Talk:Ptolemy

Template:WP1.0

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HHarr8001 (article contribs).

Life era: circa 150 CE or perhaps 300 BCE?

What other sources besides a modern book exist about the times that he lived in, and how was that determined? I remember reading (perhaps in Moris' book about the history of Math?) that he lived and died circa 300 BC! Thanksפשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In Chapter 5 of Book 12 of the Almagest Ptolemy wrote that he observed oppositions of Saturn in years 11 and 17 of the emperor Hadrian's reign, and in Chapter 1 of Book 10 he wrote that he made observations of Venus in year 14 of Antoninus Pius's reign. Thus the span of his adult life must have encompassed the years 128 AD and 152 AD. I doubt if there are any professional historians who have suggested he was alive at any time before Christ, let alone anywhere near 300 BC.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that what you remember reading might have been about Ptolemy I Soter, one of Alexander the Great's generals, who established himself as Pharaoh of Egypt after Alexander's death, founded the Ptolemaic dynasty, and turned Alexandria into a centre of Greek culture, where the famous library was established either by this Ptolemy, or by his son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The pharaoh Ptolemy I did indeed flourish around 300 BC, but he is a completely different person from the astronomer who is the subject of this article.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with David J Wilson that you, User:Pashute, have got Claudius Ptolemy confused with the line that descended from one of Alexander the Great's generals. As it appears to be common for many people to be confused about the 2 unrelated heritages, Claudius Ptolemy was a scholar that was to history's knowledge, unrelated and unconnected with the Ptolemaic dynasty of which Cleopatra was the last of the line of ascent. While it is a common misunderstanding, you clearly have the two historical personages confused... As Claudius Ptolemy is one of the most vetted scholars in Western Civilization, the corroboration of his dates, are quite established. There are literally hundreds of papers and books that have been published on various aspects of his work, in a number of languages, simply, if for no other reason, because of the enormous influence and impact he had on the development of Western and Arabic Civilization, from his publishing outset until the Late Middle Ages... Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverts - language template

I accidentally misclicked - the reason I reverted this is because the language template is for modern greek, not koine [1] - can a regular editor here please confirm if it would be correct to change the language template to ancient greek? Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

From the Greek Wikipedia article it would appear that the spelling used in this article is the correct modern Greek spelling of the name. I therefore see no good reason to change the template—although I guess that if this is also the correct spelling in Koine Greek (which I do not know), it would do no harm to indicate that this is the case.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Poet?

The categorisation of Ptolemy as a poet appears to be based upon the attribution to him of a single epigram appearing in the Greek Anthology. According to Otto Neugebauer, modern scholars "tend to agree" with the attribution, but he himself merely says that the epigram appears in manuscripts of the Almagest "[a]t least from the third century onwards", thus implying that there are some early manuscripts from which it is absent, and thus casting some doubt on the attribution. In any case, authorship of just a single epigram is hardly sufficient to make one a poet, so I'm going to remove that categorisation from the lead.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Ptolemy Sources Don't Say He Was Roman

There is a claim in the article that says Ptolemy was Roman or a Roman citizen. All the given sources cited don't say this, and only says he is Greek and/or Greek-Egyptian. I can find zero sources that support this view. As we know so little about Ptolemy that him being declared a Roman citizen seems unlikely to be proven as fact.

I've added a dubious tag with the comment.[2] Points.

• The cited source on page 273 (Heath) does not mention 'Roman' at all. See URL attached to current cite.[3]
• Quoted Ref #13 also says otherwise.
• Ref #4 now self cites the Ptolemy article.
• Roman citizen" does seem to be an assumption, and I find no source that supports it.
• Britannica only says "Greek"
• Ref #2 and #14 are the same source. mucfalseh about

Needs better sources to prove or this should be deleted. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a reliable source: [4], saying only that he was "perhaps" a Roman citizen. Attic Salt (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but this still looks like a supposition/assumption but not proof. However, it is an excellent citation for the article. (I think the 'Claudius' evidence is scant, and have a Roman-ised name seems too convenient.) Roman Emperor Caracalla in 212AD gave universal citizenship across the Roman Empire, but Ptolemy was certainly before this was decreed. He was also not necessarily known in the Roman world, as we know of him through the Middle Eastern cultures centuries later. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The origin of these 'Roman' sources of these additions is earlier discussed under:

