[228] Printed Basel, 1536; and Venice, 1558. J. L. Heiberg, Claudii Ptolemaei Opera quae exstant omnia, II, pp. clxxxiii-vi; Karpinski (1915), p. 32; Haskins (1915), p. 62; Suter (1914), p. ix.
[229] Or Sahl ben Biŝr ben Hânî, Abû ʿOtmân. Steinschneider (1905), p. 34, and (1906) pp. 54-5, ascribes the translation to Hermann the Dalmatian; see, too, CUL 2022, 15th century, fols. 102r-115v, pronostica Zahel Iben Bixir, Hermanni secundi translatio. But in Digby 114, 14th century, fols. 176-99, “Explicit fetidica Zael Benbinxeir Caldei. Translacio hec mam. Gi. astronomie libri anno Domini 1138, 3 kal. Octobris translatus est.”
[230] Printed at Augsburg in 1489 and in other editions; it opens, “Astronomie iudiciorum omnium bispertita est via....”
[231] Suter (1914), pp. xiii, xviii, interprets Hermann’s words, “Quem locum a Ptolemaeo minus diligenter perspectum cum Albatene miratur et Alchoarismus, quorum hunc quidam opera nostra Latium habet, illius vero commodissima translatio Roberti mei industria Latinae orationis thesaurum accumulat,” to mean that Robert translated Al-Battani, but in view of Robert’s known translations of Al-Khowarizmi, I should translate hunc as “former” in this case and regard Hermann as the translator of Al-Battani.
[232] Professor Haskins wrote me on July 26, 1921, “The De essentiis is an interesting work of cosmology; when I am able to work it over more carefully I shall print the article on Hermann, now long overdue.”
[233] The best treatment of Hugh is, C. H. Haskins, “The Translations of Hugo Sanctelliensis,” in The Romanic Review, II (1911), 1-15, where attention is called to translations not noted by Steinschneider, and the prefaces of seven extant translations are printed.
[234] I cannot, however, agree with Professor Haskins (p. 10), that “From certain phrases in the preface” (of Hugh’s translation of the Liber Aristotilis de 255 indorum voluminibus) “it would seem that, while Hugo has been for some time a devotee of Arabian science, he has only recently (nunc) and comparatively late in the day (serus ac indignus minister) entered the bishop’s service.” It seems to me that the last phrase should read servus ac indignus minister, for Hugh had already translated at least one other work for the bishop before this one on the 255 books of the Indians, and in the present preface he alludes to many previous discussions between them and to the bishop’s continually exhorting him to publish, so that one would infer that they had been associated for some time past. Since writing this I have learned both from Mr. H. H. E. Craster of the Bodleian and from Professor Haskins himself that the reading in the MS (Digby 159, fol. 1v) is “seruus” or servus, as I have it in the rough notes I took on the treatise in August, 1919.
[235] The following MSS may be noted in addition to those (BN 7453 and Florence, Laur. II-85, Plut. 30, c. 29) listed by Steinschneider (1905), pp. 35-6, and Haskins (1911), p. 13.
CU Magdalene 27, late 14th century, fols. 1-66, “Ludus philosophorum qui apellatur filius (?) Astronomie. Rerum opifex deus qui sine exemplo nova condidit universa ... Ego sanctelliensis geomantie interpretacionem (instead of inscriptionem as given by Haskins from BN 7453) ingredior et tibi mi domine tirasonensis antistes....” James adds, “On a Latin version of a tract of Apollonius, by Hugo Sanctelliensis in MS Bib. Nat. Lat. 14951, see F. Nau in Revue de l’Orient Latin, 1908,” but in a note of 21 June 1921 Dr. James informs me that one should read Orient Chrétien in place of Orient Latin.
Vienna 5508, 14th century, fols. 182-200, Hugo Sacelliensis sive Saxaliensis, Geomantia, “Rerum opifex deus ... / ... sive mundus facie.”