MEASURING THE WORLD: SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES IN
BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE
DIVNA MANOLOVA
I. SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT IN BYZANTIUM: AN OVERVIEW
The present article focuses, first of all, on mathematical sciences, such as mathematical
astronomy and astrology, their history in Byzantium and the Constantinopolitan
scholars’ contribution to their development. Second, it illustrates how mathematics
provided the foundation and enhanced a number of related disciplines and technologies
whose purpose was the successful and accurate measurement of the world, such as
geography and pharmacology. For instance, astronomical instruments were employed
not only to observe the sky, but also to measure time. Geography and cartography were
dependent on mathematical methods and astronomical knowledge. Alchemy and
medicine used a system of measurements and proportions derived from the
mathematical theory and relied to some extent on symbolic mathematics and astrology.
There are four major points one ought to emphasize with respect to the history of
science in Byzantium. First, the mathematical sciences were studied and practiced as
theoretical rather than experimental sciences, whence the certainty and truthfulness of
their results were derived. Other types of knowledge, such as medicine, pharmacology,
and alchemy relied much more on experience, observation, and practice.
Second, scientific study and production grew out of the classical heritage of Greek
science and aimed at its preservation, clarification and emendation. A case in point is
the period after 1204, famously characterized by the increased production of
compilations of scientific works whose chief purpose was the preservation of the
ancient knowledge on the subject, as well as the renewal of its circulation. It is in this
period of proliferation of collections and compilations that a codification of a “cannon
of authorities” took place: Nikomachos of Gerasa (fl. ca. 100), together with Diophantos
of Alexandria (fl. ca. 250) became the main reference for those interested in arithmetic,

This article has been submitted for publication in History of Istanbul: Educational Science and
Technology. Ed. Salim Ayduz. ISAM Publications, Kültür AS, forthcoming.

Divna Manolova is a 2012/2013 Junior Fellow at Koç University’s Research Center for Anatolian
Civilizations and a PhD Candidate, A.B.D. at the Department of Medieval Studies of Central European
University, Budapest.
1
Euclid (fl. ca. 300 BCE) for the study of geometry, Heron of Alexandria (1st century
CE), and Ptolemy (fl. ca. 130-175) for music and astronomy. It is worth noting that the
period after 1261 until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 is the period most saturated
with scientific production during the Byzantine millennium.
Third, one has to bear in mind the lack of institutionalization and support on
behalf of the Byzantine imperial government for the study and practice of the higher
mathematical sciences. This was not the case with medicine, for instance, since the
Byzantine emperors invested in the creation and maintenance of medical schools and
hospitals.
The fourth main feature characterizing Byzantine science in particular, as well as
Byzantine erudite culture in general, consists in the lack of specialization on behalf of
the scholars. The higher education in Byzantium was not university-based and did not
follow an established curriculum. Thus, those educated Byzantines, who dedicated
themselves to mathematics, typically left their contributions in the fields of music,
astronomy, and even philosophy. Two Byzantine terms conceptually express the attitude
of the Byzantine scholar towards learning, be it properly scientific (in the fields of
mathematics, harmonics, and astronomy), or quasi-scientific (with respect to astrology,
magic, dream interpretation, and so on): philomatheia and polymatheia. Though their
meaning vary from the positive zeal for learning (philomatheia) to the sometimes
objectionable and unhealthy curiosity (polymatheia is generally meant positively, but on
occasion it can be synonymous with periergasia and polypragmosyne), they both
indicate general and all-encompassing knowledge rather than specialized learning.
It has been argued that polymathy, usually attributed to those well-versed in
various or all disciplines of the trivium and quadrivium, is a characteristic feature of
Byzantine culture. The notion of polymathy also indicated the intersection of scientific
knowledge and rhetoric. Thus, scientific works differed not only in terms of their topic,
but also in terms of their literary style. There are, generally speaking, two major groups
of scientific texts with respect to the register they were written in, namely those
composed in classicizing Greek and those written in the vernacular. The first group
usually deals with the so-called ‘noble’ matters, i.e. the advanced theoretical levels of
the mathematical sciences. The second group includes practical and ‘reader-friendly’
2
manuals such as botanical lists, astrological prescriptions, and collections of
arithmetical problems. The rough division of the Byzantine scientific texts according to
style should be complemented by the addition of the category of translated works, e.g.
from Arabic or Persian. Often times the Byzantine translations rendered the original
word by word and in the case of foreign technical vocabulary, they preserved it in
transliteration instead of providing an equivalent Greek term.
Before proceeding to the discussion of different branches of Byzantine
mathematical sciences and related disciplines and technologies, it is necessary to
introduce their numerical foundation, namely the number systems used by the
Byzantines, as well as to note the additional symbolic meaning attributed to numbers
which was reflected in various products of Byzantine culture – from texts to
architectural monuments.
1. Numerical foundation
Three different numerical systems were employed at various points of the Byzantine
millennium: 1) the Greek mathematical notation system; 2) the sexagesimal place value
system; 3) and the Indian decimal place value system. The first denoted the numbers
with the twenty-four letters of the Greek alphabet plus three archaic letters
(digamma/stigma, koppa and sampi). With the help of the resulting twenty-seven
characters and the addition of diacritic marks, one could express units, tens, and
hundreds, as well as thousands (a stroke was added to the lower left), ten thousands (the
smaller number was written above the letter M), and fractional numbers. The
sexagesimal place value system played a significant role in astronomical calculations, as
well as in horology and trigonometry. It operated with letter numbers from one to fiftynine. This system represented both negative and positive numbers, distinguished by
their position. It also denoted the absence of a number (i.e. zero) by the symbol ō. The
Indian decimal place value system, which employed Indian numerals, commonly
referred to as Arabic numerals today, was introduced in Byzantine science in the middle
of the thirteenth century. It coexisted with the Greek mathematical notation system until
after 1453.
Number symbolism found multiple uses in Byzantine culture as it was a popular
device employed by rhetoricians, philosophers, politicians, writers, artists, and
3
architects. Byzantine number symbolism inherited its main principles from the
Pythagorean and Neoplatonic philosophy, as well as from the subsequently developed
Christian exegesis and theology which also had to explain the origin of multiplicity in a
world with monadic beginning, i.e. God. Particular significance was ascribed to various
numbers, such as one (e.g. God is one, and so is the emperor), two (e.g. concerning the
two natures in Christ, namely divine and human), and three (e.g. with respect to the
angelic hierarchy being structured into three orders, or referring to the Trinitarian
doctrine of God’s one substance and three hypostases). Besides a mere rhetorical or
allegorical device, number symbolism was the subject matter of a specific literary genre,
the so-called theologoumena arithmetikēs or ‘theology of arithmetic.’ At least three
different theologoumena are preserved, though partially: 1) by Nikomachos of Gerasa;
2) by Anatolios of Laodikeia (3rd century); 3) and by someone from the circle of
Iamblichos (d. ca. 325). They were very well received in Byzantium and continued to be
copied and reused, as Christian examples and exegesis were introduced into the corpus.
The theologoumena were structured as brief textbooks of ten chapters. Each chapter was
dedicated to one of the numbers in the decade. The interpretation of a given number’s
symbolic meaning included material from mathematics, musical theory, astronomy,
medicine, grammar, and so forth.
2. Mathematical foundation
The mathematical sciences in Byzantium inherited their material and methods from the
Greek mathematics of antiquity and were subsequently influenced by the developments
in the Arabic, Persian, Latin, and Jewish science. Mathematics was the foundation of
astronomy, astrology, the computus (i.e. the calculation of the date of Easter), of
financial transaction and architectural construction.
