Work C.3.1.1
Abuiafar Hamet filius Joseph
〈Commentum in Centiloquium〉 (tr. Plato of Tivoli)
Translated by Plato of Tivoli in 1136 (‘anno Arabum 530’). The translation is attributed to one ‘Johannes Toletanus’ or ‘Johannes Yspanus’ in two manuscripts (Erfurt, UFB, Dep. Erf. CA 4º 361: ‘Incipit liber fructuum arboris Ptolomei a magistro Iohanne Tol<etano> translatus ab Arabico in Latinum’; and Salamanca, BU, 189: ‘Explicit liber centum verborum Ptolomei translatus a magistro Iohanne Yspano’) and to Plato of Tivoli in only one manuscript (Vatican, BAV, Vat. lat. 6766, in the title: ‘Centiloquium Ptolomei cum expositione Aly translatum a Platone Tiburtino de Arabico in Latinum’). The attribution to Plato, however, seems very likely, for the colophon – especially the formula ‘Perfecta est huius libri translatio’ and the date given in both the Christian and the Islamic calendars – is characteristic of Plato’s translations, as witnessed, inter alia, by his translation of Ptolemy’s Quadripartitum in 1138 (see A.2.1). The date 1136 also falls nicely within Plato’s translating activity. Eleven manuscripts (Augsburg, UB, Cod. II.1.4º 77; Barcelona, BC, 634; Cracow, BJ, 805; Cracow, BJ, 1864; Cracow, BJ, 2490; Dublin, TC, 441; Florence, BML, Ashburnham 203 (129/135); Munich, BSB, Clm 228; Prague, NKCR, VIII.G.27 (1609) (except for v. 2-3); Vatican, BAV, Barb. lat. 328 (f. 137v-142r); Vatican, BAV, Reg. lat. 1285) preserve the propositions only and omit the commentary. Plato’s translation is the source text of commentaries C.3.2, C.3.3, C.3.4, C.3.6, C.3.8, C.3.9, C.3.10, C.3.14, C.3.15, C.3.18 and C.3.20 (and probably others).
Note 1 Three manuscripts (Boulogne-sur-Mer, BM, 198; Venice, MCC, cod. Cic. 617 (1261); and Vienna, ÖNB, 5209) give the name of the commentator (Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad ibn Yūsuf ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Dāya) quite correctly as ‘Abuiafar Hamet filius Ioseph (filii) Abrahe scriptor’, which became ‘Abugafarus’ in the ‘Iam premisi’ version (C.3.1.4). Many more manuscripts (at least 25) and the three early printed editions, however, name the commentator ‘Haly’ or ‘Ali’ (typically in the title ‘Centiloquium Ptolomei cum commento Haly’), a name which is also found in at least 13 manuscripts of the ‘Mundanorum’ version (C.3.1.3) and which will become the most common name for the commentator in the Latin tradition, including in commentaries C.3.3, C.3.15 and C.3.20. A possible explanation, suggested by Lemay (‘Origin and Success’, 103-104; Le Kitāb, I, 223), is that this name originated with Haly Embrani [ʿAlī b. Aḥmad al-ʿImrānī], who says, in his De electionibus horarum (a text translated in 1133 by Plato of Tivoli’s close colleague, Abraham bar Ḥiyya alias Savasorda), that he had commented upon the ‘verba Ptholomei’. In MS Florence, BR, 163, f. 2r, the commentator is named ‘Haly Berodohan’, but this is evidently an addition by the scribe, who wrongly identified Haly with Haly Abenrudian, the commentator of the Quadripartitum (see C.2.2).
Note 2 This version (like the ‘Mundanorum’ version, C.3.1.3) is often accompanied, at the beginning or at the end, by two additional chapters, which also occur independently under Ptolemy’s name: De cometis (B.4) and Dixerunt Ptolomeus et Hermes quod locus Lune… (B.5).
Note 3 About 20 manuscripts offer a ‘threefold’ version (called ‘version agglomérée’ by Lemay, cf. Le Kitāb, I, 283-325), which consists, for each verbum, of the propositions in three versions, i.e., Plato’s (C.3.1.1), ‘Mundanorum 1’ (C.3.1.3) and Adelard of Bath’s (B.1.1, for v. 1-39), while the preface and the commentary are given in Plato’s translation. The manuscripts in question are Bergamo, BCAM, MA 571 (Delta I sopra 11); Cambridge, UL, Ii 1.13 (1705); Cambridge, UL, Kk 4.7 (2022); Cambridge, UL, Mm 4.43 (2391); Erfurt, UFB, Dep. Erf. CA 2º 383; Erfurt, UFB, Dep. Erf. CA 2º 395; Erfurt, UFB, Dep. Erf. CA 4º 361; Erfurt, UFB, Dep. Erf. CA 4º 374; Limoges, BM, 9 (28); London, BL, Harley 13; Milan, BA, H. 44 inf.; Oxford, BL, Digby 228 (for v. 1-15, the rest being in the ‘Mundanorum’ version only); Oxford, BL, Selden supra 78; Paris, BnF, n.a.l. 1893; Paris, BnF, n.a.l. 3091; Seville, BCC, 7-6-2; Vatican, BAV, Pal. lat. 1811; Vatican, BAV, Reg. lat. 1452; Vatican, BAV, Vat. lat. 6766 (v. 1-15 added in the margin, the rest being in the ‘Mundanorum’ version). MSS Cracow, BJ, 601, and New Haven, YU-BRBML, Mellon 25, as well as the three early printed editions, also give the threefold version, but only for v. 1. This ‘threefold’ version for v. 1 was used by Matthias de Krajna in his lectures on the Centiloquium (C.3.20).
Note 4 The manuscripts listed below are those where Plato’s translation prevails, but it should be noted that most manuscripts of the ‘Mundanorum’ version preserve various, sometimes substantial, sections of Plato’s translation (see C.3.1.3 and manuscript entries). Plato’s translation also occurs in two additional manuscripts, in MS Gloucester, CL, 15, where most of the propositions have been added to George of Trebizond’s Commentarii et expositiones in aphorismis Libri fructus Ptolomei (C.3.11); and in MS London, BL, Arundel 88, where the proposition of v. 51 was copied together with Pseudo-Ptolemy’s Dixerunt Ptolomeus et Hermes quod locus Lune… (B.5).
Note 5 At least six manuscripts (Florence, BNC, Magliabech. XX.22; Salamanca, BU, 2051; Vatican, BAV, Reg. lat. 1452; Vatican, BAV, Vat. lat. 7616; Venice, BNM, Fondo antico lat. Z. 344 (1878); Vienna, ÖNB, 3105) contain substantial glosses opening ‘Sensus huius littere’ or ‘Sensus huius capituli’, which are reminiscent of Gerard of Cremona’s commentaries. Just like in the case of the Quadripartitum, however, it is unclear whether Gerard wrote a continuous and stand-alone commentary on the Centiloquium (see C.2.1).
Note 6 Besides the manuscripts listed below, a copy of Plato’s translation perhaps once existed in MS Paris, BnF, lat. 7320 (see this MS, under Note).
Text ‘(Florence, BR, 163) (2r) [
Bibl. F. Wüstenfeld, Die Übersetzungen Arabischer Werke in das Lateinische seit dem XI. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, 1877, 27-28 (no. 3); M. Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher. Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des Mittelalters, Berlin, 1893, II, 529; M. Steinschneider, Die europäischen Übersetzungen aus dem Arabischen bis Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts, Wien, 1904, 41 (no. 36); C. H. Haskins, Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science, Cambridge, 1927 (2nd ed.), 68-69; F. J. Carmody, Arabic Astronomical and Astrological Sciences in Latin Translation. A Critical Bibliography, Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1956, 16 (no. 3b); R. Lemay, ‘Origin and Success of the Kitāb Thamara of Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad ibn Yūsuf ibn Ibrāhīm from the Tenth to the Seventeenth Century in the World of Islam and the Latin West’, in Proceedings of the First International Symposium for the History of Arabic Science (Aleppo, April 