170 reviel netz
which he is consistent. Th e manuscripts, on the other hand, insist on the
preference, where possible, of a more schematic representation, even while
they mark their ability to produce a full three-dimensional representation.
Th e manuscripts’ decision clearly is not motivated by simple considera-
tions of space. As we have seen in the preceding section, the manuscripts
tend to have much bigger fi gures. No one invests in an Archimedes’ manu-
script for considerations of practical utility, so that these manuscripts should
all be seen as luxury items, 5 so that one is allowed more space. A printed
book, of course, is not typically based on a patronage economy and its cal-
culations are diff erent. I do think that a certain consideration of layout is
relevant, however: what we do see in the manuscripts’ diagrams is a certain
preference for the horizontal arrangement, perhaps refl ecting the origins of
such diagrams within the spaces of papyrus columns. 6 Th is would in itself
make a three-dimensional representation less preferable. But note that this is
a mere tendency in the manuscripts’ diagrams: as we will see with i .12 below,(^5) Th e main proof for the lack of practical purpose in Byzantine Archimedes manuscripts is
in their plethora of uncorrected, trivial errors. Th e extant Palimpsest shows not a single
correction by a later hand (indeed, it was consigned to become a palimpsest!). We have
a credible report from one of the scribes copying codex A that this, too, was replete with
uncorrected errors (a reported supported by the pattern of errors in the extant copies of A): see
Heiberg 1915 : x.
Z
Γ
Δ
Θ
E
B
A
Θ
Δ
Z
Γ
E
B
A
Heiberg Archimedes (reconstruction)
(^6) On the tendency of papyrus illustrations to orient horizontally, see Weitzmann 1947.
Figure 3.3 Heiberg’s diagram for Sphere and Cylinder i.9 and the reconstruction of Archimedes’
diagram.