Most influential in the studies of the mathematical sciences in Byzantium were the
works of Euclid, Nikomachos of Gerasa, Diophantos of Alexandria, Apollonios of
Perge (d. ca. 190 BCE), Archimedes (d. 212 BCE), Ptolemy, Pappos (fl. ca. 320),
Theon of Alexandria (fl. ca. 360-380), and Heron. Nikomachos famously circumscribed
the cycle of the four mathematical disciplines or tetraktys tōn mathēmatōn, namely
arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. The works of Euclid, in turn, provided the
4
basis for the study of geometry and were continuously read throughout the Byzantine
millennium.
II. MEASURING HEAVENS: MATHEMATICAL ASTRONOMY AND
ASTROLOGY
The importance of Euclidean mathematics in Byzantium is comparable only to the
influence Ptolemaic astronomy exerted on its medieval Greek counterpart. The
systematic exposition of mathematical astronomy in Ptolemy’s Almagest and Handy
Tables, as well as Theon’s commentaries were read continuously in Byzantium and
though during the thirteenth century the study of the higher mathematical sciences was
interrupted for about hundred years, astronomy was revitalized and reintroduced
towards the end of this period.
Two main trends in the development of Palaiologan science can be distinguished:
on the one hand, Ptolemaic astronomy was consciously reintroduced in practice and
publicized by several generations of scholars, most of them connected to the Chora
monastery in Constantinople. The main driving force behind this enterprise was
Theodore Metochites (d. 1332), though his work was already prepared by the efforts of
Maximos Planoudes (d. ca. 1305) and Manuel Bryennios (fl. ca. 1300). Nikephoros
Gregoras (d. ca. 1360) continued Metochites’ efforts and then handed over the task to
his own students, notably to Isaac Argyros (d. ca. 1375). On the other hand, an
alternative trend in the study and practice of astronomy emerged under the influence of
Islamic astronomical works coming mainly from Tabriz and introduced in Byzantium
by Gregory Chioniades (d. ca. 1320) and later on popularized by scholars such as
George Chrysokokkes (fl. ca. 1335-1350), Theodore Meliteniotes (d. 1393), and John
Abramios (fl. 1370-1390). Moreover, through the court of Hugh IV (r. 1324-1359) of
Lusignan those who maintained connection with Cyprus, like Nikephoros Gregoras, had
access also to Latin astronomical treatises.
1. Astronomical instruments
In order to study the configurations of the fixed stars, the movements and conjunctions
of the five planets, the positions of the two luminaries, the sun and the moon, with
respect to the earth and to each other, the Byzantines used the astrolabe, an astronomical
instrument which converted with the help of stereographical projection the three5
dimensional celestial sphere visible from a defined geographical latitude into a dynamic
two-dimensional map of the sky projected on the equatorial plane. Though only one
Byzantine astrolabe survives today, there are descriptions of the instrument, depictions,
as well as treatises and diagrams dedicated to its construction and usage preserved in
numerous Byzantine codices. Ptolemy himself described the principles of the astrolabe
in his Projection of the Surface of a Sphere. His work, however, was not known in
Constantinople after the early Byzantine period. Nevertheless, commentaries of the
Almagest, such as Pappos’ and Theon’s, provided instructions for the construction of the
astrolabe and various other observational instruments listed in the Almagest, e.g.
meridional and equinoctial armillaries, a plinth, an armillary sphere, a parallactic
instrument, a diopter. The treatise on the astrolabe composed by John Philoponos (d. ca.
570), as well as the earlier description of the instrument by Sinesios (d. ca. 413), served
as models for Palaiologan contributions on the subject such as Nikephoros Gregoras’
On the Construction of the Astrolabe (in two redactions), as well as the works by Isaak
Argyros and Theodore Meliteniotes. Astrolabes found their use not only in measuring
the longitudes of the stars, but also in time-keeping, and probably in navigation.
Importantly, they were portable and they could be used both by night and day.
