Hero of Alexandria's Mechanical Geometry

Hero of Alexandria's
Mechanical Geometry
Karin Tybjerg
Greek mathematics is often identified with the achievements of a rather

select group of Hellenistic authors, most notably Euclid, Archimedes
and Apollonius. In these authors we find a highly sophisticated form of
mathematics and fully developed practices of deductive demonstration
and it is the works of these authors and their predecessors that have
received the majority of attention in the scholarship.
Other forms of mathematics, such as the mathematics employed by
professionals or practitioners working with land-measurement, trade,
architecture or administration, have also received some measure of
interest, and it has become clear that Greek mathematics covers a plurality of practices. The methods employed by these practitioners, often
based on numerical calculations and approximations, have, however,
often been sidelined as 'applied' or even 'lower' forms of mathematics.
These two categories of mathematics provide a strangely polarized
picture of mathematical practices, a picture that does not accurately
portray the mathematical landscape of antiquity. Although the dichotomy is still alive and well, some doubt has already been cast over the
possibility of a strict division between high-level and low-level practices, or between theoretical and applied mathematics. Reviel Netz has
gestured at a 'material' element in the manipulations of Euclidean-Archimedean geometrical diagrams, which are, for instance, 'constructed'
and 'cut' in real space.1 In the case of professional mathematicians, Jens
l Netz, 1999, Chapters 1-2; see also Russo, 2003,185-6.
Brought to you by | University of Haifa

Authenticated | 142.58.101.27
Download Date | 10/9/13 12:30 PM
30 Karin Tybjerg
H0yrup has drawn attention to a culture of 'recreational' problem

solving and thereby shown that calculations of areas of land were not
always aimed at practical pursuits.2 Serafina Cuomo has criticized the
sharp division more generally by arguing for the inclusion of 'low-brow'
practices in the history of mathematics alongside advanced practices.3
With this paper I hope to add nuance to this picture of Greek mathematics by analysing how geometry is used and presented in the
mechanical and mathematical writer Hero of Alexandria.
Hero of Alexandria flourished in the first century AD and his treatises
span a wide range of topics, from geometry and land measurement to
pneumatics, catapults and automatic theatres.4 In his treatises we find
both elements associated with the Euclidean-Archimedean tradition
and material coming from cultures of professional mathematicians.
Starting with the former, Hero wrote a commentary on Euclid's
Elements, which, however, is only preserved in a fragmentary form in
an Arabic commentary.5 Most notably, he makes frequent references
to Archimedean treatises throughout his work.6 Other authors of the
mathematical elite are also mentioned such as Eudoxus, Dionysodorus,
Eratosthenes and Plato/ and Hero mentions titles of treatises that are
2 H0yrup, 1990 and 1996a

3 Cuomo, 2001
4 Of Hero's works the Pneumatics, Automaton Construction, Metrica, Dioptra and
Artillery Construction are extant in the original Greek. Mechanics is preserved in an
Arabic translation and Catoptrics in a Latin abbreviation. I shall refer to Hero's
treatises in the Teubner edition (Schmidt, Nix, Schone and Heiberg, 1899-1914),
except for the Artillery Construction, which is edited in Marsden, 1971. The Teubner
edition also includes the Geometry, Stereometn/ and Definitions, which are textually
difficult and of dubious attribution.
5 Al-Nairizi's commentary is found in Codex Leidensts. There are numerous references
to Euclid in Stereometry, but this work has been substantially edited so it is difficult
to draw any conclusions from these references
6 Metrica 66.7,66.13,66.27,80.17,84 11,86.30,88.10,88.25,120.15,122.1,122.16,130.26,
172.1, 184.27; Pneumatics 24.11; Mechanics 1.4, 1.24 (four references), 1.25, 1.32,1.33,
II.7,11.35. Drachmann, 1963 points to Archimedean sections in Mechanics.
7 Metrica 2.14 (Eudoxus), 128.3 (Dionysodorus), 132.7 (Plato's solids); Dioptra
(Eratosthenes' On the Measurement of the Earth) Brought to you by | University of Haifa
Hero of Alexandria's Mechanical Geometry 31
associated with Apollonius and Hipparchus.8 As we shall see, a number

of Hero's treatises also contain geometrical proofs and his descriptions
of machines and measurement techniques are presented as geometrical
theorems and problems. Hero does not, however, stick to the topics
and approaches typical of the Euclidean-Archimedean tradition. He
also solves practical problems of measurement and instrument construction, and employs calculation and approximation methods resembling those found in traditions of professional mathematics. H0yrup,
for instance, located material that is related to a Near-Eastern tradition
of practical mathematics in Hero's Metrica and Geometry, and Neugebauer saw Hero's work as a Hellenistic form of a Babylonian arithmetic
tradition.9
So Hero neither fits into the standard picture of the Euclidean-Archimedean tradition, nor does he represent a tradition of professional
mathematicians and calculators. The relationship between material derived from these traditions is not a simple one either. Hero's work can
neither be viewed as an application of Euclidean-Archimedean mathematics to practical problems, nor as a formalisation of practical methods.
But this limbo in which Hero has been left by the scholarship is exactly
what makes his work central to rethinking ancient mathematics. Hero's
work allows a rare view of the interaction between geometry, mechanics
and professional mathematics; it shows that these enterprises were
closely related in the ancient world and that some demonstrative procedures combined elements from several traditions.
Beginning with Metrica a treatise on measuring and dividing areas
and volumes we get a sense of how Hero situates his work.
The first geometry, as the old story teaches us, was engaged in measurements and distributions of land; this is also why it was called
geometry. Since man needed this study, this type [of geometry] was
advanced still more, so that the control of measurements and distribu-
8 Hero refers to a 'table of chords' that may have been by Hipparchus, Metrica 58.19,
62.17, see Heath, 1921, Vol. II, 259, and to 'the second book of the Cuttmg-off of an
Area', which is a non-extant treatise of Apollonius, Metrica 162.2, see Tannery, 1903,
148.
9 H0yrup, 1996b, and Neugebauer, 1962,146-7

32 Karin Tybjerg
tions came also to deal with solid bodies. And since the first theorems
invented were not sufficient, they were still in need of further investigation, so that even to this day some of them remain problematic, and
yet both Archimedes and Eudoxus have applied themselves eminently
to the study. For before Eudoxus' invention it was unfeasible to produce a demonstration () that the cylinder, which has the same
base as a cone and the same height, is three times as great as this and
that the circles are to each other as the squares of the diameters are to
each other. And before Archimedes' quick-witted inventions, it was
doubtful why the surface of the sphere is four times as large as the
surface of the greatest of its circles and that its solid is two thirds of the
cylinder that contains it and likewise, many similar questions. Since the
inquiries we have mentioned are necessary we think it has value to
collect as much useful material as was written before us and in addition
as much as has been considered by us.10
Hero begins with a well-known topos, when he situates the origin of
geometry in land measurement.11 This link is especially important to
Hero because he himself deals with both straight geometry and division
of land. The emphasis on human needs shows the indispensability of the
subject and indicates the practical ambition of the work. Next we hear
how geometry turned to solid bodies and that Eudoxus and Archimedes
produced some important theorems. In this passage Hero continues the
10 Metrica 2.3-4.4. , ,
,
,
,
,
, ,
tfi ,
, '
' , '
, []
,

