Archimedes’ writings: through Heiberg’s veil 177
(2) Another option was to avoid the square brackets altogether, leaving his
doubts to footnotes. He does so occasionally – particularly, it seems,
when the exclusion involves both an excision as well as an addition to
the text. So, for instance, footnote 2 in PE i , ii .149, where the text is
printed simply as πεποιησθω:
‘πεποιησθω lin. 19 fortasse vestigium recensionis posterioris est. u. Quaest.
Arch. p. 70. γεγονετω scripsit Torellius cum Basil .’ , that is ‘ let it be made in
line 19 may be due to a late re-edition; see Quaest. Arch. p. 70 [Heiberg’s PhD].
Torelli [Th e Oxford 1792 edition] as well as Basil [the fi rst edition from 1544]
have let it come to be ’.
Heiberg could have instead printed [πεποιησθω] γεγονετω, with a
note in the apparatus ‘γεγονετω] πεποιησθω ABC, scripsi prae. Tor.,
Basil.’ By printing, simply, πεποιησθω, Heiberg shows in this case more
respect to the manuscripts’ authority and allows a smoother reading of
the main printed text.
Heiberg’s strategy is well balanced. It is designed to help the reader navigate
the main text as readable prose, without encumbering the apparatus (a nec-
essary consequence of (1) above) or the footnotes (a necessary consequence
of (2) above). Th e square brackets are a helpful feature of the text. Th ey
allow the reader to consider two possible ways of reading the text – with or
without the excluded passage – and to see for herself which she likes best.
We should contrast Heiberg’s treatment of the text with his treatment of
the diagrams. He made sure as much of the manuscript evidence as possible
remained visible as regards the text, even taking pains to print text in whose
inauthenticity he was certain – all of this, while removing the evidence for
the manuscripts’ diagrams nearly in its entirety!
However respectful Heiberg’s practice may have been towards the
manuscripts’ textual evidence, its outcome was to defi ne a certain set of
expectations concerning the local texture of Archimedes’ writing. Heiberg
eff ectively shares with us his view: ‘Archimedes could not write like this’,
and readers would take notice of views with such authority. Let us consider,
then, Heiberg’s judgements.
I move on to describe the pattern of Heiberg’s square brackets. Th e fi rst
point to note is their unequal distribution among the treatises. I have gone
through the corpus, counting all square brackets and classifying them as
‘single words’ (with the possible addition of the defi nite article), ‘phrases’
(i.e. no more than a single claim or construction), ‘passages’ (consisting of
several phrases) and ‘long passages’ (the border between these and ‘pas-
sages’ is diffi cult to defi ne, but I mean an entire train of thought, going