1. User Septentrionalis, now Pmanderson, saying in 2005/06 under Talk:Ptolemy/Archive_1#EGYPTIAN?: "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." (This appears as sourceless opinion, and well explained by Jagged 85 following this.)
2. Under Talk:Ptolemy/Archive_1#Ptolemy's cultural and historical context#Citizenship for His Family in 2006 was written by an IP with a clear Roman slant[5] appears flawed. (This is perhaps the original source of the problem here.)
3. Under Talk:Ptolemy/Archive_1#Greek? Mcorazao claiming in 2008: "All that is known is that he lived his life in Egypt and knew Greek, as most educated people would.", but contradictorily follows with: "I'd suggest this should be changed to "Greco-Roman", "Eastern Roman", "Roman Egyptian", or simply "Roman"." (There is no justification or actual source it seems to draw this conclusion for any of these four.
4. Talk:Ptolemy/Archive_2#The Greek question in 2009, and is based on the discussion by BobKawanaka. (I find their argument fails in citing the "Roman" context.)
5. Also under Talk:Ptolemy/Archive_2#Misuse of sources I agree that, as Johnuniq says in 2011 that ; "This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views." This edit is relevant.[6] using this source : Martin Bernal (1992). "Animadversions on the Origins of Western Science", Isis 83 (4), p. 596-607 [602, 606]

None seems to be very helpful. There needs to be a final consensus to fix this issue which has occurred over 13 years. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried searching the whole history of the article to see where the Roman stuff was added and what Jagged 85 did in the early edits. I can't spend any more time on it at the moment but in the first (oldest) of Jagged's edits, there was no mention in the lead of Ptolemy being Roman or Greek. A Feb 2009 edit by someone else who is no longer active claimed that Claudius "proved" Roman. The origin remains unclear to me. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. Use of a Roman nomen was an assertion of Roman citizenship.

"Slaves and provincials without Roman (or Latin) citizenship were known by an individual name, and thus lacked a praenomen and nomen; peregrini used their individual name followed by the father's name in the genitive and (optionally) by f(ilius -ia), e.g. Tritano Acali and Tritano Lani f., from Dalmatia. When enfranchised, new citizens normally retained their individual name as their cognomen. They were free to choose their praenomen and nomen; during the empire, it became common for new citizens to adopt those of the reigning emperor, less often of the intermediary (e.g. the provincial governor) who brokered their enfranchisement. " - Oxford Classical Dictionary: "Names, personal, Roman" by Heikki Solin ((Subject: Roman History and Historiography Online Publication Date: Mar 2016 DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.4329 )) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Fine. It maybe be true, but it is based on a broad assumption and is likely opinion. (His name could have been made after his death to appear Roman in origin or was written by a Latin writer, for example.) You really need to formally cite the text that "Ptolemy was a Roman citizen" or "He was a Roman citizen", and you also need consensus for that. As pointed out, the current given cites don't state nor support this conclusion. Most common available sources do not categorically say this. There is a danger this might be original research.

I've added a disputed section template and dubious tag (again), until this matter can be resolved by editorial processes. e.g. RfC. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hence implies. What is your agenda here? I cannot suggest compromise language unless I know what you think you are fighting.

Someone might have a nomen without being a citizen, but it must have required odd circumstances indeed. So I would not say proves, but surely the above general statement warrants implies.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I have now added citations to two impeccable sources, Gerald Toomer and Otto Neugebauer, both of whom support the claim that Ptolemy was probably a Roman citizen. Toomer says that the name "Claudius" "shows" that he held Roman citizenship, while Neugabuer says that it "indicates" that fact. I have weakened the statement in the article to say "According to some historians, the name Claudius indicates that Ptolemy would have been a Roman citizen," which would appear to me to be uncontestable, and of sufficient weight to warrant inclusion in the article. Unless someone continues to dispute the inclusion of such information in the article, I will remove the disputed section template in a few days' time. Anyone else satisfied that the claim now made in the article is properly supported should feel free to remove it earlier.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I still have issues with the Roman connection because it is likely assumed. So little is known about him, and much of what we have is transferred from across several versions. e.g. Greek, to Arabic, then to Latin. Accuracy between those documents will probably never be known. I do, however, think your change is reasonable. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"According to some historians, the name Claudius indicates that Ptolemy would have been a Roman citizen" The name indicates membership in Claudia (gens), either by descent, or because the person who granted Ptolemy citizenship was a member of the gens. Dimadick (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

And either would imply he was a citizen. The gens Claudia had been Roman for eight centuries, so if he inherited membership, his ancestor was granted Roman citizenship. We do know how Roman names worked.

