How do we know about Greek mathematics?

There are two separate articles in this archive: "How do we know about Greek
mathematics?" and How do we know about Greek mathematicians?. There is a
common belief that the question posed in this article, about Greek mathematics
rather than Greek mathematicians, is easy to answer. Perhaps all we need to do to
answer it is to read the mathematical treatises which the Greek mathematicians
wrote. We might think, very naively, that although some of the origainal texts
have been lost there should be plenty left for us to be able to gain an excellent
picture of Greek mathematics.

The truth, however, is not nearly so simple and we will illustrate the way that Greek
mathematical texts have come down to us by looking first at perhaps the most
famous example, namely Euclid's Elements. When we read Heath's The Thirteen
Books of Euclid's Elements are we reading an English translation of the words
which Euclid wrote in 300 BC? In order to answer this question we need to
examine the way the Elements has reached us, and, more generally, how the
writings of the ancient Greek mathematicians have been preserved.

Rather surprisingly, from the earlier era of Babylonian mathematics original texts
survive. The Babylonians wrote on tablets of unbaked clay, using cuneiform
writing. The symbols were pressed into soft clay tablets with the slanted edge of a
stylus and so had a wedge-shaped appearance (and hence the name cuneiform).
Many tablets from around 1700 BC survive and we can read the original texts. The
Greeks, however, began to use papyrus rolls on which to write their works.

Papyrus comes from a grass-like plant grown in the Nile delta region in Egypt
which had been used as a writing material as far back as 3000 BC. It was not used
by the Greeks, however, until around 450 BC for earlier they had only an oral
tradition of passing knowledge on through their students. As written records
developed, they also used wooden writing boards and wax tablets for work which
was not intended to be permanent. Sometimes writing from this period has
survived on ostraca which are inscribed pottery fragments. One assumes that the
first copy of the Elements would have been written on a papyrus roll, which, if it
were typical of such rolls, would have been about 10 metres long. These rolls were
rather fragile and easily torn, so they tended to become damaged if much used.
Even if left untouched they rotted fairly quickly except under particularly dry
climatic conditions such as exist in Egypt. The only way that such works could be
preserved was by having new copies made fairly frequently and, since this was
clearly a major undertaking, it would only be done for texts which were considered
of major importance.

It is easy to see, therefore, why no complete Greek mathematics text older

than Euclid's Elements has survived. The Elements was considered such a fine
piece of work that it made the older mathematical texts obsolete, and nobody was
going to continue to copy these older texts onto new rolls of papyrus just to
preserve them for historical purposes. The Elements was continually copied, but
there are two distinct problems which occur when works such as this are copied.
Firstly they might have been copied by someone who had no technical knowledge
of the material being copied. In this case many errors would be made in the copying
process (although as we shall see below this can be used by historians to their
advantage). On the other hand the copy might have been made by someone of
considerable learning who knew of later developments in the topics being
described and so might have added material which was not in the original text.

From 300 BC until the codex form of book was developed, the Elements must have
been copied many times. The codex consisted of flat sheets of material, folded and
stitched to produce something much more recognisable as a book. Early codices
were made of papyrus but later developments replaced this by vellum. Codices
began to appear around the 2nd century AD but they were not the main vehicle for
works until the 4th century.

There were not only developments in the material on which the works were written
but also in the script that was used in writing. On the original papyrus rolls the
writing was all in capital letters with no spaces between the words. It required
much material to write relatively little and it was also hard to read. Minuscule
script, which developed around 800 AD, consisted of lower case letters and was
much more compact and easy to read. A process of turning the old unspaced capital
scripts into minuscule began and much of the mathematical writing which have
survived have done so because they were copied into this new format.

