du Canada
Acquisitions and
Bibliograph~c
Services Branch
NOTICE
La qualite d'irnpression de
certaines pages peut laisser a
dhirer, surtout si les pages
originales
ont
et6
dactylographi6es a I'aide d'un
ruban use ou si I'universite nous
a fait parvenir une photocopie de
qualite inferieure.

I3J
Glen T'an bruiiimelen
in
THE DEPARTMENT O F
MATHEMATICS A N D STATZSTICS
February 1993
ilot be reproduced
$6
National Library
of Canada
Bib!ioth@ue nationate
du Canada
Acquisitions and
BibiiographicServices Branch
395 Wellington Street
C~taea,Cntario
K I A ON4
Onwa (Ontario)
K! A ON4
Approval
Name:
Degree:
Doctor af Philosophy
Dr. R. Harrop

Dr. R. Ro~ztlcdge
D. J. Evans
Estenlal Exailliner, U~liversityof Puget Sound
D ~ LApproved:
~c
February 23, 1993
I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission
I t i s undersi'ood ? h a t copying
..
T i t l e of Thesis/Project/Extended
Author:
,,
(signature)
f name 1
Essay
Abstract
is tlic large set of matheamtically computed tables int,ended as aids to conlputing various
astronomical quantities. This work amlyzes the entries in these tables; with a god to
ashiesing an uxidcrstantling of tlle rvethods used to coustruct them and the relations bet\\celltl~cm.Simultaneoilsly~it, develops several generalized statistical and otl~ermethods
to fiucl esidzncc for or against the use of certain numerical techniques in any historical
astrolzomical t;~ljle;given oaly the elltries in the taLle and the errors in t h s e entries.
Three tests clcaliitg r i t h diffcreiit aspects of the situation are designed. The first test
cletemines wlietl~ertlie tlieoreticd dependence of one table on amther can be demonstrated on the Lasis of the data in the tables. The second studies whether an apparent
dependence betnrceil errors in successive entries in a table (commonplace in historical
fi.0111
others remain
uudecirlcd on tlie basis of the tests used. Several interpolation grids, some explicitly
desclibed ly Ptolriy and some rrot. are locilted. 4 l u g e ~iuxuberof the clrnss
i ~ iirr
t
iudicating that cntries were smootllect by eye after being calculated. Sereral u ~ d e r l ~ i l ~ ~
tables are reconst nrctecl. and several curious nn~nerical stra t vgies t G reduce t Ilr magui trr&.,
of the errors arisii~gin tlre
USE'S
iou of other parts of tlte AErnqest. Tlte tables often iesenl penetrating insight and a
complesity of structure tllat reflects the complexity of colnpositioil of the entire n.olk.
Only occasional1~do tlte tables dircrg.;. from the test in tlieir method of c;3culatmn,
and in tl~esciiistnnces t l ~ e yare interpretccl not ar cleccpti~ns,but r d h e r as clues tu t l ~
clirouologics~ldtwlopmeut of tlte topic.
Table of Contents
Approval
Abstract
List of Tables
List of Figures
xxvii
1 fntrod~lction
1.2
1.3
1.4 Goalsoftl~isWork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.1
1.4.2
.. ........
. . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . ....... ..,. .. . .
11
11
JJ
Iti
2.4.1
16
2.4.2
2.4
uotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6
Calculatio~~s
in the Text
2.7
2G
28
213
3.2
3.3
24
3.1.1
Definitions
...............................
29
3.1.2
Nonparametric methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
3.1.3
33
........................
33
3.2.1
33
3.2.2
....
34
40
3.3.1
.............
40
3.3.2
43
46
4.1
4.2
4..
46
.....................
54
....................
59
4.G
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.9
65
........
66
..........................
68
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2
74
...............
74
76
........
80
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
.................
(VI.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
85
B . L . ~s11cler Waerden's
90
94
97
6.2
102
7.1 Fillding the Terrestriid Latitude from the Leugth of Lougest Daylight (11.3,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.3.2
7.3.3
7.3.4
7.3.5
CoucIusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
7.4.1
Tllc depenclence of
7.4.2
The dependelice of 7 on
Sumnlai~ofRcsufts
;and
. . . . . 123
. . . . . . . . . 124
7.5
. . . . . . . 319
7.3.1
........
125
. . . . . . . . . . 143
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
143
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
146
146
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
155
............................
155
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
9.2.1
9.2.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
9.4 The Calculatioi~of Luxar Longitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
9.3
9.5.1
170
9.6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
5.6.1
9.6.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Error ~lwt~eriilg
5.6.3
..................
9.7
Tlle I~~fcrpolatiorr
Table for p(uL..c ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.8
6.9
Suinmary of Results
............................
10 Parallax (Tr.llV.19)
..........................
10.2 T ~ LSCO I.~ Parallax
~L
Table (V.18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
102.1 Iitterpolr~tionfor Go intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.3 Tlie Luuar Parallax Ti?bles (Tr .18): Ptolemaic Interpolation ulth Three
10.4 The Tables of the Lunar Parallas at the First Two Limits (V.18)
....
;lrl
...........
204
and ap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
10.5 The Tables of the Lunar Paralax at the Third aud Fourth Limits (V.18)
206
............
209
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
771
and T . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
,.
233
7.3",
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
243
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2G5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2G5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
(Book XII)
324
. . . . . . . . . . . 327
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
338
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
...........
. . . . . . . . . 345
341
.........
354
355
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
............
373
15 Conclusion
15.1 The Rclation Beiween the Tex* and the Tables
....
...............
377
378
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
382
List of Tabies
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1
4.1
53
4.2
61
.....
62
4.4
67
4.5
68
............
82
...................
83
5.3 Agrcemcnts between hourly lnean motion entries and correct values. using
tluee rounding methods (Sun. Moon)
....................
83
5.4 Agreements between hourly mean motinn entries and correct values. using
......................
84
.............
88
.............
89
G .1 Tl~rtlccliilation t d l e (I.15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
93
6.2
99
7.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
......
120
7.6
7.7
.......................
151
I?:!
............
173
(V.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
R.
e based
.............
177
. . . . . . . . 178
....................
Final reconstructecl lunar m a d m u ~ nequation of anomaly table . . . . . .
Reconstruction of llrnar
...p
( c ) table
187
190
.......................
197
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
...............
fA
(V.18)
208
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
TIE ti~1.k for solar eclipses at the Moon's greatest distance (VI.8) . . . . 223
...
Lunar cclipse tables of millutes of imlnersiori and half totality (VI.8) . . . 229
The eclipsc interpolation table fA (a. ) (VI.8)
................
234
..............
241
................
256
.............
259
. . . . . . . . . . . . 261
................
262
...........
263
...............
264
266
........
267
12.13Error clustering test results for the plalletaxy equation of centre taLles .
12.14Planetary ecpatlion of centre: table dependence test results
12.15Precise values of t.he parameter
cO,.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
.............
anomaly at perigee table (XI.ll) . . . . . . . . . . . .
273
12.18Saturn equation of
274
XIT
.....
. . . . . 335
335
......
..........
. . . . . . . . . . 349
..........
350
..........
351
14.1 Llterpolation test results for the superior planet latitude tables
..
345
348
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
14.10Tlie cleviat.ion table for Venus (XIII.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
moderu rounding and truncation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
. .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 372
List of Figures
..............................
............................
17
.............
20
2.2
2.3
.............
(excerpt) . . . . . . . . .
22
31
36
..................................
38
...
42
.....
43
...........
44
......................
47
55
....................
55
distribution
4.2
4.4 Histogram of the number of correct entries in each simulated table. for the
. . . . . . . . . . 71
4.5 Using linear interpolaiion to evaluate chords from the chord table . . . .
72
75
..............
77
52
91
92
. . . . . . . .
100
6.3
6.4
7.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
103
......
207
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7.6
. . . . . . . . . . 111
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
7.8
7.9
....
..................
118
....
121
......
121
.......
122
.................
127
116
7.15 Histograms of errors in z for botli accurate and Ptolemy's latitudes (11.13) 144
7.16 Histograms of errors in y for both accurate and Ptolerny's latitudes (11.13) 144
.....................
148
...................
151
................
153
............
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
..............
156
161
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
9.5 Thc secoml lunar model through the course of a synodic month
. . . . . i66
9.6
169
9.7
9.8
173
9.9
175
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
........
............
9.10 Ratio r / ( R  e ) for the early entries of the table of the second lunar
.............................
Errors in the recomputation 04 Table 9.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
equation of anoiiialy
9.11
177
178
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
9.13 The lunar maximum equation of anomaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
9.12 The lumr interpolation table: error plot
9.14 Histogram of the third sexagesilual place of the reconstructed lunar max
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
. . . . . . . . . . 190
.......................
192
......................
194
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
............
203
.............
207
............
10.7 The conlstructioll of fA(a. ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
208
.sxi
216
fALi.
..........
213
.............
.....................
223
m ( 4hnZi3.
). error plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22G
......
228
....
221
): exros plat
222
11.6 Lu~rareclipse tables of uriuutes of immersiorz and half totality for h4oon
at greatest clistailce: error plot
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
11.7 Lunar eclipse tables of minutes of imnersioiz and half totality for Moon
a t least distance: error plot
.........................
( a v ) :error
230
plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
....................
11.IOTke solar eclipse area conversion table: error plot . . . . . . . . . . . . .
235
237
.............
239
............
242
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
..............................
Ptolezuy's c d d a t i o n of the equation of centre for Mercury . . . . . . . .
246
248
12.4
251
255
256
..............
...........
...............
...........
...............
........
............
..............................
............
anomaly at perigee table: error plot . . . . . . . . . .
..........
...........
..........
.............
...........
...........
............
.........
...........
........
. . . . . . . 299
. . . . . . . . . .
307
COIU
307
12.39Histogram of the second fractional sexagesimal places of the back corriputed maximum equation of anomaly table for Mars
. . . . . . . . . . . 308
12.40Histogram of the second fractional sexagesimal places of the back cornputed maximum equation of anomaly table for Mcrcury
.........
398
12.41Histogram of the second fractional sexagesimal places of the back computed maximum equation of a~lomdytable for Venus. from the fable for
fl (c,,. 5 90")
.................................
309
12.42Histogram of tlie second fraczional sexagesiind places of the back computed maximum equation of anomaly table for Venus. from the table for
fi (k
> 93')
.................................
309
..........
311
..........
311
12.45Venu.s maximuin equation of anomaly table (c;,5 90'): error plot . . . . 313
12.4GMercury maximum equation of anomaly table: error plot
13.1 The siinple epicyclic model and Apollonius' Theorem
.........
313
. . . . . . . . . . . .?I5
13.5 T;~l~lr:
of stations for $'enus: error plot
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
..................
326
13.8 Maxirntim elo~igationtable for Venus as morning star: error plot . . . . . 331
13.0 Maximum e!mgat.tion table for Venus as evening star: error plot
.....
. . . . . . . . . 336
13.1134adm11m
eIougatiou table for Mercury as morning star: error plot
13.1234;~si11iuin
elongation table for Mercury as evening star: error plot
14.1 The placement of the deferent circle for the superior planets
. . . 337
....
......
.............
14.3 The mechanisrn accoulltiug for the variation iu the epicycle's tilt (superior
14.5 From 0. f\ieugcbauer. HAXI.4. 1282 . A graph of the values of the superior
planet latitude tables
.............................
.........
.........
..........
..........
..............
332
........................
337
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
11.1'iThe component of the latitude due to slant and the planet's equation of
anomaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
14.18The slant table for Venus: error plot
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
371
Acknowledgements
A work of this magnitude is not completed in a vacuum. Those who assisted or supported
it are too m m y to name inclividudly. h4y greatest thanks are due to my supervisor and
rrzentor, Dr. J. L. Berggren, without whom this project would have been inconceivable.
Statistical advice was provided freely and willingly by hir. I<. Butler and Dr. R. Routledge. Otl~erswlio provided substantial commentary and guidance include Dr. R. Harrop,
Mr. B. vau Dalen, and Dr. T.Swartz. Financial assistance from the Natural Sciences
AB), for its patience and for the genuine Christian environment it afforded as I completed
tlus project while teaching there.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Claudius Ptoleiny, the most influential astronomer of the ancient world, shares the obscurity that characterizes our knowledge of tlze lives of many ancient scientists. It appeaxs
from his extant works that he spent most of his career in Alexandria, tlze home of the
great library and hluseion, and lived about AD 100175. He wrote on many niathematic d scientific topics, and it is through tliese works that we know tlze man. Iricluded among
them axe the Optics, the Geographyon mapmaking, and the Tetrabiblos on astrology. His
fame based on these worlts is widespread and deserved, but his most noted achievements
are in the field of astronomy.
P tolerny wrote three major astronomical treatises: the Almagest, the Planetary Hgpotheses, and the Handg Tables. The Almagest (the subject of this work) is considered
to be the earliest of the three, and is intended to be a complete exyosition of mathematical astronomy as it was understood at the time. The title given to the work by
Ptolemy himself is the MathZmatike Syntaxis, Tlre Mathematical Systematic Treatise.
The name "Almagest" is a later addition, derived (via Arabic) from the Greek word
meaning "the greatest".' No earlier complete treatise of its sort is extant, probably because the Aln~agestrendered its predecessors obsolete. Indeed, much of our knowledge of
Hipparchus, the greatest astronomer before Ptolemy, derives from Hipparckus' materiai
used by Ptolemy in the Almagest. The Aimagest defined mathematical astronomy for
mauy centuries afterward, and exerted a strong influence on Arabic astronomers, Its
' G . J. Toomer (tr.), Ptolemy'a Almagesf [114],2. In further references this work shall be called the
Almagest. A reference to a quotation from Toomer's notes or comments wiU contain his name,
Chapter 1. 11:troduction
1.1
Ptolemy's view of the structure of the universe is the stalldard view accepted by most
astroimners of llis time. The Earth is considered to be a point at the centre of a large
sphere containing the stars. The stars are fixed in place on this sphere, which rotates
around the central, spherical Earth rougldy once per day. Seven objects are not carried
solely by this diurnal motion of the sphere of fixed stars: the Sun, the Moon, Mercury,
Veuus, Mars, Jupiter, aud Saturn. (The outer planets Uranus, Neptune ;;nd Pluto are
not visible to the naked eye and were uaknown to the ancients.) Each of tlrese planets
is carried in a sphere nested between the Earth and the fixed stars. Ptolemy has little
evidence upon wl~iclito order the planets, since only t.he Moon exhibits a discernible
parallax. Thus the Moon is contained in the sphere closest to the Earth. Ptolemy adopts
the traditionally accepted order for the remaining planets: moving outward, we have
Mercury, Vciius, the Sun. Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.
The planets (excluding the Sun and Moon) divide naturally into two groups. The
motions of Mercury and Venus are suck that they never vary more than a certain angular
clista.~tcefrom the
20.
Pederseu, A Survey of the Ahagest [83], 391. In fuither references this work shall be named
Survey.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Clmpter 1. Introduction
the Sun (180 re~noved).h4ercury a d Venus &recdled the inferior planets. Aristarchus
i ~ i ~otllers
d
suggested that the cause of the inferior planets' continual proximity to the
Snii viewed from the Earth is that they (and all the planets) rotate around the Sun. The
luotions of the superior planets Mars, Jupiter azld Saturn are also related to the Sun's
position, but in a less direct manner and with less evident effects.
The Sun is carried by the swift diurlld rotation of the fixed stars, but also travels
slowly in a direction opposite to the diurnal rotation so thxt it traces out a complete
circle on the sphere of fixed stars in the course of a year. This r,lrcle, known today as the
ecliptic, is tilted at an angle of about e = 23.8" to the equator of the daily rotation (the
celestial equator).
five planets also rotate against the diurnal rotation at varying speeds, and their paths
never differ from the ecliptic by more than about 5". This band centred on the ecliptic
The planetary models are designed to give the planets' positions relati~eto the fixed
stars, whicii the observer must then convert to a location in the heavens.
1.2
Mathematical Tables in t h e A l m a g e s t
One of the purposes of the AEma,gest is to provide a set of tools that allows the reader
to locate the planets and find certain other astrononlical quantities with relative ease.
Specificdly, Ptolemy wishes to remove the need for the user to perform any trigononletric or coii~plexnuinerical calculations. At tlie same time the book must be structured
logically to provide a complete record of all the reasoning a i d cdculations required to
derive the models from first principles and a small group of observations.
Ptolemy spares the reader tile need to use trigouonietry by providing a st of tables
of certain functions useful in the context of the planetary models. Each table computes
a function designed to assist in some aspect of the computational solution of the desired
astronomical quantity. A set of instructions in the text guides the reader tllrough tlze
process of combining table values in a straightforward manner, leading to the solution
of the problem. In each stage of the calculation the user needs only perform a few
~mdtiplications,additions, and subtractions, dong with an occasional application of linear
or inverse linear interpolation, to evaluate some tabulated astronomical function for an
argument between two table entries.
To preserve the logical structure of the work, Ptolemy provides the (verbal) mathematical definition of each tabulated function as well as a sample calculation to show how
it may be evaluated for any argument, immediately before the table. Tlutlis description
may usually be omitted by a reader interested only in locating the plmcts. The practitioner, however, requires this knowledge to reproduce the table for hirn/lzerself, and to
understand fully the mathematical structure of the model.
Chapter 1. Iz~troduction
1.3
Tlie ffvncly Tables, completed after the Almagest, is aimed at facilitating the computatiom for a reader interested in determining planetary positions but not concerned with
the mathematics behind the tables. The tables follow essentially the structure and models of tlie k l m a g e s t , except for substantial improvements to the planetary models. The
trigolzometric details are omitted, procedures are streamlined, and tables are enlarged to
iduclc smaller argument stepsizes. For tables with an arc for argument, the function is
given for every degree instead of the 3"/6" stepsize standard in the Almagest.
Most of the tables are derived from those in the Almagest, with some variations.
TIreon refers to the use of distributed linear interpolation (see 2.2),4 a method that
d h v e d Ptolemy to decrease the argument stepsize with a minimum of effort. The mean
motion tables (see Chapter 5) contain a period of 25 rather than 18 years, which simplifies
the evaluation of an object's mean position. The number of sexagesimd places in the
mean motion tables and in the lunar and planetary interpolation tables (see 59.7 and
$12.5), are decreased to ease the computation and to remove the illusory accuracy of the
later places.
I ignore the Handy Tables in this work for two reasons. First, these tables axe for
and little if any new information is
tbe most. part derived from those in the AErnage~t,~
contained in them. Second, the study of the Almagest tables alone is already unwieldy,
aud the inclusion of the Handy Tables would make it impossibly large. 4 future study
could analyze the probable links between the Almagest and the Handy Tables, but it
voulcf be timeconsumiug and its outcome is not seriously in doubt.
%. fionlle, Lc problgme de i'6quation du temps chez Ptol6mCe" [go], 219.
50.Pedersen, Survey, 396.
C h p t e r 1. Introduction
1.4
4 ~ o d ofi this size naturally develops with several diverse but related ttliemes m d pur
poses. While dividing a large psoject into several disjoint aims is not always natural or
a fair representation of the effort, it does add clarity tqothe project. Thus I specify three
1.4.1
R e c o m p u t a t i o n of all tables
Toomer's translation of the Almayest presents all the tables without reco~nputations.
4s Toomer says in his foreword (see 52.1),"
close to the correct vdues (using Ptolemy's stated values for the parameters). He states
that he has recomputed all the tables, and he refers to most of the large or anomalous
errors in notes. He does not include the recomputed values in the text, and does not
explicitly guarantee the reliability of his calculations (although I have found them to
be incorrect only rarely). The smaller errors are, however, sufficiently intriguing that
some investigators may well be interested in the relative accuracy of various tables and
the patterns evident in the errors in many tables. Also, applying the numerical arid
statistical tests in this work requires these errors as data. Thus dl tables (except the
mean motion tables) are recalculated ;tnd presented here, with errors given to the number
of places shown in the table itself. The interested reader may obtain more precise values
of the errors from me.
Chapter 1. I~~troduction
1.4.2
f approach the problems by considering first the nature of the statisticai tests to be
used, independently of any particular table. This generality has the obvious advantage of
applicability to different situations, although of course the standard determination of the
satisfaction of statistical assumptions must be verified in each application. I raise four
clistinct questions with possible solutions in statistics in this work. First, does a table
with a theoretical dependence on the values in another table exhibit that dependence
in a nurne~lcalsense? Second, is the apparent clustering and drifting of errors within a
in building a table in order to give clues to the sources the author had at his disposal? B.
van Dalen has provided several methods to analyze the fourth q u e s t i ~ nI; aim
~ to provide
one or more methods to aualyze the first three.
1.4.2 Understanding the construction of, and interrelations between the ta
bles
The final, and primary god of this thesis is to learn more about the structure and
constrtlction of the Almagest through its mathematical tables. Do the tables, as R.
7Esamplesof this genre include B. L. van der S7erden,"Reconstruction of a ~ree'b:
table of chords",
[126],2338; G. Van Brumtnelen, "The numerical structure of alIihaliiiis auxiliary tables", [ll8], 66798; sud the extensive list of publications on Ptalemy's star catalogue. See G. Grasshoff, The Histo y of
Rolemy's Sfar Catalogue [26].
8B. van Dden, "A statistical method for recovering unknown parameters from medieval ast,ronomical
tables", [122],85145.
Chapter 1. Introduction
(z
scientific
fraud? Do the t,lleoretical connections bet,ween the tables described by Ptolemy reveal
themselves numerically? Does he follow tlie conlputational methods he provides in the
text? If not, does this make him a liar? Finally, does lie use numerical methods that axe
not desciibed in the text? The answers to these questions may reveal new insights into
ilumericd and astronomical practices in the ancient Hellenistic period.
1.5
This work is structured according to the logical outline of the Almagest itself. After this
Introduction, Clrapter 2 outlines the preliminary information required for the study, such
as the mathematical knowledge of the time, the translations of the work and available
commentaries, and the neth hod of transcription cf the mathematics of the Almagest into
modern notation. Chapter 3 presents the three statisticd tests in a theoretical context,
independently of any particular table. Chapter 4 is an analysis of the chord table, the
first table in the Almagest. The chord table is tlie earliest extant trigonometric table,
and the chord function is the only trigonometric fuizction used in the Alrnagest. Chapter
5 analyzes the mean motion tables that appear tfirougliout the Almagest. As far as
the analysis of nunlericd structure is concerned, these are no more than multiplication
tables. These tables are studied early in this work to reach a conclusion about the
rounding methods used by Ptolemy before proceeding to the rest of the tables.
Chapter 6 analyzes the declinatioll table, the only substantial table apart from the
chord table in Book I of the Almagest. Chapter 7 covers the tables in Book 11 (astsorromical geography), which are preliminary to Ptolerny 's main task. Chapter 8 covers the
solar model of Book 111. The solar model is the simplest of the planetary models, and
'See (for example) R. Newton, The Origins of Ptolcmy's Astronomical Parameters [79], 15964; Thr
Origins of Ptolemy '8 d st~onomicalTables 1801, 21819,
Chapter 1. I1~troduciicrl~
10
must appear iirst since d l other planetary models rely on the Sun's position in sorile way.
~ n o d d .Tlte lunar niodel appears here because it depends integrally on the position of
the Sun, and because the &;loon's position is essential in the upcoining theory of eclipses
arid iu locatitlg the fixed stars. Chapter 10 analyzes the tables in V . l l to the end of
Cook
V,on solar and lunar parallax. This is prelinlinary to the prediction of eclipses in
Book Vf (Chapter 11 of this thesis), since solar and lunar parallax both greatly affect
the timing of an eclipse.
Books VII and VIII (the fixed stars) are ignored in this work, since they contain no
msthematicdly defined tables. 9001is IXXI describe the models for planetary longitudes. The tables appear in Book XI, but the derivations of the models for each planet
make up the majority of tllese three books. The tables of planetary longitude are analyzed
in Chapter 12. Book XI1 (Chapter 13) covers traditional topics of astronomy deriving
froin planetary longitudes, such as the stationary points of a planet's orbit. Book XI11
(Chapter 14),tlie last in the Almagest, proposes models for the planets' latitudes. I make
summary conclusious in Chapter 15.
Chapter 2
Preliminaries
Before entering the analysis, I consider first, the historical data bearing on the project.
Tlris iucludes the sources for the tables? commentators' references to calculations in
the Almagest, and the trigonometric and numerical methods laown to be available to
Pt?olemy. Finally, I describe the manner of presentation of the tables in this work.
2.1
Se17eraf translations of the A h a g e s t have appeared in the last two centuries. These
inch& a Frenclt translation by N. Hafina (1813, 1816), a German trai~slationby Ii.
hfanitius (191213), and an English translation by R. Taliaferro (1952). Tlte entries in
the tables differ from one to another, sometimes significantly, depending on the source
I accept Toomer's expertise in textual matters, and use the tables in lljs translstion
Toomer notes in l& preface that he recomputed all the iiurnerical results in the t,exd
iurd tables, but he reports only certain large errors and distortioils in footnotes. Not all
of Toomer's listed recomputations axe precisely correct, but almost all are close enough
to r e t a k the force of t.he conclusious he draws from t h e u ~These are noted in my analysis
11
wlmt altpropriate. He does not report the results of his calculations when the errors are
small eltough to d u i t the possibility that rounding is the major cause, since
to list some thousands of slightly more accurate results which I have found
I cinpl~asizetlrat my use of the thousands of slightly more accurate results is not intended
to cosscct Ptolemy, h t rather to discover sonzething of Ptolemy's numerical methods by
Ancient Commentators
ruotixations and techniques. In the context of this project, the commentaries on the
Almagest may clescribe some met.hods of calculation used but not discussed by Ptolemy.
Apart from certain fragments,' t.wo major commentaries on the Almagest are available: Pappus' commentary on Books V and VI, and Theon's commentary on Books IIV.
Both are a~ailablein a Greek edition with French notes in A. Rome's Commentaires de
P u p p s et de Tltebn d'Adexaadie szlr I'Aimageste (1931, 1936: 1943). From the text of
Theou's comneutary it is clear that he also wrote a commentary on Book 'C',2 but it has
bees lost.
'A. Jones, "Ptolcmy%f k t conunentator", [45], 1990.
2 S ~for
~ instance,
.
A. %me, Cornnentaires de Yappus et de TILebn d'Alezandrie sur I'Almageste [89],
Tome I, 414. In future uotes this work shall be referred to as Commentaires.
Little new information is to be gained from either colnmentary on Ptolemy's numerical methods in the Alm.agest. Certain insights co~lcerrringtlie logic of Ptolemy's
presentation and the motivations behind some of his approximations are found, but they
are already contained in our current understanding of the 4 lmagest and con tribuf e little
nex7 material t,o our knowledge of his computations. Theon ronlnlents on the 45 line
per page layout for the mean motion tables3 (see Chapter 51, and on the possibility of
inaccuracies in Ptolernfs approxi~nationto Crd lo4(see Chapter 4). These are discussed
in the appropriate sections of this work.
In his Major C o m m e n t ~ r yto the Handy Tables, Theon does refer to a variant, of linear
interpolation which I call distributed. In working from the Almarjest right ascensio~l
(a(A)) table (calculated for 10" increments of A) to a (hypothetical) table of the same
function in the Handy Tables (where arguments are in lo increments of A), Ptolemy
mould begin by taliing the difference between two entries and dividing by ten.5 This
provides an average increment in a per degree increment in A. From this average, he then
determines a set of ten increments for a. corresponding to the ten lo increments of A. This
is done by setting each increment either to the integer portion of the average increment
(ex~ressedin minutes) or one minute greater than this, chostm so that the tell increments
for cu sum to the overall increment. The larger differences are placed at the side of the
iuterpolatorg interval where the function is changing most quickly. For example, Ptolemy
has a.f70)= 68; 18 a d cr(80)= 79; 5. Tlls difference is 10;47" = 647', which gives an
average increnlent of 64.7'. This gives seven increments of 65' and three of 64'. Since
the function is concave upward, the three smaller increments arc used at the beginning
of the interval. Thus a ( 7 1 )= 69;22,a(72") = 70;26, and 473') = 71;30. Then the
Commentaires Tome 11, 5001.
4A. Bonx, Comentaires Torne 11, 495,
=Actually,Ptolemy computes a slightly different functiou, the normed right ascension, in the Hardy
e
Tables of Codex Vaticanu.s G~aecus1291, [92], 3233), This
Tables (see W . Stalhan, T i ~ Ast~oaomacaf
3 ~ &me:
.
Chap t cr 2. Preliminaries
. . .; ~ ( 7 9 " )=
do not.
2.3
Tlle Almagest has justly been tlie focus of a wide spectrum of scholarly research. A
uumber of papers recently published analyze its models of planetary motion, and two
b001is offer a conlplete mathematical analysis of the entire treatise. The first, 0. Pedersen's A Survey of the Almagest (1974)) concentrates on a modern understanding of
Ptolemy ,s mathematical reasoning in the Almagest, and converts Ptolemy's methods to
modern trigonometric terms. Pedersen provides trigonometric arguments and formulae
for most, but not all, of the tables. In most of my work I adopt PederseIi's notation,
since I find it both exceedingly clear and an appropriate modern rendering of Ptolemy's
presentation. However, I have altered the notation in a number of places where I felt it
appropriate, and converted each of Ptolemy's trigonometric arguments leading to table
calculations into modern notation myself. This was done to provide a coherent account
of the tables, and to correct occasional errors in Pedersen's book. In addition, Pedersen
The second recent analysis of the Ahagest is contained in 0 . Neugebauer's monumental A Eistoq of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy (1975). Eeugebauer includes the
%ee A. Rome, "Le problkme de I'dquation du temps chez PtolCmCe*, [go], 219. For commentary see
W. Stdilinann, The Astronosnicai Tables of Codez Vaticanus Graecas 1121, [92], 4142.
'G. Van Bruilmelen, "The numerical structure of alIihalili's auxiliary tables", [118], 667698.
in most i u s t a n c e ~ The
. ~ tests I develop in Chapter 3 assume the parameters are known;
thus my work complemeuts van Dalen's.
R. Newton has published three books on Ptolemy touclling on the questious addressed in this work. The first two, The Crime o f Claudius Ptolemy (1977) and The
OT%
and I address them only when necessary. In the latter book, Newton attempts to prove
that the para~lletersused to construct the tables are different froin those stated in the
text. He co~icludesthat Ptolerny copied the tables from other sources, and makes some
unusual speculations concerning what these sources may be. Newton uses basic statistical quantities such as means and variances, to find regions likely to contain a given
parameter, similar in nature to van Dalen's confidence i n t s r ~ a l s .He
~ usually finds that
the table's parameter appears to be quite close to, but not equal to, the text's parameter.
Usually no historically supportable parameter fits Newton's reconstruction. A quick scan
through the recomputed tables in this work provides a simple explanation: many of the
tables analyzed by Newton simply cannot be treated as a series of independently cdculated entries. The clrifts of errox, caused by interpolation within the tables and possibly
other factors (see the Conclusion), invalidate Newton's findings. A proper analysis of
the parsmeters would likely give much larger confidence intervals, usually including the
text's parameters.
Newton's third book, The Origins of Ptolemy's Astronomical Tables, is similar in its
nature and type of argument to the other two. My objections to the first two books
geaera.lly apply to this book also. This thesis is not intended to reply directly to Newton,
Cliapter 4 describes in some detail Ptclemy's construction of a table for the only trigonometric function he uses in the Almagest, the chord. In a circle of radius 60, Crd 8 is the
length of the chord of rn arc 8. From Figure 4.1, it is easily seen that the chord is directly
% typical example of Newton's approach may be found in The Origins of Ptolemy's Ast~onomica~
Tables, [8q,11016. For van Dalen's approach, see GAstatistical method for recovering parameters from
historical astronomical tables", Centaums 32 (1989), 85145.
Chapter 2. Preh3i;uczrie.s
rrtupst. Two of these, used often in the eazly chapters, are now named after their
reputed discoverer Menelaus. 111 Figure 2.1, the curves represent great circle arcs on a
sphere, each less than a semicircle. The first, theorem, as Ptolemy uses it, states that
C r d 2 x ~ C r d 2 F ~ Crd2m
Crd ZTE Crd 2 m Crd Z ~ ' E
Both of these equations can be readily converted to modern equivaleilts by replacing the
cliords with sines and refraining from doubling the arcs.
Ptolemy uses the sine theorem at one stage later in the work, and refers to a number
of trigoilonletsic theorems in his construction of the chord table. These theorems are
2.4.1
Number representation
Ptolemy uses the number system that was standard in ancient and medieval astronomy.
are written with alphabetic characters in sexagesirnal (base 60)
Fract,ional qua~~tities
notation, and the integer portion of a number appears in Lase ten. I use the standard
modern transcription:
48
37
++
60 602'
(2.4)
where t.he semicolon represents the sexagesimal point and commas are used as place
separators.
Chapter 2. Prelilninaries
Tl~rougfioutthis work I transcribe Ptolemy's trigonometric asguments to modern notation, since the appearance of the original form of the argument in the text looks foreign
to the modern eye. To assure the reader that my transcriptions are faithful to Ptolemy's
methods, and to give a feel for the flavour of his arguments, I provide an example of
Ptolemy's text (inset) and my presentation of it (usual margins) below, This sample is
talten from the solar model, Alrnagest 111.5 (1579). (MTkatappears as Ptolemy's text
inevitably contains some influence or interpretation of the translator.)
In order to enable one to determine the anomalistic motion over any subdivision [of the circle], we shall show
Quotations from the Almagest contained in square brackets are Toomer's explanatory
uotes. Occasionally I also add my (modern) notation for a particular quantity in syuase
First, let the circle concentric to the ecliptic be RBG on centre E , the eccentre
ASH on centre C, and let the diameter through both centres and the apogee
A be ARCEH. Cut off arc AS, and join SE, S C . First, let arc AS be given,
Chapter
I often use my own letters for points in geometrical diagrams rather than those in
Toomer's text, to ~naintainconsistency through my work. Figure 2.2 shows the diagram
as it appears in the Almagest; my diagram (Figure 8.1) may be simplified or altered for
my purposes. I also add references to the modem notation for the arcs in the diagram.
Ptolemy's goal here is to find q = LCSE and a = LREB from a, = LACS, where the
radii of the circles are both 60 units and
Chapter 2. Preliminaries
LACS = LECL =
GO0
E L = 60P
where hypotenuse
and LC = 103;55"
Passages of this type occur often in the Almagest, and give Ptolemy's procedure equivaleut
to applying the definition of a sine or cosine to a rightangled triangle (in this case ECL).
The notation O O is Toomes's notation for "demidegrees7'. As the text implies, 1" = 2'
,I1
E L = Crd Za,,
so that
assuming the circle has a radius of 60P (the notatiou P in Toomer refers to units), Likewise
and
LC = EC ecos u, = 1 2 0 . ~ urn.
0 ~ (2.5)
"The utility of this concept in Ptolemy's trigonometry is that, when the angles of a triangle arc:
expressed in delidegrees, the measure of the arcs of the circumscribed circle is equal to the arcs they
subtend in degrees.
FZ
62; 11P.
Therefore, where SE = 120P, E L = 2; 25" ad, in the circle absut riglitangled triangle SEC, arc EL = 2; 18".
Thus L E S L =
2; 18'
EL
ES'
q(a,,) = sin'
J(esina,)*
+ (60 + ecosam)2
Finally, Ptolemy subtracts q(a,) from a, to give the Sun's true anomaly a = LREB,
Since lie works only with examples, he does not need to consider wllether terms are
added or subtracted in general. Instead he examines the diagram. My trar~slationselects
additioil or subtraction to preserve consistency between siinilar equations as much as
possible, wl~ichoccasionally causes a term to be added iu the formula when its absolute
value is sul>tracted in the sample calculation. In these cases my definition of y (or the
corresporiding term in a similar situation) gives a negative value for the sample argarnent
Chapt cr 2. Preliminaries
2.5
illverse of a tabulated function, most notably with the chord table to find inverse chords.
Finally, several tables in the Almagest are completed with some assistance from h e a r
interpolation. To my knowledge, no other forms of interpolation for use with functions
of a single variable are attested in the literature of Ptolerny's time.12
Ptolemy is averse to computing tables of functions of two or more arguments due
to the work involved. A function f (x, y), for instance, tabulated for the standard 45
vdues of x and y, would require the computation of over 2000 values of f . Instead,
Ptolerny adopts a device, which I (following 0. Pedersen) name Ptolemaic interpolation,
to redace 1Gs effort to computing f for two bounding values of one of the variables, and
an interpolatiou function. Suppose x E [a, b] and y E [c,dl, and that f is affected more
stroxg~yby changes in one variable (say, z) than the other (y). Ptolemy computes f
for all Idues of the strong variable x7 and (for each x) the extreme values of the weak
Chapter 2. Prelirzzinaries
f2(5)
=
Pedersen implies that H is always defined in this way,13 but this is a slight rnisrepresentation of Ptolemy's method. Sometimes fm,,(y)
quantity serves equally well. See, for example, $10.6 on the lunar parallax function, wllich
is also the ouly illstance where Ptolemy ex%ends his interpolation method to a imckiun
of three ~miables.
130.Pedersen, Survey, 86, and "Logistics and the theory of functions: ars essay
mathematics", [82], 41.
Chapter 2. Prek'm'naries
26
arguments. See, for example, the rising time table in1 $7.3.
2.0
A s uoted above, most of the tables iu the Almagest are accompasied by a sample cal
culatioir of one or more entries that provide an account of the trigonometric derivation
of the quantities being generated. In each case the text computation agrees with the
entry in the table. However, as Toomer remarks in several places, the value of a quantity