11 Cf. Herodotus (fifth century BC) The Histories II109; Plato Phaedrus 274C; Diodorus
Siculus (fl. 50 BC) Bibliotheca 1.69.5 and 1.81.1-2; and Strabo (64 BC after AD 21),
Geography XVII, 3.
history of mathematics that Archimedes began in the prefaces of his

Method and On the Sphere and the Cylinder where he refers to the exact
same Eudoxan demonstration as part of his own mathematical prehistory.12 By adding Archimedes' own famous findings also found in On
the Sphere and the Cylinder13 Hero continues the story in the track set
out by Archimedes and he is able to place himself at the end of this
formidable line-up. Hero leaves room for his own contribution by noting
that there are still some outstanding problems and that he will add his
own material to the collection of earlier material. He thus claims a joint
legacy of practical land measuring skill and the highest level of Greek
geometry.
Another important feature of this passage is the reference to Eudoxus'
'demonstration'. This is the first, but not the last, time that Hero uses the
term demonstration () in Metrica. Investigating the contexts
where Hero uses the term, we find that he uses it most frequently when
he refers to demonstrations by Archimedes.14 By employing the term in
connection with the names of Eudoxus and especially Archimedes Hero
associates the term with Archimedean-style proofs. Thus
when Hero uses it elsewhere in his work it implies the authority and
reliability of Archimedean demonstrations. He can therefore rely on the
stahis of geometrical proof when he moves on to the division of land in
the last book of Metrica; here he states emphatically that geometry is
superior to all other arts and sciences for distributing land because 'the
12 Archimedes Method 430.1-9; Archimedes On the Sphere and the Cylinder 4.2-9
13 Sphere and Cylinder Book I (especially 1.33 and 1.34). The theorem that links the
volumes of the sphere and the cylinder was emblematic of Archimedes' achievement as indicated by Cicero's claim that his tombstone showed a sphere inscribed
in a cylinder, Tusculan Disputations V.23.
14 Hero employs the terminology of demonstration ( or ) in sixteen out of nineteen references to Archimedes in Metrica. He refers mainly to
demonstrations in specific treatises, chiefly On the Sphere and the Cylinder, On the
Measurement of the Circle and Method, e.g., 84.11: 'But Archimedes demonstrated in
the Method ...' ( "). Hero's Mechanics contains
six references to Archimedean demonstrations, e.g., I. 24: 'Archimedes has shown
in the Equilibrium of Planes ...'; the Arabic term used in the examples from the
Mechanics is bayana, which means 'prove' or 'show'. There is also a single reference
to an Archimedean demonstration in Pneumatics 24.11.
34 Karin Tybjerg
proof of these things is incontrovertible'.1? So although Hero neither

includes many of the demonstrations by Archimedes to which he refers,
nor develops many purely geometrical demonstrations of his own, the
term maintains its association to rigorous deductive demonstration.
As will become clear, Hero adapts the Archimedean legacy and
applies it to a new range of problems of a more mechanical and numerical kind. In contrast to Archimedes, who in the Method showed caution
concerning the application of numerical and mechanical methods, and
explicitly privileged deductive geometrical proof, Hero appears unhampered by such concerns.16 He makes the power of Archimedean deductive proof continuous with his own broader project.
In the following we shall consider ways in which Hero's geometrical
practices deviate from the Archimedean ones with which they are associated. The strategies broadly fall into three categories:
1) Hero makes numerical examples an integral part of his demonstrative practices.
2) Mechanical methods and instruments are made legitimate tools
for demonstration.
3) Geometry is applied to physical space and mechanical devices
so that the boundary between geometrical and mechanical objects is blurred.
Treating these three strategies in turn we shall see how Hero employs
specific strategies to eliminate distinctions between high-level geometrical proof and the methods of practical mathematics. By blurring the
boundaries between Archimedean and practical mathematics he enables
himself to combine the power of geometrical proof with the capabilities
of numerical and mechanical techniques. At the end I shall also show
how the amalgamation of mechanics and geometry supports Hero's
claims that mechanics is useful. In general, the techniques employed by
Hero show that it is not possible to maintain the notion that EuclideanArchimedean geometry was sealed off from traditions of professional
15 Meinen 140.22-142 1
16 See for instance Archimedes Method 428 24-430.1. Brought to you by | University of Haifa
problems and calculation techniques. It moreover shows that practical

considerations and a focus on measurement inform Hero's geometry,
but it is not a simple relation of practical application of geometry.
In my analysis I shall draw on Hero's more mathematically-oriented
treatises: Metrica, which concerns the measurement of planes, three
dimensional objects, and ways of dividing them; Dioptra, which solves
various problems of land measurement and construction with a device
that measures distances and angles; Catoptrics, which concerns reflections in mirrors; and Mechanics, which deals with lifting, sizing and
moving heavy objects.
Numbers and Measurement

Metrica is the most mathematical of the treatises thought to be Hero's
with some certainty, and it provides a clear example of how Hero
combines traditions. A prominent feature of the style of the propositions
in Metrica is that Hero often assigns specific numbers to the geometrical
objects under investigation. He then calculates the specific areas and
volumes of these figures rather than producing a general method for
doing so. He writes, for instance, 'Let ABG be an obtuse angled triangle,
which has the AB 13 units, the BG 11 units, and the AG 20 units.'17 What
is the role of these numerical examples?
The numbers are given in units, and to understand their significance
we need to look at Hero's definitions of units. In the introduction to the
first book of Metrica Hero explains why surfaces are measured in terms
of areas with right angles and straight sidesi.e., squares. His argument
is geometrical. A straight line, he says, is always equal to another straight
line and a right angle equal to another right angle; curved figures, by
contrast, are not always equal. Measurement therefore consists in 'comparing' the area under investigation to square ells or feet, or simply to
'units'. The units are introduced, Hero explains, partly for ease so as not
to name the specific units for each measurement, and partly for generality; Hero assures his reader that a unit can stand for any measure One
wants'.18 He thus gives a geometrical argument for the possibility of
17 Meinen 14.18-20
18 Metrica 4.11-6.1