We have now reached the oldest surviving complete copy of the Elements written
in minuscule in 888 AD. Arethas, bishop of Caesarea Cappadociae (now in central
Turkey), built up a library of religious and mathematical works and one of the eight
works from this library to survive is the Elements copied by the scribe Stephanus
for Arethas. The cost to Arethas was 14 gold pieces, about one fifth of what a
scribe would expect to receive in a year. Let us call this manuscript
of Euclid's Elements E888 to make reference to it easier. There are a number of
points that we should now make:
i) The year 888 AD seems a long time ago but it is only 1100 years ago while it is
1200 years after the Elements was written. This oldest surviving text of
the Elements was written closer to the present day than to the time when the
original was written.

ii) Although E888 is the oldest surviving complete text of the Elements there are
older fragments (see for example [8] and [9]). Six particularly old fragments
(dating from around 225 BC) of what may be parts of the text were found on
Elephantine Island in 1906. Experts argue whether these were written by someone
studying the Elements or examining a book which Euclid incorporated into
the Elements.

iii) Some surviving texts which were written later than E888 nevertheless are based
on an earlier version of the Elements than E888.

iv) The manuscript E888, as is typical of such manuscripts, contains annotations

which were made on the earlier copy which the scribe Stephanus used and copied
by him onto E888. It also contains annotations made by later readers.

v) Most of the manuscripts of the Elements which have survived are based on a
version with commentary and additions, produced by Theon of Alexandria (with
perhaps the help of his daughter Hypatia) in the 4th century AD. E888 is indeed
based on Theon's work.

vi) The first versions of the Elements to appear in Europe in the Middle Ages were
not translations of any of any of these Greek texts into Latin. At this time no Greek
texts of the Elements were known and the only versions of the Elements were those
which had been translated into Arabic.

vii) It is worth recording that reason often given that no earlier copies of texts
survived is because the Arabs burnt the library in Alexandria in 642 AD. It appears,
however, that there is no truth in the story that the Arabs burnt this library, see for
example [1].

In fact the first Arabic translation was made by al-Hajjaj early in the 9th century.
Another translation by Hunayn was revised by Thabit ibn Qurra also in the
9th century. Gherard of Cremona translated the Thabit version into Latin in the
12thcentury. An earlier Latin translation from Arabic by Adelard of Bath around
1120 survives. These translations from Arabic are all of versions which trace
back through the edition by Theon of Alexandria.
The relations between the different versions of a large number of Greek
mathematical manuscripts was brilliantly worked out by the Danish scholar J L
Heiberg towards the end of the 19th century. It would be impossible to do justice
to the scholarly work that was involved in such a task, but we at least indicate the
way that it is tackled. If we compare two manuscripts A and B say, and find that
the errors present in A are also present in B but there are some errors in B which
do not appear in A, then it is reasonable to deduce that B was copied from A or that
it was copied from a copy of A. If we find that A and B have common errors but
also each has distinct errors of its own, then it is likely that both A and B were
copied from C. If no manuscript has survived which fits the role of C, then C can
be reconstructed from A and B with some degree of certainty.

Using methods of this type Heiberg showed that all except one of the surviving
manuscripts of the Elements derived from the edition by Theon of Alexandria. The
one exception was based on an earlier version of the text than Theon's edition but
this earlier version was itself later than the version on which Theon must have
based his edition. Between 1883 and 1888, Heiberg published an edition of
the Elements which was as close to the original as he was able to produce (see
[5]). Heath's edition of 1908 ([4] is a later edition of this work) was based on
Heiberg's edition and contains a description of the different manuscripts which
have survived.

We have only given a brief indication of the way that the Elements have come
down to us. We refer to [4] and [5] for a detailed description. Let us now turn to
the works of perhaps the greatest of the Greek mathematicians,
namely Archimedes.

William of Moerbeke (1215-1286) was archbishop of Corinth and a classical

scholar whose Latin translations of Greek works played an important role in the
transmission of Greek knowledge to medieval Europe. He had two Greek
manuscripts of the works of Archimedes and he made his Latin translations from
these manuscripts. The first of the two Greek manuscripts has not been seen since
1311 when presumably it was destroyed. The second manuscript survived longer
and was certainly around until the 16th century after which it too vanished. In the
years between the time when William of Moerbeke made his Latin translation and
its disappearance this second manuscript was copied several times and some of
these copies survive. Up until 1899 Heiberg had found no sources of Archimedes'
works which were not based on the Latin translations by William of Moerbeke or
on the copies of the second Greek manuscript which he used in his translation.

