Peurbach in the Hebrew Tradition

Peurbach's work was printed many times in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, often accompanied by commentaries. I have not consulted any of these, which are in any event inaccessible to me at Jerusalem. I have relied exclusively on the translation of Aiton E. J. , “Peurbach's Theoricae novae planetarum: A translation with commentary”, Osiris 2nd ser., iii (1987), 5–44 [hereafter: Aiton], which is based upon the Ratdolt edition (Venice, 1485). Many of the Hebrew manuscripts and commentaries were noted by Steinschneider M. , Die hebraeische Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1893), 639–41, 645–6. Aiton did not consult Steinschneider, but instead mentions (p. 7, n. 10) a single Hebrew manuscript “in the Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana (fondo Ashburnham)”. I do not know of any such manuscript. Richler Benjamin , whose A guide to Hebrew manuscript collections (Jerusalem, 1994) is the most thorough and authoritative work on the subject, informs me that he knows of no Ashburnham manuscripts at Florence.

For information concerning Peurbach, in addition to the literature cited by Aiton, the following studies by Michael Shank should be consulted: “The classical scientific tradition in fifteenth-century Vienna”, in Ragep F. J. Ragep S. P. (eds), Tradition, transmission, transformation (Leiden, 1996), 115–36; “Academic consulting in late medieval Vienna”, in Sylla E. McVaugh M. (eds), Texts and contexts in ancient and medieval science: Studies on the occasion of John Murdoch's seventieth birthday (Leiden, 1997), 245–70, esp. pp. 264–6.

Dreyer J. L. E. , A history of astronomy from Thales to Kepler 2nd edn (New York, 1953; first pub. 1906), 288.

The role of the sciences in the communities of the Provence has been the subject of intense study on the part of Gad Freudenthal; his most recent publication is “Science in the medieval Jewish culture of southern France”, History of science , xxxiii (1995), 23–58. I have written an essay “Science in the Jewish communities of the Iberian Peninsula: An interim report” which will appear in a book forthcoming from Variorum, The Jews and the sciences in the Middle Ages.

In some of his earliest references to this translation, e.g. in a note in his own journal, Hebraeische Bibliographie , vii (1864), 112, Steinschneider took 1460, the date mentioned in the Hebrew manuscript, which is actually the date of Peurbach's treatise, to be also the date of this translation, a coincidence which he found to “nicht unmöglich und interessant”. In a later issue of the same journal (vol. xi, p. 124) he retracted this claim, but it lingers on in the index to his Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen (ref. 1), 1068.

I have listed all the manuscripts, grouped according to the translations, in an appendix to this article.

In his introduction Almosnino speaks of “my translation” (ha'ataqati): “In my translation I have not ventured beyond the centre of the great circle of their language [or: The circle of their great language], not changing even a single letter…” (MS Oxford 2036, f. 3a). Almosnino's Hebrew style is so ornamented that his meaning is not always perfectly clear. It was also the final opinion of M. Steinschneider (Catalogue Berlin, 79) that Almosnino prepared the translation with the help of Afia; however, Steinschneider's suggestion that the translation was made from the Spanish (most likely stimulated by Almosnino's comment that he will “go to my first mate, that to which my meagre lips are accustomed…”; Judaeo-Spanish was probably Almosnino's mother language) does not have any basis, as far as I can see, and it seems that the sources cited (concerning which see below) are translated from Latin, or, perhaps, Italian.

See e.g. Ruderman David , Jewish thought and scientific discovery in early modern Europe (New Haven and London, 1995), 229–31, concerning Tobias Cohen; Heyd U. , “An unknown Turkish treatise by a Jewish physician under Suleyman the Magnificent”, Eretz-Israel , vii (1963), 48–53; “Moses Hamon, Chief Jewish Physician to Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent”, Oriens , xvi (1963), 152–70; and, more generally, Lewis Bernard , The Muslim discovery of Europe (New York and London, 1982).

Langermann Tzvi Y. , “The astronomy of R. Moses Isserles”, in Unguru S. (ed.), Physics, cosmology and astronomy, 1300–1700: Tension and accommodation (Dordrecht, 1991), 83–98.

Steinschneider , Hebraeische Uebersetzungen (ref. 1), 640–1.

See the entry (s.v. “Almosnino) in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1972).

This survives uniquely in MS St Petersburg, Academy of Sciences B 446, ff. 28a–54b. In the introduction to the work (f. 28a-b) Almosnino complains that he is away from home, “and the light of my eyes, that is to say, my books, are not with me, and some time has passed since I have been able to investigate these matters”. From a remark in his commentary to Peurbach (MS New York, Columbia University X893 A16, f. 63b), it appears that he also constructed an armillary sphere.

MS St Petersburg, Academy of Sciences B 446, f. 28b.

Aiton , 6, notes that Peurbach's book was meant as a replacement for the Theorica of Gerard of Cremona, which had been studied together with Sacrobosco's Sphere for two centuries. Moreover, the Ratdolt edition of the Theoricae (Venice, 1485), upon which Aiton's study is based, is bound together with Sacrobosco's book (Aiton, 9). I am grateful to Michael Shank for his reply to my query on this point.

