Samsó, Julio

Suhayl International Journal for the History of the Exact and Natural Sciences in Islamic Civilisation

Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert

 Reviews              213 
 
in the works of the Andalus÷ 
author al-Judh×m÷ (end of 12
th
- 
beginning of 13
th
 centuries) and 
the Moroccan muwaqqit al-J×dir÷ 
(1375 - c. 1416). In Chapter 16, 
Nathan Sidoli and Takanori 
Kusuba deal with the Arabic 
edition and revision of Theo-
dosius’ Spherics carried out by 
Na½÷r al-D÷n al-Æýs÷ in order to 
produce a mathematically sound 
text that could be used as a self-
contained argument by a student. 
In Chapter 17, Adi Setia de-
velops al-R×z÷’s atomic con-
ception of time, motion, distance 
and change through a trans-
lational survey of his MaÐ×lib 
þ¶liyah. In Chapter 18, Emilia 
Calvo and Roser Puig shed new 
light on some features of the 
universal plate devised by the 
eleventh-century Andalus÷ astro-
nomer þAl÷ b. Khalaf. In Chapter 
19, Edward S. Kennedy and 
Nazim Faris study the eclipse 
technique preserved in the Z÷j of 
the ninth-century astronomer 
Ya¬y× b. Ab÷ Man½ýr; this is the 
oldest paper reproduced in the 
volume and an excellent ex-
ample of how, as early as 1970, 
historians of science were using 
computer programming techni-
ques to establish and verify the 
underlying parameters and 
procedures of the astronomical 
tables. Finally, in Chapter 20 
George Saliba concerns himself 
with the transmission of scien-
tific ideas from the Islamic 
world to Renaissance Europe, 
and focuses on the role played 
by European scholars like the 
Orientalist Guillaume Postel 
(1510-1581), who appears to 
have studied Arabic astro-
nomical texts in their original 
language; these findings thus 
demonstrate that the scientific 
works of the Islamic world could 
have been transmitted to 
Copernicus and others without 
the need for Latin intermediaries.  
We might well think of many 
emblematic authors in the field 
of the history of Islamic science 
who are not represented in 
Iqbal’s choice of articles (and 
also of other important studies 
by the selected authors), but the 
book does not intend to be 
exhaustive and, all in all, it 
certainly fulfils its explicit 
purpose of presenting “a sample 
of the rich harvest which has 
fundamentally changed our view 
of the enterprise of science in 
Islamic civilization from the way 
it was viewed at the beginning of 
the twentieth century” (p. xxi). 
 
Josep Casulleras 
 
TIHON, Anne, Πτολεμαίου 
Πρόχειροι Κανόνες. Les 
Tables Faciles de Ptolémée. 
Vol. 1a. Tables A1 – A2. 
214 Reviews               
 
Introduction, Édition critique. 
Publications de l’Institut 
Orientaliste de Louvain 59a. 
Université Catholique de 
Louvain. Louvain-la-Neuve, 
2011. 210 pp. 
MERCIER, Raymond, Πτολε-
μαίου Πρόχειροι Κανόνες. 
Ptolemy’s Handy Tables. Vol. 
1b. Tables A1 – A2. Trans-
cription and Commentary. 
Publications de l’Institut 
Orientaliste de Louvain 59b. 
Université Catholique de 
Louvain. Louvain-la-Neuve, 
2011. 219 pp. 
These two complementary vo-
lumes are the beginning of an 
extremely promising project: the 
publication of a critical edition  
of Ptolemy’s Handy Tables 
which, until now, were only 
accessible in the old edition by 
Nicolas B. Halma (Paris, 1822-
1825), which were based on 
some of the Parisian manuscripts 
accessible to the editor, and in 
the unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, presented at Brown 
University in 1960, by W.D. 
Stahlman, who edited Codex 
Vaticanus graecus 1291 and 
added to it several variant 
readings of two other manu-
scripts. This project is the result 
of the cooperation of two well-
known scholars: a philologist 
(Anne Tihon) and a historian of 
astronomy (Raymond Mercier). 
They intend to publish an edition 
of the tables only – not of the 
canons, which were critically 
edited by Heiberg among Pto-
lemy’s Opera minora (Leipzig, 
1907) – although their English 
translation of the chapters 
corresponding to each set of 
tables will appear at the end of 
the commentary (see, for 
instance, here Mercier pp. 178-
181). 
It seems unnecessary to 
underline the importance of the 
Handy Tables for the history of 
Islamic astronomy, in spite of 
the fact that no Arabic trans-
lation seems to be extant. The 
main evidence of the presence of 
the tables in the Arabic-Islamic 
is assembled in Mercier’s appen-
dices E (pp. 186-189) and F (pp. 
190-198) which  deal with the 
Syriac and Arabic transmission: 
they were known in the Syriac 
community at least from the time 
of Sergius of Reshaina (fl. 500), 
who calls them “Book of the 
Canon”, and they were used by 
Severus Sebokht (fl. 650) who 
also mentions the same title in 
his treatise on the astrolabe. As 
for the Arabic transmission, Ibn 
al-Nad÷m’s Fihrist states that 
“Ptolemy’s z÷j” was translated 
into Arabic by Ayyýb and 
Simþ×n for Mu¬ammad b. 
 Reviews              215 
 