In 1899 an exceptionally important event occurred in our understanding of the

works of Archimedes. An Archimedes palimpsest was listed in a catalogue of 890
works in the library of the Metochion of the Holy Sepulchre in Istanbul. In 1906
Heiberg was able to start examining the Archimedes palimpsest in Istanbul. What
exactly was Heiberg examining? A palimpsest is a text which has been washed so
that another text can be written on top. The underlying text, in this case works
of Archimedes, is said to be "in palimpsest". The two main reasons to do this were
either cost, it was cheaper to reuse an old parchment rather than purchase a new
one, or often Greek texts were deliberately destroyed for it was considered by some
Christians to be a holy act to destroy a pagan text and replace it by a Christian one.

The Archimedes palimpsest had been copied in the 10th century by a monk in a
Greek Orthodox monastery Constantinople. Then in the 12th century the parchment
had been washed and religious texts written on top. Originally the pages were
about 30 cm by 20 cm but when they were reused the pages were folded in half to
make a book 20 cm by 15 cm with 174 pages. Of course this involved writing the
new texts at right angles to the Archimedes text and, since it was bound as a book,
part of the Archimedes text was in the spine of the "new" 12th century book. To
make Heiberg's task even harder, the pages of the Archimedes text had been used
in an arbitrary order in making the new book. However, Heiberg had all the skills
necessary to deal with these problems.

What did Heiberg find? The palimpsest contained four of Archimedes' works
which were already known, but the versions on the palimpsest were independent
of the two lost manuscripts used by William of Moerbeke in his Latin translations.
This was an exciting find for scholars wanting to gain more insight into the original
contents of Archimedes' work. Better still the palimpsest also contained a text
of On floating bodies which up until that time was only known through Latin
translations. Best of all however, was the fact that a work of Archimedes was
found on the palimpsest for which no copy in any language was known prior to
Heiberg studying the palimpsest. It was the extremely important Method of
mechanical theorems which we describe in Archimedes' biography.

Heiberg published his reconstruction of the works of Archimedes found in the

palimpsest while the palimpsest itself remained in the monastery in Istanbul.
However before publication of Heiberg's new edition [6] of Archimedes' works
incorporating these remarkable new discoveries was complete, the region was
plunged into war along with the rest of Europe. During World War I, the allies
planned to partition the Ottoman empire but Mustafa Kemal, later known as
Atatürk, had different ideas. Atatürk faced local uprisings, official Ottoman forces
opposed to him, and Greek armed forces. However, Turkey was declared a
sovereign nation in January 1921 but, later that year, the Greek armies made major
advances almost reaching Ankara. The survival of the library of the Metochion of
the Holy Sepulchre in Istanbul could not be guaranteed amid the fighting, and head
of the Greek Orthodox Church requested that the books from the library be sent to
the National Library of Greece to ensure their safety. Of the 890 works in the
library only 823 reached the National Library of Greece and
the Archimedes palimpsest was not among them.

Exactly what happened to the Archimedes palimpsest is unclear. It was, it appears,

in the hands of an unknown French collector from the 1920s although the
palimpsest remained officially lost and most people assumed that it had been
destroyed. The French collector may have sold it quite recently, but all we know
for certain is that the palimpsest appeared at auction in Christie's in New York in
1998 sold on behalf of an anonymous seller. It was put on display with the spine
broken open to reveal all the original text which had been in the spine when it had
been examined by Heiberg. It was sold to an anonymous buyer for 2 million dollars
on 29 October 1998 but the new owner has agreed to make it available for scholarly
research.

The Archimedes palimpsest

A number of mysteries remain regarding the palimpsest in
addition to who the present owner is:
Was the palimpsest sold or stolen in 1922?

Who owned the palimpsest during the years 1922 to 1998?

The palimpsest was seen to have a number of icons on it when

displayed by Christie's in New York in 1998 but Heiberg had not
mentioned any icons on the work. Were the icons added by one
of its owners to try to increase its value?

