice three, you get nine; if you take two five times, you get
10; and if you take half of 22, you get 11. Thus, three men received nine
modia; five women received 10; and 22 children received 11 modia. Adding
three and five and 22 makes 30 servants. Likewise, nine and 11 and 10
makes 30 modia. Hence there are 30 servants, and 30 modia [of corn].
XXXIV. propositio altera de patrefamilias partiente familiae suae annonam.
Quidam paterfamilias habuit familias c, quibus praecepit dare de annona
modios c, eo vero tenore, ut viri acciperent modios ternos, mulieres binos,
et infantes singula semodia. Dicat ergo, qui valet, quot viri, quot
mulieres, aut quot infantes fuerunt?
34. another proposition concerning a head of household distributing corn
to his servants.
A certain head of household had 100 servants. He ordered that they be
given 100 modia of corn as follows: The men should receive three modia;
the women, two; and the children, half a modium. Thus let him say, he who
can, How many men, women, and children were there?
Solutio.
Undecim terni fiunt xxxiii. Et xv bis ducti fiunt xxx, [72] id est, xi
viri acceperunt xxxiii modios; et xv mulieres acceperunt xxx et lxxiiii
infantes acceperunt xxxvii, qui simul juncti, id est, xi et xv, et lxxiiii
fiunt c, quae sunt familiae c. Similiter junge xxxiii, et xxx et xxxvii
faciunt [73] c, qui sunt modii c. His ergo simul junctis habes familias c
et modios c.
Solution.
11 times three makes 33, and twice 15 makes 30; that is, 11 men received 33
modia [of corn]. 15 women received 30 [modia], and 74 children received
37. Adding these together, that is, 11 and 15 and 74, makes 100, which is
the number of servants. Likewise, adding 33 and 30 and 37 makes 100, which
is the number of modia. Thus with these sums, you have 100 servants, and
100 modia [of corn].
XXXV. propositio de obitu cujusdam patrisfamilias.
Quidam paterfamilias moriens reliquit infantes, et in facultate sua,
solidorum dcccclx, [74] et uxorem praegnantem. Qui jussit ut si ei
masculus nasceretur, acciperet de omni massa dodrans, hoc est, uncias
viiii. Et mater ipsius acciperet quadrans, hoc est, uncias iii. Si autem
filia nata esset, [75] acciperet septunx, hoc est vii [76] uncias, et mater
ipsius acciperet quincunx, hoc est, v uncias. Contigit autem ut geminos
parturiret, id est, puerum et puellam. Solvat, qui potest, quantum accepit
mater, et quantum filius, quantumve filia?
35. proposition concerning the death of a certain father.
A certain father died and left behind children, a pregnant wife, and 960
solidi from his estate. [However, on his deathbed], he stipulated that if
a son should be born to her, then the son should receive three fourths of
the inheritance -- that is, nine twelfths. The mother should get a quarter
[of the estate], that is, three twelfths. However, if a daughter were
born, she should receive seven twelfths, and the mother, five twelfths. But
as it happened, she gave birth to twins -- both a boy and a girl. Let him
solve, he who can, How much did the mother, son and daughter each receive?
Solutio. [77]
Junge ergo viiii et iii, fiunt xii, xii namque unciae libram faciunt.
Rursusque junge similiter vii et v, fiunt iterum xii. Ideoque bis xii
faciunt xxiiii, xxiiii autem faciunt duas libras, id est, solidos xl.
Deinde ergo [duc] per vicesimam quartam partem dcccclx solidos, et vicesima
quarta pars eorum fiunt xl. Deinde duc, quia facit [78] dodrans sive
dodrans, xl in nonam partem, ideo novies xl accepit filius, hoc est, xviii
libras, quae faciunt solidos ccclx. Et quia mater tertiam partem contra
filium accepit, et quintam contra filiam, iii et v, fiunt viii. Itaque
duc, quia legitur, quod faciat bis seu bisse xl in parte octava; octies
ergo xl accepit mater, hoc est, libras xvi, quae faciunt solidos cccxx.
Deinde duc, quia legitur, quod faciat septunx, xl in vii partibus: postea
duc septies xl, fiunt xiiii librae, quae faciunt solidos cclxxx, hoc filia
accepit. Junge ergo ccclx et cccxx et cclxxx, fiunt dcccclx solidi et
xlviii librae.
Solution.
Add nine and three, making 12. 12 ounces make a pound. Then add seven and
five which make another 12. 12 taken twice makes 24 [ounces], equaling two
pounds, itself equal to 40 solidi. Then take a twenty-fourth part of the
960 solidi which is 40. Then, because the son received three fourths or
nine twelfths [of the inheritance], take a ninth of 40. The son received
nine times 40 [ounces], that is, 18 pounds, which equals 360 solidi. And
since the mother received a third as much as the son received and a fifth
as much as the daughter, [she got] three and five which makes eight.
Therefore, as prescribed, take twice 40 and divide it into eight parts.
Thus the mother received eight times 40 [ounces], that is, 16 pounds, which
is 320 solidi. Then, as stipulated, divide 40 into seven parts so as to
get seven twelfths. After this, take seven times 40, that is, 14 pounds,
which equals 280 solidi. This is what the daughter received. Add 360 and
320 and 280, making 960 solidi, 48 pounds.
XXXVI. propositio de salutatione cujusdam senis ad puerum.
Quidam senior salutavit puerum, cui et dixit: Vivas, filii, vivas, inquit,
quantum vixisti, et aliud tantum, et ter tantum. Addatque tibi Deus unum
de annis meis, et impleas annos centum. Solvat, qui potest, quot annorum
tunc tempore puer erat?
36. proposition concerning a certain old man's greeting to a boy.
A certain old man greeted a boy, saying to him: "May you live, boy, may
you live for as long as you have [already] lived, and then another equal
amount of time, and then three times as much. And may God grant you one of
my years, and you shall live to be 100." Let him solve, he who can, How
many years old was the boy at that time?
Solutio.
In eo vero, quod dixit, vivas, quantum vixisti, vixerat ante annos viii et
menses tres: et aliud tantum fiunt anni xvi et menses vi, et alterum
tantum fiunt anni xxxiii, qui ter multiplicati fiunt anni xcviiii, unum
ipsis additum fiunt c.
Solution.
When [the old man] said "may you live for as long as you have lived," [the
boy] had [already] lived eight years, three months. Another equal number
of years make 16 years, six months, while another equal span makes 33
years. Three times this makes 99 years, which with one more year added
makes 100.
XXXVII. propositio de quodam homine volente aedificare domum.
Homo quidam, volens aedificare domum, locavit artifices vi, ex quibus v
magistri et unus discipulus erat, et convenit inter eum, qui aedificare
volebat; et artificies, ut per singulos dies xxv denarii eis in mercede
darentur, sic tamen, ut discipulus medietatem de eo, quod unus ex magistris
accipiebat, acciperet. Dicat, qui potest, quantum unusquisque de illis per
unamquamque diem accepit?
37. proposition concerning a certain man wishing to build a house.
A certain man, wanting to build a house, found six workmen, of whom five
were masters and one an apprentice. It was agreed between the man who
wanted to build and the workmen that 25 denarii should be given to them per
day as pay, and that the apprentice should receive half what the masters
receive. Let him say, he who can, How much did each of them receive per
day?
Solutio.
Tolle primum xxii denarios et divide eos in vi partes. Sic unicuique de
magistris, qui quinque sunt, iiii denarios; nam quinquies quatuor xx sunt.
Duos, qui remanserunt, quae est medietas de uno, tolle et da discipulo; et
sunt adhuc iii denarii desidui; quos sic distribues. Fac de unoquoque
denario partes xi, ter undecim fiunt xxxiii, tolle illas triginta partes,
divide eas inter magistros v. Quinquies seni fiunt xxx. Accidunt ergo
unicuique magistro partes vi. Tolle tres partes, quae super xxx
remanserunt, quod est medietas senarii, et da discipulo.
Solution.
First, take 22 denarii and divide them into six parts. Give four denarii
to each of the five masters, since five times four is 20. Take the
remaining two denarii, which is half of [a share], and give them to the
apprentice. There are still three denarii remaining which you distribute
thusly: Divide each denarius into 11 parts, making 33. Take 30 of them
and divide them amongst the five masters, as five times six makes 30.
Hence, six parts go to each master. Take the remaing three parts, that is,
half of the six [which the masters received], and give them to the
apprentice.
XXXVIII. propositio de quodam emptore in animalibus centum. [79]
Voluit quidam homo emere animalia promiscua c de solidis c, ita ut equus
tribus solidis emeretur; bos vero in solido i, et xxiiii [80] oves in sol.
i. Dicat, qui valet, quot caballi, vel quot boves, quotve fuerunt oves?
38. proposition concerning a certain purchaser and [his] 100 animals.
A certain man wanted to buy 100 various animals for 100 solidi. He wished
to pay three solidi per horse, one solidus per cow, and one solidus per 24
sheep. Let him say, he who can, How many horses, cows and sheep were
there?
Solutio.
Duc ter vicies tria i, fiunt lxviiii. Et duc bis vicies quatuor, fiunt
xlviii. Sunt ergo caballi xxiii, et solidi lxviiii. Et oves xlviii, et
solidi ii. Et boves xxviiii, in solidis xxviiii. Junge ergo xxiii et
xlviii et xxviiii, fiunt animalia c. Ac deinde junge lxviiii et ii et
xxviiii, fiunt solidi c. Sunt ergo simul juncta animalia c, et solidi c.
Solution.
Take three times 23, making 69. Then, take two times 24, making 48. There
are thus 23 horses [which cost] 69 solidi, 48 sheep [costing] two solidi,
and 29 cows [which cost] 29 solidi. Therefore, add 23 and 48 and 29,
making 100 animals. Then, add 69 and two and 29, making 100 solidi. Thus
there are 100 animals and just as many solidi.
XXXVIIII. propositio de quodam emptore in oriente.
Quidam homo voluit de c solidis animalia promiscua emere c in oriente; qui
jussit famulo suo, ut camelum v solidis acciperet; asinum solido i. xx
oves in solido compararet. Dicat, qui vult, quot cameli, vel asini, sive
oves in negotio c solidorum fuerunt?
39. proposition concerning a certain purchaser in the east.
A certain man wished to buy 100 assorted animals for 100 solidi in the
East. He ordered his servant to pay five solidi per camel, one solidus per
ass, and one solidus per 20 sheep. Let him say, he who wishes, How many
camels, asses and sheep were obtained for 100 solidi?
Solutio.
Si duxeris x novies, [et] v fiunt xcv, hoc est, cameli xviiii sunt empti in
solidis xcv. Adde cum ipsis unum, hoc est, in solido i asinum i, fiunt
xcvi. Ac deinde duc vicies quater, fiunt lxxx, hoc est, in quatuor solidis
oves lxxx. Junge ergo xviiii et i et lxxx, fiunt c. Haec sunt animalia.
Ac deinde junge xcv, et i et iiii, fiunt solid. c. Simul ergo juncti
faciunt pecora c, et solidos c.
Solution.
If you take 10 nine times and add five, you get 95; that is, 19 camels are
bought for 95 solidi. Add to this one solidus for an ass, making 96. Then,
take 20 times four, making 80 -- that is, 20 sheep for four solidi. Add 19
and one and 80, making 100 -- this is the number of animals. Then add 95
and one and four, making 100 solidi. Hence there are 100 beasts and 100
solidi.
XL. propositio de homine et ovibus in monte pascentibus.
Quidam homo vidit de monte oves pascentes, et dixit, utinam haberem tantum,
et aliud tantum et medietatem de medietate, et de hac medietate aliam
medietatem, [81] atque ego centesimus una cum ipsis ingrederer meam domum.
Solvat, qui potest, quot oves vidit ibidem pascentes?
40. proposition concerning a man and [some] sheep grazing on a mountain.
A certain man saw from a mountain some sheep grazing and said, "O that I
could have so many, and then just as many more, and then half of half of
this [added], and then another half of this half. Then I, as the 100th
[member], might head back to my home together with them." Let him solve,
he who can, How many sheep did the man see grazing?
Solutio.
In hoc ergo, quod dixit; haberem tantum; xxxvi oves primum ab illo visae
sunt. Et aliud tantum fiunt lxxii, atque medietas de hac videlicet
medietate, hoc est, de xxxvi, fiunt x et viii. Rursusque de hac secunda
scilicet medietate assumpta medietas, id est, de xviii fiunt viiii. Junge
ergo xxxvi et xxxvi, fiunt lxxii. Adde cum ipsis xviii, fiunt xc. Adde
vero viiii cum xc, fiunt xcviiii. Ipse vero homo cum ipsis additus erit
centesimus.
Solution.
36 sheep were first seen by the man when he said, "O that I could have so
many." Adding an equal number makes 72, and a half of half of this, that
is, of 36, makes 18. And again, a half of this, that is, of 18, makes
nine. Therefore add 36 and 36, making 72. Add to this 18, which makes 90.
Then add nine to 90, making 99. The man himself added to these will be the
100th one.
XLI. propositio de sode et scrofa.
Quidam paterfamilias stabilivit curtem novam, [82] in qua posuit scrofam,
quae peperit porcellos vii in media sode, qui83 una cum matre, quae octava
est, pepererunt igitur unusquisque in omni angulo vii. Et ipsa iterum in
media sode cum omnibus generatis peperit vii. Dicat, qui vult, una cum
matribus quot porci fuerunt?
41. proposition concerning the pigsty and the sow.
A certain head of household set up a new [quadrangular] enclosure in which
he placed a sow. The sow gave birth to seven piglets in the middle of the
sty. The offspring, along with the mother, the eighth pig, each gave birth
to another seven piglets in each corner [of the sty]. Then, in the middle
of the sty, the mother and all her offspring [each] gave birth to seven
more. Let him say, he who wishes, How many pigs were there [in the end],
including the mother?
Solutio.
In prima igitur parturitione, quae fuit facta in media sode, fuerunt
porcelli vii, et mater eorum octava. Octies igitur octo ducti fiunt
lxiiii. Tot porcelli una cum matribus fuerunt in i angulo. Ac deinde
sexagies quater octo ducti fiunt dxii. Tot cum matribus suis porcelli in
angulo ii. Rursusque dxii octies ducti fiunt i.ii xcvi. Tot in tertio
angulo cum matribus suis fuerunt. Qui si octies multiplicentur, fiunt
xxxii dcclxxxviii, tot cum matribus in quarto fuerunt angulo. Multiplica
quoque octies xxxii dcclxxxviii, fiunt cc lxii et ccciiii. Tot enim
creverunt, cum in media sode novissime partum fecerunt.
Solution.
In the first birth, which took place in the middle of the sty, there were
seven piglets, with the mother being the eighth [member]. Eight taken
eight times is 64 -- this many piglets, along with the mother, were in the
first corner. Then, 64 taken eight times makes 512 -- this many piglets,
including their mothers, were in the second corner. 512 taken eight times
yields 4096 -- this many piglets, along with their mother, were in the
third corner. If [4096] is multiplied eight times, one gets 32,788 [sic]
[84] -- this many piglets, including the mother, were in the fourth corner.
Taking eight times 32,788 [sic] makes 262,304 [sic]. [85] There grew to be
this many [pigs] in the last stage in the middle of the sty.
XLII. propositio de scala habente gradus centum.
Est scala una habens gradus c. In primo gradu sedebat columba una; in
secundo duae; in tertio tres; in quarto iiii; in quinto v. Sic in omni
gradu usque ad centesimum. Dicat, qui potest, quot columbae in totum
fuerunt?
42. proposition concerning the ladder having 100 steps.
There is a ladder which has 100 steps. One dove sat on the first step, two
doves on the second, three on the third, four on the fourth, five on the
fifth, and so on up to the hundredth step. Let him say, he who can, How
many doves were there in all?
Solutio.
Numerabitur autem sic: a primo gradu in quo una sedet, tolle illam, et
junge ad illas xcviiii, quae nonagesimo [nono] gradu consistunt, et erunt
c. Sic secundum ad nonagesimum octavum et invenies similiter c. Sic per
singulos gradus, unum de superioribus gradibus, et alium de inferioribus,
hoc ordine conjunge, et reperies semper in binis gradibus c. Quinquagesimus
autem gradus solus et absolutus est, non habens parem; similiter et
centesimus solus remanebit. Junge ergo omnes et invenies columbas vl.
Solution.
There will be as many as follows: Take the dove sitting on the first step
and add to it the 99 doves sitting on the 99th step, thus getting 100. Do
the same with the second and 98th steps and you shall likewise get 100. By
combining all the steps in this order, that is, one of the higher steps
with one of the lower, you shall always get 100. The 50th step, however,
is alone and without a match; likewise, the 100th stair is alone. Add them
all and you will find 5050 doves.
XLIII. propositio de porcis.
Homo quidam habuit ccc porcos, et jussit, ut tot porci numero impari in iii
dies occidi deberent. [86] Similis est et de xxx sententia. Dicat, qui
potest, quot porci impares sive de ccc sive de xxx, inter tres dies
occidendi sunt? Haec ratio indissolubilis ad increpandum composita est.
43. proposition concerning the pigs.
A certain man had 300 pigs. He ordered all of them slaughtered in three
days, but with an uneven number being killed each day. He wished the same
thing to be done with 30 pigs. Let him say, he who can, What odd number of
pigs out of 300 or 30 were to be killed in three days? (This ratio is
indissoluble and was composed for rebuking.)
Solutio.
Ecce fabula! quae a nemine solvi potest, ut ccc porci, sive triginta in
tribus diebus impari numero occidantur. Haec fabula est tantum ad pueros
increpandos.
Solution.
Behold an impossibility which is able to be solved by nobody!, in such a
way that 30 [pigs] be killed in three days by an odd number. Such an
implausible story is only for teasing young boys.
XLIIII. propositio de salutatione pueri ad patrem.
Quidam puer salutavit patrem; Ave, inquit, pater! Cui pater: Valeas,
fili! vivas, quantum vixisti, quos annos geminatos triplicatos; [87] et
sume unum de annis meis; et habebis annos c. Dicat, qui potest, quot
annorum tunc tempore puer erat?
44. proposition concerning the boy's greeting to his father.
A certain boy addressed his father, saying, "Greetings, father!" The
father responded, "May you fare well, my son, and may you live three times
twice your years. Then, adding one of my own years, you will live to be
100." Let him say, he who can, How many years was the boy at the time?
Solutio.
Erat enim puer annorum xvi, et mensium vi, qui geminati cum mensibus fiunt
anni xxxiii, qui triplicati fiunt xcviiii. Addito uno patris anno c
apparent.
Solution.
They boy was 16 years, six months. Double this makes 33 years, which
tripled is 99. Having added one year of the father, there are 100.
XLV. propositio.
Columba sedens in arbore vidit alias volantes; dixit eis: Utinam fuissetis
aliae tantum et ternae tantum, [88] tunc una mecum fuissetis c. Dicat, qui
potest, quot columbae erant in primis volantes?
45. proposition.
A dove sitting in a tree saw some other doves flying and said to them, "O
that you were doubled, and then tripled. Then, along with me, you would
number 100." Let him say, he who can, How many doves were initially
flying?
Solutio.
Triginta iii erant columbae, quas prius conspexit volantes. Item aliae
tantae fiunt lxvi. Et tertiae tantum, fiunt xcviiii. Adde sedenteni, et
erunt c.
Solution.
There were 33 doves flying at first. Double this makes 66, while three
times [33] makes 99. Adding in the sitting dove makes 100.
XLVI. propositio de sacculo ab homine invento.
Quidam homo ambulans per viam invenit sacculum cum talentis duobus. Hoc
quoque alii videntes dixerunt ei: Frater, da nobis portionem inventionis
tantum. [89] Qui renuens noluit eis dare. Ipsi vero irruentes diripuerunt
sacculum, et tulit sibi quisque solidos quinquaginta. Et ipse postquam
vidit se resistere non posse, misit manum et rapuit solidos quinquaginta.
Dicat, qui vult, quot homines fuerunt?
46. proposition concerning the small bag found by the man.
A certain man walking in the street found a small bag containing two
talents. Some other people saw this and said to him: "Brother, give us a
portion of your discovery." But the man shook his head and did not want to
give them any. The others then rushed at him and tore apart the sack, each
obtaining for himself 50 solidi. And when the man saw that he could no
longer resist [their attack], he grabbed 50 solidi for himself. Let him
say, he who wishes, How many men were there?
Solutio.
Apud quosdam talentum lxxii vel pondo vel habet libras. Libra vero habet
solidos aureos lxxii. Sexagies quinquies lxxii ducti fiunt v cccc, qui
numerus duplicatus fiunt decies dccc. In x millibus et octingentis sunt
quinquagenarii ccxvi. Tot homines idcirco fuerunt.
Solution.
Each talent has 72 pounds in it by weight, and a pound equals 72 gold
solidi. 65 times 72 equals 5400 [sic], [90] twice which makes 10,800. 50
goes into 10,800 216 times, which is the number of men [in the problem].
[91]
XLVII. propositio de episcopo qui jussit xii panes dividi.
Quidam episcopus jussit xii panes dividi in clero. Praecepit enim sic ut
singuli presbyteri binos acciperent panes; diaconus dimidium, lector
quartam partem: ita tamen fiat, ut clericorum et panum unus sit numerus.
Dicat, qui vult, quot presbyteri, vel quot diacones, aut quot lectores esse
debent?
47. proposition concerning the bishop who ordered 12 loaves of bread to be
divided.
A certain bishop ordered 12 loaves of bread divided amongst the clergy. He
stipulated that each priest should receive two loaves; a deacon, half a
loaf; and a lector, a quarter part. Hence, it should turn out that the
number of clerics and loaves is the same. Let him say, he who can, How
many priests, deacons and lectors must there have been?
Solutio.
Quinquies bini fiunt x, id est, v presbyteri decem panes receperunt: et
diaconus unus dimidium panem: et inter lectores vi habuerunt panem et
dimidium. Junge v et i et vi in simul, et fiunt xii. Rursusque junge x et
semis et unum et semis, fiunt xii. Et illi sunt xii panes; qui simul
juncti faciunt homines xii et panes xii. Unus est ergo numerus clericorum
et panum.
Solution.
Twice five is 10; that is, five priests received 10 loaves. The deacon got
half a loaf, and there was a loaf and a half for the six lectors. Add five
and one and six, making 12. Then add 10-and-a-half and one-and-a-half,
making 12, this being the number of loaves. Hence, there are 12 men
altogether and 12 loaves. Therefore, the number of clerics and loaves is
the same.
XLVIII. propositio de homine qui obviavit scholaribus.
Quidam homo obviavit scholaribus, [92] et dixit eis: Quanti estis in
schola? Unus ex eis respondit dicens: Nolo hoc tibi dicere, tu numera nos
bis, multiplica ter; tunc divide in quatuor partes. Quarta pars numeri,
[93] si me addis cum ipsis, centenarium explet numerum. Dicat qui potest,
quanti fuerunt, qui pridem obviaverunt ambulanti per viam?
48. proposition concerning the man who met [some] students.
A certain man met some students and asked them, "How many of you are there
in school?" One of [the students] responded to him: "I do not want to
tell you [except as follows]: double the number of us, then triple that
number; then, divide that number into four parts. If you add me to one of
the fourths, there will be 100." Let him say, he who can, How many
[students] first met the man?
Solutio.
Terties ter bini [id est, bis xxxiii] fiunt lxvi: tanti erant, qui pridem
obviaverunt ambulanti; qui numerus bis ductus cxxxii reddit. Hos
multiplica ter, fiunt cccxcvi, horum quarta pars xcviiii sunt. Adde puerum
respondentem et reperies c.