36 Karin Tybjerg
measurement based on a generalized unit of measurement, but at the

same time he links measurement to specific, physical measures. The
double nature of Hero's project is also reflected in the wording where
the term for 'area' () can also mean 'landed property'.
The physical nature of Hero's measurements comes through even
more clearly when he deals with solid bodies in Book II. The 'demonstration' () that the volume of a cube is found by multiplying
its sides is, Hero writes, manifest, and if we think about the cube being
'sawed into unit volumes' we get the requisite number.19 By using the
standard term for 'sawing' he provides a highly physical analogy for the
act of measuring; and by saying it is 'manifest' or 'visible' () Hero
emphasizes that the proof is based on the senses. Thus, when Hero uses
numerical examples referring to units of area or volume he links the
geometrical situation to the physical and thereby maintains the connection to practical measurement.
The numerical examples, however, do not just establish a connection
to practical situations of measurement. Nor is their function solely to
train the reader to do the calculations through examples. In the section
on the measurement of triangles that comes early in Book I, it becomes
clear that the numerical examples play a real demonstrative role. Hero
begins the section with simple cases of measuring different kinds of
Mangles such as the right-angled, the isosceles, and the acute- or obtuseangled triangles. In each proposition he gives the dimensions of a specific
triangle and derives a calculation procedure for finding its area based on
minimal geometrical argument. Having derived a procedure Hero
shows how to find the area, this time without reference to the geometrical
situation. Hero is, however, quite explicit that the calculations are not
just included as exercises:
Until now we produced the geometrical demonstrations through calculation; next we shall produce the measurements according to analysis
through the synthesis of the numbers.20
Hero states surprisingly that calculation is a means for producing 'geometrical demonstrations'. Geometry and calculation are thus inter-
19 Metrica 94.5-6: the term used is , whose primary meaning is 'to saw', LSJ.
20 Metrica 16.11-14:
, .
.
twined with calculation responsible for producing the crowning glory

of geometry the demonstration.
In a similar vein calculation and geometry are presented as two sides
of the same solution when Hero states that measurements are produced
through 'analysis' and 'synthesis'. The pair, analysis and synthesis,
refers to a two-part method of presenting geometrical problems that was
used by geometers such as Apollonius and Archimedes. In the analysis
the solution is assumed and its consequences investigated; the synthesis
solves the problem in the light of the understanding obtained in the
analysis.21 The concepts, however, did not have stable, well-defined
meanings, and this flexibility allowed Hero to adjust the concepts to his
own priorities. He uses this freedom to make geometrical proof and
calculation equal and necessary parts of solving a problem, a problem
that in Hero's context concerns producing a measurement.
This approach to measurement is applied in the propositions that
follow, beginning with what is now known as 'Hero's formula' for
calculating the area of a triangle from the lengths of its sides. The method
is introduced by a complex numerical example. Hero then proclaims that
'[t]he geometrical demonstration for this is the following'22 and delivers
a Euclidean-Archimedean style proof based on a lettered diagram with
no reference to particular values for the dimensions of the triangle.23
Following the proof, he writes, 'it is synthesized like this' and gives
another numerical example of the calculation of the area. In subsequent
propositions Hero frequently writes after finishing a geometrical proof
that 'it is synthesized in accordance with the analysis' and then offers a
numerical example. He thus establishes a pattern that is followed
throughout the treatise: a geometrical proof, characterized as the 'analysis' followed by a calculation characterized as the 'synthesis'.24 The
synthesis a standard component of the solution to a geometrical
problem is here turned into a numerical calculation.
21 On analysis and synthesis in Greek mathematics, see, e.g., Hintikka and Remes,
1974; Behboud, 1994; and Netz, 2000.
22 Metnca 20.6:
23 The same demonstration is found in Dioptra 280.16-284.10.
24 Metrica 30.5: . See 24 22, 32.15,34.15you by | University of Haifa
18, 38.26-7,42.4-5,48.24,... (there are twenty-sevenBrought
furthertooccurrences).
38 Karin Tybjerg
Hero's presentation mirrors Archimedes' solutions to complex geometrical problems in On the Sphere and Hie Cylinder II. Like Hero, Archimedes mainly uses synthesis and analysis when dealing with
problems, and he introduces the synthesis with the formulation that
Hero reuses: 'It is synthesized like this'.2' But when Hero replaces the
geometrical problem with one of measurement, he reduces the geometrical part of the solution to the analysis, and bases the synthesis purely
on calculation. Sometimes the geometrical component is left out all
together and Hero simply refers to a demonstration by Archimedes,
which is then used for the calculation. This is the case when Hero refers
to Archimedes' measurement of the area of a parabola segment or the
volumes of figures created by inserting cylinders into a cube all from
the mechanical treatise Method.26 In keeping with his interest in calculation Hero views Archimedes' results as ways to calculate areas and
volumes, rather than as relations between geometrical figures.
Hero thus sketches two approaches: one where geometrical demonstrations are based on calculation, and one where measurement problems are solved by combining geometrical demonstration and
calculation. In this way physical measurement and calculation are given
demonstrative power and geometry is made part of measurement. Hero
is thus able to draw on a tradition of numerical problem solving used by
professional mathematicians and at the same time inscribe calculation
and measurement of physical bodies into the Archimedean legacy presented in the introduction to Mctrica.
Recent scholarship recognizes that Metrica contains both Near-Eastern and Euclidean-Archimedean material, but it has focused mainly on
evaluating the relative contribution of each. Vitrac noted in his analysis
of the first section of Metrica, that although some of Hero's calculation
procedures were informed by Near Eastern practices, the treatise was
firmly inscribed in the Euclidean-Archimedean tradition.27 The organisation of the treatise is deductive in character, problems are described in
geometrical terms and the calculation procedures are justified geomet-
25 Archimedes On the Sphere and the Cylinder 172.7,184.21,192.7,198 13,204 11,208.15

26 The parabola segment is treated by Hero in Metrica 82.25-84 2 and by Archimedes
in Method 434.14-438.15. The cylinders in Ihe cube are treated by Hero in Mctrica
130.12-132 1 and by Archimedes in Method 426 8-428 7 and 484.26-506.31.
27 Vitrac, 1994

rically. His analysis captures the combination of methods well, but

perhaps overemphasises the division between the geometrical and calculation-centred parts of the treatise. It interprets Metrica as a practical
work aiming for Euclidean-Archimedean standards of demonstration.
H0yrup, by contrast, argued that Metrica is basically a collection of
received approximations and that Hero's contribution is restricted to
adding the proof of 'Hero's formula' (also found in Dioptra2*) to an
already complete text.29 While Heyrup is right that the geometrical proof
interrupts the flow, we have seen how it introduces the style found in
the rest of Metrica where a geometrical analysis is followed by a numerical synthesis. By contrast this form is found only twice in Dioptra and in
a set of proofs that are not integrated into the main flow of text.
To regard Metrica as literally the product of two different treatises or
as a set of calculation procedures with added geometrical justification
belies the way Hero integrates measurement and calculation procedures
with geometrical practice and presentation. Hero both generalizes the
calculation procedures by introducing units and reinterprets the method
of analysis and synthesis to suit his own problems of measurement. The
work is not simply an application of geometrical methods for practical
purposes such as the measuring of vaults or basin mentioned by Hero.30
Hero produces a form of geometry and demonstration suitable for
measurement.
Instruments of Geometry
Hero does not just broaden the scope of geometrical demonstrative
practice by including calculation and measurement, he also incorporates
mechanical language and methods into geometrical investigations. An
example of a change towards a more mechanical language is found in
Hero's description of the Archimedean problem of finding the volume
occupied by two cylinders inscribed in a sphere. If we compare the
formulations of Archimedes and Hero, Hero 'pushes' or 'forces' ()
28 Dioptra 280.16-284.10
29 H0yrup, 1996b, 15 32
30 Metrica 132.1-2,124.14-15

