Talk:Ptolemy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Core This article is listed on this project's core biographies page. More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Geometry guy 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (edit) This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – refresh Geometry guy 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Mathematics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics. Mathematics rating: B Class High Priority  Field: Mathematicians One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles. Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Click to show/hide comments. Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article. Geometry guy 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC) This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. High This article is on a subject of High-importance within classical antiquity. Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Aesthetics Related task forces (major fields): Philosophers Geography Portal This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. The following comments have been left for this page: Geometry guy 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (edit)

I've moved the resolved discussion of the WikiProjects above to the section #WikiProjects. --Jerzy•t 05:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 The Geography 2 article 3 Ptolemy 3.1 Miscellaneous 3.2 Accuracy 4 Image of Ptolemy at Top 5 Ptolemy's Canon 6 Help needed on Scientific Mythology article 7 Removal of "See also" section 8 Astrology section: vandalism just now caught 9 EGYPTIAN? 10 Tetrabiblos 11 Ptolemy's cultural and historical context 11.1 Citizenship for His Family 12 Move Discussion 12.1 Proposed move 12.2 Requested move 12.2.1 Survey 12.2.2 Discussion 12.2.3 Google 13 Categorization 14 addition of picture 15 WikiProjects 16 "Classical mediators of ancient Egyptian wisdom" (!) 17 stadia and the measure of the Earth 18 Reference citations 19 Cultural depictions of Ptolemy 20 Birth and Death 21 What is this? 22 Content vandalized 23 Ethnicity 24 Ptolemy's maps and the New World 25 Long quote 26 Irrelevancies removed 27 the theory 28 Greek?

[edit] The Geography

Claudius Ptolemy "The Geography" in English language has been first published by Dover Publications, Inc , New York in 1991 . It is now available at amazon.com and other book stores. This is an unabridged republication of the work originally published by The New York Public Library, N.Y. in 1 9 3 2. At that time it was translated and edited by Edward Luther Stevenson.

Although Ptolemie's "Geography" was well known in Europe for almost 1900 years , 1932 was the first time ever of its translation into English. (User:Conversion script)

The preceding 2 (unsigned) paragraphs were the whole of this talk page at 15:43, 25 February 2002, when the portion of its editing history that is preserved begins .

A word to the wise: that translation is very, very bad, and cannot be relied on for much of anything. (It is a poor translation of not the original Greek, but of Karl Müller's Latin translation, with errors of every conceivable kind, including egregious typos and other corruptions.) Considering that most of the Geography consists of a mere index of placenames, you're far better off reading the original Greek, even if you just have limited Greek. It's the Stevenson translation that I started putting online on my iste (referenced as the external link in the article), but as it became more and more apparent to me just how bad it was, I just abandoned it. Bill 11:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] article

I wrote a nice article about Ptolemy's sky theory on everything here. Where should it go? Under "Ptolemy", "Ptolemaic System", or "Almagest"? For now I'll put it in Almagest... - TOGoS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.104.74.25 (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2002

[edit] Ptolemy

[edit] Miscellaneous

Why is the "p" not pronounced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.142.144 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2004

Presumably "pt" was originally pronounced, but we find it difficult to do so, so the "p" is silent in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curps (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2005 This is the first part of a refactor of a single edit.

the circa date of birth and death are not labeled as bc or ad. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.118.92 (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2005

If it's not labeled BC or AD, then by default it's AD. Just like 2005 is 2005 AD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curps (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2005 This is the first second part of a refactor of a single edit.

Who said that last comment above here? "by default it would be AD"?!?! My social studies eacher would kill you! Ved 01:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)TRUPET —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRUPET (talk • contribs) 01:42, 16 January 2006

[edit] Accuracy

Note: My understanding is that the Ptolemy incorrectly estimated the actual size of the Earth by almost half, but the article claims "he was well aware" that he only had a quarter of it mapped. Does someone have evidence to confirm or deny the article's position? Thanks, Griff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.81.50 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2005

Yes; we all do. His Geography gives latitudes and longitudes of all the places mapped: the farthest east he gives is "180°", measured from what he feels is his farthest point west; the farthest north he gives is 62°30, the farthest south is 8°25. He doesn't wear it on his sleeve, then, but he realizes perfectly well he covers at very best only (180/360 * 71/180) of the globe. Bill 20:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Ptolemy at Top

Though it is indicated that the image represents a 16th century adaptation of him, the image should still be eventually removed and replaced by a much more realistic image of Ptolemy. Decius 03:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good luck!!! This would be a major historical find.... Bill 07:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Must be a joke, Bill. I've seen more accurate artist's representations of Ptolemy before. There is one, for example, in this book I have, which is much closer to reality than the current image (closer to reality if only by the fact that he is depicted as a Greek of his time, not a 16th century German). Decius 07:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No joke, Decius. Costume doesn't make the portrait of a person any more realistic, and there is no contemporary portrait of him, nor any verbal description. This fanciful picture is as good as another.... Bill 11:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But that's where I disagree. The costume, style, and look of other images available (such as some I've seen) are more accurate, just by the fact that he's not in 16th century garb. Decius 12:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess you're just defending that image because you like it or gotten used to it. I don't have another image available for upload anyway. I just think its style is not what's needed, in the sense that it doesn't "create the mood" or fit his era. Decius 12:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ptolemy's Canon

In the July/August issue of Archeology Odyssey, there is a fascinating article "How to date a Pharaoh."

It discusses howdates of ancient events can be determined, and it discusses the history of trying to determine the dates of ancient events.

One important document that had great impact on accurate dating of events going back to ca. 700 B.C. was a kings' list named "Ptolemy's Canon."

It became known in the West in a defective form in the 16th century, but more copies have since come to light.

Rather than go on about the matter, I will just refer folks to the article. At any rate, it seems that an entry for Ptolemy's Canon might be in order.

Jim Oppenheimer
Hyde Park, NY
jwally@prodigy.net
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.230.62 (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2005

[edit] Help needed on Scientific Mythology article

We have a section in the Scientific Mythology article that reads as below,

Copernicus, his theory, and his reasons for withholding publication. According to Arthur Koestler, Copernicus did not propose a true heliocentric theory; he added a system of cycles and subcycles that made his system even more complicated than the Ptolemaic system, and he withheld publication out of fears of being ridiculed by other scholars, not out of fears of persecution. (However simply looking at pages from the original manuscript would seem to eliminate the first part of this claim. [1] (http://www.bj.uj.edu.pl/bjmanus/revol/qprev_e.html) Likewise, "more complicated" refers to the greater number of epicycles, with whcich Copernicus replaced equant circles, achieving what was considered a simplification.).

I wonder to what extent did Copernicus use epicycles; were there more or fewer epicycles than in the Ptolemaic system? As I understand, epicycles and other corrective mechanisms were added to the Ptolemaic system over time, so I would expect it to be more complex, if only because it is older, here (in the extract) we say the opposite.

Also I would lke to know of the Copernican system was more or less accurate than the Ptolemaic. My understanding is that there was initially no great difference. --Chris 08:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisSteinbach (talk • contribs) 09:01, 24 June 2005

[edit] Removal of "See also" section

These See Also sections are very intrusive and ugly, and usually serve merely as dumps for topics that should have been mentioned in the article, but because the article is poorly constructed, were not. Here, however, only one of the five (Deferent and epicycle) fails to appear in the article; nor should it, once there is an article on the Ptolemaic system: no one will go to Ptolemy seeking deferents and epicycles; and no one, interested in Ptolemy's astronomy, somehow fail to go to the already linked Ptolemaic system. This last, and the three other articles linked in the former See Also section, already appear as links in the body of the article — making a special section with them redundant. Bill 15:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology section: vandalism just now caught

User:152.163.100.132 restored the long-lost astrology section, asking why it had been deleted. Good catch, anonymous friend! and consider registering for your own user name; you've proven the exception to the rule, that edits by anonymous users tend to be vandalism. So it was in this case; the person responsible was "User:71.247.101.23" on 15 Sep 05. The "why" is easy; there's a certain breed of people out there, who, not satisfied with being opposed to astrology as a form of charlatanry (fine, it's certainly a defensible position), irrationally vent some kind of spleen against the subject wherever they find it — and that Ptolemy, undoubtedly a great proto-scientist to whom we owe much, should also have been involved in astrology strikes them as an awful crime to be expunged.... There's been quite a lot of astrology vandalism of this type in the articles Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, Newton, Pope Silvester II, etc. Bill 13:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EGYPTIAN?

so he lived and worked in egypt. about 2000 years ago. was he born there? isn't he an EGYPTIAN? somebody please get the facts about this, and we can describe him more accurately.

considering the idiotic and GRAVELY misleading illustration of him as a 16th century german, and the "he was an ancient. he worked in egypt" silliness, it seems pretty easy to come away thinking that ptolemy was a european who lived a few hundred years ago.

i find these two points very unprofessional and very unencyclopedic. 128.119.233.55 03:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC) This 1-sent 'graph & sig were removed in the 01:37, 16 January 2006 edit -- perhaps for reasons relating to overlap with the edit of the preceding section that was completed 16 minutes earlier.

Briefly, no, he wasn't Egyptian. He was a Roman citizen (hence "Claudius") and Greek by nationality, as is shown by his personal name, Ptolemaios. I don't think there is any picture of him older than the Renaissance; if there is, we should use it. Septentrionalis 03:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Having a Greek name does not necessarily make him Greek by nationality/ethnicity. The Greek language became the official language of Hellenistic Egypt (and the Hellenistic world), so it was common for most Egyptians to have Greek names at the time (like how most Egyptians today have Arabic names). Most evidence suggests Ptolemy was a native of Egypt, where he was born, raised, and died, which is why "Hellenized Egyptian" would describe him better. There is also no evidence that he was Greek by nationality, or that he was from Alexandria. The following sites also acknowledge his Egyptian heritage (aswell as my university mathematical history professor), and describe him as a Hellenized Egyptian and/or a native of Egypt:

http://www.fredonia.edu/department/geosciences/Chapter3-Greeks-Fin.pdf

http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/nts/PARRY-01.NTS

http://www.hssonline.org/teach_res/resources/Non_Western_Project/Non-west/Africa.htm

http://www.pewtergallery.com/betsy/teaching/support/lateantique-notes.html

http://www.nndb.com/people/035/000029945

http://www.malaspina.org/home.asp?topic=./search/details&lastpage=./search/results&ID=80

Jagged 85 06:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he was anything ethnically one way or the other, except for the fact that he wrote of the most abstruse matters in Greek; not that many native Egyptians spoke and wrote Greek at that level. But some did. Net conclusion: ethnicity quite unknown. Bill 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the recentest edit, deleting that nifty image: in the context of an encyclopedia article, I'm in favor of the deletion: the picture doesn't add anything. Those who miss it can squint at it [on my own site], after all. Bill 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the one I put up on Almagest to demonstrate the importance of his work in the Renaissance. Maestlin 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

whoever said the comments above, thank-you. I totally side with U. The article had me confused. As confused as my 6th science "teacher" was when he tried to teach us me... we are talking some serious confusion here... Ved 01:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)TRUPET —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRUPET (talk • contribs) 01:37, :38, & :39, 16 January 2006 Edits refactored to more conventional position, & annotated per multi-edits. The "comments" referred to may be either the first 2 or first 3 paragraphs of the 1st contribution, since the 3rd was removed in the 1:37 edit. --Jerzy•t 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tetrabiblos

I wanted to talk to the main editors who have been working on this article to see if it would be all right if I made an addition to one of the opening paragraphs. Specifically this one

Ptolemy was the author of several scientific treatises, two of which have been of continuing importance to later Islamic and European science. One is the astronomical treatise that is now known as the Almagest (in Greek Η μεγάλη Σύνταξις, "The Great Treatise"). (See Ptolemaic system.) The other is the Geography, which is a thorough discussion of the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world.

I wanted to add that there was a third treatise by Ptolemy which also had an enormous influence on the western world. This was his astrological treatise known as the Tetrabiblos where he attempted to reformulate horoscopic astrology to be in line with the more 'scientific' Aristotelian cosmology of his day. The revised paragraph would read something like

Ptolemy was the author of several scientific treatises, three of which have been of continuing importance to later Islamic and European science. The first is the astronomical treatise that is now known as the Almagest (in Greek Η μεγάλη Σύνταξις, "The Great Treatise"). (See Ptolemaic system.) The second is the Geography, which is a thorough discussion of the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world. The third is the astrological treatise known as the Tetrabiblos ("Four books") in which he attempted to adapt horoscopic astrology to the Aristotelian natural philosophy of his day.

