Fragments from

Archimedes in Heron’s Mechanics

by A. G . DRACHMA”

When I was going through Heron’s Mechanics for the sake of a book on
the mechanical technology of Antiquity, I found in the first Book, ch.
24-34, references to works by Archimedes. As a matter of routine I
looked them up in the edition, and found that they have not come down
to us at all in the original Greek.
In J. L. HEIBERG’S edition of ARCHIMEDES (2) we find quoted the Ger-
man translation of HERON’SMechanics 1, ch. 24 (3); later on, (6), we
find a quotation from ch. 25, with a foot-note: by the editor: “Just as
certain it is that the best of what follows about this [viz. ch. 2628, 30-311
is due to Archimedes, just as difficult it is to distinguish this from the
Heronian”.
It was certainly not tempting for the editor, who knew no Arabic, to
undertake a thorough investigation of these chapters; but since they have
to do with Archimedes, I held that an attempt had to be made, even if
the result should prove rather meagre. It seems to me that some good has
come out of it.
It looks as if there are traces of three different works; one on the centre
of gravity, one on balances, and one on supports. The first of these may
have been used by PAPPOS (39) and seems to be indicated also by EUTOKIOS
(7); Pappos also quotes a book i 7 q i ~ u ~ T Y“on , balances” (41), but the
third work, “on uprights”, is mentioned here only. In the following I shall
take these three works one by one.

1 . On the centre of gravity

When J. L. HEIBERG collected all the evidence about lost works by
Archimedes in his dissertation in 1879 (20), he found that Archimedes
must have written something about the centre of gravity before the first
Book of the Equilibrium of Plane Figures, and he suggests that this might
Centaurus 1963: vol. 8 : pp. 91-146
 92 A . G. Drachmann

have been the book On Balances. But already in 1881 (1) he expresses some
doubts about this, and in the edition of 1913 (3) he registers the quotation
from PAPPOS alone (5), remarking (4):
“But how many works on equilibrium Archimedes has written is uncertain,
mostly because of the obscurity of the titles that have come down to us only in
Arabic; but it would seem that there have been at least three, excluding the second
book of the Equilibrium of Plane Figures, which I think has been issued separately.
I suspect that the first Book of this work is an excerpt from the work which Archi-
medes calls “Mechanics” or “Elements of Mechanics”. Perhaps the lemmata 1,3,
4,7 from the Book of the Method should be referred to this work.”

In 1925 (23) he writes: “the works of Archimedes on mechanics

probably belong to his early times. . . . The two books on the Equilibrium
of Plane Figures . . . do not belong together; the Quadrature of the
Parabola depends on Rook I, and is taken for granted in Rook 11, and
the titles are not the same.” Here follows a survey of the contents of
Book I ; Heiberg goes on: “The book seems just to be an extract of a
larger work by Archimedes; he quotes it himself under the titles . . .”
(See my list, further down, on p. 96.) “Anyway, it presupposes a definition
of the centre of gravity, in this or in a separate work of which traces are
found2. Note 2: G . Vailati: Scritti (Firenze 1911) p. 79 sqq. Confer
Pappos VIII 5, Simplikios in Aristot. De caelo p. 543, 24 sqq. (Archi-
medes Opp. I1 p. 547); Archimedes, Quadrat. parab. 6 (I1 p. 274, 12 sqq.
Fragm. 12.)”
J. L. Heiberg, then, found that Archimedes must have given the theory
of the centre of gravity somewhere, either in a larger edition of the first
book of Plan. Aequil. or in a work preceding it, but probably the latter.
In 1935 W. STEIN published a dissertation on “The concept of the centre
of gravity in Archimedes” (47). He goes through the books Plan. Aequil.
1-2, Quadr. Parab., Method., and Corp. Fluit. 1-2, in relation to the idea
of the centre of gravity. The result is tabulated in 7 Postulates, from Plan.
Aequil. 1, and 5 theorems, S1-S5, which he designs as “tacit assumptions”,
and 3 more theorems, S’1-S’3, of which Archimedes says that he has
proved them, though no definite proof is found in his works.
The first five theorems are:
“S1 Every magnitude has a well defined centre of gravity.
Sz The centre of gravity of a magnitude consisting of two magnitudes falls on the
straight line connecting the centres of gravity of the two magnitudes, in SO far
as the centres of gravity are different points.
 Fragments from Arcliiniedes in Heron’s Mechanics 93

S3 If the centre of gravity of a magnitude is made its supporting point, the magni-
tude will be in equilibrium.
S4 If two magnitudes have the same centre of gravity, this will be also the centre
of gravity of the magnitude consisting of the two magnitudes together.
Ss If A is too heavy to be in equilibrium with B, it is possible to take away from A
50 much, that the rest is in equilibrium with B.”

The other three theorems are:

“S1 The balance must be horizontal in equilibrium.
S’2 Every body suspended from its centre of gravity will stay in such a position,
that the point of suspension and the centre of gravity are on the same vertical
line.
S’, If to two magnitudes that are in equilibrium on a balance two others are added,
which by themselves alone would also be in equilibrium on the same balance,
the two sums on each side will also keep equilibrium.”

The results of the investigation are summed up like this (51):

“1. Archimedes uses for the investigations about the centre of gravity no other
axioms than . . . the Postulates P1 . . . P7, together with the tacit assumptions
S1 . . . S5; S’1, S’2, S’3. Everything else follows logically from this. . . .
2. Only the Quadrature of the Parabola speaks of a balance, (that is, of stable
equilibrium); all other known works deal only with indifferent stability; G1. A
[viz. Plan. Aequil. 1, ch. 1-71 takes up an exceptional position, since it is
expressed with general validity for both sorts of equilibrium together. S’1, S’2,
S’3 therefore are found only in the Quadrature of the Parabola. S’z is quoted
explicitly from an elementary work, ( , I h ~ p J v Z c ; ) ,which must have contained
also the Equilibrium of Plane Figures I 14. This elementary work cannot have
been identical with the Equilibrium of Plane Figures 1. But there is a possibility
that GI. A [Plan. Aequil. I , ch. 1-71 is just another version of this elementary
book, which has left out all that was not generally valid and was not necessary
for GI. B r h e Equilibrium of Plane Figures 1, ch. 8-15, and 21.
3. In the same way the Ephodos lets us perceive that Sz, S3, S4 must have been
formulated in another version. SI,Ss,which thus alone remain as racit assump-
tions, are just of the same sort as the postulates that are passed over in silence
by Euclid in his doctrine of proportions. . . .”

The analysis of the single works is carried through with great discern-
ment, and the whole dissertation shows great diligence and great learning;
it seems a pity that it should fail entirely in its cardinal point.
The author writes (48) :
“In a wider sense it is part of the full purity of this method of investigation, that
also the other ancient evidence about Archimedes’s teaching about the centre of

8 CENTAURUS. VOL. VIII

94 A. G . Draclirnann

gravity as we find them in Heron, Pappos, Eutokios, at first have been deliberately
disregarded; they will be investigated by someone else on the strength of the
unambiguous results obtained here.”

But how is it possible to speak of “tacit assumptions” by Archimedes

without first of all finding out what Archimedes has written on the sub-
ject? By dealing only with the works that have come down to us, and
deliberately disregarding the evidence of other works by Archimedes
on the same subject, the author forfeits the right to speak of “tacit assump-
tions” at all o n the part of Archimedes. A study of Heron would have
shown him that the theorems about the centre of gravity used by Archi-
medes were not tacit indeed, but had been established by the author in a
previous work.
W. Stein goes on, in a note (49): “There also a discussion will have to
take place about Vailati, (cf. p. 230).”
On p. 230 we find a reference to Vailati’s paper on the text in Heron (52),
but only in relation to the proof of proposition 6 in Plan. Aequil. Book 1,
but with no indication of the unknown work which is the chief contents
of Vailati’s paper.
In 1934 DORAREIMANN (44)made a survey of a number of old texts
about equilibrium and the centre of gravity, beginning with the Mechani-
cal Problems ascribed to Aristoteles. The treatment of authors later than
Archimedes need not detain us here; it seems a very painstaking and
careful work, and it is really a shame to quote it just because of a small
slip. But this slip, though slight, is very revealing.

A 3
Fig. 1. illustrates the Mechanical Problems 2. If a balance is suspended from above (A),
it will right itself, if released, because an excess of weight, the small triangle, is added to the
upper half; but if it is supported from below (B), it will not right itself, because the triangle
is added to the lower part. The diagrams are made from the text; there are no MS illustra-
tions.
 Fragment sfrom Archimedes in Heron’s Mechanist 95

The author analyses the Mechanical Problems, Problem 2. It is shown,

1) that when a balance is hung “from above”, it will return to its hori-
zontal position, when a weight that made it sink down is removed; that
is, it is in stable equilibrium. On the other hand, 3) it will stay down, if it
is supported from below; that is, it is in unstable equilibrium. The reason
is that in the first case, see fig. 1 A, the part of the balance that is lifted is
heavier than the other part, while in the second case the lower part of the
balance is heavier, see fig. 1 B.
The editor of the Loeb edition objects (9) that in the latter case the arm
should sink until the beam fell off the pivot, but Dr. Reimann quotes
Guido Ubaldo del Monte to the effect that we have to imagine a real
balance, where the two pans can go down only so far. This seems to me
quite true, and I have illustrated it in my figure, which has had to be made
from the text alone, since no figures are found in the MSS.
But dr. Reimann puts in, between the two cases, the case of indifferent
equilibrium. Here are the words (45):
“2. The indifferent case (support in the collective centre of gravity) is not
treated. Guido Ubaldo, a great admirer of Aristoteles, says in 1577 as an explana-
tion that it is the custom of AristoteIes to pass very we11 known things over in
silence.”
Since the learned author makes no comment, it would seem that she
accepts the explanation. This assumes that the idea of the centre of
gravity was familiar to Aristoteles, or to the author of the Mechanical
Problems. But the expression “centre of gravity” is conspicuous by its
absence in the Mechanical Problems, and very conspicuous indeed, once
you have noticed it. It is not a “tacit assumption”, it is not assumed a t
all. There is Problem 16, on why a long rod bends if it is held by one end;
Problem 26, about carrying long timbers by the end; Problem 29, on two
men carrying a long plank; and Problem 30, about a man having to
draw back his feet to rise from a sitting position. Since the centre of
gravity is not mentioned in any of these chapters, it seems a fair inference
that it was quite unknown at the time.
Though the Mechanical Problems bear the name of Aristoteles and are
included in the complete editions of his works, there is some doubt about
the authorship. It is generally believed to be a work by a later hand,
written about -280, (8), though PAULGOHLKE, who published a German
translation and commentary in 1957 (lo), regards it as most evidently a
work by Aristoteles himself, and accordingly written before his death in
 96 A . G. Drachmann

