This article examines Georg Hieronymus Welsch’s Commentarius in Ruzname Naurus (1676), a Latin commentary and fac-simile of an Ottoman perpetual calendar.By analysing the work, this study explores how Ottoman astronomical knowledge was received within seventeenth-century Europe, and how Welsch sought to frame thisknowledge for his audience. Central to the study is the detailing of the historiographical discussions concerning the authorship of the Ruzname, variously attributed by scholars such as Hammer-Purgstall, Babinger and King to figures like Sheikh Vefā, Darendelī Mehmed, or Abū’l-Wafāʾ al-Būzjānī. This paper addresses how Welsch’scommentary provides essential clues for these disputes. Furthermore, it highlights Welsch’s aim to present Ottoman intellectual heritage and challenge contemporary European negative prejudices. Ultimately, the study serves as an analysis of the interpretation and presentation of the Ruzname tradition within Welsch’s individual scholarly output.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kutsi Aybars Çetinalp (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: