Posts

Posted on

Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Grasshoff (1990) – Errors in the Solar Theory

So far in Grasshoff’s analysis, he’s come to the conclusion that the distribution of errors (as well as some of the specific ones) point to Ptolemy having used Hipparchus’ data. The only possibility to rescue Ptolemy as an observer is if there is some sort of underlying bias in both of their observations that led to a similar set of errors.

The primary suspect for this would be errors in the solar theory because Ptolemy’s model was essentially the same as that of Hipparchus’1. So, at long last, Grasshoff is ready to explore the errors in the solar theory. Continue reading “Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Grasshoff (1990) – Errors in the Solar Theory”

Posted on

Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Grasshoff (1990) – Structures in the Catalog

In the last post, we followed along as Grasshoff explored the distribution of errors within Ptolemy catalog as compared to those of the reconstructed Hipparchan one. He demonstrated that the errors are highly correlated indicating that Ptolemy likely did use Hipparchan data, unless there was a systematic error common to both.

To build on that concept, Grasshoff begins exploring structures in the catalog by mapping the position of the stars in Ptolemy’s catalog as compared to the true positions as calculated by modern astronomy for the year $137$ CE1. Mapping things in this manner allows for several patterns to become apparent.

Continue reading “Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Grasshoff (1990) – Structures in the Catalog”

Posted on

Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Grasshoff (1990) – Reviewing Gundel

Having reviewed Vogt’s work, Grasshoff now turns to dissecting Gundel’s. As a reminder, Gundel discovered a $15^{th}$ century set of hermetic writings that contained a list of stars that was dated to the time of Hipparchus, potentially making it the first direct evidence of a Hipparchan star catalog.

But what Gundel’s analysis lacked is any exploration of how this related to  whether or not Ptolemy stole Hipparchus’ data. In this post, we’ll explore Grasshoff’s analysis of that topic. However, before doing so, Grasshoff works to ensure that we have the best possible understanding of the hermetic catalog before comparing the hermetic catalog to Ptolemy’s. Continue reading “Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Grasshoff (1990) – Reviewing Gundel”

Posted on

Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Grasshoff (1990) – Refining the Catalog

Over the past several posts, I’ve used the excellent history of the scholarly discussion surrounding the star catalog in the Almagest as given in Gerd Grasshoff’s History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue. At this point, we’ve caught up to the time the book itself was published. However, we’re not even half way through the book. The remainder of the text is Grasshoff reviewing the previous authors and offering a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis than done previously.

But before getting into that, Grasshoff attempts to ensure that we really understand the Ptolemaic catalog in its own right. For Grasshoff, this requires “a meticulous edition of the text and a correct identification of the ancient positional description with the stars known by their modern names,” as well as “the accurate position of the star at the historical epoch.” Continue reading “Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Grasshoff (1990) – Refining the Catalog”

Posted on

Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Newton (1977)

In the past few posts, we’ve demonstrated a rapidly forming consensus that Ptolemy’s star catalog was largely an original work. However, there were some holdouts. In $1977$ R. R. Newton published the book The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy1. In this work, Newton generally agrees with Lalande and Delambre – That Ptolemy’s “observations” are not true observations, but merely the result of theoretical calculations, extending this argument well beyond the star catalog, which Newton frequently describes as “fabricated”.

As a forewarning, this book raised a great deal of popular media attention as the alleged scheming of scientists is always a popular topic, but scientists reviewing the book have generally panned it as using flawed methodology, as we’ll see. Continue reading “Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Newton (1977)”

Posted on

Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Gundel, Pannekoek, and Peter & Schmidt (1936-1968)

In the last post, we explored the 1925 paper by Vogt that attempted to reverse engineer entries from the presumed Hipparchan star catalog. Assuming that the coordinates derived were actually representative of such, Vogt demonstrated that Ptolemy was unlikely to have based his catalog on that of Hipparchus.

Continuing in the theme of defending Ptolemy, we’ll explore three more texts which come to Ptolemy’s defense: a book by Gundel (1936), a paper by Pannekoek (1955) and a paper by Petersen & Schmidt (1968). Continue reading “Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Gundel, Pannekoek, and Peter & Schmidt (1936-1968)”

Posted on

Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Vogt – 1925

In our last post we had established that it was impossible for Ptolemy to have stolen all of his data from Hipparchus as indirect evidence of the number of stars that would have been included in Hipparchus’ catalog indicate that Ptolemy’s catalog had around $200$ stars that Hipparchus’ presumptive catalog did not. Furthermore, we cited Dreyer and Fotheringham who both showed that errors in the determination of the position of equinoxes and solstices would have resulted in the $1º$ error at the heart of the accusation against Ptolemy, eliminating the need for Ptolemy to have used Hipparchus’ catalog.

Thus, while it’s not necessary that Ptolemy took all of his data from Hipparchus, the possibility remains that he took some. But to determine that, we’d need more information about Hipparchus’ presumed catalog which is what we’ll explore in this post looking at an important 1925 paper by Vogt. Continue reading “Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: Vogt – 1925”

Posted on

Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: 137 CE – 1918 CE

I’m going to take a bit of a break from direct progress on the Almagest as we get to the star catalog. This is because there is, what I feel to be a fascinating and important discussion surrounding its legitimacy and I want to explore the history of this discussion, even though almost all of it is outside the range of the SCA period1. Namely, the discussion is whether or not Ptolemy’s star catalog is legitimate, one which he took the measurements himself, or if Ptolemy stole the data from an astronomer that came before him and tried to update it, but failed due to an incorrect value for the rate of precession.

Continue reading “Scholarly History of Commentary on Ptolemy’s Star Catalog: 137 CE – 1918 CE”

Posted on

Scholarly History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalog Index

The discussion surrounding Ptolemy’s star catalog is a fascinating one. While astronomers for hundreds of years took Ptolemy’s catalog as authoritative, Tycho Brahe noticed that the positions of the stars had a $\approx 1º$ error in longitude. To explain this, Brahe hypothesized that this was due to Ptolemy stealing the data for the star catalog from Hipparchus and updating the longitudes with an incorrect constant of precession.

Astronomers have been debating this ever since.

Continue reading “Scholarly History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalog Index”