The diagrams seen in the version of On floating bodies in the palimpsest are
different from those in the translation by William of Moerbeke. More strangely
they are different from those appearing in Heiberg version of On floating bodiesin
[6] which has the text from the palimpsest. Where did the diagrams as produced
by Heiberg come from if not the palimpsest?
How do we know about Greek mathematicians?
Perhaps the most important fact about the lives of the mathematicians, if we are to
have a proper appreciation of their work, is a knowledge of the period during which
they lived. Some mathematicians added a date to their work and this has been
preserved during the copying process described in the article How do we know
about Greek mathematics?. Some are referred to by other authors and at least an
approximate date can be given. Otherwise much more indirect evidence needs to
be used.

The following type of argument is typical of the type used. What works does the
mathematician refer to? Clearly the mathematician must have lived after these
works were written. What works refer to the mathematician? One has to be
particularly careful about using data of this type since during the copying of the
texts additional references may have been added which the original author could
never have known about since they are from a later date. This method may leave a
span of more than 200 years during which the mathematician may have lived.
Particularly useful are cases where the mathematician made astronomical
observations. Often these can be dated with great accuracy and, as we shall see in
the example below, even having some mathematicians dates known accurately will
help to date others.

As an example we examine how the dates of Diocles given in this archive have
been determined. First let us see what facts Heath knew when he wrote his famous
book [1], A history of Greek mathematics, which he began in 1913. In the
5thcentury AD, Proclus wrote his Commentary on Euclid which is our principal
source of knowledge about the early history of Greek geometry. This commentary
has survived and in the work Proclus wrote that Geminus used the term "cissoid"
for a curve he describes. Now Heath knew, from other sources which we will
describe in a moment, that the "cissoid" was used by Diocles to solve the classical
problem of doubling the cube (and almost certainly invented by him for this
purpose). Hence, Heath can deduce that [1]:-

... Diocles must have preceded Geminus.

The other bound for Diocles dates which was deduced by Heath comes
from Eutocius who wrote commentaries on three works of Archimedes in the
first quarter of the 6th century AD. Eutocius's commentary on Archimedes On the
Sphere and Cylinder II includes a quotation from Diocles solving the following
problem of Archimedes (see for example [1]):-
To cut a given sphere by a plane in such a way that the volumes of the segments
are to one another in a given ratio.
Although Archimedes promises a solution later in his text, it does not
appear. Eutocius quotes from a solution by Diocles of this problem. In the quote
from Diocles, reference is made to Apollonius. Eutocius states that the quote he
gives is from Diocles' On burning mirrors but at the time Heath wrote his book
no version of Diocles's text had been found, either in Greek or
Arabic. Heath deduces from the quotes in Eutocius that Diocles [1]:-

... was later than Archimedes and Apollonius. He may therefore have flourished
towards the end of the second century or at the beginning of the first century BC.
Heath also writes [1]:-

Diocles ... writing a century or more after Apollonius ...

Now the dates deduced by Heath, say 130 BC - 70 BC, are based on Heath's
dating of Apollonius and of Geminus both of which were inaccurate. The range
of dates (after Apollonius and before Geminus) is convincing but, as Toomer
writes in [2]:-

There are no grounds for Heath's further refinements.

In the paper La cissoid et Diocles written by Paul Tannery, which was certainly
known to Heath, it was noted that the reference to Apollonius in Eutocius's
commentary on Archimedes' On the Sphere and Cylinder II must be an addition
by Eutocius, but Heath clearly must have felt that Paul Tannery was wrong.
However, time would show that Paul Tannery was correct and Heath was wrong.

Before continuing with the description of what has been discovered

since Heath wrote his A history of Greek mathematics it is reasonable to ask: Does
it matter when Diocles lived? The answer is certainly "yes" in deciding how fine a
mathematician Diocles was. If indeed Diocles lived a century or more
after Apollonius, as Heath "proves", then he would be very familiar
with Apollonius's Conics and so his own work on conic sections would have to be
evaluated in that light. However, if Diocles did not know
of Apollonius's Conics then his own work clearly must be considered far more
innovative than is the case otherwise.

