Recent investigations have thrown new light on such topics as the early Greek belief in heliocentricity, the relation between Greek and Babylonian astronomy, the reliability of Ptolemy's Syntaxis, Hipparchus's theory of motion for the sun, Hipparchus's value for the obliquity of the ecliptic, and Eratosthenes' estimate of the size of the earth. Some claims resulting from these investigations are controversial, especially the reevaluation of Ptolemy (though it is notable that no one any longer uses data from the Syntaxis (...) for investigating such things as the spin of the earth). This essay presents the evidence for these claims; it makes no pretense of presenting the evidence against them. (shrink)

In a somewhat polemical article on ‘Solstices, Equinoxes, and the Presocratics’ D. R. Dicks has recently challenged the usual view that the Presocratics in general, and the Milesians in particular, made significant contributions to the development of scientific astronomy in Greece. According to Dicks, mathematical astronomy begins with the work of Meton and Euctemon about 430 B.C. What passes for astronomy in the earlier period ‘was still in the pre-scientific stage’ of ‘rough-and-ready observations, unsystematically recorded and imperfectly understood, of practical (...) men’ whose chief concern was to fix the seasons for ploughing, seed-time, sailing voyages and religious festivals. Ionian speculation, says Dicks, took very little note of such observation: ‘some of its wilder flights of fancy might have been avoided, if it had taken more’. In this account of the rise of Greek astronomy, the natural philosophers have no part to play. Their theories represent a speculative enterprise without a scientific future, a philosophic sideline with no impact on the development of observational science from Hesiod to Meton or the development of mathematical astronomy from Meton to Ptolemy.I believe that such a dichotomy between early philosophy and early science in Greece is misguided in principle, and that it seriously distorts our picture of the initial phases of each discipline. It also imposes a considerable strain upon our credulity. Take the case of Anaxagoras who, according to Plato and Theophrastus, had given a causal explanation of eclipses of the moon a generation before Meton. (shrink)

This study provides a detailed description of ways in which Muslim astronomers handled the Greek astronomical legacy, reassessed its cultural and philosophical implications in light of their religiously-inspired world view, and proposed to modify it.

Summary Evidence for the transmission of Babylonian astronomy into the Greco-Roman world is well attested in the form of observations, numerical parameters and astronomical tables. This paper investigates the reception of Babylonian astronomy in the Greco-Roman world and in particular the transmission, transformation and exploitation of the layout of texts and other visual information. Two examples illustrate this process: the use of Babylonian lunar eclipse records by Greek astronomers and the adaptation of Babylonian methods of eclipse prediction in the (...) Antikythera Mechanism. (shrink)

In Science before Socrates, Daniel W. Graham argues against the belief that the Presocratic philosophers did not produce any empirical science and that the first major Greek science, astronomy, did not develop until at least the time of Plato. Instead, Graham proposes that the advances made by Presocratic philosophers in the study of astronomy deserve to be considered as scientific contributions.

This chapter begins with a discussion of Egyptian and Babylonian influences in Greek astronomy. It considers the development of Pythagorean astronomy before Philolaus. It then focuses on the difficulty of identifying an individual contribution to astronomy by Pythagoras or specific early Pythagoreans. It shows that Alexander relied on Aristotle, who connected with Philolaus neither the harmony of the spheres nor the geocentric model on which it is based. The surviving works of Aristotle actually contain no indication that he associated (...) the harmony of the spheres with Philolaus' system. (shrink)

We as Classical scholars need to (re)learn what most of our nineteenth and early twentieth century colleagues used to know about e. g. the phases of the moon. If we do not we may totally miss essential points of some texts, or fail to understand the nature of problems pointed out by former generations, as in the case of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes. We also ought to go further than our predecessors: knowing some basic facts about the heavenly bodies, (...) e. g. about the visibility of the planet Venus, can make us see some Greek poems in a (to us, at least) new light. (shrink)