actually used for subsequent calculations in the text is often more accurate than what
appears,'4 Other sample calculations use crude rounding that, when reproduced for the
entire table, would produce errors lager than those in the table itself. Finally, certain
sample calculations szem to be rounded in order to reproduce the number in the table
(although, of course, this cannot be verified). Thus I consider the cdculations in the text
2.7
Every table entry in the Almagest is recomputed here. The error in an entry is defined
to be Ptolenty's \ d u e minus the mathematically precise value, computed according to
the fornula implied by Pto1emy's text. Thus a positive error implies that Ptolemy's vdue
is too high, a d a negative d u e implies that it is too low. In my tables, the errors are
14See for instance G . Toomer, Almagesf, 463 note 97; 497 note 54.
Chapter 2. PreiiuLiuaries
Error = fp  r,(f ),
where f is the correct value of the quantity to be tabulated,
fp
r, is the function rounding the argument to n sexagesimd places (see Chapter 5). 1
give Ptolemy's values in the tables alongside the errors, whiell are rounded to the nearest
integer multiple of the last place given in Ptolemy's table according to the above formula,
Tltus, if Ptolelny tabulates a quaritity as 34;46 and its correct value is 34;47,52, the error
is 2.
Presenting the errors to more places than appear in Piolemy's tables would he
superfluous and could be misleading. The error plots graplrically display the errors (in
full accuracy) as a function of the argument of the table, always in units of the last place.
Thus an error mark that appears between the values 1 0 . 5 units means that Ptolemy's
value is correct to all places, using modern rounding.
Chapter 3
Due to the wide variety of mathematical functions tabulated in the Almagest, a systematic
study demands methods of analysis applicable to diverse numerical tables. To this end
1 hate devised three tests: first, to determine whether a theoretical dependence of one
table on another may be detected numerically from the errors in the entries; second,
to verify whether errors cluster in certain locations within a table beyond what may be
expected by chance; and third, to detect uses of forms of interpolation in a table.
Errors in the tables may also provide clues to tell whether the values of numerical
parameters given in the tex* were used to compute the tables; the reader is referred to
B. van Dalen's parameter estimat0rs.l In most tables the recomputations make clear
that there is little cause to doubt the parameter given in the text in those situations
where the parameter's value is unambiguously stated: the confidence intervals produced
by van Dalen's estimator include the texe's parameters in every table to which it has
been applied. R. Newton's arguments2, often rejecting the text's parameters, fail to take
into account some of the mathematical problems discussed in this chapter and will not
usually be addressed. For the purpose of the following discussions we assume the values
of the parameters used in tht table to be those that appear in the text.
For rtfl the tests developed in this chapter, the goal is to construct a statistical method
that applies to a wide variety of historical matBeinatica.1 and astronomical tables. This
ID.vau Dalen, "A statistical method for recovering unknown parameters from medieval astronomical
tables", [122], 85145.
R. Newton, The Origim of Ptolemy's Astronomical Parametem, [79], and The Origins of
Rolemy's Astronomical Tables, [80].
28
29
generality implies that in certain situations, hczs concerning the nature of the pastic.ular
function or table under investigation are not exploited. For instance, the use of nonparametric tests may not be necessary in every case. Since nonparametric tests are less
powerful than traditioual tests, this implies a greater likelihood that an incorrect null
hypothesis is accepted. Thus the universality of the tests is achieved at the cost of the
loss of some discsiininatory power.
3.1
h h ~ Almagest
y
tables may be calculated from quantities found previously, in another
table. For example, to compute entries in tlie table of gnomon shadow lengths given the
length of daylight at the summer solstice at a certain location (KG), one first finds the
terrestrial latitude 4, then uses
appears with t l ~ eshadow lengths, suggesting but not proving a numerical connection
between the tables.
3.1.1
Definitions
sl,x2,.. . ,3,. Later in his work he calculates a new function g(x) that uses the earlier
(In most instances the dependence on x enters only through f , which we write as
~ (=4j(f ( 4 . )
f3
3The author gratefully acknov edges the consultation provided by K. Butler for the statistical material
in this section.
Fur example, in Almag est 11.G Ptolemy provides a table of latitudes d ( T ) for certain
arguments T (see 57.1 and 7.2). From this, in 11.8 11e computes gnomon shadow lengths
s as a
fp(z,) =
yp(x,) =
fp
fp
than to fA.
fA
than
(c) Ptolemy used values for f of less accuracy than fp, or errors working from f to
g overwhelm the difference between
both may be p161ausible. Here
fp
respect to fR.
fp, fA,
fp
a d fR wodd be apparent.
41t is equally possible to construct the following test working with g(z;) values: that is, compare
G(fp(zi)).However, I choose to wozk with f values, to eliminate the possibility that
the calculat.iou from f to g skews the distribution of errors in some way.
g A ( 2 i ) , Y , D ( X ~ ) , mid
fA
fP
Category (d)
Category (c)
3.1.2
Nonparametric methods
fp
 fA
valid if a reasonable chance exists that the astronomer used some method of rounding
such as truncation. In the tables we shall consider, it is clear that modern rounding
mas used.) Copying and genuine computational errors, while rare, may be prese~rtin
the data in sufficient quantities to be worrisome. Thus the assessment of the differences
between
fp, fR
and
fA
these errors.
Two independent tests are performed. First, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient
r is calculated for the pairs
A conclusion of r > O favours possibility (c) in $3.1.1 above, and probably implies that
computational inaccuracy overwhelnls the difference between fP and fA (although in
certain cases it is plausible that Ptolemy's f values are poorer than the f table in the
manuscript). A conclusion of r = 0 favours (a), (b), or (d). The test is onesided, since
r
fp
fR
fp
 fR and f A  f R about
smaller dispersion of fA  f R favours (b), the use of a more accurate table. The Wilcoxon
signedrank test for dispersion is used since the data are in matched pairs, with data
dues
I~P$RI~.~A~R/.
For r = 0, the interpretation of results is as follows: if no difference in dispersion is
found, we carnot. decide between (a) and (b), aud conclude that no effect can be observed.
If
fp
 f ~ exhibits lower dispersion, we favour (a), the use of the underlying table for
f . If $A  fil exhibits lower dispersion we favour (b), the use of f values more accurate
than those in tile table.
For r
that Ptolemy used poorer values for f than those appearing in his fable for g.
3.1.3
Tlle mathematical nature of quantities and errors ill table entries can cause occasiond
difficulties with statistical metlmds. An apparent dependence betweell errors in a series
of adjacent table entries may appear under specific circumstances: when the roundinkg
level of the table is crude enough, the function has a small second derivative, and the
increineiit between steps is not large. This situation arises frequently enough in the
Atn~agestto take into consideration, and will be discussed in $3.2. Also occssiondly the
bacli coinputation of fn = Gl(fp) may not be possible, if more than one entry of the
underlying table f is used to generate the final value g p . This situation occurs only once
in this study; see $4.9 on the chord interpolation table for a solution to this problem and
for an example of the application of the methods of the error clustering test to the table
dependence test.
3.2
3.2.1
T h e problem of clustering
Many Almagest and other historical numerical tables contain errors that change continuously from entry to entry. These error drifts may suggest some form of cdculation where
a given entry is computed in some way using the values of nearby entries. Interpolation
within the table, a discrepancy in the value of an underlying parameter, or same otlzer
method where an entry derives its value from the entry before or after it (eg., the chord
table) all generate these distinctive error pat terns.
Such drifts, when they occur, may invalidate statistical tests by violating the critical
assumption of independence. The errors then may not be treated as independent samples,
for each value depends in some way on the values of surrounding eatries. In this case
methods must be adopted that take into aecount these dependences.
3.2.2
By h r tlie most common effect of this type in the Almagest is a significant lag 1 autocorrelation of errors in
a,
d l places given. The errors in the solar equation table, for instance (III.G, Table 8.1,
ilssunring e = 2; 29i0),contain only eight entries of 45 in error, including two groups of
three coizsecutive entries. The lag 1 autocorrelation of the errors q  q p is 0.628. This
'
Tlic cause of the effect is entirely mathematical. Let F ( x ) be the function tabulated,
let 6 be the increnient between successive tabulated values of x, and let
be one unit in
tlte last place displayed in tlie table. Thus for the example table c(6) (Table 3.1),
1
1"
F ( z ) = [Crd(rc +  )  Crd $1,
30
2
6 = il o , a i d e = 0; 0.1 =
(33)
f (a) = a + bx
wlzere the
12;
and
closest the recltoner can get to the true functiou values given the places displayed in the
table; thus for all 2 , the error terms e; have the property I e i
By subtraction we find
t i.
35
+6)f
( s )= b6
f(x
+6)
+ e(2Sz + S 2 ) = ( n o  n  I ) E+
(0
 eI)
+ 2~6'.
(34
+ [f(s. + 6 )  f ( s ) ]
(2no+ +  e1) + 2cS2.
(3.9)
 e,~.
= f(x)
=
e0
111)~
(e0
eo
remainiilg Taylor terms of P are negligible and that (2no  L ~ ) E is indeed the closest
integer multiple of c to f (z + 6)). Thus, as loiig as 2eS2 << e, the change in error fronr
Under the right circuinstances such a pattern can extend beyond three entries. The
chord interpolation table, for instance, contains numerous stretches of this type, groducing distinctive curves in the error plot (Table 3.1, Figure 3.2). The conditions for this
effect are:
0
a small second derivative (corresponding to the c term in 2cS2) and negligible fiigher
derivatives;
(E).
These conditions, when they arise in Almagest tables, must be handled individdly,
since the magnitnde of the effect depends on the function tabulated, the increment, the
rounding level, and the average size of error,
Error
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
65
70
75
Arc In Degrees
80
85
Figure 3.2: The chord interpolation table (1.11j: error plot (excerpt)
90
37
Standard tests are discredited in this instance, and we callnot hope to account for tl&
unusual clependezlce tltrough the usual distribution theory. Our strategy is to simulate the
error distribution under the hypot he& that the error distributio~lmay be approximated
b3'
Here ,nL;, a normal distribution, simulates actual coinputational error, wlule X2,a uniform
distribution, simulates the sizable effect of rounding to the number of sexagesimal places
in the t a l k (In tables with larger errors & is relatively sinall and is ignored.) The null
hypothesis for this test is that each error is an independent sample talien from a ~ l o r w d
distribution with mean zero, and a roundoff error (from a uniform distribution) that is
chosen to take into account the mat hematical effect described above.5
The density function of
Y is
where cI, is the cumulative nosand distribution function; Figure 3.3 contains the graph
of a typical density function l~(y).The distribution X2 is coinpletely determined Ly the
known quailtity e . For X I , we estimate the unknown parameter
by choosing cr to be
such that
p(
< )2
2E
<y
Correct entries
Computed entries '
the proportion of the computed entries6 correct to all places shown, that is, with errors
less than
5.
Since Q, and hence h(y ), are not exyressible analytically, this is accomplished
s , the
mathematical dependence between entries described earlier must be simulated so that the
'Note that a test on a table with an interpolation grid may well reject the null hypothesis. Howcvcr,
the test iu 33.3 explicitly searches for interpolation grids, and is thus preferred in such wcs.
6Entries iuvolviug no ccmputation, such as those with a value of zero, are removed from consideratioar.
X2,
where XI
N(0,a2) and
chaacteristics defining the effect (size and variation of function, rounding level, argument
increment) are ail accounted for. To derive a reference distribution of the clustering of
errors under the conditions of the effect, with the assumption that each entry is an
independeut sample after these considerations, we choose a random number cr E [O,63
and calcdate the tabulated function for arguments
(assuuiltg the function is tabulated starting at x = 0). In the case where the function is
39
To each function d a r e we add a quantity taken from N(0, 02)and round the result
to the appropriate number of fractional sexagesimal places to simulate the addition of
U [  ~ / 2~, / 2 ] This
.
gives a table with the same magnitude of error and dependence effect
as the Almagest table, under the hypothesis of independence of cdculation.
To analyze the cluster effect, we now consider the errors rounded to the number of
places present in the table:
fp
considered to have an error of zero. The quantity used to judge the level of clustering in
both the actual and simulated tables is tlre number of runs, or sequences of consecutive
entries with the same (romded) error. Thus in Table 3.1, the section of the chord
ifiterpolation table shown has three runs. A table with apparent clustering of error will
contain fewer runs than might be expected from a random collection of 07s,l's, and l's,
but with the dependence effect the result may be less surprising. All entries with an error
greater than one unit are decreased to one unit (positive or negative), since errors this
large are rare in the tables under consideration and it is desirable to consider a sequence
of errors
as *asingle ruit rather than three. The simulation is performed 10,000 times to generate
a reference distiibution for the number of runs AT,and the value of N from the Aimagest
table compises the test statistic.
'Note that each arpuent no
entry for 64O
3.3
Although Ptolemy occasionally informs the reader when he uses interpolation to complete
a table, it is evident that he does not always do so. Occasiondy linear interpolation may
be spotted easily in tables where no mention of it appears in the accompanying text, and
often a grid of entries may be identified with substantially smaller errors than the rest
of the table. This may indicate the presence of a form of interpolation. However, no
direct evidence exists that Ptolemy had access to interpolation beyond assorted variants
of linear iuterpolstion; thus it more likely indicates that some local method of calculation
from tf e grid points was used in the situations where linear interpolation has been ruled
ouL8 Foi the purpose of &is section we extend the meaning of interpolation to include
local calculation on a fixed grid. Given a hypothesized interpolation grid, then, we wish
to discover whether the errors on the grid are significantly smaller than the errors in
surrounding entries. The ndl hypothesis is that the nodes come from the same (local)
distribution as the surrounding entries, since this is natural if an interpolation grid is not
present (dlentries were calculated mdependently).
3.3.1
The simplest approach is to consider two populations of errors, one for the hypothesized grid and the other for the remaining entries, and apply a test to assess if the grid
populakiou has a significantly smaller mean. Two problems arise: first, many Almagest
taldes display the phenomenon described in $3.2.2, exhibiting a uonnormal distribution
(stre
Figure 3.33. Second, it is desirable to consider the case where absolute errors are
subst.aatiC&larger in some regions of the table than others. In a table of tangents, for
instance, it is likely that entries for argmnents near 90" will exhibit mu<?larger errors
'This could be sonie appro..rimative technique, or a formula similar to the chord ad2:tion and subtraction formulas, as exempmed in the (theoretical) generation of the chord table. See $4.2.
tlran elsewkere. due to the rnagilification of error caused by division by a rounded value
of a s i n d cosine. Tltis situatioll is rare in the Almagest, but relatively common in other
historical tableseg Thus we may not assume a. norrnd distribution ox in fact a single
distiibution applying to entries throughout the table, but. we do assume that e ~ ~ t r i in
es
a localmed area are from the same distribution.
72
entries, where
wlrether tlre node's error is, in general, smaller than the errors in the sunoundz'ng entries,
since y e assume identical distributions only locally. UTegroup tlie errors in the entries
according to tlreir distance from the nodes (Figure 3.4); that is, each entry is placed in
a group containing the node closest to it. (When n is even, the entries exactly between
the two nodes are placed in one of the two groups. The group that is chosen remains
consistent tl~rougltoutthe table, to maintain equal populations in each group.) The
groups are chosen with the nodes as close as possible to tlle middle of each group, because
the alterilative of grouping according to the internodal block entails a choice associating
each uode to either the pre.r.ious or upcoming block, and in either case places the node
at one end of a group, perhaps biasing tlle results in some situations.
The Aimagest contains many tables calculated for arguments 6O, 12') . . ., 90, 93",
96",. .., 180,and often it will be of interest to determine whether the odd entries in the
latter part of the table were obtained by interpolation from the even entries. In this case
the entries for arguments
< 90" may be ignored, and the entry for 180" is usually zero,
involving no calculation3and must also be ignored. The remaining entries are grouped
as follows:
(90,
93");
(96")99");
. . . ; (174")177").
"See, for example, the discussion of tangents in G. Van Brummelen, "The numerical structure of
alKhaliFs auxiliary tablesn, [ll8],66798.
Argument
90
93
Figure 3.4: Grouping entry errors to test for an hypothesized interpolation grid. The
errors used here are taken from the lunar equation of cezltre table (V.8), with an hypothesized grid of lzO.
Since we assume an identical symmetrical distribution within each block but do not
assume this distribution is normal, we turn to distributionfree methods. The data, the
absolute values of the errors, are ranlied within each block, producing a rank between 1
imd n for each block (where n is the number of entries in each block). Under the null
hypothesis that the nodes come from the same (local) distributions as the internodal
entries, the ranks associated with the nodes should form a random sample from the
population (1,2,. . . >n]. The probability that the sum of a random sample from this
Figure 3.5: (a). Fitting a piecewise smooth curve to a smooth function; (b). General
pattern of errors resulting from this fit
population is as large or larger than the sum of the ranks of the nodes is the significance
level (since a small error corresponds to a large rank). The test is onesided, since the
alternative that the node rank sum is greaier than expected conforms to no plausible
situation.
3.3.2
A less obvious but important effect of interpolation is the pattern of errors tflat often
emerges near the nodes. If interpolation is considered as a piecewise fitting of one type
of curve to mother, generally (although certainly not always) the error in an entry will
be larger the further away it is fiom a node (Figure 3.5). This results in a distinctive
pattern of humps when other sources of error do not overwhelm the effect.
83.3.1 (breaking the data into groups and ranking the second differences in the groups)
is tempting. Ifowever, the second differences are not independent of each other, and it is
45
difficult to see how statistical methocls may apply to them. Thus the second differences
are used here only as a heuristic tool.
Chapter 4
Except for the irieim motion tables, the star catalogue and a few smaJ.l tables in eclipse
tlieory, every numerical table in the Almagest tabulates a function using a trigonometric
relation iu some may. T l ~ emodern trigonometric functions (sine, cosine, tangent, etc.)
were ilot defined in Ptolcmy's time. The only trigonometric function used by Hellenistic
4.1
(4.1)
The chord table, easily the most renowned of the mathematical tables in the Almagest,
is the oldest extant trigonometric table. Some have speculsted that cruder chord tables
existed niudl earlier, but were supplanted by the work in tlic Almagest and eventually
were lost, like n~ailyo t l m astronoluical texts. Possible alltllors of earlier chord tables
include Hipparcllusl (c. 150 BC), Apollonius2 (c. 200 BC), and even Eratosthenes or
a c o n t e ~ u ~ o r a r(c.
y ~250 BG). Whether or not it is really the first trigonometric table,
'G.Toonler, T h e chord table of Hipparchus aud the early history of Greek trigonometryn, 11071,
628.
. . .the third
chord for each iote:~al. (This last) is so that we may have the average increment correspoiding to one minute (of arc), which will not be sensibly
different from tlte true increment (for each minute). Thus we can easily c d c d s t e the amount of the chord corresponding to fsactioirs wlziclr fall between
the (tabulated) kdfdegree intervals .*
Thus Ptolemy intends the table to be used for interpolatiou. It tabulates the function
1
c(8) = [Crd(B
30
The table may be computed as twice the difference between successive entries in the
cllosd table, followed by a leftward shift of the sexagesimal point. Chords of arcs not
divisible by
i0
rimy
be approximated as follows:
< 30. The t d ~ l e sof Crd 0 and c ( 8 ) are given in Table 4.1, with error plots in Figures
Crd 8
Error
0
0;31,25
1; 2,50
0
1;34,15
0
2; 5,40
1
2;37, 4
0
3; 8,28
0
f
3;39,52
4;11,16
1
4;42,40
0
0
5;14, 4
0
5;45,27
0
G;16,49
6;48,l 1
0
0
7;l9,33
0
7;50,54
8;22,15
0
0
8;53,35
9;24,54
0
9;56,13
0
1
10;27,32
10;58,49
0
11;30, 5
0
12; 1,21
0
12;32,3G
0
13; 3,50
0
13;35, 4
0
14; G , l G
0
1
f 4;37,27
15; 8,323
0
0
15;39,47
16;10,5G
0
0
16;42, 3
17;13, 9
0
17;44,14
0
0
18;15,17
1
18;46,19
19;17,21
0
f 9;48,2l
0
0
20;19,19
20;50,16
0
Error
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Error
Error
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Crd 8
Errol
0
41;32, 3
0
42; 1,30
0
42;30,54
0
43; 0,15
0
43;29,33
0
43;58,49
44;28, 1
0
0
44;51,10
0
45;26,16
45;55,19
0
0
46;24,19
0
46;53,16
47;22, 9
0
0
47;51, 0
0
48;10,47
0
48;43,30
0
49;17,11
1
49;45,48
50;14,21
0
0
50;42,51
51;11,18
0
1
51;39,42
0
52; 8, 0
0
52;36,16
0
53; 4,29
1
53;32,38
54; 0,43
0
0
54;28,44
54;56,42
0
1
55;24,36
1
55;52,26
0
56;20,12
56;47,54
0
57;15,33
0
57;43, 7
0
58;19,38
0
1
58;38, 5
59; 5,21
0
1
59;3 2,43
0
60; 0, 0
Error
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
If
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Error
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