The actual observational use of astronomical instruments in Byzantium is scarcely
attested. One such instance is contained in a lengthy marginal note on f. 275 in codex
Laurentianus 28, 16, authored probably in 1389 in Constantinople, by the astronomer
and astrologer John Abramios. John mentioned that with the help of a diopter, he
observed one of the fixed stars, namely the Southern Crown, and calculated its
longitude. Then, he reported adjusting his astrolabe accordingly and calculating the time
of night when his observation was recorded. The estimation of the precise hour was
confirmed by the sound of a clock. He repeated the same procedure in his observation of
other stars.
2. Horoscopes
Byzantine mathematical astronomy, as well as its counterpart, the pseudo-scientific
astrology, strove to produce accurate representations of the heavens. The astrolabe
depicted the sky and the configurations of the heavenly bodies for a given geographical
latitude, while a horoscope, for instance, provided a map of the positions of the
6
heavenly bodies in the zodiac at a given moment in time. Some Byzantine horoscopes
are simple lists of longitudes; others include diagrams and interpretation. Casting
political horoscopes, such as the horoscopes of emperors, cities, and even religions (e.g.
the horoscope concerning the future of Islam cast by Stephanos of Alexandria in the late
sixth/early seventh century) was not uncommon in Byzantium. A handful of political
horoscopes are preserved, among them the horoscope of Constantinople for May 11,
330, cast in ca. 990 by a certain Demophilos (the name is possibly a pseudonym, or it
indicates that the method of an eponymous ancient astrologer has been applied) which
predicted the end of the city 696 years after its foundation, that is, in 1026. An
anonymous eleventh-century astrologer extended the foretold life of the city with a
hundred years, i.e. to altogether 796 years. In the twelfth-century, the authorship of
Constantinople’s horoscope has been attributed to a certain Valens who was allegedly
commissioned to cast the horoscope by emperor Constantine himself, on the eight day
of Constantinople’s inaugural festivities.
III. MEASURING TIME: CLOCKS AND TIMEKEEPING
As illustrated by the example of John Abramios using an astrolabe to determine the
precise time, Byzantine scholars used astronomical instruments and related technology
for the purposes of timekeeping. In Byzantium the term horologion was applied to any
timekeeping device used to measure time or to indicate a specific moment in time. More
often than not, a horologion meant a sundial or a water clock. Timekeeping was
essential for regulating the administrative and ceremonial life of a given community.
For instance, the Rule of the monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople (9th
century) mentions the use of a water clock equipped with an alarm to rouse the “waker,”
a monk in charge of awakening the rest of his brothers. In addition, the existence and
use of several public horologia in Constantinople (both sundials and water clocks) are
attested in textual sources, though no material evidence survives. Perhaps the most wellknown is the horologion at the southwestern corner of Hagia Sophia erected in 838/39
under emperor Theophilos and patriarch John the Grammarian. According to
Hārūn Ibn Yaḥyā’s description (ca. 900), the construction had twenty-four little square
doors, one for each hour of the day and the night. At the end of every hour one door was
opening on its own. Another monumental clock was erected earlier by Justinian I, in
7
535 next to the Milion, while until the sixth century, a horologion was positioned
between the Augusteion and the Basilike. The latter was subsequently moved to the
Chalke where it remained at least through the seventh century, and probably also
through the eighth, when it was restored by Constantine V (r. 741-775). Under the reign
of Justin II (r. 565-578), another monumental clock (perhaps a sundial) was installed at
the northeastern corner of the Basilike and presumably it was functioning up to the ninth
century. Patriarch Sergios I (610-638) installed a sundial in the garden of the
Patriarchate, between Hagia Sophia and the Augustaion. Textual sources mention three
other horologia: 1) a clock, probably a sundial, located in the imperial palace in a hall
across from the Tripeton; 2) a clock positioned on the forum of Constantine; 3) and a
horologion in the church of the Holy Apostles, probably erected in the basilica’s atrium.