-322. Be that as it may, the book was written about the time of the birth
of Archimedes, or 40 years earlier.
Archimedes’s Book on the Equilibrium of Plane Figures, 1, is based on
the conception of the centre of gravity. So this conception must have
arisen and must have been proved in between -322 or -280 and, say -250.
With no positive evidence pointing to any other mathematician, the name
of Archimedes as the originator of the idea would suggest itself at once.
And if we find evidence to support this suggestion, it ought not to sur-
prise us.
Returning to J. L. Heiberg and the lost work or works by Archimedes
preceding the Equilibrium of Plane Figures, we find that Archimedes
quotes the Plan. Aequil. five times:
1. 1:8, in Corp. Fluit. 2:2 (Vol. 2, p. 350:21)
2. 1:14, in Quadr. Parab. 6 (Vol. 2, p. 274:7).
3. 1 :14, in Meth. 1 (Vol. 2, p. 438:2).
4. 1 :15, in Quadr. Parab. I0 (Vol. 2, p- 280: 16).
5. 2:8, in Corp. Fluit. 2:2 (Vol. 2, p. 350:13).
These are undoubted quotations from the book as we have it; it is
called in 2 and 4: s r ; A I q p v u r i “The Mechanics”; in 3 : 1 1 ; ’Iiro&jorrtxc;.
“The Equilibria” (sit venia verbo); in 1 : CrEi J ‘ r n q r i r w I G V 4 1 q p v t m h .
“The Elements of the Mechanics”; and in 5 : t d ’/tro(;$o;rictt “The Equili-
bria”.
To these we must add two quotations which are not from any extant
work.
First there is Plan. Aequil 1 :4 (Vol. 2, p. 128:22), that the common
centre of gravity of two magnitudes is to be found on the straight line
joining their separate centres of gravity, “for that . . . has been shown
earlier”.
Next there is the Quadr. Parab. 6 (Vol. 2, p- 274: 15). Here Archimedes
hangs up a triangle on a balance, indicates its centre of gravity, “for that
has been proved in the Mechanics”, (see 2, above), and then states that
when a body is suspended from a point on the vertical that contains its
centre of gravity, it will be at rest “for that has also been proved”. Here
the inference is obvious, that this also was proved in the Mechanics. But
it is not found in our text. W. Stein concludes (see p. 93 above) that there
may have been another version of the Plan. Aequil. 1, different from our
text. But it seems quite as reasonable to conclude that the title “Mecha-
 Frugments from Archimedes in Heron’s MecJzanics 97

nics” or “Elements of the Mechanics” includes a first part, and that the
postulates of our text are just a summary of the results of the first part,
which is now lost. To this may be added, for what it may be worth, that
our text does not begin with a letter to some friend. Of the 12 works still
extant, 7 have such an introduction, 5 have none; so this argument is not
very conclusive.
In Heron we find three obvious references to Plan. Aequil. 1 :6-7, viz.
that two burdens are at equilibrium on a balance, when their weights
are in inverse ratio to their distances from the centre. 1) Mech. 1:24
(p. 67: 3): “And this Archimedes has proved in his book on the equilibria
of figures for which levers are used”. 2) Mech. 2: 7 (p. 113:s): “And this
Archimedes has proved in his book on the equalization of declination.”
The latter is quite a good Arabic version of the word ’Icro&oxh, as we
shall see. The addition of the levers in the former title is less clear; but the
source is obvious. 3) Mech. 1 :32 (p. 87:9): “And this Archimedes has
proved in his books on the levers.” I have been inclined to think that this
last quotation may have come from the work S@Y, “On Balances”,
mentioned by Pappos (41), because we here have a solid balance-beam,
not just a mathematical equilibrium. But the argument is purely mathe-
matical, and there is no evidence that Suydv may mean a lever. Moreover,
the Arabic word, mubl, is borrowed from the Greek word p q l d c , while
“balance” is always mizdn. So we have to accept the “book on levers” as
the Plan. Aequil. 1. See further p. 99.
Next there is a reference to a book “On Uprights”, to be discussed in
the next chapter, and excerpts from a work on the centre of gravity, but
without any specific title. This fits in well with what we found from
Archimedes himself: the lost work was part of the “Elements of the
Mechanics”, of which Plan. Aequil. 1 formed part also.
We have now come to the fragment of the work on the centre of gravity,
which is found in Heron’s Mechanics 1 :24; but first I shall have to make
a few general remarks on this work. It is found in an Arabic translation
only, but a few quotations in Pappos (42) show that it is a genuine work
by Heron. The translation was made for the caliph Abu ’1 ‘AbbLs ibn a1
Mu‘tasim a1 Musta‘in, who reigned from 862-866, by QUSTAIBN LCQA.
This gives us a date for the translation; moreover, Qust2‘ ibn LGqL is
known from other translations as a very careful and well-informed man,
nor will a study of this translation in any way mar his reputation. He
knows what he is doing, and we can trust him to do it well.
98 A . G. Drachmatin

The text was first published by CARRADE VAUX (26) with a French
translation and a commentary; he used one MS only. Later, L. NIX
published the text (27) from 4 MSS, with a German translation and an
introduction. I have followed Nix’s text, noting the few occasions where
I have preferred to deviate from it. But for the figures it is quite otherwise.
Carra de Vaux used as a base for his figures the figures of the Leiden
MS (25), which was the only one he had; then he lent his blocks to Nix,
who used them for his edition, with very few exceptions. In the chapters
translated here only Carra de Vaux’s figures are found. But Carra de Vaux
did not make exact copies of the figures; he made diagrams or drawings
to help the reader to understand the text; it is characteristic that the
figures are all found in his translation, not in the Arabic text. Also he
replaced the Arabic letters with Greek letters, a thing of small moment
for the reader of the translation, but rather annoying to the reader of the
original text.
Now if a text contains letters referring to a figure, and the letters are
accepted as part of the original text, then the figure must be regarded also
as part of the original work. But then the reader has the most obvious
claim to know the MS drawings, for how else could he form an indepen-
dent opinion of the work? For an edition the best thing would be a
photographic copy, supplied if necessary with the editor’s interpretation
of the figure. For a translation I do not think that this will do, because
the reader who is not familiar with Arabic would find it very difficult to
identify the handwritten letters on the figure with the printed letters of
the text. So I have chosen another way.
The figures are made expressly to be copied by the scribes, and they
have all been copied many times between the time of Heron and that of
Qusta ibn LGq$ and between his time and the 15th century, which
appears to be the date of the Leiden MS; what then does one more scribe
matter? So I have copied the figures of the Leiden MS as carefully as I
could, just as I would like any other scribe to copy them, and then I have
provided them with Roman letters. In fig. 18 a the reader will find a
photographic copy from the Leiden MS, and in fig. 18 d, f my drawings
of the same figures so that he can compare the two. But having thus
considered the needs of the reader who knows no Arabic, I have used
photographic copies of the figures in the British Museum MS (24), when-
ever there was any difference between the figures. This is the best I can do,
for I have no copies of the other two MSS, one in Istanbul, the other in
 Frogmenis from Archimedes in Heron’s Mecliarrics 99

Cairo. This way of presenting the figures is a matter of principle, and it

might seem rather pedantic in this case, since most of the figures are, or
might be represented by, simple mathematical diagrams. If, however, any
reader should be in doubt as to the necessity for reproducing somehow
the MS figures as they are, he is referred to the discussion of ch. 1 :32,
on p. 134 sqq. .
It was not an easy task for Qustii ibn LOqa to translate from Greek,
with its many subordinate clauses, participles, and other constructions,
into Arabic, which prefers the paratactic construction, where so to speak
every other sentence should begin with “and”. In translating a narrative
from Arabic into English it is often well to rearrange the clauses to avoid
the endless repetition of “and” or “but” or “SO”. In my translation I have
followed the Arabic text as closely as possible; this is not a work of art,
but a mathematical treatise, and the literal translation, even if tedious,
may give the reader a better idea of the text.
There are a few words that need a little explanation. There is a word
derived from the Arabic root mil which is translated by Nix as “Neigung”,
by me as “inclination”. DIJJSSTERHUIS (14) takes it to be a translation of
the Greek y o & but it is really i)omj. This word, curiously enough, is not
found in the extant works of Archimedes at all; but we find often ~ I E n w ,
the verb, used of a balance-arm sinking down because of an overweight.
The word l.bop3onicr, “equilibrium”, is derived from this; it means
“equal inclination”, that is, no inclination at all. This is why QustZ ibn
Ltiqii translates it as “equalization of inclination”, see above, p. 97.
On the other hand, the Arabic word for equilibrium is everywhere else
“balance”, from a word which means “counterpoise”, that is the saddle-
bag hung on one side of a horse or camel to balance the saddle-bag on
the other side. This is a conception and a word so familiar to the Ara-
bians that no other word could be used at all.
Finally, the word for “suspension” means in Arabic both suspension
from above and support from below. And Heron himself says (n) that
this makes no difference, mechanically speaking.
The text presents itself in one piece, without divisions; I have cut it up
into small verses for ease of reference.
Heron: Mechanics, Book 1. ch. 24 (p. 63 sqq.):
a “I hold that it is quite necessary to teach the students of mechanics about what
is inclination and what is centre of gravity, whether it is found in figures with
substance or in figures without substance.
100 A. G. Drnchmann

b That it is not really possible to speak of inclination or declination except in

bodies, that is what no one will deny. But if we speak of geometrical figures,
corporeal and flat, as having a centre of inclination or a centre of gravity in
a certain point, Archimedes has given a sufficient explanation about it. So you
have to understand it in the way in which we present it.
c Poseidonios the Stoic has defined the Centre of inclination and gravity by a
physical definition. He says that the centre of gravity or inclination is a point
which is such that the weight, if it is suspended in it, will be divided into equal
parts.
d On this account [?I Archimedes and his followers among mechanicians have
used a more precise definition and have distinguished between the suspension
and the point of inclination. The suspension is a point in the body or not-body,
such that if something is suspended from it the parts of the thing suspended
will keep equilibrium;
e by this I mean that it will not swing and not decline.
f And the equilibrium consists in the balancing of one thing by another, as it is
found in the balances, when they turn parallel with the plane of the horizon or a
plane parallel to that.
g As Archimedes says: weights will not incline when placed on a line or a point.
h As for the line, if the weight is placed upon two points of the line, and the line
does not incline, and if the plane that contains the line and is at right angles to
the horizon stays at right angles no matter how the line is moved, the weight on
this line will not incline anywhere.
i When we say that the weight inclines, we understand by that a sinking towards
what is below, that is a movement towards what is near the ground.
k As for the equilibrium that takes place on a point, it takes place when the weight
is suspended in it, and the body by any movement has its parts in balance one
against the other;
1 and the weight will balance another weight if, in their suspension on two points
of a line divided into two parts, and on the point by which it is divided, the line
is parallel to the horizon, provided that the proportion of the weights to one
another is like the reciprocal distances from the points on which they are
suspended.
m That the weights suspended in this way will balance each other in inclination,
that is what Archimedes has proved in his books on the equilibria of figures for
which levers are used.
n Suspensions and supports behave in the same way, because suspensions and
supports are the same in relation t o the power; and the supports on which the
weight is suspended are what carries the weight. And these supports may be quite
many, without any limit to their number.
o As for the centre of inclination, it is for every body a single point towards which
every one of the verticals from the point of suspension inclines. And the points
of inclination may in some bodies lie outside their substance, as in wheels and
am-rings.
p That the lines of suspension will meet in a single, common point will be evident,
 Fragments f r o m Archimedes in Heron’s Mechanics I01

if we imagine a plane a t right angles to the horizon, dividing a body so that it is

in equilibrium, for it is evident that this plane will divide the body into two halves,
a n d that therefore it must pass through the body.
q If we now imagine another plane dividing the body just like that plane, then it
must pass through it like that plane, a n d the two planes must meet along a
straight line. If this line of intersection did not meet the line of suspension, it
would lead to the bodies’ being both in equilibrium a n d not in equilibrium.
r Now let us apply this consideration t o the supports. We imagine a body resting
o n a line a t right angles to [a] (the) plane <of the horizon), and let the body be
in equilibrium with its parts when resting on this line. If this line is produced it
will pass though the body, and if the line produced should fall outside the body,
the plane containing it will also fall outside the body, and has been shown that
that is not possible. So the line must pass through the body, and (every plane
containing the line must) divide it into two parts of equal weight.
s And if we imagine the point of equilibrium as another point different from this,
it will happen as it happens about the first point, to wit that the line produced
from this point will pass through the substance of the body, and (this line must
meet the other line inside the body, for otherwise) the two lines will pass one
another a t a distance, and if two planes are laid along them, they will not inter-
sect, because it is possible through two lines (that d o not intersect) to lay
planes that d o not intersect; a n d then the same thing will happen as before, a n d
that is impossible. And so we see that the planes do intersect and the lines
intersect and lie in the same plane.
t If this plane is produced to the surface of the body, it will form a line along the
points of intersection. And then there must be a third point outside this line.
And we imagine this point also as a point of equilibrium, and that the body is
in equilibrium on it. And we draw from the point a line into the substance of
the body, and in consequence of what we have said before, if this line is produced
it intersects the two lines along which the plane was drawn, and it does not meet
them in any other point than their point of intersection, for if some line meets
two intersecting lines, and is itself placed in another plane, it meets them in the
point of intersection. For if it did not meet the two in their point of intersection,
part of the line would have to be in one plane a n d the rest in another plane. And
so all lines from the points of suspension must come together in a single point,
a n d that is what is known as the point of inclination and gravity.”

