The Latin edition of the Mathematicae Collectiones was published in print in 1588, thirteen years after Federico Commandino’s demise. For his Latin version of Pappus’s work, Comandino used two Greek codices, formerly identified by Treweek. In this article, another Greek manuscript, revised and annotated by Commandino, is revealed. Two letters from Commandino to Ettore Ausonio shed new light on the edition of Pappus’s Collectio and show the partnership between the two mathematicians in elaborating supplementary proofs to include in the comments. (...) Using these letters, we can date the first draft of the Latin version in the late 1560s. The posthumous edition of the Mathematicae Collectiones involved Commandino’s disciples and, in particular, Guidobaldo del Monte. The comparison between the manuscripts and the printed edition reveals an important role played by the disciple in revising the Latin translation of his master. (shrink)

To illustrate the view that a speaker can have a partial understanding of a concept, Burge uses the example of Leibniz’s and Newton’s understanding of the concept of derivative. In a recent article, Sheldon Smith criticizes this example and maintains that Newton’s and Leibniz’s use of their derivative symbols does not univocally determine their references. The present article aims at challenging Smith’s analysis. It first shows that Smith misconstrues Burge’s position. It second suggests that the philosophical lessons one should draw (...) from the practice of the historians of philosophy are more ambivalent than what Smith thinks. (shrink)