Among the service personnel that maintained the imperial palace, there were clock
attendants who belonged to the larger group of the diaitarioi under the supervision of
the eunuch papias, a sort of supreme concierge of the palace.
1. Mechanics and automata
While several public clocks were on display in Costantinople, a related type of fine
technology was employed for the purposes of the imperial display of power at court.
During the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (r. 945-959) there were at least
three elaborate automata, or self-operating machines, engaged in the presentation of the
emperor, in particular during audiences with foreign visitors. Liutprand of Cremona,
who visited Constantine’s court in 948 and 966 described a tree with singing birds,
mechanical lions, and an imperial throne, the so-called “throne of Solomon,” that could
raise up from the ground. The tree was located in front of the throne and it was made of
gilded bronze. Its branches were filled with birds of the same material twittering with
different sounds according to their species. The mechanical gilded bronze lions guarded
the imperial throne and were able to strike the ground with their tails and to roar with
open mouth and quivering tongue. The throne itself was of immense size and could rise
towards the ceiling. Another examples of Byzantine fine technology included selfregulating fountains, trick vessels that were able to contain different liquids without
mixing them, vessels that always kept the same amount of liquid, mechanical theatres,
pipe organs, and astronomical computing devices among others.
8
IV. MEASURING EARTH: GEOGRAPHY AND CARTOGRAPHY
The ancient cartographic tradition the Byzantines inherited was based on mathematics
and practical observation and found its ultimate manifestation in the works of Ptolemy.
Map-drawing required both geographical and astronomical knowledge and found an
immediate application in navigation. Though no Byzantine maps earlier than the end of
the thirteenth century survive, the textual evidence suggests that maps existed and were
sometimes associated with books of sailing directions for navigators. The so-called
periploi usually describe sea travel from port to port, mentioning the distances between
ports, providing information about the coasts, the winds, the nearby fortresses and even
about the local produce and customs. Several early Byzantine periploi survive today and
none includes maps, thus it has been suggested that the usage of maps for practical
purposes in Byzantium was in decline during the early life of the empire.
Maps were employed not only for practical purposes, but also for display of
imperial power. A case in point is the so-called Theodosian map, a map of the eastern
Roman empire commissioned by emperor Theodosios II (emperor of the East 408-450).
Though the map itself has not survived, it was probably still extant in the ninth century.
Moreover, the poem in Latin hexameters attached to it was preserved. World maps were
not used in navigation or travel; instead, regional maps assumed this function. However,
with the exception of a sixth-century mosaic map of Palestine, no regional Byzantine
maps survive before the thirteenth century.
Specific feature in the development of Byzantine geography and cartography is
the neglect of Ptolemy’s Geography on behalf of Byzantine scholarship and its
rediscovery in the end of the thirteenth century. The driving force behind the revival of
Ptolemaic geography in Palaiologan Byzantium was the activity of Maximos Planoudes
who in 1295 successfully acquired and reedited Ptolemy’s treatise. Worth mentioning
are two codices containing the Geography: 1) Vat. gr. 177, dated to the end of the
thirteenth century, which was in Planoudes’ possession while he was residing at the
monastery of Christ Saviour in Chora; 2) and Vat. gr. 191, a thirteenth or fourteenthcentury manuscript containing in addition a number of astronomical works. Both
manuscripts do not include any maps; however, they both contain notes indicating that
the codices were supposed to comprise twenty-six or twenty-seven maps respectively.
9
The three oldest manuscript witnesses of Ptolemy’s Geography containing maps date to
the late thirteenth century and are also associated with Planoudes’ editorial activity.
These are codices Urbinas gr. 82 with twenty-seven maps, Seragliensis 57, and
Fragmentum Fabricianum Graecum.
Another branch of the Ptolemaic manuscript
tradition transmits the Geography accompanied by sixty-five maps. One of the earliest
examples is the early fourteenth-century codex Laurentianus Plut. 28. 49.
V. MEASURING THE ELEMENTS: ALCHEMY AND METALWORKING
TECHNOLOGY
Alchemy is primarily based on the theory of the possibility of transmutation of metals
into gold and silver. Alchemical texts were produced in Byzantium and they could be
either practical lists of recipes or highly theoretical and allegorical mystical works. One
collection that contains both types of texts is the so-called ‘alchemical corpus’ which
was put together at some point between the seventh and the eleventh centuries. The
principal manuscript witnesses of the collection date respectively to the end of the tenth
or the beginning of the eleventh century (Marcianus gr. 299), to the thirteenth century
(Parisinus gr. 2325), and to 1478 (Parisinus gr. 2327). They contain a large number of
works dating from the beginning of our era to the fifteenth century, such as the writings
of Pseudo-Demokritos (2nd century CE), Zosimos of Panopolis (fl. 300 CE), Synesios,
Olympiodoros (d. after 564/5), Stephanos of Alexandria, the Anonymous Philosopher
(7th-9th centuries) and others.
The ‘alchemical corpus’ reflectes three major trends characteristic of the practice
of alchemy in Byzantium. First, the Corpus transmits the works of Zosimos who was
considered the chief authority on the subject and exerted a significant influence on later
authors. Second, the collection’s content alludes to the growing interest in the study of
alchemy in seventh-century Byzantium during the reign of emperor Herakleios (r. 610641). Not only the Corpus contains, among other texts, four alchemical poems dated to
this period, but also its version preserved in Marcianus gr. 299 included three
alchemical writings authored by Herakleios himself and subsequently lost. Finally,
among the middle and late Byzantine additions to the Corpus, one finds both purely
theoretical works such as Michael Psellos’ letter On How to Make Gold addressed to
patriarch Michael I Keroularios in ca. 1045/6, and fairly practical recipes and technical
10
treatises which comment, among other things, on the silver and goldsmiths’ practices of
tempering and dyeing of metals (e.g. of copper and iron), glass-making, processing and
imitating precious stones, cleaning and imitating pearls, purifying and welding gold and
silver, mold-making, and even illuminating books with gold and silver. Thus, the
Corpus provides useful information for the production of luxury goods in Byzantium.
Importantly, even if technical Byzantine recipes are preserved, they rarely provide all
the information needed for their successful use. More often than not, the recipe included
a general description of the working method and of the materials, but omitted the most
significant detail, namely the exact proportions of the ingredients, thus preserving part
of the alchemical art and/or the metallurgical craft secret, to be orally transmitted from
master to student.
The imperial workshop in Constantinople, associated with the palace, deserves a
special mentioning. The manufacture, storage and distribution of goldwork for palace
use, of certain copied or illuminated books, and most importantly, of coins was a subject
of state monopoly and it took place in special workshops scattered throughout the
empire. After the seventh century, however, it seems that the provincial workshops
vanished and this specialized production remained restricted to Constantinople. Thus,
the activity of the imperial goldsmith is well-attested in the medieval sources. For
instance, it manufactured the crowns the emperors ordered for personal use, as well as
for votive offerings or diplomatic gifts.
VI. MEASURING THE HUMAN BODY: MEDICINE AND PHARMACOLOGY
Medicine in Byzantium, both theoretical and practical, carried on and developed the
Greco-Roman tradition of Hippocrates and Galen and additionally, it employed the
means of astrology, magic, and folk medicine. Byzantine medical manuscripts, as well
as saints’ lives list a number of illnesses such as malaria, tuberculosis, blindness and
deafness, dropsy, intestinal problems, ulcers, paralysis, leprosy, mental disorders,
urinary problems and hemorrhage, menstrual anomalies and problems with lactation in
the case of women, as well as cancerous lesions. Byzantine pharmacology provided
variety of drugs to treat the ill, as it is attested by the medical encyclopedias of
Alexander of Tralles (ca. 525-605) and Paul of Aegina (fl. ca. 640). Drug lists were also
inherited from the works of Galen, as well as from Dioskorides' De materia medica.
