Archimedes’ writings: through Heiberg’s veil 189
Some of the manuscripts that give evidence for Archimedes’ works
contain a signifi cant presence of Doric dialect forms, in particular ποτι
for Koine προς, ειμεν for Koine ειναι, εσσειται for εσται as well as certain
phonological variations, predominantly the use of long α for Koine η. Such
dialect forms are very common in the manuscript evidence for PE i , CS, QP,
Arenarius (A alone), FB i (C alone) and SL (both A and C). Th e dialect forms
are much less common, or totally missing, in SC i , SC ii , DC, PE ii (both A
and C), FB ii , Stomachion and Method (C alone). Heiberg’s comment on this
last work ( ii .xviii) is telling: ‘And even though I do not doubt that this work,
too, was written in Doric by Archimedes, I dare not reinstate the dialect that
was so diligently removed by the interpolator.’ 20 In other words, Heiberg
sees the Koine dialect as a kind of interpolation, inserted into the text of SC
i , SC ii and DC (works that Heiberg would anyway consider heavily medi-
ated by their readers) as well as some other works.
While SC i , SC ii and DC are completely free of Doric dialect, all the
other works display a certain mixture of Doric and Koine, more Doric in
such works as SL, much more Koine in works such as Method. Heiberg’s
edition removes this sense of gradation, introducing instead a clear bifur-
cation. SC i , SC ii , DC and Method are printed mostly in pure Koine, no
mention made in the critical apparatus for the (rather few) cases where
Doric forms are present. PE i , PE ii , CS, QP, Arenarius , FB i , FB ii and SL
are printed in pure Doric, no mention made in the critical apparatus for the
(rather many) cases where Koine forms are present. 21 Notice that Heiberg
imposed Doric on PE ii and FB ii , against the manuscripts – which he
avoided doing for Method – presumably because of a desire to preserve
their continuity with PE i and FB i , respectively. Underlying this simple
bifurcation is an even simpler monolithic image of Archimedes’ language.
As Heiberg said plainly, his position was that Archimedes wrote in Doric
and in Doric alone.
Heiberg, ever the philologer, did produce an explicit survey of the dialect
variation. Th is however he did not in the critical apparatus itself, but inside
a dedicated index of manuscript variations, positioned as the major com-
ponent of the introduction to the second volume. Th is doubly marginal-
izes the importance of the dialect variations. First, by taking them away
from the critical apparatus, and second, by positioning them in the second
20 ‘et quamquam non dubito, quin hoc quoque opus Dorice scripserit Archimedes, dialectum de
industria ab interpolatore remotam restituere ausus non sum.’
21 Th e Stomachion – preserved in fragmentary form and therefore more tactfully handled – is the
only work for which Heiberg simply prints, without comments, the form of the manuscript
(according to Heiberg’s readings), allowing a ‘mixed’ dialect.