40 Karin Tybjerg
the cylinders into the cube where Archimedes' cylinders are 'inscribed'
in the cube. The term 'pushes' is one that Hero uses elsewhere in his
treatises about mechanical parts of catapults or automatic theatres.31 In
this way, Hero makes an indirect statement that geometrical objects are
physical in nature and can be treated accordingly.
The introduction of mechanical methods in geometry is clearly seen
when Hero extends his range of standard areas and volumes to include
irregular () shapes, i.e., shapes that cannot be measured with
standard geometrical methods. In direct continuation of his accounts of
how to measure geometrically well-defined areas and volumes, Hero
introduces methods for dealing with irregular figures that appear highly
surprising within the context of a geometrical treatise. Hero ensures,
however, that the subject matter has an Archimedean pedigree by ascribing the discovery of irregular figures to Archimedes.32
Hero starts softly with a geometrical approximation for dealing with
an irregular plane area. The curve is to be approximated with straight
lines and the resulting polygon measured by dividing it into triangles.
When Hero gets to the non-planar surfaces, however, geometry is relegated to the back seat. The surface of a statue may be measured, he
explains, by covering its surface with small pieces of textile. The pieces
are then taken off the statue and fitted into a square whose area is easily
measured.33 With equal disregard for the conventional methods of
Euclidean-Archimedean geometry Hero suggests methods for measuring irregular volumes.34 He first explains how to determine the volume
of smaller objects by submerging them into water and measuring the
amount of water they displace. This method reinforces the connection
between Archimedes and irregular bodies because it relates to the wellknown story of how Archimedes exposed a craftsman, who tried to cheat
his king by replacing some gold for a commissioned crown with cheaper
metal. The resulting crown weighed the same as the original amount of
31 Artillery Construction 77.8; Pneumatics 78.14; Automaton Construction 24.3

32 Metrica 92.7-9 and 138.6-9. Heiberg took Hero's references as evidence that Archimedes had written a treatise entitled Surfaces and Irregular Bodies, Heiberg,
1910-15,543-5.
33 Metric 90.4-23
34 Metrica 138.7-27

gold, but Archimedes revealed the fraud by showing that it had a larger
volume.35 For objects with larger volumes Hero recommends the equally
hands-on method of packing the object into a cube of wax that can easily
be measured. The volume of the object is then the volume of this
wax-square minus the volume of a square formed of the wax alone.
What is surprising here is that Hero at no point remarks on the
difference between the methods he employs in the regular and irregular
cases. His main concern seems to be to provide a complete account since,
as he emphasizes, it is necessary to include irregular volumes 'so that
the material is in no way incomplete for those who wish to pursue
them'.36
We find a similar extension of the methods and objects of geometry in
Mechanics, where Hero poses the problem of how to reduce or enlarge a
given plane or solid with a given ratio. He concentrates on the unit plane
and the unit solid (which, of course, we recognize as the unit of measurement introduced in the opening sections of the Metrica) and he
introduces his survey with plane surfaces and volumes. Doubling a unit
of area is a famous problem solved by Plato, Euclid and Vitruvius, but
Hero treats it very cursorily and does not even supply a proof.37 The
problem does not seem to have his interest, and Hero uses it simply to
present his own mechanical geometry as part of a systematic geometrical
progression from the unit area to the irregular volume. Solving the
problem of doubling of an area does not require any instruments either
and these are as will soon become clear of central importance to
Hero's geometry.
Hero first introduces an instrument in his solution to the problem of
the duplication of the cube, the problem of finding the length of the sides
of a cube that is double the size of a known cube. This famously
troublesome problem cannot be solved by ruler and compass, so it is
necessary to employ methods that go beyond standard geometrical
35 Vitruvius On Architecture, 9.praef.9-12

36 Metrica 92.7-13
Brought 9.3-4;
to youHero
by | Mechanics
University 1.9
of Haifa
37 Plato Meno 82b-5b; Euclid VI.13; Vitruvius On Architecture
42 Karin Tybjerg
practice.38 Hero's solution consists of a Euclidean-Archimedean style

proof, based on a diagram, but the construction of the diagram involves
an instrument: a sliding ruler. Hero can, however, do this with some
impunity, as he was not the first to use instruments in this context.
Several earlier solutions to the problem by famous mathematicians such
as Eratosthenes and Apollonius involved similar instruments,39 and
Hero is correspondingly upfront about his use of a mechanical device.
He announces that he will 'show this with the aid of an instrument'.40 He
thus links the use of an instrument to a problem that was already part of
the mathematical canon, but one that allowed for an instrumental solution. Now Hero has an instrumental foot in the door, and he does not
leave it at that.
In the last sections how to enlarge irregular planes and solids
Hero can freewheel into demonstrations where instruments play more
central roles. After a geometric proof that similar plane figures exist,
Hero launches into a proof of how to construct reduced or enlarged
figures with an instrument:
Let us now prove, with the aid of an instrument, how to find for a given
plane figure a similar one that is in a given ratio to it. Let us make two
round discs (ac, ab), that are cogged regularly, around the same center
(a),-.. 4 1
The proof of mathematical existence is thus seamlessly followed by the

physical construction of the figures. Both are given the status of proof
and again there is no indication of a change in subject matter. Likewise
the diagrams that show the geometrical situations in the case of the
geometrical proofs now represent the mechanical devices. The style of
38 The problem of the duplication of the cube can be reduced to finding two mean
proportionals between the volumes of the cubes. If the relationship between the
volumes of the original and the enlarged cubes are a b, then the length of the sides
of the enlarged cube must be c, where a-c c:d d.b. For a discussion of the problem
see Heath, 1921, and Knorr, 1986
39 Eratosthenes' and Apollonius' solutions are described in Eutocius' On Archimedes'
Sphere and Cylinder 88.3-96 27 and 64 15-66 7; Netz, 2004b, 278-9, 294-8.
40 Mechanics 111
41 Mechanics 1.15

both the diagrams and the propositions, however, remains the same,
thus blurring the boundary between mechanical and geometrical objects.
When Hero lastly addresses the problem of enlarging irregular solids the
account is given completely over to a long and detailed description of
how an irregular solid such as a statue might be copied using an
instrument.
There is no comparison between the space that Hero dedicates to
regular and irregular figures in Mechanics. While Hero pays lip service
to the doubling of the area and the cube the problems that have
occupied Euclidean-Archimedean mathematicians it is the irregular
cases that steal the show. The introductory sections on the plane area and
the cube are essential, however, as they inscribe Hero's mechanical
project into a geometric tradition.
Both in Mechanics and in Metrica we find Hero integrating instrumental
and practical methods with problems associated with Euclidean-Archimedean geometry. Hero's inclusion of practical methods has led
scholars to classify Hero as a so-called 'practical mathematician'.
Thomas Heath the grand old man of ancient mathematics stated
that Hero aimed at 'practical utility rather than theoretical completeness.'42 But considering what we have just seen it would be more correct
to say that Hero prioritizes completeness over purity of method. In fact,
Hero shows that instruments are necessary to provide a complete account.
Hero associates his work closely with the Euclidean-Archimedean
tradition and takes his starting point in demonstrations derived from
their work. This background makes it credible for Hero to draw on the
authority of Archimedean demonstrations, but at the same time to
extend the area of validity to include irregular figures measured with
mechanical methods. We have seen how Hero makes this transition
continuous. First in Metrica, where Hero employs an Archimedean
method for measuring irregular volumes; and second in Mechanics,
where Hero includes a famous mathematical problem for which instruments had been used before and thus legitimises further use of instruments.
42 Heath, 1921, Vol. II, 307