It is quite evident that this is not a verbatim rendering of a work by

Archimedes, but Heron’s own proof of the theory of the centre of gravity,
given as an introduction to the following chapters, where he shows his
students how to calculate the distribution of weight on supports. But he
has taken the proof from Archimedes; and we can begin by sorting out
what is obviously Heron’s additions.
a and b are Heron’s introduction.
c. Poseidonios the Stoic was born in -135, 77 years after the death of
102 A . C. Drachmann

Archimedes. His works on elementary geometry were very popular (22);

but Heron prefers to go to the source itself.
d. “On this account” cannot be right, since Archimedes cannot have
written against Poseidonios. It is certainly just an error in the translation,
for “On this subject”; Qust2 ibn LQq2was hardly aware of the difference
in the dates of the two authors.
1 and m are taken from Plan. Aequil. 1 :6-7 and must be a remark by
Heron; he reminds his students of the well-known law. This will be
discussed later on.
n also is Heronian; it connects this chapter with the next. For o see
p. 109.
All the rest should be Heron’s rendering of Archimedes’s proof.
PAPPOS(38) has given us the same proof; it will be a help to have his
text here for comparison. The additions that I have found it necessary to
make to Heron’s text are corroborated by Pappos.
Here is the text, from p. 1030. Once more I have cut it up for ease of
reference. The figures are from a Vatican MS (37).
A “. . . but the centre of gravity of each body, which is the beginning and the
element of the theory of the centre of gravity, from which also the rest of the
mechanics is derived, what that is and what it means must be told; for from this
I think that also the rest of the theories in this discipline will become clear. We
say that the centre of gravity of any body is a point situated within, and such that
if the body is imagined to be suspended from it, the weight will be at rest as it
hangs and will keep its original position. This point will be found not only in
bodies of regular shape, but also in quite irregular bodies, as will be shown in
the following proof.
B (6)1. Let there be a perpendicular plane ABrA, directed towards the centre of
the world, towards which all things having weight are believed to tend, and let

A
Fig. 2 tilustrates Pappos B-D;i t is taken from the Vatican MS.
r
The letters B and have to change place.
 Fragments f r o m Archimedes in Heron's Mechanics 103

the straight line A B be parallel to the surface on which it stands. If then some
body having weight is placed on the straight line A B in such a way that it is
altogether divided by the extension of the plane, it will at some time have such a
position that it will stay without tendency to move, nor fall down. (See fig. 2.)
C When this is done, if the plane A B r A is imagined to be produced, it will cut the
body placed upon it into two equally balanced parts, which will keep equilibrium
about the plane as about the cord of a balance.
D If next the weight is moved so that it touches the straight line A B along another
part, it will once more, if it is shifted about, get a position in which it will stay
if it is left alone and not fall down. If then the plane A B r A is imagined to be
produced, it will divide the weight into equally balanced parts, and it will cut
the plane which first divided the weight into equally balanced parts; for if it did
not cut it, the same parts will both balance and not balance each other(. which
is absurd).
E (7) 2. After this introduction, let us this time imagine a perpendicular, straight
line, AB,at right angles to the surface we stand on, i. e. directed towards the
centre of the world, and let the weight be placed in the same way upon the point
A , using the straight line as support. If, when it is at rest, the straight line A B
is produced, part of it will come inside the figure placed upon it. (See fig. 3.)
F Let us imagine this part of the line as keeping its position, and let the weight
again be placed on the straight line by another of its points, so that it comes to
rest. I contend that the straight line AB produced will meet the line already
inside the figure. For if they did not meet, it would be possible for two planes
containing the two straight lines not to meet inside the figure, and for each of
them to divide the weight into the same parts, which would be both in equili-
brium and not in equilibrium, which is absurd; so the straight lines mentioned
will meet inside the figure.
.G In the same way also if the weight is placed in another position of the point A
so that it stays, the straight line A B produced will cut the straight lines already
in the figure. From this we can see that the straight lines found in this way must
cut each other in the same point, and this is the point called the centre of gravity.

Fig. 3 illustrates Pappos E-G;it is taken from the Vatican MS.

104 A . G. Draclimann

H And it is evident that if the weight is imagined to be suspended from this point,
it will not change its position, but will stay, keeping whatever position it had
from the first, as it hangs;
I for every plane going through it will divide the weight into equally balanced
parts, so that it will have no cause to shift about.
(8) This should be the gist of the theory of the centre of gravity, but you will
learn the elementary things proved by this if you get hold of the works of
Archimedes on Equilibrium or Heron’s Mechanics; but we shall now write of
those things that are not known to most people, like the following.”

Pappos then goes on to prove a rather involved proposition about the

centre of gravity of two triangles, one inscribed in the other; so this last
passage only refers us to Plan. Aequil. 1 and Heron’s Mechanics 2: 35-37.
The text of Pappos agrees in substance with that of Heron; but whether
he has taken it from Heron and abbreviated it, or from Archimedes him-
self, is not easy to decide. As for A, which is not found in Heron, it would
seem to have been taken from Poseidonios the Stoic, since it contains just
the physical definition of the centre of gravity that Heron rejects. And it
may be that the whole proof is taken from just this source.
The only one who seems to have done anything at all about this frag-
ment from Archimedes is G . VAILATI(52), who wrote in 1897, using the
French translation by Carra de Vaux. He discusses the text in detail and
describes the results in modern language; but since he wrote before Nix’s
edition of 1900, he follows, in one place, an interpretation that does not
agree with the fuller text. But it is really a very fine piece of work, and it is
queer how little attention the later writers have paid to it. J. L. Heiberg
knows it, of course, and C. Juel, to whom I shall refer later o n ; but W.
Stein (see above, p. 94) merely tells us to expect a discussion, which I
have failed to locate.
E. J. DIJKSTERHUIS (12) discusses the whole question only in relation
to his exposition of Plan. Aequil. 1 : 6 . He prefers Pappos to Heron, who
“writes about it sketchily and indistinctively”, and only quotes the latter
for confirmation.
As for the way in which Archimedes uses the theory of the centre of
gravity Dijksterhuis puts up two possible explanations (1 1) :

“a) it is possible that Archimedes, when writing the treatise on the equilibrium
of planes, could assume the theory of the centre of gravity to be familiar to a certain
extent, because this theory had already been developed either by earlier students
of mechanics or by himself in a treatise now lost.
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron’s Mechanics 105

b) it is possible that the work o n the equilibrium of planes is an entirely autonomous

treatise, and that the definition of the concept of centre of gravity is to be conceived
of as being implied in the postulates on which this work is built.
Both these points of view have been defended; the former by G. Vailati and the
latter by Toeplitz and Stein.”

The latter explanation is first discussed and rejected; the former is

assumed to come nearer to the truth (18):
“(Archimedes) understood that parts balancing each other in general do not have
equal weight, but that the position of their respective centres of gravity, too, has to
be taken into account. He thus came to consider a lever on whose arms the parts of
the body were attached in their centres of gravity, and in this way the teory of the
lever furnished him with the means for determining centres of gravity, because he
only had to ask in what point the lever was to be supported in order to obtain equili-
brium. This theory in itself, however, was based on the barycentric theory-pro-
bably studied long before his day-, which we saw exposed by Pappos and to which,
in spite of palpable logical defects, a certain physically convincing effect cannot
be denied.”

The question of whether the fragment in Heron is from Archimedes

himself, and if so, whether it is the first definition of the centre of gravity,
is not discussed at all: the barycentric theory was “probably studied long
before his days”. But as I have pointed out (above, p. 95), there is no
evidence of the barycentric theory before Archimedes, and strong evidence
that it did not exist when the Mechanical Problems were written. I may add
here, that in the Mechanical Problem.s, ch. 3, the proposition is proved
that i n a lever the ratio of the moving weight to the weight to be moved
is the inverse of the distances from the centre; but not a word is said
about the centres of gravity. Archimedes proves the same in Plan. Aequil.
1:6-7, but solely on the basis of the centres of gravity. Why he did this
has been explained by C . Juel, as will be shown. It looks to me that
Archimedes formed the barycentric theory just because he wanted it for
this proof, and others.
1 have already mentioned that the Arabic word translated by Nix as
“Neigung” and by me as “inclination” does not correspond to the Greek
y n y i , as supposed by Dijksterhuis (14), but to (mrii. I f we look through
Heron’s text, we shall find three expressions for the centre of gravity:
centre of inclination, centre of gravity, centre of inclination and gravity.
The first is found in d and 0,the second only in a, the third in b, c, and t.
Of these a, b, c, certainly are not by Archimedes, while d certainly and o
106 A. G . Drachmatiti

possibly is; t is certainly Archimedean. It looks as if Archimedes had

begun by speaking of a centre of inclination, and then, at last, when he
had carried through the proof, had renamed it “centre of gravity”. As I
have said above, the word Q o n i is not found in any extant work by Archi-
medes. But there is a very interesting place in EUTOIUOS (7) in his introduc-
tion to the commentary on Plan. Aequil. 1. He begins by speaking of
don<, mentions Aristoteles, Ptolemaios and Platon, and goes on:
“But Archimedes in this book understands by the centre of inclination ( X K V Y Z ~ O V
d o n f g ) of a plane figure the point from which it k ’ t obe suspended to stay parallel
to the horizon, and by the centre of inclination or gravity of two or more planes the
one from which the balance is hung to be parallel to the horizon.”
Since he cannot have found “centre of inclination’’ in P1an:Aequil. 1
or any other now extant work of Archimedes, he must have taken it from
a lost work, and certainly from a work that served as an introduction to
Plan. Aequil. 1. This confirms the view that Heron’s text really is based on
a lost work by Archimedes.
Vailati has set forth the argument of Heron’s text in modern mathe-
matical language. I do not think that it is possible to reconstruct the text
of Archimedes verbatim from an Arabic translation of another man’s
version; but it seems to me to be worth while to try to express the proof
as given by Heron in the shape in which we are used to see Archimedes
form his proofs. As long as it is only regarded as an attempt at an approx-
imation, I hope that it will not be felt as presumptious. It is with Archi-
medes as with Kipling’s Instructor (35) “He ’as the knack 0’ makin’
men feel small”.
Axioms
I. By inclination, P o n i , we understand a movement downwards, to-
wards the ground (i).
2. By equilibrium we understand the condition of two weights balancing
each other on a balance, when the balance beam is parallel to the plane
of the horizon no matter how it turns (f).
Postulates
Let us take for granted:
1. That any body may be placed with two of its points resting on a
straight line parallel to the plane of the horizon in such a way that it
will not decline to either side; and that a plane through the line and at
right angles to the plane of the horizon will divide the body into two
parts that will be in equilibrium in any position taken by the body, as
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron's Mechanics 107

long as the plane remains at right angles to the plane of the horizon.
(h B C )
(This plane will be called a plane of equilibrium.)
2. That any body may be suspended in any of its points in such a way
that it will not incline to any side, but all its parts will be in equilibrium
with each other. (d e k).
Propositions
1. The vertical plane through the line of equilibrium must go through the
substance of the body.
For if it did not, the whole body on one side of the plane would be
in equilibrium with nothing on the other side, and that is absurd. (p C).
2. The vertical planes through two lines of equilibrium must meet within
the substance of the body.
If not, they must be either parallel or not parallel.
Let them, if it is possible, be parallel. They must then divide the body
into three parts, A , B, I-', and A +B must be in equilibrium with r
+
alone, and also B r must be in equilibrium with A alone, and that
is absurd. The planes, then, cannot be parallel.
If the planes are not parallel, they must meet; let them meet outside
the body, if it is possible. Two planes meet along a straight line, and
it must be possible to move the body until this straight line is vertical,
when the two planes must also be vertical. But then the two planes
will divide the body once more into t h e e parts, and the same thing
happens as before. The planes, then, cannot meet outside the body;
and so they must meet inside it. (q D) (See fig. 4.)

Fig. 4 illustrates Archimedes, prop. 2 (9).

