Peet, T. E., The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, British Museum 10057 and 10058. Introduction, Transcription, Translation and Commentary. London, 1923, 2 + 136 pp. + 24 plates, folio.
A thoroughly scholarly work in which the most recent results of research are incorporated. Hieroglyphic transcription (slips may be found) and a free English translation of the original hieratic are given. For this purpose the papyrus itself was used, and not the B. M. "Facsimile" (1898) which has been shown to be unreliable in certain details. Twenty-five of the fragments, in the library of the New York Historical Society, which belong in the 18 cm.gap between the papyri B. M. 10057 and 10058, are put in place; other unimportant fragments in the library may also belong in the gap. This Bibliography (to the end of 1921) was placed at Peet's disposal in preparing his work.
Review by A. Agostini, Periodico di Matematiche', s. 4, vol. 4, March, 1924, p. 139.
Review by R. C. Archibald, American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 31, May, 1924, pp. 246-251. One finds here the first published announcement of the discoverer, Percy E. Newberry, of the New York fragments of the Rhind papyrus.
Review by A. B. Chace, Science, n. s., vol. 59, Feb. 29, 1924, pp. 215-216.
Review by W. R. Dawson, Science Progress, vol. 19, July, 1924, pp. 50-59.
Review by H. Fehr, L'Enseignement Mathématique, vol. 23, April, 1924, p. 234.
Review by [W. J. Greenstreet], Mathematical Gazette, vol. 12, May, 1924, pp. 130-132.
Review by F. L. Griffith, University of Liverpool. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, vol. II, [June], 1924, pp. 103-104. Quotation: "Altogether we accept the volume with a deep sense of satisfaction. Concise, yet elaborate and complete, the treatment of the papyrus itself is practically final, and future discovery can do little more than adjust its relationship to other documents as they may appear." For the casual reader the following sentence of the review might well mislead: "For a copy of the hieratic the student will, of course, go to the facsimile, issued by the British Museum or to the Eisenlohr's copy;" mislead because Peet has corrected the "facsimile" in more than one particular.
Review by B. G. Gunn, Journal of Egyptian Archæology, vol. 12, April, 1926, pp. 123-137. Brilliant review by an acknowledged expert in Egyptian of the Middle Kingdom. Peet's book is characterized as “a very able piece of work." Nearly 14 of the closely printed pages of the review are occupied with most valuable detailed criticisms or remarks of a more or less technical character. For example his discussion of mryt (p. 133) in no. 51 of the Rhind papyrus leaves little doubt that the equivalent of our formula for the area of a triangle, namely, one half the product of the lengths of its base and altitude, was here used.[1] This removes a blot on the geometric-arithmetic part of the Rhind papyrus which was placed there by Eisenlohr[2](1877); it makes more plausible the correctness of the remarkable geometric result presented in Turaev (1917).
- ↑ The same expression occurs also on one of the fragments of the Golenishchev papyrus.
- ↑ Eisenlohr (and later writers) contended that in no. 51 the area of an isosceles triangle was considered, and expressed as one half the product of the lengths of the base and a side.This method of calculation is used in the Edfu inscription, see Lepsius (1856), and is given in Heronis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt omnia, Leipzig, vol. 5, ed. by Heiberg, 1914,
