Abstract
Around half of the Liber Mamonis consists of commentary added by Stephen. The insertions that have been identified so far include explanations that help to expound Ibn al-Haytham’s arguments. Stephen also adds genuine astronomical elements as well as digressions on subjects that Ibn al-Haytham does not address. Other comments in the Liber Mamonis can be summarised as programmatic or motivational statements. These are mostly, but not exclusively, found in Stephen’s prefaces to the four books into which he divided the text. In the same category one can also place Stephen’s criticism of outdated doctrines in European science. In the following, these and other elements of Stephen’s commentary and their function for the composition of the Liber Mamonis will be discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
See p. 168:8f.; see also p. 250:9. On Stephen’s use of ‘animus’ in the sense of ‘ratio’, cf. Burnett, ‘Antioch as a link’, p. 11, note 38.
- 2.
See p. 6:15: ‘Unde factum est ut que fere plenitudinem posset habere artium nunc ceteris gentibus Europa videatur humilior.’
- 3.
Stephen’s concentration on the deficits of the customary law, in particular with regard to the protection of private property against arbitrary expropriation, and his advertising of the codified law reveals the influence of his northern Italian urban background. For it was mainly in the upcoming trading cities of northern Italy where in Stephen’s day the Corpus iuris civilis remained in force at local level, though in a much reduced form, and where legal deficits were increasingly noticed; see e.g. Haskins, Renaissance, ch. 7, esp. pp. 194–96 and 220f. In the same environment the revival of the Corpus iuris (Bologna) began, as well as a new codified legislation, the Constituta usus et legis enacted in Pisa in 1160; Classen, ‘Kodifikation im 12. Jahrhundert’, see p. 313. Stephen’s analysis that a functional jurisdiction on the basis of the Corpus iuris required an educated, professional elite is commonly shared today. The revival of the Corpus iuris and the advance of a new codified legislation is therefore considered an integral part of the scientific “renaissance” (Haskins) in twelfth century Europe; see e.g. Haskins, Renaissance, ch. 7, esp. pp. 220f., Classen, ‘Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage’, see p. 22, Otte, ‘Die Rechtswissenschaft’, pp. 127–131, Wolf, ‘Gesetzgebung und Kodifikation’, pp. 157f. Stephen’s concern about the security of property also reminds us of his position as treasurer of the Benedictines in Antioch; and, his familiarity with judicial customs is also evident on another occasion, in the preface to Book III, where he asks for a fair trial in which he will present his new teachings against the defenders of traditional views (see p. 6:11ff.).
- 4.
Similar, p. 74:17, p. 94:1, p. 96:1, p. 250:14, and p. 74:19.
- 5.
See p. 4:5: ‘Nam honestare Latinitatem totius si posset fieri subtilitate philosophie cum desiderem, …’
- 6.
See p. 74:22: ‘utilitatis ammonitione’; see also p. 32:21.
- 7.
It is noteworthy that in none of Stephen’s statements the Arabic origin of his new knowledge seems to be of major importance. Stephen mentions this Arabic origin only in two casual remarks towards the end of his text; he does not use it either as an argument for advertising the scientific quality of his work, or to express his indignation about Europe’s dependency on these foreign achievements. In combination with his careful creation of a Latin astronomical terminology, this gives credibility to Stephen’s inward-looking motives, which concentrate primarily on a renovated and independent ‘Latin’ science.
- 8.
For Stephen’s advertising of empiricism, see p. 68:8, p. 40:1, p. 16:5, and p. 74:13. The last example also includes one of Stephen’s own empiric judgements, of which another can be found on p. 200:13. A scathing criticism of natural philosophy that claims to do without empiricism is found on p. 96:3.
- 9.
See p. 8:12f.: ‘novitatis sepius comes nocet invidia’.
- 10.
See below, Sect. 4.2.
- 11.
See above, p. 12.
- 12.
Cf. above, p. 13, and Ibn al-Haytham (ed. Langermann), Configuration, pp. 3–7.
- 13.
In Alm. II, 6 Ptolemy gives a similar argument when refusing to make hypotheses on the equatorial zone.
- 14.
Obviously, Stephen does not see Macrobius as a propagator of Heraclides’ theory that Mercury and Venus rotate around the sun, as is held by several medieval and modern interpreters of Macrobius; see, e.g., Haskins, Studies, p. 101. Stephen therefore does not deny the ‘Macrobian theory’ of a rotation around the sun, as Haskins sees it, but does not even seem to know about this interpretation of Macrobius. As Stephen probably received his own first training in cosmology in the Macrobian tradition, an interpretation of Macrobius in the sense of Heraclides’ theory may thus not have been common. Moreover, the contradictions in Macrobius’ arguments would be resolved only partly by such an interpretation, while new inconsistencies would occur. In modern studies it has therefore been argued that Macrobius did not have a clear concept of the inferior planets; cf. Macrobius (tr. Stahl), Commentary on the dream of Scipio, Appendix A, p. 249f.
- 15.
See p. 96:31–94:11
- 16.
See also p. 78:18: ‘ut quod ratio exequitur oculorum sensus comprobet’; cf. Somn. I, 18, 2: ‘ut non solum mente concipi, sed oculis quoque ipsis possit probari.’
- 17.
See Stephen’s diagram on p. 155; cf. Somn. II, 7. See also below, Sect. 4.6.