Error
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Error
Crd B
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
92;15,40
92;35,42
92;55,35
93;15,2'i
93;35,11
93;54,47
94;14,1'i
94;33,41
94;52,58
95;12, 9
95;31,13
95;50,11
96; 9, 2
96;27,47
96;46,24
97; 4.55
97;23,20
97;41,38
97;59,49
98;17,54
98;35,52
98;53,43
99;11,27
99129, 5
99;46,35
100; 3,59
100;21,16
100;38,26
100;55,28
101;12,25
101;29,15
101;45,57
102; 2,33
102;19, 1
102;35,22
102;51,37
103; 7,44
103;23,44
103;39,37
103;55:23
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
I
1
1
Error
0
0
0
0
Error
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
I)
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
I)
0
0
0
0

Error
Error
CrdO
c(B)
0
0
104:11, 2
;0,31, 4
0
0
;0,30,49
104;26,34
0
1
;0,30,35
104;41,59
1
0
;0,30,21
104;57,16
1
0
105;12,26
;0,30, 7
0
1
;0,29,52
105;27,30
0
1
;0,29,37
105;42,26
0
1
;0,29,23
105;57,14
0
0
lOG;11,55
;0,29, 8
1
0
;0,28,54
106;26,29
0
1
;0,28,39
106;40,56
0
0
;0,28,24
lOG;55,15
1
0
;0,28,10
107; 9,27
1
;0,27,56
0
107;23,32
1
0
;0,27,40
107;37,30
0
1
107;51,20
;0,27,25
0
;0,27,10
0
108; 5, 2
0
;0,26,56
0
108;18,3'i
0
;0,26,41
0
108;32, 5
0
;0,26,26
0
108;45,25
0
;0,26,11
0
108;58,38
1
0
;0,25,56
109;11,44
1
0
109;24,42
;0,25,41
0
0
109;37,32
;0,25,26
0
109;50,15
;0?25,11 0
0
110; 2,50
0
;0,24,56
0
0
;0,24,41
110;15,18
1
1
;0,24,26
110;27,39
1
110;39,52
0
:0,24,10
1
110;51,57
0
;0,23,55
1
111; 3.54
0
;0123,40
1
111;15,44
0
;0,23,25
0
111;2'7,26
0
;0;23, 9
1 1 ;0?22,54
0
11139 1
0
111;50,28
;0,22,39
112; 1,47
1
0
;0,22,24
1
112;12,59
0
;0,22, 8
112:24, 3
1
0
;0,21,53
I
0
112;35, 0
;0,21,3C
1
O
;0.21,22
140.0 112;45,48
0
' 120.5
121.0
121.5
122.0
122.5
123.0
123.5
124.0
124.5
125.0
125.5
120.0
126.5
127.0
127.5
128.0
128.5
129.0
129.5
130.0
130.5
131.0
131.5
132.0
132.5
133.0
133.5
134.0
134.5
135.0
135.5
136.0
136.5
137.0
137.5
138.0
138.5
139.0
139.5
8 i
lXl.5
141.0
141.5
142.0
142.5
143.0
143.5
144.0
144.5
145.0
145.5
146.0
146.5
147.0
147.5
148.0
148.5
149.0
149.5
150.0
150.5
151.0
151.5
152.0
152.5
153.0
153.5
154.0
154.5
155.0
155.5
156.0
156.5
157.0
157.5
158.0
158.5
159.0
159.5
160.0
Crd0
112;56,29
113; 7, 2
113;17,25
113;27,44
113;37,54
113;47,56
113;57,50
114; 7,37
114;17,15
114;26,46
114;36, 9
114;45,24
114;54,31
115; 3,30
115;12,22
115;21, 6
115;29,41
115;38, 9
115;46,29
115;54,40
116; 2,44
116;10,40
116;18,28
116;2G78
116;33,40
116;41, 4
116;48,20
116;55,28
117; 2,28
117; 9,20
117116, 4
11?;22,40
117;29, 8
117;35,28
117;41,40
117;47,43
117;53,39
117;59,27
118; 5 , 7
118;10,37
Crd cl
Error
118;16, 1
118;21,16
118;26,23
118;31,22
118;3G713
118;40,55
118;45,30
118;49,5G
118;54,15
118;58,25
119; 2,26
119; G,20
119;102G
119;13,44
119;17,13
119;20,34
119;23,47
119;2G,52
119;29,49
119;32,37
119;35,17
119;37,49
119;40,13
119;42,28
119;44,35
119;46,35
119;48,26
119;50, 8
119;51,43
119;53,10
119;54.27
119r55.38
119;56,39
119;5'7:32
119;38,18
119;55,53
119;59:24
119;59,44
119;59,56
120; 0: 0
Error
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
4.2
The chord fui~ctionarid table are fi~udameutdto most of the mathematical procedures
iu the Almapst. As part of his logical progression horn f i ~ s principles,
t
Ptolemy includes
a lerigtlty description of a method of calculatioii in 1.10:
But first wc s f d sftow how orre can undertake the calcalation of their amounts
by a. simple m d rapid method: using as few theorems as possible, the same
set ior dl. We do tllis so tlrat we may not merely. h a w the amounts of the
cltords tabulated unchecked, but may also readily ui~clertaketo verify them
by coinputi~lgtlrcnr by a strict geometrical m e t l ~ o d . ~
Note that Ptolemy does not explicitly claim that this nletllocl was actually used to generate his table. Fsom several mose or less obvious chords, he generates others using
various tiigononletric foxmulas. These formulas are given as theorems, usually based
on Ptolemfs Tlieorem in some way. Since the proofs axe riot necessary for computing
~ r d 3 6 ' = d30
= a  3 0 x 37;4,55.
(4.4)
4
Crd 7 2 O = 4 6 0 2 i
(Crd 3 6 0 ) ~=
w 770; 32,3.
(4.5)
(4.6)
Next PtoIemy gives the arc supplement formula: 3 f any chord be given, the chord of
the supp1eirrentar.r.yarc is given in a simple fashion, since the sum of their squares equals
the square on the diameter". V l ~ u s
(Evaluating the chord of the supplenlent of 6 is malogous to evaluating the cosine of 6.)
As an example, he gives
4400  (Crd 3G0)2
FZ
(4.10)
arid he liints at further use of (4.9): "Siinilil~lyfor the other cllords (of the suplAements)".7
Next appears a proof of Ptolemy's Theorem (see 32.4). From this Ptolemy is able
to prove a number of tlleorems helpful to the construction of the chord table. The first
is the chord difilence formula, a corollary to Ptolemy's Theorem and equivalent to the
Crd a Crd
6 Crd @ Crd li
120
(4.11)
From this,
[it] is obvious that by means of this theorem we shall 1~ able to enter (in the
table) quite a. few chords derived from the difference bctween the individually
cdculat,ed chords, and notably the chord of 12"' since me have thosc of 60
and 7Z0."
57
0
Crd  =
2
(4.12)
equivalent t o
Ptoleniy states:
fo.
chord of
a"
This result is not clirectly analogous to the modern sine addition formula, since it requires
the use of the chord supplement formula. to evaluate the cl~ordof the sum of two arcs:
Crd (a+$) =
~ r d i 5 ~ rd p~ r d / 3 ~ r d c u
120
(4.14)
Thus the chord addition formula reqwires significantly great cr effort in calculation than
does the cliAereuce formufa.
Ptolemy coucludes:
9G. Toonler, T h e chord table of fiipyarcilus and the early history of Greek trigol~ouretry",[107],
1819.
10Almagest1.10, 53.
all
the
This leaves the cllords of all arcs t l ~ta are integer multiples of
tlre value of Crd
!'.
but not 1
Clearly
i0 or Crd lois sufficient to generate all tlle remaining chords with the
Ptolemy solws this problem with a clever use of tile following theorem: if cr
> B are
zQ,he finds
2
3
1" 2
1;34,15 = 1; 2,50.
2 =3
>   Crd 1
(4.17)
He concludes that
d .
For exanqde, in
the first (1;") interval, we can calculate the chord of 2" by usiug the addition
fonuula for the d m d of f 0 applied to the chord of if", while the cllord of
2;" is given u!116 the diffe~enccformula for (the chord of
chord of 3'. Si:. :Iuly for the remaining chords.12
O)
applied to the
4.3
There is some cause to believe that the method actually used t.o complete the chord
table cliverges from Ptolemy's description in either the degree of accuracy or the theorems
actually used. This leads to two possibilities: first, that Ptolcmy borrowed tlie table from
another source; aiid second, that Ptolemy composed the tslh and the text zt different
times or for cliffcrent pusposes.
I11
Gottsche conclude that Ptolemy does not present the calculations to their full accuracy
in 110,and they suggest that he wished to keep secret the ki~owledgethat extra accuracy
ing
is retpired. As Toomer says, howevc~,LCjtlri~
reason] betrays L: basic ~ i s ~ i ~ i l c r s t a n dof
the nature of the Almagcst."'3
Glowatski and Giittsche's result pro14des little insight into the nature cif P toleirzy '9
computation, since it follows the mctltod of 1.10 witlmit q~i~stion.
A more careful stildy
I3G. Toomer, Review of Glowatslii and Giittscle, Die Sehnentafel des Kiaudios Ptolemaios, [Ill],321.
60
will suggest that the met!~ods nsed to coll~pztethe chosd table were more stable numerically t1:al~ the inetltod of 1.10.
that the table for 4 8 ) does not precisely match calculation with (4.2)' and argues that
tire table "is clearly not what Ptolemy says it is. It must be some other quantity, and
Ptolemy misinterpreted it when he added it to his table of chords. It does not belong
with that table."15 Neither of these points are new, except possibly for Newton's interpretations of the numerical results. They will be considered below.
4.4
are tlie chords of 3G0, 7Z0, GO0, 90, 120,and 144' in that order. No
The intermediate calcu1,ztion of (Crd 3G0)*+ 3600 (the square of Crd 72') suggests that
Ptolemy used tlie three place value Crd3G0 = 37;4,55 rather than a more accurate
rdm, since Ptolemy's rcsdt is considerably closer to the rcsdt obtained with this value