아리스토텔레스의 수학적 소박실재론에 따르면 수학적 대상은 감각적 대상의 속성으로서 존재한다. 이와 같은 아리스토텔레스의 수학적 소박실재론의 문제점 중 하나는 수학적 대상들은 다른 학문의 대상들과 달리 감각적 개별자들에 의해 완벽하게 예화 되어 있지 않다는 것이다. 감각적 대상들은 수학적 대상의 정의를 만족시키지 않기 때문이다. 이러한 문제점에도 불구하고 아리스토텔레스가 그의 수학적 소박실재론을 유지할 수 있었던 이유는 유독수스의 새로운 천문학 이론 덕택이었다. 유독수스는 각각 따로 공전하는 네 개의 천구로 이루어진 천체를 가정함으로써, 불규칙하며 불완전하게 보이는 행성들의 운동이 사실은 규칙적이며 완전한 기하학적 원을 그린다는 것을 수학적으로 증명하였다. (...) 그러나 그의 이론을 받아들이더라도 여전히 수학적 소박실재론이 정당화되지는 못한다. 천체와 행성들의 운동이 모든 종류와 크기의 기하학적 대상을 예화 하지는 않기 때문이다. (shrink)

At some time around 200 A.D., the Stoic philosopher and teacher Cleomedes delivered a set of lectures on elementary astronomy as part of a complete introduction to Stoicism for his students. The result was _The Heavens, _the only work by a professional Stoic teacher to survive intact from the first two centuries A.D., and a rare example of the interaction between science and philosophy in late antiquity. This volume contains a clear and idiomatic English translation—the first ever—of _The Heavens, _along (...) with an informative introduction, detailed notes, and technical diagrams. This important work will now be accessible to specialists in both ancient philosophy and science and to readers interested in the history of astronomy and cosmology but with no knowledge of ancient Greek. (shrink)

In one of the most disputed passages of Greek literature Plato in the Republic, 7. 528e–530c prescribes astronomy as the fourth study in the education of the Guardians. But what sort of astronomy? According to one school of thought it is a purely speculative study of bodies in motion having no relation to the celestial objects that we see. While this interpretation has rejoiced the hearts of Plato's detractors, who regard him as an obstacle to the progress of science, (...) it has dismayed his admirers. Another school of thought holds that what Plato meant was that astronomers must get to know the real motions of the heavenly bodies as opposed to their apparent motions as seen by us on earth. The opposed interpretations may be set out in the following representative citations from Sir Thomas Heath and John Burnet. (shrink)

The attempt to narrow the general discourse of the problem of error and to focus it on the specific problem of experimental error may be approached from different directions. One possibility is to establish a focusing process from the standpoint of history; such an approach requires a careful scrutiny of the history of science with a view to identifying the juncture when the problem of experimental error was properly understood and accounted for. In a study of this kind one would (...) have to examine the evolution of the method of experimentation and related topics so that clear criteria would underlie the analysis. (shrink)

Models of planetary motion as observed from Earth must account for two principal anomalies: the nonuniform speed of the planet as it circles the zodiac, and the correlation of the planet’s position with the position of the Sun. In the context of the geometrical models used by the Greeks, the practical difficulty is to somehow isolate the motion of the epicycle center on the deferent from the motion of the planet on its epicycle. One way to isolate the motion of (...) the epicycle center is to determine the longitude and time of oppositions of the planet with the mean Sun. A Greek astronomer might have realized that the predictions of mean oppositions by Babylonian models could serve as useful proxies for real empirical observations. It is shown that a Greek astronomer with a reasonable understanding of Babylonian System A models for the outer planets and the Sun–Moon could have used those models to estimate approximate values for the eccentricity e and longitude of apogee A required for geometrical models. The same method would work for the inner planets if conjunctions were observable, but they are not, and the variation of the observable synodic events—first and last morning and evening visibilities—is dominated more by the motion of the planet in latitude than the nonuniform motion of the epicycle center. (shrink)

This essay examines the quantitative aspects of Greco-Roman science, represented by a group of established disci¬plines, which since the fourth century BC were called mathēmata or mathē¬ma¬tikai epistē¬mai. In the group of mathēmata that in Antiquity normally comprised mathematics, mathematical astronomy, harmonics, mechanics and optics, we have also included geography. Using a dataset based on The Encyclopaedia of Ancient Natural Scientists, our essay considers a community of mathēmatikoi (as they called themselves), or ancient scientists (as they are defined for the (...) purposes of the present paper) from a sociological point of view, focusing on the size of the scientific population known to us and its disciplinary, temporal and geographical distribution. A diachronic comparison of neighboring and partly overlapping communities, ancient scientists and philosophers, allows the pattern of their interrelationship to be traced. An examination of centers of science throughout ancient history reveals that there were five major centers – Athens, Alexandria, Rhodes, Rome and Byzantium/Constantinople – that appear and replace one another in succession as leaders. These conclusions serve to reopen the issue of the place of mathēmata and mathēmatikoi in ancient society. (shrink)

