principally Theon's edition of Ptolemy's Handy Tables. Finally, the sixth part is an appendix on the chronology, astronomy, and mathematics, including diophantine equations, useful to the study of ancient mathematical astronomy, in which he set out materials and methods assembled over many years both from diverse sources and of his own invention.

For all its 1200 pages of text and nearly 250 pages of figures HAMA is an economical work; its subject is the technical content of ancient mathematical astronomy, and cultural matters are kept to a minimum. I have mentioned that at one time HAMA was to have covered a longer period. What happened to the rest? Over the years, Neugebauer published parts of it separately, sometimes in collaborative projects, and its parts are substantial. In fact, he was late to come to the Middle Ages, his first important publications being on the astronomy of Maimonides (1949) and a commentary on Maimonides's Sanctification of the New Moon translated by Solomon Gandz (1956), in earlier years a contributor to QS. It is best to consider the paralipomena to HAMA by subject: Byzantine sources based on Arabic in the astronomical terminology of Vat. gr. 1058 (1960)—later identified by Pingree as translations by Gregory Chioniades—and the commentary on the treatise in Paris gr. 2425 (1969), the treatise itself later published by Alexander Jones (1987); Arabic in the translations and analyses of two works on the motion of the eighth sphere and the length of the year attributed (at least one falsely, it now appears) to Thabit ibn Qurra (1962), and a large commentary on al-Khwarizmi's tables (1962), examining in particular their use of Indian methods; Indian astronomy itself in his commentary to Pingree's edition and translation of the Pañcasiddhantika of Varahamahira (1970); Renaissance astronomy with