We now come to the work [2] by Toomer. It presents an Arabic translation

of Diocles On burning mirrors, from a manuscript copied in 1462, together with
an English translation and commentary. The publication of this work in 1976 was
an event of major importance in the history of mathematics adding a previously
lost piece to the jigsaw. How does it help us to know the dates when Diocles lived?
To answer this we quote from Diocles' introduction to On burning mirrors in the
translation by Toomer [2]:-

Pythian the Thasian geometer wrote a letter to Conon in which he asked him how
to find a mirror surface such that when it is placed facing the sun the rays reflected
from it meet the circumference of a circle. And when Zenodorusthe astronomer
came down to Arcadia and was introduced to us, he asked us how to find a mirror
surface such that when it is placed facing the sun the rays reflected from it meet a
point and thus cause burning.

Toomer notes that his translation of 'when Zenodorus the astronomer came down
to Arcadia and was introduced to us' could, perhaps, be translated
'when Zenodorus the astronomer came down to Arcadia and was appointed to a
teaching position there'.

This certainly allows us to give quite accurate dates for Diocles since the dates
of Zenodorus are known accurately (although to explain how we know this is
another story!). Looking at the text of On burning mirrors shows that Paul
Tannerywas correct and Heath was wrong: Eutocius did insert the reference
to Apollonius. In fact Eutocius did quite a lot more for, although claiming to give
a direct quote, Eutocius rewrote Diocles' proof in a later style so he
converts Diocles' text into what for him would be a modern form.

How then do the dates of Apollonius and Diocles fit? Did Diocles know
of Apollonius's Conics ? We can now say with certainty
that Apollonius and Diocles were contemporaries, with Diocles perhaps slightly
the elder. Does the text of On burning mirrors show
whether Diocles knew Apollonius's work? Here the evidence is somewhat
contradictory. The whole work is written in a language used for conics which
predated Apollonius's contributions except for one theorem, Proposition 8,
where Apollonius's terminology is used. Of course some later copyist could have
inserted this later terminology into Proposition 8 but, as Toomer writes, that
someone should make the change to just this one proposition and leave the old
terminology everywhere else is unbelievable. We are left with the possible
explanation, offered by Toomer in [2], that Diocles learnt of Apollonius's work
(perhaps before its publication) and made the change in his nearly completed work.
This, however, leaves the problem of why Diocles only made this change in one
place. A number of different solutions have been proposed but this is leading us
away from the question of dating which we are discussing in this article.

When we asked how the dates of Apollonius and Diocles fitted we were thinking
of those of Apollonius as being known while those of Diocles being less well
known. We shall consider later in this article how we have learnt
about Apolloniusbut before going on to this discussion it is worth thinking about
how certain we are that our information about Diocles is now correct. Are we sure
that the dates given for Diocles above are at least close to being correct?
Unfortunately the answer must be no. We cannot be certain. Although the
argument is based on the best knowledge available at present, we certainly cannot
rule out the possibility that further evidence may be discovered some time in the
future which could point to a different answer. It is tempting to think that this could
not happen given the "facts" which are now known. However, to give just one
possible source for doubt, Toomer might have incorrectly identified Zenodorus for
he writes [2]:-

Although the Arabic text is slightly corrupt at both places where this person's name
is mentioned, that is the only plausible way to read the name.
The other point worth mentioning is that there must be other mathematicians
whose dates have been worked out using as strong a logical argument
as Heath used for Diocles, but nevertheless they too are incorrect.

Let us now turn to other ways to gain information about the ancient Greek
mathematicians. Another useful piece of information which can often be found in
mathematical works is a dedication to a patron who had supported the
mathematician. This dedication can provide dating information if the patron and
his dates are known. It can also provide other information since it will almost
certainly allow the place where the mathematician carried out the work to be
identified. Other works are written in the form of a letter sent to a colleague and
may contain information concerning why the work was written. As an example let
us examine the problem mentioned above of finding out about Apollonius. For this
his famous work Conics is an extremely valuable source, in fact it is almost our
only source.

The first book of Conics was sent by Apollonius to Eudemus of Pergamum. Let us
give a little background about the city and state of Pergamum. It was a Greek city
some 25 km from the Aegean Sea; today the town of Bergama, Izmir, Turkey
stands on the site. The ruler Eumenes I had declared Pergamum an independent
state in 263 BC and ruled it until he was succeeded by his nephew Attalus I (269
BC - 197 BC) in 241 BC. After defeating the Galatians in 230 BC, Attalus declared
himself King of Pergamum. There followed a period of political treaties
(particularly with Rome), and of battles against the neighbouring states with
frequent wars.