The ancient Greeks played a fundamental role in the history of mathematics and their ideas were reused and developed in subsequent periods all the way down to the scientific revolution and beyond. In this, the first complete history for a century. Reviel Netz offers a panoramic view of the rise and influence of Greek mathematics and its significance in world history. He explores the Near Eastern antecedents and the social and intellectual developments underlying the subject's beginnings in Greece in (...) the fifth century BCE. He leads the reader through the proofs and arguments of key figures like Archytas, Euclid and Archimedes, and considers the totality of the Greek mathematical achievement which also includes, in addition to pure mathematics, such applied fields as optics, music, mechanics and, above all, astronomy. This is the story not only of a major historical development, but of some of the finest mathematics ever created. (shrink)

This paper deals with the exact constructions of the regular heptagon in Greek and Arabic geometry, which are preserved in a number of mainly unpublished Arabic manuscripts. Appended are editions of the Arabic texts and English translations of Propositions 17 and 18 of the “Book of the Construction of the Circle, Divided into Seven Equal Parts”, attributed to Archimedes, and of the “Book on the Construction of the Heptagon in the Circle and the Division of the Rectilineal Angle into (...) Three Equal Parts” by the 10th century geometer Al-Sijzi. (shrink)

Na[sdotu]īr al-Dīn al-[Tdotu]ūsī, Memoir on Astronomy . [Sdotu]adr al-Sharī‘a. An Islamic Response to Greek Astronomy: Kitāb Ta‘dīl Hay’at al-Aflāk of [sdotu]adr al-Sharīa , Edited with Translation and Commentary by Ahmad S. Dallal, X + 461 pp., figs., index. Leiden - New York - Köln, E.J. Brill, 1995.

In the first part of chapter 2 of book II of the Physics Aristotle addresses the issue of the difference between mathematics and physics. In the course of his discussion he says some things about astronomy and the ‘ ‘ more physical branches of mathematics”. In this paper I discuss historical issues concerning the text, translation, and interpretation of the passage, focusing on two cruxes, the first reference to astronomy at 193b25–26 and the reference to the more physical branches at 194a7–8. In (...) section I, I criticize Ross’s interpretation of the passage and point out that his alteration of has no warrant in the Greek manuscripts. In the next three sections I treat three other interpretations, all of which depart from Ross's: in section II that of Simplicius, which I commend; in section III that of Thomas Aquinas, which is importantly influenced by a mistranslation of, and in section IV that of Ibn Rushd, which is based on an Arabic text corresponding to that printed by Ross. In the concluding section of the paper I describe the modern history of the Greek text of our passage and translations of it from the early twelfth century until the appearance of Ross's text in 1936. (shrink)

The Greek mathematician Diophantos of Alexandria lived during the third century CE. Apart from his age, very little else is known about his life. Even the exact form of his name is uncertain, and only a few incomplete manuscripts of his greatest work, Arithmetica, have survived. In this impressive scholarly investigation, first published in 1885, Thomas Little Heath meticulously presents what can be gleaned from Greek, Latin and Arabic sources, and guides the reader through the algebraist's idiosyncratic style (...) of mathematics, discussing his notation and originality. This was the first thorough survey of Diophantos' work to appear in English. Also reissued in this series are Heath's two-volume History of Greek Mathematics, his treatment of Greek astronomy through the work of Aristarchus of Samos, and his edition in modern notation of the Treatise on Conic Sections by Apollonius of Perga. (shrink)

We may take tables for granted. However, due to a variety of factors, tables were a rarity in the history of ancient Greek culture, used only limitedly in very special contexts and generally in a non-systematic way, except in astronomy. In this paper I present the main types of tables that can be found in ancient Greek texts: non-ruled columnar lists (accounts and other types of informal tables), ruled columnar lists (mostly astronomical tables), and symmetric tables (mainly Pythagorean (...) displays of numbers). (shrink)