Crd 144"
1 d l 4 4 0 0  (Crd 3 6 0 ) ~1 114;7,37 1
61
114;7,36,24,54
114;7,37.36.31
when =sing them in successive operations. Ou the other h i d , Glowatski ;iud G6ttsche
kmefumd that moresexagesimd places are required to geaerate the accuracy in the table
over aZi the entries (using Ptolemy's method of calculation), tvhich is a slight cfiscrgancy
if one assumes that the same level of rouuding was used tlrrortghout.
Chord
Clrord Values
Required
62
Ptolemy's
Result
Exact
Chord Value
Calculation
Using Ptolemy's
Chord Values
Table 4.3: Successive use of the halfangle formula to generate small chords
4.5
The only numerical evidence pertaining to chord calculations in the text, apart from the
above, are the computations leading to the eval~iationof Crdlo. The text prescribes
computing Crd 12" from Crd 72" and Crd 60" using the subtraction formula. Then the
I&angle formula is enqdoyed successively to find Crcl6", Crd 3", Crd if O , and Crd ]O.
The halfangle formula requires the chord of the supplement of the original angle, and the
subtraction formula requires the chords of the two original angles as well as the chords
of their supplemeats. Presumably Ptolemy would have used the supplement formula to
generate the reqnired ckords when uecessary.ls A recomputation of each stage of the
evaluation using the chord values in the table (Table 4.3) reveals that whatever method
generated the table's values requires more accuracy than the twoplace values in the text
% will become clear that the supplenlcut formula is numerically uustabte in this range of chords,
aid could not have bee^ wed for the entries uuder consideration.
63
The lower bound is exact using Ptolemy's value for Crd f O , but the upper bound is
actually 1;2,50,40. R. Newton argues that this implies Ptolcmg was mistalierl to assume
he had found Crd lo = 1; 2'50 to tl~reeplaces, and that he was nlerely lncky to have
clioseu the correct Ialtle.lQ However: several have argued that the retelltion of even
slightly more accliracy in the value of Crd ? O renders Ftolcmy's result correct to three
places.20 Since it has been shown &ove that extra places were used in the successive
application of the halfangle formula, it also seems plausible that more accuracy was
taken in calculiltion than appears ia the text or table. Siuce the value of Crd lo is
it
crucial parameter in further computation, it is not surprisiug that more carc was taJEen
ltere.
The text's final step is to use the halfangle formula to move from Crd 1' to Crd
to.
The result of 0; 31'25 is corzect to both places. Application of the halfmgle formula
using the table's value for Crd 179' gives the very poor value 0; 30,59,1,55, since the
formula is unstable for sinall chords. This provides further evidence that considerable
extra accuracy (or auotller method) was used in these computations.
4.6
The table taken as a whole is quite accurate. Of 360 entries, 109 are in error by 1 in the
1 s t place; the remaining entries are correct to a3l three places. The erroneous entries tend
to chster together, which is to be expected if most of the entries are derived horn others
ueafby. A substautid majority of the erroneous entries (71 of 109) occur for 8
> 90".
The entries for 8 < 90" axe more accurate, and include a stretch of 35 contiguous correct
[%I,
The plot of the errors in the cborcl table (Figure 4.2) reveals a regular upward trend
in the e r r o ~ s . ~A' regression on the errors with respect to 0 gives a slope much greater
than zero, and a yintercept not significantly different froln zero. An explanation for
this remarkable pattern will be one goal of the aualysis. The complex nature of the
chord talile's construction, however, leads to difficulties in applying statistical methods,
izlcluding this regression. Since the nlethod of computation cliffers depending on the
locatioit of tlle entry, the table is liot computed wit11 the same method throughout (unlike
most other Almqest talAes), and the hypothesis of an identical independent underlying
dist~ibutiol~
of errors tltroughout the table is invalid. Thus dl significance levels of tests
ou parts of the cllord tal~leare questionable, aud ase proviclcd for guidance only.
The text implies that the suppleinent formula is used to generate chords of arcs
greater than 90" ,22 but the error patteru does not verify tlus. From the supplement
formula (4.9), a positive error in Crd 8 should produce a negative error in Crd(180 8 ) .
Thus the upwucl error trend for 6 < 90' should reverse itself for 0
is used for a s u b s t d i d rrumber of eutries. However, the slopes of the regressions applied
separately on the two kalves of the table are almost the same. Also, reconstructing the
chords for 0
< 90' from the ckords for 0 > 90' by reversing the supplement formula fails
correct values. Thus there seems little doubt that the latter half of the table was not
4.7
Ptolemy does not describe how he works from the seven geometrically computed entries to
t.he grid of entries for 0 separated by l i O .It is reasoilable to postulate that lm cdcuhted
a grid of entries as an intermediate stage between tlle origi~lalsewn entries and the
1;' grid, sincz my recomputations show that generating the i t 0 grid in a sequentid
fi~shionfrom the original seven entries produces a gradual but significant buildup of
error. Given the seven d u e s of 0 m d the avadable trigo~~ometkc
methods, a. grid of
12' seems plausible. It is also important to consider wlletl~crthe remainiug entries (in
the ifO grid) u7eregeueruted from the eirtlies in the hypotl~csizedlarger grid, either by
inneasiug 8 sequentially using the chor<laddition fornlula, or by decreasiug ~9using the
chord subtraction formula.
Since statisticd methods are iliscrcdited due to the complex and nonuniform method
of calculation, it is difficult to test for tulleexistence of
all
manner. Instead, I use a statistic that estimates the success of the hypothesis, and I
indude the siguificance level only to guide the analysis. For a given hypothesized grid
and direction of fill (up or down, where 5ip" refers to incrcaing 8), each node of the
original grid is the basis of a series of calculations leadiug to a number of internodal
chords. For example, with the hypothesis of a grid of 12" and upward fill, the node of
108" is the basis for the successive calculation of the chords of 109!j0, 111')
. .., 118;".
The errors in the nodes are transmitted to their dependelit. cl~triesmore or less directly.
Odj' the second half of t.he table (8 > 90") is considered, since the great majority of the
entries iu tire first half of the table on the it0 grid are accurate to all places and hence
c o ~ t a i nno infomation about the intermediate grid.
For a given grid and direction of fill, let the signed errors in the nodes be e,, and the
signed crross in tlrc intcrirodal entries be e i , I consider the following data pairs:
where nz is the constailt number of internodal entries depending on each uode. If the
hypothesis is correct, the second value of the pair, representing the average of the signed
errors of the entries depending on a given node, should be close to the first value of the pair
(which represents the error of the uode itself). Thus over tile entire table the data pairs
should be linearly related, unless acculnulated errors in calculating the internodal entries
obscure the original errors substantially. I consider the regression coefficient representing
the slope of the least squares fit line through the data points to be the measure of success
of the hypothesis. Table 4.4 contaius the regression coefficient (and the p value) for
several grid hypotheses and both directions of fill. The
ltistorically plausible, but axe included to be sure that the significance of the coefficient
for the lZO kypotliesis is not due merely to an apparent smoothness of errors in the table.
The coefficient is large for the 12' grid a d downward fill, bnt not upward fill. Doubling
the number of nodes to a 6' grid gives a slightly less significast result. Thus the table
appears to have been completed using a grid of 12" aud the use of a subtraction formula
working down from each node to the ifO *id.
4.8
0; 31,25. F r o 1 ~this he snggests using the chord addition forllmla to calculate the chords
".
of 8 = 2', 3f 2
'
. ... from the ]mown chords of B = liO,3O,41', .. .. Likewise the chords
oi B =
2f ', .
'
4 L , ', . .. are to be generated from the nodes using Crd
s~btractionforiu:~l.r.
'4
no significant difference in magnitude. This implies that tlic final fill process, if it was
performed according tcl r) tolemy's process, would liave been done with greater accuracy.
A recomputation suggests that one extra sexagesimal place beyond the two fractional
places in the table would be sufficient.
It may be seen conc!usively that the chord addition formula could not have been
used to generate the smallest chords, i.e., for 0 = ZO,3f0, . . .. For these 8, the forrnula
requires the calallatim of the chord of a large argument Crcl 8. The supplement formula
then produces7Crd 8. However, the supplement formula is liiglrly unstable when used to
compute c b r d s of small arcs. Thus a consideraljle precisiolr is tlie calculation of Crd 4
is reqiixed to attitir; reasonable accuracy in the find resdi. For most of the small values
of 8, the d u e for Grd 8 iu the table a u l d not produce the d u e for Crd 8, even allowing
for the p0ssibilit.y that the tabdm value of Crd 8 is rounded from a more accurate value.
Table 4.5 takes the tabular values for Crd 8 and computes a range of chord
values from
7
Ptolemy's
Crd 8 Min/rnax values of
Table 4.5: Calculating Crd 8 from Crd 4 using the chord supplement formula
it, adding f0; O,0,30 to it to account for the possibility that the table's value is rounded
horn a d u e talten to more places. Where Crd 0 is in error, these ranges of chords
include neither the correct. chord nor Ptolemy's chord; indeed, these two chord values are
invariably extrendy close to each other compared t o the range of clrords. Tlius Ptolemy
clid not use the chord addition fornlula with the chords of the supplements in the table
for small values of 0.
4.9
The table for c(B), used to calculate chords of arcs between multiples of
iO,theorcticaJly
tabulates 0; 2x the successive differences of the chcrds in tlic table. Iu practice, however,
this is clearly not the case. As noted earlier; R. Eewton's csplanittion is tlrat the tattle
for c ( 0 ) must t d d a t e mother function entirely, and that. Ptoleiny mistaltenly placed
here a table computing another astronomical function. Since the direct computation of
69
c(B) from the cfmrd table is a simple matter, and since the tabubted vdues of c(8) are
since tlrere appears to be a cliscrepancy between his calculations and the table in Toomer's
correct if inodern roundiug is assumed, providing further support to the hypothesis that
i~uxlernromcling mas used. In most cases it, appears that the values in the table are
generally closer to the correct vdues of c(8) than Ptolemy's chord vdues would dlow.
To ascertain wl~etkerthe apparent accuracy of the interpolation table beyond the
chord table is a genuine phenomenon, the table dependence test would appear to be ideally fitted, using the hypothesis that the 4 8 ) table depends on the chord table. However,
cp
CR
= 0 ; 2[Crdp(B
The relative scwcity of genuine errors in the chord interpolation table beyond rounding to two places (45 in 359 entries) causes unusual patterns in the errors
cp
 c ~ see
; for
example Figure 3.2. The nearlinearity of c ( 8 ) over an interval containing several values
of 8 used in the table caa resuit in stretches where the tabular entries cp(8), all correct
to the places displayed, are separated by the same constant. Thus for such an interval
the error is equd to c(8) ruiuus a linear function, producing a sine wave effect. The
dartuuate conlbination of few erroneous entries, small argument increments ( 6 =
1O
),
70
usually too uegligible to irotice in most situations involving other tables am1 functions.
Clearly, then, the table dependence test. is useless in this iustance, and i t would be
14rtually impossible to account for t l i s unusual depeixlence through distribution theory.
Instead, 1simulate the error distribution under the hypothesis that the error distribu tlon
cp
 c~ may be approximated by
I' = X1 + X2, where XI
N ( 0 , u 2 )and X;
el
[ ET2j
, .
Here X1 siiriulates actual coinputa.tiona1 error, while X2 simulates the substantid effect4
of rounding to two fractional sexagesimal places.
Tlie clensity function of I" is
mliere GJ is tlle cumulative normal distribution function. I estimate the unlinown parameter a by choosing a to be suck that
p(
5 Y 5 ) = 1601359,
1 less
than
generated from Ptolemy's chord values. From this I find a = 0.0000036712 = 0.72798~.
which was then compared with the observed 314 of 359 correct entries in the interpolation
table. Tc simulate the sine wave effect of errors in the table, a random number o E [O,
i"1
To each fuuctiou d u e a quantity taken &om N(O,a2)is added and the sum is rounded
to two fractional sexagesimal places, The number of entries N matching the correct c(8j
comprises the tezt statistic.
Figure 4.4: Histogram of the number of correct entries in each simulated table, for the
test of dependence of the c(0) table on the Crd 0 table
The simulation was run 1000 tines; a histogram of the results appears in Figure 4.4.
The N = 314 in the actual interpolation table is well above dl 1000 simulated results.
I coxdude that the errors in the interpolation table are significantly smaller than one
would expect h o n the use of chord table vdues.
Sewsal explanations of this curious result are possible, but perhaps the most plausibk,
considering earlier findings, is that Ptolemy retained another sexagesimd place in his
chord cdcula.tions beyond what appears in the table, in order to retain accuracy, and
used these values to genlerate the interpolation column. The suggestion that the table
The fact that 36 of 45 errors in the c ( e ) table are positive is significant and deserves
esanlination. My investigations reveal no systematic nature to these errors. They are too
lntemolatect Value
+ 112
Figure 4.5: Using linear interpolation to evaluate chords from the chord table
infrequent to have been caused by a different rounding method. I hypothesize that the
error is not due to rounding, but is in fact a deliberate maneuvre intended to reduce the
effect of error in the use of c(8) to calculate chords. Since the chord function is concave
do\vnward, a significmt negative error is incurred when applying linear interpolation to
e m h a t e chords (see Fignre 4.5). When computing c(8), P tolemy may have occasiodly
rounded an entry upward in a borderline case to help offset this error. Altl~oughtltSs
cannot be proved, ii seems the only reasonable explanation of the positive errors.
73
From the original seven entries, a grid of chords sepalatcd by 12' was formed. From
tLis the 1i' grid was generated, using only the chord subtraction formula. An extra
sexagesimd place was retained to decrease the effect of cumulated errors. Finally, the
rest of the table was computed, again using only the chord subtradicn formula for the
The upward drift of errors may be explained as a byproduct of the errors in the
original seven cliords, whose errors coincidentdy happen to contain the same upward
drift. Subsequent computations taken to an extra sexagesimal place carried the errors in
the orighal entries to the rest of the table, with additional errors that were small enough
to have little extra effect.
Perhaps the most important conclusion is that the chord addition formula does not
seem to have been used at all. It appears in 1.10 at the end of a list of trigonometric
thearerns, dmost as an afterthought. Tne form it takes is awkward for calculation, and
it may have been included in the Almagest for didactic purposes only.
Chapter 5
5.1
.4U Ptoleiny's models for solar, l u ~ i i r ,aid planetary nlotioiis of various types share
the basic premise of ullifosm circul:~r motion. Tllc nlotioii of any astro~loinicalbody
is assullied to have two essential pioperties: first, tlint it may be descrilrcd by some
combination of circular motions of various points J aid s e c o d , that any poilit rot (zting
on a circle must do so with constant speed relative to the ccnter of that circle.
Although Ptoleiny violates this piinciple in the case of his planetary models, he
remains essentially true to the spirit of these strictures tl~roughoutthe Ahagest. TO
account for variations in the observcd angular vclocities of almost every as tronomicd
body (except tlie fixed stars), Ptolciny uses a variety of tcdniques. For tlle Sun lie
moves Eastk sliglrtly a w q from the centre of the deferent (orbit circle); for the other
p h e t s , the planct rotates on an epicycle, a smaller circle centred on the perimeter of
the deferent (see Figure 5.1). Thesc methods probabl~?date at least to Apollonius (c.
200 BC).' Several more complex sclmnes adjust tlze niodcls for motions ilot accountcd
for by tlrese basic tools.
Each orbit is at least illitidly a s s ~ ~ m ctod be on the p l a i ~that includes the ecliptic,
t.he great circle through the celestial sphere tra~relledby the Strn in its ; ~ ~ m upat11
al
(Figure ~ . 2 ) .Altliouglr
~
the planets vary by up to se~witldegrees from the ecliptic,
l0. Necg '~auer,iApollouius' planetary theoryn, [G73, 64146.
2The daily rotation of the celestial splierc carrying all the heavenly l d i e s about the celestial poles is
Apogee
Centre
Earth
Planet
P tolemy presents his first models ignoriiig this, dealing with this varistiou scpiu.~tcly
with an i~idependcnit l m q afterward. The ecliptic a i d eqnator iutersett nt the ~ernczl
aild autumna! equinoxes and form nil angle
uses the traditional d u e
E,
the reference circle instead of the ccliptic. Since the planct,.srotate on or IkeiLr the pfam
determined by tltc ecliptic, the ecliptic coordiimtes are pi.efr.rrcd m d are used exclusiwly
by Ptolemy in tlie analysis of planetary motio~z.
5.2
Ptolemy exploits uniforiu circular ino tion to calculate planct sry positions a.ccording to
the same basic structure for each of his models. The longitude of the apogee3 X A is
found by trigononletric methods fro111 observation^.^ Tlre m e a n a r g u m e n t a,(tf, the
arc of the deferent from the apogee to the centre of the epicycle (Figure Gel), clxatges
uniformly with respect to the center of tlle ecliptic. The mean longitude
A,,,is defined
as
A,, ( t )= XA + an, ( t ),
(5.1)
The plmet's longitnde X is tlml broken into two com~tcmeats: the nican lungitt&
rtnd an added co~nponcnt,called tlle equation of anomaly, to allow for variations in
the Apollonian model (Figure 5 .I), the t r u e argument rr f f ), the mgular 4stuce
~ZOEU
wllcre the cquatioi~of anomaly q is a function of the position of t,lx center of the epicycle
on the deferent and the planet's position on tllc eyicycle. Tlic~nalso
For each planet Ptokmy gives the same basic metltod to find a plaxwt's lol~gitncic
X a t a given monlent t . By extrapolating backwards in t i ~ t ~from
e his model Ptolemy
gives the mean longitude A,
of the reign of Nabonassar (747 136).5This epoch also provides the rdercnce point to
measure t. The parameter w, , the velocity of the centre of the epicycle, may be computed
from observations (Most parameten w,,, are due t o Hipparcl~us,or further back to the
Babylonians.) Tlic meall motion
easily as
5.3
epoch was cllosen so that all the abscrvations to which Ptolwiy had access occtrrrcd afwr tile
P t ~ i e m yfinds it
~ m z e s s l  ~ rto
y use
values of w,,,
, maliiug tltc multiplication t xlious. To reduce tlle reader's effort he provides
fox
G Z L Cc~ ~ l ~ s t i1~0d3
i ~ l it
for hourly intervds o f t from to 1 to 24t daily i n t e r d s from 1 to 30, monthly intervals (30
days) from 1 to I1 montlrs, yearly intcrvids (365 days) froni 1 to 18 years, and 18yearly
iiitervds from 1 to 4SG (see Tables 5.1 a.nd 5.2), in each case subtracting from A the
i~ppropriateinteger znultiple of 360" to bring A under 360". Then to compute A,
I?
for
given value of t one need only add to tlie mean longitude at epoch the mean motion
Ptolen~ydways presents the parilmcter w,,, in degrees per d a ~ . ,so that the mean
motion tables for uuits of days, months, years, and 18yeas pcriods are intcger multiples
of u,. Since these tables are given to the same number of scs;~gesimdplaces as the daily
parameter, the v:ihles in the tables contain no mystery aid are ignored. However, the
Ajn hours) =  . n,
24
dm
Since the tables are givcn to the same number of sexagesimd places as the daily figure,
tve may
gaiu sonic insight into the rounding nlethods uscd by the author by a closer
"Why Ptolemy cfiose an &year period is a matter of some debate. Some suggest it is connected to
tke Saros eclipse cycle (Tanuery 1893, 1651, others (including Ptolemy lkmelf) that it is an unimportant
byproduct of the standard &line page height (Toomer, Almagest 140, note 26). The debate goes back
at least as far as Thcon (Rome, Commentuires Tome 111, 844.) in tllc Xazdy Tables Ptolemy changed
to a !&year period nub an rpoch cfoser to ltis om^ tinle.
5.4
where [a.] denotcs the greatest integer lcss tlmn or e q u d to a.. Thus
r, corres13onds lo
nloderis rourtcli~~g
and
~ ( 3 6 13;
; 48,30) = 36; 13,49.
Second,
2.
down:
~ ~ ( 313,48,30)
6;
= 36; '13,48.
Third;
corresponds to truncation:
The possibility that Ptolerny did not usc any give11 ronl~di~ig
metkod consistently must
dso be entertained.
For each hourly meau motion table two cZiffereut methods of calculation ale plausi l de.
First, he may haye determined an ltourly constant by di~itliugthe daily figure Ly 24,
rouuded. and snccessisely added (or ~liultipliedby an integer). This, however, produces
a regular drift away from the corrcct values as tlie error
Ijp rou~ldingbeccmm nragnified for large
11,
ill
Secoucl, lie 1112~3have usecl some eutircly accurate niethod and rounded the correct values
aftc~wardill soiilc way. We consider cach lrourly table separately.
5.5
to test the roundillg metbod, since the figures exend t v o sc.ssgesimal places beyond the
1 s t place displayed. Cou~parisonof entries with
for R = T6, rg, a11d t6,gi;i\enin Table 5.3, clearly fr~vourtrulrcation over both versions of
modern rouncliug. The perfect matcll suggests a consistent nse of truncation throughout
the table.
5.6
Pbolcmy's lunar nmdel is consideraLly more complicated than the solax model. Besides
tlte lorigitndind m e m motion, he incl ides t h e e other mean motions: the mean anomaly,
arguum~tof latitude, aiid elongatio~l(to be described in Chapter 9). The structure of
t be tattles is idai tical with
the solar tables; the only cliffercrrces stem from the values of
18Year Periods
t (years)
AN
18
36
355;37,25,36,20,34,30
351;14,51,12,41, 9, 0
810
163: 4,12,15,25,52,30
Months
t (days)
A(t>
30
29;34, 8,36,36,15,30
Days
Table 5.1: Excerpts from the solar mean motion tables (IKG), except the l~ourlytable
the basic parameters
UJ,,,.
procedures (Taldc 5.3) produces curious results. A perfect niatch ie acllievcd with t o for
longitude, with rti for anomaly and elongation, a d witch r i for latitude.
I conclude that each table uses one method of rouiiding throughout, sii~cea perfect
match is achieved with one of the methods for each table. T l ~ longitude
e
t d ~ l e sform the
basis for the Hipparchian theory, whereas the other lunar tal>lesare additions to the basic
model and axe gcuerally conceded to Be P t ~ l e m a i c .This
~
Lreak appears to be verified
by the difference in rounding methods, truncation for longit~~cle
and a version of modern
rounding for the others. The autlrorslGp of the tddes, howcver, may not Le concluded
Hours