Does anyone have any issues with this addition? --Chris Brennan 01:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The preceding final paragraph and sig were removed, and are now restored by me. --Jerzy•t 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ptolemy's cultural and historical context

I redid the first sentence to clarify and not over-simplify Ptolemy's cultural and historical context: "[Ptolemy] was a geographer, astronomer, and astrologer who lived in the Greek culture of Roman Egypt." Though I am now wondering about the three named areas he is being said to have worked in. I have also seen him described as a mathematician, and an author. I think author at least should go in there. It was as a synthesiser of ideas that he is most famous - the Almagest. Does anyone know how much actual scientific experimentation he is said to have done? Did he just write about things (like they all did back then)? If so, the author comment is even more relevant. Carcharoth 17:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Mathematician" is technically accurate, but the word meant a lot more back then. He's called a mathematician mainly because he worked in astronomy, geography, and optics (I'm not sure how the astrology was categorized back then). A modern reader might not think of those disciplines, so I believe they are worth retaining, maybe alongside an addition about mathematics. As for "author," well, I guess there were some mathematicians who weren't authors (Pythagoras comes to mind). Usually "what did s/he write?" is one of the first things I ask about any scientist, but I suppose it's not automatic.

I am not a follower of R. R. Newton and I do object to the characterization of the Almagest as a synthesis. Greek astronomers made observations infrequently (nobody did "experiments" back then) and Ptolemy probably made as many observations as just about anybody. And his "just writing about things" included a lot of calculation and some original mathematical thought. In some ways his situation is parallel to that of modern theoretical physicists. Mostly they just write, too. Maestlin 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship for His Family

Just a note: The first Julio-Claudian emperor to bear the nomen gentilicium "Claudius" was the fourth emperor, Claudius (AD 41-54). The first emperor, Augustus (27 BC-AD 14) was an Octavius by birth but became a Julius in 44 upon his posthumous adoption by Julius Caesar. He ruled as Caius Julius Caesar Augustus. The second emperor, Tiberius (14-37), while by birth a Claudius was adopted into the Julii beforehand and reigned as Tiberius Julius Caesar. Emperor number three, Caligula (37-41), was properly called Caius Julius Caesar Germanicus. The ancestors of Claudius Ptolemaeus thus would have been granted Roman citizenship during the reign of either Claudius (Tiberius Claudius Caesar) or his adopted son, Nero (Nero Claudius Caesar, 54-68). I have made the appropriate edit to reflect this. Catiline63 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.82.167 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2007

[edit] Move Discussion

[edit] Categorization

Articles should in general be in the most specific categories possible. If anyone wants to know why this is in category:Greek and Roman astrologers instead of category:astrologers, he need only look at the unmanageable size of the larger category. It should be divided. Don't fuss. Septentrionalis 21:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] addition of picture

I added a picture of Ptolemy (fanciful guess though it may be) that I often see associated with him in articles, books, and webpages. Feel free to remove if you think it is useless. I also added a See also link to Ptolemy's Canon (Canon of Kings) as many ancient history buffs and biblical chronology folks know of Ptolemy only through the Canon. (And the Canon is unmentioned in the main Ptolemy article!) TuckerResearch 17:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Just saw that an old picture in German style was once on top of the page -- I see that it was removed, hopefully the picture I added will be liked better as it is much more "historically accurate" or rather appropriate. TuckerResearch 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be some medieval iconographic tradition for Ptolemy, much as for christian saints, that would have him always depicted wearing a crown (legend falsely makes him a member of the Ptolemee royal family) and holding a geographical globe. I would appreciate such an image above the less distinctive one now on the page. My favourite is in the "School of Athens" by Rafael, who at the front right (just left of the supposed self portrait of Rafael) painted two figures holding a globe: the one seen on the back must be Claudius Ptolemaeus, wearing his crown. The other one is usually called Zoroaster, which I think is an error: what would a Persian profet do amongst Greek filosophers, and why would Z hold a globe? Instead, I think this represents Hipparchos, who is famous for having made a celestial globe. See e.g. http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/r/raphael/4stanze/1segnatu/1/athens.html Tom Peters 23:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the Greeks wrote of Zoroaster as a philosopher, that's why. Septentrionalis 21:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons has an image of "School of Athens." An ingenious person could crop it to show just Ptolemy. He's rather obscure in the picture, though; my preference would be for one of the old woodcuts. Still, I agree that one of these iconic pictures would add some historical value. Maestlin 16:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProjects

I object to this classification. At Ptolemy's time there was no real distinction, but he was more an astronomer than an astrologer, as well as a geographer, and made other contributions. Claiming this article for the astrology project feels like usurpation. Tom Peters 21:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that there is no intention to usurp this article for astrological purposes, but only to make sure that that specific aspect of his work gets the proper attention and explanation that it deserves, as should the other areas. His Tetrabiblos is thought to be one of the most, if not the most, influential astrological works ever written due to the scope of his reconceptualization and the effect that it had on the way that astrology was practiced in later cultures. His reformulation of astrology as a causal science modeled after Aristotelian natural philosophy instead of a system of 'signs' or omens had a profound impact on not only the way that astrology was practiced, but also other fields such as agriculture and medicine. The intent is not to hijack the article with astrological mumbo jumbo, but only to acknowledge the impact of his work in every field- even the erroneous ones. But in order to do so it is important to direct those with the needed expertise to the area under consideration, right? It’s no different than when we are dealing with any other field of study. --Chris Brennan 07:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as an usurpation, for the reasons Chris Brennan so eloquently gave. I have seen other articles with banners for two projects. They aren't made to signal some sort of exclusivity. Maestlin 19:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed.--ragesoss 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, if the article gets multiple relevant classifications. Tom Peters 21:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Classical mediators of ancient Egyptian wisdom" (!)

Leaving aside whether the category itself isn't absurd (and it'll be interesting to see whether blatant "POV" only applies to traditional views, but not to fashionable gobbledygook), Ptolemy is one of the most Greek of all Greek writers. Not as to his personal ethnicity, which is quite unknown — for all anyone knows he may have been 100% Nilotic Egyptian, or Macedonian, or Greek, or just about anything — but as to what he writes and how he writes it. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, not one line, in the Geography or the Optics that can be considered "ancient Egyptian wisdom"; I can't recall anything of the sort in his musical writings. And there is, despite the subject matter, only a few bits of traditional Egyptian stuff in the Tetrabiblos, reported for completness' sake, just as astrological doctrines of other provenances. (The Almagest I haven't read, but from all accounts of it, it's mostly Greek astronomical theory.) I have a suspicion whoever is adding Ptolemy to this absurd category hasn't read him and is doing so based merely on his name. Bill 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the Almagest, but it begins with Euclid and Apollonius. The cat was imposed by User:Connection, who appears to think that if it's Alexandrian it must be mystic Egyptian wisdom: he's also included a Cat:Library of Alexandria scholiasts in it. Let's find out; his last cat was deleted; you missed it. Septentrionalis 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill, You agree with me while totally missing the point. A mediator is par excellence a non-Egyptian. Members of the category are a starting point to research Egyptian tradition input in the Hellenistic context.--Connection 21:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Connection, I didn't miss the point at all: no, he's not Egyptian. But, no, he didn't write about Egyptian topics, from any standpoint. Except as noted, which is quite marginal, no "mediation" of Egyptian wisdom. Greek science almost exclusively. PManderson, I did notice that cat, like one notices a curious beetle in one's rosebushes: warily, but without alarm until it kills one; and if the collective wisdom of Wikipedia keeps the cat, who'm I to toss it out? I'm not going to fight it. There is, after all, a group of writers (among whom the Gnostics, etc. some of whom are wending their way into the cat) who transmitted Egyptian stuff. Plutarch for example is also on my watchlist, but he really did "mediate ancient Egyptian wisdom" to some extent, so I didn't grouse. But Ptolemy, that's just dead wrong. Bill 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, Ptolemy doesn't belong in the category, since his use of, er, Egyptian tradition input is minimal. (Not entirely nonexistent--for instance, the Almagest uses the Egyptian calendar!) The concept behind the category might be useful, but the current name is awful and the description worse. Maestlin 23:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Tetrabiblos, Ptolemy removes aspects of the astrological tradition he is working with that were considered Egyptian (such as the decans, Egyptian 'terms'). He does the same with 'Chaldaean' techniques to make astrology more 'logical'. Zeusnoos 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Although for arguments sake one could point out that he does refer to the alleged Egyptian pharaoh Nechepso a few times and appears to be drawing on the work attributed to him in several places. For example in the introduction of his length of life treatment when he is trying to explain why that particular analysis of a natal chart should come first he says

The discussion concerning the years of life goes before the events subsequent to birth, since according to the ancient one, it is ridiculous to match particular [cases] of the events to one who, on the basis of the years he is likely to live, will not at all make it to the times productive of these events. (Tetrabiblos, 3, 11, trans. Schmidt)