5-12, 1976), Aleppo, 1978, II, 91-107: 101-104; E. R. McCarthy, ‘A Lexical Comparison of Four Twelfth Century Versions of Ptolemy’s Centiloquium from the Arabic’, in Actas del V Congreso Internacional de Filosofía Medieval, II, Madrid, 1979, 991-997; J. C. Wilcox, ‘Transmission of Two Particular Concepts of Medieval Medicine in the Translation of an Arabic Astrological Work’, in Actas del V Congreso Internacional de Filosofía Medieval, II, Madrid, 1979, 1531-1538; R. Lemay, Abū Maʿšar al-Balḫī [Albumasar]: Liber introductorii maioris ad scientiam judiciorum astrorum, Napoli, 1995-1996, I, 240; R. Lemay, ‘Acquis de la tradition scientifique grecque confrontés aux réalités des civilisations médiévales. Cas particulier de l’astrologie-cosmologie’, in Perspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque. Actes du colloque de la SIHSPAI (Société internationale d’histoire des sciences et de la philosophie arabes et islamiques), Paris, 31 mars – 3 avril 1993, eds A. Hasnawi, A. Elamrani-Jamal, M. Aouad, Leuven-Paris, 1997, 137-171: 150-159 and 164-171; G. Dell’Anna, Dies critici. La teoria della ciclicità delle patologie nel XIV secolo, Galatina, 1999, 2 vols, I, 83-90 (on verbum 60); R. Lemay, Le Kitāb aṯ-Ṯamara (Liber fructus, Centiloquium) d’Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad ibn Yūsuf [Ps.-Ptolémée], 1999 [unpublished], I, 231-283 (and 283-325 for the ‘threefold’ version); M. Rinaldi, Le Commentationes in Ptolemaeum di Giovanni Giovano Pontano: fonti, tradizione e fortuna del Centiloquio pseudo-tolemaico dalla Classicità all’Umanesimo, PhD dissertation, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”, 2002, 63-65; J.-P. Boudet, ‘Astrology Between Rational Science and Divine Inspiration. The Pseudo-Ptolemy’s Centiloquium’, in Dialogues among Books in Medieval Western Magic and Divination, eds S. Rapisarda, E. Niblaeus, Firenze, 2014, 47-73: 51-52; J.-P. Boudet, ‘Nature et contre-nature dans l’astrologie médiévale. Le cas du Centiloquium du Pseudo-Ptolémée’, in La nature comme source de la morale au Moyen Âge, ed. M. van der Lugt, Firenze, 2014, 383-410: 386-387; D. N. Hasse, ‘Stylistic Evidence for Identifying John of Seville with the Translator of Some Twelfth-Century Astrological and Astronomical Texts from Arabic into Latin on the Iberian Peninsula’, in Ex Oriente Lux. Translating Words, Scripts and Styles in Medieval Mediterranean Society, eds C. Burnett, P. Mantas-España, Córdoba-London, 2016, 19-43: 28-30; J.-P. Boudet, ‘Causalité et signification dans le Centiloquium du pseudo-Ptolémée’, in Orbis disciplinae. Liber amicorum Patrick Gautier Dalché, eds N. Bouloux, A. Dan, G. Tolias, Turnhout, 2017, 607-624: 608; J.-P. Boudet, ‘Naissance et conception: autour de la proposition 51 du Centiloquium attribué à Ptolémée’, in De l’homme, de la nature et du monde. Mélanges d’histoire des sciences médiévales offerts à Danielle Jacquart, Genève, 2019, 165-178: 167-169; J.-P. Boudet, ‘The Medieval Latin Versions of Pseudo-Ptolemy’s Centiloquium: A Survey’, in Ptolemy’s Science of the Stars in the Middle Ages, eds D. Juste, B. van Dalen, D. N. Hasse, C. Burnett, Turnhout, 2020, 283-304: 284 and passim; A. Calcagno, El libro delle Cento Parole di Ptholommeo. Saggio di edizione critica del volgarizzamento fiorentino del Centiloquium pseudo-tolemaico, Milano, 2021, 17-18.
Modern ed. Lemay, Le Kitāb (unpublished). Samples have been edited by Dell’Anna, II, 7-9 (v. 60, together with commentary C.3.3, from MS Cambridge, PC, 204); and, from a selection of manuscripts, by Lemay, 'Acquis', 167-168 (v. 1); Boudet, ‘Naissance et conception’, 168 (v. 51), and ‘The Medieval Latin Versions’, 287-288 (v. 8) and 294-295 (v. 51). A critical edition is in preparation by Emanuele Rovati.
EDS |
|
---|---|
MSS |