11
Additionally, by the eleventh century one finds Arabic, and Hindu spices mentioned in
Byzantine medical texts, such as the works of Symeon Seth (fl. ca. 1071-1078).
Byzantine drug lore used approximately 700 herbal, animal and mineral simples and
applied traditional drugs such as opium poppy, hellebore, blister beetle solution, caustic
mineral wash, soft emollients based on rose oil, kaolin, and so forth.
Hospitals, that is, charitable foundations providing the sick with overnight
accommodation and medical service, existed not only in Constantinople, but also in the
provinces. With the transformation of Constantinople from a late antique into a
Christian city and the related proliferation of churches after 450, hospitals and other
philanthropic institutions (e.g. old-age homes, poor-hostels, etc.) were established in the
capital. The anonymous collection of miracles of St. Artemios written ca. 660, for
instance, described the healing wonders performed by the martyr at his shrine at the
Church of St. John Prodromos in Constantinople, primarily related to the treatment of
genital tumors. In addition, the forty-five miracle stories provide some information on
the hospitals in the capital at the time, e.g. the xenon associated with the Church of St.
John Prodromos. The Miracles also comment in passim on surgical practices. One story
describes an unsuccessful groin surgery performed at the Sampson Xenon (the oldest
philanthropic medical institution in Constantinople opened towards the end of the fourth
century), while another tells the story of St. Artemios himself conducting a surgical
intervention. One of the better-documented medical institutions in Constantinople was
the hospital at the monastery of Christ Pantokrator founded in 1136 by emperor John II
Komnenos. According to the Pantokrator’s typikon, the monastery hosted and
maintained two charitable institutions, namely a nursing home for twenty-four aged or
infirm men and a hospital for fifty patients. Importantly, Byzantine hospitals not only
provided medical care for the sick, but also organized and sustained the education and
training of prospective physicians.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Throughout the Byzantine millennium, Constantinople acted as a major center of
scientific production, consumption and exchange. Despite the lack of established
higher-education curriculum and corresponding institutions, the proximity to the center
of imperial power facilitated the preservation of ancient knowledge and technologies
12
and in some cases enhanced their development, thanks to or in reaction to the
corresponding developments in Latin, Persian, Indian, and Jewish science. A case in
point is the revival of Ptolemaic studies during the Palaiologan period, notably in the
fields of astronomy and geography, connected with the activity of several
Constantinopolitan scholars based in the monastery of Christ Saviour in Chora. The
sciences in Byzantium, both the mathematical and the related disciplines of geography,
alchemy, and medicine, advanced and employed technologies that could be used for
multiple purposes, as for instance, in the case of astronomy and timekeeping, or in the
case of alchemy and metallurgy. In terms of their methods, the present article argues,
Byzantine sciences shared a common mathematical foundation they consequently
employed in measuring and mapping the earth, the heavens, and the human body.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Angeliki E. Laiou, “The Human Resources,” The Economic History of Byzantium:
From the Seventh Through the Fifteenth Century, Angeliki E. Laiou and
Charalampos Bouras (eds.), Washington, D.C 2002, pp. 47–55.
Anne Tihon, “Les sciences exactes à Byzance,” Byzantion, 2009, v. 79: 380–434.
Anne Tihon, “Numeracy and Science,” The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies,
Elizabeth Jeffreys, John F. Haldon, and Robin Cormack (eds.), Oxford 2008, pp.
803–819.
Benjamin Anderson, "Public clocks in late antique and early medieval Constantinople,"
Abstracts of Papers - Byzantine Studies Conference, 2011, v. 37: pp. 33-34.
Benjamin Anderson, “Leo III and the Anemodoulion,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2011,
v. 104, no. 1: pp. 41–54.
David Pingree, “The Astrological School of John Abramius,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
1971, v. 25: 189–215.