Method
Lunar I Luilar
Longitude Longitude Anomaly
12
I
24
Lunar
Latitude
23
Lunar
Elongation
24
Table 5.3: Nuiul~erof agreements between hoully mean mo tiou entries and correct values
(24 total entries), using three romdirrg methods (Sun, Mool~)
5.8
To predict solar cclipses Ptolemy must determine from his models the times when the
Icrngitndc of the Sun and Moon are close enough for a SunMoon conjunction (AM %
As); to predict a lunar eclipse be must be able to say wllcu the Sun a i d Moon will
l x close to opposition (AkI z As 1 180"). In addition, the Moon's latitude must be
s t approximately t,,, 24.0999 Egyptiai! (365day) years. Ptolemy calculates the earliest
lnean coujunctiou and opposition aftcr the Nabmassar epocll as a certain number of days
into Thoth (the first moi~tllsf the Egyptian calendar). He tlien determines the times of
the mean syzyrgics at ncasly 25yea intervals for 45 cycles, covering an 1100 year period
after epoch. Thus, according to the pasameters stated in the text,' the first table (see
(12
 1) 0; 2,47,5
(5.13)
for oppositions. The subtracted term corrects for the fact tl~iltthe cycle is not precisely 25
years in length. At these calculated times of mean conjunction and oppositioli, P tolemy
also coiliputes tl~rceotilex mean positions (one solar: n , (t,,,), two lunar: a,,,(t,,,),n(t,,,f)
to aid the cdculntion of the conditions for an eclipse. Tlicsc terms will be discussed in
Chapters 811. .All tablcs increase or decrease linearly with respect to time, n l d therefore
may be calculated as wit11 simple additions and multiplications.
In addition to tlme 25year tables Ptolerny provides yearly and monthly t&les, which
give increments to the inean motions and allow the user to cidculate mean cortjjunctions
and oppositions a t times between the 25year cycle. Tllcse are similar in numerical
structure to the mean motion tables, except that the yearly l Ale uses two different. time
incseruents, onc for 12 uonths and one for 13, "in order tl~iltwhat appears in the table
73,
73;
to 20 failures. Both failrues for r2 axe in the luuai urn tablc ioz oppositions.
Similar results fox tlle yearly a i d moitthly tables are given in Table 5.7. Clearly
modern rounding is favoured to truncation. For these tabL.. the results rue not strong
extough to support one of r2 and r; over the other: rz fails ftli. four entries, while r5 fhls
IpTable
of Oppositions (29year periods)
Cm
t,,, (years) Days of Thoth 1
AD
9;58,22
/ 274; 5,38 26; 2,45 112;57,15
1
~ 1 1 1
Rou~lding Days oi
M e t l i ~ d / T h t h a,, (Sun) a,,, (hI00ii)
Coiljunctioi~s
45
45
45
1'2
44
41
1
44
7.:
30
t2
21
23
Oppositions
45
45
43
1'2
41
44
44
1';
21
23
32
t2
n
45
41
21
45
41
21
5.9
@onclusions
throughout.
Rouliding
Metliod
1'2
I.;
t2
72
rz"
t.t
Days of
Tlroth
23
23
1I
12
12
8
a, (Sun)
Years
23
23
11
Months
12
12
12
a,, (Moon)
23
23
11
24
24
12
12
12
11
12
7
Chapter 6
The Declination Table (1.15)
8.1
Celestial Coordinates
of arbitrary points on the ecliptic (although Ptolemy does not call tkenn coorclinates). A
loag (90entry) table for 6 , and s short (9entry) table for a , of ediptic points me giveu,
dong with the usual examples of ca.lculation.
111 1.14 Ptolemy calculates the declinntio~lS(A) of a given point A on the ecliptic as
foUo\~s:let*a great circle ZAB be driwn through tlie poles of the equator and the ecliptic
(Figure 6.1). Tben if TH = A, we hare from Meaelaus' Tllcorem I:
sin Z A
sin AB
=a
Since Z A = TZ =
TB
sin TZ sin HT
sin T H sin T B '
= 90' and A B =
E,
HT = A, and TH = S ( X ) , rearrangement
gives
sin &(A) = sin e sin A.
The table of decliilatioits (1.15, Table G.1), the largest single srguruent table in the
AEmogest besides the chord table, is co~vpilicdfor I", ZO,. . . ;90". Declinations for A >
90" may be found by symmetry (see Figure 6.1). The taltlr: is given to two fractional
sexagesimal places, one more than erery other astronomical table in the Alrrtagest. The
lTbe right ascension a11d declination respectively: see $S.l.
90
to
10
&
30
40
50
60
70
80
I
90
Lambda
tend to move in distinct drifts, reaching a. maximum of aboiit ten units in thc last place.
E. Newton2 notes that t,he errors are too large to have derived from calculstion of each
entry directly from Ptolciq's chord table (lie igmres the possibility of interpolation), but
are
t.oo small to Irme derived from a chord table calculated to one fractional sexagesimal
place. (There seems little doubt that the traditiond value E = 23; 51,20 mas used.)
Chapter 6. T I JDecliimtio~~
~
Table (1.15)
Error
Error
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
8
2
2
3
6
3
4
1
3
0
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
8
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
6.2
C!~ordTable
In a recent a ~ t i c l e ,B.
~ L. ian der MTaerden attempts a rcconstructjon of a table 05:
chords used to generate the declination table. Van der Waerden iruplici tly assulncs ,
with Newtou, that no li~etlloijof calculation of the declination table otl~ertka1 direct
co~nputaiionfrom (6.2) \?as used, and presents a method of computing a. tablc of c l l o ~ ~ l s
based on the Aryablli?iJs of Aryabhiita (fl. z AD 450). Altliougll the method may bz
clclived from thcorems Ii~iownat Ptolemy's time, it does not appeal in the Ahnngest,
01
.&ryab1iiita's preseutation was geared to calculating tlle sine function, but the similwity between t l ~ esine and the chord allows for an easy transnlissiou. ArysblGfa follows
common Indian pactice of usiug a base circle radius of rL = 3438 units, so that Sinn
% 11
ll = 206265 uuits, so that Crd n % 12 for smdl 12 measured in scconds, sincc the seconcls
position is required of the chords to produce tlie accuracy fcittnd in tlie declimtion table.
From siiliple geoanetric considerations and the kalfangle itlcm ti ty, the chol ds of
are
deduced.
The maill cdculation process uses a recursion formula
Crd iO,
i= l
3B. L. van der Wacrden, "Reconstruction of a Greck taliie of chords", [l2Sf, 2338.
95
Since flrd lo zz 3600 duc to tlre choice of the base circle radins, this formda may be nsed
to gellerate successive cliffereaces of chords workiag upward from lo, and therefore the
clmrds themselves,
Tllc use of a recursion formula of this type inevitably canses drifts of error, since the
calculator's value of
aud the accumulated error in the rounded sum C Crd iO, the error will continuously drift
tqiward or downward as one computes successive chords ratlm than alternating between
positive and negative errors. Van der Waerden suggests that the chords were corrected
; ~ certain
t
points by the values of the geometrically determi~~ed
chords.
Next, van der JYaercten attempts to verify that a chord table calculated according
to the recursive metliod with these corrections underlies tlle declination table by constructing a hypotlretiml chord table and recomputing the declination table from it. He
does not use
(G.3), but uses instead a modern version that bypasses the accumulated
rounding error iu CCrdio. a s calculation of the first 14 chords, leading to the first
seven declinations, proctnces these results:
In the first four cases, Ptolemy's value of S agrees exactly with the value
calculated from the [reconstructed table of chords], as well as with the modern
d u e . In the last three cases Ptolerny's value differs by only 1" from the value
derived from the table of [chords], bnt it agrees with trite modern value.4
T h s by van der Wwrdert's account the reconstructed method, urkich ignores one major
source of error (f:Crd iO), already produces less accurate declinations than Ptolemy's,
The find r d u e [Crd23'] is already too large. Yet, in order to accaunt for
tlle errors in Ptolemy's table of declinatioas, we are forced to assume that
the aut!lor of the table of [chorcis] added a positive correctioil to it. The best
agreement with Ptolemy's t a l h is reaclied by assuming that the corrected
d u e was. . .
Ad Jtoc corrections of this nature could be made througlmut the table, allowing the
recursion lnetllod to fit any continuous error pattern despitc the true source of the errors.
Val1 der TVCzerdeudefends 11%iutroduction of a syst.einatic positive error of 3" in tlre range
of chords from 23" to 29" by examining tlle declinations u h x e X = 31" to 37". Here tlle
declinations edlil~ita negative error of x 1.5", explaitiualAe 113. the negative error i~~curred
in the iuverse interpolation required in a chord table in the region 23" to 29" with a
(6.5)
%'ander Waerden does not explain why the subst,autia.l positive error in his cbord table
for argumnts 23" to 29' does not seem to affect the declination table for X = 12" to 14'.
These entries would be calculated usiug values for Crd 2X i~bout3" too lasge, resdting
iu a positive error of approximately 1" iu 6. The actual dcdinaticn table entries in this
rmge are all too small, which may then only be accounted for by a large positive error
iu the section of the chord table where the inverse interpolation takes place. But this
takes place in the chord table range of 9" to 11,where the errors are no more than 1"
iu enor, affecting the final result by well under 1/2".
Other problems indude the regionof negative error from 31" to 3?, which actually
extends to 46'. This requires an extension of the region of positive error in the chord table
titLlc (np to 17') that exhibits systematic negative error. This discrepancy cannot be
rccolidled with tlie error iu tlie final stage of inverse interpolation, given the numbers in
van der Waerde~t'schord table.
A systematic study of van der Waerden's liypothesis would require a careful analysis
to decide whetl~era cllosd table can be generated with errors that produce the errors in
tlie declination t a l k Since each entry S derives from two distinct regions of the chord
taXe, tliis i ~ ~ d y sworif:
is
be difficult, and in any case would only prove or disprove that
soiile chord table underlies the declination table, not necessarily van der Waerden's. I
do llot believe that van der M h d e n ' s hypothesis could explah the error pattern in the
doclimtion tilblc: a chord table generated by recursion and occasional correction wodd
silo^^ drifts of error followed by occasiond jumps. A decliuation table calculated from
such a chord table would exhibit the same trends, causing jumps in the error pattern at
identifiable locations as one increases X (two jumps for each jump in the chord table, to
reflect the tivo stages of cdculation). This does not reproduce the error pattern observed
iu the decliiiations. I coilclude that van der Waerden's kypotllesis, while intriguing, lacks
llistorical precedent and is not confirmed by the errors in the declination table.
6.3
Newton's and van der Waerden's studies of the declination table are based on the assrrruption tliat each elltry 6(X) was calculated directly by some chord table according
(wirere Cr.d2e = 48; 31,55 is the value used in the sample cdculations). TlGs is by no
xueaus clertaiu. It does seem clea that Ptolemy's chord table cannot be the source of every
cutry in the table of decliuations. A recomputation of declinations, using the chord table
aid&
as follows:
Tlle absolute values of the errors arc ranked in each group and the ranks at the nodes
are selected. This gives node rauks
for a sum of 71. The probability of a randomly chosen set of eight integers from 1 to 10
ha~iilga smn of at least '71is 0.00025; thus I concludc that the errors of entries on the
10" grid are significantly siualler than the o t l ~ e r s . ~
To decide whether the grid is actually 5' rather than 10"? I apply t l ~ samc
:
test to
the entries tlmt are nodes of the 5" grid but not the 10" grid, grouping as iollows:
Rn.uEug the absolute values of the errors and selecti~lgthe m!ks at the nodes gives
to 5
ha\iug a sum of at least 30 is 0.281. Thus I conclude the errors on the grid ox" 10" we
si&ficantiy lower than surrounding entries, but ilot those oil the 5" grid.
7A twosample ftest of the errors on noclcs versus nonnodes gives t = 6.22, significant at
alt~hougllas disc\lssed before the assumptions of this test may be violi~tcd.
< O.O1%,
Error
0
0
0
0
Error
1
Error
0
1
1
1
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
1
1
0
Table 6.2: A dccliuation table cdculated by Btolemy's rnetl~odsfrom his chord table
100
Figure 6.3: Second differences of errors ill the declination table (1.15)
The second differences s f the errors are pictured in Figure 6.3. The secoitd differences
between X = 50" and 60' are substantially larger than most other second differences,
suggesting a difference in the inetltod of interpolation for this region. A case can dso
be made for a break in the pattern of second differences at every increment of 10,
direct calcdatioa from a table of chords: if the cltord table is the source of the breaks, it
v7ould imply an implausible grid of 20" in the chord table. Given the evidence in s u p p r t
underlying the declination table, since six of the eight entrim for X = lo", 20,. , . ,80"
are accurate to dl three places.
The method of interpolation used to fill in the remaining entries would need to be quite
accurate, Linear interpolation, for instance, causes au error several orders of magdlitilde
Declination
Lambda
of the change iu the decliuation function between nodes: that is, let
S(l0i
(6.7)
for iategers 2: a d j . This method, however, produces errors of up to 20" in the interpolated areas (especially before
X =
I conclude that the declination table may not have been computed directly in its
entirety, and
wics
;lot computed consistently. Every tenth entry may have been derived
horn Ptolemy's clmrd table, but the other entries edlibit patterns indicative of some
form of interpolation, as yet unkno~vu.
Chapter 7
Sphericai Astronomy (Book 11)
Before building liis motlcls for the motion of celestial bodics, Ptolemy devotes 1B00li 11
to the solution of a nuriiber of prob!cins in spherical astronolqr. Many of t h e problems
concern the observer's position
011
fmm the lengtli of the longest day or the rising times of thc zodiacal signs, or loating
the cursent position of the ecliptic in the sky. Most of tlie topics treated ilt Book I1 were
imnpostant t o the working astronomer, bit only a few are necessary to develop the models
of planetary mnotioir to follow. I coilcentrate only on the problems that P tolemy solves
by means of mathematica1 tables.
7.1
(11.3>11.6)
The observer's terrestrial latitude 4 is a. fundamental quantity that affects several subjects
later in the Almugest, especially parallax and edipse theory. The latitude t ~ be~ found
y
easily by measusiilg the height of the celestial mrtla pole above the horizon (see Figure
4 f n ~ mthe length of
daylight at
the summer solstice, T. Clearly d ( T )increases as T incrcascs, with q3(1Zh) = 0" anywlme
on the Earth's equator,' and q3(24h) = 90"
To find
The notatioil
represeuts hours.
*For T > 24h,the functio~lbreaks down. Ptolemy gives several 1atit.lttlcsfor length of daylight greater
than 241t,up to 4fG months) = 90 at the Xorth Pole. I shall ignore tllcsc entries.
Figure 7.1: Thc calculation of terrestrial latitude from the length of longest daylight
to find the angular clistnuce from the East point of the horizon to tbe point on the horizon
where the Sun rises (the ortive amplitude) at the winter solstice. If the Sun is rising
at ff in Figure 7.1, thr. m c a = EH is required. At the winter solstice the Sun is at
E.
E.
takes exactly 12" to rotit te from the casteru horizon to the wcstern horizon, but the Sun's
pnth above the horizor; is smder. Ifi fact, the Sim smd the point
meridian (aarc from the celestial mrth pole to the south pole),3 so that the Sun's
3This assumes that. the Suu remains in place with respect to the fiscd stars.
time above the horizon (24"  T) is cclual to the t.ime requirctl for a point on the r?quntcx
to move horn R to A, and then to the point on the equator opposite I?, the same distmce
above the horizon on the far side of the celestial sphere. EI~cncethe time required for a
point on the equator to move hain E to R is
011
011
the equstur.
constant speed
3G0
24'1
=
An arc on the eq~icztorniay then be i~ieasuredby the lengtll of time requircrl for a point
to traverse the arc, so that t = ER d ~ o v e .This gives another unit of arc illeasurement,
a = COS t COS f,
(7.2)
which provides a as a fuiiction of t , and lrence (see (7.1) abow), of T. From this Ptolemy
applies the secoud theorcm of Mem4a.u~to the same sl~apc.111modern t e r m he finds
Sln E
cos # = .
sin a
Equations (5.2) nud (7.3) together define
4 as a function of T .
Error
0
Error
0
0
0
1
3
1
2
1
1
'
Hours
in 11.6. Although the q5 values are listed in tlre test, t l q form a table in cssence. My
recomputations are given in Table '7.1, with error plot in Figure 7.2, Tlie level of rounding
becomes much cruder for T
border between
England and Scotlaad, the northeru limit of the thencivilizctl world. At the Arctic Circle
The method
and a number of traditional values may have been incliitlcd by Ptoleiny rather tlmn
I
calculated. Note, for instance, that qi(13; ') = E to both scsagesimal places given iu the
table. Ptolemy icleutifics this zone as the Tropic of Cmccr (wlrere cj, =
F),
although in
reality q5(13ih) = 23;48 to two places. As Toomer states, this is probably arl intentional
sIipe5 Since one cannot assume a uniform method of determination of
4, or indeed
whether all latitude values were calculated mathematically, I recompute tlle table but
perform no analysis.
7.2
The gnomon, simply a pole fixed vertically on a flat surf,xe, was one of the earliest
astrsnolnical ius tri~rnents. Several qmntities relating to tlre pat11 of thc Sun may be
fonnd by observiug the direction and length of the shadow c i i ~ by
t the gnomon at certain
times.
For each clin1at.e determined pre~iouslpby the leug tli of longest dayligl~tT , Ptolemy
gives (with the htitudes in 11.6) the Length of the shadow cast by a gnornou 60 r~xrjitsin
Climata Ere specific zoncs ou the Earth parallel to the equator
of T.
5G. Toomer, Almagesd, 85, note 34.
artti
Cliitj3ter
summer solstice
equinox
\b''
'
'
'
Figure 7.3: Gnomon shadow lcngths at noon at the equinoxes and solstices
length at noon at the winter and summer solstices, and at the equinoxes. These are easy
to compute if thc observer's terrestrial latitude is known, and indeed Ptolemy has just
provided a table of latitudes. The shadow's letrgtli at the eqtliusx is
(7.4)
(Figure 7.3). At the suualner solsticc the Sun is higher in thc sky by the az~ountE; thus
sI (T)= .4B = 60 tan($(T)  E ) .
(7.5)
F ' i ~ d yat
, tbe wiilter solstice,
sl(T) == AD = GO tan(gj(T) $ E ) .
Thus, wlde the shadow lengths are given as funrtioi~sof T, they also may be com&lercd
to be functions of the iuterrnediate quantity (6.
The shadow length tz~blesare recompiited in Table 7.2 first using the essct values of
the latitades, and secollcl using Ptolcmy's given latitudes. The error plots are in Figures
7.47.6. Most of the shadow lengths are given by Ptolemy in fractional form, but I give
them as sexagesimds. All but three elltries a x integer multiples of 0; 5; tlmt is, 1/12",
72.1
Since
length of longest dayligl~t,this is an ideal situation to apply the table depertdence test.
The entries in dl three tables for T
entries the latitndes
> 1 7 strongly
~
favour dependence, siuce for these
d ~ ) where
,
fbp and 4~ we Ptolerny's and the correct latitudes respectively, and
q4R is
the latitude recoustrnetcd horn the slradow length values. The results, in T d e 7.3, are
all significant at the f 5% level. Wlcoxon's signed rank tcsl for dirpersioxi on the data
dP  4R I  I
T = 15", 17ah,1 7 i h ,
and 17ah. AU outliers fwour dependence on Piolemy's liitiiude value. Wota that the
cj5
was
corresponds to tlie next largest error in # ( T ) . Test results with these entries remaved
P%(T
0; 0
4;25
8;50
13;20
17;45
22;10
26630
30;50
35; 5
33;30
43;36
47;50
52;lO
55;55
GO; 0
G3;55
61;50
71;40
75;25
79; 5
82;35
85;40
88;50
92;25
96; 0
Errors
0
0
i 3
2 3
2 2
2 2
4
3
2 2
1
0
2 4
7
5
1 0
2 2
15 8
5 4
1 2
3 5
0 4
1
0
2 1
3 4
1 3
25 1
38 7
20 1
4 1
Errors
2 2
4 2
1 1
3
3
3 3
4 3
3 0
1
0
1 1
2 1
1 0
3 6
8 4
1 1
2
1
4
2
2 4
3 3
1 1
9 G
4
3
11 0
15 2
10 1
0 1
Errors
2
2
1 3
1
1
0
0
7
G
4
3
1
7
1 4
1
4
8
12
2
1
10
3
44 23
17 14
6 11
2 13
10 26
17
9
1 17
20 26
11 28
210 4
315 5
260 4
56 10
20
X
10
EC
=  X
L S E S
x

Y
7
5
2
  

y,
rg 10s
a<
r>
7


20

30
45,
12
13
14
15
Hours
16
17
18
Figwe 7.5: The shadow leitgth tables at summer solstice: error plot
Spezirmaa's r
Wilcoxon test
for dispersion
Winter
Summer
Solstice Equinox Solstice
0.562
0.632
0.870
(< 0.5%) (< 0.5%) (< 0.5%)
109
51
132
(24.7%) (61.7%) ,
(0.5%)
Table 7.3: Test statistics for shadow length tables; P ralues shown in brackets
again give nonsigpificant results for the equinox and winter solstices, and the p value for
the summer solstice inexcases to 4.6%.
f conclude that only tlte table for the summer solstice, and the outliers, give evidence
of del~eudenceou Ptolelug's latitude table. The luge Spearinan correlations are caused
primarily by the crudeuess of rouncliug the final values of s;(T) to the nearest 0; 5.
7.3
112
North Pole of
celestial sphere:
Equator
Figure 7.7: The celestial sphere at sphaera recta. The right ascm&ons of the ecliptic
longitudes TPl arrd Tfi are TEl and T& respectively. T l ~ erising time of the ecliptic
asc PIP2is the equator arc El E2,expressed in timedegrecs.
Equal arcs on the celestial equator rise above the horizou in equal times, since the daily
rotation of the celestial sphere has a constant velocity. However, the ecliptic is more
importaut than tlle equator for examiniug the planetary pl~enomenato come, and its
inchation to tllc equator means that equal arcs of the ccliptic generally do not rise
above the horizo~tin equal times, An observer situated ou the Earth's equator, for
iustance? sees the celestial North Pole oil the horizon, and so the daily rotation takes
place with the equator at right angles to the horizon (spltncra recta). In t l h situation,
the rising time of an arc of the ecliptic may be found simply by taking the diffmmce
114
oblique ascension: instead of projecting from the ecliptic to the equator at rigat angles
to the equator, one projects at
a11
Note that the oblique ascension and the right ascensioa arc ideu ticd at sl~iraerareefa:
.Ptolemy requires a table of rising times for the latitudes dcfined by some of the clirnata
iu IL6:6 a d ecliptic ioagitudes X = 0,lo",. . . ,350". Thus he must compute @(A,$) for
many arguments. Two symmetries rcduce the cdcdations, First,
(the sum of the rising iinies from 0" to A, and from 180"  X to 180') is constant with
respect to
when # = 0,where 8 = a (at sphaera recta). But B(h, OD)= a(X) contains tlie symmetry
These relatioils are cuough to save Ptolerny the effort of computing 0 for
First, compute O(X, 0" j ior X
> 90".
5 180".
Computing the successive differences of B(X, 0') gives the xising times at sphaera recta.
Now, compute @(A, 4) for all # and X 5 90". For any given
6 A h a g e s t 11.6, 6290.
4,the relation
(7.10,) shows
gmerates 8 for t l ~ csame A. Finally, by the first synmetry rclation (7.9), P tolemy is able
to fill in the entries far 180'
X
5 90'. The table in the Almagest (II.8), although it is given for dl A, contains these
syrnnnetries.
Ptolemy gives two distinct nzetltods for the calculatioll of 0. The first is a direct
a p p k a t i o ~ of
l hlenelaus' Second Theorem. In Figure 7.8>lct X = T&. It is required to
find 0 = fE2. Project a perpenclicular NP2M from the North Pole N though P2onto
tlie equator, for~uingM . Menelaus7 Sccond Theorem applied to the figure E2PzNQ gives
sin #
 sin(90 A4P2)sin(E2M)
siri(90 4)
sin(MPz) sin(Q&) '
(7.12)
Siilcc five of thc sis tcrlns in this compuud propstion are known,7 Ptolemy is able to
calculate
sill MEz = sin(a  8).
Using lcis chord talde (imd interpoli~tionif necessary), he can then find
(7.13)
ct. 
8. Since a.
 8).
(7.14)
H be
'QEz = 90, Alp? = &(A), the declinatioa, and E2M = T Y  I& = &(A)  B ( A , 4).
*in the future I shall siuydy refer to the modern forin of the equation and omit the details on how
Ptoiemy would !law proceeded.
%1magest 11.7, 04.
Figure 7.9: Calculating the oblique ascel:sion using the ascenlsional difference
the point on the llorizon with decliilatioii RM =
6.
4 =EL =TE
TL = 6r(X,+)
a(,\).
(7.15)
This is the samc qua11tit.y a EM2 in the previous calculvtiulls (up to sign, Figure 7.8).
Also, since H has the same declination as the Sun at tlre winter solstice, the length of
daylight is the wc on the equator from R to the point
OM
above the horizon on the other side of the celestial sphere. Thus E R = t is half the
difference betwecn lzh and the shortest dsy, wliich is the sune as the lhdi time excess
defined in $7.1.
117
Applying Mcnelaus' Second Theorem to the figure R Z P E , Ptolemy finds (an equivalent of)
tan6
tan t.
=
sinA
sint '
quantity A.
Now in (7.16),ueitllcr E nor 6 depend on the latitude #. Tlius the ratio D = sin A/ sint
(which I call the declination quotient) does not depend on # either, even though both
t z~ndA do depcnd on 4. This m&cs computing the oblique ascension relatively easy.
Ptolemy first compiles cz, short table of D for X E (10,20,. . . ,90),given iu the text.1
Tlie recomputed table is given with the errors in Table 7.4, m d an error plot in Figure
7.10. Suppose that Ptolemy has a short table for (the chord equivalent of) sin t. To
generate A, he needs only to multiply the values in both the short tables and take an
inverse sine using (7.17). From this, (7.15j and the right ascension table givcs the oblique
ascensions 8. This method, then, requires only one trigononrctric operation per entry (an
inverse chord) after the two short tables have been completed, yielding a much more
E (12", 12i1',
. . . ,17" ) , and
for longitudes h E
( l P +20,. . .,360" j . This is tlie oitly double argument table in the Almagest. No doubt
Ptalcru>~realized that. the appkatiol; of his interpo1;ztion ruethod to $(A, 4) (see $2.5)
w.ould cause large errors regardless of which variable is classified as weak. The fsising
"Almagesb 11.7, 07. The function tabulated is the reciprocal of D, but the ratio is also given as a
reciprocal.
Thus I cowider the declination quotient as defined above to be the function tabulated.
X D x GO Error
10
9;33
0
20 18;57
0
30 28; 1
0
40 3 ~ ; 3 3
a
50 44;12
1
60 50;44
0
'70 55;45
0
80 58;55
0
90 60; 0
0
'
1
10
20
30
40
50
Degrees
60
70
80
lf9
times of successive 10' arcs of the ecliptic are calculated as well, but since these are just
successive cliffererices of the oblique ascension vdues: they are not reproduced here. The
oblique ascet~sionsare fouud by means of the right ascensions and the ascensional differcrices for bot tt of P tolenry's calculation alternatives, so only the ascensional differences
are recorupu ted (Table 7.5). The right ascensions are given along wi tll the recomputation
of T.ll Note that Ptolcmy's latitude values are bypassed with the second method of
cdculation. The error plot is given in Figures 7.117.13.
7.3.1
Tire ascensioxral difference table may depend on one or more of several tables. If the first
iuetlmd was used, then Ptolemy's latitude table shodd underlie it; if the second method
IIW
(z
used, then Ptolemy's latitudes are bypassed. Thus the table dependence test provides
good method to choose between the two dternatives. If the second method was used,
the cledinatiou quotient table wodd underlie the table for A. Also, the values of the
chords equivdent to sin t in the calculations would underlie the table. These chords are
liot given in the text? but since Ptolemy has chord values accnrate to three places and
the A table is coilquted only to two, it is possible that he used chord values rounded to
two pf aces.
The table dependence test of $3.1 is designed for a single argument table; but A has
two arguments. Although it is possible to perform the tests, the results would be invalid
since tile entries in the reconstructed table of A are not illdependent. Each colmmn,
='The latitudes here a g e c with those iu the latitude table (1I.G).
Figure 7.11: The nscensional differences table: error plot (T = 1 2 . 5 ~to 13.Sh)
Figure 7.12: The ascensional differences table: error plot (7' = 1 4 ~to l5.Sh)
Figure 5.13: The wcensional differences table: error plot (T = 16" to 17")
for example, uses a single value of
errors
throughout the column are not equal, they are clealy cleyc~~dent.
To solve the problem,
I construct a new artificial table from tlte table for A, in uldch each entry relies on a
different underlying latitude:
By addiug the entries in each column, a short table for v(4) is created that docs not violate
the independence requirement for the table dependence test. Similarly, the dependence
of A on the declination quotient cannot be tested directly. Illstead, the dependence test
is applied to the table for
where Ptolemy's table for s is constructed by adding the raws of Ptolemy 's table for A.
The tables of v aud s are given in
'7.6.
The last row of the table (for h = 90)is removed from the table for the depeude3m.
1 Error
1
8
0
0
 1:
1
G
1
Table 7.6: Ptolemy's fiuferred) tables for v(4) and s(X) (11.8)
tests, since P tolemy seems to have noticed that
the lidf time excess expressed in degrees. Thus no calculat.ion is required for this row.
Also, for 4 = 0" (T = l Z h ) the ascciisional difference is zero. Thus the fisst column,
coutrtiuiug tlle right asceusions, is also omitted.
I applied the table dependence test with the hypothesis that Ptolemy's latitudes underlie
the table for
~ ( 4 ) .Let dp and
+A
ad let pn be the latitudes reconstructed &om the entries iu the table for v. The values
are fouad by numerical methods. The Spearmkn conclation r for the quantities
(4p +Rt
 &)
is 0.248, which is not significant. Tbe Wilcoxon signed rank test for
124
favours a positive median, with p = 6.7%. I conclude that the table is too accurate to
derive iron.. the table of latitudes. This result favours the second method of calculation,
which bypasses Ptolemy's latitude values. (The level of coilfidence in this conclusion is
no: high, lio~vever,since thew are only ten entries in the table for v($).)
7.3.3
If the reconstructed table for s(X) may be fouild to underlie the ascensional differences
table, it would provicie statistical evidence that the table of declination quotients was used
in actual cdculaiion. To test tlxis, let
favours a positive median, but with p = 36.3%. I concludc that the depencience caunot
If Ptolemy used the sacoud method of calculation, it is possible (although lwdly guaraziteed) that, he xsed c l m d values rounded to two places. It may also be possible that
the crsors in this roun&l~.gare large enough to be detected Ijy the table dependence test.
Let the uuderlying sine table be
S =sin$ =
rl (Crd 2 t )
120
'
I2 % level. The Wilcoxolz signed rank test for dispersion with data
favours a positive medim, but with p = 12.4%' Thus the test does not support or reject
tlic dependexice.
73.5 Conclusions
Clearly the summation process to remove dependence between entries decreases the power
of the test, since none of the results are particularly strong. The latitude results support
Ptolemy 's second method of calculation, and since Ptolemy explicitly prefers this method
in the text, I find no cause to doubt that it was actually used. A double argument version
of the table dependence test may be useful here, but it will not be needed for the rest of
this work; thus I do not develop i t here.
7.4
At tire end of Book 11 is a large table giving for a given time and terxestsial latitude
both the distaice between the observer's zenith and the Sun (the zenith distance),
and the angle formed between the ecliptic and the altitude circle passing through the
Sun. Tllese quantities are important for the prediction of eclipses, since p a r d a x affects
the actual altitudes of the Moon wcl Sun. The t&es appear in Book I1 because they
are notl strictly speakiug, directly connected with eclipse tllcory but fall properly within
astronoluical geography.
The zenith distance z m d the angle between ecliptic and dtitude circle 3. (see Figure
7.14) are both fuactions of three arguments: the observer's latitude #, the longitude
of the Sun A, and the time t measured after noon. Both functions are cdculated for
seven clzmatn
... .,l G h ;
for longitudes cossesponding to the beginning of each zodiacal sign X = OO. 3 0 $... ,330';
and for each integer hour after noon until the Sun reaches the horizon. (The table
also gives the angle for hours before noon as a separate colum~,but since these are
derived directly by synuuetry from the afternoon angles, they are ignored here.) The
ecliptic angle y is d s o computed at the molnent the Sun reaches the horizon: in this
case z = 90' and t is a function of z in actual calculation (see Table 7.7). Since both
functions are sensitive to chaages in d l three arguments, P tolemy is unable to use his
method of interpolation to simplify the calculations. As a result the table is very large,
and its numerical sensitivity causes occasioiml large errors (especially for s n i d vdues of
4). As a result, the table was not often used by later astroi~orners,~~
The calculation of
r(4, A, t) = ZS
and
7.1.) proceeds
as fullows: let S be the Sun, and let ZSA and ZA4B be altitude circles througll the Sun
of the equator, D)respectively. The longitude of Ad may be found by first observing that
the time differem? between S and h l is t ; thus the rigllt ascensions of S aid T differ by
a ( M )= TD = @(A) S 15'
t,
(7.22)
and so
(since
DE =
90').
constant).
The zeuitlr distmce z may now be found through an application of Mendaus' First
Tlreorein on the figure Z A H M . This gives
sin Z A
sin AS
sin ZD sin H M
sill Ad B sin HS
(7.25)
'
The angle
between' the ecliptic a11d the altitude circle xn;vbe found from z tlirougl~
 sin Ii'X
sin A K siilSA
siuXL
 A).
(7.28)
Tlre tables for z and y are reproduced in Table 7.7 as they appear in 11.13. Symmetries
reduce the number of z values required, but no symmetries apply to
7.14
calculated using Ptolemy's values for 4. For tlle last entry in c i ~ subtable,
h
the argunmzt
t is found so that
t is as giveu. The table exhibits many large errors, especially for small d u e s of &, and
the entry for y (3G0,18Q0,5") clearly contains a scribal or typographical error,
13The point 1' on the great circle K X L furthest removed from the circle Z S K must lie 90 reanoved
from I<, sicce S is the pole of ICXL. But since Z S K is an altitude circle, IC is the point on the great
circle IL'XL furthest below the horizon. Hence Y must be on the horizon, which gives Y = X and
EX' = 90.
14For (5 = 16;2 7 O , it is possible for the midheaven M to pass to tile otber side of the zenith, causing
a problem in representation. Ptolerny marks these entries; I rescale tlmn to fit the formulas.
Error
0
Error
0
19
8
21
24
1
12
1
13
1
11
6
18
1
/
z(4, X , t )
t
0
28; 7
7 ( 4 , A , t ) Error
Error
0
111; 0
II
X = 240"
t
z($, X , t )
0
1
2
3
4
5
36;51
39;46
47;15
57;33
69;30
82;18
90;0
5;35
Error
( A t )
102;30
125;12
143; 5
156;3
164;48
171;43
174;51
1
0
2
I
2
5
Error
6
9
8
7
4
3
r(Q;,
X,t)
40;18
Error
0
~ ( 1 3 5X ~, t )
90; 0
130
Error
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
Error
0
t ) Error
4;47
0
z($,X,
y(d,X,t)
69; 0
Error
3
1
0
2
1
2
5
Error
0
1
0
8
1.
i
0
Error
2
6
8
7
28
55
4
7
:Fl=G=FF
z ( 4 , A, t f
Error
Error
0
2
9
5
I0
13
3
X = 120"
t
0
z ( 4 , A, t ) Error
3;21
t
0
y(4, A, t)
Error
Error
102;30
3
6
5
7
13
13
7
z(q5,X,t)
Error
y(+,X,t)
Error
Error
12;11
111; 0
2
3
5
3
16
9
1
Error
0
1
1
3
3
4
1
A = 300"
y (4, A, t ) Erro
90; 0
0
108; 3
1
123;31
1
135;37
4
144;5'7
3
152; 0
13
153;46 0
z(q5,A,t)
35;31
Error
0
li
1
9
5
II
12
I
 