44 Karin Tybjerg
The problem of the duplication of the cube was at the centre of a

long-standing debate about the legitimacy of alternative methods: which
is the lesser evil when it is necessary to move beyond the traditional
methods based on ruler and compass? Solutions offered or criticized by
different authors indicate various ways in which geometrical practice
could be extended;43 so when Hero offers his own solution he steps into
a tradition where the fronts are already drawn up.
The problem supposedly originated when an oracle told the people
of Delos that they had to construct a new altar double the size of their
existing one. Baffled by the problem they went to Plato for advice. But
Plato not famous for his practical advice replied that the oracle was
not concerned with the bigger altar; rather it wanted to shame the Greeks
for their lack of mathematical knowledge and make them dedicate more
time to the study of geometry. The incident is recounted by Eratosthenes
(before Hero) and Plutarch (a generation after Hero), but their attitudes
to the problem are very different.44
Eratosthenes does not include the part of the story concerning Plato's
reply; he simply proceeds to comment on various solutions to the
problem. He rejects Archytas' and Eudoxus' solutions and suggests
instead a 'mechanical way' which he recommends for its ease. This
method is, according to Eratosthenes, not just useful for enlarging altars,
but also for sizing measurement vessels and for enlarging catapults and
stone-throwers. Eratosthenes' presentation of the problem thus fits
closely with Hero's interests: Hero investigates the measurement and
enlargement of architectonic objects in Metrica and Mechanics and the
enlargement of catapults is a central topic in his Artillery Construction,
43 See Cuomo, 2000,127-51, for an account of the history of the problem and an analysis
of how Pappus (early fourth century AD) uses the varied meanings associated with
the problem to support his own mathematical agenda in his Collection.
44 Eratosthenes' account has not been preserved directly, but it is recounted by Theon
of Smyrna (fl. c. AD 115-140) in Aspects of Mathematics Useful for Reading Plato 2.3-12,
and by Eutocius (sixth century AD) in On Archimedes' Sphere and Cylinder. Plutarch
tells the story in Moralia 386E, 579-D and 718E-F. The story is also told by Vitruvius
who refers to Archytas solving it T^y a diagram with cylinders' and Eratosthenes
solving it 'by means of an instrument', On Architecture 9 praef.13-14 Vitruvius
recounts the story in the same section that deals with the doubling of the square and
the story of Archimedes and the gold crown. All but the last of these references
derive from Knorr, 1986, 3-4.
which actually contains the full solution to the problem of duplicating

the cube.45 By placing his account and purpose so close to Eratosthenes',
Hero indirectly uses the fact that a known mathematician produced an
instrumental solution to a geometrical problem and recommended it for
its practicality, to take instrumentation further.
Plutarch's Moralia puts a very different spin on the story. Plutarch
distances himself from the whole idea of an applicable solution by
emphasizing that the oracle was not concerned with the altar at all, but
only with the study of geometry. Like Eratosthenes he criticizes Archytas' and Eudoxus' solutions, but this time the criticism concerns the
use of instruments. Plutarch finds instrumental methods unacceptable
and derides them for abandoning reason in favour of whichever method
works.46 Plutarch's antipathy to instrumental method also surfaces in his
Life ofMarcellus which describes Archimedes' mechanical achievements
during the siege of Syracuse. Here Archimedes is praised for his mathematical and mechanical ability in defending the city, but Plutarch disassociates him from mechanics by saying that he thought it too vulgar and
tainted by the needs of life to be the subject of a treatise.47 Here, Plutarch
also comments on the use of instruments:
For this admired and famous art of instrumentation was first got
moving by the followers of Archytas and Eudoxus: they embellished
() geometry with subtleties () and used it as support for problems where there was no ready proof by argument and
diagram by means of perceptible and instrumental examples. For
instance the problem of finding two mean proportional lines, a necessary element for many diagrams, both mathematicians reduced to
instrumental constructions .. ,4*
45 Artillery Construction 117-19

46 Plutarch Moralia 718E
47 Plutarch Life ofMarcellus .4
48 Plutarch Life of Marcellus XIV.5:
' ,
,
,

, ..
46 Karin Tybjerg
Plutarch criticizes the use of instruments even for the problem of the
duplication of the cube (= finding two mean proportionals) which cannot
be solved through traditional arguments and diagrams. Tellingly, however, Plutarch's terms of abuse are the same as Hero uses to describe his
machines and methods. In Hero's work a term such as 'various' or
'embellished' () expresses qualities of mechanical inventions,
and in the Automaton Construction 'the most subtle () arrangement' is presented as something to strive for.49
Living just a generation after Hero, it could well be Hero and
likeminded authors at whom Plutarch lashes out with his contempt for
instrumental methods. Plutarch may be taken as evidence of the success
of Hero's project since he denotes the methods 'admired and famous'.
Furthermore Plutarch's virulent attempt to disassociate Archimedes
from mechanical and instrumental methods indicates that Hero or others
were successful in giving instrumental methods the Archimedean stamp
of approval.
Geometrized Devices
We have now shown how Hero places instrumental solutions on an
equal footing with Archimedean-style geometric proofs and makes practical methods and instruments an integral part of a complete geometry.
Now we consider how Hero incorporates geometry into the description
of mechanical devices.
In his Dioptra Hero does not distinguish between physical and geometric space. The problems are presented in a similar vein to Metrica, as
problems pertaining to specific numerical examples, but Hero reminds
the reader of their physical provenance by giving the measures in actual
units such as feet or ells. Although the problems considered clearly deal
with a physical landscape that includes growth, harbours, rivers and
tunnels, they are presented as geometrical propositions. Problems are
introduced with standard formulae such as 'Let the given points be A
and B', but while the 'given' is usually a point, circle segment or the like,
it might also be a trench. When the lettered points have a physical
49 'Varied', , Pneumatics 2.18, 28.14, and Automaton Construction 338.4, 342.6,