In short, his citizenship is not assumed; it is deduced, and not by us. Neugebauer may be the most distinguished historian of ancient astronomy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. We know so very little about Ptolemy at all, let alone his citizenship. Neugebauer maybe right, but this also has little to do his citizenship or this discussion. (So where, actually, does Neugebauer definitively say Ptolemy was a Roman citizen?) Most of his work were published in Latin 1000 years later, and there is not even any record of Ptolemy in Roman literature that has come directly down to us. As weight is on the Arabic manuscript, which was translated into Latin. It would not surprise me the Claudius (or the other variants) was added by one of these translations, as it doesn't appear in the original Arabic text. Moreover, he was born much later than Claudius the Emperor, so he would have had two or more generations in his family to retain gens. As we do not know if any of his family genealogy before him, makes the conclusion an even bigger assumption.

Yes. His citizenship is assumed, as is much of his life. "Deduced" is frankly far-fetched and itself is based on many assumptions. I'm still far more concerned with how strongly you are asserting this is fact, and it presents a deviation from the needed NPOV. Where there is any doubt, the alternative views need to be expressed in a balanced way. The article as it at the moment, does not do that very well. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, on page 834, one of the citations I added to the article nearly two weeks ago, Neugebauer writes

"Claudius indicates that Ptolemy was a Roman citizen, belonging to a family of some distinction."

This conclusion is almost certainly not an assumption, as you keep characterising it, but a considered inference based on Neugebauer's knowledge of sources, and what can be reasonably inferred from them. Any such inference must, of course, be based on some basic assumptions about the meaning and relative quality of those sources—but without which the study of history would have to degenerate into a mere tabulation and physical description of such sources.

The assumptions we, as Wikipedia editors are required to make, however, unless we have more evidence than our own unsupported opinions to do otherwise, is that acknowledged experts in the field know what they're talking about. Despite a reasonably diligent search for good sources which question the conclusion that Ptolemy was a Roman citizen, I have found precisely none which express the same degree of scepticism that you do.

The sources I have so far found which mention the possibility of Ptolemy's Roman citizenship, do, however, express their conclusions with varying degrees of conviction:

John North: "Ptolemy, of whom we shall say more in chapter 4, was an Alexandrian—and Roman citizen— ..."

Stephen P. Blake: "Claudius, a Roman name, shows that he was a Roman citizen, ..."

Gerald Toomer: '... “Claudius” shows that he possessed Roman citizenship, probably as a result of a grant to an ancestor by the emperor Claudius or Nero.'

Otto Neugebauer: Quoted above

Elizabeth Anne Hamm: "... his first name, Claudius, indicates that he was a Roman citizen ..."

This is from a Ph.D. thesis which cites Toomer for the information, so it certainly can't be considered an independent source, and merely indicates that Dr Hamm regarded Toomer as a sufficiently authoritative source to rely on for the information.

A. Mark Smith: '... there is no reason to doubt that he was Greco-Egyptian by birth, perhaps also a Roman citizen, as indicated by his otherwise incongruous forename "Claudius".'

David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And Neugebauer's deduction is:

Claudius is a Roman name.

People with Roman names were Roman citizens, having either inherited the name from their father or taken it when granted citizenship.

Therefore Ptolemy was a Roman citizen.

And almost all of Ptolemy's work exists in Greek. So what? Appian wrote in Greek, and he was not only a citizen, but consul. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Look. The question was: "There is a claim in the article that says Ptolemy was Roman or a Roman citizen." So why doesn't the original Arabic versions say 'Claudius Ptolemy' but only state him as just 'Ptolemy'?

Saying: "And almost all of Ptolemy's work exists in Greek." OK. What about the oldest version known to us, then..

His name was presented as بطلميوس shown here[7], create in 639AD and produced around 827-28AD. The Qatar source here[8] saying "written by the Greek mathematician and astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) around the year 150 AD in Alexandria, Egypt." and that "...the Arabic name of Ptolemy himself (Baṭlamyūs)"

There is a real possibllity that when it was translated into Latin, they added the name 'Claudius' for whatever reason. None of the quoted text given above can definitively conclude "Ptolemy was a Roman citizen." Neugebauer saying: "Claudius indicates that Ptolemy was a Roman citizen", but that assumes that Claudius was his really part of his name. We don't actually know this fron early ancient records available to us, All we can says is 'possible'. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have now changed the text of the only place in the article where it said "He was a Roman citizen (and which I had missed in my earlier edits) to read "He might have been a Roman citizen".

P.S. The idea that "Claudius" might have originated only from someone's adding it to a Latin translation doesn't appear to me to be tenable. There exists quite a large tradition of Greek manuscript sources of most of Ptolemy's works—including the Almagest—which have not (or at least are considered not to have by scholars who seem to know what they're talking about) descended from any preceding Arabic or Latin translations, and in some of which Ptolemy is referred to as "Κλαυδίος Πτολεμαίος" (Vaticanus graecus 180, for example, a 10th-century Greek manuscript of the Almagest where the name appears in its genitive form, "Κλαυδίου Πτολεμαίου"). Although most, if not all, of these Greek manuscripts would appear to post-date the earliest Arabic ones, I don't believe there's a shred of evidence to indicate that they have been derived from pre-existing Arabic (or Latin) sources.

P.P.S. The date of the Planetary Hypotheses manuscript you cite is not 639AD, but 639AH (i.e. by the Islamic calendar). In his translation in Vol. 57, No. 4 of the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Bernard Goldstein gives its date as 1242AD. It is not the oldest version of the Planetary Hypotheses known to us by a long shot. Goldstein cites another Arabic manuscript which is at least 300 years older.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Because there are no "original Arabic versions", and the Arabic translators (often working at second-hand through Syriac) were not painstaking about details of Greek society of little interest to them. Compare the Arabic explanation of Euclid's name as Uclides, "the key".

A translation is rarely a better reflection of the original than a copy is - and the Greek manuscripts of Ptolemy include "Claudius". That is not added to the Latin, it is in the original. Thus, for example, the first book of the Tetrabiblion has the header, Klaudiou Ptolemaiou mathematikes tetrabibliou syntaxeos Biblion A (I transliterate from the Greek of the Loeb edition).

All this is ignoring what we do know about Ptolemy: his name. At this point, Arianewiki is making up conjectures, unsupported (so far) by any secondary authority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This has gone on long enough. Arianewiki, time for you to produce detailed RS disputing his Roman citizenship, if you have any. Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No. And you know I can't do that. Presenting a fact requires evidence not conjecture, and where doubt exist, the presentation of that fact has to be balanced or weighted for and against to the proposition. There is no existing evidence either for or against that he was a Roman citizen. Yes. Egypt was under Roman rule during the time of Ptolemy, where the population was either granted Roman citizenship or not. He worked in Alexandria, which was in Greco-Roman Egypt. He was probably born in Egypt. No. Nobody can really be 100% certain of his status as 'Roman'. (I find it odd, that in Toomer's book "Ptolemy's Almagest" (1985) that is 673 pages long, "Claudius" only appears four times.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the very definition of WP:OR. RS of good quality have been produced saying he was very probably a Roman citizen, and none against this. We can discuss the exact wording, but it is clear what the article needs to say. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

So all this dispute is about a qualification to was? I have no objection to showing that "A man with a Roman nomen is a Roman citizen" is a bit less certain than "all men are mortal" - Neugebauer's "indicate" seems to me about the right strength, and I have inserted it. Can we call this settled now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

However, if nobody in the scholarly literature denies Ptolemy's citizenship, we should not write so as to suggest someone does. I can find none; I can find three less distringuished sources which support it, some with with a "probably". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Really. An open discussion on a talkpage is WP:OR? The article originally said "….and held Roman citizenship", hence the comments here[9]. Reference given didn't support this. The article's text has since changed. PMAnderson is saying "was", other sources suggest "perhaps." That's what is being civilly discussed here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The statement "There is no existing evidence either for or against that [Ptolemy] was a Roman citizen" is demonstrably false. Not only does the fact that numerous respected experts have written either that he was, possibly was, or was likely to have been, a Roman citizen constitute evidence of that fact, it is the only form of evidence required by (or acceptable to) Wikipedia for an appropriately qualified statement to that effect to be included in the article.

While it is true that the ultimate evidence for what is known about Ptolemy must come from primary sources, the evaluation of such evidence, and conclusions drawn from it, which have not been published in any reliable source is what constitutes original research. Although Wikipedia policy doesn't prohibit this from being carried out or discussed on a talk page, the fact that it occurs on a talk page doesn't disqualify it from still being considered original research, and therefore disallowed as the sole reason for including some item of information in, or excluding it from, the article.

That said, though, it seems to me that everyone here has agreed that what the article says should be something less categorical than the bald assertion that Ptolemy was a Roman citizen. As far as I can see, no such categorical assertion now remains in the article, so do you consider the current version of the article to be satisfactory in this respect? If not, why not?

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. In Vaticanus graecus 208, a 14th-century manuscript—one of those used by F.E.Robbins for his Loeb Classics translation of the Tetrabiblos—the genitive of the full name, Κλαυδίου Πτολεμαίου, can be seen towards the bottom of f4v.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

What Roman citizenship was

Arianewiki's arguments expose a strongly anachronistic concept of what Roman citizenship was. It did not imply that the citizen was descended from Italians; it does not imply that the citizen used Latin as a literary language; it does not imply that he spoke better Latin than his non-citizen neighbor. (I regret overlooking Paul of Tarsus, as one of the few ancient people whose Roman citizenship is expressly attested; he was Jewish by descent and wrote in Greek.) It did not, in Ptolemy's time, even involve voting; there is no record of a citizen assembly after the death of Augustus.

It did mean that the citizen was subject to strictly Roman law; non-citizens were subject to the "law of nations" which the Romans applied to suits involving foreigners - and to Imperial edicts, which applied to everybody. This means that citizens had certain rights. (It was noteworthy for Imperial officials to override these rights; see Suetonius' Life of Galba for such a note.) It meant that the citizen was taxed more heavily. And it meant that the citizen had a multipart name, of a peculiar form, which only citizens had. (There had been similar names in other parts of Central Italy, but not including Claudius as an element. And all of those people were made citizens well before the beginning of the Empire, after the Social War.)

The advantage of this controversy is to show that we should say some of this in the article text, since some readers will benefit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant. What you are saying isn't the point. I made no assertion about the "concept of what Roman citizenship was." Your argument is a long bow, based on a flawed premise. Logically, we cannot say he was Roman. We can only say he was probably Roman. That is what 'authorities' agree on. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Then "Most of his work were published in Latin 1000 years later, and there is not even any record of Ptolemy in Roman literature that has come directly down to us. " was not an effort to prove he was not part of Latin-speaking culture? (I don't contend that he was, any more than Appian.)

My apologies. Then what sense was that supposed to have? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Correction. "...any record of Ptolemy in Roman literature that has come directly down to us. " is wrong. Galen mentions him as does Vettius Valens, but they mention only 'Ptolemy' in comment. (Galen was also named Claudius) Also I meant Ancient Roman literature not the literature 1000-odd years later. Sorry. How much of the Roman culture knew of him is not known, though his astronomical views on, say the timing of the equinoxes were more likely. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

So what does Latin knowledge of Ptolemy have to do with the question here at issue? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Koine?

Was Ptolemy's written language actually Koine, the spoken vernacular of his period, or was it more classicizing?

We have no source on this; the note on that sentence actually discusses his use of Babylonian theory as well as observations. And it was not uncommon for someone writing for posterity - and quoting Aristotle - would to some degree have avoided the language of the streets. Pending comment, I have altered to ancient Greek, which is a broader description. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)