Solution.
Twice 33 makes 66; this is the number [of students] who first met the man.
Twice this number yields 132, and three times this number gives 396, a
quarter part of which is 99. Add in the responding boy and you will get
100.
XLVIIII. propositio de carpentariis.
Septem carpentarii septenas rotas fecerunt. Dicat, qui potest, quot carrae
rexerunt? [94]
49. proposition concerning the carpenters.
Seven carpenters [each] made seven wheels. Let him say, he who can, How
many carts did they build?
Solutio.
Duc septies vii fiunt xlviiii, tot rotas fecerunt. xii vero quater ducti
xlviii reddunt. Super xl et viiii rotas xii carra sunt erecta, et una
superfuit rota.
Solution.
Take seven times seven, making 49, this being the number of wheels. 12
taken four times yields 48. 12 carts were assembled from the 49 wheels,
with one wheel left over.
L. propositio de vino in vasculis.
Centum metra vini, rogo, ut dicat, qui vult, quot sextarios capiunt? vel
ipsa etiam centum metra quot meros habent?
50. proposition concerning the wine in small vessels.
I ask so that one who wishes might respond: How many sextarii do 100 metra
of wine contain, and how many meri do 100 metra have?
Solutio.
Unum metrum capit sectarios xl et viii. Duc centies xlviii, fiunt quatuor
millia dccc. Tot sextarii sunt. Similiter et unum metrum habet meros
cclxxxviiii, duc centies cclxxxviiii fiunt xxviii dcccc. Tot sunt meri.
Solution.
One metrum containes 48 sextarii. Take 48 a hundred times, making 4800 --
this is the number of sextarii [in 100 metra]. Likewise, one metrum
contains 289 meri. 100 times 289 is 28,900 -- this is the number of meri
[in 100 metra].
LI. propositio de vini in vasculis a quodam patre divisione. [95]
Quidam paterfamilias moriens dimisit [96] iiii filiis, iiii vascula vini:
in primo vase erant modia xl, in secundo xxx, in tertio xx, et in quarto x;
qui vocans dispensatorem domus suae ait: Haec quatuor vascula cum vino
intrinsecus manente divide inter quatuor filios meos; sic tamen, ut
unicuique eorum una [97] sit portio tam in vino, quam in vasis. Dicat, qui
intelligit, quomodo dividendum est, ut omnes aequaliter ex hoc accipere
possint?
51. proposition concerning the wine in small vessels divided by a certain
father.
A certain dying father left four small vessels of wine to his four sons. In
the first vessel, there were 40 modia [of wine]; in the second, 30; in the
third, 20; and in the fourth, 10. Calling his house treasurer, he said:
"Divide these four vessels containing wine amongst my four sons in such a
way that each son receives an equal portion of wine and vessels." Let him
say, he who can, How must the vessels have been divided so that all [the
sons] received an equal amount from this?
Solutio.
In primo siquidem vasculo fuerunt modia xl, in secundo xxx, in tertio xx,
in quarto x. Junge igitur xl et xxx et xx et x, fiunt c. Tunc deinde
centenarium idcirco numerum per quartam divide partem. Quarta namque pars
centenarii xxv reperitur, qui numerus bis ductus quinquagenarium de se
reddit numerum. Eveniunt ergo unicuique filio in portione sua xxv modia;
et inter duos l. In primo xl, et in quarto sunt modii x, hi juncti faciunt
l, hoc dabis inter duos. Similiter junge xxx et xx modia, quae fuerunt in
secundo et tertio vascula, et fiunt l et hoc quoque, similiter ut superius,
dabis inter duos, et habebunt singuli xxv modia; eritque id faciendo
singulorum aequa filiorum divisio, tam in vino, quam et in vasis.
Solution.
In the first vessel, there were 40 modia [of wine]; in the second, 30; in
the third, 20; and in the fourth, 10. Thus add 40 and 30 and 20 and 10,
making 100. Then, divide 100 into four parts, by which 25 is ascertained.
This number, taken twice, makes 50. Thus 25 modia go to each son as a
portion, and between two [sons], 50 [modia]. In the first [vessel], there
are 40 [modia], and in the fourth, 10. Together, these make 50 [modia],
which you should divide among two [of the sons]. In a similar fashion, add
the 30 and 20 modia which are in the second and third vessels, making 50
[modia]. As above, divide this among the two [other] sons, they will each
have portions of 25 modia. By doing this, there shall be an equal division
of wine and vessels between the sons.
LII. propositio de homine patrefamilias.
Quidam pater familias jussit xc modia frumenti de una domo sua ad alteram
deportari; quae distabat leucas xxx: et vero ratione ut uno camelo totum
illud frumentum deportaretur in tribus subvectionibus, [98] et in unaquaque
leuca comedat [99] modium unum. Dicat, qui velit, quot modii residui
fuissent? [100]
52. proposition concerning the head of household.
A certain head of household ordered that 90 modia of grain be taken from
one of his houses to another 30 leagues away. Given that this load of
grain can be carried by a camel in three trips, and that [the camel] eats
one modium per league, Let him say, he who wishes, How many modia were left
over [at the end of the transport]?
Solutio.
In prima subvectione portavit camelus modios xxx super leucas x, et comedit
in unaquaque leuca modium unum, id est, modios xx comedit et remanserunt x.
In secunda subvectione similiter deportavit modios xxx, et ex his comedit
xx, et remanserunt x, in tertia vero subvectione fecit similiter;
deportavit medios xxx, et ex his comedit xx, et remanserunt decem. Sunt
vero de his, qui remanserunt, modia xxx, et de itinere leucae x. Quos xxx,
in quarta subvectione domum detulit, et ex his x in itinere comedit, et
remanserunt de tota illa summa modia tantum xx.
Solution.
On the first trip, the camel carried 30 modia for 10 leagues, eating a
modium [of grain] per league; that is, it ate 20 modia, leaving 10. On the
second trip it also carried 30 modia, eating 20, and leaving 10. On the
third trip it did the same, carrying 30 modia, eating 20, and leaving 10.
Thus there were 30 modia [of grain] remaining and 10 leagues of the
journey. [The camel] carried these 30 [modia] in a fourth trip [101] to
the house, of which it ate 10 [sic] on the way, leaving only 20 [sic] modia
outof the original amount. [102]
LIII. propositio de homine patrefamilias monasterii xii monachorum.
Quidam Pater monasterii habuit xii monachos, qui vocans [103] dispensatorem
domus suae dedit illis ova cciiii, jussitque, ut singulis aequalem daret ex
eis portionem. Sic tamen jussit, ut inter v presbyteros daret ova lxxxv.
[104] Dicat, rogo, qui valet, quot ova unicuique ipsorum in portionem
venerunt, [105] ita ut in nullo nec superabundet numerus, nec minuatur; sed
omnis, ut supra diximus, aequalem in omni accipiat portionem? [106]
53. proposition concerning the head of a monastery with 12 monks.
A certain Father of a monastery had 12 monks. Calling the treasurer of his
chapter, he gave them [the priests] 204 eggs, and he ordered that [the
treasurer] should give an equal portion to each individual. He further
stipulated that [the treasurer] give 85 eggs to the five priests,[68 to the
four deacons, and 51 to the three lectors]. Let him say, I ask he who
can, How many eggs did each [monk] receive as his portion, so that no one
received too many, nor too little, but so that as we stated above, he
willtake an equal portion to all?
Solutio.
Ducentos igitur quatuor per xii partem divide. Horum quippe pars xii in
septima decima resolvitur parte; quia sive duodecies xvii, sive decies
septies xii miseris, cciiii reperies. Sicut enim octogenarius quintus
numerus septimum decimum quinarium reddit numerum de se, ita et
sexagenarius octavus quadrifarie, et quinquagesimus primus trifarie. Junge
v et iiii et iii, fiunt xii. Isti sunt homines xii. Rursusque junge lxxxv
et lxviii et li, fiunt cciiii. Haec sunt ova cciiii. Veniunt ergo
singulorum ex his in partes ova xvii per duodecimam partem. Septimum
decimum aequa lance dividi fiunt....
Solution.
Divide 204 into 12 parts. 12 parts of this leaves 17 in each part, because
whether you take 12 times 17, or 17 times 12, you will arrive at 204. For
just as the number 85 contains 17 parts of five within it, thus 68
[contains 17 parts] of four, and 51 [contains 17 parts] of three. Adding
five and four and three makes 12 -- this is the number of men. Then, add
85 and 68 and 51, making 204 -- this is the number of eggs. Therefore, the
eggs will be divided into 17 parts of 12 each. The 17 [parts] are then
divided equally....
References
[1] As given in cod. ms. _Augiae Divitis_. Bede's title reads: "Incipiunt
aliae propositiones ad acuendos juvenes."
[2] Bede: "...in quot annis vel diebus..."
[3] One passus equals five feet.
[4] Bede: "De homine et aliis hominibus in via sibi obviantibus."
[5] Bede: "Utinam."
[6] Bede gives the following alternate solution: "Alia, 28 et 28, et
tertio sic, fiunt 84, et medietas tertiae fiunt 14; sunt in totum 98:
adjectis duabus, 100 apparent."
[7] Bede: "De duobus profiscientibus visis ciconiis."
[8] Bede gives this number as 28. Alcuin's solution is only Bede's
alternative. Bede's first solution is as follows: "Qui primis ab illo
visi sunt fuerunt 36, et hujus medietas medietatis sunt 18, et hujus numeri
medietas sunt 9. Dic ergo sic, 72 et 18 fiunt 90; adde 9, fiunt 99; adde
loquentem, et habebis 100."
[9] Bede adds "in campo pascentibus."
[10] Bede: "De emptore in denariis centum."
[11] Bede: "mercator."
[12] Bede: "...est adeptus."
[13] Bede: "...1400."
[14] Bede continues: "Decima pars sexagenarii, 6 sunt; decima vero
quadragenarii, 4 sunt. Sive ergo decimam sexagenarii, sive decimam
qua[d]ragenarii decies miseris, 100 portiones 6 cubitorum longas, et 4
cubitorum latas invenies."
[15] Bede: "De linteamine."
[16] Bede fails to give a solution for this problem.
[17] Bede provides no answer for this problem.
[18] Bede: "divisit."
[19] Bede's solution is in columnar form with the number of villages in one
column, the number of people in the other. He gives values for all 30
villages. However, his answers are incorrect starting at v = 22, where the
number 4,194,214 appears instead of the correct 4,194, 304.
[20] Bede: "In villa 1 fuerunt collecti milites 2."
[21] Bede: "facit."
[22] The correct answer should be seven. Bede answers properly, but his
explanation is unsupported.
[23] I have translated "fratres" as men instead of brothers, since the men
are only brothers relative to their respective sisters, not each other. If
the men were indeed brothers, it would mean that they desired an incestuous
relation with their own sisters-a situation I highly doubt Alcuin intended.
[24] Bede: "Tali igitur sicque sollicitante studio facta est navigatio,
nullo fufcante inquinationis contagio."
[25] Bede: "transire."
[26] Bede continues: "Dicat qui potest quomodo eos illaesos ultra
transiret."
[27] Bede: "ultra transirem."
[28] Bede: "hiriciis." I have been utterly unable to find any likely
translation for this word.
[29] Grammatically, the present active participle "ponderantibus" modifies
the man and woman. It does not seem likely, however, that the man and
woman would weigh only a pound each. The topic of weight does not come up
in the solution; thus, it is impossible to know the reasoning behind giving
the weights of the subjects.
[30] Bede: "quod omnes."
[31] The meaning of "bis" here is not understood.
[32] Bede: "duxeris."
[33] Bede: "collocari."
[34] Bede: "aripennos."
[35] Bede: "deinde."
[36] Bede: "351."
[37] Bede: "Tot sunt in hujus aripenni numero."
[38] Bede: "namque."
[39] Bede: "novemdecem."
[40] Bede continues: "...et fiunt 2, et remanent 4, quae est 3 pars 12.
Sunt ergo aripenni in hoc numero 2 et 3 pars de aripenno 3."
[41] 22.5 divided by 12 is 1.875.
[42] This should probably be "semel ipsos."
[43] Bede: "includit."
[44] Such a scenario implies that one aripennum equals 184.53 perticae.
[45] An anagram which substitutes vowels with following consonants. Thus,
the heading should read "Propositio de cursu canis ac fuga leporis."
Bede's heading is "De campo et cane ac fuga leporis."
[46] Bede: "post leporem currere."
[47] Bede: "confecerint."
[48] Bede: "persequendo."
[49] Bede continues: "...fiunt 526."
[50] Bede: "fiunt."
[51] Bede: "...in longo."
[52] Bede: "duc."
[53] Bede: "Volo ut fiat ibi domorum constuctio..."
[54] Bede: "de."
[55] Bede: "capienda."
[56] Bede: "constitui."
[57] Bede: "1512."
[58] The correct answer should be 241.5 feet. Notice, too, that the length
of the basilica has changed from 240 feet to 140 feet. Since Alcuin's (and
Bede's) figures are inconsistent, his final answer will be wrong as well.
The final number of tiles needed, assuming a length of 240 feet, should be
1253; assuming a length of 140 feet, 731.
[59] Bede: "cavana."
[60] Bede: "...ut unaquaeque cupa habeat in longitudine pedes 7 et in lato
pedes 4, et pervius unus habeat pedes 4, et unaquaeque cupa habeat pedes
7."
[61] Bede: "deputantur."
[62] Bede: "cavanae."
[63] Bede: "10."
[64] Bede: "cavana."
[65] If the aisle runs down the middle of the cellar, only 196 casks can be
stored.
[66] This should no doubt be the passive infinitive "dari." See problem
33.
[67] Bede: "accipiant."
[68] Bede: "...quotve infantes fuerunt."
[69] Bede: "modios."
[70] Bede: "modii."
[71] Bede continues "...tantum 36."
[72] Bede continues as follows: "...duc vero octogies quatuor semis, fiunt
37, id est 11 acceperunt 17, quod simul..."
[73] Bede: "fiunt."
[74] Bede: "860."
[75] Bede: "nasceretur."
[76] Bede: "quinque."
[77] Bede's heading reads "De animalibus emptis," which is clearly
incorrect. Such a heading would seem to be appropriate for problem 38 or
39.
[78] At this point in Bede's text, the scribe apparently no longer saw any
reason for providing answers, saying: "Reliquae solutiones desiderantur:
potest autem quisque ratione arithmetica propositiones illas solvere; ita
ad exercendum ingenium omissa valebant."
[79] Bede: "De animalibus emptis."
[80] Bede: "35."
[81] Bede: "...et de hac medietate aliam idcirco medietatem..."
[82] Bede: "...curtem novam quadrangulam..."
[83] Bede: "quia."
[84] 8 x 4096 = 32,768.
[85] 32,768 x 8 = 262,144.
[86] Bede: "occiderentur."
[87] Bede: "triplicabis."
[88] Bede: "...aliae tantae et adhuc tantae."
[89] Bede: "...inventionis tuae."
[90] 65 x 72 = 4680.
[91] There are two possible alternate interpretations here. Working
backwards: 10,800/2 = 5400; 5400/72 = 75, while 5400/65 = 83.076923. Since
Alcuin probably intended only to deal with whole numbers, it is reasonable
to assume that 65 is a mistake for the correct figure of 75. However, is 75
the number of pounds in a talent, or the number of gold solidi in a pound?
[92] Bede: "scholariis."
[93] Bede: "nostrum."
[94] Bede: "carra fecerunt."
[95] Bede: "De patre familias distribuente."
[96] Bede: "divisit."
[97] Bede: "aequalis."
[98] Bede's presentation is slightly different: "Quidam paterfamilias
habebat de una domo sua ad alteram domum leucas 30, et habens camelum qui
debebat in tribus subjectionibus ex una domo sua ad alteram de annona fere
modia 90..."
[99] Bede: "comedebat."
[100] Bede: "...modia residua fuerint."
[101] A fourth trip contradicts the earlier statement that the entire
transport can be completed in only three trips.
[102] The camel carried the remaining 30 modia for 20 leagues. At the rate
of one modium per league, only 10 modia would reach the intended
destination.
[103] Bede: "convocans."
[104] Bede continues: "...et inter 4 diaconos 68, et inter tres [lectores]
51."
[105] Bede: "evenerunt."
[106] Bede: "...sed omnes, ut supra diximus, aequalem in omnibus accipiant
portionem."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Goldschmidt and William Bateson:
Opposition to the Classical Conception of the Gene;
Obstructionists or Visionaries?
By Sharon Low
HPS 200Y
Received January, 1993.
Revised April, 1993.
When the laurels are awarded in science, past and present, the recipients
are invariably those who have directly contributed to our current, mighty
body of scientific "truth". Regarding the scientists whose ideas
conflicted with those now considered "right", we are inclined to shake our
heads and persuade ourselves that they simply lacked the perception
required to grasp a certain reality that, elusive though it was,
nevertheless lay before them. The weakness of this type of meritocracy,
however, is that among those denied entry into our history books are a
handful of truly great thinkers, some of the most respected of their times.
Tremendous intellectual courage, sharpness of mind and unwavering
conviction are the rare characteristics that drive an effective opposition
to predominant belief. This is not to glorify blatant obstructionism; the
practitioners of willful hindrance of another's work for its own sake are
not those to whom we refer. Rather one should seek to acknowledge those
conscientious scientists who decide against the path of least resistance --
to "buy into" a burgeoning, apparently successful science -- because to do
so would violate their own sensibilities. Excellence in scientific thought
ought not to be confined to a parochial criterion of "rightness", but
gauged by the import of the questions asked. In this is the essential
spirit of science. It is a creative process rather than a race to an end,
because no end ultimately exists, and proximate goals are always changing.
Having said this, let us consider and compare two accomplished
geneticists of this century, William Bateson and Richard Goldschmidt
(although the term "geneticist" as it is currently understood is an
appellation either may be loathe to adopt). Both of these investigators
were opposed to the reductionistic, atomistic, materialistic concept of the
chromosonal gene as it was proposed by Thomas Hunt Morgan and his classical
school of genetics, in the early decades of the field. The scientific
establishment has, of course, since evaluated Morgan's rendition of the
gene as being, in essence, right. To the historiographer of science, these
two figures are interesting for they and their kind, in a sense, best
exemplify the ability of personal and cultural influences, in the most
reputable of scientists, to triumph over what might otherwise stand as
naked fact. One is compelled to ask, then, why Bateson and Goldschmidt
rejected the evidence that was presented. Were they in fact
obstructionists, and as such has the respect accorded them been undeserved?
Could their inability to conform be attributed to personal biases or to the
philosophical climate of their time? Perhaps the blame may be cast on the
inadequacy of the theory itself, nevertheless cast as so flawlessly lucid
in history-book style hindsight. In considering the contribution of each
to the field of genetics, his background, his world view and the
alternative notions of the gene proposed, it is hoped that we might
comprehend the reason and the feeling behind their discontent, and the
value of the remarkably similar concerns that they separately raised.
The son of the master of St. John's college at Cambridge, William Bateson
(1861-1926) distinguished himself as a college student. Awarded a
fellowship to study the evolutionary morphology of a marine invertebrate,
Balanoglossus, at the Chesapeake Bay Zoology Station in the United States,
he was influenced by the eminent embryologist, W.K. Brooks. Bateson came
to believe that minor fluctuating variations, posited by Darwin and
accepted by most biologists, might not be the exclusive source of
evolution. After a decade of amassing numerous examples of "discontinuous
variations, he published his _Materials for the Study of Variation_ in
1894, promoting the idea of "sports" of nature, to the dismay of the
Darwinist biometrical school [1]. Bateson subsequently began to hybridize
related varieties of organisms in the hope of understanding how the
characters distinguishing them would be inherited. The framework of his
thought in this endeavour would prove remarkably akin to that of his
predecessor, Mendel. Indeed in 1900, encountering an account of Mendel's
laws, Bateson immediately recognized in them a mechanism which might
support his idea of saltatory variation [2].
In 1902, Bateson's work, _A Defence of Mendel's Principles of Heredity_
-- the first textbook in elementary genetics, was published. Busying
himself with the establishment of a new science, some of his most lasting
contributions to the field of genetics soon followed. These included the
terms that he established for some of Mendel's concepts, among them:
heterozygote, homozygote, allelomorph and unit character. In addition, he
created a scheme for the notation of breeding crosses. His continued work
as an experimental breeder repeatedly confirmed Mendel's results as well as
their general applicability using a number of different plant and animal
species. Within a short time, he had presented preliminary ideas on the
inheritance of lethal factors and the occasional appearance of homozygous
recessive forms in cross breeds. He was also the first to describe the
effect of multiple genes on a single trait as well as epistatic effects
between genes [3]. Bateson's vigorous champion of Mendel's principles
contributed much to the rapid spread of the new science. W.E. Castle, a
pioneer in genetics in the U.S. later said of Bateson: "he was the real
founder of the science of genetics as well as the one who gave it that
name." [4] The latter auspicious event occurred in 1906 when Bateson
addressed a conference suggesting, "for the consideration of this congress
the term Genetics, which sufficiently indicates that our labours are
devoted to the elucidation of the phenomena of heredity and variation." [5]
It is clear that Bateson was instrumental in setting the precedents to
achieve this goal.
Bateson's own discoveries in genetics were a result of breeding analyses
of apparent exceptions to Mendel's rules and careful observation. The
value he placed on exceptional occurrences would later factor into his
objections to the classical gene theory. "Treasure your exceptions!", he
urged, "keep them always uncovered and in sight. Exceptions are like the
rough brickwork of a growing building which tells that there is more to
come and shows where the next construction is to be." [6] Comfortable only
with breeding analysis, however, he would later remain skeptical of
conclusions drawn from most other methods of genetic study, particularly
technical cytology of which he confessed to be, "one who had never seen the
marvels of cytology, save as through a glass darkly" [7], and histology:
"...I mean no disrespect to that study of the physiology of reproduction by
histological means (but)...in order to pursue directly the course of
Heredity and Variation, it is evident that we must fall back on those
tangible manifestations which are to be studied only by field observation
and experimental breeding." [8]
Unsurprisingly, doubt was cast upon the earliest implication of the
chromosones in heredity by Sutton and Boveri. He wrote: "I cannot avoid
attaching importance to this want of connection between the nuclear
phenomena and the features of bodily organisation. All attempts to
investigate Heredity by cytological means lie under the disadvantage that
it is the nuclear changes which can alone be effectively observed.
Important as they must surely be, I have never been persuaded that the rest
of the cell counts for nothing. What we know of the behaviour and
variability of the chromosomes seems in my opinion quite incompatible with
the belief that they alone are the sole agents responsible in heredity."
[9].
Bateson's preferences clearly hearkened back to those characteristic of
the nineteenth century. The value of the cell as the main functional unit
was not easily relinquished, as were not, it turns out, most of the other
notions that were the legacy of his morphological background. The fact
that the form of the chromosomes -- their behaviour and variation -- did
not correlate with the form of the developing organism, in his view,
disqualified them as hereditary determinants. As early as 1904, his
nostalgia was evident: "This state of things in a progressive science has
arisen, as I think, from a loss of touch with a main line of inquiry...in
spite of that perfecting of the instruments of research characteristic of
our time, and an extension of the area of scrutiny, the last generation was
nearer the main quest. No one can study the history of biology without
perceiving that in some essential respects the spirit of the naturalists of
fifty years ago was truer in aim..." [10].