404.15; 'subtle', , Automaton Construction Brought
410 21-2.to you by | University of Haifa
condition attached, for instance that they cannot be accessed or observed,

this is simply included in the geometrical presentation.50 The dioptra
itself is also presented as a geometrical object with phrases such as 'let
the dioptra be constructed', or 'stood up' or 'set up'51 and Hero refers to
'demonstrations' ( and ) involving and concerning instruments.52
The space in which Hero solves problems with the dioptra is thus
simultaneously a geometrical and a physical space and at times the
problems seem to be more concerned with covering all the geometrical
possibilities than with practical application. Hero, for instance, shows
how the outline of a harbour can be drawn not only in the shape of a
circular segment but also in an elliptical, parabolic, hyperbolic or any
other shape we may choose!53 These possibilities seem to be motivated
by a desire to give a geometrically complete account in the same vein as
discussed in the case of Metrica, but without losing the appeal to practical
consequence. Hero aims to satisfy both practical and geometrical requirements.
Similarly Hero translates a practical motivation into a geometrical
problem when he explains the importance of finding a straight line early
on in Dioptra. To 'escape cost' he will demonstrate how to find the
straight line between two points 'for this is the shortest of all lines that
have the same end-point.'54 The latter part of this statement is almost
word for word the definition that Archimedes gives of the straight line
in his On the Sphere and the Cylinder.55 Thus the pragmatics of finding the
cheapest construction is directly linked to a central definition of Ar-
50 Dioptra 214.18-19,218.20-2
51 Dioptra 214.21-2 (.. ...), 222.21-2 (
...), 234.25 ( ).
52 Dioptra 214.11 (proof of how the straight line is found using the dioptra), 286.21 and
23 (uses of the dioptra have been proved), 290.13 (demonstrates the working of the
'star'), 298.28 (the working of the road measurer has been shown) and 308.19-20
(reference to the proofs of the simple powers i.e the pulley, screw, windlass, lever
and wedge).
53 Dioptra 246.10-14
54 Dioptra 214.12-14
55 Dioptra 214.13-14, Archimedes On the Sphere and the
Cylinder 8.2-3
48 Karin Tybjerg
chimedean geometry. Hero thus blurs notions of geometrical and physical space, mechanical and geometrical objects, practical and geometrical
concerns.
In general purely geometrical demonstrations are moved to the background in the Dioptra. The treatise contains just three geometrical proofs,
including a version of the proof of 'Hero's formula' that is also found in
Metrical But where the proofs took the centre stage in Metrica they are
presented as an aside in Dioptra. Hero first solves the problem of measuring land with the dioptra and offers demonstrations of the geometrical
relations he used only afterwards. The geometrical proofs are treated like
lemmas to the practical problems of land measurement. In this way, Hero
presents Dioptra as geometrically based, but makes pure geometry auxiliary to the geometrical work done with the dioptra.
Hero also uses the ambiguity of geometrical language to geometrize
mechanics. The term 'to construct' (), for instance, is common in geometrical language, where it usually refers to the construction
of the diagram. It can, however, also mean 'to furnish' or 'make'. In
Catoptrics a treatise concerning reflection in mirrors Hero begins with
a geometrical section where he proves the path of reflection for mirrors of
different shapes. He begins these propositions in standard geometrical
style with 'Let there be', for example, 'a plane mirror ab'.57 When he
moves onto more complex mirrors which he also describes how to
manufacture he changes to a terminology of construction, for instance:
To construct a mirror that shows the right on the right'.58 Here, Hero uses
the range of meaning of the term 'construct' to move inconspicuously from
geometrical demonstrations to the construction of mirrors.
In Catoptrics Hero again combines a Euclidean-Archimedean tradition
with a project centred on mechanics. Many of the proofs and types of
mirrors that Hero describes are also included in the Pseudo-Euclidean
Catoptrics, which offers an axiomatic-deductive treatment of reflection
in mirrors.59 But if we compare the example of the mirror that shows the
56 Dioptra 276.5, 274.14,268.10

57 Catoptrics 326.3: Sit enim speculum planum ab, ... . 'Sit' is here equivalent to the
Greek .
Brought
to you by | University of Haifa
58 Catoptrics 336.12: Speculum dextrum construere See
also 342.6,346.1,348.1.
right on the right, Pseudo-Euclid does not, like Hero, describe the actual
construction of the mirror. Where Hero advises his reader to use Corinthian bronze, Pseudo-Euclid merely affirms the possibility that such a
mirror can be constructed in the opening of the proposition: 'It is possible
to construct ..60 These subtle differences in the cases where both
treatises describe the same example are underscored by Hero's inclusion
of an account of how mirrors are manufactured. By describing in detail
how to polish up a surface in order to make it reflective he makes the
material foundation of catoptrics evident. By the same token he excludes
some of the geometrical proofs and thereby shifts the focus from geometry towards physical devices.
When Hero uses the phrases 'let there be' and 'to construct...' about
different cases he does not draw on a standard distinction in geometrical
vocabulary. Bringing geometrical entities into existence and constructing geometrical objects are both common ways of proceeding in a
geometrical proposition. Hero uses the term 'construction' to merge
geometry and mechanics. He simultaneously constructs a diagram that
is the site of the geometrical proof and a working device that can produce
certain effects. He thus again combines the rigour of geometrical demonstration with practical expertise.
The diagrams in the best manuscript edition of Catoptrics support
the geometrical style of the propositions, even where Hero is dealing
with mechanical devices such as a window mirror. They resemble the
lettered diagrams of geometrical treatises and represent mirrors and
visual rays simply as lines. In the modern editions of Hero's work this
aspect of the diagrams is underplayed and the reproductions of the
diagrams have tended to picture the device rather than just the geometrical situation.61
59 On the similarity of propositions and interests between Hero's and Pseudo-Euclid's

Catoptrics, see Heiberg, 1925, 78 n 2; Lejeune, 1957, 137-42; and Knorr, 1994, 70-8.
Lejeune argued that the Pseudo-Euclidean Catoptrics is a compilation made after
Hero's Catoptrics, with the subtext that Euclidean formalisation constitutes 'improvement', Knorr rejected this view and showed how Hero clarified and added to
his source.
60 Pseudo-Euclid Catoptrics 338.7-11
61 See Nix and Schmidt edition of Catoptrics, which appends an image from the
manuscript page (Wilhelm von Moerbeke's Latin translation).
50 Karin Tybjerg
The majority of Hero's diagrams occupy this uncertain position between geometrical diagram and illustration. Hero follows the conventions of the geometrical lettered diagram, but the surfaces of devices are
often drawn with thicker lines and ropes on lifting devices are included
in the diagrams. They do not however depict the machines as they would
appear. The diagrams focus on elements that are important for the
working of the devices and enlarge the parts that are relevant to their
function.62 In this way mechanical diagrams are analogous to geometrical diagrams, which do not depict quantitative relations either, but rather
'qualitative' geometrical relations. Hero's diagrams simultaneously act
as a geometrical diagram where the diagram is the object manipulated
and a technical illustration that represents the object. In this way Hero's
diagrams bear out the same ambiguity as his geometrical mechanics.
The tendency to geometrize devices is also evident in the treatises where
geometry plays a lesser role, such as Pneumatics and Automaton Construction. The descriptions of mechanical devices in Pneumatics resemble
geometrical propositions both in language and in structure. Each description consists of a presentation of the problem, the construction of
the device aided by a lettered diagram, and an account of the functioning
of the device in lieu of the actual geometrical demonstration. Moreover,
parts of the devices are often described as geometrical objects such as
spheres, cylinders or parallellopipeds.63
Lastly, the development of devices in the course of the treatise can be
seen as parallel to the development of geometrical propositions. In the
preamble to the description of the clepsydra, which is the first device in
Pneumatics, Hero writes that he will begin with the smaller devices
because these are 'elemental'.64 The term used here is the same as is used
in the title of Euclid's Elements and when Apollonius denotes the first
books of Conies as elementary.65 Hero thus indicates that his descriptions
of mechanical devices constitute a geometry of machines where simple
machines are combined systematically to produce more complex ones.
62 Shickelberger, 1994
63 E.g., Pneumatics 70.13 and 120 4-5.
64 Pneumatics 56.12-16
65 Apollonius of Perga Conies 4.1