Kh×lid b. Ya¬y× b. Barmak 
(705-782) and it is well known 
that al-Batt×n÷ had a copy of the 
tables which he considered to be 
the work of Theon;  the same 
can be said of al-B÷rýn÷ who also 
speaks of the Q×nýn, “the z÷j of 
Theon”. To this information 
Mercier adds a summary of the 
contents of the Handy Tables 
preserved by the historian 
A¬mad al-Yaþqýb÷ (d. 897): he 
reproduces and translates (pp. 
192-196) al-Yaþqýb÷’s text in 
Houtsma’s edition (1883), with 
quite a few misprints in the 
Arabic text. Finally, we have the 
evidence of an Arabic translation 
of Theon’s Small Commentary 
in a Syrian palimpsest of the 
Vatican Library (Vaticanus syr. 
623) in which a copyist wrote, in 
886, a Syriac text on folios from 
which Palestinian-Aramaic, 
Greek, Arabic, Armenian and 
Syriac texts had been scratched 
out  (see Tihon pp. 41-47). The 
Arabic inscriptions correspond 
to fragments of an Arabic 
translation of Theon’s Small 
Commentary, while the Greek 
texts are excerpts from the 
Handy Tables. A paleographic 
report by Paolo La Spisa on the 
Arabic texts (see Tihon pp. 84-
86) shows that the writing is 
very similar to the so-called 
Palestinian Kufic or Archaic 
Naskh÷ and that there is no 
difficulty in accepting that this 
kind of writing corresponds to a 
date earlier than 886. To this 
information I would like to add a 
hypothesis: the publication of 
vol. II-1 of Ibn ©ayy×n’s 
Muqtabis (ed. M. þA. Makk÷, 
Riy×Å, 2003, pp. 278, 525-527) 
gives a list of the z÷jes brought 
by þAbb×s b. N×½i¬ (d. after 844) 
from Baghdad to Córdoba 
towards the beginning of the 9
th
 
c.: he mentions al-Z÷j, al-Q×nýn, 
al-Sindhind and al-Arkand. The 
question is: can we identify al-
Q×nýn with Ptolemy’s tables? In 
that case, did an Arabic trans-
lation of these tables reach al-
Andalus at this early stage? 
Tihon’s volume begins with a 
preface in which she explains 
that the critical edition of the 
Handy Tables is in a way the 
result of an old project under- 
taken at Louvain University by 
three generations of scholars (A. 
Rome, Joseph Mogenet and 
Anne Tihon herself) who had 
already published editions of 
Theon’s Great Commentary  
(Mogenet-Tihon) and Small 
commentary (Tihon) on the 
tables. Interestingly, she insists 
on the importance of Ptolemy’s 
remarks in the canons that the 
planets’ positions in longitude 
can be calculated using graphical 
methods (see also Mercier p. 1). 
This is not the first time a 
216 Reviews               
 