Although, the almost universal attribution of this major textbook on horoscopic astrology to Nechepso and his priest Petosiris is itself questionable since horoscopic astrology didn't actually develop until several centuries after these two figures in Egyptian history actually lived. So while the astrology that Ptolemy and others were drawing on was largely a Hellenistic innovation that synthesized Babylonian and Egyptian systems of astrology, Ptolemy and a number of other astrologers such as Valens, Firmicus and Hephaistio do appear to have been under the impression that they were drawing directly on certain aspects of an Egyptian tradition as evinced by the common references to Nechepso and Petosiris in their works. I’m not really advocating any position on the cat, but I’m just sort of laying out the arguments that could be made from both sides. --Chris Brennan 01:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, nobody operates in a vacuum; and Ptolemy, living in Egypt, and (from internal evidence) making his observations in Egypt, for example uses the Egyptian calendar in his astronomical work; also in part because the records went back farther than the Roman and thus avoided negative dates. But even there, can one say he mediates Egyptian wisdom because he uses the calendar? The current issue of People Magazine bear a date in "2006": duzzat make them mediators of Christian wisdom? Nope, no matter how you slice this baby (babyophiles please pardon the horribly mixed metaphor) it's nonsense.... Bill 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes. In Tetrabiblos, obviously when he refers to hoi palaioi and in the case you mentioned ton arkhaion he means those astrologers before him which of course included the notable Hellenistic Hermetic line. It still holds that he identified with the Greek natural philosophy tradition. Robbins made the connection between the line you cite and Petosiris, but he based it on Reiss' inclusion of this part of Ptolemy in the Nech/Pet fragments. I'm guessing Reiss did so on by thinking that every mention of the ancient one by astrologers was to either Nechepso or Petosiris. That this attribution is universal in Ptolemy's time is debatable. (BTW, did you mean III.10 instead of 11? I'm not aware of this numbering in any of the edited manuscripts.)

When Ptolemy specifically mentions Egyptians, in book I, he indicates that they have some medical theory - but he does not discuss it.

I suppose the real question is why Connection included Ptolemy in that category based on your hypothesis or something else? Secondly, the category favorably assumes that Egyptian 'wisdom' is wise. It might even imply that it is pre-Hellenistic. Zeusnoos 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeus, I am so sorry for the extremely delayed response. I totally forgot that I had started this discussion with you and haven't followed up on it until just today when I came across this page again. The translation of Ptolemy that I'm working with draws on the Boer edition of the Tetrabiblos published by Teubner. Robbins was working with his own assembled edition of the text, so it is not surprising that it is different from the critical edition that we used. Perhaps the notion that the attribution of 'the ancients' to Nechepso and Petosirus is debatable as far as Ptolemy is concerned since he never mentions them by name, but this is also a common title given to them by Ptolemy's younger contemporary Vettius Valens who refers to them with this title interchangeably along with their names dozens of times in the Anthology. Granted, it is a general title that could be applied to a number of ancients, but in the astrological world at this time the main authoritative text seems to have been this Nechepso & Petosiris compilation which spanned over a dozen books and supposedly explicated almost every area of the subject. The longest and most numerous quotations of this work are in Valens' Anthology, although a number of other 'Hellenistic' astrologers before and after him refer to this work as well as being some sort of exposition of the work of Hermes. So, it is a pretty good bet that Ptolemy is referring to this apparently authoritative text with reference to the ancients. This argument has nothing to do with the reason the cat was put forward though, so it would not really seem applicable. This was just sort of a side note. --Chris Brennan 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, thank you, you are correct and it was a dumb question. I'm looking at the Boll-Boer edition now and its the first sentence of 3.11.1. I forgot it was the third book that has the extra material. The ancient one is mentioned twice in Ptolemy, always in the singular, while in Valens it is always plural. Valens refers to Petosiris more frequently than Nechepsô, perhaps his books survived more intact than N's. Ps-Manethô only refers to Petosiris of the pair: "Petosiris alone, to me, is a man of much wisdom" (compared to Hermes and Asclepius). I'd put my bet on Petosirus. I have my doubts that this was a single compilation of both authors before the 2nd century CE. Zeusnoos 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that I'm not so sure that it was a compilation of both authors per se since we have references to the names of certain books that are attributed to them separately, it is just that in several of the chronologies given Nechepso and Petosiris are often grouped together as king and priest, respectively. For example in Firmicus Maternus IV, pref.5

For everything that, Mercurius [and Hanubus?] have handed down to Asclapius, which Petosiris and Nechepso have explicated, and which Abram, Orfeus and Critodemus have made known...