I cite here page references to MS Oxford 2036: Discovery of America, which he credits to Amerigo Vespucci in 1496 (f. 26a); conversation with voyagers to the south (f. 35b); Martianus Capella (f. 19b); Macrobius (f. 35b). Note also Almosnino's rather severe criticism of the Solomon Avigdor's translation (f. 14b); clearly Almosnino consulted the Latin text of Sacrobosco.

Aiton, 9.

One person who did take note of this is Levi ben Gerson. See Langermann Tzvi Y. , “Gersonides on the magnet and the heat of the Sun”, in Freudenthal G. (ed.), Studies on Gersonides, a fourteenth century Jewish philosopher-scientist (Leiden, 1992), 267–84, p. 282.

MS New York, Columbia University X893 A16, f. 50b. Almosnino might also have remarked that earlier writers such as Ibn al-Haytham had also begun with the Sun. Aiton , pp. 7–8, suggests that Peurbach drew upon Ibn al-Haytham's On the configuration or a later work based upon it. In this connection it is interesting to note that in MS Moscow 1312 the incomplete copy of the Theoricae is supplemented by “A short treatise on the ninth (sic) sphere” (ff. 43a-b); this is a paraphrase, usually quite literal, of Chapters 15 and 14 (in that order) of Ibn al-Haytham's book; cf. Langermann Tzvi Y. , Ibn al-Haytham's On the configuration of the world (New York and London, 1990), 213–24.

Aiton, 26.

Hartner Willy , “The Mercury horoscope of Marcantonio Michiel of Venice”, Vistas in astronomy , i (1955), 84–138, p. 130, saw in this matter an adumbration of sorts of Kepler's ellipse. Isserles is a bit more exercised than Almosnino by this point, yet he too does not detect here any departure, or possibility of departure, from the classical models. See Langermann , “Astronomy of Isserles” (ref. 8), 92–93.

MS New York, Columbia University X893 A16, f. 67b.

Goldstein B. R. , “The physical astronomy of Levi ben Gerson”, Perspectives on science , v (1997), 1–30, esp. at p. 11.

De caelo 2.8, 290a27. I cite the translation of Guthrie W. K. C. , Aristotle: On the heavens (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1960), 189.

MS New York, Columbia University X893 A16, f. 108a.

See Aiton , 39. The text of Peurbach may be insufficiently clear so as to warrant the understanding that al-Battani spoke of trepidation rather than precession. Concerning al-Battani's role in trepidation theory, see Ragep F. J. , “Al-Battani, cosmology, and the history of trepidation in Islam”, in Casulleras J. Samsó J. (eds), From Baghdad to Barcelona: Studies in the Islamic exact sciences in honour of Prof. Juan Vernet (Barcelona, 1996), i, 267–98.

MS New York, Columbia University X893 A16, ff. 115b–116a.

Steinschneider , Hebraeische Uebersetzungen (ref. 1), 644.

A marginal note on f. 127a of the Paris manuscript seems to be in the same hand (Ashkenazic of course) as a gloss to MS Oxford [= Neubauer 1640], f. 7b, which is otherwise known to be Delacrut's writing.

As for Almosnino, so also for Delacrut, I can refer only to the entry in the Encyclopaedia Judaica , v, cols 1466–7.

See Langermann , “Astronomy of Moses Isserles” (ref. 8), 86.

Ff. 9a–14a. Beginning on f. 11a the commentator sets out to nullify “a number of doubts (sefeqot) which Ibn Rushd and others have raised…”.

Ff. 9b–10a. It was A. I. Sabra who aptly dubbed Ptolemy's approach (as understood by Ibn Rushd) a “principle of economy”. See Sabra A. I. , “The Andalusian revolt against Ptolemaic astronomy: Averroes and al-Bitruji”, in Mendelsohn E. (ed.), Transformation and tradition in the sciences (Cambridge, 1984), 133–53, p. 142; reprinted in Sabra A. I. , Optics, astronomy, and logic: Studies in Arabic science and philosophy (Aldershot, 1994).

al-Haytham Ibn , al-Shukuk 'ala Batlamyus , ed. by Sabra A. I. Shehaby N. (Cairo, 1971), 34. I have no evidence that this book of Ibn al-Haytham was known in Renaissance Italy; be that as it may, Averroes was certainly of a similar opinion, and our commentator has studied Averroes's writings quite carefully.

A similar or identical figure and caption are found in MS Oxford [Neubauer 1647], f. 125b.

Ruderman David , Jewish thought and scientific discovery in early modern Europe (New Haven and London, 1995).

Ibid. 10.

Information and bibliography concerning all three can be found in Ruderman's book.

Steinschneider , Hebraeische Bibliographie , vii (1864), 111–13 (cf. Hebraeische Uebersetzungen (ref. 1), 640) describes an astronomical codex, at that time in a private collection in Meseritz (Mezhirichi in the Ukraine), containing, in addition to the Theoricae, writings of Abraham bar Hiyya, Isaac al-Hadib, and Judah b. Solomon ibn Mattqa. The present whereabouts of the manuscript (if it still exists) are unknown.

JTS MSS Mic 5514 and 5515 contain Almosnino's version in two volumes. A later hand has written in the title and colophon the name of Capuano, rather than that of Almosnino. I do not know if this a deliberate misrepresentation or an innocent mistake; note that the characteristic incipit of the commentaries, amar Moshe (“Moses said”), is not found in this copy.

A later hand has crossed out Almosnino's name and written in its place the name of Almosnino's collaborator, Aharon Afia.