108 A , G . Drachmann

3. If a body is suspended in a single point in equilibrium, a vertical line

through the point must go through the substance of the body.
For if it did not, we could draw through the line a plane of equili-
brium falling outside the body, and that has been shown to be im-
possible. (r E).
4. If the body is suspended in another point, a vertical line through this
point must intersect the line from the first point of suspension inside
the body.
For if it did not, it would be possible to draw two planes of equili-
brium which did not meet inside the body, and that has been shown to
be impossible. (s F).
5 . If we draw a plane containing the two lines crossing inside the body
and produce it, it will intersect the surface of the body along a line.
If we choose a point outside this line as suspension point, a line
through this point must intersect both the two first lines, and this
can only be in their point of intersection.
For if it did not, the same straight line would have to be in two
different planes, and that is not possible.
So all vertical lines from points of suspension must meet in one
point, and that point is called the centre of inclination or the centre of
gravity. (t G)”.
Tks is merely the relevant parts of Heron’s text edited in another way;
nothing has been added.
Dijksterhuis (13) critizises Heron for being confused about the question
of the point of suspension and the centre of gravity; but here I think that
he is doing Heron an injustice. Pappos indeed begins by defining the
centre of gravity as the point from which we have to hang a body to keep
it in equilibrium. This may well be the “physical definition” by Posei-
donios the Stoic, which Heron quotes (c) but to reject it. Archimedes and
his followers, he says, (d), distinguished between the point of suspension
and the centre of gravity. And the proof, as set forth by me, proceeds
from the suspension, first on a line, next on a point, until it reaches the
conclusion: all verticals from points of suspension meet in one point
inside the body, and this point we shall call the centre of gravity.
This is exactly as we might expect Archimedes to have tackled the
problem.
If we look at the letters referring to the two texts, it is clear that Pappos
has followed the line of argument that I suggest may have come from
 Fragments f r o m Archimedes in Heron’s Mechanics 109

Archimedes; the letters come in order: B C D E F G . As for Heron, the

order is: i f h (e) k p q r s t, which merely means that he has added the
axioms, which Pappos has not given. As for the rest, it comes in the right
order, and the missing letters merely refer to remarks that cannot belong
to Archimedes, as shown above, p. 101-102. The only exception is 0,that
the centre of gravity is not necessarily found in the substance of a body. It
seems quite likely that Archimedes himself should have added, after
reaching the definition of the centre of gravity, that in hollow bodies like
rings and hubs the centre of gravity may not be in the substance of the
body, though the suspension lines must go through the substance.
‘That Heron should quote Archimedes is no wonder; in his mathe-
matical works alone he quotes him 19 times (32); evidently only the best
was good enough for his students. But there, as also elsewhere, e. g. in the
Dioptra and the Mechanics, we find that Heron is perfectly capable of
giving a straightforward mathematical proof (28; 31); why then has he
chosen this rambling, almost slipshod way of presenting the subject here?
‘The answer may be that he is talking about something that was very
familiar to his students; he is merely, for the sake of rounding off his
work, repeating what they already knew by heart. He may have had
another end in view: to remind them that as long as he, Heron, was
professor of mathematics and mechanics at the University of Alexandria,
Archimedes was the man to consult, not a popular writer like Poseidonios
the Stoic.
We may here remark that just the sentence 0, about the centre of
gravity hanging in the air inside a ring, indicates why it is necessary to
distinguish between the centre of gravity and the point of suspension,
since you cannot suspend a ring from its centre of gravity.
In 1914 C. JUEL published a paper “A Note on Archimedes’s Doctrine
of the Centre of Gravity” (33). This article was written in Danish, and so
has not received the attention it certainly merits. The point of the investi-
gation into the 1. Book of the Plan. Aequil. is that Archimedes certainly,
in Prop. 6-7, has proved the theory of the lever, to wit that two unequal
weights will balance one another if their distances from the point of
suspension are in inverse ratio to their weights; but that he goes at it in his
own way. His proposition is “Magnitudes keep equilibrium at lengths in
inverse ratio to their weights”, but what he proves is that a magnitude
consisting of two unequal magnitudes will have its centre of gravity on
the line connecting the two centres of gravity, and in the point that divides
9 CENTAURUS. VOL. V l l l
110 A . G. Drachmann

this line into two parts in inverse ratio to the size of the magnitudes. And
this he does by a mathematical calculation, without using any postulates
about suspension. In the same way, when he seeks the centre of gravity
of a parallelogram or a triangle, he does away with all suspensions and
gives a mathematical proof based on finding the centre of gravity in
composite magnitudes.
C. Juel has certainly called attention to a very curious fact. For that
this is the result of a deliberate choice on the part of Archimedes is
obvious. In the book on the centre of gravity, the one found in Heron, the
postulates about suspension are used to define the centre of gravity. But in
the first Book of the Equilibrium of Plane Figures, Archimedes discards
all mechanical and experimental aids and uses his centre of gravity for
purely mathematical proofs. To him mathematics, and mathematics
alone, was the real thing.
Here I should like to make a few remarks on the Plan. Aequil. 1, Prop.
7, which has puzzled several of the authors already quoted; it certainly
presents a problem. Archimedes has divided the proof of the theory of the
lever into two parts; first he shows that commensurable magnitudes will
balance one another at lengths in inverse ratio to their weights; it takes
him 55 lines in the printed edition. Then he dismisses the proof that
incommensurable magnitudes will follow the same rule in just 19 lines.
Here is the proof: (See fig. 5).
“7. And further, if the magnitudes are not commensurable, they will also keep
equilibrium at lengths in inverse proportion to the magnitudes. Let AB, F, be
incommensurable magnitudes, the lengths AE, EZ,and let A B have the same pro-
portion to r as the length Ed to EZ; I contend that E is the common centre of
gravity for AB and r together.
For if AB placed at Z is not in equilibrium with r placed at A, then AB is either
too great in relation to r to keep equilibrium, or not. Let it be too great, and let
there be taken away from A B less than the excess by which AB is too great in rela-

A E 2

Fig. 5 . illustrates Archimedes: Plan. Aequil. I:7;it is copied

from Heiberg’s edition p. 139.
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron’s Mechanics 111

tion to T to keep equilibrium, in such a way that the rest A becomes commensurable
to r. Since now the magnitudes A T are commensurable, and the proportion of A
to r is less than the proportion of AE to EZ, A and r will not be in equilibrium at
the lengths AE, EZ, if A is placed at Z , r at A . For the same reason, they cannot
do it, even if T is too great to keep AB in equilibrium.”

This is all, and J. L. Heiberg comments:

“The imperfect and somewhat obscure proof should be completed in this way:
Since A: r < AE:EZ, they will sink down towards the point A, which is impossible,
since less than the excess has been taken from AB. We must reason the same way,
if r is greater, and so, since M I is neither greater nor smaller, the proposition is
proved.”

Both C . Juel(34) and W. Stein (50) repeat this more or less, both using
the argument about the sinking down of A . But there is not a word in
Archimedes about this sinking down; it is only in the comment by Hei-
berg, who has not undertaken to reconstruct the Greek text, merely to
supply the mathematical proof.
E. J. Dijksterhuis (19) repeats the proof, but criticizes it severely. (I
have changed his notation slightly.)
“That it follows from the inequality (2) A: r < Ed :EZ that the lever will incline
towards A is indeed physically plausible, but logically not justified. It is naturally
derived from the consideration that there would be equilibrium if A were replaced
by A’ > A, so that A ’ : r = Ed:EZ,(3) i. e. by Prop. 6,followed by the application
of postulate I11 [See below, p. 112.1 But it appears from (1) that Ed and EZ are
incommensurable, and it is therefore only possible to conclude from (3) that there
is equilibrium, if Prop. 7 has first been proved. In the proof of Prop. 7 it is not
permissible to make use of this conclusion.”

The last sentence is certainly true; but I prefer to conclude from it that
Archimedes did not reason that way.
To the commentators on the Plan. Aequil. 1, the Propositions 6-7 seem
to be the central part of the work; but I am not sure that that was how
Archimedes felt about it. The theory of the lever was well known; there
is a proof of it in the Mechanical Problems 3, and it is quite easy to prove
it by experiment. But Archimedes wants to use it for finding the centre of
gravity in his plane figures, and so he has to give a mathematical proof.
With great care he proves it if the two magnitudes (whatever that may be)
are commensurable; but then, I think, he loses his patience.
“And surely, if the magnitudes are incommensurable, they will balance one
another in the same way. (How else, indeed?) We will call them AB and r,and place
1 I2 A . G. Drachmann

them on our line, so that AE:EZ = AB:r.If they do not balance, then AB must be
either too heavy or too light. Let it be too heavy. (Then it must be placed inside Z
to balance r placed in d.) Let us then take away from AB so much that A becomes
commensurable to I“, but it still too heavy for balancing it on Z . (So A must still be
placed inside Z.) Now that A and r are commensurable, we can find the place for
A. It cannot beZ, since AB:r = AE:EZ, and so A : r = AE:EZcannot be true, for
A is less than A B by B. (And so A must be placed outside Z ; but it cannot be both
inside and outside. There you are.) If we take AB to be too small, the same proof
will do, mutatis mutandis.”

The point of making A commensurable to I‘ is certainly to make it

possible to use Prop. 6 to show that there is no equilibrium for A at 2,
which is all that Archimedes asserts.
Like Heiberg, I do not undertake to reconstruct the text; I have only
tried to follow the argument, which seems to me, when considered this
way, to be impeccable. And I am not sure that the text is not quite
complete, even if the argument may not seem so. Only, if I can follow
the argument, I venture to suggest, a fortiori, that so could Archimedes.
Returning now to our main topic, if we compare the Book o n the Centre
of Gravity with the First Book on the Equilibrium of Plane Figures, we
shall find that they are separated by a gap; in between them we must
assume at least one other work, of which hardly any trace is left, except
just this lacuna.
It seems a fair assumption that the seven postulates, or rather accepted
assumptions, ni~cmiprva, that open the Plan. Aequil. 1, partly represent
the gist of the preceding books. These postulates are:

“1. Let us agree: that equal weights at equal lengths are in equilibrium, but that
equal weights at unequal lengths are not in equilibrium, but incline towards the
weight at the greater length.
2. if something is added to one of some weights at equilibrium at some lengths,
they will not be in equilibrium, but will incline towards the weight to which
something has been added.
3. and in the same way, if something is taken from one of the weights, they will not
be in equilibrium, but will incline towards the weight from which nothing was
taken.
4. if equal and similar plane figures are made to coincide, also the centres of gravity
will coincide.
5. in unequal, but similar plane figures the centres of gravity will be placed in
similar positions. We say that points in similar figures are found in similar posi-
tions, if straight lines drawn from them to corresponding angles form equal
angles with the corresponding sides.
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron’s Mechanics 113

6. if magnitudes keep equilibrium at some lengths, then equal magnitudes will keep
equilibrium at the same lengths.
7. in every figure whose perimeter is hollow to one side only the centre of gravity
must be found inside the figure.”

The Book on the Centre of Gravity deals only with bodies. Pappos
speaks of “a body having weight” (B); in C he writes “body”, but later
on only “weight”. The word “figure” he uses in E, F, and G about the
shape of the “weights”: the lines must meet inside the figure.
In the Heronian fragment we find first “weight” and “body” used
together, in k ; later only “body” is found.
In the seven postulates, however, we find “weight” and “magnitude”
and “plane figure”; and it is assumed that plane figures have a centre of
gravity and, consequently, weight.
Of this Heron writes (b):

“That it is not really (literally: in truth) possible to speak of inclination (@mi,

almost the same as gravity) and declination except in bodies, that is what no one
will deny. But if we speak of geometrical figures, corporeal and flat, as having a
centre of inclination or a centre of gravity in a certain point, Archimedes has given
a sufficient explanation about it. So you will have to understand it in the way in
which we present it.”

In other words: “I am not going into all that now; you will have to
take my word for it, that it does give sense.”
Heron, then, must have had a work by Archimedes in which he ex-
plained the transition from bodies to plane figures in his investigations
on equilibrium and the centres of gravity. In this altogether lost work we
may be allowed to place the proofs referred to elsewhere, as in Plan.
Aequil. 1 :4(see above, p. 96), which reference there now seems no need
to delete with Heiberg (21), and in the Quad. Parab. 6 (see above, p. 96).
But the chief interest must be how Archimedes came to apply the laws of
weight and equilibrium to plane figures that can have no volume; as for
why he did it, it will soon become very clear.
If we imagine a body, e. g. a rectangular parallelepiped, with the sides
a, b, c, its volume will be V = a * b - c; its weight will be W = a . b . c - k,
where k is a constant expressing the specific gravity of its substance, which
we shall take as homogenous.
If we reduce one of the sides, c, the volume will be reduced also; and if
c = 0, we have V = a - b . 0 = 0, and W = 0 .k = 0. But if we increase
114 A . G. Drachmann

k as we decrease c, we get something like this, in modern notation:

c +lim.O;k +lim. c 0 ; V = a * b * l i m . O ; W = a * b - l i m . O ~ l i m
0 0 .;
W-a-b.
By arranging for the weight to be equal to the area of the plane figure,
Archimedes has cleared the way for his real object: the squaring of the
parabola, for that depends on the fact that he can postulate an equilibrium
between a known area at one end of his balance line, and the area of the
figure he is gradually turning into a parabolic segment at the other end
of the line.
But I do not feel competent to set out how his “sufficient explanation”
looked.

