Volume 1, 2020

EN :

The anonymous text Ventorum situs et nomina, once held to be by Aristotle himself, gives the local names of 10 topic winds as well as their directions. It is not an elaboration of the wind-rose that Aristotle, for example, describes in Meteor. 2.5, though many scholars have assumed this, but a presentation of a weather-map for the inhabited world (οἰκουμένη). What seems to be important to the author in collecting the local winds under the topic winds is not so much their direction as their time of year as well as the etymologies of the local names.

EN :

A discussion of Dorian Greenbaum’s The Daimon in Hellenistic Astrology: Origins and Influence.

EN :

A new interpretation is proposed of the crucial expression «ἑνὶ ὀνόματι» (“in one name”) as applied to ratios of the musical concords in the preface of the Sectio canonis ascribed to Euclid. A link is also established with the name of one of the irrational lines introduced by Euclid in Elements 10. Past interpretations of the expression are discussed and shown to be inadequate.

EN :

In this article, I compare the astronomical poem by Aratus called Phaenomena (third century bc) with the citations of a work of the same name by Eudoxus that are found in Hipparchus’ only extant work, In Arati et Eudoxi phaenomena (second century bc). I argue that, contrary to what most scholars maintain, Aratus’ poem is not a mere versification of Eudoxus’ work but a version enriched in style, language, and content. Indeed, Aratus’ Phaenomena is a paradigmatic reflection of the astronomical knowledge of the period in which it was written and a comprehensive, non-technical presentation of the celestial phenomena known in his time. It was, as I show, a very popular work, so popular that Hipparchus was moved to correct it in the hope of establishing himself as the authority in astronomy and prose as its proper medium.

EN :

A discussion of Before Copernicus: The Cultures and Contexts of Scientific Learning in the Fifteenth Century edited by Rivka Feldhay and F. Jamil Ragep.

EN :

There was a widespread belief among historians of science of my generation that high competence with regard to content and languages alone can guarantee better, more reliable results than can good philology combined with high competence in history or the other human sciences. In my casestudy of Wilbur R. Knorr’s analysis of several medieval Arabic and Latin texts on the balance, or steelyard, I highlight a variety of factors that compromised time and again his understanding and interpretation of his chosen texts. I conclude that a greater openness to more complex historiographical assumptions and more sophisticated methodological approaches as well as a greater willingness to contextualize documents in numerous dimensions before coming to conclusions about their specific meaning is crucial if we are to correct and improve upon work such as Knorr’s analysis of the Kitab al-qarastun, ascribed to Thābit ibn Qurra, and the Liber de canonio. The way forward is to enhance and temper philological analysis with solid analysis of scientific content within its relevant contexts.

EN :

A discussion of Robert Hahn’s The Metaphysics of the Pythagorean Theorem: Thales, Pythagoras, Engineering, Diagrams, and the Construction of the Cosmos out of Right Triangles.

EN :

A discussion of Jean Michel Delire’s Les mathématiques de l’autel védique. Le Baudhāyana Śulbasūtra et son commentaire Śulbadīpikā.

EN :

In this paper, I examine aspects of the methodological debate that originated in 2010, when the distinguished historian of mathematics Sabetai Unguru reviewed Roshdi Rashed’s edition of the Arabic translation of Apollonius’ Conics. In his review, Unguru criticized what Rashed calls “l’usage instrumental d’une autre mathématique pour commenter une oeuvre ancienne”. I consider this debate very important and will try to place it within in the discussion of the so-called “geometric algebra” that goes back to the seventies, by tracing the contributions of the main figures who took part in it.

EN :

A discussion of Science in the Forest, Science in the Past edited by Geoffrey Lloyd and Aparecida Vilaça.