The Scholarship of the Palimpsest

The Archimedes MS was produced in the tenth century, probably in the third quarter. Who commissioned it is a question that remains unanswered. Mathematicians capable of using the treatises cannot be identified in Byzantium at that time. This does not necessarily mean that there were none; it may simply be that our sources are defective. But as far as we can tell, the main intellectual endeavour of the period was one sponsored by the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (d.959); it was an attempt to compile an encyclopaedia, planned to comprise 53 sections.¹³ A few of these have come down to us; it is not known whether the project was completed. The surviving parts consist of sets of excerpts taken from a very wide range of authors, many of whom have subsequently been lost. The Archimedes codex does not conform to this pattern, since the treatises were transcribed in full. It may nevertheless be the case that an attempt was made to assemble a full collection of Greek texts, with the recognition that some were not suitable for excerpting or abbreviation. Whether this copy of Archimedes originally contained all the extant works remains uncertain; as Heiberg saw, ¹⁴ the absence of some of them from the leaves that have been preserved does not prove that they were not included.

The leaves of the Archimedes codex now measure approximately 300 x 195 mm.; the original size may have been a trifle larger, since many MSS have suffered a slight reduction in size through being trimmed by a binder. Two columns of text occupy an area of 200 x 145 mm. The book was a high quality product and the margins may have been more generous than they now appear. There are 35 lines to the column. This format and layout are unremarkable. There is no evidence to indicate who the scribe was or where he worked. I have not given up hope of discovering his hand in another MS. But even if he is eventually traced as the copyist of another book, it is far from certain that the identification will demonstrate precisely where he worked. The script, though not quite as elegant as some others of that period, proves that the scribe was an expert professional and his hand maintains a uniform appearance throughout. I think it may be assumed that the scribe himself was responsible for the occasional enlarged initials or decoration in simple pen-work ornament. The titles are in capitals without ornamental features. There are numerous diagrams. On the pages that I have been able to study so far there is no sign of any annotations by the scribe or by any owner of the book.

A few features of the script are worth mentioning, in case identification of the hand becomes possible. A mildly cursive touch is occasionally seen in the form of theta (folio 127 verso, column 2, last line). Upsilon is sometimes a trifle larger than it should be. The vertical stroke of psi does not rise as high as is normal. Capital upsilon is oddly shaped, resembling a reversed question mark (folios 128 recto, column 1, line 1, 129 recto, column 1, line 2 provide examples; neither of them is made obscure or doubtful by the script of the Euchologion). In the definite article to the omicron is sometimes reduced in size (folio recto, column 1, lines 3 and 11).

Back

Continue

¹² C.H. Haskins, Studies in the history of medieval science II (New York 1960), pp.164-5, 191.

¹³ For a good modern account see P. Lemerle, Le premier humanisme byzantin (Paris 1971) pp.280-8.

¹⁴ Op.cit. III p.lxxxviii.