By the same token Hero writes in the introduction to Pneumatics how

different arrangements can be made by 'combining three or four elements',66 thus linking his account to systematic works of geometry or
physics.
Geometry and Expert Knowledge

I have now discussed how Hero's demonstrative practices constitute an
amalgam of the rigour and demonstrability of geometry with the skill
and expertise of mechanics. In this last section I want to briefly consider
the link between the claims that Hero makes in his introductions that his
work is 'useful' and the geometrization of mechanics.
In the introduction to Dioptra Hero gives a long list of applications of
the device, which range from aqueduct-construction to measuring areas
occupied by enemies or featuring natural obstacles such as currents that
'can suck you down.' Lastly, and rather surprisingly, Hero gives an
example of how the dioptra can be used in a military attack on a city.
Hero writes that
... many who attempt a siege construct ladders or siege-machines,
which are smaller than is needed, and, when they attack the walls, bring
themselves under the control of their enemies, having miscalculated
the measurements of the wall because they were not acquainted with
the study of the dioptra. For one must always measure the interval
mentioned above carefully while being outside shooting range.67
This is not an obvious use of a surveying instrument, but it does allow

Hero to connect the dioptra's measurements powerfully to issues of
66 Pneumatics 2.14-16
67 Dioptra 190.10-21: ,
.
<>

to you by | University
of Haifa
, Brought

.
52 Karin Tybjerg
military control and security. If no proper measurements are taken and

the siege-ladders are too short the enemy might gain the upper hand.
If we now consider the Dioptra as a whole, it becomes clear that Hero
appeals to a generalised demand for control over external conditions,
which he links to making measurements with the dioprra. Measurement
is the key to avoiding mistakes and to remaining in control of the projects
undertaken. In one problem, Hero, for instance, shows how to replace
the boundary stones that mark property after a flood.68 Although Hero
gives no reason for including this example, it is perhaps significant that
it relates to reinstating property-markers and thereby maintaining social
order. Later in the treatise Hero deals with the problem of how to dig a
tunnel in a straight line through a mountain.69 He gives directions for
determining the starting point at either end, such that the workers will
meet in the middle. From other sources we know that failing to meet in
the middle was a real danger. An inscription from the second century
tells us about a tunnel project where the working teams missed each
other because T^oth the tunnels deviated from the straight line'.70
Both Hero and the inscription formulate the problem of constructing
a tunnel in terms of determining a straight line, and, in general, straight
lines are presented in Dioptra as a means to control the environment with
mechanical and geometrical expertise. Finding the straight line between
two points is one of the first problems that Hero treats in Dioptra, but he
remarks that it is not always easy to draw the shortest line between two
points as hindrances such as mountains or unhealthy swamps must be
negotiated.71 Hero describes these hindrances in a military vocabulary.
We hear for instance how the hindrances 'fall upon' the straight line and
cost 'must be escaped'.
This control of both the physical and political environment by building tunnels, replacing property markers and drawing straight lines for
aqueducts is closely related to the geomerrisation of the landscape that
I considered earlier. To regard the landscape as a geometrical space is
68 Dioptra 268.17-272.15
69 Dioptra 238.3-240 27
70 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum VIII.2728. See translation in White, 1984, 215.
71 Dioptra 214.1-17

not only a convenient way to measure it, it is also a way to control it and
to deal with military and environmental dangers.
Turning back to Metrica, Hero describes, in the introduction to the third
book, how geometry improves current methods of measuring and dividing land. Land is, according to Hero, normally divided such that greater
peoples get more land and smaller peoples get smaller parts. Also people
with a talent for leadership get big cities while smaller minds are left
with tiny villages. Hero, however, rejects this method of distribution and
he suggests that division of land is better done geometrically. He writes,
But in these cases the proportions were estimated in a relatively rough
and lazy manner. If someone really wants to divide areas according to
a given proportion, so that not a single grain, so to speak, exceeds or is
left over from the given ratio, then only geometry is required. In
geometry the fit is fair, justice lies in proportion and the proof () concerning these things is indisputable; this no other art or science
can promise.72
Here, we see how Hero combines the practical relevance of measurement

with the status, precision and especially the demonstrative powers of
geometry. It is the indisputability of geometry that makes it superior for
measuring and dividing land. And the fact that we are dealing with the
highly political and social issue of dividing land means that Hero can
associate geometry with ethical values such as justice and fairness. In
this way, Hero's extended concept of demonstration allows for a broader
claim to expertise.
72 Metrica 140.16-142.2:
,
,
, : ,
,
.
54 Karin Tybjerg
Conclusion
Hero adapts Euclidean-Archimedean demonstrations and methods to
produce a more mechanical and practical geometry. Machines and measurement are integrated into geometry and Hero presents his material
with seamless transitions from geometrical to mechanical tools and from
geometrical to mechanical objects. Neither diagram nor formal presentation allows the reader to set the geometrical apart from the mechanical.
This is the aim of Hero's Mechanical Geometry.
Hero creates an authoritative foundation for his geometry by casting
his mechanics in a geometrical form and extending the concept of
demonstration to include instrumental proofs. He associates his demonstrations with the incontrovertibility of the Archimedean proof and is
thereby able to present mechanics as a theoretical discipline based on
demonstration. But Hero's mechanical geometry has a larger area of
validity than traditional Euclidean-Archimedean geometry as he also
includes areas such as irregular figures.
Moreover Hero vastly extends the power of geometry in social and
practical contexts and he blurs the boundary between professional
mathematics and geometry that is often used to degrade practical skill
relative to theory. By presenting problems of land measurement and
siege war as susceptible to geometrical methods, Hero's geometry of
machines combines the authority of geometrical demonstration with the
power of practical consequence.
References
Primary
Apollonius. Conies in Apollonius Pergaeus, ed J.L. Heiberg, Vols 1-2(1881/1974). Stuttgart.
Teubner.
Archimedes. De Sphaera et Cylindro (On the Sphere and the Cylinder), in Archimedis Opera
Omnia, ed. J.L. Heiberg and E.S. Stamatis, Vol. 1 (1910/1972) Leipzig: Teubner.
Archimedes. Ad Eratosthenem Methodus (Method), in Archimedis Opera Omnia, ed. J.L.
Heiberg and E.S. Stamatis, Vol 3(1915/1972) Leipzig: Teubner.
Cicero. Tusculan Disputations, Engl. trans. J.E. King (1945/1971). London: Hememann
(Loeb).
Euclid. Elementa, ed. J.L. Heiberg, 5 vols., (1883-1888). Leipzig Teubner.
[Euclid]. Catoptnca, ed. J.L. Heiberg (1895). Leipzig: Teubner.
Broughtinto
you by | University
of Haifa
Eutocius, Eutocn Commentarium in Libruni I de Sphaera et Cylindro,
Archimedis
Opera Omnia
Authenticated
| 142.58.101.27
ed. J.L Heiberg and E.S Stamatis, Vol. 3 (1915/1972). Leipzig:
Teubner.
Diodorus Siculus, Bibliolhcca, Engl trans. C.H. Oldfather el al. (1933-1967) London: Heinemann (Loeb).
Hero of Alexandria Pneumatics, ed. and German trans. W. Schmidt, in Heroins Alexaiidnni
Opera, Vol. 1 (1899). Leipzig. Teubner.
Hero of Alexandria Antoinntopoetica (Automatic Construction), ed. and German trans. W.
Schmidt, in Heroins Ale\andriin Opera, Vol 1 (1899). Leipzig Teubner.
Hero of Alexandria. Mechanica, ed and German trans. L. Nix, in Heronis Alexandrini Opera,
Vol. 2 (1900) Leipzig Teubner.
Hero of Alexandria. Meclianics, Engl. trans, of and commentary on selected parts by A.G.
Drachmann, m The Mecliamcal Technology of Greek and Roman Antiquity (1963). Copenhagen: Munksgaard
Hero of Alexandria. Catoptrica, ed. and German trans. W. Schmidt, in Heronis Alexandrini
Opera, Vol. 2 (1900). Leipzig: Teubner.
Hero of Alexandria. Metric, ed. and German trans. H. Schone, in Heronis Alexandrini Opera,
Vol. 3 (1903). Leipzig: Teubner.
Hero of Alexandria. Metrica in Codex Constantmopolitanus Palatii Veteris no. l, ed. E.M
Bruins, 3 vols., (1964). Leiden: Brill.
Hero of Alexandria. Dioplra, ed. and German trans. H. Schone, in Heronis Alexandrini Opera,
Vol. 3 (1903). Leipzig: Teubner.
Hero of Alexandria. Belopoeica, Engl. trans. E.W. Marsden, in Creek and Roman Artillery:
Technical Treatises (1971). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Herodotus. The Histories, Engl. trans. A.D. Godley (1926/1990). London: Heinemann
(Loeb).
Plutarch. Life of Marcellus, Engl. trans. B. Perrin, in Parallel Lives (1917/1968). London:
Heinemann (Loeb).
Plutarch. Moralia: The E at Delphi, Engl. trans. F.C. Babbit, Vol. 5 (1936). London: Heinemann
(Loeb).
Strabo. Geography, Engl. trans. H.L. Jones (1917/1989). London: Heinemann (Loeb).
Vitruvius. On Architecture, Engl. trans. F. Granger (1931/1970). London: Heinemann
(Loeb).
Secondary
Behboud, M. 1994. 'Greek Geometrical Analysis'. Centaurus 37: 52-86.
Cuomo, S. 2000. Pappus of Alexandria and the Mathematics of Late Antiquity Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cuomo, S 2001. Ancient Mathematics. London: Routledge.
Drachmann, A.G. 1963. 'Fragments from Archimedes in Hero's Mechanics'. Centaurus 8:
91-146.
Heath, T.L. 1921. A History of Greek Mathematics. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
to you
by | University
of Haifa
Heiberg, J.L. 1910-15. Archimedis Opera Omnia. EditionBrought
and Latin
translation.
Leipzig:
Teubner.
56 Karin Tybjerg
Heiberg, J.L. 1925. Geschichte der Mathematik und Natuni'issenschaften im Altertum Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Munich C H. Beck.
Hintikka, J. and U. Remes 1974. The Method of Analysis Its Geometrical Origin and its General
Significance. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
H0yrup, J. 1990. 'Sub-Scientific Mathematics: Observations on a Pre-Modem Phenomenon'. History of Science 28: 63-86.
H0yrup, J 1996a. ' "The Four Sides and the Area." Oblique Light on the Prehistory of
Algebra'. In Vita Mathematica: Historical Research and Integration with Teaching, edited
by R. Calinger. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
Hoyrup, J. 1996b. Hero, Ps-Hero, and Near-Eastern Practical Geometry. Filosofi og Videnskabsteori pa Roskilde Umversitetscenter. Roskilde: Roskilde University Centre.
Knorr, W.R. 1986. The Ancient Tradition of Geometric Problems. Boston: Birkhauser.
Knorr, W.R. 1994. 'Pseudo-Euclidean Reflections in Ancient Optics: A Re-Examination of
Textual Issues Pertaining to the Euclidean Optica and Catoptrica'. Physis 31:1-45.
Lejeune, A. 1957. Recherches sur la Catoptrique greque. Academie Royal de Belgique,
Memoires de la Classe des Lettres, Serie, 2,52,2. Brussels: Palais des academies.
Marsden, E.W. 1971. Greek and Roman Artillery: Technical Treatises. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Netz, R. 1999. The Shaping of Deduction in Greek Mathematics: A Study in Cognitive History.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Netz, R. 2000. 'Why did Greek Mathematicians Publish their Analyses?'. In Ancient and
Medieval Traditions in the Exact Sciences: Essays in the Memory of Wilbur Knorr, edited
by P. Suppes, J. Moravcsik and H. Mendell. Stanford: Stanford Centre for the Study
of Language and Information Publications.
Netz, R. 2004a. The Transformation of Mathematics in the Early Mediterranean World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Netz, R. 2004b. The Works of Archimedes. Translation and Commentary. Volume 1: The Two
Books On the Sphere and the Cylinder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Neugebauer, 0.1962. The Exact Sciences in Antiquity. 2nd ed. New York Harper & Collins.
Russo, L. 2003. The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had to
Be Reborn Berlin: Springer.
Schmidt, W., L.L.M. Nix, H. Schne and J.L Heiberg, eds. 1899-1914. Heronis Alexandrini
Opera qvae svpersvnt omnia. 5 vols Leipzig: Teubner.
Stuckelberger, A. 1994. Bild und Wort: Das illustrierte Fachbuch in der antiken Naturwissenschaft, Medizin und Technik. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabem.
Tannery, P. 1903. 'Heronis Alexandrini Quae Supersunt Omnia'. In Memoires scientifiques:
Sciences exactes dans l'antiquite. 1912-1915. Paris.
Vitrac, B. 1994 'Euclide et Heron: Deux approches de l'enseignement des mathematiques
dans l'Antiquite?' In Science et vie mtellectuelle a Alexandrie der - llle siede apres J.-C.),
edited by G. Argoud. Saint-Etienne: Publications de l'Universite de Saint-Etienne.
White, K D. 1984. Greek and Roman Technology. London: Thames and Hudson.

Hero of Alexandria's Mechanical Geometry

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Hero of Alexandria's Mechanical Geometry

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Hero of Alexandria's

Greek mathematics is often identified with the achievements of a rather

l Netz, 1999, Chapters 1-2; see also Russo, 2003,185-6.

Brought to you by | University of Haifa

H0yrup has drawn attention to a culture of 'recreational' problem

2 H0yrup, 1990 and 1996a