And then in Anonymous of 379

The Babylonians and the Chaldeans, then, were just about the first to discover the knowledge of phenomena, as far as we knew from our progenitors. For Apollonius the Myndion and Artemidorus write accounts... [lacuna]. And Berosus and those following wrote about them. And the ancestors of our Egyptians bore them in mind and made predictions concerning them, from whom Hermes first arose and wrote in his cosmic predictions concerning the annual rising of the Sirius, and Nechao and Cerasphorus, and Petosiris and Nechepso, and some others wrote about them in a different zone...

There is also this anonymous papyrus fragment in the CCAG 8,4;95

Seven gods. By examining in many books how it was handed down to us by the wise ancients, that is, by the Chaldeans, and Petosiris and especially the King Nechepso, just as they also based themselves on our lord Hermes together with Asclepius, who is of Imouthos, son of Hephestus--in accordance with the time given me for the first year of the lord Antonius Caesar.

Valens tends to refer to Nechepso as 'the King' the most often it seems, especially in his extensive quotes in book 7 of the Anthology. I made the connection between Nechepso in regards to the length of life treatment because Valens specifically mentions that this was dealt with by the king and appends a kleros-like calculation which was apparently included in Nechepso's length of life treatment

There is also another numerical procedure that joins together with the matter concerning the length of life and that matter which concerns propitious and unpropitious times, which the king also explicated in a mysterious fashion.

However, in the intro to the length of life treatment in book 2 he makes it clear that the tradition is varied in this area

Concerning the support for the duration of life, then, different writers have handed down the tradition in different ways.

So the assertion that the length of life treatment dealt with by Ptolemy comes from Nechepso or Petosiris is an assumption, but it does seem like a decent assumption based on the evidence available. Nothing is certain though. [All quotes above are taken from Robert Schmidts translations of the Greek material in the preliminary translations published by Project Hindsight and the Golden Hind Press. I can provide more exact citations if anyone wants to follow up on anything.] --Chris Brennan 17:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

N and P are of course grouped in antiquity due to the supposed letters written by Petosiris to Nechepso. I'm not questioning that they were associated, but that a single work was handed down in the name of both, particularly as a collection originating in the same time and place, so we're not in disagreement.

Perhaps the linking of the two as a single work appears stronger than it is due to translator interpretation. You quote Anon of 379:

kai ho Nechaô te kai ho Kerasphoros kai ho Petosiris kai ho Nechepsô kai alloi... (5.1.21)

"and Nechao as well as Cerasphorus, Petosiris, Nechepso, and others."

The grouping treats C P N and others in the same way, without a special grouping of P and N as a pair. They are, however, more closely assoc. by other authors such as Thrasyllus. It's not a big deal, but I think it's significant that the two are treated separately more often than as a pair, indicating different works by them. Zeusnoos 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I enjoyed this exchange and you have given me something to think about. It is nice to meet people who really know their stuff, and it is also quite rare. So my hat goes off to you. --Chris Brennan 19:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've put it up for deletion; this discussion should perhaps be at its cfd nomination.Septentrionalis 14:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Additions: Shall we reflect the above "data" on the article?--Connection 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything you need to demonstrate on a talk page should be considered for the article- Piotrus's Law. Septentrionalis 21:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stadia and the measure of the Earth

I reverted the edit by CGlassey: the statement that Ptolemy was x% in error while Eratosthenes 4 centuries earlier would do much better, is unfounded if there is no reliable reference to which length of the stadion each of them used. History of Geodesy is a flawed article because it uses miles and not stadia, and is not a reliable reference. Tom Peters 23:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference citations

I think the article is generally well written, but in dire need of reference citations. If someone could produce them, please do so. Badbilltucker 16:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)i have to write a sentence for class and i can't find anything helpful.

[edit] Cultural depictions of Ptolemy

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ptolemy (name) (which I have to admit to being biased about) might be a good source of relevant items (which should of course be here already, but such synchronisation isn't always perfect). Some of the things named after this Ptolemy are listed there. Carcharoth 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth and Death

They are disputed, shouldn't that be mentioned? Clay4president 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They're marked c., which covers a certain amount of dispute; what alternate dates were you thinking of? and from what source? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

Hi.

I saw this:

"Ptolemy also devised and provided instructions on how to create maps both of the whole inhabited world (oikoumenè) and of the Roman provinces. In the second part of the Geographia he provided the necessary topographic lists, and captions for the maps. His oikoumenè spanned 180 degrees of longitude from the Canary islands in the Atlantic Ocean to the middle of China, and about 80 degrees of latitude from the Arctic to the East Indies and deep into Africa; Ptolemy was well aware that he knew about only a quarter of the globe, and he knew that his information did not extend to the Eastern Sea."