Aristotle, great Greek philosopher, researcher, reasoner, and writer, born at Stagirus in 384 BCE, was the son of Nicomachus, a physician, and Phaestis. He studied under Plato at Athens and taught there ; subsequently he spent three years at the court of a former pupil, Hermeias, in Asia Minor and at this time married Pythias, one of Hermeias's relations. After some time at Mitylene, in 343?2 he was appointed by King Philip of Macedon to be tutor of his teen-aged (...) son Alexander. After Philip's death in 336, Aristotle became head of his own school, the Lyceum at Athens. Because of anti-Macedonian feeling there after Alexander's death in 323, he withdrew to Chalcis in Euboea, where he died in 322. Nearly all the works Aristotle prepared for publication are lost; the priceless ones extant are lecture-materials, notes, and memoranda. They can be categorized as follows: I Practical: Nicomachean Ethics; Great Ethics ; Eudemian Ethics; Politics; Economics ; On Virtues and Vices. II Logical: Categories; Analytics ; Interpretation; Refutations used by Sophists; Topica. III Physical: Twenty-six works including astronomy, generation and destruction, the senses, memory, sleep, dreams, life, facts about animals, etc. IV Metaphysics: on being as being. V Art: Rhetoric and Poetics. VI Other works including the Constitution of Athens; more works also of doubtful authorship. VII Fragments of various works such as dialogues on philosophy and literature; and of treatises on rhetoric, politics and metaphysics. The Loeb Classical Library edition of Aristotle is in twenty-three volumes. (shrink)

: In earlier work, Bernard R. Goldstein and the present author have introduced a procedural rule for historical inquiry, which requires that one take pains to establish the credibility of any citation of ancient thought by later writers in antiquity through a process of verification. In this paper, I shall apply what I call the Rule of Ancient Citations to Simplicius' interpretation of Aristotle's remarks in Meta L. 8, which is the primary point of departure for the modern understanding of (...) Greek planetary theory. I first sketch several lines of argument that lead me to conclude that Simplicius' interpretation should not be accepted because it assumes a concern with planetary phenomena unknown to the Greeks before the late 2nd and early 1st centuries BC. Then, after showing that there is a fairly well defined range of readings of Aristotle's remarks more in keeping with what we actually know of astronomy in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, I conclude that neither Aristotle's report about the Eudoxan and Callippan accounts of the celestial motions nor Simplicius' interpretation of this report is a good starting point for our understanding of early Greek planetary theory. (shrink)

The richly illustrated volume represents the probably first serious attempt to bring astronomy, the perception of real and cosmic time, and the nocturnal experience of cults and cult places into the discussion about religion and sacred space. It consists of seven chapters—two of which are the introduction and the conclusions—an appendix, a glossary, notes, bibliography, and an index. Between p. 144 and p. 145 the volume contains a series of color plates that duplicate some of the black-and-wh...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 125.1 (2004) 140-144 [Access article in PDF] C. J. Tuplin and T. E. Rihll, eds. Science and Mathematics in Ancient Greek Culture. Foreword by Lewis Wolpert. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. xvi + 379 pp. 21 black-and white ills. 3 tables. Cloth, $80. It has become something of a truism to say that, whatever their ambitions for abstraction, scientists remain profoundly caught up in (...) the life of their culture. Yet, that is a truism only at a certain level. No one is surprised to hear that Euclid had to eat and drink just like everyone else and relied on royal patronage for the leisure to pursue his studies, but it may occasion surprise to learn that the shape of his number theory should owe something to the particular way in which his eye fell upon a multiplication table. That Galen was influenced by his teachers is not news; but that his commitment to a particular school of philosophy could cause him to see and not see certain things when he was conducting dissections—here is something of interest. The papers in this volume, which were first delivered at a conference in Liverpool in 1996, have it as their common task to show how ancient forms of life influenced the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge on the part of scientists like Euclid and Galen.Heading the collection is a study by Andrew Barker of some idiosyncratic features of Greek harmonic theory. Archytas, Aristotle, and Ptolemy each attempted to characterize the physical basis of the two opposite sound qualities, oxusand barus. As Aristotle himself observed, the terms are metaphors drawn from the tactile realm, and trouble arose because in that realm they are heterogeneous opposites, i.e., the proper opposites of "sharp" and "heavy" are "dull" and "light." Barker uncovers a corresponding uncertainty in the texts about whether these sound qualities should be analyzed as something more like weight or something more like sharpness. Thus, an excessive trust in the descriptive adequacy of ordinary language terms led these thinkers to frustration.Harry Hine's paper on earthquakes and vulcanology deals with ancient knowledge of two phenomena that elicited the attention of scientist and non-scientist alike. Like Barker, Hine draws our attention to a terminological deficiency: although there was a fairly elaborate vocabulary for seismoi, neither Greek nor Latin possessed a generic noun that could properly be translated as [End Page 140] "volcano." This deficiency seems to be correlated with the fact that earthquakes form a regular part of the meteorological curriculum, while volcanoes usually received independent treatment in works such as the Aetna. Particularly intriguing is Hine's suggestion that the opinion of locals, especially sailors, may have been the source of certain scientific theses about volcanoes, e.g., that Aetna's behavior was closely correlated with the weather.The difference between ancient astronomy as practiced and as it was popularly believed to operate is the subject of Alan Bowen's paper. His central question is, when did astronomers first set out to make predictions of eclipses? The surprising answer is that, despite popular beliefs to the contrary, such prediction was never practiced by astronomers in a serious way before Ptolemy. Along with scrutiny of the misunderstanding in Herodotus, Diodorus, and Pliny, the paper offers thorough analysis of the most well-documented "prediction," that of a lunar eclipse that took place the night before the battle of Pydna in 167 B.C.E., which was supposedly foreseen by the Roman (!) general C. Sulpicius Gallus. Bowen casts doubts upon the entire tradition, showing how adherence to an ideology of the well-rounded commander led the sources to inflate his achievement: while some reports have Gallus simply assuaging his troops' fears at the event, others have him explaining its causes or even foretelling it. Bowen's skepticism is well founded, and one must regard these supposed feats of eclipse-prediction as a kind of science fiction, prescient yet false all the same.R. Hanna's subject is the format and function of the parapegma calendar first devised by... (shrink)