t
0
Error
y((5,X,t)
69; 0

Erro
3
11
PO
12
18
8
2
z($,X,t)
P2;11
Error
3
Error
0
y(4, X , t )
Error
~ ( 4A ,,t ) Error
69; 0
2
9
2
14
12
21
66
 5
11
G;31
14;5B
27;23
40;19
53;14
65;55
78;15
9@;0

I l(d,A, t )
o j
9;52
1
0 '
42
0
0
1
2
3
0
2
2
3
1
r)
L.
5
3
0
5
6
y(4, A, t ) Errol
Error
TI
 
Error
Error
Error
0
y ( 4 , A, t)
102;30
Error
z(4, X , t )
42; 2
Error
9
0
A, )
102;30
118;39
Error
2
5
Error
933
Ehor
~ ( 4A, ,t ) Error
2
3
3
4
Error
2
9
5
7
1
19
1
Error
0
0
~ ( 4A,t ) Error
69; 0
87;32
1
102;38
113;33
120;56
125;54
127;55
1
0
3
Error
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
4
Error
2
12
1
2
4
8
0
1

q5 = 36"
Error
0
2
10
0
1
1.
1
2
0
y(#, A, t) Error
90;0
0
133;14
9
147;45
6
151;46
4
151;52
2
149;54
0
146;25
I
141;30
2
140; I
1
Error
8
5
Error
2
2
7
23
1
2
4
13
5
4
6
3018
2
Error
0
2
0
0
1
2
6
Error
3
3
2
0
4
9
4
Error
2
4
1
1
2
5
t
0
z ( d , X , t ) Error
56;30
136
r(#,X,t) Error
77;30
t
0
2
Error
z ( 4 , X, t)
24;20
12
10
1
I
Error
Error
3
0
2
0
0
1
2
1
 14
1
8
8
5
t
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7;4
Error
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
10
7
y(+, A, t ) Error
77;30
114;32
130;19
135;37
137;ll
136; 5
133;10
8
128;39
17
i28;36
Eno

Error
0
31
11
5
2
3
2
0
13
1
3
4
3
5
1
0

Error
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
3
3
\ = 12
Enor
0
1
1
1
0
1
3
1
8
z($, A,
t> Error
52;36
54;23
59;25
66;58
76;15
86;38
90; 0
Error
0
1
2
2
1
1
3
X = 211
Error
0
0
4
4
3
3
3
6
3
2
8
11
~ ( 4A,, t ) Error
102;30
115; 5
126;29
136;lO
143;45
148; 6
2
4
8
0
2
3
"(4, A, t ) Ersor
64;47
66;15
?Or30
77; 4
1
2
1
5
85;18
90; 0
2
yjq5, A , i )
90; 0
102;27
113;35
122;55
130;58
134;16
Error
0
7
2
39
3
0
t
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
X = 300"
0
1
57;42
6'7;50
78;45
90; 0
1
2
2
0
66; 9
82;15
95;56
105;26
111; 5
114;17
115;13
0
3 1
11
6
1
3
8
X = 30"
Error
0
Error
1
8
1
0
1
1
8
Error
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
3
3
3
6
5
6
7
2
2
z(+,A, t ) Erro
21;10
0
24;32
7
32;12
2
42; 1
1
52;29
1
"3;4
2
73;24
1
83;"i'
6
90; C.
0

