Before I present the star catalog, I want to briefly discuss some of the extant manuscripts. This is because I’ve decided to try to maintain relevant footnotes from Toomer’s translation that discuss variations in coordinates between manuscripts.<\/p>\n
In the introduction to his translation, Toomer states that his work was primarily based on the translation Heiberg did into German, published in $1898$.\u00a0 However, Toomer frequently relied upon a manuscript from the Vatican referred to as D<\/strong> below as he believes it to be more “internally consistent” and therefore representing “a sounder tradition” than those of other manuscripts Heiberg prefers.<\/p>\n Furthermore, Toomer referred to numerous extant manuscripts available to him in photographic form. To discuss the variations between them, Toomer has outlined a list of these manuscripts in the introduction and given them abbreviations so they may be quickly referred to in the star catalog. I present them here quoting Toomer as I will be making frequent use of them in the notes<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a><\/span> when I present the star catalog.<\/p>\n In each instance, he presents the source, commentary on the hand<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, and the presumed century of writing. Some sources have distinct lineages which also get mentioned.<\/p>\n Greek Manuscripts<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A<\/strong>: Parisinus graecus $2389$<\/a>. Mainly uncial, $9^{th}$ century.<\/p>\n B<\/strong>: Vaticanus graecus $1594$<\/a>. Minuscule, $9^{th}$ century.<\/p>\n C<\/strong>: Venice $313$. Toomer evidently left the description of this source out of his list although it is referenced frequently in the footnotes.<\/p>\n D<\/strong>: Vaticanus graecus $180$. Several hands, but not, as Heiberg claims (Almagest<\/em> I, p. V) of the $12^{th}$ century, but rather of the $10^{th}$: see Vatican Catalogue by Mercati and Franchi de’ Cavalieri, I p. $206$. N.G. Wilson has confirmed this dating [to Toomer] by personal inspection (Heiberg himself seems to have changed his opinion later: see Prolegomena LXXIX).<\/p>\n Arabic Manuscripts<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Ar<\/strong>: [Toomer has] used the abbreviations ‘Ar’ to refer to the consensus of the Arabic tradition<\/p>\n Is<\/strong>: [Toomer has used] ‘Is’ to [refer to] the consensus of the manuscripts containing the Ishaq-Thabit version<\/p>\n L<\/strong>: Leiden, or $680$. $11^{th}$ century according to Kunitzch,\u00a0Der Almagest\u00a0<\/em>$38$. This is the only surviving manuscript of this version of al-Hajjaj.<\/p>\n T<\/strong>: Tunis, Bibliotheque Nationale, $07116$ (see Kunitzch, Der Almagest<\/em> $38-40$). Completed October $1085$. The Ishaq-Thabit version, complete.<\/p>\n P<\/strong>: Paris, B.N. ar. $2482$<\/a>. Completed December $1221$. See Kunitzch,\u00a0Der Almagest<\/em> $42-3$. The Isaq-Thabit version, Books I-VI $13$.<\/p>\n Q<\/strong>: Paris, B.N. ar. $2483$. $15^{th}$ century. See Kunitzsch,\u00a0Der Almagest<\/em> $43$. The Ishaq-Thabit version. Books I-VII.<\/p>\n E<\/strong>: Escorial $914$. See Kunitzsch, Der Almagest<\/em> $43-4$. The Ishaq-Thabit version, Books V-IX.<\/p>\n F<\/strong>: Escorial $915$. Completed September $1276$. See Kunitzsch, Der Almagest<\/em> $44-5$. The Ishaq-Thabit version, allegedly containing Books VII-XIII, but in fact lacking large sections even of these, and bound in such disorder as to be almost useless.<\/p>\n Ger<\/strong>: The Latin translation of Gerard of Cremona, for which [Toomer has] used only the printed edition (Venice, Liechtenstein, $1515$). For the complex dependence of this on the various Arabic versions, see Kunitzsch, Der Almagest<\/em> $97-104$.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In addition to extant manuscripts, there are a few other sources to which Toomer makes reference. We have already mentioned Heiberg.<\/p>\n Another source is Peters & Knobel’s $1915$ work Ptolemy’s Catalogue of Stars<\/a>. This is abbreviated P-K.<\/p>\n