Book I of the Conics of Apollonius begins:-

Apollonius to Eudemus, greetings.
If you are in good health and things are in other respects as you wish, it is well;
with me too things are moderately well. During the time I spent with you at
Pergamum I observed your eagerness to become acquainted with my work in
conics; I am therefore sending you the first book, which I have corrected, and I
will forward the remaining books when I have finished them to my satisfaction. I
dare say you have not forgotten my telling you that I undertook the investigation
of this subject at the request of Naucrates the geometer, at the time when he came
to Alexandria and stayed with me, and, when I had worked it out in eight books, I
gave them to him at once, too hurriedly, because he was on the point of sailing...
This is an extremely useful introduction. It not only tells us that Apollonius was
living in Alexandria but, of course, that he visited Pergamum. It also gives a
feeling for the way that the mathematicians of this time travelled around, visiting
each other and stimulating each other with questions and ideas.

The second book of the Conics was also sent by Apollonius to Eudemus of
Pergamum:-

Apollonius to Eudemus, greetings.

I have sent you my son Apollonius bringing you the second book of the conics as
arranged by us. Go through it then carefully and acquaint those with it worthy of
sharing in such things. Philonides the geometer, who I introduced to you in
Ephesus, if ever he comes to Pergamum, acquaint him with it too. Take care of
yourself, and be well.
Now we learn that, by the time he sent this book, Apollonius was old enough to
have a son (also called Apollonius) who could travel to Pergamum to deliver
Book II. Also note that Philonides, Eudemus of Pergamum and Apollonius had
all met at Ephesus, again an indication of the way that these mathematicians
travelled around.

Although Book III of the Conics has no preface in the form it has reached us, it
seems from the Preface to Book IV, however, that it almost certainly had one at
the time it was sent to Pergamum. Again Book III was sent to Eudemus of
Pergamum but, before Apollonius had completed Book IV, Eudemus had
died. Apollonius therefore sent Book IV to Attalus I. As we mentioned above he
was the ruler of Pergamum from 241 to 197 BC. This now provides us with a firm
point on which to base an estimate of the years through which Apollonius lived.

Apollonius to Attalus, greetings.

Some time ago I expounded and sent to Eudemus of Pergamum the first three books
of my conics which I have complied in eight books, but as he has passed away, I
have resolved to dedicate the remaining books to you because of your desire to
possess my works.
Now in addition to having a reputation for military and diplomatic skill, Attalus
also had a reputation as a generous patron of the arts. It is likely that indeed he
had given Apollonius more support that just the desire to possess his works.

Of course references may be found in other literature concerning the

mathematician in whose life we are interested. There are difficulties with this
information - are we sure that it refers to the right person (for example Euclid was
a very common name); taking various pieces of such information together may
lead to inconsistencies which need to be resolved; and at ever stage we need to
make an evaluation of the likely accuracy of the information. We must be careful
here not to make the mistake of assuming that if the same information is given by
a number of sources then it must be correct. The sources may have all taken the
information from the same place.

To give an example of references which might help put events into perspective we
gave an example still related to the events described above. Relevant information
was found in a papyrus discovered at Herculaneum. When Vesuvius erupted in 79
AD Herculaneum, together with Pompeii and Stabiae, was destroyed.
Herculaneum was buried by a compact mass of material about 16 m deep which
preserved the city until excavations began in the 18 th century. Special conditions
of humidity of the ground conserved wood, cloth, food, and in particular papyri
which give us important information. One papyrus states [1]:-

Philonides was a pupil, first of Eudemus, and afterwards of Dionysodorus, the son
of Dionysodorus the Caunian.
Now Eudemus referred to in this quote is Eudemus of Pergamum and Philonides
is the geometer who Apollonius met at Ephesus. So we have one more small
piece of the jigsaw, the knowledge that Philonides was a pupil of Eudemus of
Pergamum.