The paper shows that, contrary to what has been held since the sixteenth-century mathematician Christoph Clavius, there is no application of consequentia mirabilis (CM) in Greek mathematical works. This is shown by means of a detailed discussion of the logical structure of the proofs where CM is allegedly employed. The point is further enlarged to a critical assessment of the unsound methodology applied by many interpreters in seeking for specific logical rules at work in ancient mathematical texts.

Geoffrey Lloyd engages in a wide-ranging exploration of what we can learn from the study of ancient civilisations that is relevant to fundamental problems, both intellectual and moral, that we still face today. How far is it possible to arrive at an understanding of alien systems of belief? Is it possible to talk meaningfully of 'science' and of its various constituent disciplines, 'astronomy', 'geography', 'anatomy', and so on, in the ancient world? Are logic and its laws universal? Is there one (...) ontology - a single world - to which all attempts at understanding must be considered to be directed? When we encounter apparently very different views of reality, how far can that be put down to a difference in conceptions of what needs explaining, or of what counts as an explanation, or to different preferred modes of reasoning or styles of inquiry? Do the notions of truth and belief represent reliable cross-cultural universals? In another area, what can ancient history teach us about today's social and political problems? Are the discourses of human nature and of human rights universally applicable? What political institutions do we need to help secure equity and justice within nation states and between them? Lloyd sets out to answer all these questions, and to convince us that the science and culture of ancient Greece and China provide precious resources to advance modern debates. (shrink)

In a famous passage from his al-Bāhir, al-Samaw’al proves the identity which we would now write as (ab)n=anbn\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$(ab)^n=a^n b^n$$\end{document} for the cases n=3,4\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$n=3,4$$\end{document}. He also calculates the equivalent of the expansion of the binomial (a+b)n\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$(a+b)^n$$\end{document} for the same values of n and describes the construction of what we now call the Pascal Triangle, showing (...) the table up to its 12th row. We give a literal translation of the whole passage, along with paraphrases in more modern or symbolic form. We discuss the influence of the Euclidean tradition on al-Samaw’al’s presentation, and the role that diagrams might have played in helping al-Samaw’al’s readers follow his arguments, including his supposed use of an early form of mathematical induction. (shrink)

It is generally held that Presocratic cosmologies are sui generis and unique to their authors. If, however, a division is made between sixth-century and fifthcentury BC cosmologies, some salient differences emerge. For instance, heavenly bodies in sixth-century cosmologies tend to be light, ephemeral, fed by vapors, and located above the earth; those in fifth-century cosmologies tend to be heavy, permanent, heated by friction, and to travel below the earth. The earlier cosmologies seem to embody a meteorological model of astronomy, the (...) latter a lithic model. The change in models can be accounted for on the basis of Parmenides’ discovery that the moon is illuminated by the sun and hence is a spherical, permanent, opaque or earthy body. This insight generated empirical evidence to confirm itself and rendered obsolete earlier cosmologies. (shrink)