Error
0

z(+,A,t)
Error
45; 1
( , A )
113;51
Errol
0
11
1
3
1
2
0
1
0
z(0, A, t ) Error
56;41
58;19
62;49
69;42
78;16
87;56
90; 0
i;'
65;15
75;39
7
7;28
85;39
90; 0
0
2
1
X = 1:
z ( 4 , A, t ) Error
33;21
1
35;43
42; 4
50;46
60;44
71;12
81;46
1
0
1
0
1
6:48
90: 0
3
2
3
4
5
t
0
0
2
1
2
1
0
3
X = 241
z(4,X,t) Error y ( 4 , X , t ) Error
65;31
0
2
102;30
T
z ( $ , A,
t ) Error
*/($i+
A, t ) Error
90;0
2
0
1
0"
4332
z(#,X,t)
Error
yf$, X,t)
65;31
SG$5
70;58
77;14
85;lO
90; 0
1
2
2
3
77;30
88;50
99;21
108;19
115;20
118;25
Error
0
1
i:
0
1
2
3
4
140
Error
2
 10
8
3
1
0
X =3
Error
0
1
5
5
0
1
0
1
3
X = 61
Error
Error
2
2
2
4
6
X = 330"
Error
Error
2
C
1
0
3
1
2
0
2
1
65
1
10
6
11
3
6
4
P
y (c), A, t )
Error
90;0
11 1;44
0
9
126; 7
133;18
136; 6
436; 4
1
3
1
1
1.
1
2
134;0
130;16
124;58
Error
2
3
2
2
P
3
2
Error
0
14
2
5
1
3
1
Error
3
6
2
0
6
18
20
2
1
Error
2
8
6
3
5
1
142
z ( 4 , A, .t)
0
1
2
48;32
50;21
54;59
62; 5
3
4
5
70;41
Error
0
7
1
0
I
80; 8
~ ( 4A,, t )
Error
66; 9
78;48
89;58
98;4
0
14
1
5
2
3
1
103;36
106;41
t
0
a(q5, A, t ) Error
69; 2
0
( 4 , A, )
77;30
Error
2
Error
Error
2
7
5
6
5
7
6
6
5
Table 7.7: Table of zenith distances and ecliptic angles (11.13)
7.4.1
Tlte tables for z ;.and y both use tlic terrestrial latitude # as an argument, calculated
for seven climata. These latitudes correspond to the values
the leugtlr of the longest clay. The values of T are in fact given in the tables. It is thus
amturd to ask whether z and y may Be seen to depend on the latitude table q5(T).
Several difficulties arise in considcsing this dependeuce. First, similarly to the ascensional differencestable, t l ~ eunderlying table $(TI contains far fewer entries than the two
deperderlt tables. This violates the assumption of statistical independence required for
the test, since niany of tlie dependent table's entries rely on each entry of the underlying
table. Second, tlre approach taken \rith the ascensional differences table (constructing
an artificial table by smnuling the entries in tlre depeiideut table for each entry in the
uitelerlyi~lgtable) casliot apply lrere. The function y sometiiues increases and sometimes
decreases with rcspect to t. Thus a systematic bias caused 11y a flawed underlying value
of
appear in Figures 7.15 and 7.16. Clearly, even clisregarding the problem with the in
dependence assumptions, the error clistributions are too close to be able to distinguish
between the magnitudes of errors usiug Ptolemy's
7.4.2
The dependence of 7 on
Since y depends on z in Ptolemy's demonstration, it seerus likely that the table for .y
was
coustructecl from t l ~ ctable for r. The table dependcncc test is applied, tsir!~z as the
nadedgiug talAe and y as the dependent table. Where t = 0 the function is indq>endent
z is used to derive
t. These
Error (Mmutes)
Correct p h ~
Enor (Minutes)
Figure 7.16: Histog~amsof errors in y for both accurate a i d Ptolemy's latitudes (11.13)
145
elltries are removed frcm consideration. The rem(zining entries for 7 are (theoretically)
n~ediai1=0.01400)with p = 0.001. I conclude that the taLle for y is more accurate than
On the face of it tlus is a surp~isiugresult, since the 7 values are often very inaccurate,
However, the y function is numerically sensitive in many regions. Perhaps Ptolemy used
vdues of z containing more sexagesimal places than those displayed in order to calculate
y with greater accuracy.
7.5
Summary of Results
The conclusiom to be drawn from t l ~ etables on astronomical geography are mixed. The
gnomou slladow length tables may be seen to depend on the latitude tablc in certain
regions, but overall the test is inconclusive. The test for dependence of the rising times
t.able on the latitude table suggests (wealdy) that the rising times table is too accurate
to have beeu computed from the latitude table, favouriug Ptolemy's second method
were kept
i:i
the cdculation of 7.
Chapter 8
8.1
Hipparchus' Solar M o d e %
Book III of the A h a g e s t cont&is an account of the motion of tlie Sun that was dready
a wellestablishecl theory by Ptoleiny's time. Ptolemy himsdf often refers to Hipparcllrus'
use of and justificstion for the solax model preseutccl there, but it is possible that it dates
as far back as Apollonius.' By observatioiis Hipparchus (or predecessors) discovered t h t
the Sun takes longer to travel from the v e r i d equinox to tllc south point of the ecliptic
than any of the other three quadrants, and this led to tlre uecessity of an eq~xationto
describe the Sun's changing velccity on the ecliptic.
Almayaest 111.3 preseuts two moclcls to accouat for the variations in solar velo,lcty,
The eccentric model places the Earth E at a location sliglitly removed from the centre
of the Sun's orbit C (Figure 8.1). This produces different q,parent anglcs for different
quadrants of tlre ecliptic in such a way that tlie observed seasonal lengths arc accouiited
for by uiliform motion ou the appropriate orbital arcs. Tlte eccentricity e , the distance
from the centre of the Eartk to the centre of the deferent (orbit), is mcnsured with
respect tc the radius of the deferent. In most of his planetary models Ptolenry gives this
raclius ail arbitrary d u e AC = 60". From this he finds
The epicyclic model (Figure 8.2) places the Earth E i ~ tthe centre of the deferent
circle, and the vnriatiou in the Sun's velocity is accounted for by placing the Sun on
velocity (ineasured froi~lthe point H) as the epicycle's centre G m'tates around the
Earth E, but in the opposite direction. The effect is that the radius GS of the epicycle
dways poixlts in the direction of thc solar apogee E A a t every point of its orbit, leading
to the same s o l a orbit as the eccentric model if the epicycle's radius r is set equal t;o the
eccentricity e of the previous model. Ptolerny prefers the ecceutric model in lGs further
work, since ':that is simpler and is performed by meails of m e motion ir~stcadof two"."
The epicyclic model was more useful in other plmetasy moclcls, wlwe Ptolerny changed
the velocity of the planet on the epicycle to account for anom;tlies in the planets' mokitioxxs.
8.2
Tl;c progr(znmc to cakulate the solar position for a given time t proceeds according to the
nzetliod of rueau longitude and equation, Ptolemy determines X A = 65; 30,measuring
from tlie vernal equinox. Given t one majr calculate LACS =
a m ( t ) (Figure
8.1) using
( t )= a,, ( t )
XA
(8.1)
wl~ich~ P I L C S ~ L ~A,),
C S (t) . TOdetermine a ( t ) and X(t ) P tolemy must find the solar equation
q(a,,) = LCSE. Once the equation has been fouild the true argument a ( t j = LAES is
a,
LC = e cos a,,,7
and
E L = e sin a,.
(8.4)
qfa,,,) = sin'
EL
12.
(8.5)
e sin a,,,
 = sill'
ES
J(e sill a , ) 2 + (60 + e cos a,)'
6bcalf Ptnlcmy uses trigonoinetric procedures based on chords rather than modern trigonometric
funcdons. The following discussiou is a trau@!at,ionto modern terminology.
'Note LC is negative as portrayed in the diagram. I leave the sign as is to preserve the addition at
the U C X ~stage.
EL
q(am) = tall   tan'
LS
e sin a,,
60 e cos a,,
'
bnt with only the chord table Ire was unable to perform an operation equivalent to .wi
inverse tangent .)
The table, which Ptolemy calculates for a,,, E { G o , 12'. . . . 90,
93", . . . ,180), is re?
computed in Table 8.1 with au error plot in Figure 8.3. Symmetry dloms Ptolelny to
ignore calc~~lation
for a,,, > 180,Since it is unclear horn the text whether Ptolemy uses
e = 2; 29f' or e = 2; 30,
than half tlle entries agree with the correct value according to modern rouilding. Since
it seems unlikely that a consistent error bias dniost precisely balances the difference betwee~lmodern rou~rclingand truucation, I assume modern rouudmg was used. The errors
suggest e = 2; 20;'
in the
B. van Dalcn's estimatorg also favours e = 2; 20i0, but on the face of it the
8.3
h general, both for the sus m d other bodies, we &&led the qun.chants
near the apogee [a, < 90"j into 15 subclivisions ( t h s in these quadrants
the i n t e r d of tabulation is 6"f, and the quadrants near the perigee into
8Ahnagest (IIE.5), 158, IGO, 162, 164.
"I3. vau Lialeu, aA statistical method for recovering unknown para~rrctersfrom medieval ;~s;tsaimnical
wbles", [122], 85145.
Errors
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
Errors
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 1
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
Table 8.1: The solar ecpation table (111.6). The first error is computed for e = 2; 29f O;
ihe second error for e = 2; 30.
because of the increased rate of chailge of the functioil t,l~ere.However, the graph of the
function is nearly symmetrical (Figure 8.4j. Tlle greatest difference of q corresponding
to a Go change in a,, i z the latter part of the table is 0;lG for a , = 1 7 4 O to 180,as
opposed to 0;14 for a,, = C0 to Go, hardly cause to halve the increments of a,,,. Ptole~ny
employs the G0/30 increment scheme in many tables througIlout t l ~ eAhagest, including
some planetary tables where the greatest change per unit of argument occurs early in the
table. In several tahks, in fact, tlre entries corresponding to arguments 9 3 O , 9g0,.. . ,177"
are not computed at all but merely interpolated. Thus I believe Ptolemy wished to fit
the table into the 45Zine page height (see note 1, Chapter 5) and standardize a grid of
argunlents tlirougliout the Almagest. He chose to halve the spacing in the latter parts of
tif.bles rather t l w l the former part since most tables do in fact exhibit a slightly larger
rate of ckauge for arguments aear 180" over arguments near 0'.
8.4
Error Clustering
4t &st glance, the enors in the solar equation table appear to exhibit clustering, wlrich
suggests the possibility of some local method of citlcula\'ictn jucll as interpolation. The
error clustering test of 53.2, applied to the errors of the solar equation table (using
e = 2; 29;), gives
Degrees
reference distribution, arbd comparison of the actual number of runs (9) of errors in the
table to the reference distribution. From this I obtained
984
p(runs 5 9) =  = 9.84%,
10000
(8.9)
uot a significant result. This table is a good example of the effect described in 53.2, since
the lag 1 autocorrela.tiolt of the errors is significantly positive (0.628).
8.5
As suggested earlier, It is possible that the entries of the table corresponding to odd
idues of a, were not
corresponding to even a,,. Tft interpolation grid test of 33.3 gives the following node
ranks:
154
The probability of a sum of ranks as great as or greater than the observed 22 is 0.696.
Thus I conclude there is no evidence in favour of interpolation on the suggested grid.
Chapter 9
Lunar Theory (Books TV, V)
The Moort x7asby far tltc. most difficult and the most important object for ancient astrolioiners to lraulle. Its proximity to the Esrtli allows for easy detection of irregularities
i i its
~ motion, rcndeiiug simple ki~lenlaticmodels inadequate to match observations. Also,
the Moon is tlx only objcct that exhibits parallax discernilde to the naked eye, and it
travels up to 5' away fro111 the ecliptic. These complications hamper the accurate predicposition, esseiitial to the psecliction of both lunar and solar eclipses.
t i m of the ~IOOIL'S
Ptolemy's sscdution to the problem of lunar motion follo~vsthree stages. In Book IV
he presents the 111zsicmode!, similar to tlie epicyclic model for solar motion. That this
theory is bzecl only upon ob~ervat~ions
at eclipses implies that the model is probably
reliable only at Sunh/icmi syzygies (since eclipses happen only at these times). When
Ptolemy obserucs the Mom at SunXIoon quadratures
(1
X(h4oon)
 X(Sun) 1%
90),he
finds sufficient clisagreenicnt between ~Bservationsand the predictions of the basic model
t o proceed to a secoad and consideri~blymore coinples lunar model, preseirted in V.2
V.4. Another ;tdjmtmcr~tis required when Ptolemy finds an inaccuracy in the second
model's preclictcd positior~sat the octants
9.1
(1
with predicting the Moon's position tllau with describing of the true state of the Moon's
orbit in the heavens, this separation of longitude and latitade calculation is a natural
step.
The first lunar model, essentially idelltical to the solar epicyclic modcl (see $8.1),
utilizes the motiou of the Moon on the epicycle to account fur variations iu the Moon's
velocity. The Earth E is at the centre of the deferent circle, .\rhicLhas a racliirs of R = 60
units (Figure 9.2). The centre of the epicycle G rotates with constant angu1;tr velocity wl
around the deferent, and the Moon 34' rotates with constani angular velociiy w, around
G . Since wt # w, the sit~qdeeccentric moctd of the solar thclsry does not suffice, although
Ahagest W.G, 191; 0.Neugebauer, RAM& 83.
157
it is possible to devise an cquivdent theory whereby the Moon travels on a large deferent
circle wliose cen tre rota t cs around a sinaller circle centred at the Earth. Ptolemy adopts
the epicyclic tlicory, siwc it is b e t t e ~suited to handle the changes to be intposed in the
sc cond model.
= wt ' t
+ A,,, (0),
where A,,(O) = 41;22" is given. The quantity wt . t may be found using the lunar
mean motion ill longitude table (sce Chapter 6).
~ a r i e si n d e p e n ~ l ~ ~of~ ~
A,,.t l yThe
anomaly a = LHGM:
tvkere a ( 0 ) = 268; 49' and w, t may be found from the lullas mean motiou in anomaly
The equation of mouraly p(ui is in a sense identical to the soiar equatiou of centre up
to the eyuivdetlce of tlw eccentric a d qkyclic models, and Ptolemy's calculations are
Almagesf nr.5,181.
Tlmxy (Books Il i,
Chapter 9. LUZMK.
MI< = r sin a
GK = cos a,
and
(9.4)
where r = Gh4 = E, 15 units is the radius of the epicycle. (Ptolemy uses 5;15, presumably
rounding &om two calcnlntions that give 5;13 and 5;14.4) h o r n AICEM wc have
( r sin a)2
(9.5)
Finally
p ( a ) = sin'
MK
ME
 sin'
J ( r sin a)'
r sin a
(60
cos a)'
MK
I
r sinn
p(u) = tan"  tanEK
60 rcosa
might have been nrade, if Ptolemy had been able to calculate an arc tangent.
Tbe table for y(u) al)pears twice, in Book IV with the basic theory (IV. lo), and also
in Book V as an iuterrnccliate stage in the computation of the completed lunar tlreory
from that in IV.10, for (I = 120and 123", where 11 = 4; 32 slid 4; 25 respectively instead.
of 4; 31 and 4; 24.
For the latter half of the table the parameter r = 5 ; 15 seems in littlc doubt, arid
the table is quite accurate. However, for u ( 90" eight of tltc fifteen entries are too low.
Recsmputatious with tire smaUer yalnes of T implied in 1V.G do not produce good zuatcltes
3Almagest W.9, 209.
4Ahrrage& W . 6 , 197, 202.
ivitl: these entries. Corrqmrisca with accurate cdcnlation and the use of truncation
instead of rouu(1ii~gat tlic final stage, Itowever, yields seven errors (five positive and two
x~cgative),and five of tlrcse errors are only a little above
Error
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126
129
132
135
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
Error
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Error
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
9.2.1
162
Error ciusteririg
The errors in the table suggest clusicring, but ia this table tlie effect does not seem to be
significant. Thc error clustering test of 53.2 was applied t o the IV.10 table (the sta9tist;cs
happen to be iclcuticd to the V.8 taLle). From
p(
30
=  = 0.68182,
44
(9.8)
1436
< 10) = = 14.36%.
10000
(9.91
Thus the 16 runs of error in the table do not give a significant result.
9.2.2
> 90'
The probability of a sumof ranks as great or greater than the observed 23 is 0.500. Thus
T'ae first. model is Gascd entirely rrpo~leclipse observrttions, at which times the Mom's
longitude may be cldenuinerf by h i l i n g the Sun's longitude kom the solar tlieory of Book
Ifl (siuce X(Moou) = X(Sun) at solar eclipses, and X(Mooa) = X(Sun) i 180" at lunar
eclipses). Tllc first half of B o d V is dedicated to improving the model's match to the
Moon's longiturlc at tinles other than syzygies, and begins by describing an instrument to
allow accurate mcasurerncnt of tlle Moon's position at any time (V.1). Ptolemy concludes
ikon1 his observzttions that the variations iu the Moon's longitude from the mean lo~gitude
clue to the epicycle are &out 50% larger at tlie quadratures
than at the syzygies. This causes an error of up to about 2:'
(1
X(Moon)  X(Sun)
1%
90')
the quadraturcs . The discovery of this difference, now Emown as the evection, has been
the centre
called
the circul.its parvus. As C rotates around the Earth and G rotates around C,
The radii EC and CG (Figure 9.4) rotate in opposite directions, but the epicycle
centre C; rotates with constant a q d a r velocity 116th sespect to E rather than
(a
S w , observed from Earilr, is always precisely between the apogee A and the epicycle's
1,)'
164
(9.10)
h m the moving apogee A of the deferent. After mother 7; days the mean Moon and
Sun are in opposition ( c ) halfway througl~the syuodic month, G has rmdc a complete
revdution arouild the clcferent, again coincicling with A. Three quarters of the way
though the sy~iodicrnontli (d), the liiean Sun and mean Moon are again at quadrature
and the epicycle is as close as possible to the Earth. Finally the system returns to sti~te
(a) at the end of the month, except that the Sun is now about 30" further on its path
almg the ecliptic7
accurate descriptiou of
the heavens.
i~llClthird
Figure 9.5: The second l w a r rimdel through the course of a synodic month
tlie discrepancy is largest at the octaiits the cllange lo the modd must be determind 1y
the location of tllc meal) Sun. An account of tile reasoning Lcki11cf Ptolemy's refinzrncnt
is unnecessary to this ~ o ~ lsince
i , it does not a&ct tlie uunmical tables. For the secoxkd
xnoclel, the reference poiut for the measuremeat
cif
the allg~llil~
speed of the Rfoo~ian the
fiu
side of the
epicycle. Thus A,,, movcs from one side of A, to the other, cawing the Moon to move
with nonuniform speed on the epicycle awl allowing the Sun's longitude to affect the
h4oon's positioxl on the cpicycle thso~igl~
the point Z.
(9.11)
t k a,, (O),
rimy
be found
from t l ~ esolar tllcoq., we have the ccntrum c ( t ) froin (9.10). The equrttion of centre
q = LEGZ = LA,,,GA, is the arc of difference between the ulcan and true spagees of the
0 1 i l ~on
c. From this,
Finally, the equation of anomaly p is, as in the first ~noclel,the angulu &fferace
between the epicycle's cclitre and the Moon, seen from Earth. It may kc foorrnd hona a,
and c. Then
q q = &n(t>+ P(G,c )
gives the luu
itudc.
Calculating t l ~ cfuilctioas q(cj and p(a,, c) requires extensive use of trigonometry, and
P t,olemy provides cxamplcs of their calculaittcion in V.6 prior to their tabular presentation
iir V.8. Ptolemy's metl~oclof solutioll is as follows.
Figure 9.G sl~onrsa typical position of the lunar orbit. I follow Piolemy and remove the
cir~ulusP(LTZ)ILS fsoin the drawing, leaving CE = E Z = e = 10; '19. Drop perpen&culaxs
CIi = Z S = esinc
and
EK = EX = ecosc,
(9.14)
J.
GK=
(9.15)
Subtracting EA' froir? G K gives the distance p = GE from the Earth to the centre of
the epicyde:
GX = p $ ecosc,
GZ = J ( p
(9.17)
(9.18)
XZ
= L X G Z = sill'   sin'
GZ
J(p
e sill c
+ e cos c ) +~ (e sin
(9.19)
z)2
Figure 9.6: Ptolc:.i.'s caleuSation of the equation of ceittrc and equatioit uf arrcrmdy
GL = r cos u,
and
(9.20)
EL = p +~cosa,.
(9.21)
Triimgle ELM gives the clistance 6 from the Earth to the Moon:
LM
Eh4
r sin a,
Jfp
+ r cos
u,]2
+ ( r sic
(9.23)
u,)2
. . . ,90,93", . . . ,180")
>
the entries in this table are correct to witkilr zk1 in the secoiid place.
as
q(e)
0;53
Error
0
93
q(T Error
1 12;15
1
1
c
q(c)
138 11;29
141 11; 2
Error]
2
1
1
4
5
4
0
2
1
0
1
3
4
3
0
(711.8, column
3)
(c
>
entries Letweeri these nocles have errors alternating in direction between positive and
uegative. This strongly mggests some form. of illterpolatioll on a grid of 12' or 24'.
9.6
The calculation oi the ecx equation of anomaly p(a,, c j may be accomplished by (9.23)
a b o ~ e .Xowevcr, to remain consistmt with the rest of the work Ptolemy must shield
Figure 9.8: Lunar equation c;f centre table: second differences of errors
wgurne~lts,psrticularlg ill this case. Instead he opts for P tolernaic interpolation (see
$2.5), its first occwrencc in the Almagest.
the quantity c is the weak variable. Ptoleiny calculates tables for the two extreme choices
of the weak variable c, c = 0' and c = 180':
For c = 0,we k w e p = GO units (the case at syzygies), and the functiorl pl rcduces to the
original p of tlle Hipparcl~iantheory (9.6), replacing u with a,. The table is reprodtrccd
in V.8, and it is identical to IV.10 escept for the two elltries noted in $9.2, For c = 180,
determines what iractiou of the difference p:! pl must be added to pl to arrive at; p(a,, c ) ,
;~cldcdwheu 2, is a t its maximum (varying a,). Tlins, defining the maximum equation
Ptoleir~ydms lloi jnstify the approximatiot;, but Petersen has shown that it produces very
9.6.1
Tlte
st L O ~ L C
lxxi~ar
~
eyustiou
table
112
Figurc 9.9. Tlic prono~mcedbulge in the errors for a , _< GO0 leads Toomer to comment:
111
col. 5 [pt  pl] the first 9 vdues (from arguments B to 54 inclusive) are
too big, axd the first 7 of them fit a ratio (radius of epicycle : distance of
epicycle centre) of ,136 (instead of .I33 x 5; 15 : 39; 22 1vhic8 Ptolemy7stext
requires alicl wliicll nnderbes d l vdues from argument 60 on). This codd be
clrrivecl frank
(z
at
neitlicr of which has any motivation. I callilot explain this discrepancy, but
CL,
p2(u,)
G
12
18
C;43
l;25
2; 7
2;49
3;29
4; 7
4;43
5;16
24
30
36
42
48
54
GO
66
5;45
Gill
G;35
Error
1
u,
1
I
3
96
7;39
4
4
5
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126
i;36
7;31
7129
7;21
7;13
7; 4
G;53
6;40
2
0
1
1
0
0
2
yz(u,)
1 Error
Q"
1
1138
1
153
156
159
0
1
0
162
1 > 2 ( ~ r , ) Esros
5;40
1
0
0
1
1
3;55 1 1
3;32
3;8
2;43
f
1
1
0
1
135 1 5;57
30
60
%O
120
1%
Degrees
4
7 Fg
Clearly tltcsc clltries forin tlleir own pattern independent of the rest of the table, but
s
doubt on Toomer's suggestion that an errant parameter is to
rwomputstio~ic ~ t serious
bIame. As Tooalicr. uotes, the ratio between the parameters r and p(180)= R  e is the
oiily information tliat cilll be deduced from the entries in the table, since the absolute
size of these parameters depends on the chose11 unit of leugtll, which does not affect the
mgular quantity p 2 ( a , ) . Table 9.4 contains a recomputation of the ratio
for each
than staying at a fixed lcvel of 0.13G,and Table 9.4 does not favour any reconstruction
of either paraimtcr ( r or &  e).
A sinipler llypothesis yields a better match with the entries than any change to the
values of the paraweters, i ~ n dproduces
all
to that observed iu tlrc table. I suppose that the reckoner multiplieci his values pl by
some constant to give cs tiuates fox 112:
< SO0
(nsing Piolemy's values for these quantities). Second, I clioose I< = 1.5, due to its
prosinlity to tlic best cllcrice of Ii and ease of cdcu7ation. I choose GO0 because it is
clcat.t.ly\%herethe error pattern ternlinates, altho~iglrthere is no reason related to the
lunw theory 1r.h~it sho~lldtermhate there. Perhaps tkese entries were missing from an
Rccompu ted
n e
38;38,58,49
39; 0, 6,53
38;54, 6,43
38;36,21,11
38;34,39,21
38;37,40,29
38;40,31,46
38;48,42,23
39; 5,40,10
39;20,28,12
Till,le 9.4: Recmqtutatiolr of parameters r. and R
table of the secold lunar equation of anomaly
 e based
0::;.
Figure 9.10:
of anon1aly
?t
12
16
24
30
Degrees
36
42
46
54
60
at.io 7'/(R e ) for the early entries of ibe table of the second hnmr ecpn tion
Error
31
$1
+l
$3
$3
+2
33
+4
Difference
from Pt olemy
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
$2
/I
1.5 . p l
Error
Difference
from Ptolemy
+1/2
+1/2
+1/2
+1/2
1/2
1
1
+1/2
+l 1/2
I
Ptoierny's Errors
g.
9.6.2 E r r o r clustering
The error clustcsing test is applied to the remainder of the t,a.ble. There arc 20 runs of
error for a, E ( G G O , . . . ,177"). From
p(
< I'
2 
< )2
E
15
34
=  w 0.44118,
2 90'
The probability of a sum of ranks as great or greater than tTrc observed 19 is 0.9S3. Tlms
I conclude tlrere is no evidence in favour of interpofatim for the odd cntrics of this L a t h
acid to pl accortli~tgto (9.27), contains unnsuaily large errors throughout. Entries in the
table axe gives for argwnents c E {0,
6':
wit11 the other lunar tables. Two parameters p,,,,(OO) = 5; 1" and p,,,(180)
= 7;40:
wl~osecorrect valnes arc 5; O aid 7; 36 respectiwly, are given in the text. The entries
appear with tlicir errors in Table 9.6. Error i gives the difference between the entries
vide Error 2 gives ihe Silference between the errors and (!3.26),using the exact valaes
of the parameters. The plot of en0i.s (Figure 9.12) reireala unvsad >atheras. Toower
notes the large errors and expliains why Ptolemy may iiol have bothered to improve their
accuracy:
the corrcs~>oncling
colulnn in tile pianetarjr ialdes.ll
Altlougli the effect of tlie errors on the cdculation of p(a,, c ) is minute, the absolute
sizes of the errors z u r e rousiderably laager: thau we see in aliimost every other Almagest
the interpolation tablei and iy~exutsa method in V,7 making use of the fact that p is

maximized for cons,tailt c when .the line joining Clle Earth t o the Moon EAd is tangent
'io the epicycle ( F i g ~ r e9.13 j. Sin.ce c =
L AEG, we have
An exalllimtioll of tlic first differences of llle elltries ('7aLle 9.6j L a i s strongly at the
use of linear iuterpolation, especially for
E [0,
90'1. This hypothesized i~~terpolation,
m x u d 168' (reparable ii we accept f (168') = 59; 14 instead of 59; 4). Finally, the
cliffereuces in each group are not precisely constant. This codd be explained by rciuudirtg,
Lttt
tllird fractionid sexagesiud places, after rouncling to t wa places (Figure 9.14), reveals
s strong drrskcring nround 15, 30, 45, and 63/0.
interpola"i,iou table are primarily due to the effect of rounding the intermediate quantities
pnacrz(c):
these li~tterqnautities are sinaller in absolute size, hut their rounding causes a
f( c )
0;12
1 Error 1
/
Error 2
24
11
0;56
1; 8
I; 8
8
153
5
4
1
15
8
12
15
25
1;53
2; 4
2; 4
2;39
2;39
2;50
2;50
3; 12
1;36
19
f( c )
Error 1 Error 2
First Diff3
G I. ~ I L C ~ S
0; 12
First
Differences
11
r// Error
1;37
1;36
1;36
138 50;45 ,
141
144
1;36
1;37
1;36
147
150
153
1;36
1;36
1;36
1 2
1;25
1;25
1;25
1;14
1;13
156
Error 1
68
11
First
1
Differences
l;l4
159
1 162
171
174
177
180
Table 9.6: The luua interpolation tabie (V.8). Error 1 is calculated usirng Ptolemy's
parameters pmaT(O0)aslcl pn,,,(1800); Error 2 with the correct d u e s .
(c)
First differences
;0,30
;2,30
;2,30
7*3
7 0
;3, 0
;5, 0
;5, 0
;5,30
;5,30
;?, 0
;7, 0
.7 30
;7,30
14 9 30
7 7 15
4
7 7 15
4
4
7 7 15
?4Y 15
;4,15
;4,15
;4,15
4
7 7 15
;4,15
4
7 > 15
;3,45
;3,45
;3,45
;3,45
;3,15
;3,15
)
Table 9.7: Recoilstructioil of lunar p,,,,(c) table with first differences. The reconstruction
( ~ o the
t back calculation) incorporates the suggested change of entry for c = 168'.
Value
Figure 9.14:Histogram of the third sexagesimal place of the reconstructed lunar maximum equation of momidy table
9.8
The tlreory of th:: &/loon'slongitude is uow complete. Ptoleiny's rnodel io compute the
Moon's latitude is collsiderably simpler, and independent, of the longitude theory. This
allows tlre Moon's latitude to reach its mildm~111of 5" for any location and state of the
pamus, in accordance with ol~servations.
deferent epicycle, and ci~*culus
The model for lunar latitude (Figure 9.1) simply assumes tllc Moon travels on
il
circle inclined at 5' to tile ecliptic. The line connectiug tlie ascending n o d e (where the
Moon passes fxom the south to tlie north side of the eclipticj and tlre descending node
(where the Moon passes from tlie north t . the
~ south side) rotates backward through the
ecliptic at a coirstant velority w,, of approximately 0; 3' per day. The longitude A , of the
ascending node may bc fomd from the mean motion tables:
The angnlar difference between the Moon's longitude and X,,(t) are enough to determine
the Moon's current. latitnde p(tj similarly to the easlier calculation of declinations, since
Loth involve projecting a point on one great circle oilto ailother great circle:
For tlus me ha.~reused the same procedure as we did to calculate the arcs of
the cirde througli the poles of the e q ~ s t ~ o[which
r
are cut off] between the
equator ad the e c l i p t i ~ . ' ~
However, Ptokmy uses tlle northern limit of tlie Moon's iirclined circle, which is 90"
after the ascending uocle, as the zero point, rather tlmn tlie node itself. Thus the arc
between the northern lin& and the htoon's latitude is the argument for the latitude table:
n.(t) = A(t j  (A,
( t )+ XI0).
From this the latitude ;? may be found. using Pt.olemyls latitude table whiclr displays
values of
.. .
sinfn  90G)]
(9.36)
90,
93O,.. . ,180)as usual.
By sylnnletry /3(n) = ,B(180  n); thus the first fifteen entries oi tbc latitude ta.l>le
reproduce the entries for even n in the remainder of tlle table. The t;~bleis recomputed
in Table 9.9, a d the error plot is given in Figure 9.16.
Since the angle of inclination is only ti0,Pederse11'~suggests that Ptolenly made the
siinplifving assumption
P(n) x 5
'
 sin(n  90').
(9.37)
Tlris is not supported by the text in Book V, but a reference to the table in Book XI11
l h t s at it (see $14.3). Recomputation according to the appro;titmation yields only one
difference betwecn the exact formula and the approxhation in the t a l k for n = 111,
the approxiwation gives 1;48rather than 1;47:in agreement with the table. Tl~isevidence
is, however, far too scanty to make any conclusion about the entire table.
9.9
Summary of Results
Some of the Inuar tables remain impervious to the tests. The lunar equation of centre table likely was constructed with some form of interpolation and the second lunar
equation of anomaly table may have Leen computed partidly as a constant multiple of
the first table, but. both of these results are subject to doubt. Little can be said about
the latitude table either. The large errors in the l~lilarinterpolation table, llowever, are
explained with coufidence a d an underlyiug table is reconstructed. It is difficult t c say
whether research can yield further information.
130.Pcdersen, S,umey, 2001.
Error
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
n
138
141
144
147
Error
150
153
156
159
162
165
168
171
174
177
180
3 5
Using approximation
.
Chapter 10
P a r a l l a x (V.11V.19)
Eclipse prediction mas one of the central tasks for ancient astronomers, for observatioxid
purposes (tlie basic lullas model is based entirely upon eclipse olservations) as well as
astrological motivations.' Hipparchus' original epicyclic nlodcl for lunas motion fits the
Moon's position quite well at syzygies, wllen eclipses occur, i~ndP tolemy's ruore complex
model did not greatly improve eclipse prediction. The position of the observer on the
Earth's surface, bornever, can make a sizable difference to tlic location of tllc Moon (and
possibly the Sun) in the sky, enough to destroy the power of any theory ignoring parallax
t o preclict eclipses.
of the models set forth by Ptolemy in the Almagest consider the Earth to bc an
iufinitesimal dot at the centre of the univsse. Since the distances of the planets are so
vast compared to the size of the Earth, it makes little differciice whether the observer is
object
appear: closer
Tlms, for example, supposing the solar and lirnar theory predict the Sun.
::axl Moon t o be iu exactly the same position (with respect tct C) at a give11 inoment, for
I
. observer at A the &*loonmay bc 1' below the Sun. This parallax, ;r = LADC in.
1.
a'.
Since Ptolemy's models of celestial motion use the Earth's centre as the centre of
the universe, a i d since adapting the models to account for paallax would require con
structing different tables for different locations on the Earth's surface, Ptolemy uses the
Earth's centre as the reference point for all observations. Thus each observation must be
aitered to accouut for parallax before being used in the contcxt of the modcls. Likewise,
the position of an object predicted by the model must be alicred by a reverse process to
campare the theory with a new observation.
Pardax clecrexes the appaxent height. of an object in the sky without moving it
to the left or right, wlGch may affect both longitude and latitude depending on the
orientation of the ecliptic. Ptoieiuy considers only tile change iu the aagu1a.r distance of
the object from the observer's zenith in the iminerical tables (V.18). and after this (V.19)
+ n.
=z
(10.1)
The angle of parallax is determined by the distance E = C D of the object from the
Earth's centre (measured in units of Earth radii in the Ahragest), and either
or
2.;
= X(Z, 6)
7~
BS
= 7r(zn,6).
(10.2)
Since Ptolemy is working toward eclipse theory he is more interested in converting theoretical positions to observed positions than vice versa; thus his tables treat
as a function
V.17 gives examples of the cdculation of n for the Sun and Moon. We follow Ptolemy's
presentation for an arbitrary object. A perpendicular is dropped from 4 to
C D ,produc
AL =,sin z
and
CL = cos z.
= tan'
sin z
6  cos z '
(10.3)
Kerc Ptolcmy enounters a problem. Since the table of chords does not permit the
AL
AD ii: sin"

sin z
S  cosz'
Thus the eutries in the solar pazalax table are so bad that the table is not useable for
practical astrouoany.
Althol~glkthe eccentricity of the Snn's orbit implies that the distance S &om the Earth
to the Sun varies, Ptolemy assumes the Sun remains at a constant distance:
. . .the resulting difference in ill&Sun's parallaxes wild be very small and im
perceptible, since tlie eccentricity of its circle [orbit] is small, and its distance
The correct vduc of S varies between 23000 and 23900 units. Ptolemy's value is S = 1210
maits, the worst parameter value in the Aimagest.
Since 6 is assumed to be constant, the fu~lctionof solar parallax has only one argu
m a t , 2 , P tolemy cornputes 7i(z) for z = ZO, 4O, . . .,309, chosen to fit the sf andad 4 5  h e
pageU4The recomputed table is given in Table 10.1, wlith an error plot in Figure 10.2.
Error
32
34
3G
38
40
42
Figure 10.2: The solar parallax table: error plot. The errors are plotted using the wcsine
q~proximation.The errors using tile exact formuia axe ahlost identical.
The exor plot is given iar comparisou with (10.6) rather tliari (10.5). Anotlm plbaasible
n ~ e ~ l ~of
o ccornliutatiosi
t
is to assume tbat Ptolemy ignores tlrc cosine in the denominator,
..
COS Z
We shall see that some of the other parallax tables were co~~rputed
using h e a r interpolation on intervals of 6". From the wtries it seems clear that
110
been used, and tlie use of intervals of 4" seems implausible. Thus we apply the test to
the table for intervals of Go, grouping the entries as
The probability of obtaining a sum us high as or higher tLiln the observed 29 is 0.435.
Tlius I coliclude that tlic entries for even z coutain no smdzllcr errors than the rest of the
10.2.2
Error clustering
The error clustering test of $3.2, applied to the solar paralliis t.abie, finds
Variables
The Moon's distance from the Eart.1~varies significantly
iit
longitude, enough to reqnire a careful measurement of the distance 6 between the Earth
and Moon to calculate parallax. Tliis distance is affected by the distance frcm the Earth
to the centre of the luuar epicycle, determined by the centrum c, and by the Moon's
position on the epicycle, determined by a,. Thus Ptolemy nlust compute tIkc parallax as
a function of t l m c variables:
7i ( z , C , a,)
= ta,n'
sin z
&(c, a,)
 cos z
'
The function 6(c, a,) ?las already been examined by Ptolenqr in his lunar tllcory, and is
giveu by (9.22).
To compute
~ ( 2c,,a,)
variables. Since z is the strongest variable and a, is the weilkcst, lae begins 1)y computing
tables for
T,
varying z and holdiql_.the other two variables fixed a t their limits. Since
r l ( z ) = ~ ( z0,
, 0') = tan'
tvlrere tlre qumtit,y 64;10 is Ptolemy's value for
~vl~cre
53;50 = R
+e 
?.
~ ( z0,
, 180') = tan'
sin z
53; ti0  cos z '
and (c), at mean syzygies near possible eclipses. At the third limit,
7 4 2 )=P(Z,
180,0)= tan'
sill z
43; 53  cos z '
= K ( E , 180,180') = tail'
sin z
Here the constants iu. t l ~ cdenoxnixlators correspond to R  c fr , and the third and fourth
limit correspond to Figure 9.5(b) a d (d) . Since true syzygicxs are never far relnoved from
xueau syzygies, at an eclipse we shoald expect c z 0'. Thus the first and second limits
From the values of a ; ( r )for i = 1,.. . ,4, the computation of ~ ( zc,,a,) proceeds in
two stages. First, to take into account the weakest varialh (1, two interpolation functions
fA(c~v)
Second, another interpolation functiou gjc) is used to t&e the variable c illto account:
E (ZO, 4 O , .
. . ,90), to
7r*(z)
 rl(z),
T T ~ ( z and
) , n4(;)
 n3(z) for
gives f~ (a,), f~(clV),and g ( c ) for a, and c E {4O, 8", . . . ,150),to fit the interpolation
functions into tltc 45line grid.
10.4 The Tables of the Lunar Parallax at t h e First Two Limits (V.18)
Before proceeding to a definition and analysis oi the interpoli~tionfunctisns, we examine
the tables of tkc lunar pardlax at the four limits. The first two tables nl(z) and the
reconstructed 7r2(2) (adding the values for ~1 and
7r2 TI
10.2 a d 10.3 respectively, with error plots in Figures 10.3 ancl 10.4. Error 1 in the tables
is computed using Ptolemg's approsiinative formula (10.6); Error 2 is colnputed using
the exact (10.5). Wherc Error 2 does not appear, it is the same as Error 1.
the table. For tlic table of the first limit, the approximati011 (10.6) is favoured to (10.5)
in two entries versus two entries favouring (10.5). For the tal~lcof the seconJ limit, (10.5)
is favoured by seven eutries io three. This evidence is not convincing in favour of either
method.
Table 10.2: Tkc lunar parallax table s t first limit (V.18). Error 1 (El) is computed using
PloSemy's approsimt?,tion; Error 2 (E2) is computed using the exact formula.
25.
10
20
30
40
wm=
50
60
70
W)
93
Figure 10.3: The luuar pasallax table at first limit: error plot
El.
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
I
1
2
1
1
0
0
0