2. On Uprights
Chapter 24, which we have just discussed, is to be regarded merely as
an introduction to the next chapters, which explain how to calculate the
distribution of weight on columns supporting a wall or on men carrying
a piece of timber.
It is said to have been taken from a book by Archimedes “On Uprights”.
The Arabic word is qs’imat, pl. qawii’im, which means I) Foot, hoof; 2)
Hilt (of sword); 3) Invoice; 4) List; 5 ) Register. I n modern Arabic also:
Table-leg; Post; Pillar. This word is used also in Book 3, ch. 2 about the
cranes having one, two, three, or four legs; and here we have in Pappos
(43) the Greek text: p q ~ r r ~ n. .i . pw6mJ.ot . . . d i m 1 0 ~. . . z e i m R o 8 . . .
7 m p i m t J h . The Greek word, then, is xc;ilov, limb; member (of body),

esp. leg; also upright of ladder. It seems safe to conclude that Archime-
des’s book was called I7q2 ml.Gv, “On Legs”, or better “On Uprights.”
In the following text, ch. 26 speaks of “columns’’, but the following
chapters have “uprights”, probably because these are theoretical chapters,
where the supports are moved or removed, which could not very well be
done with columns.
“ ( 2 5 ) It is quite necessary that we explain something about pressure and trans-
port and carriage with respect to the quantity, such as will be suitable for an
elementary book. Archimedes has put forth, for this part (of the subject) a reliable
method in his book that is called “the book of uprights”; but we shall leave out
that which we need for other purposes, and here we shall use from it that which
has to do with the amount of quantity, in so far as it is suitable for the students.
And this is the point of view: if there are columns, as many as there are, and there
are on them cross-beams or a wall, and it is placed on them in an equal position
 Frogments froin Arcliitnedes in Heroil's Mechatrics 115

or a n unequal position with respect to the ends, and it is jutting out at one end or
at both ends, and if the distances between the columns are equal or unequal, then
we want to know how much of the burden falls on every one of the columns. And
a n example of this is if there is a piece of timber, long and of equal weight, a n d
some men are carrying it equally spaced along the length of the timber, a n d at its
ends, and if one of its ends is projecting, or both of them, then we want to know
for every one of the men how much of the weight falls on him. For the question is
the same in either case.
( 2 6 ) Let there be a burden of equal thickness and equal as to the parts (i. e. horno-
genous) o n the columns, and it is AB. And let it be placed o n two columns, and
they are A6, B D ; then o n each of the two columns A 6 , B D will fall one half of the
weight AB. Let there again be another column HZ, a n d let it divide the length AB
wherever it may happen, then we want to know for every one of the columns A&
HZ, BD, how much of the burden falls o n it. Let us then imagine the burden AB
divided at the point H by a vertical line on the column, and it is clear to us that for
the part AH, one half of its weight will fall o n each of the two columns A 6 , HZ,
and for the part HB, half of its weight will fall on each of the two columns HZ, BD,
because it makes n o difference in what falls on the columns whether that which is
placed on it is in one piece or is divided, for whether it is in one piece or divided,
the whole of it rests o n the columns. So then on the column HZ will fall half of the
weight HB and half the weight AH, that is half the weight of the whole of AB, and
o n the column AG with fall half the weight of AH, a n d o n the column BD will
fall half the weight of HB. And if we divide half of A B in the proportion of the
length AH to the length HB, then the weight on the part corresponding to the
proportion AH will fall o n A&, and the weight corresponding to the length H B will
fall on BD. Let us now once more set u p another column, which is HT, and it is

H K V BI

G z T D
Fig. 6a illustrates Ch. 26. It is taken from the Leiden MS p. 22. The letter K
on the balk has no counterpart in the text.
 I16 A . C. Drachmann

- a-
2

Fig. 6 b illustrates Ch. 26. I t is a photographic copy from the

British Museum MS fol. 13 v. The letters are
[A1 T L M B
c Z K D
The position of the letters B, &, D,Z, H shows that this is
indeed the same figure as fig. 6 a.

evident to us that on A 6 will fall one half of AH, and o n BD will fall half of WB,
and on HZ will fall half of AH, and on Hr will fall half of HB; and half of AH and
half of H B and half of AH and half of HB, that is the whole of AB, and that is
what is placed on all the columns; and if there are more columns, we can in this
way learn how much of the weight will fall on every one of them.”
Fig. 6 a is the illustration for this chapter; it is taken from the Leiden
MS. Fig. 6 b is a photographic copy of the corresponding figure from the
British Museum MS; it is much more eleborate, but the letters have got
out of hand. In the Leiden figure the letter K has slipped in from the
following figures; it is not mentioned in the text.
“(27> Since this is so, let us imagine two uprights AB, CD, in equal position,
and on them a body of equal thickness and weight, and that is AC; and as we have
said, on each of the two uprights AB, GD, there will fall half of the weight A&
Let us now move the upright eDand bring it nearer to AB, and let it be the place
HZ.And now we wish to know also how much of the weight will fall on AB,HZ.
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron's Mechanics 117

B T D
Fig. 7 a illustrates Ch. 27. It is taken from the Leiden M S p. 22.

Now we say that the length AH is either equal to the length He,or it is less than it,
or it is greater than it. And let it first be equal to it. Then it is evident to us that the
weight AH will balance the weight He, and if we take away the upright AB, the
weight A& will remain at rest in its place; and it is evident to us that on the upright
AB there will fall nothing of the weight at all, but that the weight A 6 will fall on

Fig. 7 b illustrates Ch. 27. It is a photographic copy from

the British Museum MS fol. 14 r, and it is the same figure as fig. 7 a.
All the letters are present and correct.
118 A . G. Drachmunn

HZ only. And if the length 6 H is greater than the length HA, then the weight A 6
will go down by the end 6.Let now the length H& be less than the length HA, and
let GH be equal to HH, then &H will be in equilibrium on HZ alone; and let us
place a column at HT, and if we imagine that the whole of the weight is divided at
the point H, then HG will stay on HZ alone, and half of AH on each of the uprights
AB and HT. And if we take away the upright HT, there will be at the point H the
power of the upright after the body has been joined, and on AB will fall one half
of the weight AH and on HZ will fall the rest, I mean GH and half of AH, I mean
if we imagine A 6 divided into two halves at the point K, then KH will be half of
AH. And if the upright that was first placed at H was under the point K, the whole
of the weight A 6 would fall on it, and just as much as the upright is removed from
the cut that divides the weight into two halves, just as much of the weight will fall
on AB, and the rest of the weight will be on the other upright.”

Fig. 7 a is the illustration for this chapter; it is taken from the Leiden
MS p. 22. The British Museum MS figure is shown in photographic copy
as fig. 7 b; it is more ornate than fig. 7 a; the letters are in order. The
figure shown by Carra de Vaux as fig. 16 and by Nix as figure 14 has no
counterpart in these two MSS.
“(28) And since this is so, let us imagine two uprights, AB, HZ, placed in the
position mentioned by us before, and let the weight H e be jutting out. Let us divide
AG in two halves at the point K, then we have shown that on the upright AB falls
the weight KH, and on the upright HZ falls the rest of the weight AC. Let us now
imagine under the point 6 an upright, which is the upright &D; then it is evident
once more that on the upright AB will fall half of the weight HA, and on the upright
DG will fall half of the weight H 6 , and on the upright HZ will fall half the weight
of AG. And before we placed the upright GD we have shown how much of the
weight will fall on each of AB and HZ. So it is evident to us that when the upright
GD is placed under the weight, the part of the weight that will fall on the upright

A H K H G

B T z D
Fig. 8 a illustrates Ch. 28. It is taken from the Leiden M S p. 23, and is
essentially the same as fig. 7 a; only the struts are left out.
 Fragmenis from Archimedes in Heroti’s Mecliotrics 119

5 t

Fig. 8 b illustrates Ch. 28. It is a photographic copy from the British Museum MS fol. 14 v.
It is the same as fig. 8 a, and essentially the same as fig. 7 b. The letters are correct, only Z is
missing. The letters 6, and I j are very much alike, as in fig. 6 b.

AB will be greater than what fell o n it before that, to the amount of half of HH,
I mean, t o the amount of half of H6, a n d that which falls on HZ is less than what
fell o n it before by the amount H 6 . And the part of the weight that falls o n D 6
according t o this reckoning is half of HG,because the upright that is placed under
the weight takes off from what falls on HZ a n amount equal to the weight H e , and
puts o n the upright AB a weight equal t o half of H 6 . And on GD falls half of the
weight H 6 , that is, the rest. And this was the amount that fell o n it by the other
procedure (?). And from this it is evident for us that if a weight is placed on up-
rights carrying it, ( . . . ), and another upright is added to the uprights, then o n one
of the original uprights, the first one, will fall more of the weight than fell o n it
before the addition, and o n the other upright will fall less of the weight than fell
o n it before the addition; and because when the uprights are AB, HZ,GD, that
which falls on AB is half of AH, but when 6 D is taken away, that which falls on
AB becomes half the weight of AH, it is evident to us that H 6 , when it is hung,
becomes like a lever and carries the rest of the burden that was on AB,and increases
on HZ more than was on it of the weight before, while the weight A& stays in its
place.”
I have put a query after “procedure”, because we expect “reckoning”.
The author is proving his calculation by a different arrangement of the
addition. The next sentence seems incomplete; it should run: “if a weight
120 A . G. Drachmann

is placed on uprights and is projecting”, since this is a necessary condition

for the proposition. Perhaps it should be: “carrying it (not by the ends)”
or the like.
Fig. 8 a illustrates ch. 28; it is copied from the Leiden MS p. 23. It is
essentially the same as fig. 7 a, which explains how the letter H suddenly
turns up in the text. Fig. 8 b is a photographic copy from the British
Museum MS; the figure becomes more and more elaborate. The letters are
in order; that and H are almost indistinguishable is in accordance
with the other illustrations, compare fig. 6 b.
The figure shown by Carra de V a u as fig. 18 and by Nix as fig. 16 has
no counterpart in these MSS.
The next chapter, 29, has nothing to do with either ch. 28 of 30; it is
displaced. But in chapter 30 the argument is resumed.
“(30) Let us now imagine the uprights AB, GD, and on them a body, of equal
weight and thickness, and that is HZ,and let there be on each of the uprights <a
projection). And we want to know for each of the uprights how much of the weight
will fall on it; since we have already shown that if the weight AZ is placed on GD,
AB, then on GD will fall more of the weight than on AB to the amount of twice
GZ; and when 6H is placed on GD, AB, then on AB will fall more of the weigh
than on &Dto the amount of twice AH, it is evident to us that on GD will fall more
of the weight than on AB to the amount of the excess of twice GZ over twice AH.
And if GD, H A are equal, then the weight that falls on each of GD,AB will be
equal; and the greater the distance, the greater will be the excess of weight that falls
on that upright.
From the preceding exposition it is evident to us that when there is placed on
columns or uprights cross-beams or a wall of equal thickness and weight, even if
the distances that are between them are different, in any way, we are able to learn
for any one of the uprights whether a greater weight falls on it, and how great is

B D
 Fragments f r o m Archimedes in Heroti’s Mechanics 121

Fig. 9 b is a photographic copy from the British Museum MS fol. 15v. It

comes between the figures 8 b and 10 b, and so should be the same as fig. 9 a. There
are no letters, and the figure is obviously not finished.

the excess of weight. And if there are cross-beams o n the uprights or something
else, then it is clear t o us by this method, a n d in this way also if there is a piece of
timber or a stone which some men carry o n their arms or by a noose, and some of
them are by the middle of it, and some of them are by its end, a n d whether the
weight is projecting at one end or a t both, then it is evident to us how much of the
weight will fall on every one of the carriers.”
Fig. 9 a is taken from the Leiden MS. Fig. 9 b, from the British Museum
MS, is incomplete and gives no sense.

G
“
L
Fig. 10 a illustrates Ch. 31. It is taken from the Leiden MS p. 25.
We have here a diagram, pure and simple.
122 A . G. Drachmann

(I 3

f’
0

i
I
Fig. 10 b is a photographic copy from the British
I
Museum M S fol. 16r. It is the same as fig. 10 a, but not a diagram.
The letters and D are lacking.

“(31) Let there again be some other weight of equal parts and weight, and it is
AB, and let it be placed on uprights in equal position, and they are AG, BD; and
it is evident to us that on each of the uprights will fall half of the weight AB. Now
let us hang a weight on AB from the point H ; then if the point H divides AJ3 into
halves, then it is evident to us that on each of the uprights will fall half of the weight
AB and half of the weight hung from the point H or placed o n it. And if the point
 Fragments f r o m Archimedes in Heron‘s Mechanics 123

H does not divide it into two halves, and the weight is divided into parts in the
proportion BH to AH, then the weight of the part corresponding to HB will fall
on A&, and the weight of the part corresponding to HA will fall on BD; and also
on each of the uprights will fall half of AB. And if we hang another weight at the
point Z and we divide it in the proportion AZ to ZB, then on DB will fall the weight
of the part corresponding to AZ,and on A& will fall the weight of the part corre-
sponding to ZB, and on each of the uprights will fall half of AB, and the proportion
of ZB to A 6 mentioned; and the weights that fell on them before the weights, that
were hung at ZH, were hung, is mentioned, and so all that falls on the uprights
A& BD is mentioned. And also if we hang up other weights, then by this method
we shall learn how much of the weight will fall on every one of them.”

