Archimedes’ writings: through Heiberg’s veil 195
of such numerals in general. While the manuscripts do usually possess
numerals for proposition numbers, there seems to be some occasional dis-
agreement between the manuscripts as to which numerals to attach. Th is
disagreement is typically between the various copies of codex A, and so
carries little signifi cance (aside from signalling to us that the scribes may
have felt a certain freedom changing those numbers). In the few cases (SL,
SC i , SC ii ) where Heiberg could compare the numbering reconstructed
for codex A with that reconstructed for codex C, the numbers were
indeed the same. However, it is interesting to observe that codex C has the
number 11 for what Heiberg titles (based on codex A) PE ii .10. 27 H e i b e r g
almost certainly was unable to read this number but, once this evidence is
considered, we fi nd a remarkable fact: the two early Byzantine manuscripts
for PE ii numbered their propositions diff erently. Th is of course raises
the possibility that such numbers are indeed not part of the original text
but are rather (as their marginal position suggests) a late edition by Late
Ancient or Byzantine readers. Here, remarkably, Heiberg may have failed
to be critical enough. Th e possibility that the numbering was not authorial
apparently did not even cross his mind.
Th is phenomenon of systematization by titles and numerals is quite out
of keeping with Heiberg’s overall character as an editor. Th ere must have
been a major reason for Heiberg to intervene in the text so radically, and so
blindly. Th is fact complements the evidence we have seen for Heiberg’s treat-
ment of Archimedes’ verbal style. Just as Heiberg considered Archimedes
indiff erent to his verbal style, so we see Heiberg imputing to Archimedes
meticulous attention to mathematical style. And this, even though such
an imputation fl ies in the face of the evidence. Whereas Archimedes’ text
shows a great variety of forms of presentation, a gradation between more
or less formal, more or less general, and a merely discursive arrangement,
Heiberg produces a text marked by the dichotomies of introductory and
formal, general and particular, throughout producing a neatly signposted
text. Th is is a consistent Archimedes – and a consistently formal one.
A close-up on the Method
Archimedes’ Method forms a special case. First, Heiberg faced here a task
somewhat diff erent from elsewhere: he needed not only to judge a text,
but also, to a certain extent, to formulate it himself. Much of the text of the
Palimpsest was illegible to him and so much had to be supplied. Second,
27 Th e Archimedes Palimpsest 14r col. 1, margins of line 11.