Complete Extant Works of Hero of Alexandria, Vol. 3

The Codex Vindobonensis Ms. philosophicus Graecus Viennese Philosophical Greek Manuscript, formerly no. 110, now no. CXL, was written in the 16th century and contains 96 written folios. On the upper margin of folio 1r, one reads: "From the books of Sebastian Tengnagel, Doctor of Civil and Canon Law, and Prefect of the Imperial Library, 1619." G. Schmidt discussed this book in the supplement to the first volume of Hero’s works, pp. 23 and 88. Hero’s booklet on the dioptra a surveying instrument is written on folios 31–59. At the bottom of folio 32r, one reads: "of which the stēmata crowns/small garlands [or perhaps markers]"; folio 32v and the eight following folios are neither written upon nor marked with numbers; folio 33r begins with the words: "fitted to the mentioned tormos socket/hole." Therefore, it is manifest that the scribe of the Viennese codex, having perceived in the old Parisian exemplar that the middle of the discussion was interrupted by a gap, left as many pages blank as he thought necessary for the lost part of the commentary. However, it is a necessary consequence that we conclude Venturi was misled by a fallacious appearance into the error of believing this codex was more severely mutilated than the others (Commentary, p. 79); regarding which matter, Vincentius judged prudently in the aforementioned work, pp. 427–430.

Hero's booklet seems to have been transcribed from the Viennese codex into those codices which Vincentius used in preparing his edition. And although one of them, the Strasbourg Protestant Seminary Library no. C III 6, was destroyed by fire in the year 1871, it is still possible to estimate today what place it should hold; for there exists a transcript made by Fr. Hase1) cf. Fr. Hase, Narrative on the Institution of an Edition of all Greek and Latin Military Writers (Berlin 1847), p. 10, and G. Schmidt, ibid., p. 26., which my father kindly provided to me. Of the same stock is the Parisian no. 2430, written in the 16th century; on which see H. Omont, Inventory, vol. II, p. 260, and G. Schmidt, ibid., p. 29. Therefore, both of these are derived from the Viennese codex; for this book is so far from being less complete than those that it exhibits not a few words omitted by them. Of which