Fig. 10 a is taken from the Leiden MS. Here the picture of the columns
and the wall is reduced to a mere diagram. Fig. 10 b is a photographic
reproduction from the British Museum MS. The letters G,D are lacking.
The figure is ornate as before, and the weights are tied to the cross-burden
very solidly.
The three last chapters, 32-34, deal with other matters; but in Book 2,
ch. 3541, we find more propositions about statics, and they are in part at
least ascribed to Archimedes. So we may as well go over them here to be
sure that nothing of value is left out. Here is the text from Book 2.
“(35) And now it is necessary that we explain also things that are needed in
pulling and pressure, not like what we have spoken about in the earlier book, but
other things better worth knowing than these, and things that Archimedes and
others have explained. And first we shall explain how we find the centre of gravity
of a triangle of equal thickness and weight. Let the given triangle be the triangle
ABG, and we divide the line Be into two halves by the point D, and we join the
points A D ; and if we place the triangle on the line AD, it will not decline to any
side, because the triangles ABD, A D 6 are equal. And again we divide the line A 6 in

Fig. 1 1 illustrates 2:35; it is taken from the Leiden MS p. 55. The figure
in the British Museum MS is the same.
124 A . G. Drachmann

the point H and join the points BH; then if we place the triangle once more on the
line BD, it will not incline t o any side. And since the triangle, when it is placed on
each of the lines AD, BH, its parts are in equilibrium, and it does not incline to any
side, then the common point of intersection of the lines is the centre of gravity, and
that is the point Z,and we have to imagine the point Z in the middle of the thickness
of the triangle AB6. And it is endent to us that if we join the two points AD and
divide the line A D by the point Z into two parts, of which one, and that is AZ, is
twice ZD, then the point Z will be the centre of gravity; because if we join the
points DH, the line AB is parallel to the line DH, since the lines A 6 , B 6 are divided
(halved) in the points D, H, and so the line A 6 to 6 H is like AB to HD, and the
line A 6 is twice the line 6 H . And when the line AB is twice HD, and the line AB
is t o HD like the line AZ to DZ, then the line AZ is twice the line ZD, because the
two figures ABZ and DZH are equal in their angles.”
Fig. 1 1 is taken from the Leiden MS; the figure in the MS B is the same.
This chapter is certainly not by Archimedes; it will be discussed below.
“(36) We want to find this also in a rectangle. Let the given rectangle be the
rectangle AB6D. and let us join BD, and divide it into halves at the point H, and
let us draw the lines AH, H6, and let us divide them in the points ZH in such a way
that AZ is twice ZH and H6 is twice HH. Then the centre (of gravity) of the
triangle ABD will be at the point Z and the centre of the triangle B D 6 will be at
the point J j , and it makes n o difference if we imagine the whole weight of the
triangle ABD at the point Z and also the weight of the triangle BGD at the point
H;and the line ZH becomes a balance with these two magnitudes a t its two ends.
So if we divide the line ZH in the point T in such a way that TH is to ZT as the
weight Z, which is the weight of the triangle ABD, is to the weight H,which is the
weight of the triangle BDG, the point T, on which the two weights balance, will be
the centre of the rectangle.”

Fig. 12 a illustrates 2:36; it is taken from the Leiden MS. p 55.

The proportions DH to HB, AZ to ZH.&H to YH are all wrong. but
as an illustration the figure is all right.
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron’s Mechanics 125

u
Fig. 12 b is a photographic copy from the British Museum MS fol. 37r.
It shows the same figure as fig. 12 a, but turned 90” clockwise. The letter H is
lacking; the line AZTHG is made straight, and the line Z[H]Ij has become an arc.

Fig. 12 a is taken from the Leiden MS. The figure in the MS B is much
the same, see fig. 12 b.
This proof is quite along the line of argument known from Archimedes :
the mathematical proof based on the common centre of gravity for two
magnitudes. And it is rather interesting to find the word “magnitude”
used here, for the first time in Heron.
“(37) We want to show this for (the pentagon;) and let (the known pentagon)
be the pentagon ABGDH. Let us draw BH, and let us find the centre of gravity of
the triangle ABH, and let it fall on the point Z; and let the centre of gravity of the
quadrangle BGDH be at the point H, and let us join the points ZH; and we divide
the line Z y into two parts, and the part HT is to TZ as the weight of the triangle
ABH to the weight of the quadrangle BGDH, then the point T is the centre of
gravity of the figure ABGDH, and like this we have to imagine [?] in all figures
with many sides.”
A

Fig. 13 illustrates 2: 37; it is taken from the Leiden MS p. 56. The letter T has been written
in error on the line BH;then again in its right place on ZH.A short piece of line has been
added with the writing pen between T and Ij,to prolong the line.

10 CENTAURUS. VOL. W U
126 A . G. Drachmanil

Fig. 13 is taken from the Leiden MS; the figure in the British Museum
MS is the same, though poorer.
The corrections at the beginning of the chapter are made by me, partly
from words found only in one MS.
I do not like the word “imagine”, natawahhamu, which moreover has
no object; I would expect “like this we have to proceed”.
“(38) We want to explain, if there is a triangle ABG of equal thickness and
weight, and there are uprights under the points A, B, & in equal position, how we
can find the amount of the weight of the triangle ABG that every one of them will
carry. So we divide the line BC into two halves in the point D and we join the two
points AD, and we divide the line AD into two parts in the point H in such a way
that the part AH is twice HD; then the point H is the centre of the whole weight
of the triangle. Then we have to distribute it on the uprights; but if we imagine
the line AD being in equilibrium by being hung from the point H, then the weight
that will be a t D will be twice the weight that is a A, because the line AH is twice
the line HD. And if we imagine the weight that is a D divided among the points
B. c, and the line B& is in equilibrium, then on each one of the points B, & will

Fig. 14 is taken from the Leiden MS p. 56; i t illustrates 2:38.

The British Museum MS Figure is the same.

fall one half of the weight that is on D, because the two lines BD, DG are equal;
and the weight that was on the point D was twice the weight that was on A, and SO
the weights that are on the points A, B, will be equal, and so the upright will
carry the same weights.”

Fig. 14 is taken from the Leiden MS; the figure in the British Museum
MS is the same, except for an unexpected B written across the line AD.
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron’s Mechanics 127

Fig. 15 a is taken from the Leiden MS p. 57; i t illustrates 2:39.

“(39) And once more let there be a triangle AB& of equal weight and thickness
o n uprights in equal positions, and let there in the’point H be. a weight, either placed
o n it or suspended from it, a n d let the point H fall wherever it may; then we want
t o calculate how much each of the uprights will carry of the weight H. Let us join
A H and prolong the line t o D; and we divide the weight that is at H into two parts
so that t if the triangle is placed on the line A D it will be in equilibrium. Then t t h e
weight that is at D will be to the weight that is a t A like the line AH to the line HD.
Then let us divide the weight that is at D in such a way that if BG is suspended
(at D) it will be in equilibrium. Then the weight at will be to the weight at B as
the line B D to the line D&, and the weight that is by D is known, and so also
the weights that are o n B, & are known. But the weight that is a t A is known, a n d
so the weights that are o n the uprights are known.”

Fig. 15 b is a photographic copy from the British Museum MS fol. 38r. I t illustrates 2:39,
but is not quite the same as fig. 15 a. The triangle is turned with A upwards, and a super-
fluous line is drawn from A towards Be.
128 A. G. Dracltmunn

Fig. 15 a is taken from the Leiden MS. Fig. 15 b is a photocopy from

the British Museum MS fol. 38 r. I cannot explain the extra line. The
letters are present and correct.
The sentence between the t gives no sense. It would have to run: “so
that the line AD is in equilibrium on the point H”.

Fig. 16 is taken from the Leiden MS p. 57; it illustrates 2:40. The British Museum
MS figure is much the same, only the letter H is lacking.

“<40> We wish to find, if there is a triangle ABb, and some known weights are
hung from the points ABC, a point inside the‘triangle such that, if it is suspended
from it, it will be in equilibrium. We divide the line AB in the point D in such a
way that the line B D is to D A as the weight that is at A is t o the weight that is at B;
then the centre of gravity of the two weights together will be at the point D. Then
we join the two points D, C by the line DC, and we divide it in the point H in such
a way that the line CH is to H D as the weight D to the weight &, and the point H
will be the centre of gravity for the combination of the whole, and so this is the
point of suspension.”

Fig. 16 is taken from the Leiden MS. The British Museum figure is
much the same; only the letter H is lacking.
“<41) We wish to explain this for a figure of many sides. Let the figure ABCDH
be a polygon, and let there be hung from the points ABGDH known weights. Then
we divide the line AB in the point Z in such a way that the line BZ is to ZA as the
weight A to the weight B, and so the point Z is the centre of the two weights that
are a t AB. And let us divide also the line D H in the point H in such a way that the
line DH is to the line HD as the weight H is to the weight D, and so the point H is
the centre of gravity for the sum of the two points H, D. And we join ZH and we
divide it a t the point T in such a way that the whole AB is to the whole D H as HT
to TZ, and the point T becomes the centre of gravity of the sum of the points
ABDH.And let us join the points 6, T by the line CT, and we divide it at the point
K in such a way that the line CK is to KT as the weight ABDH to the weight C.
And so the point K is the centre of the united weight of them all.”
 Fragments froni Archimedes in Herorr’s Meclraiiics 129
A

H
B

Fig. 17 a illustrates 2:41; it i s taken from the Lciden M4s

S p. 5 8 .

Fig. 17 a is taken from the Leiden MS. Fig. 17 b is taken from the
British Museum MS, and at first glance it is rather puzzling. But if we look
at the letters, we shall find them all except 24, and in their right places,
except T and K. If we join GD and delete ZH, the figure is in order.
Book 2 ends with ch. 41 ; Book 3 contains only descriptions of actual
engines.
If we try, in spite of J. L. Heiberg’s warning (see p. 91) to find out how
much of this may be by Archimedes, we might begin by pointing out the
chapters that are obviously by Heron himself.
1 :25 is just Heron’s introduction to the following chapters; and the
second half of 1 :30 is Heron’s summary of the results so far, that is the
theory of statics for a uniform beam without any extra burden. 1:31 then
explains how to distribute any extra weights added to the beam. So we
130 A . G.Drackmann

Fig. 17 b is taken from the British Museum MS, fol. 38 v ; it is meant for the same figure
as fig. 17 a. The letters are all there, except G.If we draw the line GD we have our pentagon.
The line ZH is superfluous, and the letters T and K are out of place, but otherwise the
figure will be adequate.

have left ch. 26,27,28,30 (fist half), and 31 ;and if we compare the strict,
mathematical proofs of these chapters with the discoursive treatment of
the theory of the centre of gravity in ch. 24, it is tempting to conclude that
these chapters are just copied from Archimedes’s own book. But there is
no real proof, for.in his other mathematical writings Heron is quite
capable of giving a clear, concise proof, and while he quotes Archimedes
 Fragments from Archimedes i n Heron’s Mechanics 131

again and again, it is always to say “Archimedes has proved that . . .”,
never to give the arguments of Archimedes. So we do not know how Heron
would have served up a mathematical proof taken from Archimedes.
And now for the chapters of Book 2. In Book 1, ch. 25, Heron says that
from the Book on Uprights he will use here “only what has to do with
the amount of quantity, in so far as it is suitable for the students”. Then
he gives the program: the statics of the uniform beam supported by the
ends or by the middle. This goes on to ch. 30, and is then summed up.
Ch. 31, where extra weights are placed on the beam, is an addition to
this program.
In Book 2 he tells us that he will now go further than in Book 1, using
Archimedes and others. To these “others” the first chapter, ch. 35, must
be ascribed, since it finds the centre of gravity in a triangle by suspensions,
and even uses the same argument as Pappos (a), that the triangles on
each side of the median are equal, an argument that Dijksterhuis has
criticized rather severely (15). It is true, he says, that the triangle will
balance on the medians, and it is true that the two parts of the triangle
have the same area, but these two things are not correlated, since the
triangle will balance on any line through the centre of gravity, but of
these only the medians will divide it into equal parts.
This is quite correct; but some of Dijksterhuis’s conclusions are not
convincing. He writes (17) :
“Experience will undoubtedly . . . have taught that a beam or a thin plate, when
supported successively along two parallel straight lines of the same plane boundary
surface, could not be in equilibrium in both cases. This fact, however (as appears
from the indirect reasoning of Pappos on the subject), is at once invested with the
character of logical evidence. The relation in which the two parts determined in the
body by the supporting plane, when extended, are to each other is looked upon as a
relation of equality between two magnitudes, and the parallelism of two such
supporting planes is felt as absurd, because, when one plane yields the parts A and
B, and the other parts A1 and B1, it is not possible that simultaneously with
A > A,, B < B1 (1)
it is also true that
A = B, A, = B1. (2)
This logical evidence is of course only apparent.”
It is true that the equilibrium of A and B on the line c-d is no proof of
their areas being equal; but this conclusion is not drawn by Archimedes
+
in his argument (qD): If A B balance C along the line c-d, it is im-
+
possible that A should balance B C along a line e-f parallel to c-d.
 132 A . G. Drachmann