What is the "Eastern Sea", anyway? Should it be clarified what this means? mike4ty4 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content vandalized

This page's content appears to have been vandalized. You will find that George Bush and The USA make frequent appearances. Please correct this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.214.122.18 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Ethnicity

How can Ptolemy be said to be Greek or Egyptian if he was born in Thebaid? If he was born in Thebaid he is most certainly Greek. I would change the wording to something like "probably greek, born in Thebaid, although historical records are not clear" Fab144.160.5.25 (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ptolemy's maps and the New World

At the moment, the entry contains the following claim: "Interestingly, some of his maps shown parts of the "new world". This topography fits apparently parts of New England and Canada. Some have seen Antarctica and South America too, misplaced near China. All this always before Columbus travel. This is similar to Piri Reis enigmas."

I can't verify the citation given because it is in Spanish, which I can't read. However, I don't see how the claim could possibly be justified since none of Ptolemy's own maps have survived to the present day. I plan on deleting the claim unless someone can provide better support for it. Tyrrell McAllister (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long quote

I removed this text from the 1998 Katz work:

"But what we really want to know is to what extent the Alexandrian mathematicians of the period from the first to the fifth centuries C.E. were Greek. Certainly, all of them wrote in Greek and were part of the Greek intellectual community of Alexandria. And most modern studies conclude that the Greek community coexisted [...] So should we assume that Ptolemy and Diophantus, Pappus and Hypatia were ethnically Greek, that their ancestors had come from Greece at some point in the past but had remained effectively isolated from the Egyptians? It is, of course, impossible to answer this question definatively. But research in papyri dating from the early centuries of the common era demonstrates that a significant amount of intermarriage took place between the Greek and Egyptian communities [...] And it is known that Greek marriage contracts increasingly came to resemble Egyptian ones. In addition, even from the founding of Alexandria, small numbers of Egyptians were admitted to the privaleged classes in the city to fulfill numerous civic roles. Of course, it was essential in such cases for the Egyptians to become "Hellenized," to adopt Greek habits and the Greek language. Given that the Alexandrian mathematicians mentioned here were active several hundred years after the founding of the city, it would seem at least equally possible that they were ethnically Egyptian as that they remained ethnically Greek. In any case, it is unreasonable to portray them with purely European features when no physical descriptions exist."

Either of two reasons would suffice:

1. Obviously copyright protected, and such a passage does not fall under fair use if it is not there to support a discussion in the article of the parts that are included.
2. A footnote of such length harms the article, by throwing it out of balance. Refs are not there to prove the truth of our text, but to provide the means to do so. (There might be a place for most of that quote in WP, even tho Problem of the ethnicity of C. Ptolemy is surely deletable -- perhaps Egyptian Hellenism could fly, with work.)
3. The spirit of SYN could be broad enough to make a third reason.

I've copied the quote here rather than discarding it, on the chance that discussion of it will lead to identification of a very short quote or two that might belong in the footnote.
BTW and for the record, quotes need better attention than this to verbatim et literatim transcription.
--Jerzy•t 06:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevancies removed

What Khwarizmi thought is not useful, since it's wrong. Nero had no children and Claudius' line became rapidly extinct (see the Wikipedia articles on his children). If someone perversely wants to add Khwarizmi back, it's sufficient to note his name, date, and his connection with Ptolemy. The full name, Persianness, etc. are irrelevant here; the interested reader will find them under his own article. Bill (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the theory

He created the theory that the earth is the center of the universe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.238.161 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

He didn't really invent the idea. He just formalized it a bit.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greek?

Is it really appropriate to describe Ptolemy in the opening paragraph as simply a "Greek" scholar. Without qualification most people would interpret this to mean he was a citizen of Ancient Greece (or perhaps a later "Byzantine"). Obviously this is not the case. It is not even definitively established that he was descended from the Greek settlers in Egypt (i.e. that he could be considered "ethnically" Greek). All that is known is that he lived his life in Egypt and knew Greek, as most educated people would.

I'd suggest this should be changed to "Greco-Roman", "Eastern Roman", "Roman Egyptian", or simply "Roman".

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the Greek nationalists have been by. Nevertheless, there is a case for Greek, at least as an adoptive nationaliy; would you call Lucian non-Greek?

Moving the paragraph on his background back into the lead would help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Done; upon consideration, any national adjective in the first line ignores too much. In compensation, I have removed the weasel-wording against Greek in the third paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)