David Pingree, “The Horoscope of Constantinople,” [Prismata]:
Naturwissenschaftsgeschichtl. Studien: Festschrift Für Willy Hartner, Yasukatsu
Maeyama and Walter G. Saltzer (eds.), Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 305–315.
Donald Hill, A History of Engineering in Classical and Medieval Times, London 1996.
Emilie Savage-Smith, “Maps and Trade,” Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th Centuries: The
Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange: Papers of the Thirtyeighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St John’s College, University of
Oxford, March 2004, Marlia Mundell Mango (ed.), Farnham 2009, pp. 11–29.
Gerard Brett, “The Automata in the Byzantine ‘Throne of Solomon’,” Speculum, 1954,
v. 29, no. 3: pp. 477–487.
Gilbert Dagron, “The Urban Economy, Seventh-Twelfth Centuries,” The Economic
History of Byzantium: From the Seventh Through the Fifteenth Century, Angeliki
E. Laiou and Charalampos Bouras (eds.), Washington, D.C 2002, pp. 393–461.
13
Inmaculada Pérez Martín, “Al calor del texto antiguo: la lectura de textos matemáticos
en Bizancio,” Relegados al margen: marginalidad y espacios marginales en la
cultura medieval, Inés Monteira Arias, Ana Belén Muñoz Martínez, and
Fernando Villaseñor Sebastián (eds.), Madrid 2009, pp. 55–68.
James Trilling, “Daedalus and the Nightingale: Art and Technology in the Myth of the
Byzantine Court,” Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, Henry Maguire
(ed.), Washington, D.C. 1997, pp. 217–230.
Joel Kalvesmaki, “Introduction to the Early Christian Theology of Arithmetic,”
presented at the NASGEm national meeting, Philadelphia 2002
[http://www.kalvesmaki.com/Arithmetic/NASGEm.htm].
John Duffy, “Reactions of Two Byzantine Intellectuals to the Theory and Practice of
Magic: Michael Psellos and Michael Italikos,” Byzantine Magic, Henry Maguire
(ed.), Washington, D.C 1995, pp. 83–97.
Maria K. Papathanassiou, “Metallurgy and Metalworking Techniques,” The Economic
History of Byzantium: From the Seventh Through the Fifteenth Century, Angeliki
E. Laiou and Charalampos Bouras (eds.), Washington, D.C 2002, pp. 121–127.
Oswald Ashton Wentworth Dilke, “Cartography in the Byzantine Empire,” The History
of Cartography, John Brian Harley and David Woodward (eds.), vol. 1:
Cartography in prehistoric, ancient, and medieval Europe and the
Mediterranean, Chicago 1987, pp. 258–275.
Paul Magdalino, “The Byzantine Reception of Classical Astrology,” Literacy,
Education and Manuscript Transmission in Byzantium and beyond, Catherine
Holmes and Judith Waring (eds.), Leiden 2002, pp. 33-57.
Peregrine Horden, “Health, Hygiene, and Healing,” The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine
Studies, Elizabeth Jeffreys, John F. Haldon, and Robin Cormack (eds.), Oxford
2008, pp. 685–690.
Raymond Janin, Constantinople Byzantine: développement urbain et répertoire
topographique, Paris 1964.
The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, Paul Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi (eds.), Geneva
2006.
The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Alexander Kazhdan (ed.), New York 1991.
Timothy S. Miller, The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire, Baltimore 1997.
Suggested Illustrations
Vat. gr. 1087, ff. 318v-319r: a depiction of part of an astrolabe
Seragliensis gr. 1, f. 73v: Heron of Alexandria, Definitions
Marcianus gr. 516, f. 200r: a depiction of an automaton
Ambrosianus H 57 Sup., f. 1r: a depiction of a tonsured monk using an astrolabe
Ambrosianus H 57 Sup., f. 106r: a depiction of a tonsured monk using a parallactic
instrument
14