King Ptolemy Research Articles

King Ptolemy and Alchandreus the Philosopher: The earliest texts on the astrolabe and Arabic astrology at Fleury, Micy and Chartres

Summary This paper reassesses the importance of the Benedictine monasteries of St Benoît of Fleury and St Mesmin of Micy (both on the outskirts of Orléans), and the Cathedral of Chartres for the early diffusion of Arabic learning concerning the astrolabe, and it relates this diffusion to that of the judicial astrology of ‘Alchandreus philosophus’ and the astronomical tables of the Preceptum canonis Ptolomei. Evidence is given for the fact that already, by the turn of the millennium, the elements were in place for a corpus of a new, mathematically based, practical science of the stars, consisting of works partly of Arabic and partly of Greek inspiration. This corpus was progressively revised and inspired, in turn, further translations from Arabic, until it reached its most mature form in the mid-twelfth century. Until recently, scholarship has tended to concentrate on the cathedral schools of North-east France and Lotharingia, and the monastic schools of South Germany, and to see Gerbert d'Aurillac, the Archbishop of Reims, as the pivotal figure. While these schools were undoubtedly important in the diffusion of the new science of the stars in the eleventh century, it is argued that a key role in the initial stages of the diffusion was played by the interrelated centres of Fleury, Micy and Chartres at the beginning of the century, and Gerbert may not have contributed as much as has been believed. Additional sections are devoted to the authorities in this corpus, ‘King Ptolemy’ and ‘Alchandreus’. A reworking of the Arabic material on the construction of the astrolabe by Ascelin of Augsburg was copied into this corpus. The text has previously been known from only one manuscript; a new edition, from five manuscripts, is provided here, together with a translation and commentary.

The Theme of the Universal Library in the Arabic Tradition

The Letter of Aristeas, a text written in Greek by a Jewish author of the Alexandrian diaspora, probably in the second century b.c., traces the circumstances under which a Greek translation of the sacred book of the Jews, the Pentateuch, was commissioned by King Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The letter situates this undertaking in the broader context of the foundation of the Library of Alexandria on the advice of Demetrius of Phalerum, who instigated the plan to gather together all the world's books, both those in the possession of the Greeks and those “of other peoples.”

Criticism As a Goal in Itself

They say that King Ptolemy found Euclid's multivolume work difficult and asked Eclid whether he didn't have a simple text. Euclid replied, There is no royal road to geometry. In philology, however, there is, and it is called criticism. Criticism not in the broad sense of any literary but in the narrow sense: the branch concerned not with clarifying who, how, and whence but with judging good and bad. That is, it establishes literary reputations. This is not scholarship about literature but literature about literature. B. I. Iarkho wrote, Flowers could be reclassified into beautiful and ugly, but what would that do for the botanist? For the botanist nothing, of course, but for verse and prose about flowers, a great deal. It is a form of self-affirmation and self-expression: Belinskii's essays on Pushkin or Baratynskii tell us very little about Pushkin or Baratynskii, but they tell us a lot about Belinskii and his followers. So it is here: the discussion of literary reputations should proba...

The Rhetoric of Translation: Three Early Perspectives on Translating Torah

Three of the earliest extant Jewish exegetes, Aristobulus, Aristeas, and Philo, all state that King Ptolemy was responsible for a Greek translation of the Hebrew sacred writings. Scholarly discussion has focused on finding the historical kernel in these stories, or linking their creation to a particular event such as the official promulgation of an original or corrected Greek translation. The Letter of Aristeas is usually considered the most accurate version, in large part because it later was used as an introduction to the Septuagint. These discussions have overlooked the fact that in each case the basic plot is fine-tuned to suit each exegete's own ideas about how the Torah was written, how the text and its translation should be read and interpreted, and by whom. A comparison of the three versions reveals that each writer embellishes this bare-bones plot in a distinct manner. In particular, “historical” details are created by each writer that support the very exegetical endeavor he is undertaking. The story of the translation becomes a vehicle for creating all the components necessary to justify the exegete's role, from the creation of a unitary “Torah” out of the multiplicity of versions and stories to the motivation for the particular interpretative moves “demanded” by the very qualities of this Torah. Comparing the three stories gives us valuable insights into the self-perceptions of the exegetes and the emergence of what will become a standard model of text-author-exegete in Judaism.

The Introduction to the Study of Geometry

It is said that King Ptolemy, hearing of the wonders of geometry, summoned Euclid before him and commanded the latter to teach him this new science. The king was much disturbed (in mind, at least) when Euclid answered that there was no royal road to geometry. I am sure that we can exercise a little “poetic lincense” and use as our text, “There is no royal road to the teaching of geometry.” So this treatise is not written as a panacea for all the academic ills connected with the subject but rather a critical study of some of the features which make up the introduction to the study of geometry.