In Miletus, about 550 B.C., together with our world-picture cosmology was born. This book tells the story. In Part One the reader is introduced in the archaic world-picture of a flat earth with the cupola of the celestial vault onto which the celestial bodies are attached. One of the subjects treated in that context is the riddle of the tilted celestial axis. This part also contains an extensive chapter on archaic astronomical instruments. Part Two shows how Anaximander (610-547 B.C.) blew (...) up this archaic world-picture and replaced it by a new one that is essentially still ours. He taught that the celestial bodies orbit at different distances and that the earth floats unsupported in space. This makes him the founding father of cosmology. Part Three discusses topics that completed the new picture described by Anaximander. Special attention is paid to the confrontation between Anaxagoras and Aristotle on the question whether the earth is flat or spherical, and on the battle between Aristotle and Heraclides Ponticus on the question whether the universe is finite or infinite. (shrink)

Geoffrey Lloyd engages in a wide-ranging exploration of what we can learn from the study of ancient civilizations that is relevant to fundamental problems, both intellectual and moral, that we still face today. These include, in philosophy of science, the question of the incommensurability of paradigms, the debate between realism and relativism or constructivism, and between correspondence and coherence conceptions of truth. How far is it possible to arrive at an understanding of alien systems of belief? Is it possible to (...) talk meaningfully of 'science' and of its various constituent disciplines, 'astronomy' 'geography' 'anatomy' and so on, in the ancient world? Are logic and its laws universal? Is there one ontology - a single world - to which all attempts at understanding must be considered to be directed? When we encounter apparently very different views of reality, how far can that be put down to a difference in conceptions of what needs explaining, or of what counts as an explanation, or to different preferred modes of reasoning or styles of inquiry? Do the notions of truth and belief represent reliable cross-cultural universals? In another area, what can ancient history teach us about today's social and political problems? Are the discourses of human nature and of human rights universally applicable? What political institutions do we need to help secure equity and justice within nation states and between them? Lloyd sets out to answer all these questions, and to argue that the study of the science and culture of ancient Greece and China provided a precious resource in order to advance a wealth of modern debates. (shrink)

Während heute die meisten Menschen keinen Gedanken daran verschwenden, dass sich unser irdischer Wohnort mit mehr als 1000 km/h um die eigene Achse dreht, reichte das Wissen um dieses ständige Bewegtwerden bei den Römern bis in den Alltag: Für Vitruv ist das rotierende Weltall der Prototyp aller mechanischen Einrichtungen. In die römische Lebenswelt gelangte das Wissen über das Raum-Zeit-Modell der griechischen Astronomie, dem Platons Erkenntniseuphorie zu religiösem Charakter verholfen hatte, durch die paideia. Allerdings war der Prozess von der Wissensgewinnung bis (...) zur Wissensrepräsentation keine Einbahnstrasse: Die Deutungsmuster griechischer Welterklärung wurden durch Texte und Artefakte nicht einfach reproduziert, sondern an veränderte Bedürfnisse angepasst. Aus tradierten und neuen wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen, religiösen Überzeugungen, politischen Notwendigkeiten und dem Wunsch nach Zurschaustellung des eigenen Kulturkapitals entstand im öffentlichen wie im privaten Bereich ein komplexer Diskurs über Raum und Zeit."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

In this paper, we analyze the astronomical tables in al-Zīj al-Muqtabis by Ibn al-Kammād (early twelfth century, Córdoba), based on the Latin and Hebrew versions of the lost Arabic original, each of which is extant in a unique manuscript. We present excerpts of many tables and pay careful attention to their structure and underlying parameters. The main focus, however, is on the impact al-Muqtabis had on the astronomy that developed in the Iberian Peninsula and the Maghrib and, more generally, on (...) the transmission and diffusion of Indian astronomy in the West after the arrival of al-Khwārizmī’s astronomical tables in al-Andalus (Muslim Spain) in the tenth century. This tradition of Indian origin competed with the Greek tradition represented by al-Battānī’s astronomical tables and was much more alive in the Iberian Peninsula and the Maghrib than previously thought. From Spain, the Indian tradition entered mainstream European astronomy, where we find echoes of it in all versions of the Alfonsine Tables, both in manuscript and in the printed editions (beginning in 1483), as well as in Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus, published in 1543. (shrink)