If, again, it be agreed that, in treating Parallels, some other method, essentially different from mine, ought to be adopted, I feel that, after so vital a change as that, involving (as no doubt it would) the abandonment of my sequence and system of numbering, the remainder of my Manual would not be worth fighting for, though portions of it might be embodied in the new Manual. To settle this question, you must, of course, examine one by one the new methods that have been proposed.
Min. You would not even ask to have your Manual retained as an alternative for the new one?
Euc. No. For I think it essential for purposes of teaching, that in treating this vital topic one uniform method should be adopted; and that this method should be the best possible (for it is almost inconceivable that two methods of treating it should be equally good). An alternative proof of a minor Proposition may fairly be inserted now and then as about equal in merit to the standard proof, and may make a desirable variety: but on this one vital point it seems essential that nothing but the best proof existing should be offered to the limited capacity of a learner. Vacuis committere venis nil nisi lene decet.
Min. I agree with you that we ought to have one system only, and that the best, for treating the subject of Parallels. But would you have me limit my examination of your 'Modern Rivals' to this single topic?
Euc. No. There are several other matters of so great importance, and admitting of so much variety of treatment, that it would be well to examine any method of