- 18.
Precise values for the obliquity also appear in the other Latin translations of On the Configuration, 23;51∘ in the Madrid translation and 23;23∘ (amended) in the Alfonsine version.
- 19.
See, e.g., the velocities ascribed to the spheres in the diagram on p. 336.
- 20.
For Stephen’s theory of the inferior planets as described below see also Grupe, ‘Stephen of Pisa’s theory of the oscillating deferents of the inner planets (1h. 12th C.)’, AHES 71 (2017), pp. 379–407.
- 21.
For a detailed account of Mercury’s various motions in the Almagest see Neugebauer, HAMA, and Pedersen, Survey.
- 22.
The common term in the modern literature is ‘dirigent’ sphere, which is also used above. In connection with Stephen’s model I follow the latter’s terminology; cf. above, Sect. 3.2.
- 23.
An interpretation of Stephen’s concept of the planetary latitudes is made difficult by some confusing, and possibly corrupted, statements in his summary of the subject; cf. 266:21ff. and the notes to that passage.
- 24.
See below, Sect. 5.1.
- 25.
The former results from doubling the inclination angle of 2 degrees of the referent’s axis, mentioned on pp. 274:2ff. and 332:18ff.; the latter is given on p. 8:22.
- 26.
See p. 272:16: ‘Verum cum in aliis Arabem quendam plurimum secuti sumus, in hoc quoque permultum sequemur licet quedam de sperarum numero et rotunditatum invenerimus et de circulis quidem et inclinationibus planetarum vera perstrinxit a quibus sperarum numerus dissonat.’
- 27.
Ibn al-Haytham himself applied the Eudoxan couple in his later Treatise on the Movement of Iltifāf (now lost) to explain the motion of the epicycles. Stephen’s concept differs from the Eudoxan device, essentially in that it uses eccentrically, instead of homocentrically, nested spheres. Also, in contrast to Ibn al-Haytham’s use of the Eudoxan couple, Stephen introduces his mechanism to explain the oscillating deferents, not the moving epicycles, whereas for the epicycles he gives a simpler explanation. The earliest appearance of the Eudoxan couple in Latin writings has been dated to the fourteenth century; J. L. Mancha, ‘Ibn al-Haytham’s homocentric epicycles in Latin astronomical texts of the XIVth and XVth centuries’, in Centaurus 33, 1990, pp. 70–89.
- 28.
A recent account on the different versions of the Ṭūsı̄-couple and their respective development is given in F. J. Ragep, ‘From Tūn to Turun: The twists and turns of the Ṭūsı̄-couple’, preprint, Berlin, 2014.
- 29.
With the particular parameters given in the Almagest, the shape also comes close to an ellipse; Hartner, ‘The Mercury horoscope of Marcantonio Michiel of Venice’. The first notion of Mercury’s deferent as an ellipse has been identified in the work of the eleventh century Andalusian astronomer Ibn al-Zarqālluh (Azarquiel); cf. Samsó, Mielgo, ‘Ibn al-Zarqālluh on Mercury’.
- 30.
Haskins, Studies, p. 101, referring to the passages on p. 60:26f. and p. 4:13f.
- 31.
See p. 168:3: ‘Plato in multis a veritate dissonat’, and p. 32:21: ‘neque…Epicureum aliquando dogma audivimus’.
- 32.
See p. 200:13 and p. 4:13.
- 33.
See p. 60:26f. and pp. 74:25–32:21.
- 34.
See e.g. p. 40:1, p. 68:8, p. 74:13, p. 164:14 and p. 18:2; see also above, p. 8.
- 35.
See p. 20:8, p. 176:24, p. 30:19, etc.
- 36.
Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus (ed. Rose), p. 637.
- 37.
An account of the various theories of the inundation of the Nile and their reception by Greek and Latin authors is given in Postl, Die Bedeutung des Nil in der römischen Literatur.
- 38.
See Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus (ed. Rose), p. 637.
- 39.
Postl, Die Bedeutung des Nil in der römischen Literatur, pp. 71–89.
- 40.
Sen. Quaest. 4a, II, 3; 1f.: ‘Unde crescere incipiat si comprehendi posset, causae quoque incrementi inuenirentur’; cf. Stephen’s similar formulation on p. 60:26: ‘quod…possent invenire originem, et sic…intellectu caperent causam’.
- 41.
Sen. Quaest. 4a, II, 30; 10: ‘Nec enim ulli flumini dulcior gustus […]’.
- 42.
See p. 196:1ff.: ‘At nobis quidem videtur ex utrorumque rationibus temperanda veritas, et eorum scilicet qui calidum aiunt solem et siccum, et illorum qui ex eius propinquitate puncto capitis fieri aeris calorem dixerunt.’ Haskins, Studies, p. 100, misinterpreted the term ‘propinquitas puncto capitis’ when he says that according to Stephen “the greater heat of the sun in summer is due to its nearness, not, as the Aristotelians think, to the angle of its rays”. In fact, in the discussion of the solar apogee Stephen says that the sun is not nearest but furthest from the earth in summer; cf. p. 70:29ff.
- 43.
Apparently De officiis I,26.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grupe, D. (2019). The Content and Purpose of Stephen’s Commentary. In: Stephen of Pisa and Antioch: Liber Mamonis. Sources and Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19234-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19234-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19233-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19234-1
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)