Dijksterhuis holds (18) that the proof given by Pappos, and based on
the wrong conclusion from the balancing on parallel lines, dates further
back than Archimedes “and was preserved by Pappos with curious
thoughtlessness”; but he has overlooked the sentence from Heron,
quoted by himself (16), that Archimedes was the one to show how it is
possible to suppose a centre of gravity in a plane figure. And if we agree
that the whole barycentric theory is due to Archimedes himself, it is of
course impossible that Pappos could have found his proof in a source
further back.
It seems much more likely that Pappos has taken his proof from Posei-
donios the Stoic, who has used the suspensions in stead of the rather
intricate proof in Plan. Aequil. 1 : 13-14. To this day it is not common to
find a real mathematical proof of this proposition.
As for Heron, I hesitate to charge him with doing this, and so I prefer
to assume that he has taken the same proof from the source of Poseidonios.
Anyway, he has not used Archimedes for this chapter.
The next two chapters, on the other hand, 36 and 37, may very well have
been taken from Archimedes, while ch. 38, 39, 40, 41 clearly belong to
the Book on Uprights; here we have a triangle supported by uprights at
the angles, and a pentagon in the same position. And since the chapters
on the centre of gravity of the quadrangle and the pentagon are not found
in the Plan. Aequil. 1, and must be later than this work, since they are
based on the centre of gravity of the triangle, it is quite probable that they
also belong to the Book on Uprights. I have already (p. 125) called atten-
tion to the use of the word “magnitude” in ch. 36; it certainly looks like
Archimedes.
It might be argued that ch. 36-37 really belong to Plan. Aequil. 1 ; but
the fact is that the two last propositions of that book, the finding of the
centre of gravity of a triangle and of a trapezium, are the only two
propositions about the centre of gravity needed for the Quadrature of the
Parabola, and it looks as if the whole of the Plan. Aequil. 1 is just an
introduction to that work.
So I venture to suggest the following development: First Archimedes
found the theory of the centre of gravity in solid bodies and proved it by
suspensions, which is indeed the only way to do it. This is the work
summarized by Heron in 1:24 and by Pappos (see above p. 106); it is
mentioned also by Eutokios (17).
Next Archimedes transposed the theory of the centre of gravity from
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron’s Mechanics 133

solid bodies to plane figures, making the area of the plane figures equal to
their weight. This work is mentioned by Heron (see above p. 100 and 1 13),
and without it the postulates introducing Plan. Aequil. 1 are incomprehen-
sible. The importance of this work does not seem less because the idea of
a centre of gravity in plane figures now is taken so much for granted that
the elementary textbooks on mechanical physics hardly deign to discuss
it. For the idea is, as Heron writes, “in truth” preposterous; only it has
proved exceedingly fruitful for all sorts of investigations.
On the strength of this new invention Archimedes could prove, by nice
mathematical methods in stead of those tedious suspensions, the theory
of the lever, and find the centre of gravity in the triangle and the trape-
zium ;and now he was ready for his real task: the squaring of the parabola.
From there he went on to further investigations along the same lines, in
Plan. Aequil. 2 and the Floating Bodies.
Meanwhile there were also practical purposes to be served by his new
method; so why not take them on, since they could be dealt with mathe-
matically? So we have the Book on Uprights, a textbook on statics:
First for a beam of one dimension only, next for plane figures of two
dimensions. Here he could refer the reader to his Plan. Aequil. 1 for the
centre of gravity of the triangle, but had to go on to the irregular qua-
drangle and the pentagon. Heron has avoided the complicated proof for
the triangle, which may be why he makes his triangle solid, if thin (2:35);
but when it comes to the quadrangle and the pentagon (2: 36,37), we have
only plane figures. In 2:35 and 39 the triangle once more takes on thick-
ness, but whether this is an addition by Heron or it is due to Archimedes
I do not venture to decide. In 2:40 and 41 once more the figures are place.
With the exceptions given above, that is I :25, 1 :30, second part, and
2:35, I think that we may assume that the contents certainly are due to
Archimedes, and that the form may be his own.

3. On Balances
PAPPOSmentions a work by Archimedes I 7 y i <q&, On Balances. He
writes (41):
“For it has been proved by Archimedes in his book “On Balances” ... that the
greater circles overpower the smaller circles, when their turning takes place on the
same centre.”
134 A. G. Drachmann

No mention of this work is found anywhere else, but there may be

traces of it in Heron’s Mechanics, 1 :32-34, the chapters coming directly
after the first part of the Book on Uprights.
“<32) There are those who believe that in the balance, if the weights are balancing
the weights, then this proportion will be for the weights to the distances inverse.”
This is the text of the edition. The MSS have “if the weights balance
the distances”, and the word “this” seems to demand that the proportion
has been mentioned already. But however we may try to reconstruct the
text, the sense must be: “if the weights are in equilibrium at some dis-
tances”; and the following shows that we are dealing with unequal
weights at unequal distances.
“But it is necessary not to state this in this off-hand way but to make a sharper
distinction. Let us imagine a balance-beam of uniform weight and thickness, and
that is AB, and let its point of suspension be the point c,in the middle of the beam.
And let there be hung in any two points, and they are the points D, H, ropes, which
are the ropes DZ, HIj, and let us hang in them weights, and let the balance be
in equilibrium when the weights have been hung. And let us imagine that the ropes
are passing through the two points T, K ; then, when the balance is in equilibrium,
the distance 7’c will be to the distance GK as the weight H to the weight Z. For this
Archimedes has proved in his book which is called “The Book on the Levers”. But
if we cut off from the beam what is at both ends, that is to say TA, KB, then the
balance will not be in equilibrium.”
Carra de Vaux notes:
“The M S gives three figures corresponding to this proposition and the next, all
three incomplete and without letters. Also the text seems to have been damaged.”

Fig. 18 a illustrates ch. 1 :32 and 1:33; it is a photographic

copy from the Leiden M S p. 25.
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron’s Meclionics 135

_I

J
Fig. 18 b illustrates ch. 1:32 and 1 : 3 3 ; it is a photographic
copy from the British Museum MS fol. 17 r.

The Leiden MS gives three figures, shown here in photographic re-

production as fig. 18 a; but the figure on the left, which illustrates ch. 33,
is quite complete and has all its letters except A; see fig. 18 f. The figure
in the middle is quite incomprehensible, and the right hand figure shows a
straight beam, with quite a definite thickness, from which two weights
are hanging; but there are no letters.
The British Museum MS, which Carra de Vaux did not know when he
wrote, has also a collection of three figures, on fol. 17 r, see fig. 18 b, of
which one, below on the left, is clearly the same as the Leiden MS figure
for ch. 33, though the strings and the mathematical lines are shown as
solid sticks. It has all the letters in the right places, and is unquestionably
 136 A . G. Drrrclirnann

D H

Fig. 18 c illustrates ch. 1 :32. It is taken from the British

Museum MS fol. 16 v.

the illustration for ch. 33. The figure on the right resembles the middle
figure in the Leiden MS, also in being quite obscure; and the figure above
the others should be the same as the right hand figure in the Leiden MS.
It has the thick beam, two vertical lines coming from inside its ends, and
a cross line connecting them below; but the lines are double, there is a
third, double line in the middle, and the weights are left out. Still, if we
compare the figures on the left, which are certainly the same, we can find
likeness enough to assume that also the two other figures have a common
origin.
But the British Museum MS has, on fol. 16 v, another drawing, un-
known to the Leiden MS. It is shown as fig. 18 c. At first glance it would
seem to have nothing to do with ch. 32, but the letters on it correspond
exactly to those of the text of this chapter, and it is easy to supply the rest.
In the chapters just before, ch. 26,27,28,30 and 3 1,we have seen how the
Leiden MS figures are growing more and more into mere diagrams, while
the British Museum MS figures are very much embellished, compare figs.
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron’s Mechanics 137
J

T G K
A B

Fig. 18 d illustrates ch. 1 :32. I t is taken from the Leiden MS,

see fig. 18 a, right. The letters hove been added.

6-10, a to b. And since fig. 10 b corresponds to fig. 10 a, we can see also

a correspondance between fig. 18 c and the right hand diagram in fig.
18 a, and so we can supply the letters to the diagram, see fig. 18 d. The
strings prolonged under the weights and the connecting line give no sense;
the middle of the beam is not marked, and the weights are hung symme-
trically in stead of at different distances from the centre, but still I claim
that this is the figure for ch. 32.
I have gone into this matter at length, because a rather curious issue is
involved, which shows once more how helpless is the reader of an illu-
strated text, if he has no access to the original figures.
The figure given by Carra de Vaux for this chapter, fig. 21, copied by
Nix as his figure 19, shows a curved beam, obviously inspired by the
figure for ch. 33. See fig. 18 e. We find the letters 3 (T) and 1c (K) below
the beam, and so the distances TG and GK are not measured along a
horizontal line. FRANZKNAUFF (36) has criticized this and demanded a
horizontal line, connecting ,!) and x , and a vertical line from y to cut (c;>
it, and Nix has consented to this correction (29).
Heron writes that Archimedes has shown that there will be equilibrium,
in the book called “On Levers”, and as long as I knew only this figure, I
held that this must be the Book on Balances (L7~qiSvyolv), since it is not
in the Plan. Aequil., where we have only two magnitudes balancing on
their common centre of gravity on a horizontal line that does not incline.
Only the Arabic muhI means a lever, p o ~ ? . i ~and
, not a balance.
But all the MS figures show a straight beam, and in the Leiden MS
138 A . G. DracAniann

Fig. 18 e is the figure drawn by Carra de V a u (fig. 21) and reprinted

by Nix (fig. 19) as an illustration for ch. 1 :32.

figure the strings are produced upwards, to the top of the beam, where
the point might be expected to sit, and even in the British Museum
figure, fig. 18 c, the line on the extreme right is also produced upwards;
K and and T are on top of the beam, and so the proposition from Plan.
Aequil. 1:6-7 can be used. So I have concluded that “On Levers” means
Plan. Aequil. 1, just as in 1 :24, where it is called “The book on the
equilibria of figures for which levers are used”. Since we have seen how
little consistent Archimedes himself is in quoting his own works (see
p. 96), we cannot wonder if we find the same inconsistency in other
authors. In fact, the question arises whether Archimedes himself gave
name to his books; but it would take us too far to go into that now.
To return to chapter 32, it is just a sophism, a trap against which Heron
warns his students. There is nothing to indicate that it came from Archi-
medes, and I include it here only because of the problem of the quotation.
“(33) There are those who believe that the inverse proportions (do not hold by
a n irregular balance beam>. Let us then imagine also a balance beam of unequal
thickness and weight, of whatever material it may be, and let it be in equilibrium
when suspended from the point 6 . And what we in this place understand by
equilibrium is that the beam is at rest and steady, also if it is inclining to one side
or another. Then we hang up two weights o n whatever points may be, and these
are the points D, H. And let once more after the hanging of the weights the beam
be in equilibrium. Then Archimedes has proved that the proportion of weight to
weight here also is like the inverse proportion of distance to distance. And in the
case of bodies that are not regular, where the distance is inclined, there it is neces-
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron’s Mechurrics 139

Fig. 18 f illustrates ch. 1 :33. It is taken from the Leiden MS;

see fig. 18 a, left.

