	New content
Journal for the History of Astronomy

Restricted access

Book review

First published February 1984

Essay Review: The Sources of Ptolemy's Parameters: The Origins of Ptolemy's Astronomical Parameters

Curtis WilsonView all authors and affiliations

Based on: The Origins of Ptolemy's Astronomical Parameters. Newton R. R. (The Center for Archaeoastronomy, University of Maryland, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Technical Publication no. 4, 1982). Pp. iv+228.

Volume 15, Issue 1

https://doi.org/10.1177/002182868401500107

References

Get access

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Get Access

References

1. Mémoires de l'Académie des Sciences, année 1757, 420–1, my translation.

Google Scholar

2. Willy Hartner, “The Mercury horoscope of Marcantonio Michiel of Venice”, Vistas in astronomy, i, 84–138, pp. 109 Kepler ff., early on, seems to have suspected the same thing; see Gesammelte Werke, xv, 267–8. In the Epitome (Gesammelte Werke, vii, 435–6), he tries to explain how Ptolemy might have been led to the double perigee, but then goes on to suggest that the Ptolemaic observations were ‘improved’ by the ancient copiers, and are very inexact.

Google Scholar

3. Goldstein Bernard R., “The Arabic version of Ptolemy's Planetary hypotheses”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, lvii, Part 4 (1967), 7.

Google Scholar

4. On this point see my essay, “The inner planets and the Keplerian Revolution”, Centaurus, xvii (1973), 205–48, p. 234.

Google Scholar

5. See Aaboe A., “Scientific astronomy in Antiquity”, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, A cclxxvi, 21–42, p. 35, and “Observation and theory in Babylonian astronomy”, Centaurus, xxiv (1980), 14–35.

Google Scholar

6. The calculated results on which these numbers are based for the inner planets are given in my “Inner planets and the Keplerian Revolution”, passim. Those for the outer planets are as follows: Planet Date Ptolemy's ‘observations’ +66′ Tuckerman Difference. Mars 26–27 Tybi, Hadrian 15 82°; 6 81°;25 +41′. (Syntaxis X.7,8) 6–7 Pharmouthi, Hadrian 19 149°;56 150°;15 −19′. 12–13 Epiphi, Antonine 2 243°;40 242°;49 +51′. 15–16 Epiphi, Antonine 2 242°;42 241°;55 +47′. Jupiter 1–2 Epiphi, Hadrian 17 234°;17 234°;11 + 6′.(Syntaxis XI.1,2) 13–14 Phaophi, Hadrian 21 339°; 0 339°; 3 – 3′. 20–21 Athyr, Antonine 1 15°;29 15°;29 + 0′. >26–27 Mesore, Antonine 2 76°;51 76°;34 + 17′. >Saturn 7–8 Pachon, Hadrian 11 182°;19 182°;30 −11′. >(Syntaxis XI.5,6) 18 Epiphi, Hadrian 17 250°;46 250°;54 – 8′. >24 Mesore, Hadrian 20 285°;20 285°;20 + 0′. >6–7 Mechir, Antonine 2 310°;10 310°; 6 + 4′.

Google Scholar

7. Wilson, “The inner planets and the Keplerian Revolution”, 228–9.

Google Scholar

8. Ibid., 212–13.

Google Scholar

9. Syntaxis I.1; Great books of the Western World (hereafter: GBWW), xvi, 5 (translation modified).

Google Scholar

10. Syntaxis I.1; GBWW, xvi, 6 (translation modified).

Google Scholar

11. Syntaxis XIII.2; GBWW, xvi, 429 (translation modified).

Google Scholar

12. Syntaxis I.1; GBWW, xvi, 6 (translation modified).