22 Introduction 



MEDEs) discovered a fragment which seemed genuine to him, because it 

 "preserved in part Archimedes' favorite dialect." ^® This means that the 

 original text was emended, but we may assume that the emendations 

 were purely linguistic. Mathematical treatises, by the way, are much 

 more likely than any others to be transmitted in their integrity, because 

 of their natural clearness and closely knit structure; one is not tempted 

 to interpolate them, or if interpolations be inserted it is relatively easy 

 to detect them. On the contrary, medical books, especially herbals and 

 pharmacopoeias, invite interpolations and the latter fit in so well that 

 they can hardly be revealed except by means of a complex philological 

 analysis. If the Archimedian tradition tells us that he made hydrostatic 

 experiments and found the principle which we call by his name, we are 

 not surprised to read his treatise on floating bodies in the Latin version 

 of brother William of Moerbeke.^^ The text agrees with the tradition 

 and has an unmistakable Archimedian flavor. Why should it not be 

 what it purports to be? If any doubts were left in our minds they were 

 removed when the Greek text was discovered in 1906.^^ Two different 

 literary traditions confirmed one another; the lacunae and obscurities of 

 William's version were neatly healed. A similar thing happened for 

 the Method discovered in the same palimpsest. How can we be sure 

 that is genuine? Well, according to Suidas that treatise had been com- 

 mented upon by Theodosios, and the propositions extracted from it by 

 Heron of Alexandria tally sufiiciently with the Greek text revealed 

 in 1906.^^ We cannot speak of absolute certainty, of course, but when 

 a new found text corresponds with the tradition of it and with the 

 references to it or extracts from it made at various times, we may be 

 reasonably sure that it is what it claims to be. After all who would care 

 to invent a new text corresponding to the general description of it and 

 how could that be done without running afoul of references or quota- 

 tions as yet undisclosed? 



I have discussed the case of Archimedes but similar arguments would 

 apply to every ancient man of science. Our knowledge of the text of 

 each book is almost never due to an isolated tradition, but rather to the 

 confluence of many. This does not mean that each text which has 

 escaped the ravages of time is known to us in its integrity or is accepted 

 with the same confidence, as we accept, say, Archimedes' Ephodion. 



medis (Archimedis opera omnia 2, p. x-xviii, 1913); Indices (ibid. 3, 330-448, 

 1915). 



" T. L. Heath: The works of Archimedes (p. xxxvi, Cambridge 1897). 



" The Archimedian principle is Prop. 5 of book 1 "Any solid hghter than a 

 fluid will ... be so far immersed that its weight will be equal to the weight of the 

 fluid displaced." It is said that Archimedes thought of that while he was bathing 

 in Syracuse and was so happy that he ran out of the water shouting eCpij/ca, ei!pij/ca 

 (I have found, I have found). That story was first told by Vitruvius (1-2 B.C.) in 

 the preface to the ninth book of his De architectura. 



^^ The Greek and Latin texts can easily be compared in the Archimedis Opera 

 Omnia, edited by Heiberg (2, 317-413, 1913). 



"First edited by Heiberg (Hermes, 42, 243-97, 1907), then in German trans- 

 lation with H. G. Zeuthen's commentary (BM 7, 321-63, 1907). New edition of 

 the Greek text with Latin translation in Archimedis Opera (2, 425-507, 1913). 