sary t o imagine (? calculate) it like this: we prolong the rope which is at the point
& till it reaches the point Z, and we draw a line and imagine that it reaches the
point Z and is equal to the line ZHT and that it is fixed, I mean that it is at right
angles to the rope. And if the two ropes that come from the two points D, H are
here, I mean the ropes DH, TH, then the distance that is between the point [&]Z
and the weight that is at the point H, I mean ZT, (and the distance that is between
the point Z and the weight that is at the point D, I mean Zy,> will be, when the
balance is at rest, like ZIj to ZT, <and>so also the weight that is hung at the point
H to the weight that is hung at the point D; and that has been shown above.”
The text is not in order, so I have supplied two sentences; the first one
in accordance with Nix. For the latter one, Nix reads “the line GZ’’
against all the MSS, which have “the point GZ”; it seems better just to
delete G.When the sentence is added, we have only to add “and“ to get
sense in the whole passage. Nix’s translation of the passage as it stands is
not convincing, and anyway the parallel clause seems indispensable.
Carra de Vaux gives a translation o n these lines, disregarding the wording
of the text, which he declares to show signs of corrections.
The figure for ch. 33 is shown in photographic reproduction on fig. 18 a
and 18 b as the figure on the left. Fig. 18 f is taken from the Leiden MS;
the letter A is supplied from the British Museum MS.The balance beam
does not decline, but the weights are placed asymmetrically, if only by
about one millimetre.
Here I think we have really a quotation from the Book on Balances,
140 A . G. Drachmann

since the proposition ascribed to Archimedes has to do with a solid

balance beam which is at rest, but not horizontal. As we shall see, there
are reasons to suppose that this book dealt with all sorts of balances,
including the steelyard, where the beam is neither regular nor necessarily
homogenous.
Each of the two chapters, ch. 32 and 33, has its own figure, and the third
figure in the two groups, fig. 18 a, b, has nowhere to go. With the three
hanging weights it may be a first attempt at the next figure, fig. 19 a, b,
a discarded drawing that somehow has been preserved. This is the only
explanation I can offer.
“(34) And let there be a pulley or a wheel turning on an axle in the point A,
and let its diameter be the line B 6 parallel to the horizon. And let us hang on the
points B, 6 ropes, and they are BD, CH,and let us hang in them equal weights.
Then it is evident to us that the wheel will not incline to one side or another,
because the two weights are equal and the two distances from the point A are equal.
Now let the weight that is at D be greater than the weight that is a t H, then it is
evident to us that the pulley will incline towards the side B, and the point B will sink
down with the weight. And now we have to find out to which point the greater
weight D will have to sink to come to rest. So we let the point B go down and place
it at the point Z, and let the rope BD fall on the rope ZH, and so the weight is a t
rest. Now it is evident to us that the rope CH is wound up along the edge of the
wheel and will be hanging with the weight in the point &, for that of it that is wound
up is not hanging. Now we prolong Z H to the point T, and since the two weights
are balancing, the proportion of weight to weight will be as the proportion of the
distances that are between the point A and the ropes. So as AG is to AT, so will the

Fig. 19 a illustrates ch. 1 :34; it is taken from the Leiden MS.

The wavy lines represent ropes.
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron’s Meclranics 141

Fig. 19 b is a photographic copy from the British Museum MS.

fol. 17 v. The letter 2 is missing, and the line from the weight H misses the
end of the oblique diameter.

weight that is at H be to the weight that is a t H, and if we make the proportion CA

to AT like the proportion of weight to weight and move the two points BD to ZT
in a right angle, it is evident t o us that the wheel has moved from the point B to the
point Z and has come to rest; and the same reasoning will do also for the other
weights. And so it is possible that any weight can balance a weight smaller than
itself in this way.”
Nix reads : “two ropes, and they are ZD, CH”, where “BD” is necessary.
The Leiden MS has Z, The British Museum MS has B. Nix reads: “and
will be hanging in its weight” with three MSS; I prefer “with its weight”
from the British Museum MS. Nix reads: “we move the points BC
towards ZT” with the British Museum MS; the Leiden MS has “BH”,
but the sen’serequired is “BD”.
Fig. 19 a is taken from the Leiden MS. The wavy lines indicate ropes;
it is a signature used very often in the MSS. Fig. 19 b is a photographic
11 CENTAURUS, VOL. V l l l
142 A . G. Dracltmanii

copy from the British Museum MS. The letters are the same, but while
the Leiden MS figure is a diagram, the other figure is a drawing of an ap-
paratus. The vertical line from the weight H to the point T does not pass
the point Z as it ought to do, and the letter Z is missing. The string from
the weight H is shown wound up along the circle. The double circle
probably indicates the furrow of the pulley.
Fig. 19 c shows the figure given by Carra de Vaux for this chapter, his
fig. 23, repeated by Nix as fig. 21. Franz Knauff has remarked (36) that
this figure is wrong: there should be no second weight on the right hand
side of the figure; and Nix has agreed (30):
“In fig. 21 the string of the blank weight should be imagined as wound round the
disk from the point of fastening to Y, so that the blank weight is made to hang
somewhat above E in the direction YE.”

He has read the y of the figure as Y ; but in his translation it is y all right.
But then he adds: “Fig. 21 ist genau die handschriftliche.” (Fig. 21 is

Fig. 19 c is the figure drawn by Carra de Vaux (fig. 23) and reprinted
Nix (fig. 21) as an illustration for ch. 1 :34.
 Fragments from Archimedes in Heron’s Mechanics 143

exactly the one from the MS.) But Carra de Vaux, who drew the figure,
knew only the Leiden MS, and its figure is as shown in fig. 19 a.
Though Heron does not say so, it is quite possible that this proposition
comes from Archimedes, and that it plays quite an important part in his
investigations. That this balance, where we have on one side the same
weight on the same arm, and on the other side a weight getting bigger and
bigger, on an arm getting smaller and smaller, is related to the steelyard,
seems obvious. But we have it from SIMPLICIUS that Archimedes invented
the steelyard, charistion (46).
“When Archimedes made the instrument for weighing called charistion by the
proportion between that which is moving,that which is moved, and the way travelled,
then, as the proportion went on as far as it could go, he made the well-known
boast: ‘Somewhere to stand, and I shall move the earth’.”
So when we find here, in nuce, the principle of the steelyard coupled
with the remark that “so it is possible that any weight can balance any
weight smaller than itself in this way”, it seems quite likely that this
chapter comes from Archimedes’s Book on Balances.

Summary
In Heron’s Mechanics we find traces of several books by Archimedes,
some of them not even known by name.
In Book 1, ch. 24, we have Heron’s very free rendering of a book prior
to the Plan. Aequil. I , containing the definition of the centre of gravity in
solid bodies, found by suspensions. This agrees with the definition found
in Pappos and referred by him to Archimedes and Heron.
We also find here the remark that Archimedes explained how the con-
cept of gravity and centres of gravity could be transferred from solid
bodies to plane figures. Of this work nothing is known, except that it is
indispensable to bridge the gap between the Book on the Centres of
Gravity and the Plan. Aequil. 1.
These three books, however, seem to form only an introduction to the
main work, the Quadrature of the Parabola, since the Plan. Aequil 1.
contains only just so much as is used in the latter work. These three works
would seem to be what Archimedes quotes indiscriminately as “The
Equilibria” and “The Mechanics”.
144 A . G. Drachmann

In Heron’s Mechanics, Book 1, ch. 25-28, 30-31, Book 2, ch. 35-41,

we find a series of propositions about statics, most of which seem to come
from a work by Archimedes, “On Uprights”, m e i x r d G v , which is
otherwise unknown. It is possible, but by no means certain, that some of
these chapters contain his own words.
In Heron’s Mechanics, Book I, ch. 32-34, we find some propositions
on balances; of these ch. 33 and 34 seem to come from a book “On
Balances”, nee; CtyGv, referred by Pappos to Archimedes.
These two latter works must come later than the Plan. Aequil. 1,
though they are not directly connected with the main theme of the series
of books leading up to the Quad. Parab., but are rather chips from the
workshop: things for practical use, not really worthy of being treated by
a mathematician, but done because they now could be worked out by
exact mathematical methods.

My best thanks are due to the Carlsberg Foundation for a grant

towards the writing of this paper, and to the Trustees of the British
Museum for permission to reproduce the photographs of the MS in their
possession.

REFERENCES

Archimedis opera omnia. Ed. I. L. Heiberg. Vol. 2. Lipsiae 1881. p. 466.

Archimedis opera omnia . . . iterum ed. J. L. Heiberg. 1-3. Lipsiae 1910-1915.
The same, Vol. 2, p. 545 sqq.
The same p. 545, note 1.
The same p. 548.
The same p. 549, note 1.
The same, Vol. 3 (Eutokios) p. 264.
Aristotle: Minor works. With an English translation by W. S. Hett. London, Cam-
bridge, Mass. 1936. (The Loeb Classical Library.) p. 329.
The same p. 350, note a.
Aristoteles: Kleine Schriften zur Physik u n d Metaphysik. (Die Lehrschriften hrsg.,
iibertragenund in ihrer Entstehung erliiutert von Paul Gohlke.) Paderborn 1957. P. 6-7.
Dijksterhuis. E. J. : Archimedes. Copenhagen 1956. (Acta historica scientiarum natu-
ralium et medicinalium 12) p. 296.
The same p. 298.
The same p. 299-300.
The same p. 300.
The same p. 301 sqq.
The same p. 302-303.
 Frogmenrs from Archimedes in Heron‘s Mechanics 145

(17) Th e same p. 303.

(18) The same p. 304.
( I 9) The same p. 305-306.
Eutokios See Archimedes ed. Heiberg Vol. 3. (Nr. 7).
(20) Heiberg, J. L. : Quaestiones Archimedeae. Hauniae 1879. p. 32.
(21) The same: Interpolationen in den Schriften des Archimedes. Neue Jahrbucher fur
das klassische Altertum. Suppl. 13. Jahrbucher fur classische Philologie 13. Supple-
mentband. Leipzig 1884. p. 569-70.
(22) The same: Geschichte der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften im Altertum.
Munchen 1925. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. 5 . Band, I . Abt. 2. Halfte.)
p. 57 sq.
(23) The same p. 67 sq.
(24) Heron: Mechanics. MS British Museum. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 23.390.
(25) The same: MS Leiden. University Library, Leiden, Cod. or. 51.
(26) The same: Text. Carra de Vaux: Les m6caniques ou 1’616vateur de HCron d’Alexan-
drie. Journal asiatique, 9. strie, 1893 : I : 3 8 6 4 7 2 ; 2: 152-269, 420-5 14.
(27) The same: Herons von Alexandria Mechanik und Katoptrik. Hrsg. u. iibers. von
L. Nix und W. Schmidt. Leipzig 1900. (Heronis Alexandrini opera qvae supsersunt
omnia. Vol. 2, fasc. 1.)
(28) The same Book 1 : 11.
(29) The same p. 404 (ad S. 86).
(30) The same p. 404 (ad S. 90).
(31) The same: Opera qvae supersunt omnia. Vol. 3. 1903. passim.
(32) T h e same: Opera quae supersunt omnia. Vol. 5. 1914. p. 274. It. Index nominum. S.V.
(33) Juel, C.: Note o m Archimedes’ Tyngdepunktslzre. Oversigt over det Kgl. Danske
Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlinger 1914. p. 421-441.
(34) The same p. 430.
(35) Kipling, Rudyard: The Five Nations. The Instructor, strophe 2, v. 4.
(36) Knauff, Franz: Die Physik des Herons von Alexandria. (Wissenschaftliche Beilage
zum Jahresbericht des Sophien-Gymnasiums zu Berlin, Ostern 1900.) Berlin 1900,
p. 8, note 1. Nix, L. See Heron’s Mechanics (Nr. 27.).
(37) Pappos: MS. Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana. Vat. Greco 218.
(38) Pappos: Text. Pappi Alexandrini Collectionis quae supersunt. Instruxit Fridericus
Hultsch. Vol. 3, Tom. 1. Berlin 1878.
(39) The same p. 1030.
(40) The same p. 1034.
(41) Th e same p. 1068.
(42) Th e same p. 1 1 14. Cf. Heron’s Mechanics p. 256-298.
(43) The same p. 1132.
(44) Reimann. Dora: Historische Studien iiber Ernst M a c h Darstellung der Entw i cklung
des Hebelsatzes. Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik, Astronomie
und Physik. Abt. B. Bd. 3. Berlin 1936. p. 554-592.
(45) The same p. 559.
(46) Sirnplicius: In: Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor posteriores commentaria. Ed.
Hermann Diels. Berlin 1895. p. I 1 10.
146 A. G. Drachmann

(47) Stein, W.: Der Begriff des Schwerpunktes bei Archimedes. Quellen und Studien zur
Geschichte der Mathematik, Astronomie und Physik. Abt. B. Vol. 1. Berlin 1931.
p. 221-244.
(48) The same p. 223.
(49) The same p. 223, note.
(50) The same p. 230-23 1.
(51) The same p. 243-244.
(52) Vailati, Giovanni: Del concetto di centro d i gravita nella Statica d'Archimede. Atti
d. r. Accademia d. scienze di Torino, 1896-97: 32, p. 742-758. Also in: Scritti.
Firenze 19 1 I , p. 79-90.
Vaux, Carra de. See Heron's Mechanics (Nr. 26).