Samsó, Julio

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

Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert

170 Reviews 
1187). The variant readings introdu-
ced by Kunitzsch and Lorch were 
decided by reference to the Arabic 
version. They also followed 
Gerard’s lettering of the diagrams. 
Theodosius’ De habitationibus 
consists of 12 propositions, each of 
them structured as follows: state-
ment, diagram, example, mathema-
tical proof, and, although not always, 
the author’s commentary introduced 
by lat. Dico (Ar. fa-aqūlu). The 
content deals in particular with the 
astronomical phenomena observed 
in places of habitation, that is, locis 
in quibus morantur homines or 
masākin, at extreme latitudes. 
The critical edition is masterfully 
executed and the translation, with a 
wealth of footnotes, is excellent, as 
one would expect from these au-
thors. We strongly recommend this 
book to readers. 
Roser Puig 
Paul Kunitzsch and Richard 
Lorch, Theodosius, Sphaerica. 
Arabic and Medieval Latin 
Translations, Boethius, Franz 
Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, 2010. 
431 pp. 
In the last few years, Paul Kunitzsch 
and Richard Lorch have been 
working on the enormous task of 
publishing critical editions of the 
works of Theodosius in their Arabic 
and Latin translations. In this issue 
of Suhayl, readers will find a paper 
by these two scholars on the De 
diebus et noctibus as well as a 
review of their edition of De 
habitationibus (München, 2011). 
Here I concentrate on the most 
important of these publications, the 
edition of the Sphaerica. 
The volume contains, on facing 
pages, the Arabic text and the Latin 
translation by Gerard of Cremona 
(pp. 11-311), with an introduction 
(pp. 1-10), an edition and translation 
of the notes (marginal, in the text 
and in a half page) by Abý l-©asan 
b. Saþ÷d in a manuscript from a 
private library in Lahore (pp. 313-
315), an edition and translation of a 
series of lemmas (extant in mss. 
Istanbul, Seray, Ahmet III 3464, 
Paris BnF hebr. 1101 and several 
Latin mss., among them Paris BnF 
lat. 9335), related to an inequality 
stated by Theodosius, without proof, 
in proposition 11 of the third book, 
as well as notes added in the Latin 
translation to proposition 11 of the 
second book (pp. 316-327), and a 
careful collection of notes on the 
manuscript tradition of the 
geometrical diagrams (pp. 328-341). 
The volume ends with a 
“Mathematical summary” (pp. 343-
427), which is, in fact, almost an 
English translation of the book in 
which the propositions are 
translated in full and the proofs are 
formulated in modern notation with 
notes that compare the Arabic and 
Latin translations with the Greek 
original. At the end of the volume 
there is a complete bibliography (pp. 
429-431). 
As explained in the introduction, 
Theodosius’ Sphaerica is one of the 
middle books (al-mutawassiÐ×t) that 
 Reviews 171 
should be read between Euclid’s 
Elements and Ptolemy’s Almagest. 
As for the author of the Arabic 
translation, the manuscripts propose 
different names: Th×bit b. Qurra, 
©unayn b. Is¬×q and QusÐ× b. Lýq×. 
A more detailed description of the 
process of translation is to be found 
in the recension of the Sphaerica 
(1253) by Na½÷r al-D÷n al-Æýs÷, who 
states that Caliph al-Mustaþ÷n (862-
866) commissioned the translation 
of the book to QusÐ× b. Lýq×, who 
reached proposition five of the third 
book. The task was finished by 
another scholar and Th×bit b. Qurra 
revised the translation. 
The edition of the Arabic text is 
based on three manuscripts of which 
one (the aforementioned Lahore ms.) 
was copied in 1158, in Mosul from 
another copy belonging to a direct 
descendant of Th×bit b. Qurra. The 
colophon of the same manuscript 
states that al-©asan b. Saþ÷d (the 
author of the notes edited on pp. 
313-315) thoroughly revised all the 
figures in the treatise, in 1030, 
because they were corrupt in the 
manuscript he was copying (see pp. 
3-4 and 310-312). In the same 
colophon, the copyist says that the 
three books of the Sphaerica contain 
59 propositions (ashk×l): but in the 
edited text there are 11 definitions 
and 22 propositions in Book I, one 
definition and 22 propositions in 
Book II and, finally, 14 propositions 
in Book III: the total number of 
propositions should, therefore, be 58, 
instead of 59. 
The Latin translation has been 
edited using 11 manuscripts and it 
seems entirely accurate and faithful 
to the Arabic original. I have only 
been able to find the use of one 
Arabic word in the Latin text: 
meguar for mi¬war (axis) on p. 13. 
This implies that the technical Latin 
vocabulary had reached a standard 
level by the time of Gerard of 
Cremona. The only peculiar 
characteristic of the Latin text is the 
systematic use of equidistans and 
related terms to translate “parallel” 
(muw×zin): see pp. 87, 99, 103,105 
etc. 
To summarize: both the Arabic 
and the Latin critical editions of 
Theodosius’ work are excellent 
examples of good scholarship. The 
texts are very well edited and 
printed and are a pleasure to read. 
During the last few years a number 
of Arabic scientific texts have been 
edited with their corresponding 
Latin translation: this is precisely 
the kind of materials we need in 
order to have a clear picture of the 
techniques used by medieval 
translators. 
Julio Samsó 
Jafar Aghayani-Chavoshi, Ketâb 
al-nejârat (Sur ce qui est 
indispensable aux artisans dans 
les constructions géométriques) 
Tehran: Written Heritage Re-
search Centre & Institut Français 
de Recherche en Iran, 2010. 79 + 
136 pp. (Persian) and 279 pp. 
(French). Introduction by Ber-
nard Vitrac. Bibliothèque Ira-
nienne 71.  


PAUL KUNITZSCH AND RICHARD LORCH, Theodosius, Sphaerica. Arabic and Medieval Latin Translations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert