Complete Works of Claudius Ptolemy, Vol. II

D — codex Vatic. Gr. 1038, see below ch. I, cod. 14. I inspected this in Rome in 1899. It adheres to A.

E — codex Paris. Gr. 2397, paper, 16th century, see Omont, Inventaire II p. 252. It contains the Diataxis on f. 19—27r. I inspected this in Paris in 1899. It depends on B.

F — codex Marcian. Gr. 314, parchment, 15th century, see Catalogus codd. astrolog. Gr. Catalog of Greek Astrological Codices II p. 2.*) It contains the Diataxis on f. 209—215r. I collated it in Venice in 1900. It adheres to A.

G — codex Laurentian. XXVIII 47, concerning which see below ch. I, cod. 4. I inspected this in Florence in 1899. It adheres to A.

Halma — Commentaire de Théon d'Alexandrie sur les tables manuelles astronomiques de Ptolémée Commentary by Theon of Alexandria on Ptolemy’s Astronomical Handy Tables, Paris 1822, p. 1—26.

V. Περὶ ἀναλήμματος On the Analemma.

I edited the Greek text from codex Ambros. Gr. L 99 sup., now 491 (see Martini and Bassi p. 593), a palimpsest a manuscript page reused by scraping off the original writing which is commonly attributed to the 7th century, but is without doubt older, in Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Mathematik Treatises on the History of Mathematics VII p. 1—30, from where I have now reprinted it somewhat more emended; for a description of the palimpsest folios, see ibid. p. 4—6. I took the Latin interpretation of William of Moerbeke from codex Vaticanus Ottobon. lat. 1850, parchment, 13th century, f. 55—57, which I described in Abhandlungen zur Geschichte d. Mathem. V p. 3—4. In that same place, p. 8 sqq., I demonstrated that the Ottobon codex was written by William himself and is the archetype original manuscript of the interpretation**); for this reason, in editing it, I did not change even a single letter, and in the critical notes I have included only the corrections of the author himself, having taken no account of the changes of Commandinus.***) I edited this interpretation in Abhandl. z. Gesch. d. Mathem. VII; later I inspected some of the passages in Rome. In these Greek texts, I used these symbols:
( ) enclosed are doubtful letters,
⟨ ⟩ letters which have entirely vanished.

*) There it is attributed to the beginning of the 14th century, which I do not believe due to the nature of the parchment. For a sample of the script, see ibid. after p. 224. Morelli, Bibl. ms. p. 195, attributes it to the 12th century, Zanetti to the 14th, but in the Marcian copy of the Zanetti catalog it is added: "15th century, calligraphy."

**) Therefore I have not sought out other codices. The same interpretation exists in codex Ambros. lat. R 109 sup., and excerpts (by Savile) in codex Savil. 9.

***) Note in original: "Claudii Ptolemaei liber de analemmate, a Fed. Commandino Urbinate instauratus et commentariis illustratus, Romae 1562."