scholar has insisted on this 
aspect of Ptolemy’s method-
ology, which can be considered a 
precedent of medieval equatoria 
(see Neugebauer, HAMA II, pp. 
984, 990, 1004). 
The introduction begins with a 
classification of the tables extant 
in the manuscripts (astronomical, 
specific tables for the latitude of 
Byzantium, chronological, geo-
graphical and varia) and explains 
the criteria used to establish 
which tables can be considered 
part of Ptolemy’s original work, 
that is, the ones quoted explicitly 
in the canons. Obviously the 
tables for Byzantium are ex-
cluded. She also explains her 
translation of the title of the 
tables: the term πρόχειρος means 
“handy”, “easy” or “ready to 
use” and this is why she uses 
Tables Faciles instead of Tables 
Manuelles, while she accepts the 
English  Handy Tables. 
In pp. 19-50 Anne Tihon des-
cribes in detail the four oldest 
manuscripts in uncial script, 
parts of which were written in 
the 9
th
 –10th c., to which she adds 
the aforementioned Syriac pa-
limpsest. She also analyses the 
extant papyri (pp. 49-50) and 
gives a list of the 40 later 
manuscripts which she clas-
sifies into families (pp. 47-49). 
Her edition is based on manu-
script F (Laurentianus gr. 28/26) 
in which the tables are written in 
uncial script and correspond to 
the reign of Leon VI the Wise 
(886-912), although the manu-
script has many later additions 
dating from the 14
th
 and 15
th
 c. 
The edition faithfully reproduces 
the numerical values of this 
manuscript, in Greek alpha-
numerical notation, to which the 
variant readings of the other 
three old manuscripts are added. 
As stated in the title of the 
volume, the edited tables cor-
respond to tables A1 (right 
ascensions and equation of time: 
see an analysis of the title of this 
table in pp. 200-204) and A2 
(oblique ascensions for the seven 
climates to which a table of 
oblique ascensions for the 
latitude of Byzantium is added). 
Other interesting sections of 
the volume include a brief 
history of the Handy Tables (pp. 
50-53), a paleographical analysis 
for the forms adopted by the zero 
(pp. 58-59), a complete list of 
the tables in the whole work (pp. 
61-73), and a critical survey of 
the previous edition by Nicolas 
Halma (pp. 76-83). The volume 
ends with a bibliography (pp. 87-
93), the  edition of tables A1 and 
A2  in manuscript F (pp. 97-134), 
the variant readings of the other 
three older manuscripts (as well 
as the papyrus Oxy. 4167 and 
the palimpsest Vat. syr. 623) 
 Reviews              217 
 
which include the recomputation 
of the numerical values (pp. 137-
199), and indexes of surnames 
and manuscripts.  
 Mercier’s volume begins with 
an introduction (pp. 1-5) in 
which he clarifies that the Handy 
Tables were designed for readers 
who were not particularly in-
terested in astronomical theory 
but who wished to have at their 
disposal the instrument to com-
pute planetary longitudes and 
latitudes and to solve other pro-
blems of astronomical practice, 
like casting a horoscope. This 
introduction also mentions the 
ancient commentaries on the 
Tables, the diffusion of this work 
in Latin, Syriac and Arabic 
communities, the modern edit-
ions and the structure of the 
volume.  
The volume continues with a 
transcription of tables A1 and 
A2 (including the table of 
oblique ascensions for By-
zantium) in Arabic numerals, 
accompanied by a recomputa-
tion when the edited values 
disagree with the calculated ones 
(pp. 9-48), followed by a com-
mentary divided into six chapters. 
Chapter 1 (pp. 51-78) contains a 
thorough analysis of the Egypt-
ian and Babylonian calendars 
and of the Era of Philip, used in 
the Tables, to which Mercier 
adds a discussion of other eras 
such as the era of Nabonassar 
and the Seleucid/ Alexander Dhý 
l-Qarnayn era. This chapter uses 
all kinds of sources available: 
Greek, Babylonian, Ethiopic, 
Syriac and Arabic. 
Chapter 2 (pp. 79-119) deals 
with table A1 (right ascensions 
and equation of time). As far as 
right ascensions are concerned, 
they are calculated for each 
degree of the argument, with 
their origin in Capricorn 0º. 
Mercier establishes that they 
derive from the corresponding 
table of the Almagest II.8, 
calculated for an interval of 10º 
in the argument, with the only 
difference that the latter have 
their origin in Aries 0º. The 
derivation of the Almagest 
implies the need to use an 
interpolation procedure, which 
Mercier analyses; he concludes 
that it corresponds to a refine-
ment of simple linear inter-
polation, already explained by 
Theon in his commentary on the 
Tables, which Mercier calls 
“stepwise interpolation”.  
The equation of time appears 
in column 3 of table A1 where it 
is expressed in minutes and 
seconds of time. The author’s 
analysis of this table leads to two 
surprising results: on the one 
hand, the solar right ascensions 
are not calculated using the table 
of right ascensions in A1 but 
218 Reviews               
 
derive directly from the right 
ascension table in the Almagest 
II.8 using a simple linear (not 
stepwise) interpolation; on the 
other, the longitude of the solar 
apogee is 66º instead of the 
65;30º of the Almagest. Besides, 
the position of the mean sun was 
calculated using a trigonometric 
expression (see p. 91) and not 
interpolating in the table of the 
solar equation. Finally the values 
of the equation of time were 
calculated at 6 degree steps, fol-
lowed by simple linear inter-
polation. Then, Mercier offers 
two examples of the computation 
of the equation of time borrowed 
from the Almagest and from 
Theon’s Small Commentary; he 
studies the epochs of the mean 
solar, lunar and planetary mean 
motion parameters in the Handy 
Tables, comparing them to those 
of the Almagest and the Canobic 
Inscription: the discrepancies are 
clarified if we assume that the 
times of the epochs used in the 
Handy Tables are true (not 
mean) solar times. Mercier, 
finally, analyses the equation of 
time in al-Batt×n÷’s canons. 
Chapters 3 (pp. 120 –142) and 
4 (pp. 143-145) study the tables 
A2 which correspond to oblique 
ascensions for the seven climates 
(including oblique ascensions for 
Byzantium) and to the length of 
one seasonal hour as a function 
of the solar longitude. The tables 
of oblique ascension, calculated 
for each degree of the argument, 
derive from the corresponding 
tables in the Almagest II.8 
(interval 10º), using “stepwise 
interpolation”. There is, however, 
a systematic error in some 
entries for each climate which 
arises from the use of mistaken 
values for the oblique ascensions 
at 10 degree intervals. It seems 
that these errors do not 
correspond to Ptolemy’s original 
Handy Tables, but to a later 
recension. This is confirmed by 
papyrus Oxyrhynchus 4167, 
which contains the original 
values with no errors. The 
columns of seasonal hours derive 
from the values of the tables of 
oblique ascensions in the Al-
magest, linearly interpolated, 
and not from the corresponding 
tables A2. The table of oblique 
ascensions from Byzantium 
contains a set of values which 
are midway between those of 
climates V and VI, in the 
original Ptolemaic version of the 
Tables. 
Chapter 5 (pp. 146-151) con-
tains examples of the use of 
tables A1 and A2, and chapter 6 
(pp. 152-155) contains an 
attempt to establish a stemma of 
the textual tradition, based on the 
evidence provided by tables A1 
and A2. These are followed by 
 Reviews              219 
 
several appendices (pp. 158 ff.) 
one of which (App. C, pp. 178-
181) is a translation of the 
canons corresponding to tables 
A1 and A2. The volume ends 
with a bibliography, and indexes 
of persons, manuscripts and 
papyri. The whole book is an 
impressive and exhaustive 
treatment of an extremely 
important subject which had 
been neglected for many years. 
We can only hope that Tihon and 
Mercier will continue this 
project until it is completed. 
 
Julio Samsó 
 
 
KING, David A., Islamic 
Astronomy and Geography. 
Ashgate-Variorum. Farnham, 
Surrey, 2012. XLII + 376 pp. 
 
According to accepted stand-
ards, I should never write a 
review of a book dedicated to me 
and to the Barcelona school. 
However, I feel that both David 
King and myself are “au-delà du 
bien et du mal” and  I do not 
believe that David really needs 
an adequate review in order to 
ask for funds for another re-
search project. Therefore I have 
decided to forget about standards 
and to write something on a 
book which has been a pleasure 
for me to read and which has 
drawn my attention to some 
papers of David that I had 
missed, in spite of the fact that I 
am fairly well acquainted with 
his scientific production. 
This is the fifth volume of 
King’s collected papers in the 
Variorum series. It begins with a 
Preface (pp. VII-XIII) in which 
the author explains and justifies 
his choice of the materials 
selected and ends with a most 
interesting paragraph on the 
decline of Islamic science after 
the 15
th
 century, in which he 
says that “Muslim scientists after 
the 15
th
 century (...) simply dealt 
with the same old problems of 
ancient and medieval astronomy 
and mathematics, citing the same 
old authorities (...). No new 
questions were posed since there 
was, in most places in the 
Islamic world, no access to any 
findings based on the telescope.” 
This is a more elaborate version 
of a comment he made to me 
many years ago, saying that 
“Islamic science declined be-
cause it had already answered all 
the questions posed”. The 
preface is followed by a very 
long and extremely useful list of 
King’s publications (261 items) 
until October 2012 (pp. XV-
XLII). 
The volume contains twelve 
papers and ends with an 
alphabetical index. The contents 


TIHON, Anne, Πτολεμαίου Πρόχειροι Κανόνες. Les Tables Faciles de Ptolémée. Vol. 1a. Tables A1 – A2. Introduction, Édition critique. Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 59a. Université Catholique de Louvain. Louvain-la-Neuve, 2011. 210 pp.

TIHON, Anne, Πτολεμαίου Πρόχειροι Κανόνες. Les Tables Faciles de Ptolémée. Vol. 1a. Tables A1 – A2. Introduction, Édition critique. Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 59a. Université Catholique de Louvain. Louvain-la-Neuve, 2011. 210 pp.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert