Archimedes’ writings: through Heiberg’s veil 185
Heiberg’s intention was of course to take A and, by transforming it into
B, to make it come as close to C as possible. It is indeed certain that A and
C are not identical. However, it is impossible to judge how close B is in fact
to C. Th e only judgement we can make with confi dence has to do with the
relationship between A and B. Th e transformation introduced by Heiberg
into the manuscripts’ text is motivated by two main considerations: the
avoidance of explicit argument in the context of relatively simple math-
ematics; and the avoidance of textual inconsistencies. Th is determines the
image of Archimedes as projected by Heiberg’s method of excision: neither
transparent nor inconsistent. I do not address right now the question
whether this image is, or is not, correct. I merely point out the presence
of this image, before moving on to consider the infl uence of this image in
Heiberg’s treatment of the texture of Archimedes at the global level.
Th e texture of Archimedes’ text: the global level
As usual, my point is not to criticize Heiberg. In some ways, any edition
involves a transformation at the global level. Th e ‘feel’ of an Opera Omnia
in its Teubner print is very distinct from that of codices A or C which, in
turn, would have felt, possibly, even more diff erent from their antecedent
of a basket of rolls in ancient Alexandria. Some of Heiberg’s decisions were
of this inevitable character: so, for instance, an Opera Omnia must proceed
in some order, and the fact that this calls for editorial decision does not
thereby make the editor unfaithful to his author. On the other hand, in
some other forms Heiberg made choices for presentation that went beyond
the manuscripts’ evidence, mostly informed by a sense of overall math-
ematical consistency.
Th e order of Archimedes’ works
Knorr was upset over that issue: 14
Following the start made by Torelli in 1792, Heiberg had in 1879 attempted to
determine the relative chronology of the treatises then known to him. But in
setting them out in his ensuing editions of Archimedes he chose to retain the
traditional order in the principal manuscripts, based on the prototype A, and then
tacked on the few remaining works and fragments preserved in other sources.
14 Knorr 1978 : 212–13.