Originally intended as a means to study evolutionary processes, Bateson
evidently had not forseen the immense implications that genetics held for
heredity. Needless to say, his aversion to technological advances did not
bode well for a friendly reception of the events that were to soon follow.
The first success of the Morgan school around 1910 marked a definite
beginning to Bateson's fall back from the forefront of genetic research.
Morgan and his colleagues held that units called "genes" were to be found
linearly arranged on the chromosomes in the nucleus of the cell. Even
after the publication of the group's _The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity_
in 1915, which converted most biologists to the doctrine of the gene,
Bateson remained unmoved. "Many competent biologists have satisfied
themselves that these powers are conferred alone by the nuclei of the germ
cells. Others still going further declare that each property of the
organism is determined by a specific particle of nuclear material, and
believe that as the result of certain very remarkable experiments they are
even able to decide the order in which these particles are grouped. I
mention this interesting line of inquiry to illustrate the scope of modern
genetic analysis, though I am unconvinced of the cogency of the arguments
employed." [11]
A critical observation that Morgan used to support his theory, linkage
phenomena, had been previously attributed by Bateson and his colleague, R.
C. Punnett, to their own idea of reduplication. [12] They proposed that
characters that tended to stay together in inheritance did so because
gametes containing them underwent additional post-meiotic divisions, and
were thus particularly well-represented among the offspring. This was
found not to be the case.
For years, Bateson continued to formulate counter-proposals and
contradictions to the steady stream of small victories that flowed from
Morgan's lab [13]. Another of his beliefs, the presence and absence
hypothesis concerning dominance and recessiveness, also failed to survive
the early years of genetics [14]. His contentions, however, were
conspicuously lacking in experimental support, indulging in theoretical
speculation and commentary on the findings of others.
Behind his defensiveness lay the belief that a common solution could and
would be found for the phenomena of heredity and development, which he held
as inseparable. By this criterion, the still admittedly inconclusive
evidence for the gentic role of the chromosome, and the reality of the
gene, fell short. He was waiting for the time, "when it (would be)
possible to trace in the maturing germ an indication of some character
afterwards recognizable in the resulting organism." [15] Furthermore, he
required that the form and complexity of the germinal material correlate
with ontogenetic features of various species. Clearly they did not -- "The
chromosomes of nearly related creatures may be utterly different both in
number, size and form". [16]
Bateson preferred to believe that the phenomena of heredity and variation
were due to cell division, the chromosomes being a conspicuous but
secondary manifestation. [17] It is telling that his _Problems of
Genetics_ (1913) consisted mostly of embryological and evolutionary
questions, scarcely mentioning the classical geneticists or even
cytological observations. Asked to review the Drysophila group's first
book, his comments were keenly critical [18]. Firstly, the connection made
between crossing-over and chiasmata seemed not to apply to the male Y-
chromosome despite its being paired; yet, originally though unpaired, it
was used to demonstrate that unpaired (i.e. without chiasmata) chromosomes
do not cross-over. How then, Bateson asked, could this conclusion still be
held as valid? Furthermore, Sturtevant's mapping techniques did not prove
conclusively that the putative genes were linearly arranged. However,
despite these denials, Bridges' discovery of non-disjunction provided an
irrefutable association of the sex-linked factors, at least, with the
chromosomes. Still, this did not necessitate any causal relation between
the two. Nor did it oblige Bateson to concede to the verity of either
linkage or crossing-over. By 1921, having been convinced by Bridges, in
person, that abnormals are aberrant in both genotype and phenotype [19],
Bateson could not but grudgingly approve of parts of the chromosome theory.
Still, he could not accept the generalization that chromosomes determine
all heredity. His doubts never really left him. In any case, his
endorsement no longer mattered much since by this time his protests were
largely ignored by the genetics community [20].
All things considered, one suspects that the main contention held by
Bateson against the classical geneticists was their neglect of development.
If "the geneticist" was to be "the successor of the morphologist" [21], it
was his responsibility to explain the forms of organisms and their
development, rather than engaging solely in intangible mathematical
treatment of the germinal components. Bateson's evolutionary interests
predisposed him to a primary concern with form, since it is the substrate
for selection. Furthermore, if changed greatly, it was the mark of
speciation. It is understandable, though not commendable, why he should
have been so unforgiving towards Morgan's group and the proposals
altogether -- they had distorted his agenda for genetics in the future.
William Coleman, in his essay, "Bateson and chromosomes: conservative
thought in science", suggests that Bateson was affected by J. Clerk
Maxwell's replacement of the indivisible-atom theory by the "vortex atom" -
- a hypothetical dynamic node in the ether [22]. As a model, it was an
attractive theory to non-materialists, and was convincingly supported by
spectral analyses indicating a basical vibrational component of all that is
considered to be matter. The only true matter, in this scheme, was the
ether. Bateson's training at Cambridge around the turn of the century
placed him at the sight of the development of Maxwell's school, at the
prime of its effect on attitudes and methodologies of all areas of science.
Models were Maxwell's chosen mode of science and Bateson, correspondingly,
proposed quite an array of his own [23]. Possessing only a rudimentary
knowledge of physics, nevertheless his suggestions for models of heredity,
bear close parallels to physical science: "...[cells] must be able to
divide, and to segment as a vibrating plate or rod does, or as an icicle
can do as it becomes ribbed in a continuous stream of water." [24]
An absorption of Maxwell's idea is obvious in his description of "a
living creature" as "a vortex of chemical and molecular change...systems
through which matter is continually passing". [25] An anti-materialistic
perspective led him to "incline to the expectation that the heterogeneity
of the determining elements as factors lies rather in forces, of which the
cell materials are the vehicle, than in the nature of the material itself."
Cell division was the process by which "numbers of characters, or rather
the elements upon which they depend, are sorted out among the resulting
germ cells in orderly fashion" and being non-material, it was suspected
"that the properties depend on some phenomenon of arrangement." [25] In
addition, "The geometrical symmetry of living things is the key to a
knowledge of their regularity, and the forces which cause it. In the
symmetry of the dividing cell, the basis of that resemblance we call
Heredity is contained." [27] These aspects of his theories were
essentially held throughout. Otherwise, the vague and non-committal nature
of his arguments presented here reflects a similar general evasiveness in
his own writing. Yet, with all of his complicated postulations, Bateson
was engaging in a pseudo-physics of sorts, using terms laden with
implications related to kinetics, but in an altogether nonspecific way.
The abandoning of experimentation and the concerted attempts to explain
causal elements of inheritance by alternative theories -- what do these
facts reveal about Bateson as a scientist? Coleman has written that in
turning from the early years of hybridization studies to explaining causal
elements of inheritance, Bateson chose a new tactic of "employing in the
most immediate manner conceivable what he took to be the first principles
of physical science." [28] I would like to suggest a different
interpretation. It is conceivable that Bateson felt rather disillusioned
by the monopoly gained by the monopoly gained by the cytologists over a
field that once followed closely behind him, a science that he had groomed
as a tool for evolutionary studies. Alienated by his unfamiliarity with
the new techniques, which he had deeply distrusted, he could not help but
react negatively to the usurpers of his authority, and the ideas they
proposed. This was not difficult since Bateson already held a
fundamentally different philosophy. Furthermore, he found himself forced
to defend his own original notions of heritary phenomena against a growing
body of contradictory evidence. A response was called for. The only level
at which he was on equal footing with the classical geneticists was in
theoretical model-building so this became his necessary recourse, short of
retreat. Enlisting the language and notions of physics and chemistry to
lend weight to his theories, Bateson was able to suspend his belief in
chromosonal heredity for longer than most. This was his defence. An
antagonistic reception to all of the ideas of the competition served as his
attack. His priorities in these later years lay not in converting anyone
to his own theories -- they were formulated to convey general ideas, not to
furnish rigorous explanations; his interest, rather, was in contradiction.
It must be pointed out that this scenario could have occurred without
Bateson's conscious intent. The effect of his negativity, regardless,
remains a dark shadow over his formidable repute.
Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), a contemporary of William Bateson, was
born into a prosperous German family in Frankfurt-am-Main. Entering
Heidelberg University as a medical student, he found himself under the
tutelage of illustrious zoologist Butschli, Gegenbauer the comparative
anatomist, and Kossel the biochemist. Leaving medicine after two years of
study with Richard Hertwig, he later returned to Butschli's lab where he
obtained his Ph.D. in maturation fertilization and early development of
Polystomum, a trematode. While his primary work was a typically nineteenth
century brand of morphology, a further area of interest belonged more
directly to his time period. Great late nineteenth century discoveries
concerning chromosomes, mitosis, maturation and fertilization had brought
many pressing and fundamental questions. [29] In the early 1900's,
Goldschmidt was attracted to cytology by meosis and the observation of
chromatic material in the cytoplasm. By 1910, he was a prominent and
influential scholar, having founded a cytological journal, written a
genetics textbook and become a respected professor. In 1909, however,
unsatisfied with purely descriptive work, Goldschmidt turned to genetics.
Though unrecognized at the time, his first accomplishment was in the
description of the increase in melanism among nun-moths (Lymantria Monacha)
using the Hardy-Wineberg mathematical law, as yet unnamed, and its
importance unacknowledged. In this work, Goldschmidt's agility of mind is
demonstrated -- a pioneer in population genetics, he used a method foreign
not only to his way of thinking, but novel to the field. This quality
would be evident throughout his career. A second question that he pursued
concerned what he termed "sex intergrades" [30] resulting from interbred
strains among gypsy moths (Lymantria Dispar). From this he formulated his
Balance Theory of sex determination. In his work he achieved what had been
his underlying goal to combine Mendelism with developmental physiology. A
further observation that hybrid Lymantria caterpillars seemed to express
different colour phenotypes at various times during development, led to the
Time Law theory of intersexuality. Combining Mendelian genetics with
physiology and biochemistry, the theory described a changing influence of
relevant factors for colour over the course of development [31].
Arriving in the United States in 1914 as a refugee of the war,
Goldschmidt's colleagues' esteem was not well-won by his immediate
proclamation in the homeland of the Drysophila group that the "Theory of
the gene is dead." [32] Golschmidt had begun to propound his general
theory of genic determination of development, based on an interpretation of
the action of the Lymantria sex factors: "the genes must be things which
produce their typical effects by catalyzing chains of reaction, their speed
of which, and given the specific substance of each gene and the plasmatic
substratum, is proportional to the quantity of the gene and therefore fixed
within the entire system of simultaneous coordinated reactions of different
speed." [33].
This conception of genetics as enzymes reflected a holistic outlook
towards the totality of the genic effect. Goldschmidt recognized that a
quantitative shift in one gene would necessitate corresponding shifts in
the others, and their dependent reactions, thus producing a new,
physiological balance.
Meanwhile, his work began to be punctuated by harsh attacks on the
Drosophila genticists. While according them high praise for their
discoveries, Goldschmidt nevertheless faulted their refusal to accept a
quantitative theory of allelism and mutation. His publication in 1937,
_Physiological Genetics_, comprehensively and critically reviewed and
analyzed all of the important facts known by that time, of genic action.
In it, he revealed an alteration to his own concept of the gene: "...no
genes are existing but only points, loci, in a chromosome which have to be
arranged in a proper order or pattern to control normal development. Any
change in this order may change some detail of development...The whole
chromosome is the unit controlling normal development." [34]
Now denying that genes were discrete hereditary units, Goldschmidt
contended "that gene mutation and position effects are one and the same
thing." [35] Muller had earlier assumed that point mutations arose
linearly with x-ray dosage whereas chromosomal rearrangements were thought
to arise exponentially, differentiating the two. Later, however, it was
found that small rearrangements also arose linearly, allowing for
Goldschmidt's conclusion. Furthermore, "the gene as a unit is, of course,
a concept derived from the existence of a thing called the mutant gene.
But this inference is not necessarily valid. There is a possibility that a
condition exists at a definite locus...that we call a mutant gene but that
no corresponding plus condition exists as a separate unit." [36]
Thus, the phenomenon of position effect in which the effect of a gene is
influenced by its chromosomal neighbours had disposed Goldschmidt to the
revision of the notion of materially and physiologically separate genic
elements. By discarding the idea of individualy separate genes, he
simultaneously abandoned his own idea of genes as separate enzymes.
Mutations simply changed the total chemical reactivity of the chromosome by
upsetting the balance of chemical reactions that catalyzed. A wild type
state was then a certain normal arrangement for the chromosome.
The new theory was partly a result of Goldschmidt's original interest in
geographic variation as it related to genetics and physiology, and his hope
to enlighten the understanding of speciation [37]. The new chromosome
concept allowed him to conclude, as Bateson had, that the small mutations
promoted by the Neo-Darwinists were explanation only for intraspecific
diversity. Macromutations of "hopeful monsters" were invoked as the
mechanism of speciation in that "the developmental system of a species is
capable of being changed suddenly so that a new type may emerge without
slow accumulation of new steps." [38] Experimental work on Drosophila to
test these ideas occupied the latter part of his career. The result was
his discovery of phenocopies, which were induced mimics of the postulated
naturally occurring macromutants. Goldschmidt's book _The Material Basis
of Evolution_ (1940) has been recently lauded as "a book...clearly too far
ahead of its time...finally coming into its own." [39]
Goldschmidt has described the reception to his general theory as, "called
by some critics the beginning of a new era in genetics and by others
bunkum, neither sound genetics nor sound physiology; a reception which in
view of historical parallels seems rather encouraging..." [40] Indeed, the
genetics community gradually came to appreciate the concept as it was
later, in its physiological emphasis, echoed upon the arrival of
microbiology. Despite the validity of many of his criticisms, however, his
rejection of the unitary gene was in error.
It is clear that Goldschmidt, like Bateson, trained in the old school of
morphology, retained a sensitivity to the problem of how hereditary factors
translate into adult traits. To Goldschmidt, only an integrated structural
and functional approach would yield the correct picture of the nature of
the gene. In this, he was profoundly at odds with the mechanistic
philosophy which guided the work of most of the classical geneticists.
Garland Allen has traced Goldschmidt's philosophy to that of the Machian
school of physics which, around the turn of the century, rejected the
mechanistic materialism which prevailed among the sciences [41]. Mach
claimed that science should assume nothing of the ultimate or proximate
nature of matter. In this anti-materialistic attribution, Goldschmidt is
cast in an interesting parallel with Bateson -- the former of a German
flavour, the latter, British. Yet perhaps the confidence is not overly
striking, considering that the decades from 1895-1915 were witness to the
development of quantum theory, Bohr's revision of atomic structure, growing
debate on the physical reality of atoms and their relation to energy, and
the promulgation of Einstein's general and specific theories of relativity.
A resultant trend towards idealism had begun in the philosophy of physics,
led largely by Alfred North Whitehead, a close friend of Bateson [42].
This movement similarly questioned the validity of seeking explanations in
terms of real, material and ultimate particles of matter, now that atoms
had revealed an even smaller structural level. Unlike Bateson's strict
antimaterialism, Goldschmidt manifested the influence of physics as anti-
atomism [43]. He, like Mach, was disinclined to advocate explanations of
complex processes in terms of ultimate units. Heredity, in his view,
should be explicable without having to postulate units such as genes,
although he never denied its material basis. Instead, he rejected the
"atomism" that was being applied to the problem, in the form of the
corpuscular gene.
In a revealing paper entitled "Different Philosophies of Genetics",
Goldschmidt's aversion to atomism as well as his functional, physiological
approach are clearly articulated. Bateson would surely have approved:
"Now to the two philosophies of genetics to be contrasted...statistical
thinking tries to explain all basic features of genetic phenomena by
introducing more genes in the form of modifier systems...which I must call
hyperatomism. In my personal opinion it will lead in the end to impossible
consequences. The physiological, or dynamic approach...tries first to
understand general phenomena in terms of genic action and developmental
systems with all their consequences of interaction, embryonic regulation
and integration...it prefers to find out how far explanations based upon
the dynamics of the organism and its development under genic control will
go." [44]
More than simply a philosophical reaction to atomism, however,
Goldschmidt's objections also belied a deeply rooted holistic outlook.
Compared with Bateson's dogged holism regarding the cell, insisting "always
to unify, never to distinguish" [45], Goldschmidt conveyed a more
insightful intent. The tendency of the mechanistic philosophy to see parts
rather than wholes obscured what Goldschmidt considered the most important
questions that biologists should be asking. They assumed that the
knowledge of the parts would combine additively to an understanding of the
whole; but, "it is not the sum but the orderly relationships of the
components that are responsible for the actions at the different levels of
the hierarchy" [46], wrote Goldschmidt -- and for good reason. His work
had demonstrated the multiplicity of interactions between the systems
underlying heredity, development and evolution. He discerned that how one
viewed the structure of the gene was how one approached its function [47].
Indeed, as feared, the field of genetics did come to regard heredity as the
study of what genes do -- as if in a sense genes act independently of their
environments and each other. Even today, the field has not been able to
fully extricate itself from the consequences of this blatant
misunderstanding.
The early twentieth century was a fine time to be a scientist. The
revolutionary era, however, also brought widespread confusion and
uncertainty. While, doubtless it was difficult for the majority of
biologists to abandon their previous beliefs and adopt unfamiliar notions,
it was arguably more difficult for scientists such as Goldschmidt and
Bateson to retain their strength of conviction. Goldschmidt, in
particular, admirably demonstrated that it was possible to contribute to
the new movement, while opposed to the prevailing paradigm. His scientific
style was exemplary, illustrating the rare breed of scientist to whom was
originally referred. Bateson, while a proficient observer, lacked the more
profound level of perceptiveness to be found in Goldschmidt's work.
Although at a superficial level, it may seem that Goldschmidt would
advocate a return to the nineteenth century merging of heredity and
development, closer scrutiny reveals that he genuinely appreciated the
advances wrought by the modern methods. In this respect, he stands in
contrast to Bateson, whose backward glances betrayed a reluctance to face a
progressive future for the science that he helped to launch. It is telling
that biographical literature invariably describes Goldschmidt's work as
"modern" and applicable to the future, while Bateson is characterized as
tenaciously "clinging" to his earliest beliefs. To the end of his life,
Goldschmidt was an active part of the genetics community, rising to
prominence in his adopted homeland, honorary speaker at countless genetics
congresses and symposiums, and author of a 563 page _Theoretical Genetics_
at age 76 which was written during his recuperation from a heart attack;
Bateson, on the other hand, was gradually displaced from his position of
glory, and faded from view.
Furthermore, in their problem-solving strategies -- the common problem
being the theoretical relationship of development to the gene concept --
Goldschmidt actively sought experimental evidence for his ever-developing
theories, despite the methodological limitations that are the inevitable
burden of developmental biology. He fearlessly and offensively challenged
the Mendelian geneticists' dazzling statistics with detailed biochemical
analyses of his own. Bateson, despite attempting some rough physical
models, regressed into a defensive, mostly passive stance with respect to
his committment to developmental issues. In their intellectual flexibility
and willingness to learn -- Goldschmidt consistently entertained novel
ideas, even if not adopting them as his own, while Bateson refused to
consider the validity of even basic technology, understand its workings or
acknowledge the conclusions it yielded.
It would be presumptuous and misleading to claim that these elements of
the two subjects' careers are the only ones relevant to the determination
of their ultimate success. Indeed, those mentioned are only the factors
related to the classical gene concept and how it fit into their thought.
Still, in considering these, how can it be that the ideas of two such
exceptional, discerning, proficient scientists with strikingly similar
world views can have arrived at such divergent fates? All things
considered, it seems that Bateson's obstructionist tone in responding to
the Morgan school and modern cytological research doomed his own ideas to
ineffectiveness in the face of compelling, competing evidence. A
revolutionary thinker is not made by ignoring existing beliefs, but rather
by recognizing where their weaknesses might be replaced by strengths. Such
was the method of Goldschmidt who, though mistaken in the details, was
constructive in the spirit of his theories. As an iconoclast, his
important questions, well-placed suggestions and profound insight into the
broad scope of genetics continue to inspire and instruct modern
geneticists. Rather than impede the forward progress or detract from the
remarkable advances achieved by the classical geneticists, Goldschmidt
encouraged lateral growth in hopes of achieving his vision for the
integration of transmission genetics into the continuum of scientific
endeavour. Allen has remarked that, "Our understanding of, and approach
to, genetic processes today bears the mark of the kinds of questions which
Goldschmidt persisted in asking, often irreverently, throughout his entire
career." [48]
Curt Stern echoes the praise in describing Goldschmidt as a
"...contributor of permanent parts, some very large; perceptor and critic
of his era; [and a] designer of frameworks for the future." [49]
References
[1] W. Coleman, "Bateson and chromosomes: conservative thought in science",
_Centaurus_, 15: 228-314, p. 249.
[2] L.C. Dunn, _A Short History of Genetics_ (New York: 1965), 63.
[3] Coleman, "Bateson and Chromosomes", 252.
[4] Dunn, _A Short History of Genetics_, 65.
[5] Ibid., 68.
[6] W. Bateson, "The Methods and Scope of Genetics", _William Bateson
F.R.S. Naturalist. His Essays and Addresses_ [hereafter cited as WBN], ed.
B. Bateson (Cambridge: 1928), 234.
[7] W. Bateson, "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts" (1922), WBN, 392.
[8] W. Bateson, "Presidential Address to the Zoological Section, British
Association: Cambridge Meeting, 1904", WBN, 242.
[9] W. Bateson, "Heredity and Variation in Modern Lights" (1909), WBN, 222.
[10] W. Bateson, "Presidential Address" (1904), WBN, 234.
[11] W. Bateson, "Gamete and Zygote. A Lay Discourse" (1917), WBN, 202.
[12] W. Bateson and R.C. Punnett, "On gametic series involving
reduplication of certain terms", _Journal of Genetics_, 1: 239-302.
[13] Dunn, 71.
[14] Ibid., 71.
[15] Bateson, "Presidential Address", (1904), WBN, 243.
[16] W. Bateson, "Presidential Address to the Agricultural Subsection,
British Association" (1911), WBN, 278.
[17] W. Bateson, _A Defence of Mendel's Principles of Heredity_ (Cambridge:
1902), 271.
[18] W. Bateson, "The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity" (1916), _Scientific
Papers of William Bateson_, _1-2_, ed. R.C. Punnett (Cambridge: 1928).
[19] Coleman, 260.
[20] Ibid., 252.
[21] Bateson, "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts" (1922), WBN, 390.
[22] Coleman, 264.
[23] Ibid., 265.
[24] Bateson, "Heredity and Variation in Modern Lights" (1909), WBN, 228.
[25] Bateson, "Gamete and Zygote" (1917), WBN, 209.
[26] Bateson, "Presidential Address" (1911), WBN, 280.
[27] Bateson, "Heredity and Variation in Modern Lights" (1909), WBN, 228.
[28] Coleman, 292.
[29] C. Stern, "Richard Benedict Goldschmidt (1878-1958): a Biographical
Memoir" (1967), [hereafter cited as "Goldschmidt"], _Richard Goldschmidt.
Controversial Geneticist and Creative Biologist_ (Basel: 1980) [hereafter
cited as RG], 71.
[30] R. Goldschmidt, "The determination of sex", _Nature_, 107: 780-784.
[31] R. Goldschmidt, _Physiological Genetics_ (New York: 1938), 309.
[32] Quoted by Stern, "Goldschmidt", RG, 83.
[33] R. Goldschmidt, "Genetics and Development" (1932), _The Biological
Bulletin_, 63: 337-56.
[34] R. Goldschmidt, "The theory of the gene" (1938), _Science Monthly_,
46: 268-73.
[35] Ibid., 268.
[36] Goldschmidt, _Physiological Genetics_, 310.
[37] Stern, "Goldschmidt", RG, 82.
[38] R. Goldschmidt, _The Material Basis of Evolution_ (New Haven: 1940).
[39] V. Sarich, "A Macromolecular perspective on _The Material Basis of
Evolution_", RG, 31.
[40] R. Goldschmidt, "The Gene" (1928), _The Quarterly Review of Biology_,
3: 307-323.
[41] G. Allen, "The Historical Development of 'Time Law of Intersexuality'
and its Philosophical Implications" [hereafter cited as "Time Law"], RG,
46.
[42] G. Allen, "The Physiological and Developmental Genetics of Richard
Goldschmidt" (1974), _Journal of the History of Biology_, 7: 49-92, p. 82.
[43] Allen, "Time Law", RC, 46.
[44] R. Goldschmidt, "Different Philosophies of Genetics" (1954),
_Science_, 119: 703-710, p. 705.
[45] W. Bateson, "Progress in Biology" (1924), WBN, 408.
[46] Goldschmidt, "Different Philosophies of Genetics", 709.
[47] Allen, "Time Law", RG, 47.
[48] Ibid., 41.
[49] Stern, Goldschmidt, RG, 88.
Bibliography
Allen, Garland E., (1974), "Opposition to the Mendelian-Chromosome Theory:
the Physiological and Developmental Genetics of Richard Goldschmidt",
_Journal of the History of Biology_, 7: 49-92.
Bateson, B. (ed.), (1928), _William Bateson, F.R.S. Naturalist. His Essays
and Addresses_. Cambridge University Press.
Bateson, W., (1902), _A Defence of Mendel's Principles of Heredity_.
Cambridge University Press.
Carlson, E.A., (1966), _The Gene: a Critical History_. Philadelphia:
Saunders.
Coleman, W., (1965), "Bateson and Chromosomes: Conservative Thought in
Science", _Centaurus_, 15: 228-315.
Dunn, L.C., (1965), _A Short History of Genetics_. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goldschmidt, R., (1938), _Physiological Genetics_. London: McGraw-Hill.
Goldschmidt, R., (1940), _The Material Basis of Evolution_. Reprint
(1982), introd. S.J. Gould. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Goldschmidt, R., (1954), "Different Philosophies of Genetics", _Science_,
110: 703-710.
Piternick, L.K. (ed.), (1980), _Richard Goldschmidt. Controversial
Geneticist and Creative Biologist. A Critical review of His
Contributions_. Introd. K. von Frisch. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.
Punnett, R.C. (ed.), (1928), _Scientific Papers of William Bateson_, _1-2_,
Cambridge University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+----------------------------+
| Electronic Resources |
+----------------------------+
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LISTSERVER Mailing Lists/Discussion Groups on BITNET/INTERNET
for the Historian and Philosopher of Science and Technology:
By Julian A. Smith
Received May 10, 1993
Revised June 1, 1993
One of the fastest ways of disseminating recent scholarly information
through the computer involves the INTERNET/BITNET discussion groups known
as LISTSERVERS or Electronic mailing lists. These are essentially
electronic "gatherings" which share letters, questions, book reviews, job
postings, conference and symposia announcements, calls for papers, research
findings, and other news and information of interest to the scholarly
community. There are several thousand electronic conferences on the
INTERNET, covering virtually all areas of scholarship, including the
history and philosophy of science and technology.
Because the history of science is an interdisciplinary field, recent
research findings and scholarly news is often spread over a host of areas
in the sciences and humanities, making it very difficult for the time-
pressed scholar to keep "up to date". Few historians of science have the
time or money to subscribe to both the historical and the scientific
journals and periodicals of interest to them! Moreover, lists of computer
journals and discussion groups are often compiled with either the scientist
or the historian in mind; rarely are both combined into an organized whole.
This list has been assembled from various INTERNET/BITNET mailing list and
discussion group bibliographies, and is intended to provide a comprehensive
guide to the LISTSERVER groups of interest to historians of science. Many
of the groups here are designed for the scientific community, and are
interested in history only as a secondary concern; but others are
specifically formed with the historian in mind. Technology, of course, is
a broad topic spanning almost everything; but I have tried to provide a
guide to those discussion groups that cover the history of technology as
well, even if it is only something so restricted as the History of Scuba
Diving or the History of Aviation.
Rules vary a great deal within each mailing list. Some mailing lists are
"moderated" or "peered"; that is, letters sent to them are cleared through
a peer review group or moderator (typically the list owner) before they are
distributed to the rest of the conference. This effectively screens out
irrelevant or unnecessary mail, and drastically cuts down on the number of
letters you will receive. Other mailing lists are open; anyone may
contribute a letter to them, but you will have to accept the fact that many
of these messages may be of little interest to you! One should take care
in subscribing to unmoderated mailing lists; traffic varies enormously, but
some of the "public" LISTSERVER groups I sampled sent me around 50 messages
a day! Even if you decide against reading them all, just deleting them
from your mailbox can get quite time-consuming. If you are like most
people, you may subscribe to a large number of discussion groups at first,
and then "weed out" those who consistently return mail of peripheral
interest to you.
To subscribe to any of the LISTSERVER groups in our bibliography, simply
send an e-mail letter to the address listed below (usually, LISTSERV@ the
address below). It should not contain any subject heading. The letter
should contain only the following information: SUB or SUBSCRIBE . So, for example, let's suppose I
wanted to subscribe to a LISTSERVER group covering medieval history.
Scrolling through our directory, we find the following entry:
MEDIEV-L MEDIEV-L@UKANVM Medieval History (283-1500 AD).
This tells us there is in fact a discussion group for medieval history
named (appropriately) MEDIEV-L. It is distributed through the LISTSERVER at
UKANVM; so to subscribe,I need to send an electronic letter requesting this
discussion group from LISTSERV@UKANVM. So, on BITNET, after entering my
electronic mail program,I would mail a letter to LISTSERV@UKANVM containing
no subject heading,and only the following text: "SUB HTECH-L JULIAN SMITH".
Once the LISTSERVER receives my letter,I am automatically added to the mail
list for MEDIEV-L. On the INTERNET, I would follow a similar procedure, but
instead of emailing my letter to LISTSERV@UKANVM, I would send it to a more
detailed email address: LISTSERV@UKANVM.CC.UKANS.EDU (for a full list of
these more detailed email addresses, see the "list of lists" from the ftp
site ftp.nisc.sri.com below). It's as simple as that!
Once you have subscribed to a discussion group, you should make sure that
you save the first pieces of correspondence you receive; usually, they will
tell you what the group's rules, protocols and functions are. Not only
that, they will often include instructions on how to send mail to the list,
and how to end your subscription to it (or "Unsubscribe"). This is of
vital importance when you are on vacation or away from your e-mail account;
one of my colleagues who neglected to do this found over 500 letters
waiting for her after her week-long holiday! Some e-mail systems gave a
NOMAIL function, but for those that do not, you will have to send an
"UNSUBSCRIBE" or "UNSUB" command to the discussion groups you no longer
wish to participate in. In our example (HTECH at SIVM) , I would again
send an electronic letter to LISTSERV@SIVM with no subject; but this time,
the body of my letter would say "UNSUB HTECH-L JULIAN SMITH". That command
will effectively prevent mail from the History of Technology discussion
group from reaching my e-mail account; to get it back, I would have to
subscribe again.
Our list of discussion groups is highly compressed, and cannot do more
than give a hint of the vast resources available on the INTERNET. Should
you desire a more complete list of discussion groups, you have many
alternatives. A BITNET list of all public LISTSERV groups can be obtained
by sending an e-mail message to the addresses LISTSERV@NCSUVM.BITNET or
LISTSERV@VM1.NODAK.EDU; the body of the letter should read simply "LIST
GLOBAL". You should soon receive an e-mail letter containing a more
substantial list than that presented here. Diane Kovacs has written a list
of scholarly electronic conferences; it may be retrieved by connecting via
ftp to ksuvxa.kent.edu. Once there, you can get in by using the login:
"anonymous". The lists may be found by changing to the /library/
directory, using the cd command: "cd library". Once there, you will find a
group of ACADLISTS which cover scholarly conferences alphabetically, and by
subject area. The same lists may be received through conventional e-mail:
just send a letter containing the command "GET " to
LISTSERV@KENTVM.
A combined bibliography of INTERNET groups and BITNET lists, compiled by
David Avery, can be retrieved via ftp from dartcms1.dartmouth.edu; just use
the standard "login: anonymous" instruction, and change directory to
/siglists. Then use the "get" command to get the list you want. Again,
the same lists are available by sending the following message on
conventional e-mail to LISTSERV@DARTCMS1; "INDEX SIGLISTS" and then
"SEND ".Marty Hoag's "list of lists" is available using
e-mail from LISTSERV@VM1.NODAK.EDU or LISTSERV@NDSUMVM1. The message is the
same for both locations: "GET LISTS OF LISTS".
Finally, should you want the complete "list of lists" from which this
article was compiled, it can be retrieved using ftp as well. To get this
list (which covers all electronic mailing lists and interest groups, on all
systems, scholarly or otherwise), simply connect via anonymous ftp to
ftp.nisc.sri.com and enter using the login "anonymous". Once on the
system, go to the directory netinfo (just change directory by typing "cd
netinfo"). In that directory, a complete list of all interest-groups and
mailing lists can be found under the name "interest-groups"; a compressed
version is in the same directory under the name "interest-groups.Z". This
list is updated regularly, and is arranged in alphabetical order; simply
scroll through to the discussion group you want. The list will give you an
address for subscription, a description of permitted topics, posting
guidelines and list etiquette, list owners, locations of back
correspondence, and ways to "unsubscribe" from the list.
To get your own copy of this document, type "get interest-groups" or "get
interest-groups.Z"; you would be well advised to get the compressed
version, as the full text runs to several hundred pages and has full
details on an enormous number of mailing lists!
Our list below is arranged alphabetically by subject. The entry at the
left gives the name of the discussion group; the central entry gives the
network address (or LISTSERVER group) of the conference; and the right-hand
entry briefly tells you what the list's topics are. Again, more complete
information on these lists may be found in the "lists of lists" above.
Happy hunting!
BIBLICAL TEXTS
AIBI-L AIBI-L@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA L'Association Internat. Bible
NT-GREEK NT-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU Greek New Testament
OT-HEBREW OTHEBREQ@VIRGINIA.BITNET Hebrew Old Testament
BIOLOGY
BEE-L BEE-L@ALBNYVM1 Discussion of Bee Biology
BIO-DOST BIO-DOST@TREARN Biyolojik Bilimlerde Calisan Turk
BIOCIS-L BIOCIS-L@SIVM BIOCIS-L Biology Curriculum Innovation
BIOESR-L BIOESR-L@MIZZOU1 Applications of Electron Spin Res.
BIOMCH-L BIOMCH-L@HEARN Biomechanics and Movement Science
BIOMED-L BIOMED-L@MCGILL1 Assoc. of Biomedical Communications
BIOMED-L@NDSUVM1 BIOMED-L Biomedical Ethics
BIOMET-L BIOMET-L@ALBNYDH2 BUREAU OF BIOMETRICS AT ALBNYDH2
BIOPI-L BIOPI-L@KSUVM Secondary Biology Teacher Enhancement
BIOSPH-L BIOSPH-L@UBVM Biosphere, ecology, Discussion
BIOTECH BIOTECH@UMDD Biotechnology Discussion List
BIOVOTE BIOVOTE@IRLEARN BIOSCI Ballot Box
CONSLINK CONSLINK@SIVM Discussion on Biological Conservation
EMBINFO EMBINFO@IBACSATA EMBNet (European Molecular Biology Net).
FORUMBIO FORUMBIO@BNANDP11 Forum on molecular biology
GENETICS GENETICS@INDYCMS.BITNET Genetics
GNOME+PR GNOME+PR@IRLEARN Human Genome Project
HYPERMED HYPERMED@UMAB Biomedical Hypermedia Instructional
INFO-GCG INFO-GCG-L@UTORONTO Genetics Computer Group Software
(Computer Aided Molecular Biology)
LACTACID LACTACID-L@SEARN.SUNET.SE Lactic Acid Bacteria list
LCC-L LCC-L@BRUFMG Lista para intercambio de informacoes
MARINE-L MARINE-L@UOGUELP.CA Marine biology
MEDSEA-L MEDSEA-L@AEARN Marine Biology of the Adriatic Sea
MORPHMET MORPHMET@CUNYVM Biological Morphometrics Mailing List
ORCHIDS ORCHIDS@SCU.BITNET Orchid Growing
OXYGEN-L OXYGEN-L@MIZZOU1 Oxygen Free Radical Biology and Medicine
POP-BIO POP-BIO-L@IRLEARN Population Biology
PROFEE-L PROFEE-L@BRUFMG Lista para intercambio professores
RBMI RBMI@FRORS13 Groupe de Recherche Biologie Moleculaire
RBMI@FRULM11 Groupe de Recherche Biologie Moleculaire
CHEMISTRY
CHEMCONF CHEMCONF@UMDD Conferences on Chem. Research and Ed.
CHEMED-L CHEMED-L@UWF Chemistry Education Discussion List
CHEMIC-L CHEMIC-L@TAUNIVM Chemistry in Israel List
CHEM11-L CHEM11-L@MIZZOU1 Chemistry 11 Discussion
ORGCHE-L ORGCHE-L%RPICICGE.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Organic Chemistry
ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY AND SCIENCE
AGRIC-L AGRIC-L@UGA Agriculture.
ASEH-L ASEH-L@TTUVM1 Amer. Soc. of Environmental
Historians.
BEE-L BEE-L@ALBNYVM1 Bee Biology.
CLIMLIST CLIMLIST@OHSTVMA Climatology.
CONSLINK CONSLINK@SIVM Biological Conservation.
ECONET ECONET@MIAMIU Ecological and Environmental Studies.
ENERGY-L ENERGY-L@TAUNIVM Energy List.
ENVST-L ENVST-L@BROWNVM Environmental Studies.
ITRDBFOR ITRDBFOR@ASUACAD Dendrochronology Forum.
POP-BIO POP-BIO@IRLEARN Population Biology
SFER-L SFER-L@UCF1VM South Florida Environmental
Reader
UNCEDGEN UNCEDGEN@UFRJ Public Discussion of
Environmental Issues
GEOGRAPHY
GEODESIC GEODESIC%UBVM.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Buckminster Fuller
GEOGRAPH GEOGRAPH@FINTHUTC Geography
INGRAFX INGRAFX-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Cartography & Computer Graphics
GEOLOGY
GEOLOGY GEOLOGY@PTEARN Geology Discussion List
GEOREN-L GEOREN-L@EMUVM1 Geology Building Renovation
QUAKE-L QUAKE-L@NDSUMVM1 Earthquakes (Help/Assistance)
HISTORY-AFRICA
AFRICA-L AFRICA-L@VTVM2.CC.VT Forum Pan-Africa.
SWAHILI-L SWAHILI-L%KUNTZ@WISCMACC Swahili Language.
TUNISNET TUNISNET@PSUVM Tunisia Network.
HISTORY-ANCIENT EUROPE
ANCIEN-L ANCIEN-L@ULKYVM Ancient Mediterranean Studies.
ANCIEN-L@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU (peer)
ANTHRO-L ANTHRO-L@UBVM.BITNET Anthropology,Anglo-Saxon ruins,
cemeteries, villages.
ARCH-L ARCH-L@EARN.DGOGWDG1 Archaeology
CONTEX-L CONTEX-L@UOTTAWA Ancient Texts
CLASSICS CLASSICS@UWAVM Classics & Latin discussion.
ELLHNIKA ELLHNIKA@DHDURZ1.BITNET Classical/Modern Greek TeX.
HELLAS HELLAS@AUVM Hellenic List
IOUDAIOS IOUDAIOS@YORKVM1 First Century Judaism
HISTORY-BIBLIOGRAPHY AND TEXTS
EXLIBRIS EXLIBRIS@RUTVM1 Rare Books and Special Collections.
GUTNBERG GUTNBERG@UIUCVMD Machine Readable Texts.
LITERA-L LITERA-L@TECMTYVM Literature in English & Spanish.
SHARP-L SHARP-L@IUBVM History of the Printed Word/Authorship.
HISTORY-CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE
BALT-L BALT-L@UBVM Baltic Republics.
HUNGARY HUNGARY@UCSBVM Hungarian Discussion List
MIDEUR-L MIDEUR-L@UBVM Middle European Topics.
POLAND-L POLAND-L@UBVM Discussion of Polish Culture
SEELANGS SEELANGS@CUNYVM Slavic & East European
Language and Literature
SLOVAK-L SLOVAK-L@UBVM Slovak Issues.
HISTORY-CHINA AND JAPAN
AJBS-L AJBS-L@NCSUVM Association Japanese Business Studies
CHINA CHINA@PUCC Chinese Studies.
CHINANET CHINANET@TAMVM1 Networking In China
CSA-DATA CSA-DATA@UICVM Chinese Statistical Archive.
EMEDCH-L EMEDCH-L@USCVM Early Medieval China (3rd-6th C. AD).
J-FOOD-L J-FOOD-L@JPNKNU10 Japanese Food & Culture
JAPAN JAPAN@FINHUTC Info-Japan
JPINFO-L JPINFO-L@JPNSUT00 Information About Japan
JTEM-L JTEM-L@UGA Japanese Through Electronic Media
NIHONGO NIHONGO@FINHUTC Nihongo
TWUNIV-L TWUNIV-L@TWNMOE10 Chinese Scholars and Students.
SCC-L MD48@CMUCCVMA soc.culture.china (Bitnet Distribution)
HISTORY-CIS AND RUSSIA
RUSHIST RUSHIST@USCVM Russian History 1462-1917
RUSHIST@VM.USC.EDU (peer) Russian History
RUSHIST@DOSUNI1 (peer) Russian History
RUSHIST@CSEARN (peer) Russian History
RUSSIA RUSSIA@INDYCMS Russia and Her Neighbors
RUSSIAN RUSSIAN@ASUACAD Russian Language Issues
SCS-L SCS-L@INDYCMS soc.culture.soviet via ListServ
SOVHIST SOVHIST@USCVM Soviet History 1917-1991
SOVHIST@VM.USC.EDU (peer) Soviet History
SOVHIST@DOSUNI1 (peer) Soviet History
SOVHIST@CSEARN (peer) Soviet History
TPS-L TPS-L@INDYCMS talk.politics.soviet via Bitnet
UKRAINE UKRAINE@INDYCMS
or UKRAINE@INDYCMS.IUPI.EDU Ukraine Discussion
HISTORY-EUROPE
ALBION-L ALBION-L@UCSBVM British History
ESPORA-L ESPORA-L@UKANVM Spanish/Portuguese Studies
FRANCEHS FRANCEHS@UWAVM French Historical Studies
GRMNHIST GRMNHIST@USCVM German History from 800 AD
GRMNHIST@DGOGWDG1 (peered) German History
HABSBURG HABSBURG@PURCCVM Austrian History since 1500
IRL-POL IRL-POL@IRLEARN.UCD.IE
or LISTSERV@IRLEARN.BITNET Current Irish politics
WELSH-L WELSH-L@IRLEARN
or LISTSERV@IRLEARN.UCD.IE Welsh Language Bulletin Board
HISTORY-GENERAL
ASTR-L ASTR-L@UIUCVMD Theater History Discussion
CONSIM-L CONSIM-L@VM.UCS.UALBERTA.CA Historical Conflict
Simulation Games, Military History
DANCE-L DANCE-L@HEARN Folkdance/Traditional Dance
HISTORY HISTORY@CSEARN (peered) History
HISTORY HISTORY@DGOGWDG1 (peered) History
HISTORY HISTORY@FINHUTC (peered) History
HISTORY HISTORY@IRLEARN (peered) History
HISTORY HISTORY@RUTVM1 (peered) History
HISTORY HISTORY@UBVM (peered) History
HISTORY HISTORY@UMRVMB (peered) History Discussion
HISTORYA HISTORYA@UWAVM HISTORYA History Department
HISTORYF HISTORYF@UWAVM LISTNAME History
HISLAW-L HISLAW-L@ULKYVM Law History (Feudal/Common/Canon)
HISLAW-L@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU (peer)
HIST-L HIST-L@UKANVM General History
MILHST-L MILHST-L@UKANVM Military History
NATIVE-L NATIVE-L@TAMVM1 Aboriginal Peoples
PEACE PEACE@INDYCMS Peace studies.
POLI-SCI POLI-SCI@RUTVM1 Political Science Digest
SOCHIST SOCHIST@UCBVM New Social History
WMST-L WMST-L@UMDD Women's Studies.
WORLD-L WORLD-L@UBVM Non-Eurocentric World History
WWII-L WWII-L@UBVM World War II.
HISTORY-INDIA AND PAKISTAN
BUDDHIST BUDDHIST@JPNTOHOK Indian and Buddhist Studies
INDIA INDIA@PCCVM India List
INDIA-D INDIA-D@TEMPLEVM India Interest Group
INDIA-L INDIA-L@TEMPLEVM India News Network
INDOLOGY INDOLOGY@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK Classical India
PAKISTAN PAKISTAN@ASUACAD Pakistan News Service
TAMIL-L TAMIL-L@DHDURZ1 Tamil Studies.
HISTORY-JUDAICA AND JEWISH STUDIES
E-HUG E-HUG@DARTCMS1 Electronic Hebrew Users Newsletter
IOUDAIOS IOUDAIOS@YORKVM1 First Century Judaism.
HEBREW-L HEBREW-L@UMINN1 Jewish & Near Eastern Studies
JEM JEM@MITVMA Jewish Electronic Mail Conference
JUDAICA JUDAICA@TAUNIVM (Peered) Judaic Studies Newsletter
MENDELE LISTSERV@YALEVM Yiddish Literature and Language
HISTORY-LATIN AMERICA
BORIKEN BORIKEN@ENLACE Cultura y Sociedad de Puerto Rico
BRAS-CON BRAS-CON@FRORS12 Brasnet na Europa Continental
BRAS-NET BRAS-NET@BRUFMG Brasileiros no Exterior
CDSBC-L CDSBC-L@UFRJ Conselho da Sociedade Brasileira.
CENTAM-L CENTAM-L@UBVM Central America.
CH-LADB CH-LADB@UNMVM Latin America Data Base
CHILE-L CHILE-L@PURCCVM Chile.
LALA-L LALA-L@UGA Latin Americanist Librarians.
MEXICO MEXICO@VMTECMEX Mexico.
MEXICO-L MEXICO-L@TECMTYVM Knowing Mexico: people, culture.
NAHUAT-L NAHUAT-L@FAUVAX.BITNET Aztec Studies. Subscribe to
NAHUAT-L@ACC.FAU.EDU NAHUAT-REQUEST@ACC.FAU.EDU or
NAHUAT-REQUEST@FAUVAX.BITNET
NOTICOL NOTICOL@ANDESCOL Noticias de Colombia
POLITICA POLITICA@UFRJ Politica Brasileira
SM-LADB SM-LADB@UNMVM SM-LADB - Latin America Data Base
UP-LADB UP-LADB@UNMVM UP-LADB - Latin America Data Base
HISTORY-MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE EUROPE
ANSAX-L ANSAX-L@WVNVM Anglo-Saxon England
CAMELOT CAMELOT@CASTLE.ED.AC.UK Arthurian Discussion
List. Subscribe to:
REQUEST CAMELOT@CASTLE.ED.AC.UK.
CELTIC-L CELTIC-L@IRLEARN Celtic Culture.
CLASSM-L CLASS-L@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU Classical Music (Gregorian
Chant to George Crumb)
EARLYM-L EARLYM-L@AEARN Early Music (Medieval+) List.
FICINO FICINO@UTORONTO Renaissance and Reformation
MEDFEM-L MEDFEM-L@INDYCMS Feminist Medieval History
GAELIC-L GAELIC-L@IRLEARN Irish/Scots Gaelic Language.
GERLINGL GERLINGL@UIUCVMD Germanic languages to 1500
LITURGY LITURGY@MAILBASE.AC.UK Liturgical studies.
MEDIEV-L MEDIEV-L@UKANVM Medieval History (283-1500 AD)
MEDTEXTL MEDTEXTL@UIUCVMD Medieval Textual Studies
REED-L REED-L@UTORONTO Records of Early English Drama
RENAIS-L RENAIS-L@ULKYVM History of the Renaissance.
RENAIS-L@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU (peer)
TML-L TML-L@IUBVM Thesaurus Musicarum Latinarum
VW5EARN VW5EARN@AWIWUW11.BITNET Medieval/Renaissance Music
HISTORY-MISCELLANEOUS
CAAH CAAH@PUCC Art and Architectural History
HISTOWNR HISTOWNR@UBVM List for Owners of History Lists
IMIGNET IMIGNET@SUVM Interdisciplinary Multi - Cultural.
INTLBU-L INTLBU-L@TEMPLEVM International Business
KUHIST-L KUHIST-L@UKANVM History at the University of Kansas
MUSEUM-L MUSEUM-L@UNMVM Museum Discussion List
MUSIC MUSIC@FINHUTC Music-Research
OPERA OPERA@VM1.NODAK.EDU Opera
ROOTS-L ROOTS-L@NDSUVM1 Genealogy List
SCA SCA-REQUEST@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Society Creative Anachronism
SIIN-L SIIN-L@UNBVM1 UPEI Inst. of Small Island Studies
SQSP SQSP@UQUEBEC Soc. quebecoise science politique
TEL TEL@USCVM The Turkish Electronic Mail List
URBAREG URBAREG@UQUEBEC Etudes urbaines et regionales
XCULT-L XCULT-L@PSUVM International Intercultural Newsletter
HISTORY-MODERN EUROPE
9NOV89-L 9NOV89-L@DB0TUI11 Events around the Berlin Wall
CLASSM-L CLASSM-L@BROWNVM Classical Music List
C18-L C18-L@PSUVM 18th Century Discussion
AUSTEN-L AUSTEN-L@VM1.MCGILL.CA Austen, Burney, Wollstonecraft
Literature and their time
EMHIST-L EMHIST-L@RUTVM1 Early Modern History Forum
EMHIST-L@USCVM (peer)
GWDG-NEU GWDG-NEU@DGOGWDG1 Mitteilungen der GWDG
GWDTCP-L GWDTCP-L@DGOGWDG1 TCP/IP-Liste der GWDG
HEGEL HEGEL@VILLVM The HEGEL Society.
HESSE-L HESSE-L@UCSBVM Hermann Hesse Life/Work
INMYLIFE INMYLIFE@WKUVX1.BITNET Popular Culture 1962-1974
MILTON-L MILTON-L@URVAX Milton Scholarship
MODBRITS MODBRITS@KENTVM British/Irish Literarure 1895-1955
SHAKSPER SHAKSPER@UTORONTO Shakespeare Electronic Conference
TWAIN TWAIN-L@VM1.YORKU.CA Mark Twain Life and Times
HISTORY-NORTH AMERICA
AFAM-L AFAM-L@MIZZOU1 African-American Research
AFAS-L AFAS-L@KENTVM Afro-American Studies
AFROAM-L AFROAM-L@HARVARDA.HARVARD.EDU Afro-American Life
AMLIT-L AMLIT-L@UMCVMB American Literature
AMLIT-L@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (peer)
AMWEST-H AMWEST-H@DOSUNI1 History of American West,1809-1890
AMWEST-H@USCVM (peer)
AMWEST-H@UMRVMB (peer)
FRANKLIN FRANKLIN@NCSUVM Benjamin Franklin Scholars
GOVDOCS-L GOVDOCS-L@PSUVM US/UN Government Documents
INMYLIFE INMYLIFE@WKUVX1 Popular Culture, 1962-1974
LABOR-L LABOR-L@YORKVM1 Labor in the North American Economy
L-CHA L-CHA@UQAM Canad. Hist. Assoc. Conference
MCLR-L MCLR-L@MSU Midwest Consortium, Latino Research
PNWCSC PNWCSC@UWAVM Pacific Northwest Canadian Studies
VWAR-L VWAR-L@UBVM Viet Nam War.
HISTORY-SOUTHEAST ASIA AND OCEANIA
APNET-L APNET-L@JPNSUT00 Asia Pacific Network
CURRENTS CURRENTS@PCCVM South Asian News and Culture Magazine
PACARC-L PACARC-L@WSUVM1 Pacific Rim Archaeology
PACIFIC PACIFIC@BRUFPB Pacific Ocean & Islands Forum
SEANET-L NUSVM Southeast Asian Studies
HISTORY AND COMPUTING
AHC-L AHC-L@DGOGWDG1 Association for History & Computing
CHUG-L CHUG-L@BROWNVM Brown University Computing in Humanities
HCFNET HCFNET@UCSBVM Humanities Computing Facilities Network
HSTNET-L HSTNET-L@UKANVM Organizing Committee for HistNet
HISTOWNR HISTOWNR@UBVM For owners of history-related lists
HUMANIST HUMANIST@BROWNVM Humanities Computing
HUMSPC-L HUMSPC-L@BROWNVM Humanist Special List
SHOTHC-L SHOTHC-L@SIVM History of Computing Issues.
SIGPAST SIGPAST@LIST.KEAN.EDU History of Computers
USENET.HIST USENET.HIST@UCSD.EDU History of USENET
HISTORY OF RELIGION
AMERCATH AMERCATH@UKCC History of American Catholicism.
BELIEF-L BELIEF-L@BROWNVM Personal Ideologies Discussion List
BUDDHA-L BUDDHA-L@ULKYVM.BITNET Buddhist Studies
BUDDHIST BUDDHIST@JPNTOHOK Indian and Buddhist Studies
BUDDHIST@JPNTUVM0 (peer)
ELENCHUS ELENCHUS@UOTTAWA Christian Thought and Literature
ELENCHUS@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA in Late Antiquity
EOCHR EOCHR@QUEENSU.CA Eastern Orthodox Christianity
HISTEC-L HISTEC-L@UKANVM History, Evangelical Christianity
ISLAM-L ISLAM-L@ULKYVM The History of Islam
ORTHODOX ORTHODOX-L@INDYCMS.INPUI.EDU Orthodox Christianity
PAGAN PAGAN-REQUEST@DRYCAS.BITNET Paganism
RELIGCOM RELIGCOM@UKCC Discussion forum.
SHAKER SHAKER@UKCC United Society of Believers.
HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
CADUCEUS CADUCEUS@Beach.Gal.UTexas.EDU
CADUCEUS@UTMBEACH
Not LISTSERV; Subscribe to addresses above
HPSST-L HPSST-L@QUCDN History/Philosophy of Science
HTECH-L HTECH-L@SIVM History of Technology
HOPOS-L HOPOS-L@UKCC.UKY.EDU History of Philosophy of Science
L-ARTECH L-ARTECH@UQAM Les Arts et les nouvelles
technologies/Arts
SCIFRAUD SCIFRAUD@ALBNYVM1 Fraud in Science.
SHOTHC-L SHOTHC-L@SIVM History of Technology on Computer (SHOT)
TEXTILES TEXTILES@TREARN Textiles & Clothing Studies
78-L 78-L@CORNELL.EDU History of Phonographs, Records.
MATHEMATICS
ALLIANCE ALLIANCE@NCSUVM North Carolina Science and Math Alliance
CEM-L CEM-L@UTDALLAS UTD Center for Engineering Mathematics
CRYPTO-L CRYPTO-L@JPNTUVM0 Forum on Cryptology and Related Math
EWM EWM@ICNUCEVM EWM European Women in Mathematics
MATHDEPT MATHDEPT@TECHNION MATHDEPT - Technion Mathematics Net
TECHMATH TECHMATH@TECHNION TECHMATH - Technion Mathematics Net
UICMATH UICMATH@UICVM UIC Mathematics
UICMATHS UICMATHS@UICVM UIC Mathematics Majors
MEDICINE
ADMRA-L ADMRA-L@ALBNYDH2 ADIRONDACK MEDICAL RECORDS ASSOCIATION
AIDS AIDS@EBCESCA1 (Peered) Sci.Med.AIDS Newsgroup
AIDS@RUTVM1 (Peered) Sci.Med.AIDS Newsgroup
AIDS@USCVM (Peered) Sci.Med.AIDS Newsgroup
AMIED-L AMIED-L@MCGILL1 American Medical Informatics Assoc.
BIOMED-L BIOMED-L@MCGILL1 Assoc. of Biomedical Communications
BIOMED-L@NDSUVM1 BIOMED-L Biomedical Ethics
CMEDSSOC CMEDSSOC@UTORONTO Canadian Medical Student Societies
COCAMED COCAMED@UTORONTO Computers in Canadian Medical Education
COMPMED COMPMED@WUVMD Comparative Medicine List
CONFLIST CONFLIST@UCSFVM School of Medicine Conference List
CROMED-L CROMED-L@AEARN CROatian MEDical List
EMFLDS-L EMFLDS-L@UBVM Electromagnetics in Medicine/Science
FAMILY-L FAMILY-L@MIZZOU1 Delivery of Family Practice and Clinical
HEALTHCO HEALTHCO@RPIECS Communication in health/medical context
HERB HERB@TREARN Medicinal and Aromatic Plants
HYPBAR-L HYPBAR-L@TECHNION HyperBaric & Diving Medicine List
HYPERMED HYPERMED@UMAB Biomedical Hypermedia Instructional
JMEDCLUB JMEDCLUB@BROWNVM Medical Journal Discussion Club
LASMED-L LASMED-L@TAUNIVM Laser Medicine
MEDCONS MEDCONS@FINHUTC Medcons (Medical consulting)
MEDFORUM MEDFORUM@ARIZVM1 Med Student Organization/Policy Forum
MEDIMAGE MEDIMAGE@POLYVM Medical Imaging Discussion List
MEDINF-L MEDINF-L@DEARN MEDINF-L
MEDLIB-L MEDLIB-L@UBVM Medical Libraries Discussion List
MEDNETS MEDNETS@NDSUVM1 MEDNETS Medical telecommunications Net
MEDNEWS MEDNEWS@ASUACAD MEDNEWS - Health Info-Com Network News
MEDSEA-L MEDSEA-L@AEARN Marine Biology of the Adriatic Sea
MEDSTU-L MEDSTU-L@UNMVMA Medical student discussion list
OXYGEN-L OXYGEN-L@MIZZOU1 Oxygen Free Radical Biology and Medicine
PANET-L PANET-L@YALEVM Medical Education and Health Information
PHARMEX PHARMEX-REQUEST@LEICESTER-POLY.AC.UK Pharmacy List
PRION PRION-REQUEST@ACC.STOLAF.EDU Prion/Slow Virus Infection
SMDM-L SMDM-L@DARTCMS1 Medical Decision Making List
TECNOMED TECNOMED@ICNUCEVM TECNOMED Database list
TELEMED TELEMED@FRMOP11 Network for the TELEMED project
THPHYSIO THPHYSIO-L@FRMOP11 Thermal Physiology
VETCAI-L VETCAI-L@KSUVM VETERINARY MEDICINE COMPUTER ASSISTED
VETLIB-L VETLIB-L@VTVM2 Veterinary Medicine Library issues
VETMED-L VETMED-L@UGA (Peered) Veterinary Medicine
VETMED-L@VTVM2 (Peered) Veterinary Medicine
WHSCAB-L WHSCAB-L@EMUVM1 Medical Administration network
WITSENDO WITSENDO-L@DARTCMS1.BITNET Endometriosis
WU-AIDS AIDS@WUVMD Sci.Med.AIDS Newsgroup
METEOROLOGY
WX-TALK WX-TALK-L@UIUCVMD Weather News
WX-SPOT WX-SPOT-L@UIUCVMD Storm Spotting
PHILOSOPHY
ANIMAL-RIGHTS Animal-Rights-Request@XANTH.CS.ODU.EDU Animal
Rights/Ethics
AYN-RAND AYN-RAND@IUBVM (Moderated) Objectivist Philosophy
BIOMED-L BIOMED-L@NDSUVM1 Biomedical Ethics
BIOSPH-L BIOSPH-L@UBVM.BITNET Biosphere, Pollution, Ecology
ETHICS-L ETHICS-L@MARIST.BITNET Ethics in Computing
FEMSEM FEMSEM@SBCCVM Stony Brook Feminist Philosophy
HPSST-L HPSST-L@QUCDN History and Philosophy of Science
INTUDM-L INTUDM-L@UTEPA.BITNET Intuition in Decision Making
LITSCI-L LITSCI-L@UIUCVMD Soc. Literature/Science-Philosophy
NSP-L NSP-L@RPIECS Noble Savage Philosphers mailing list
PHILCOMM PHILCOMM@RPIECS Philosophy of Communication
PHILOS-L PHILOS-L@LIVERPOOL.IBM Philosophy in UK.
PHILOSOP PHILOSOP@YORKVM1 Philosophy Discussion Forum
PHILRELSOC PHILRELSOC@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Philosophy/Religion/Sociology
SWIP-L SWIP-L@CFRVM Society for Women in Philosophy
TIPS TIPS-L@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU Teaching in Psychology
PHYSICS
ALPHA-L ALPHA-L@LEPICS L3 Alpha physics block analysis diagram
ASTRO-PL ASTRO-PL@JPNYITP Preprint server for Astrophysics
FUSION FUSION@NDSUVM1 Fusion - sci.physics.fusion
OPTICS-L OPTICS-L%ILNCRD.BITNET.CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Israel Optics/Laser
OPTICS OPTICS@TOWSONVX Optical Research
PHYS-L PHYS-L@UWF Forum for Physics Teachers
PHYS-STU PHYS-STU@UWF Physics Student Discussion List
PHYSHARE PHYSHARE@PSUVM Sharing resources: high school physics
PHYSIC-L PHYSIC-L@TAUNIVM Physics List
PHYSICS PHYSICS@MARIST (Peered) Physics Discussion
PHYSICS@RICEVM1 (Peered) Physics Discussion
PHYSICS@UBVM (Peered) Physics Discussion
PHYSICS PHYSICS@UNIX.SRI.COM Physics discussion list
PHYSJOB PHYSJOB@WAYNEST1 Physics Jobs Discussion List
POLYMERP POLYMERP@HEARN (Peered) Polymer Physics discussions
POLYMERP@RUTVM1 (Peered) Polymer Physics discussions
SPACE SPACE-L@UGA Space News
SPACE-IL SPACE-IL-L@TAUNIVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Israel SpaceNews
SUP-COND SUPCOND-L@TAUNIVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Superconductivity
WKSPHYS WKSPHYS@IDBSU WKSPHYS@IDBSU - WORKSHOP PHYSICS LIST
PSYCHOLOGY
APASD-L APASD-L@VTVM2 APA Research Psychology Network
APSSCNET APSSCNET@MCGILL1 American Psychological Society Students
IAPSY-L IAPSY-L@ALBNYVM1 Interamerican Psychologists (SIPNET)
IOOB-L IOOB-L@UGA Industrial Psychology
IOOBF-L IOOBF-L@UGA Industrial Psychology Forum
MPSYCH-L MPSYCH-L@BROWNVM Society for Mathematical Psychology
PSI-L PSI-L@RPIECS Parapsychology Discussion Forum
PSYC PSYC@PUCC PSYCOLOQUY: Refereed Electronic Journal
PSYCGRAD PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA Psychology Graduate Students
PSYCH-L PSYCH-L@EMUVM1 Psychology Building Renovation Project
PSYCH-L@UOTTAWA UOTTAWA chool of Psychology
PSYGRD-D PSYGRD-D@UOTTAWA The PSYCGRAD Digest
PSYSTS-L PSYSTS-L@MIZZOU1 Psychology Statistics Discussion
SPORTPSY SPORTPSY@TEMPLEVM Exercise and Sports Psychology
SCIENCE-GENERAL
ALLIANCE ALLIANCE@NCSUVM North Carolina Science & Math. Alliance
ASCD-SCI ASCD-SCI@PSUVM Alliance for Teaching of Science
BIOMCH-L BIOMCH-L@HEARN Biomechanics and Movement Science
C-ALERTL C-ALERTL@JPNYITP CONTENTS-Alert by Elsevier Science Pub.
CCS CCS@UKCC Center for Computational Sciences
COGSCI-L COGSCI-L@MCGILL1 COGNITIVE SCIENCE CENTRE
CSEMLIST CSEMLIST@HASARA11 List of Society of Computer Science
EMFLDS-L EMFLDS-L@UBVM Electromagnetics in Medicine & Science
FAMLYSCI FAMLYSCI@UKCC Family Science Network
GEONET-L GEONET-L@IUBVM GEONET-L Geoscience Librarians
GLSWICHE GLSWICHE@ARIZVM1 Library Science Conference
HIT HIT@UFRJ Highly Imaginative Tech and Science
HPSST-L HPSST-L@QUCDN History and Philosophy of Science
LIBRES LIBRES@KENTVM Library and Information Science
LITSCI-L LITSCI-L@UIUCVMD Society for Literature and Science
METHO METHO@UQUEBEC Methodologie quantitative, science
sociales
MGSFAC MGSFAC@UBVM UB Management Science Faculty List
MGSGRAD MGSGRAD@UBVM UB Management Science Grad Students
MGSNEWS MGSNEWS@UBVM UB Management Science Discussion List
NCPRSE-L NCPRSE-L@ECUVM1 Reform discussion list for Science Ed.
NEUCHILE NEUCHILE@CUNYVM NEUCHILE: Chilean Neuroscience
NEURO1-L NEURO1-L@UICVM Neuroscience Information Forum
NEUS582 NEUS582@UICVM Methods in Modern Neuroscience
ORCS-L ORCS-L@OSUVM1 Operations Research/Computer Science
POLCAN POLCAN@YORKVM1 POLCAN Canadian Political Science
POLI-SCI POLI-SCI@RUTVM1 Political Science Digest
PSRT-L PSRT-L@MIZZOU1 Political Science Research & Teaching
QUALRS-L QUALRS-L@UGA Qualitative Research for Human Sciences
RQSS RQSS@UQUEBEC Regroupement quebecois des sci. soc.
SAIS-L SAIS-L@UNBVM1 Science Awareness and Promotion
SCIFRAUD SCIFRAUD@ALBNYVM1 Discussion of Fraud in Science
SCIMAT-L SCIMAT-L@UAFSYSB Arkansas Science and Math Education
SCIMIN SCIMIN@MCGILL1 Minutes for Faculty of Science
SCSE SCSE@UQUEBEC Societe canadienne de science economique
SOS-DATA SOS-DATA@UNCVM1 Social Science Data List.
SQSP SQSP@UQUEBEC Societe quebecoise de science politique
SRSA-L SRSA-L@WVNVM Southern Regional Science Association
STAT-GEO STAT-GEO@UFRJ Forum of Quantitative Methods, Geosci.
SYSCI-L SYSCI-L@UOTTAWA System Science Discussion List
THEORYNT@UICVM Computer Science Theory Net
TURKSCI TURKSCI@TRITU Turkish Science and Technology Policy
T321-L T321-L@MIZZOU1 Teaching Science in Elementary Schools
USTC85-L USTC85-L@RICEVM1 Discussion for Univ of Science & Tech.
UVHINF-L UVHINF-L@UVVM UVic Health Info Science Bulletins
WISENET WISENET@UICVM Women In Science and Engineering NET
WVNCSF-L WVNCSF-L@WVNVM WVNET Computer Science Faculty List
XXI XXI@UCHCECVM XXI Ciencia & Tecnologia.
TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING:
AERONAUTICS AERONAUTICS@RASCAL.ICS.UTEXAS.EDU Aeronautics/Aviation
AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT@GREARN.BITNET Old and New Aircraft
AISTFTBM AISTFTBM@CUVMC AIS Task Force Technology Business
ARMS-L ARMS-L@BUACCA.BU.EDU Peace, War, Arms Control
BIOTECH BIOTECH@UMDD Biotechnology Discussion List
CAAH CAAH@PUCC Art and Architectural History
CATV CATV-REQUEST@QUACK.SAC.CA.US Cable TV Technology, History
CIT$P CIT$P@PLEARN Cracow Institute of Technology private
CIT$W CIT$W@PLEARN Cracow Institute of Technology open
DEVEL-L DEVEL-L@AUVM Technology Transfer
EDTECH EDTECH@OHSTVMA EDTECH: Educational Technology
EEC-L EEC-L@AUVM European Training and Technology List
EUITLIST EUITLIST@BITNIC Educational Uses of Information Tech.
FACT-L FACT-L@UBVM SUNY Faculty Access to Computing Tech.
FACTCOM FACTCOM@UBVM SUNY Faculty Access to Computing Tech.
HIT HIT@UFRJ Highly Imaginative (SF) Technology
HOMESAT HOMESAT@NDSUVM1 HOMESAT - Home Satellite Technology
INTECH-L INTECH-L@ULKYVM Instructional Technology Discussion
IPCT-L IPCT-L@GUVM Interpersonal Computing and Technology
JTE-L JTE-L@VTVM1 Journal of Technology Education
L-HCAP L-HCAP@NDSUVM1 Technology for Disabled
LLTI LLTI@DARTCMS1 Language Learning and Technology Int.
MILITARY MILITARY@ATT.ATT.COM Military Technology
NOVOPS NOVOPS@SUVM Novell Technology Operations List
NOVTTP NOVTTP@SUVM Novell Technology Transfer Partners
PHOTO-L PHOTO-L@BUACCA Photographic technology
PINHOLE PINHOLE-REQUEST@MINTIR.FIDONET.ORG Pinhole photography
SCAPCOM SCAPCOM@UBVM SUNY Student Access to Computing Tech.
SCUBA-L SCUBA-L@BROWNVM.BITNET Scuba Diving & its History
SHOTHC-L SHOTHC-L@SIVM Society for History of Technology
TECHNO-L TECHNO-L@MITVMA Issues In Technology Licensing
TURKSCI TURKSCI@TRITU Turkish Science and Technology Policy
USTC85-L USTC85-L@RICEVM1 Discussion for Univ of Science & Tech.
UTS-ITC UTS-ITC@UTXVM UT System Information Technology Council
WMTS-L WMTS-L@WMVM1 William and Mary Technology Support
WVUVTC-L WVUVTC-L@WVNVM WVU Video Technology Coordinating
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using "Newsgroups" through BITNET/INTERNET
By Julian A. Smith
May 30, 1993.
Newgroups are an enjoyable "sideline" to the historian's use of the
INTERNET for scholarly and academic purposes. Newgroups are essentially
informal conferences for discussion or debate, rather like LISTSERV news
or letter groups, but much less predictable. There are hundreds of
newsgroups, each one devoted to a specific topic; you can join
newsgroups ranging through history, philosophy and the sciences, all
the way to Star Trek, Elvis Presley and Ham Radio. Whatever your
interest, you are likely to find a newgroup somewhere on the INTERNET
that deals with it. Some are moderated, but most are not; and this lack
of central control leads to a surprisingly diverse range of discussion.
Newsgroups are useful for several reasons. To begin with, they are an
excellent resource for students with questions on specific topics. If, for
example, you want to know about available materials for a particular
research project, chances are good that there is a newsgroup with some
"resident experts" in that area. Secondly, technical questions about
various computer tools of interest to historians, as well as questions
on software or hardware problems, may be directed to one of the numerous
computer newsgroups; no matter what your problem, there is likely another
computer user on the INTERNET familiar with it. Thirdly, newsgroups often
announce new employment opportunities, available jobs, upcoming
conferences, calls for papers, journal announcements, and other news of
professional interest. Finally, newsgroups are often just plain fun!
Newsgroups are open to any BITNET/INTERNET user;and their content depends
largely upon the fluid mixture of subscribers from day to day. Some
"peered" or "moderated" newsgroups are quite formal and academic in tone;
for others, it's "anything goes!"
How does one join a newsgroup? Procedures vary from university to
university; but the method at the University of Toronto's EPAS system is a
typical one (check your local systems administrator for local variants).
At the UNIX % prompt, simply type "rn" and return to "read news". The
system will tell you to "get" or "subscribe" to a newsgroup by entering the
command: g. So, for example, if you wished to join the
"bit.listserv.history" newsgroup, you would type "gbit.listserv.history".
So how do you find out what newsgroups are available? The easiest
way is just to type in that letter "g", but without a particular request;
a complete list of all newsgroups will then be returned to you. Be
warned; the print-out of this list occupies over 50 pages! While
scrolling through this, it is easy to find out if it contains a particular
topic of interest; simply use the standard search character "/". So, for
instance, if you wanted to find all "radio" newsgroups, just type
"/radio", and the current radio newsgroups will be shown.
Let's suppose that you have found the newsgroups you want, and have
subscribed to them using that "get" command. When you enter "rn" at the
UNIX % prompt, you will see a screen looking somewhat like this:
Unread news in rec.radio.info 17 articles
Unread news in bit.listserv.history 12 articles
Unread news in sci.astro 23 articles
Unread news in epas.phil.general 2 articles
Unread news in bit.listserv.ethics-l 8 articles
etc.
******** 17 unread articles in rec.radio.info--read now? [ynq]
You have several choices at this point. If you say q (quit), you will
leave the newsgroup program, and be returned to the UNIX % prompt. If you
say n (no), you will be sent to the next newsgroup in your subscription
list (in our example above, this would be bit.listserv.history). But if
you say y (yes), you will begin to scroll, one by one, through those 17
unread messages. You can also get (or subscribe to) a new newsgroup at
this point, by entering the familiar "g" command; for instance, the command
ginfo-academic.freedom would add that newsgroup to your list. Once you say
yes, you will begin to read these 17 messages. The "message header" at the
top of the screen will tell you where the post came from, who sent it, and
when it was sent, along with subject headings and other pertinent
information. It will also show you as much of the text of the message
as your screen permits. The spacebar will continue the message, giving
you the following screen; but if you enter a "n" (for next), you will
immediately advance to the subsequent post (this allows you to skip over
irrelevant or uninteresting messages). All messages are numbered...by
the end of the post, you should see a line that looks somewhat like this:
End of article 5683 (of 5687)---what next? [npq]
As you would expect, "n" gives you the next message (5684), and "p" gives
you the previous one (what you have already seen). The "q" (quit) command
moves you to the next newsgroup (in our example, bit.listserv.history).
If you wish, you can also jump forward or backward to a particular
message; just enter the number of the message you want. If you read
a particularly important or memorable article, it can also be saved into a
file; simply enter "s" (save) at the prompt. The newsgroup program
will save that message into a default file, but you can enter any filename
you wish.
As newsgroups transfer an enormous amount of mail, it may sometimes
turn out that you simply do not have time to read them all; if so, you
can always mark all the messages as "read" by using the "c" (catch-up)
command at the "what next? [npq]" prompt. If you enter "c" at this
place, you will receive the following instruction:
Do you really want to mark everything as read? [yn]
If you say "n" (no), you will be returned back to your familiar "what
next? [npq]" prompt. But if you say "y" (yes), all the letters (up to
5687) will be marked as "read", and you will be instantly marked as
being "up-to-date"; in other words, when you log in and read news again, it
will start at 5687 and beyond.
If you are ever away from your electronic mail account for an extended
period (say, a vacation), it is strongly recommended that you "turn
off" your newsgroups; otherwise, your newsgroup box will be flooded with
a veritable torrent of articles. This is done simply by using the "u"
(unsubscribe) command. If you enter this command at the "what next? [npq]"
prompt, you will be "unsubscribed" from this newsgroup; you will not see
it in your list of newsgroups anymore, and will have to get (or
subscribe) to it to receive mail from it again.
After reading the newsgroup's articles for a few days, you may decide
you want to contribute something yourself. So let us suppose you have
read an article by John Smith, requesting information on Ptolemaic
astronomy. There are two ways to answer this posting; you can either send
a private reply directly to John Smith, or you can post a public reply to
all the readers of that newsgroup. To post a private reply, enter "r"; for
a public forwarding of information, enter "f". Both choices will take you
into a text editor, not unlike the standard E-Mail text editor, where you
can write your answer to Smith's message. You will be asked if you have a
"prepared file to include" with your message; the program basically wants
to know if you have an already-prepared letter to add to your reply,
and if so, you can enter its filename here.
The E-mail text editor works precisely like the elm mail editor most of
us are used to; you may write your comments exactly as you would in any
word processing program; F3 saves your work, and gives you the choice of
sending ("s"), copying ("c") or aborting (forgetting, "f") your work. If
you are satisfied with your answer to John Smith, just enter "s" at this
point, and you will have made your first contribution to the newsgroup.
This all sounds rather complex, but it is actually fairly simple.
If you ever get stuck, you can always enter a "h" (help) at any newsgroup
prompt; that will give you a complete list of commands (much more
extensive than the restricted list of options described here).
Although newsgroups are in a continual state of flux, the following
is a partial list of newsgroups of potential interest to historians and
philosophers of science and technology. Our listing is arranged by
subject heading, but will soon be out of date; newsgroups start up and shut
down all the time. You can see if your system supports a newsgroup in your
own particular field of interest by using the "l" or "list" command. To
use this, simply type "l" at the "what next? [npq]" prompt. For example,
if I wanted all the newsgroups dealing with the subject of radio, I would
enter "lradio"; I would then be given a list of all the radio newsgroups
then available. Good luck in your own choices, and happy INTERNET
travelling!
TOPIC NEWSGROUP(S)
ACADEMIC FREEDOM: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
alt.freedom.of.information.act
info.academic-freedom
ANTHROPOLOGY: sci.anthropology
ARCHAEOLOGY: sci.archaeology
ARCHITECTURE: alt.architecture
ASTROLOGY: alt.astrology
ASTRONOMY: alt.sci.astro.aips
alt.sci.astro.figaro
alt.sci.astro.fits
alt.sci.planetary
manawatu.astronomy
sci.astr
sci.astro.fits
sci.astro.hubble
talk.politics.space
sci.space
sci.space.news
sci.space.shuttle
AUTOMOBILES: alt.autos.antique
alt.autos.rod-n-custom
rec.autos
rec.autos.antique
rec.autos.driving
rec.autos.sport
rec.autos.tech
rec.autos.vw
AVIATION: rec.aviation
rec.aviation.announce
rec.aviation.answers
rec.aviation.homebuilt
rec.aviation.ifr
rec.aviation.military
rec.aviation.misc
rec.aviation.owning
rec.aviation.piloting
rec.aviation.products
rec.aviation.simulators
rec.aviation.soaring
rec.aviation.stories
rec.aviation.student
sci.aeronautics
sci.aeronautics.airliners
BIOLOGY: bionet.agroforestry
bionet.announce
bionet.biology.computational
bionet.biology.tropical
bionet.general
bionet.genome.arabidopsis
bionet.genome.chrom22
bionet.immunology
bionet.info-theory
bionet.jobs
bionet.journals.contents
bionet.journals.note
bionet.molbio.aging
bionet.molbio.bio-matrix
bionet.molbio.embldatabank
bionet.molbio.evolution
bionet.molbio.gdb
bionet.molbio.genbank
bionet.molbio.genbank.updates
bionet.molbio.gene-linkage
bionet.molbio.gene-org
bionet.molbio.genome-program
bionet.molbio.hiv
bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts
bionet.molbio.proteins
bionet.neuroscience
bionet.plants
bionet.population.bio
bionet.sci-resources
bionet.software
bionet.software.sources
bionet.users.addresses
bionet.women-in-bio
bionet.xtallography
bit.listserv.biosph-l
sci.bio
sci.bio.technology
talk.environment
sci.environment
alt.sustainable.agriculture
BOOKS: alt.books.reviews
alt.books.technical
biz.books.technical
misc.books.technical
bit.listserv.literary
bit.listserv.gutnberg
CHEMISTRY: sci.chem
sci.chem.organomet
COMPUTERS: alt.cyb-sys
alt.cyberpunk
alt.cyberpunk.chatubo
alt.cyberpunk.movement
alt.cyberpunk.tech
alt.cyberspace
alt.lang.apl
alt.lang.asm
alt.lang.awk
alt.lang.basic
alt.lang.cfutures
alt.lang.intercal
alt.lang.ml
alt.lang.sas
alt.lang.teco
comp.admin.policy
comp.ai
comp.ai.edu
comp.ai.fuzzy
comp.ai.genetic
comp.ai.neural-nets
comp.ai.nlang-know-rep
comp.ai.philosophy
comp.ai.shells
comp.ai.vision
comp.answers
comp.aps.spreadsheets
comp.arch
comp.arch.bus.vmebus
comp.arch.storage
comp.archives
comp.archives.admin
comp.archives.msdos.announce
comp.bbs.misc
comp.bbs.waffle
comp.benchmarks
comp.binaries.acorn
comp.binaries.amiga
comp.binaries.apple2
comp.binaries.atari.st
comp.binaries.ibm.pc
comp.binaries.ibm.pc.archives
comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted
comp.binaries.mac
comp.binaries.ms-windows
comp.binaries.os2
comp.bugs.2bsd
comp.bugs.4bsd
comp.bugs.4bsd.ucb-fixes
comp.bugs.misc
comp.bugs.sys5
comp.cad.cadence
comp.client-server
comp.cog-eng
comp.compilers
comp.compression
comp.compression.research
comp.databases
comp.databases.informix
comp.databases.ingrex
comp.databases.oracle
comp.databases.sybase
comp.databases.theory
comp.dcom.cell-relay
comp.dcom.fax
comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
comp.dcom.lans.fddi
comp.dcom.lans.hyperchannel
comp.dcom.lans.misc
comp.dcom.lans.v21ni
comp.dcom.modems
comp.dcom.servers
comp.dcom.sys.cisco
comp.dcom.sys.wellfleet
comp.dcom.telecom
comp.dcom.telecom.digest
comp.doc
comp.doc.techreports
comp.dsp
comp.editors
comp.edu
comp.edu.composition
comp.emacs
comp.fonts
comp.graphics
comp.graphics.animation
comp.graphics.avs
comp.graphics.digest
comp.graphics.explorer
comp.graphics.gnuplot
comp.graphics.opengl
comp.graphics.research
comp.graphics.visualization
comp.groupware
comp.human-factors
comp.hypercube
comp.infosystems
comp.infosystems.gis
comp.infosystems.gopher
comp.infosystems.wais
comp.internet.library
comp.ivideodisc
comp.lang.ada
comp.lang.apl
comp.lang.asm370
comp.lang.c
comp.lang.c++
comp.lang.clos
comp.lang.clu
comp.lang.crass
comp.lang.dylan
comp.lang.eiffel
comp.lang.forth
comp.lang.forth.mac
comp.lang.fortran
comp.lang.functional
comp.lang.hermes
comp.lang.icon
comp.lang.idl
comp.lang.idl-pwave
comp.lang.lisp
comp.lang.lisp.franz
comp.lang.lisp.mcl
comp.lang.lisp.x
comp.lang.logo
comp.lang.misc
comp.lang.modula2
comp.lang.modula3
comp.lang.objective-c
comp.lang.pascal
comp.lang.perl
comp.lang.pop
comp.lang.postscript
comp.lang.prolog
comp.lang.rexx
comp.lang.scheme
comp.lang.scheme.c
comp.lang.sigplan
comp.lang.smalltalk
comp.lang.tcl
comp.lang.verilog
comp.lang.vhdl
comp.lang.visual
comp.laser-printers
comp.lsi
comp.lsi.cad
comp.lsi.testing
comp.mail
comp.mail.elm
comp.mail.headers
comp.mail.maps
comp.mail.mh
comp.mail.mime
comp.mail.misc
comp.mail.multi-media
comp.mail.mush
comp.mail.sendmail
comp.mail.uucp
comp.misc
comp.multimedia
comp.music
comp.networks.noctools.announce
comp.networks.noctools.bugs
comp.networks.noctools.d
comp.networks.noctools.submissions
comp.networks.noctools.tools
comp.newtorks.noctools.wanted
comp.newprod
comp.next.misc
comp.object
comp.org.acm
comp.org.decus
comp.org.eff.news
comp.org.eff.talk
comp.org.fidonet
comp.org.ieee
comp.org.isoc.interest
comp.org.issnnet
comp.org.sug
comp.org.uniform
comp.org.usenix
comp.org.usenix.roomshare
comp.org.usrgroup
comp.os.aos
comp.os.coherent
comp.os.cpm
comp.os.cpm.amethyst
comp.os.eunice
comp.os.linux
comp.os.linux.announce
comp.os.mach
comp.os.minix
comp.os.misc
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
comp.os.ms-windows.announce
comp.os.ms-windows.apps
comp.os.ms-windows.misc
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
comp.os.ms-windows.setup
comp.os.msdos.4dos
comp.os.msdos.apps
comp.os.msdos.desqview
comp.os.msdos.misc
comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
comp.os.msdos.programmer
comp.os.os2
comp.os.os2.advocacy
comp.os.os2.apps
comp.os.os2.misc
comp.os.os2.networking
comp.os.os2.programming
comp.os.os9
comp.os.research
comp.os.rsts
comp.os.v
comp.os.vms
comp.os.vxworks
comp.os.xinu
comp.parallel
comp.patents
comp.periphers
comp.periphs.printers
comp.privacy
comp.programming
comp.protocols.appletalk
comp.protocols.ibm
comp.protocols.iso
comp.protocols.iso.dev-environ
comp.protocols.iso.x400
comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
comp.protocols.kerberos
comp.protocols.kermit
comp.protocols.misc
comp.protocols.nfs
comp.protocols.pcnet
comp.protocols.ppp
comp.protocols.pup
comp.protocols.snmp
comp.protocols.tcp-ip
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
comp.protocols.time.ntp
comp.realtime
comp.research.japan
comp.risks
comp.robotics
comp.security.announce
comp.simulation
comp.society
comp.society.cu-digest
comp.society.development
comp.society.folklore
comp.society.futures
comp.society.privacy
comp.society.women
comp.soft-sys.andrew
comp.soft-sys.khoros
comp.soft-sys.matlab
comp.soft-sys.nextstep
comp.software.eng
comp.software.licensing
comp.sources.3bl
comp.sources.acorn
comp.sources.amiga
comp.sources.apple2
comp.sources.atari.st
comp.sources.bugs
comp.sources.d
comp.sources.games
comp.sources.games.bugs
comp.sources.hp48
comp.sources.mac
comp.sources.misc
comp.sources.reviewed
comp.sources.sun
comp.sources.testers
comp.sources.unix
comp.sources.wanted
comp.sources.x
comp.specification
comp.specification.z
comp.speech
comp.std.announce
comp.std.c
comp.std.c++
comp.std.internat
comp.std.misc
comp.std.mumps
comp.std.unix
comp.sw.components
comp.sys.3b1
comp.sys.acorn
comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
comp.sys.acorn.announce
comp.sys.acorn.tech
comp.sys.alliant
comp.sys.amiga
comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
comp.sys.amiga.announce
comp.sys.amiga.applications
comp.sys.amiga.audio
comp.sys.amiga.datacom
comp.sys.amiga.emulations
comp.sys.amiga.games
comp.sys.amiga.graphics
comp.sys.amiga.hardware
comp.sys.amiga.introduction
comp.sys.amiga.marketplace
comp.sys.amiga.misc
comp.sys.amiga.multimedia
comp.sys.amiga.programmer
comp.sys.amiga.reviews
comp.sys.amiga.tech
comp.sys.apollo
comp.sys.apple
comp.sys.apple2
comp.sys.apple2.gno
comp.sys.atari.8bit
comp.sys.atari.st
comp.sys.atari.st.tech
comp.sys.att
comp.sys.cbm
comp.sys.cdc
comp.sys.celerity
comp.sys.concurrent
comp.sys.convex
comp.sys.dec
comp.sys.dec.micro
comp.sys.encore
comp.sys.handhelds
comp.sys.hp
comp.sys.hp48
comp.sys.ibm.pc
comp.sys.ibm.pc.digest
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt
comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard
comp.sys.ibm.pc.ps2
comp.sys.ibm.pc.ps2.hardware
comp.sys.intelintergraph
comp.sys.isis
comp.sys.laptops
comp.sys.m6809
comp.sys.m68k
comp.sys.m68k.pc
comp.sys.m88k
comp.sys.mac
comp.sys.mac.advocacy
comp.sys.mac.announce
comp.sys.mac.apps
comp.sys.mac.comm
comp.sys.mac.databases
comp.sys.mac.digest
comp.sys.mac.games
comp.sys.mac.hardware
comp.sys.mac.hypercard
comp.sys.mac.misc
comp.sys.mac.oop.macapp3
comp.sys.mac.oop.misc
comp.sys.mac.programmer
comp.sys.mac.system
comp.sys.mac.wanted
comp.sys.masscomp
comp.sys.mentor
comp.sys.mips
comp.sys.misc
comp.sys.ncr
comp.sys.next
comp.sys.next.advocacy
comp.sys.next.announce
comp.sys.next.bugs
comp.sys.next.hardware
comp.sys.next.marketplace
comp.sys.mext.misc
comp.sys.next.programmer
comp.sys.next.software
comp.sys.next.sysadmin
comp.sys.novell
comp.sys.nsc.32k
comp.sys.palmtops
comp.sys.pen
comp.sys.prime
comp.sys.proteon
comp.sys.pyramid
comp.sys.ridge
comp.sys.sequent
comp.sys.sgi
comp.sys.sgi.admin
comp.sys.sgi.announce
comp.sys.sgi.apps
comp.sys.sgi.bugs
comp.sys.sgi.graphics
comp.sys.sgi.hardware
comp.sys.sgi.misc
comp.sys.stratus
comp.sys.sun.admin
comp.sys.sun.announce
comp.sys.sun.apps
comp.sys.sun.hardware
comp.sys.sun.misc
comp.sys.sun.wanted
comp.sys.super
comp.sys.tahoe
comp.sys.tandy
comp.sys.ti
comp.sys.ti.explorer
comp.sys.ti.geneve
comp.sys.transputer
comp.sys.unisys
comp.sys.workstations
comp.sys.xerox
comp.sys.zenith
comp.sys.zenith.z100
comp.terminals
comp.terminals.tty5620
comp.text
comp.text.desktop
comp.text.frame
comp.text.interleaf
comp.text.sgml
comp.text.tech
comp.theory
comp.theory.cell-automata
comp.theory.dynamic-sys
comp.theory.info-retrieval
comp.theory.self-org-sys
comp.unix
comp.unix.admin
comp.unix.aix
comp.unix.amiga
comp.unix.aux
comp.unix.bsd
comp.unix.cray
comp.unix.dos-under-unix
comp.unix.internals
comp.unix.large
comp.unix.misc
comp.unix.msdos
comp.unix.osf.misc
comp.unix.osf.osf1
comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit
comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
comp.unix.programmer
comp.unix.questions
comp.unix.shell
comp.unix.solaris
comp.unix.sys3
comp.unix.sys5.misc
comp.unix.sys5.r3
comp.unix.sys5.r4
comp.unix.sysv286
comp.unix.sysv386
comp.unix.ultrix
comp.unix.wizards
comp.unix.xenix.misc
comp.unix.xenix.sco
comp.virus
comp.windows.garnet
comp.windows.interviews
comp.windows.misc
comp.windows.ms
comp.windows.ms.programmer
comp.windows.news
comp.windows.open-look
comp.windows.x
comp.windows.x.announce
comp.windows.x.apps
comp.windows.x.386unix
comp.windows.x.intrinsics
comp.windows.x.motif
comp.windows.x.pex
unix-pc.bugs
unix-pc.general
unix-pc.sources
de.comp.gatebau
de.comp.gateways
de.comp.ham
de.comp.internet
de.comp.misc
de.comp.databases
de.comp.gnu
de.comp.graphik
de.comp.os.minix
de.comp.os.misc
de.comp.os.os9
de.comp.os.unix
de.comp.os.vms
de.comp.os.xenix
de.comp.security
de.comp.sources.amiga
de.comp.sources.d
de.comp.sources.misc
de.comp.sources.os9
de.comp.sources.st
de.comp.sources.unix
de.comp.sys.amiga
de.comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
de.comp.sys.apple
de.comp.sys.ibm
de.comp.sys.misc
de.comp.sys.pcs
de.comp.sys.st
de.comp.tex
CONSCIOUSNESS: alt.consciousness
EDUCATION: alt.education.disabled
alt.education.distance
bit.listserv.edstat-l
bit.listserv.edtech
bit.listserv.edusig-l
comp.edu
comp.edu.composition
ENGINEERING: comp.org.ieee
ieee.announce
ieee.config
ieee.general
ieee.pcnfs
ieee.rab.announce
ieee.rab.general
ieee.region1
ieee.tab.announce
ieee.tab.general
ieee.tcos
ieee.usab.announce
ieee.usab.general
sci.engr
sci.engr.biomed
sci.engr.chem
sci.engr.civil
sci.engr.control
sci.engr.mech
sci.materials
FEMINISM: comp.society.women
alt.feminism
bionet.omen-in-bio
soc.feminism
soc.woman
soc.women
GEOLOGY: sci.geo.geology
sci.geo.fluids
sci.geo.meteorology
ky.weather
GREEK: bit.listserv.hellas
HISTORY: bit.listserv.history
soc.history
MATHEMATICS: sci.fractals
sci.logic
sci.math
sci.math.num-analysis
sci.math.research
sci.math.stat
sci.math.symbolic
MEDICINE: bit.listserv.medlib-l
bit.listserv.mednews
talk.politics.medicine
sci.med
sci.med.aids
sci.med.dentistry
sci.med.nutrition
sci.med.occupational
sci.med.physics
MEDIEVAL: alt.heraldry.sca
rec.heraldry
MILITARY: alt.military.cadet
sci.military
MYTHOLOGY: alt.mythology
PHILOSOPHY: alt.philosophy.objectivism
bit.listserv.ethics-l
epas.phil.general
epas.phil.grads
epas.phil.test
talk.philosophy.misc
sci.philosophy.meta
sci.philosophy.tech
sci.skeptic
comp.ai.philosophy
PHOTOGRAPHY: rec.photo
de.alt.foto
de.alt.fotografie
PHYSICS: alt.sci.physics.acoustics
alt.sci.physics.new-theories
list.phys-l
ca.earthquakes
sci.chaos
sci.electronics
sci.energy
sci.med.physics
sci.nanotech
sci.optics
sci.physics
sci.physics.fusion
PSYCHOLOGY: sci.psychology
sci.psychology.digest
alt.psychology.personality
alt.psychoactives
uw.psychology
bit.listserv.psychgrad
PUGWASH: alt.org.pugwash
alt.pugwash
RADIO: alt.radio.pirate
alt.radio.scanner
rec.radio.amateur.misc
rec.radio.amateur.packet
rec.radio.amateur.policy
rec.radio.broadcasting
rec.radio.cb
rec.radio.info
rec.radio.noncomm
rec.radio.swap
de.comp.ham
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+------------------+
| Book Reviews |
+------------------+
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storms of Controversy: The Secret Avro Arrow Files Revealed
by Palmiro Campagna
On February 20, 1959, the newly elected Conservative government of Prime
Minister John George Diefenbaker (1895-1979) cancelled the Avro Arrow, one
of the most unusual aircraft ever built in Canada. Almost overnight an
entire industry was dismantled and exported to the United States and
Europe; over 30,000 people lost their jobs, plans and technical drawings
were shredded, and the five completed Arrows were quickly blowtorched and
sold for scrap. All that remains is a nose cone, now on display in
Ottawa's National Museum of Science and Technology.
The reasons for this abrupt cancellation have fascinated historians ever
since. After all, the Arrow was easily the most advanced fighter aircraft
of its day; many aviation historians considered it to have been at least
ten or twenty years ahead of its time. It was probably the fastest
aircraft yet built (clocked at 1400 mph during test flights with inferior
engines), and it had attracted considerable interest from European military
planners. Moreover, a thriving Canadian aerospace industry had been
assembled around the Avro project; and when it was closed down on the eve
of its greatest triumph, its many technicians, designers and engineers went
on to productive careers with the American NASA program, and other European
aerospace industries.
Historians have blamed the demise of the Arrow on a multitude of reasons.
Some have argued that Diefenbaker himself was primarily responsible, seeing
the Arrow as a Liberal initiative, of benefit only to Central Canada.
Others have suggested economics, claiming that even before the Diefenbaker
landslide of March, 1958, the Liberals were on the verge of cancelling the
Arrow due to its enormous cost overruns. Still others have pointed to the
growing "missile threat"; by 1959, according to this line of reasoning,
American and Soviet ICBMs had already rendered the Avro Arrow obsolete.
Now Canadian Department of National Defense engineer Palmiro Campagna has
developed another theory. Storms of Controversy: The Secret Avro Arrow
Files Revealed (Toronto: Stoddart Publishing, 1992), is based on a series
of newly discovered Avro documents, that weave a complex web of political
intrigues involving Canadian and American governments, military officials,
and intelligence agents. Campagna suggests that the Arrow was sacrified to
appease the three-fold demands of the United States government. To begin
with, Campagna says, the Americans felt that the Arrow represented a threat
to U.S. security. A fast high-altitude interceptor, it was probably the
only aircraft that could shoot down the Americans' top secret U-2 spy
plane. And that plane was vital for US overflights of the largely hidden
Soviet Union.
Secondly, the Arrow contained highly advanced aerospace technology, and
the presence of Soviet spies in Canada led to American fears that sensitive
military data would fall into enemy hands. "It may sound like paranoia",
Campagna admits, "but the country was in the midst of the cold war and the
RCMP was knowingly allowing secrets to pass behind the Americans' back.
Everything, then, would have to be destroyed...in the existing climate of
the day, one simply could not risk having this information fall into the
wrong hands."
Finally, Campagna argues, the high-tech industry surrounding the Arrow
represented a competitive threat to the American aerospace program. North
America simply was not big enough for two aviation industries; and if there
was to be a single aerospace program, it would have to be owned and
controlled by the United States, not Canada.
Storms of Controversy develops these three themes with elegance and
verve. "Dreams" describes the pre-history of the Arrow project: the
successful CF-100 Canuck "Clunk" and the daring CF-102 "Jetliner".
Campagna notes the considerable "U.K. and U.S. Interest" in Avro, then
covers the surprisingly advanced design of the Arrow, noting how elements
of its construction resurfaced in modern American planes like the SR-71
Blackbird and B-2 Stealth Bomber. But the bulk of Campagna's narrative is
devoted to the underlying political developments surrounding the program.
Campagna rejects the anti-Liberal "Diefenbaker emnity" hypothesis; in fact,
he shows the order to reduce the Arrow to scrap originated with Air Staff
Chief Hugh Campbell, not Diefenbaker, and further suggests that Diefenbaker
may not even have seen the order (his argument is weakest here). Campagna
also criticizes the economic arguments against the Arrow, such as those of
John McLin in Canada's Changing Defence Policy, 1957-1963 (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins, 1967). Campagna argues that Canadian Ministers of Defence and
Economics, as well as Chiefs of Staff, unanimously believed the Arrow's
costs were reasonable; and that costs were declining, not rising, as the
Arrow was being produced. He also disputes the official "missile threat"
argument, pointing out that it was advanced only because "the average
Canadian would be unable to dispute it in the absence of any secret
intelligence information." Such information was available, Campagna notes,
but it was ignored.
Campagna concludes with a very interesting collection of 18 myths and
misconceptions about the Arrow, ranging from the popular belief in company
mismanagement to the tantalizing rumour that "One Arrow got away" from the
cutting torch. There is also a useful appendix, consisting of facsimile
reprints of critical documents in Campagna's case. There is no
bibliography, but the notes and index are adequate. Yet the book is
deceptive in one respect; already short (at 202 pages), it is printed with
extremely large type (less than 300 words to the page). It can be read
very quickly, and indeed is more like a lengthy article or monograph than a
full-length book.
Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, often invite skepticism from
their readers; but Campagna's arguments are clearly explained and well
documented. Whether you agree with the more extreme suggestions of Soviet
spies and CIA involvement is not really that important, for Campagna has
certainly given historians a fresh approach to the Avro Arrow problem, and
for that the profession owes him their gratitude.
J.A.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The People's Railway: A History of Canadian National
By Donald MacKay
The development of steam-powered railways revolutionized transportation
in nineteenth century Europe and the United States, but nowhere were their
effects more dramatic than in Canada. An enormous country with poor roads
and frozen waterways five months every year, Canada had much to gain from
railroad construction; and during the century after 1830 her "Railroad
Boom" left the country with more railroad miles per capita than any other
nation in the world. But this flurry of railroad construction exacted a
heavy toll; as Canadian railroad mileage proliferated between 1890-1914, so
did government financial assistance to often-fledgling companies. And when
World War I stopped both the flow of both immigrants and British capital,
Canada's railroads found themselves in desperate financial straits. Prime
Minister Robert Bordon soon called a Royal Commission into the railroads,
which recommended their nationalization in May, 1917; and out of the ashes
of fiscal collapse arose the phoenix of the Canadian National Railroad in
1919, as Canada's first Crown Corporation.
The construction of Canada's first transcontinental railroad line, the
Canadian Pacific, between 1880-1885, has become one of our "national
epics"; and this mammoth undertaking has inspired a host of historians,
ranging from W. K. Lamb and J. Lorne Macdougall to Pierre Berton. But the
history of Canadian Pacific's arch-rival, the Canadian National, has
remained much more obscure. This comparative neglect is partly because CN
was formed out of already existing rail lines; so its history is much more
that of the legislative chamber and the boardroom than the wilderness,
mountains and prairie. But CN's history is no less interesting for its
emphasis on business and finance. CN's history is a tangled story of
continual struggle between political dreams of national development and
economic demands to reduce its enormous inherited debt. And this story has
recently been well told by Montreal historian Donald Mackay (1925-).
Mackay is no stranger to either railroad or economic history. His
earlier work, The Asian Dream: the Pacific Rim and Canada's National
Railway (Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 1986), dramatically interwove the
stories of Canada's Chinese and Japanese immigrant workers alongside
histories of both CN and the Canadian Merchant Marine. Mackay has also
written a good business history of the forestry giant, the MacMillan
Bloedel Company, entitled Empire of Wood (Vancouver: Douglas and McIntryre,
1982), along with several other books on logging and forest management.
And Mackay has recently completed an interesting account of the early
history of the tightly-knit Montreal business community, called The Square
Mile: Merchant Princes of Montreal (Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 1987).
His experience in economic and business history has been put to good use in
his latest book, The People's Railway: A History of Canadian National
(Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 1992).
The People's Railway begins with Mackay's account of "Boom and Bust", the
late 19th century building of a plethora of fiscally-shaky railroads, whose
economic weakness ultimately led to CN's establishment in 1919. Mackay
concentrates primarily on the period after 1920, and this is probably the
book's most significant flaw; a more detailed history of the enormously
complex web of companies that were to amalgamate into Canadian National
would have been most helpful. Readers seeking more information on CN's
"prehistory" should consult the much more detailed Canadian National
Railways, 1-2, by G. R. Stevens (Toronto: Clarke, Irwin and Company, 1960),
which deals with this period in depth.
Mackay does excel, however, in bringing the otherwise dry and dusty
economic history of CN after 1920 to life. He covers the political
machinations of Prime Minister Mackenzie King (1874-1950) and railway
official Henry Thornton (1871-1933) with dramatic flair; and is
particularly impressive in his treatment of CN during the Great Depression
of 1929-39 ("A Colossus Fallen" and "Hard Times") and World War II ("CN at
War"). Mackay takes us behind the scenes, showing us not only the power
struggles of important business executives and political leaders, but also
the day-to-day experiences of the lesser-known members of CN: the
engineers, firemen, brakemen, track workers, and many more. On the way the
reader is favourably impressed with the high standards of comfort on
Canadian trains; on page 73, for example, we read that early CN trains
offered diner and parlour cars, sleepers, buffet cars, solarium cars,
lounges, and coaches. In 1924 the Toronto service stop on the Montreal-
Chicago line lasted a mere 15 minutes, and in 1927 CN could take you from
Montreal to Vancouver in only 4.5 days (those statistics are surprising
even by today's standards). Mackay follows the growth of CN all the way to
the 1970s and 1980s, where successive governments "downsize" and
"privatize" the company to a shadow of its former self.
The People's Railway includes several photographs of CN's innovations,
including the truck "piggyback" service of 1952 and the revolutionary 1969
Turbo; but this is not a technical history. Mackay spends much more time
emphasizing the social, political and economic consequences surrounding
these changes. There are several helpful maps, and the apendices include a
year-by-year chronology of company highlights, a page of company logos and
heralds, and several graphs. There is also a table of Canadian Prime
Ministers alongside their Railway Ministers; but oddly enough, the table
gives the terms of the former, but not the latter (often there are several
Railway Ministers in the course of a single Prime Minister's office).
The People's Railway is a solid, capable history of the Canadian National
Railway Corporation. Admittedly, it is a business history rather than a
history of railway technology, but its continual emphasis on the lives of
CN workers successfully prevents it from becoming dry, tedious or dull.
Statistics are presented, but their appearance is usually low-key.
Documentation is adequate, and all notes are placed at the end to avoid
distraction; unfortunately, the publishers have adopted the modern irritant
of referring to sources by brief quotations rather than footnotes. But all
in all, this is an excellent volume, well supplementing and updating
Stevens' 1960 book, his more recent History of Canadian National Railways
(New York: 1973), or T.D. Regehr's Canadian Northern Railway (Toronto:
1976).
J.A.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Way of Birth
By Jessica Mitford
Thirty years ago, Jessica Mitford published a devastating critique of the
American funeral industry. Entitled The American Way of Death (New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1963), Mitford's controversial bestseller dramatically
exposed the crass cynicism, corrupt business practices and naked avarice
that surrounded much of the American funeral home industry, and made her
famous. Now Mitford has returned with a companion volume, The American Way
of Birth (New York: Dutton, 1992), which promises to be no less explosive.
Mitford examines the social, economic and political issues involved in the
American "birthing industry", and reaches some disturbing conclusions. To
begin with, her comparative study of "champagne birthing suites" for the
well-to-do, and the utter lack of pre-natal care for the poor, lead her to
condemn the modern American health care system as inefficient, ineffective
and discriminatory. Mitford argues that misogyny has coloured physicians'
attitudes to pregnancy and birth, and that women have been cynically
manipulated by the medical profession's obsessive drives for money, power
and control. Finally, she points to a way out of the current morass of
high health care costs and rising infant mortality; a rejection of
technological "birthing fashions" and "caesareans to order", and a return
to qualified female midwives and supervised home births.
Mitford's book is well-written, interesting and capably argued; her
principal contention, that Americans should be allowed to choose their own
methods of giving birth (home versus hospitals, or doctors versus midwives)
seems both reasonable and justified. And Mitford provides enough evidence
of medical and political complicity in restricting patient choice to
justify sweeping reforms in the American health care system. But The
American Way of Birth is not without its flaws. There are four main
problems with the book: the too-frequent replacement of argument and
analysis by irrelevant personal opinion, the parroting of outmoded feminist
rhetoric, the efforts to gain laughs with "humour" of questionable taste,
and her silence on one of the biggest American reproductive "industries" of
all.
Mitford's tendency to inject irrelevant personal experiences and
opinions into everything she studies gives the work a annoyingly subjective
character; at times, they read more like Mitford's diaries than objective
critiques of American business. For example, when she examines the
successful Alabama-based "Gift of Life" program, which supplies superior
hospital and pre-natal care to thousands of poor, black Medicaid patients,
she cannot resist telling us that she almost forgot she was in the "Cradle
of the Confederacy" until she heard "a prototypically racist spiel" from a
pediatric nurse about the pregnant teenagers the program serves (page 90).
Should it really surprise us that some of the people she interviewed
happened to harbour objectionable personal views? I would be more
surprised if they did not! Even by her own admission, the doctors and
nurses of the "Gift of Life" program provide excellent health care to both
black and white patients, and are almost universally supported by community
leaders of both races. So why inject the divisive issue of racism where it
is not relevant?
Another example comes in her discussion of modern birth fashions, where
she writes to economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-) about her upcoming
book, and Galbraith replies that he "had not previously given more than
three minutes' thought" to the subject (page 68). So what? Well, Mitford
goes on to explore why Galbraith had not thought more about it, the
solitary struggles of his wife in labour, and a suggested "reenactment" of
the scene where Galbraith is pulled "off the world stage and into his
wife's delivery chamber." Colorful, yes; but relevant, no!
A second major problem with the text is its knee-jerk use of hackneyed
feminist cliches. While studying the Friedman Curve (a 1978 statistical
analysis of the durations of the various stages of labour by Harvard
Medical School obstetrics professor Emmanuel Friedman), Mitford scathingly
concludes (page 143) that "Only a man could have thought that up!" I had
hoped that modern feminism had progressed further than this sort of gender
stereotyping; indeed, I thought that its entire raison d'etre was to deny
differences in thinking between men and women altogether.
Care for another? Her study of midwives and physicians in Victorian
England (page 37-8) repeats the hoary old feminist myth that the former
were "thoroughly familiar with the ins and outs of the female body", but
the latter "felt woefully inadequate to the task at hand." Her sole
evidence: an 1848 physicians' manual stressing the importance of a
confident and self-assured bedside manner. Are we to believe that male
physicians learned nothing of female anatomy from literally thousands of
patient examinations? Mitford is in deep waters here, but things are much
more complicated during her brief study of the Medieval and Renaissance
periods; one doubts, for example, that childbirth forceps inventors Peter
Chamberlin I, the Elder (1560-1631) and Peter Chamberlin II (1572-1626)
were really nothing more than "grasping tightwads, bent only on their own
enrichment" (page 25) for keeping their creations secret. On the contrary;
virtually all Renaissance scientists and inventors shared this passion for
secrecy to some degree, for varied and complex reasons, including priority
of discovery, insurance against competition, and many more.
A third difficulty with the book is its frequent descent into poor humour
at the expense of good taste. While discussing the Anita Hill-Clarence
Thomas sexual harrassment case, Thomas is reviled as "Long Dong Silver,
with a pubic hair atop his can of coke". Regardless of one's own personal
views on this highly controversial topic, these types of comments are
unnecessary and unprofessional; indeed, they are no better than the gender
stereotyping done by male doctors that Mitford so adamantly condemns. How
about another? While acknowledging the many contributions of her literary
representative, Hollywood lawyer and entertainment writer Renee Wayne
Golden, she jokes that the book may be sold as a Broadway musical comedy,
with titles like "Les Mids? Oh Cal Cut Her! (in which Dr. Cal performs a
caesarean to the background music of 'I've got you under my skin...')?
[or] A Chorus Line (featuring the top brass of the American Medical
association singing "Oh no, You can't take that away from me"). Mitford's
account would be far more compelling and persuasive if it could restrain
itself from such bad taste.
The final problem with The American Way of Birth is its almost complete
silence on the controversial question of birth and abortion. Since the
1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalized abortion on demand in America, almost
20 million unborn (a third of all pregnancies) have been aborted; and
indeed an entire "abortion industry" has been established in the United
States, with its own devotion to profit-seeking, power and the control of
womens' bodies. Ignoring this industry, whose frequently unsafe, unhygenic
and corrupt medical and business practices prove Mitford's arguments of
female exploitation far better than most American hospitals, in surprising;
indeed, the "abortion clinic" poses a greater threat to the mother and
child than any dispute over home versus hospital birthing techniques. And
regardless of one's personal view on this bitterly divisive issue, both
pro-choicers and pro-lifers agree that the exponential growth of abortion
as a common solution to unwanted pregnancy is a sad commentary on American
society. But Mitford's devotion to a particular feminist ideology
prevents her from taking the same hard-nosed, critical view of the abortion
clinic as she does of the hospital delivery room.
Apart from these flaws, however, The American Way of Birth is an
interesting and timely book. Useful appendices give various position
statements on midwives from the California Medical Organization, and the
World Health Organization. There is no bibliography, but the "Source
Notes" at the book's end give enough detail to locate the works cited in
the text (but like so many other recent works, it unfortunately uses page
quotations rather than footnotes to identify materials). Perhaps a
subsequent edition will correct these problems; but even if it does not,
The American Way of Birth is still well worth reading.
J.A.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loss of Eden: A Biography of Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh:
By Joyce Milton
Almost everyone knows the essential facts of U.S. aviator Charles
Augustus Lindbergh's (1902-1974) life. The principal symbol of the early
years of aviation, Lindbergh made the first solo flight (33.5 hours) across
the Atlantic Ocean in his Ryan monoplane, the Spirit of St. Louis. He left
from Roosevelt Field, New York on May 20, 1927, and arrived the following
day at Le Bourget airport near Paris, France to a hero's welcome. Formerly
an obscure airmail pilot and carnival aviator, Lindbergh became a
celebrity; he was given the Congressional Medal of Honour and many other
international awards. But tragedy struck Lindbergh. In 1932, his infant
son Charles was kidnapped and killed; and the subsequent investigation into
the crime, largely handled by Lindbergh, became the most publicized police
case of the 1930s. Lindbergh eventually moved to England (1935-1939) to
escape the intense media publicity surrounding both the case and the
subsequent capture and trial of the suspected killer, Bruno Richard
Hauptmann. After a long and bitterly-contested trial, Hauptmann was found
guilty and executed.
Meanwhile, Lindbergh created great controversy in the United States by
touring Nazi Germany and accepting awards from their government (1938); he
also attracted criticism by his isolationist "America First" speeches
(1940-1941) and his anti-Semitic remarks. But he largely redeemed himself
in the public eye through his exemplary service for the US Air Force during
World War II, serving as a civilian technician and flying more than 50
combat missions in the Pacific Ocean. After 1945, Lindbergh was appointed
a government advisor and brigardier-general in the Air Force Reserve; he
also became active in environmental and conservation work. His 1953
autobiography, the Spirit of St. Louis (New York: Charles Scribners' Sons,
1953), won him a Pulitzer Prize. Lindbergh died of cancer in Hawaii in the
spring of 1974.
Lindbergh was the most recognized aviator of his age, and he has
consequently been the subject of a virtual flood of newspaper stories and
magazine articles; the interested reader is referred to Perry D. Luckett's
Charles A. Lindbergh: A Bio-Bibliography (New York: Greenwood, 1986). Book
length biographies have also been completed by several historians,
including Walter S. Ross's The Last Hero (New York: Harper and Row, 1968),
Leonard Mosley's Lindbergh: A Biography (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976) and
Brendan Gill's Lindbergh Alone (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977).
So what is the need for a new biography in 1993?
Joyce Milton's Loss of Eden: A Biography of Charles and Anne Morrow
Lindbergh (New York: Harper Collins, 1993) differs from its predecessors in
several important respects. Milton is a Brooklyn, New York author and
historian, who has published several engaging books on 20th century social
history; previous efforts include The Yellow Kids: Foreign Correspondents
in the Heyday of Yellow Journalism, and The Rosenberg File. Loss of Eden
brings the same thoughtful, spirited and engrossing approach to Lindbergh's
life. But Loss of Eden is much more than just an entertaining read.
Milton breaks ground through her in-depth look at Lindbergh's wife, the
fellow aviator Anne Morrow (1906-); in fact, Loss of Eden is really a
"parallel biography" of both aviators and their respective families. This
sometimes leads to some confusing leaps forward and backwards in time, but
overall, the technique sheds light on many little-known aspects of the
Lindberghs and their era. We see, for example, a particularly insightful
analysis of Anne's long literary career, which saw the publication of
several works of poetry, romance, travel literature and more, as well as
her famous bestselling book on the role of women in modern society, Gift
from the Sea (1961). This "deceptively graceful book", Morrow says, though
ignored by feminists and professors of womens' studies alike, was central
to her philosophy, and more importantly, conveyed a revolutionary "feminist
message" of self-renewal to millions of American women.
Unlike many previous biographies, Milton does not make the 1927 solo
transatlantic flight the principal event of Lindbergh's life. Instead,
Loss of Eden devotes its central focus to the 1932 abduction of the
Lindberghs' 20 month old son, Charles. Milton persuasively argues that
this tragic kidnapping changed the course of the Lindberghs' lives forever,
replacing Charles' basic optimism and utopian philosophies of aviation with
a profound skepticism, despair and pessimism about the future of the
western world. Milton also differs from several other Lindbergh books in
her dispassionate and critical look at this kidnapping; she does not
attempt to exculpate Hauptmann (other books have erected a dizzying array
of alternate hypotheses and conspiracy theories), but rather focuses her
interest in Lindbergh's own long-term administration of the case, which
eventually became a personal obsession.
Loss of Eden portrays Lindbergh as a moral and principled man, whose high
idealism and faith in aviation as a bridge between cultures was cynically
manipulated by his friends and betrayed by his advisors. It is Lindbergh's
ultimate disillusionment with American democracy that prompts his
"flirtation" with Nazi ideologies, says Milton; and, she argues, it is
press misrepresentation and media distortion that lead to the popular
perception that he was a notorious racist and anti-Semite. Milton does
quote from Lindbergh's pre-war speeches (pages 382, 400), but suggests that
his comments must be appreciated in the context of the endemic nature of
prejudice within the Lindberghs' social circle. Lindbergh reflected the
troubled and unsettled nature of his times; and Loss of Eden is the first
biography to effectively link Lindbergh's early populism and air-mindedness
to his postwar New Age thinking and despair at a world gone mad.
Milton alludes to the many myths surrounding Lindbergh and aviation,
particularly with her mention of the "alti-man" of Alfred Lawson (page 49).
But she does not develop any of these flying myths in detail; and a more
extended analysis of the aviation mythologies of the period, especially the
"flying ace" and "intrepid birman" so thoroughly studied by Joseph J. Corn
in The Winged Gospel: America's Romance with Aviation, 1900-1950 (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1983), would certainly be instructive here.
On the whole, however, Loss of Eden is an excellent updating of the
Lindbergh story. While the critical reader might quibble with Milton's
occasional lapses [how, for instance, can we be so sure Anne's written
reaction to Lindbergh's flight was "unconsciously sexual" (page 153), or
that one of Charles' early letters to his parents "reeks of suppressed
resentment"? (page 34)], there is no doubt that Loss of Eden is a triumph.
Lindbergh may well have been a solitary "lone wolf" to the tabloids,
dependent on no one; but Milton painstakingly traces his complex social
network, and the many disparate influences that made him the man he was.
For this difficult accomplishment, her readers will be grateful.
J.A.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Art of Medieval Technology
By Richard W. Ungur
Richard W. Unger, known principally for his earlier book on _The Ship in
the Medieval Economy, 600-1600_, here tackles the more difficult
methodological question: what can artistic representations tell us about
actual technological practices? In the preface to _The Art of Medieval
Technology_ (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1991), he
states that he was not trained as an art historian and therefore finds it
hard to replicate their methods. This is certainly true: as a sourcebook
of art history and detailed analysis the book falls short, but as an
example of a relatively untouched technique of historical inquiry, it
serves admirably. His subject matter, and indeed the subtitle of the book,
is "Images of Noah the Shipbuilder". In short, Unger seeks to use
pictorial representations of the construction of Noah's ark to divine what
role the "shipbuilder" played in the middle ages and to see to what extent
artists looked to their local shipyards for inspiration.
In the iconography of Noah he finds an evolution of the shipbuilder from
the craftsman in the eleventh century to a naval architect in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries. Additionally, he finds that artists did to some
extent look to their local builders to create their images. The particular
types of ships used in the Mediterranean and the Baltic/North Atlantic
regions are indeed reflected in the northern and southern European
iconographies. It is interesting to find that in a few cases, knowledge of
one region's shipbuilding techniques was transmitted to the other region's
artists. Unger occasionally errs in his interpretation of particular
details of the art historical sources, in the feasibility of certain
practices, in leaving the reader without a reference or a summary (for
example, the use of axes and drilling technologies). Nevertheless, the
methodology he uses in this book is invaluable: historians of technology
should use artistic sources in addition to textual and archaeological ones.
The book is brief and is meant as a companion not a substitute of his
earlier works; in any case, these should be consulted for more rigorous and
complete details. The copious plates are grouped at the end of the book,
which makes comparison easy, but flipping back and forth from the text can
be distracting. _The Art of Medieval Technology_ is worth reading for its
fresh methodological approach, although historians of naval architecture or
Diluvian iconography are advised to move on quickly.
Reviewed by Steven A. Walton
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hidden Attraction: The Mystery and History of Magnetism
By Gerrit L. Verschuur
Gerrit L. Verschuur, a research professor of astronomy at Rhodes College
in Memphis, Tennessee, is both an author of popular books on physical
science and a contributing editor to Air and Space magazine; he has hence
become quite experienced at interpreting highly abstract scientific
concepts to lay audiences. After successfully explaining the mysteries of
complex topics like radio astronomy in The Invisible Universe Revealed (New
York: Springer-Verlag, 1987), Verschuur has since turned his attention to
more down-to-earth topics. Hidden Attraction: The History and Mystery of
Magnetism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), is his latest effort;
it gives a popular history of magnetism, beginning with Ancient Roman
observations of magnetic lodestones and continuing to the most recent
discoveries in astronomy and physics.
Overall, Verschuur's account of the growth and development of magnetism
is clear, easy to follow and well-written. However, it is not without
difficulties. The most significant is the lack of research into the
lodestone in non-Western cultures; to be precise, there is no mention of
Chinese magnetic theory. The indefatigable labours of Joseph Needham
(Science and Civilization in China) have shown that Chinese work in this
area was unparalleled in its elegance and sophistication, several centuries
before comparable European research; and some cross-cultural comparisons
would have been quite helpful in explaining the influence of magnetic
discoveries in the two cultures.
However, Verschuur has written a good account of magnetic history in the
West. His treatment of 18th and 19th century electromagnetism is
excellent; and his discussion of 17th century magnetical theory is likewise
lucid and easy to follow. Unfortunately, his discussion of earlier periods
is less satisfactory.
The most problematic of these areas is the Medieval era. Verschuur is a
modern astronomer and not a Medieval historian, so he follows the
traditional pattern of interpreting the 1269 Epistola de Magnete of Peter
Peregrinus (fl.1261-1269) as the essential beginning of magnetic science
(pages 9-12). Recent research has shown that although Peregrinus
essentially summarized the magnetic knowledge of the time, he added little
to it that was original; indeed there were many precursors to Peregrinus,
ranging from Alexander Neckam (1157-1217) to Roger Bacon (c.1213-c.1292).
Verschuur's ommissions are partly because he based this section of Hidden
Attraction largely on secondary sources like the Dictionary of Scientific
Biography, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Park Benjamin's 1898 History
of Electricity, rather than primary documents.
His account of Renaissance magnetic theory is better, as here Verschuur
uses the important primary materials of the English magnetic scientists;
particularly Robert Norman's (fl.1576-1590) The Newe Attractive of 1581,
William Gilbert's (1544-1603) De Magnete of 1600, and William Barlow's (?-
1625) Magneticall Advertisements of 1618. But he still repeats many of the
standard "magnetical myths", including the beliefs that (page 13)
Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) unknowingly passed the line of zero
magnetic declination (in fact, he was well aware that declination changed
over the earth's surface, and noted its variations in his journals), and
that Robert Norman discovered magnetic inclination in 1576 (whereas
Nurnburg vicar George Hartmann (1489-1564) noted the same effect in 1544).
There are some editorial oddities as well; for instance, Verschuur gives
dates for all of his principal characters (an admirable trait!), but in the
case of Niccolo Cabeo (1586-1650), the dates come during the second
discussion of his work (page 39), not the first (page 28).
Verschuur then traces the development of magnetism and electricity in the
18th and 19th centuries. This portion of Hidden Attraction is careful,
clear and surprisingly easy to understand; and this is all the more
remarkable when we realize the enormous mathematical complexity of topics
like field theory and electrodynamics. It would have been easy to lose
his readers in a dense theoretical thicket, but Verschuur manages to convey
the essentials of Andre-Marie Ampere (1775-1836), Michael Faraday (1791-
1867) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) in non-technical language. But
in all fairness, it would have been helpful to include more illustrations
of those sophisticated mechanical field theory models, particularly for
Maxwell.
Hidden Attraction is at its best when it deals with modern theories;
Verschuur particularly shines when he deals with origins of magnetic rocks,
explaining the remarkable discovery that lodestones are made by bacteria!
A sediment organism (GL-15) eats iron and converts ferric oxide to
magnetite which, over billions of years, forms layers of magnetite in iron
formations (pages 169-174). Verschuur's description of this complex
process is a delight.
Hidden Attraction has no bibliography; but substantial notes are included
at the end of each chapter. There is also a large appendix, "The Patterns
of Progress" (pages 233-249) which includes Verschuur's own six-phase
theory of scientific progress, based partially on the work of philosopher
of science Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). But
Verschuur, unlike Kuhn, supposes that scientific "paradigm shifts" soon
allow the convergence and eventual synthesis of several specialized fields
of knowledge into wide-ranging "theories of everything"; for the first
time, he suggests, scientists are well on the way to "significant and
possibly complete understanding of the nature of the physical universe."
Such scientific "optimism" has historically always been proven to have been
misplaced; as Verschuur himself notes, late 19th century physicists were
virtually certain that the completion of classical Newtonian mechanics was
inevitable when the twin discoveries of relativity and quantum mechanics
radically altered their world-view at the turn of the century (page 184).
Verschuur's model of scientific progress also does not seem to account for
the persistence of rival schools of scientific thought after the erection
of a new paradigm (such as Cartesian physics after Newton); but to be fair,
Kuhn's theories are far from complete here as well. Even so, Verschuur's
six-stage theory is both intriguing and useful.
Verschuur's work is a welcome addition to the comparatively few treatises
on the history of magnetism now available. There are some historical
simplifications, to be sure, but on the whole Hidden Attraction is a
capable, competent and clear history of a very difficult topic. Verschuur
is to be congratulated for his attempt to erect a theory of scientific
progress alongside his history; this will no doubt provoke much discussion
from the profession.
J.A.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry---
And Made Himself the Richest Man in America
By Stephen Manes and Paul Andrews
Virtually everyone who uses computers is familiar with the controversial
software programming genius William Henry Gates (1955-). As the head of
MicroSoft Systems, and the originator and developer of both MS-DOS and
MicroSoft Windows, Bill Gates is arguably the most important and powerful
man in the entire computer industry. He is also the youngest self-made
billionaire in American business history; but his astonishing ten-year rise
to the pinnacle of the software industry of the United States has prompted
enormous criticisms of his business and corporate styles. Alternatively
idolized, hated, envied and feared, Gates is truly a paradoxical figure;
and in an industry where form is as important as content, an understanding
of this figure is critical for any history of the computing industry.
There has been no shortage of news stories, magazine articles and TV
features about Bill Gates and his MicroSoft Corporation; but much of what
has been printed about Gates is more properly the stuff of legends.
Histories of MicroSoft and its president also exist in profusion, but
almost all have a particular ideological axe to grind; they either lavish
praise on Gates and his MicroSofties for creating the standard operating
system for over 100 million personal computers, or they heap criticism on
him for his alleged theft of rival technologies, monopolistic business
practices, and ruthless disregard for alternative visions of the future of
the computer.
Gates was co-written by two experts on Microsoft and the Personal
Computer: Stephen Manes and Paul Andrews. Manes has explained the computer
industry to its users for more than a decade, serving as columnist and
contributing editor to both PC Magazine and PC/Computing. He has also
written more than 30 books. His colleague, Paul Andrews, is a reporter for
the Seattle Times newspaper, covering the technology and computer "beat" in
his weekly column. Gates began as an "unauthorized" biography in March,
1991; but by July both Gates and MicroSoft were actively participating in
the project, granting a series of in-depth interviews and permitting access
to MicroSoft's enormous internal archives and files.
The result is a tour-de-force. Manes and Andrews carefully document the
rise of Gates and MicroSoft from their humble beginnings with the Traf-O-
Data traffic analyzer and Altair 8800 computer of the 1970s, all the way
through the stunning triumphs of MS-DOS and MicroSoft Windows in the 1980s,
to Gates' future plans for multimedia, biotechnology, and the information
revolution. Gates intends far more than just a "computer in every home"; he
hopes to transform the very ways we live, work and play.
But Gates' visions of an eventual technological utopia have their
critics. Manes and Andrews painstakingly document the byzantine
relationships between rival software companies, and the maze of legal
battles and judicial decisions surrounding them. They show that Gates'
monolithic and highly centralized control of MicroSoft is far from being
the competitive "free for all" that characterizes its advertising and press
releases. Yet on the whole, they chalk most of Gates' failings down to
youth and inexperience rather than maliciousness. Gates has an uncanny
knack for transforming product delays and software bugs into business
success; and in an industry which is littered with the wrecks of rival
firms, the authors reject the heroic "lone inventor" myths, and show that
Gates' magic has been based on good luck as much as programming wizardry.
About the only place where Gates fails is in its rather rudimentary
account of the early history of the computer. Manes and Andrews are
understandably concerned with computing technology during the late 1960s
and early 1970s, when the young Bill Gates begins serious programming on
his school's computers; but they tell us very little about the rather
arcane world of computing before then. Clearly the mainframes that Gates
used to "cut his programming teeth" did not spring into existence ex
nihilo; and a more detailed account of their development, along with the
software used to operate them, would have been both interesting and
helpful.
Gates is sometimes quite technical; when discussing the internal
architecture of a particular piece of software, it often assumes a
considerable prior knowledge of computers. Yet even if one does not
understand all the details, the overall picture is almost always clear, and
for this Manes and Andrews are to be commended; this could very easily have
become an advanced technical handbook on rival operating systems, or a dry
company history (for in a very real sense Bill Gates is MicroSoft, and vice
versa). But the authors' regular appeal to humourous anecdotes illustrating
the enormous stresses underlying Gates' workaholism, and the strains of
life under the MicroSoft whip, ensure that the final product, while often
complex, is never boring.
Gates is both entertaining and well written. The text includes extensive
endnotes (again, replacing standard footnotes by that depressing and
irritating "quotations attached to pages" style which is all too frequent
today). Yet the authors are to be commended for at least including
sufficient documentation to allow readers to easily locate their sources;
and that is especially important in a study like this, where many of the
documents are in company archives, or other locations which are difficult
to access. There is also a helpful bibliography of printed books; and
despite the limited "shelf-life" of most computer books, such a
bibliography is at least a useful orientation to the field. The index is
also very detailed.
Gates is an excellent biography of the most significant contemporary
figure in the American computer industry. But Manes and Andrews have
succeeded in giving us not only a first-class biography, but also a
carefully-crafted economic and business history, alongside a good technical
primer of personal computing software and hardware. For this the authors
deserve our gratitude and respect.
J.A.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier
By Bruce Sterling
The explosive growth of personal computer use in the last decade has
opened up a new universe of research, teaching, learning and communication
in a brave new world world known as "cyberspace"; an almost completely
unregulated universe of "virtual space" consisting of home computers,
telephone lines, and connecting mainframe computers. Cyberspace is growing
at an exponential rate, as more and more institutions, governments and
organizations get "on-line"; even long-term cyberspace residents can no
longer keep up with the rapid advance of this "electronic frontier".
Formerly a primitive "meeting place" for research scientists and computer
programmers, cyberspace has grown to embrace doctors, lawyers, artists,
writers, and many more.
But with all the many positive aspects of the "electronic frontier"
(including, we hope, this journal!), there have arisen the disturbing
parallel trends of computer viruses, hackers, "phone phreakers", and other
computer outlaws. Although "computer crime" has been widely reported in
the media, it is still very poorly understood by the general public. In
part this is because of the enormous technical complexities of many of
these computer crimes; but it is also partially due to our persistent
misunderstandings of the social milieu in which computer criminals live and
work. Most of us do not understand UNIX TCP/IP protocols, to be sure; but
we also canot conceive of just why these "systems invasions" take place.
If hackers do not steal anything, just what do they gain by breaking into
computer systems? Should we be concerned if a hacker "looks around" a
system but alters nothing? And if so, what should we do?
Bruce Sterling (1954-) has attempted to answer some of these questions in
his latest work, The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic
Frontier (New York: Bantam Books, November, 1992). Sterling's expertise in
the world of cyberspace is well known. A self-described cyberpunk,
Sterling is a Texas-based science fiction writer and popular science
journalist, and has been personally involved with many of the principal
figures in the "electronic frontier". Sterling edited the definitive
fictional anthology of the new movement, Mirrorshades: The Cyberpunk
Anthology, and was a co-author, with cyberpunk novelist William Gibson, of
The Difference Engine (1990). Sterling's experience has been well employed
in his latest book.
The Hacker Crackdown deals ostensibly with the massive May, 1990
crackdown on computer pirates known as "Operation Sundevil", in which
American law enforcement agents seized 40 computers, closed down scores of
bulletin boards, and arrested four computer operators. Sterling tells this
story from several different perspectives, describing the high-tech world
of computer cyberspace as seen by not just hackers, but also science-
fiction writers, lawyers, civil libertarians, politicians and police. But
the hacker raids of 1990 are at best only a small part of this story;
Sterling excels in showing us the arcane, hidden world of the computer
hacker, carefully explaining his or her methods, motivations, styles of
interaction, and group behaviour. This is not as "how-to" book for
hackers; it is better described as a social map of the hacker hierarchy,
showing how members change from one subculture to another, and how one
"moves up" the scale from simple telephone fraud to complex computer
network espionage. Sterling also deals with telephone and computer network
problems based on internal system flaws, not hacker interference; the 1990-
91 failures of AT&T are perhaps the best examples. The Hacker Crackdown
explains these rather mystifying network "glitches" with clarity and
elegance.
Sterling is at his best when he deals with the underlying motivations of
the computer hacker. Though they may go to extraordinary efforts to "break
into" computer systems, theft is usually not their motive; most are after
information, and their forged access codes and copied passwords represent
"bragger's rights" more than "stolen goods". Sterling is to be
congratulated for explaining so clearly how hackers ply their trade, and
how the successful practice of one type of computer fraud leads to another.
Sterling even provides a chilling "personal example" of the typical
hacker's approach to life; while waiting outside a closed meeting of
computer security workers, he raids a company trash can and reconstructs
from discarded receipts and torn letters an elaborate "personal history" of
his intended victim (pages 197-201).
Sterling's book is really a history of the "hacker mentality" in the last
ten years; he sometimes reaches further back, but the results are usually a
bit disappointing. Sterling is, after all, a science fiction writer and
journalist, not a historian. The Hacker Crackdown begins, for example,
with a short history of the invention of the telephone (pages 4-9) by
Canadian-American inventor Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922). There is
only a brief discussion of the enormous technical, social and economic
problems Bell and his backers overcame in developing a workable "telephone
system"; and there is no mention at all of the telephones being developed
by rivals. One of these, the American inventor Elisha Gray (1835-1901),
filed a caveat on his telephone the very same day Bell filed his patent
(February 14, 1876), and is often considered to be the co-inventor of the
telephone system; but Sterling says nothing about him, or indeed about any
other rivals. His own "Chronology of the Hacker Crackdown" has a single
entry for Bell (1876), one for telephone restrictions (1878), and then a
yawning gulf of six decades to his next entry: the Futurians of 1939.
The "Futurians" were a literary group of science fiction afficionados,
whose membership included such leading figures as Isaac Asimov (1920-1991)
and Frederick Pohl (1919-). In 1939 the Futurians were raided by the U.S.
Secret Service, who suspected that their mimeographs and private printing
presses were being used to do more than just print science-fiction
magazines; rather, they were suspected to be counterfeiting money. The
raid was a disaster; no forged currency was found, and, according to
Sterling, the Futurian House was subsequently left alone (page 150).
Sterling is interested in this case because he feels it parallels the US
Secret Service 1990 hacker crackdown of science fiction publishing company
Steve Jackson Games. Both were misunderstood innocents, Sterling charges,
whose dabbling in the "fringes" of publishing technology, and their
connections with disreputable science-fiction writers, ultimately led to
their legal problems. Sterling tells us little about the Futurians, but it
is clear that they were involved in another type of "forbidden scientific
knowledge" that was understandably of great interest to the American
government: atomic energy.
Had Sterling probed deeper into this part of his story, he would have
found a great deal of evidence to further his belief that government
attacks on unregulated and technically literate groups like science fiction
writers frequently approach paranoia. He would have seen that the American
government employed extraordinary means to restrict public access to
knowledge about nuclear energy in the period 1939-45, to the point of
closing down science fiction magazines, pulling technical journals from
library shelves, asking librarians to report citizens who requested them,
and censoring magazines, newspapers and radio, forbidding the use of words
like fission, uranium, atomic power, and so on. There are many historical
parallels between institutional efforts to control atomic knowledge in the
1940s and computer knowledge in the 1990s; but this story has yet to be
told.
Sterling also briefly glances at the United States' Secret Service, and
its role in stopping computer crime; here, he argues that there are uncanny
resemblances between its handling of 19th century counterfeiters and 20th
century hackers (pages 173-176). Sterling recalls that in 1865, before US
treasury bills became standardized, there were over 1600 different types of
paper currency, all issued by local banks; in essence, there were no
standards, and it was very difficult to spot faked bills, as counterfeiters
were often "technically skilled printers" who had previously worked in
legitimate banknote companies. "Like a badly guarded node in a computer
network," Sterling says, "badly designed bills were easy to fake and posed
a security hazard for the entire monetary system" (page 173). But
centralizing the money supply by instituting one currency only made the
problem worse; crooks soon learned to counterfeit the US Treasury's
"greenbacks", and the race between cop and crook was on again.
The Secret Service responded, Sterling says, in much the same way they
successfully prosecuted computer hackers in 1990's "Operation Sundevil";
making many arrests, working informally and outside the bureaucratic
regulation of local police departments, and driving the criminals
underground. This is the most competently handled of Sterling's
"historical asides", but one might well question (1) whether network
centralization has made computer fraud worse, or just more publicized, and
(2) if there is really that much resemblance between the enormous number of
800 "boodling" (counterfeiting) arrests made between 1865-69 and the hacker
arrests made in 1990? Only time will tell; but recent police crackdowns on
hackers do not seem to have the momentum of the 1865-69 campaign.
Sterling's The Hacker Crackdown is an admirable attempt to document the
very complex world of the electronic outlaw. It is written for the
interested lay reader, rather than the computer specialist; so there is
very little "computerese" or technical jargon, and no bibliography or
endnotes. Still, Sterling more than makes up for this by supplementing his
account with his considerable "inside knowledge" of the computer
underground, and provides many "personal touches" that make this an
enjoyable (albeit scary) book to read. You will probably not agree with
all of Sterling's arguments, but one thing is certain; you will never be as
complacent about computer security again.
J.A.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information for Authors:
The HOST Journal welcomes submissions from researchers in all aspects of
the history of science and technology. We publish articles, book reviews,
bibliographies, works in progress and news of general interest to those in
the profession. The HOST Journal is published twice a year (Spring/Summer
and Fall/Winter), and appears in both printed and electronic forms.
Contributions are welcome in either English or French; all research papers
will be refereed.
Contributors may submit their work in either print or electronic form.
Printed manuscripts must be typed, double-spaced with inch margins, on A4
paper (8+ X 11"); figures must preferably be provided as 8 X 10" prints.
The original must be submitted along with two photocopies. Electronic
submissions on disk (in duplicate) may use either IBM, Apple or Macintosh
formats; they may be in either Word Perfect, Microsoft Word, or ASCII text.
All research articles must include an abstract, in 250 words or less, and
a short (under 200 words) author biography. Printed submissions should be
sent to the editors, at the following address:
Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology
Room 316, 73 Queen's Park Crescent, Victoria College,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1K7.
Electronic contributions may be either mailed, or submitted by Electronic
Mail through INTERNET, at the following addresses:
JSMITH@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA
GBAKER@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA
IHPST@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA
Submissions should follow the style of the Canadian Historical Review,
and the spelling of either the Oxford English Dictionary or Le Dictionnaire
Francais Larousse. All correspondence concerning papers should be
addressed to the editors. Manuscripts will not be returned, but copyrights
remain with the authors.
J.A.S.
|
|
Disclaimer: The file contained in the
box above or displayed in a separate window from a link in the
box above is NOT owned nor implied to
be owned by BeYoND THe iLLuSioN. Most files at BeYoND THe
iLLuSioN are originally from public Bulletin Board Systems
(BBS) which were popular in the days before the Internet or
from gopher, web, and FTP sites from the early days of the
Internet which no longer exist today. Essentially, all files
were acquired from the public domain in one for or another.
However, there have been occasions when copyright protected
material has appeared on BeYoND THe iLLuSIoN without permission
of the copyright holder. In these instances, we have and will
continue to remove the copyright protected file as soon as it
is brought to our attention. This can now be done using our Report Copyright Material form. Fill
out the form, and the webmaster will be notified of the
situation.
There are also times when files found on BeYoND THe iLLuSioN
have a real home somewhere else on the Internet. In these
instances, we will gladly replace the file with a link to its
true home whenever it is brought to our attention. If you know
of the true home of any of these files, you can use our Report Original URL form to bring it yo our
attention.
|
