`_`	(the underscore) is the placeholder for exactly one character.
`%`	(the percent sign) is the placeholder for no, one or more than one character.
`%%`	(two percent signs) is the placeholder for no, one or more than one character, but not for blank space (so that a search ends at word boundaries).

St Petersburg, Institut Vostochnykh Rukopiseĭ, D 171

[Black-and-white microfilm scans of the textblock.]

Collection of four works: Arabic. Date:

ff. 1v–2v dated 20 Rajab 659/20 June 1261 (2v), but this may be the date of composition of the treatise. At any rate, the manuscript was copied before 1053/1643-4 (see below), and according to Rosen not long before the 11^th/17^th century.

Or.:

unknown; copied by an unknown scribe; ff. 44r–74r were most likely copied from MS Istanbul, Nuruosmaniye, 2800, ff. 172r–189v (Roberts), and ff. 74r–98v (Ptolemaic work) from ff. 216r–229v of the same manuscript (see below).

Prov.:

a borrowing statement mentioning Muṣṭafā b. Riḍwān Khalīfa, dated 1053/1643-4; two undated ownership statements by Muḥammad … and Aḥmad …; three erased statements; a small, unreadable oval seal (all on 1r). Bequeathed to the then Institute of Oriental Languages in 1828 by Andreĭ Yakovlevich Italinskiĭ, Russian ambassador in Constantinople from 1801 to 1816 (cf. Rosen, p. V). A Russian stamp of the Educational Department for Oriental Languages of the Imperial Library (1r, 98v). Modern notes concerning the contents, perhaps by Rosen (2v, 17r, 44r, 74r). Old shelfmarks: ‘M. Sa. N123’ (98v); ‘87’ (inner back cover, Rosen).

Cod.: paper, 98 ff. (foliated with large Arabic-European numerals in pencil on every tenth recto; occasionally foliated with smaller Arabic-European numerals in pen, especially near the beginnings of the four treatises; no catchwords). At least two naskh hands (1v–5v and 5v–98v). First hand: smaller, fully dotted ductus with substantial diacritics. Second hand (including the Ptolemaic work): larger, mostly dotted ductus with ligatures, no diacritics. Pseudo-Ptolemy’s verba often overlined, presumably in red. Abjad numerals, occasionally Hindu-Arabic numerals. Codex in good condition; several stains never hindering the reading, multiple folios lost after f. 98v. Dimensions: 29×19 cm; ff. 1v–8v with a somewhat larger written area; 23 lines per page.

Cont.: astrology. — Index: al-Ikhtiyārāt mim-mā allafa-hā Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb b. Nawbakht (1v–2v); Tanklūshā, Kitāb fī Ṣuwar daraj al-falak (3r–15r, 17r–44r); another copy of al-Ikhtiyārāt mim-mā allafa-hā Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb b. Nawbakht (15r–17r); Banū Mūsā, Kitāb al-Darajāt (44r–74r); Ptolemaica (74r–98v). Blank: none.

Bibl.: Victor Rosen, Les manuscrits arabes de l’Institut des Langues Orientales, Saint-Pétersbourg: Eggers, 1877, pp. V and 121–124 (no. 191); Anas B. Khalidov, Arabskie rukopisi Instituta Vostokovedeniya. Kratkii katalog, 2 vols, Moskva: Nauka, 1986, vol. I, p. 456 (nos. 9734, 9736 and 9737) and p. 458 (no. 9771); Alexandre M. Roberts, ‘The Crossing Paths of Greek and Persian Knowledge in the 9th-century Arabic ‘Book of Degrees’’, in Carla Noce, Massimo Pampaloni and Claudia Tavolieri (eds), Le vie del sapere in ambito siro-mesopotamico dal III al IX secolo. Atti del convegno internazionale tenuto a Roma nei giorni 12-13 maggio 2011, Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2013, pp. 279–303, here pp. 280–282; Franco Martorello and Giuseppe Bezza, Aḥmad ibn Yūsuf ibn al-Dāya. Commento al Centiloquio Tolemaico, Milano / Udine: Mimesis, 2013, pp. 33 and 39.

74r–⁠98v	\74r\ كتاب الثمرة لبطلميوس تفسير أحمد بن يوسف كاتب آل طولون لأمير المؤمنين المعتضد والمكتفي رحمهم الله. قال بطلميوس علم النجوم منك ومنها. قال المفسّر ومراده في منك ومنها أنّ لتقدمة المعرفة بالنجوم طريقين — \98v\ قال المفسّر إنّ الدليل الذي ينحوه بطلميوس ليس هو القمر ولا من هو أوفر حظًّا في الطالع فقط لكنّه. = Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad b. Yūsuf, Tafsīr Kitāb al-Thamara (C.3.1) , version with 102 verba, defective. — Title: Kitāb al-Thamara li-Baṭlamyūs tafsīr Aḥmad b. Yūsuf kātib Āl Ṭūlūn li-amīr al-muʾminīn al-Muʿtaḍid wa-l-Muktafī raḥima-hum Allāh (74r).— Index: 92 verba intertwined with the commentary, 74r–98v. — No colophon. No marginalia. Verba not numbered. The text starts immediately after the preceding treatise without any clear break; due to a page loss, it breaks off in the commentary on verbum 90 (here: 92; fī l-ṭāliʿ faqaṭ lakinna-hu; another hand added the words fī l-mawlid ilā mithli-hā min al-burj al-thānī at the bottom of the page, but they were transcribed from the first line of the same page). Furthermore, the text tacitly jumps from the middle of verbum 80 (here: 82; al-zuhara min al-ʿilal al-kubrā) to the middle of verbum 87 (here: 89; zamān intiqāl al-burūj) (cf. Martorello & Bezza). This omission matches precisely the text on f. 228r–v of the earlier manuscript Istanbul, Nuruosmaniye, 2800, which had been bound in disorder. One can therefore surmise that Abū Jaʿfar’s commentary in the St Petersburg manuscript was copied from the Nuruosmaniye manuscript, as was most likely the case with the Banū Mūsā’s Kitāb al-Darajāt (on which cf. Roberts). The close relationship between the two witnesses of Abū Jaʿfar’s commentary is also confirmed by their identical title with an ahistorical dedication of the treatise to al-Muʿtaḍid bi-Llāh and al-Muktafī bi-Llāh, and by a number of shared readings (e.g., commentary on verbum 1 [here: 3] tastakhdimu-hu fī l-ashyāʾ instead of tastakhdimu-hu fī l-aḥwāl; commentary on verbum 9 [here: 11] kuntu akhtimu instead of aqamtu akhtimu; verbum 10 [here: 12] tatabayyanu minhā instead of talīqu bihā). The present manuscript was used in the edition in Martorello & Bezza.

74r–⁠98v

\74r\ كتاب الثمرة لبطلميوس تفسير أحمد بن يوسف كاتب آل طولون لأمير المؤمنين المعتضد والمكتفي رحمهم الله. قال بطلميوس علم النجوم منك ومنها. قال المفسّر ومراده في منك ومنها أنّ لتقدمة المعرفة بالنجوم طريقين — \98v\ قال المفسّر إنّ الدليل الذي ينحوه بطلميوس ليس هو القمر ولا من هو أوفر حظًّا في الطالع فقط لكنّه.

= Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad b. Yūsuf, Tafsīr Kitāb al-Thamara (C.3.1)

, version with 102 verba, defective. — Title: Kitāb al-Thamara li-Baṭlamyūs tafsīr Aḥmad b. Yūsuf kātib Āl Ṭūlūn li-amīr al-muʾminīn al-Muʿtaḍid wa-l-Muktafī raḥima-hum Allāh (74r).— Index: 92 verba intertwined with the commentary, 74r–98v. — No colophon. No marginalia. Verba not numbered. The text starts immediately after the preceding treatise without any clear break; due to a page loss, it breaks off in the commentary on verbum 90 (here: 92; fī l-ṭāliʿ faqaṭ lakinna-hu; another hand added the words fī l-mawlid ilā mithli-hā min al-burj al-thānī at the bottom of the page, but they were transcribed from the first line of the same page). Furthermore, the text tacitly jumps from the middle of verbum 80 (here: 82; al-zuhara min al-ʿilal al-kubrā) to the middle of verbum 87 (here: 89; zamān intiqāl al-burūj) (cf. Martorello & Bezza). This omission matches precisely the text on f. 228r–v of the earlier manuscript Istanbul, Nuruosmaniye, 2800, which had been bound in disorder. One can therefore surmise that Abū Jaʿfar’s commentary in the St Petersburg manuscript was copied from the Nuruosmaniye manuscript, as was most likely the case with the Banū Mūsā’s Kitāb al-Darajāt (on which cf. Roberts). The close relationship between the two witnesses of Abū Jaʿfar’s commentary is also confirmed by their identical title with an ahistorical dedication of the treatise to al-Muʿtaḍid bi-Llāh and al-Muktafī bi-Llāh, and by a number of shared readings (e.g., commentary on verbum 1 [here: 3] tastakhdimu-hu fī l-ashyāʾ instead of tastakhdimu-hu fī l-aḥwāl; commentary on verbum 9 [here: 11] kuntu akhtimu instead of aqamtu akhtimu; verbum 10 [here: 12] tatabayyanu minhā instead of talīqu bihā). The present manuscript was used in the edition in Martorello & Bezza.