Table 10.3: The lunar parallax table at second limit (V.18). El is the error using the
approximation; E2 is the error using the exact formula.
Figure 10.4: The lunar parallax table at second !in&: error plot
10.41
The error clustering test gives 14 runs of error for the table of the first limit. From
p(
< I' 5 )
2
24
=  = 0.53333,
45
(10.19)
The smallest number of runs in the simulations was 17. Thns the errors cluster in this
table as well.
10.4.3
771
2.
TI
a d
7i2
where 61 = 64 :, 10 and 62 = 53; 50 are the two distances frolit Earth to R4oau. Since sin 7;
is an intermediate quantity in the calculation of
7;2
;rl,
irl
Speasmim cosselatio~is p = 0.344, significant at the 2$% level but not lsrge. The
'GVilcoxon signed
st&
TI.The
71,r l ,is
~tlre
value of
71.1
with sigiificai~ce11.9?4iG
Although tlie test docs not deciclc significairtly in favour of dependence, the numbers
are sufficiently unclear to retain a suspicion that tlre dependcuce exists. I co~tsiderseveral
possible causes of dependence. First, the table for
a2
 7;1
~2
the multiple for cjtlrer hypothesis, however, causes a spread of about 8 sccouds in the
errors for
712,
ilt
Ptolenly's tirlle.
Fourth, and llrost likely, the vducs taken for sin z in the l~ulnesatorof t l ~ function
c
are
prestlmd~lythe sane for a1 and 7;~.If the errors in these values coiitribntc significantly
71
The third
scsagesimd placc did not exhibit significant clustering aronild zero, which might have
iudicated
two lace
~2
was also
inconclusive.
10.5
The Tables of the Lunar Parallax at the Third and Fourth Limits (V.18)
Since tlre velocities of tlle Moon and Sun do uot vary dri~matically,dl eclipses occur
mar the mean coi~juuctioiior opposition of Sun and Moon. As a result, the cdculation
third and fourth limit tables axe not very important to eclipse theory. Ptolemy takes
advantage of this and computes these tables rather crudely. The tables for the third and
fomth Enzit are it1 Tables 10.4 and 10.5 respectively, with error plots in Fignres 10.5 and
106. Other sources of error overwhelm the difference betmcen the exact formula (10.5)
. . ., though
tabulated to three
. . . : the calculated
d u e s (for args. 6"; 12' etc.) always end in 0 or 30. Thcy are thereforc rather
inaccurate.
'
that the table was tabdated to minutes 5dy. The rernaini~rgentries for both tables axe
derrived by h e a s interpolation (although Ptolemy does not say this), causing the curious
Tal~le10.5: The lunar parallax table at fourth limit (V.18). El is the error using the
approximation; E3 is tlrc error usiug the exact formula.
Figure 10.6: The lunas paallaz; table at fourth limit: error plot.
20 9
patterns in the error plots. in both tables Ptolemy retdnls lile third sesagcsimai place,
so that
1 1 roumliig
~
10.5.1
Once the interpolated entries are removed from the table of the tl~irdlimit, only three of
the 15 entries are in error in the final (second) place. These correspond to
= GQ, 60R,
and 90". Thus there is no need to apply the error clusterillg test; clearly no clustering
occurs.
18.5.2
Since the smallest unit in the 15 elltries of the table of tlic fourth limit (scmoving the
interpolated entries) is 0; 0,30, the errors are counted in urlits of 0;0,30. This gives 7
Ptolemy must define three interpotstion functions to complc(c the cdculation of paraUax:
&st, f ~ ( a , ) to find nn (2,a,) from
T B ( Z ,a,)
and
from z g ( z ) mcl
T B ( Z , a,)
7r4(u")
(t)and
to find
~
(a,)2
by (10.1'7). For fA(a,) &nit f B ( & ) Ptolemy rcasours similarly. I;'irst, assume
c = 0". Since
?r
+ +
same time 6 deercases from R f e $1. = 65; 15 (in the origixll lunar units) to
(see Figure 10.71, we assume that
R +e r
 S(OO,0) 
T(Z,
(10.26)
substitution gives
S(OO,a,)  6(0,0")
2~
 T.'! ( 2 ,a,)  ~
~ ( 2 )
r 2 ( 4 7Tl(z) .
(rs.zs)
Since 6(0,)
'0 = R +
6 5 ; 15  5(0,
a,)
2r
h3(au) =
43;53  5(180,a,)
2r
Ptolemy computes $,I and fs for a, E (do, so,. . .,180") to conform to tltc &line gage
kcight. To avoid adding a new column of arguments to the complete parallax t a b h i he
instructs the reader to use a , / 2 as the asgumcnt (see 'below), and to enter the table with
the same co3main of argninents 2O, 4': . . . ,90as the other tables (see Talks 10.6 andl
lo.?)!
The taldes
fi
For the first time in tlie Almagest, Ptolemy tells the user tlrat linear interpolation was
lased to complete the tables:
Error
Error
10
0
3
12
2
1
6
5
5
4
5
4
7
8
0
fA
(V.18)
Error
7
7
2
5
5
3
6
8
3
9
9
2
6
4
3
Error
2
3
0
4
4
2
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
0
by h e a s ill tcrpohtion over the sixdegree intervals: for tire diiference between
the results so derived and [accurate] geometrical calcu1;l tlon is negligible over
such a short interval, both for the minutes and for tllc actual p a r a l l a ~ e s . ~
'With tile recompiitatioi~we are able to judge this claim. Linear interpolatioil induces an
addi tioilal error of up to about 10 uitits in the last place, djove the errors at the nodes.
This error translates to an error of less than 2 seconds i11 the computation of n ~ and
,
i ~ l l t 4~ ~
seconds
t
ill the computation of the less important
for Ptoleiny's pxrposes, aud indeed in the case of
errors in the crude valttes for n3 and
TB
~ 1 1 .This
is indeed negligible
n4.
The interpolation test is not necessary in this instance, sillce the use of interpolation
is obvious. However! to confirm the reliability of the test, I apply it to the tables for fA,
fB, and g for a grid of Go, grouping the entries according to
f ~ fB
, and
g respectively are
of sums as great or greater than these are 0.127, 0.000, and 0.000. The test's reliability
is confirmed.
Note that tlic last sexagesimal places of all 30 nodes in the tables for
fA
and fB are
clivisible by 3; thus tlrc unit of roundiug for the nodes is 0; 3 rather than 0; 1. With
this in mind, tlic errors at the nodes for these two tables are not large or remarkable.
The only conceivable motivation for choosing a unit of 0; 3 is to avoid rounding in the
stage of interpolation. 1% have seer1 this before in the lunar longitude interpolation
table ($97). Since the error in the parallax cdcdation cmsed by rounding the nodes
is grester in general than that caused by rounding the interpolated entries, this process
controls the distimce p between the Earth and the epicycle centre, he uses p = E G
(Figure 9.5) in tlle same way tlrat he used 6 before. (The value of 6 itsdf is not availnble,
since it depends on a, and thus is not coastsilt for a fixed c . ) As c increases from 0" to
180,p decreases from R
TB.
~ ( 4~ ( 0 " ) 
p(180j p(OO)
~ ( zC ,,a,) n ( z ,00,a,)
~ ( z1800,
, a,)  n(z, 00,a,)'
(10.32)
= K A ( Z , a,)
 ~ ([ T4B ( ~0.1,  r ~ ( a , ) ] .
2e
argument 4 2 .
'_.::c
recomputed
. . ,180")
10.10. As Ptokm? says, only every tlllrd entry in the table mas computed clirectly, with
tire others filled ill by h e a r interpolation, Note that every node entry's last sexagesimd
place is divisible by 3, as before, so the unit is again 0; 3 ratlm than 0; 1. Only eight of
Error
10
9
2
9
11
2
10
1
G
G
0
3
2
3
Error
0
0
1
2
4
5
6
6
3
7
7
4
7
6
0
1 c/2
g(c)
62
64
48;49
50;17
66
51;45
52;5?
54; 9
55;21
56;12
57; 3
57;54
58;26
58;58
59;30
59;40
59;50
GO; 0
68
70
72
74
'76
78
80
82
84
85
88
90
Error
1
!9
8
3
8
7
0
7
8
1
7
6
1
6
7
0
Chapter 11
Eclipse Theory (Book VI)
1Wth tlre completion of Iris analysis of parallax, Ptolemy can use his models of solar
i~udlunar motioai to predict solar snd l u n x eclipses. A solar eclipse occurs when the
Moo11 passes in front of the Sun; that is, when the longittldes X(Moon) = X(Sun) and
the latit~lde@(Moon)is sufficiently sinall, adjusting for panillax. A lunar eclipse occurs
w11en tlle Moo11 passes through the shadow cast by the Earth on the opposite side of
tlre Sun; that is, when X(Moon) = X(Sun)
+ 180'
solar eclipse may occur uear the beginning of each synodic month, and a lunaz eclipse
may occur midway through each syuodic month, depending on the Moon's argument of
Iatitnrde n, which rletermines @(Moon).
If . I
I11 the Almagest, Ptoleiny does not w e the lunar and solar models to predict eclipses
directly; rather, he provides methocis to allow the user to cdculate whethcr an eclipse
will occur at a pnrtictllar sgzygy. From these calculations the user also can find the
duratioi: of tlre phases of
so on. Tl~etables in Book VI are provided to help the user find these latter quantities.
(VI.3), already tliscusscd in 55.8. From these t.a.bles thc user may find tile values of
severd i~nportautquantities at t l ~ etime of meail syzygy t,,,. These are tlie Sun's mean
anomaly a,(t,)
(see $8.2), the Moon's mean anomaly a,,(t,,,) (see 9.4),and the Moon's
for the Sun and Moon, and t l ~ csolar and luimr tables, the
;L
Ptolemy assumes the Moon's centrum is c = 0"; thus p ( c ) = 60 units. Sutrtst,ittuirig into
(9.22) gives
&(a,)= J[GO
r cos a,12
+ ( r sin a,)Z.
(11.1)
htending to use P tolelnaic interpolation in the tables later, Ptolenzy finds t l ~ emaximum
angular distance of the Moon fsom the ascending or desccliding node for an eclipse
to occur for tlie htoon at greatest distance d = 6,
S=
( a , = 180"). He condudcs that the Moon must be less than 15; i2" from a
uode for a lunar cclipsc to occur, so that the argument of latitude n ( t )must l x hettven
'AImaged VI.!jl 286; 0. Pedersen, Surucy, 226.
2Alrnagest V1.4, 282.
90"
tlie maximum distance from the node depends on parallax, therefore on the observer's
terrestrial latitude. Ptolemy calculates figures for so1a.r eclipses at two extreme latitudes
imuudirtg tlie iuliabited world.
Finally, to save the user unnecessary work, Ptolemy worlcs out the possibilities for
tlw number of synodic months that may pass between two eclipses of the same type.
Due to the rate of cltange of the Moon's argument of latitude it is common that
a,
given
eclipse will be followed by another six months afterward. A separation of two, three, or
four uoiltlls is never possible for either type of eclipse. Two consecutive Inmr eclipses
may be separated by one or
five
cousecutive solar ecIipses may occur five or seven months apart, but never one mouth
apart. These rules of thnrub allow the eclipse predictor to c h i n a t e many syzygk from
consideration wit ltout doing any calcnlations .
11.2
Once an eclipse l ~ a sbeen identified at a syzygy, a set of taLles in VI.8 allows the user
to find the duration of the eclipse, whether the eclipse will be t o t d or partial, and if
it is partial, to find the magnitude of obscuration. As for solar eclipses, the fraction of
obscuration of au eclipse is measured by the fraction d of tltc solar diameter obscured at
wideclipse, in twelfths. Thus d = 0 when the Moon and Sl~iltouch but do not overlap,
and d(n,&)
the smallest.
= 60
+ r is the Moon's
grea.test distance
actually tabulates
Ecliptic
Figure 11.2: Calculating the Moon's distance from the ~iodeMAr from the digits of
obscuration d
= 60 t r. At the
Moon's greatest clistance from the Earth, the Moon's and S i ~ n ' sradii are itlcutical:
11.1 to be plane rather than sphericid and taking the l a t i t d e of the Moor1 BM to be
approximately equal to the line joining the centres 1\49,
P tolcmy finds3
Since
Since ll4R
=I
17
this determines
f 90'
tr.
1,
depending
011
1 shaU ignore n(r1,6)for the remainiilg eclipse tables. Ptolem 7 instructs the reader to use
the table in the Ieverse direction from the calculation, giviilg d(n,6
,)
and d(n,
Table 11.1: The t a b b 01 solar eclipses at the Moon's greatest distancc (VL8)
error plot
Ir~dudcdin V1.8 is mother iable, entitled "Minates of Inuncrsion", tabulating the arc m
travelled by the Moon relative to the Sun from first contact to mideclipse. This quantity
allows the user to find the eclipse's duration using the Moon's velocity with respect to
the Sun. Again,
972
the Moon's distailce 6 (although the value of nz depends on 6 only through the vdue of
Ptolemy 's calculatioli of rn proceeds as follows: the Moon's centre moves from MI at
first contact to A& at illideclipse with respect to the Sun (Figure 11.2). Then
Under the assumption that the diagrnm is plane rather than spherical, the right triangle
, , ,S
Ptolemy computes m for d E (1,2,. . . ,121 and for 6 =
,=
value of a ) . The table for 6
u d 6,;,
11.3,
When 5 = b,,,,,,: the Moon's radius is slightly larger than the Sun's. This implies that
totczlity may last for s slrort time, as opposed to an instrmt when 6 = S,,,.
Ptolemy
computes the greatest possible obscuration as d = 12; digits,4 and indudes this in
t.lte tables for 6 = 6,,,;,,. ,4 single entry in an extra column, corresponding to the cdunnn
%r a total solar eclipse, d is measured on the l i e through the centre of the Sun a d Moon, from
the point on the Moon's edge closest to the Sun across to the far edge of the Sun.
entitled "Half Totality" in the lunar eclipse tables (see thc nest seckiou), gives the minutes
of half totality as 0; 2,G. The table of m ( d , S,,,,,) is given in the same form as T&le 11.1,
but I ignore the redundmt entries in the lower half of tlic table in my rcco~npt~tcztion
(Table l i .2). Tlie error plot is give11 in Figwe 11.4.
Toomer remarks that "there are a number of scribal errors in these tables [all the
tables in (VI.8)] but it is not dways certain which are due to corruption m d which to
Ptolemy's faulty comp~tatioil."~
Scribal error may be the source of the two l u g e errors
in the table for 6 = 5,,,
at d
fern of the entries ase in error, except that modern rounding seems to have Leen used,
11.4
The problem of predicting lunar eclipses is esscntidy the same as that of solar eclipses.
Two bodies, one rotatiiig on the ecliptic and the other on
i\
ecliptic, must overlap for an eclipse to occur. For a lunar eclipse, lzowever, the object on
the ecliptic is tlic shadow cast by the Earth on the Moon, which has a radius about 2; x
the size of the Moon's radius. Thus the duration of totality of a lunar eclipse can be
considerably l o n g s than the duratiou of totality of a solar cclipse. Also, both the Moon
and the Earth's shadow 17aryin size, depending on the ?ist;~ncefrom the Earth to the
Moon.
The similarity betwecn solar and luiii~reclipses leads to siinilarities in the tables. Elor
a partial eclipse, the digits of obscuration d measures the le~igthof the Moon's diametcr
obscured at mideclipse. The digits of obscuration for a total cclipse measures the distance
along the line through the centres of the Earth's shadow aud the Moon, hoin the p i n t
on the edge of the Earth's shadow closest to the Moon across to the far edgc of the Moon
5G.Toomer, Alrnagest 305, note 63.
Error
0
1
I
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
(solar eclipses)
TPlus, an entire eclipse, wlreii the ccntre of the Moou passcs through the centre of tlre
Earth's shadow, has ~nagnitude
For 6 = 6, ,,
finds r,,,,,
= 0; 17,40i~lldr,,,,d,,
= 0; 15,40and
r,h,d,,
= 0; 40,44". For 6 = 6,
he
r.hndotu
: rmoon= 2%cl~ewbere,~
regirrdless of
the
first three colun~ns,containing the argunients of latitude n and the digits of sbscuratioa
(2,
have tlle same structure as the solar tables (see Table 11.1). The functions tabulated
for
12
For a partial eclipse (d < 12), the minutes of immersion tables, m(d, &
),
and
nz(d,SnSin), are computed sinlilarly to thc solar tables. For a total eclipsc, the dnraiion of totality call be snbstantial, requiring a slightly different structure far the tables
when d
> 12. In this case, the minutes of imuiersion table gives nz = M ; A i 2 , the length
of the arc from the beginning of the eclipse to the beginnixg of totality with respect to
the position of the Earth's shadow (Figure 11.5). The columit entitled "Hdf Totality"
gives the length T = ilf2ilf3from tlic beginning of totality to mideclipse. From these
quantities the user may find the durcztion of tlze phases of the eclipse.
The calculation of m(d, 6) and T (d, 6 ) assumes the diagram in Figure 11.5 is plane
rather than spherical. Since SMl = i..radOw
+ r,
and S h b = SAfl
 br,,,
the right
B
Figure 113: The calculation of the duration of the phases of a lunar eclipse
triangle SM3M, gives
A41443
= m(d) =IF($)
I =
Tshadom $
 (rehadow $ rmm
 rmoon)'.
6
(Il.l(b)
Subtracting (11.11) from (11.10) gives m (d). The tables aid recomputations for m(d,6)
m d T(d,6) for 6 = Sma. und 6 = b,,,,
ase
II
d
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
entire
Greatest distance
m
Error
0
0; 0
1
16;59
1
23;43
28;41
1
32;42
0
1
36; 6
39; 1
0
41;34
0
1
43;50
1
45;48
47;35
0
49;9
1
50;31
0
40;35
1
1
37;28
35;30
0
34; 6
1
33; 7
1
32;23
1
1
31;51
31;32
0
0
31;22
31;20
0
11ax
Error
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Least di!
Error
0
Error
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
r
1
1
0
0
Table 11.3: Lunar eclipse tables of minutes of immersion a i d half totality (VI.8)
Figure 11.6: Lul1a.r eclipse tables of minutes of immersion and hdf totality for Moon at
greatest distance: error plot
Figure 11.7: Lunar eclipse tables of minutes of immersion and half totality for Moon at
least distCmce:error plot
11.4.1
It seems impossible to imagine how Ptolemy could haye coluputed the t a l k for nz w~ef
T avoiding the fundamental relation
mi thout complicating tlte cdcdations unnecessarily. This suggests that the values in
the table for m depend on the values in the table for T. Note firsf that the lasge
b,;,,)
errors for m,(P8,&,in)and T(18,
TA and Tp to bc the correct vdues and Ptolenny's vdues of T respectively. f define the
reconstructed
Tn as
(Tp  TR,TA  TR)is 0.294, not a significant result. The Wilcoxon test on the data
I Tp TR I  I TA TR / favours a median smaller than zero with p = 31,7%. I conclude
that the test does not support any conclusion of dependence based on the entries in
the table (besides the outlier for d = 18 and S = S,,,,,).
computations favour dependence.
11.5
TOcalculate d,
772
and T when the true distance of the Mooir is between Em,;, and ,,S
derived fsom the first and second eclipse tables. We llsve already computed
the amounts of these sixtieths for the table of the moon's parallax [V 181;they
are set out in the seventh colupnn [of that table], since the epicycle has to be
taken at tlte apogec: of the eccentre to represent [the situation at] s y ~ y g y . ~
Tlrus he uses the function fA(a,) horn parallax theory (see f)10.6),
since c = 0".
Rather than refer the user to V.18, Ptolemy reproduces the table in VI.8.
The
arguments are a, E ( G o , 12":. . . ,180") (although the arguments are listed as a , / 2 ) , not
(do,8O,.
. . ,180")as before.
every t l k d entry of the table in V.18. These were the nodes of interpolation in V.18,
and the last places were divisible by 3 to avoid rounding when interpolating. in VI.8
Ptolerny must fill in every second eutry. As Table 11.4 and Figure 11.8 make clear, he
uses linear interpolation again. He is forced to round thc interpolated entry on four
occasions, Two of these are early in the table ( a , / 2 = 15' and 2T0),where fA is concave
up, and he rounds dowuward, slightly offsetting the error incurred by linear iuterpolation.
Tlte otlrers are late in the table (a,/2
7~
233
ronnds upward, spin slightly offsetting the error caused by iiitezpdaii~n.Since dl four
entries axe rou~ldcdin tile direction opp~siteto the error duc to interpoltition, I suspect
that this was done intentionally to reduce error, revediug sometlhg of Ptolemfs feel.
for interpolation.
11.6
A(cl), the fraction of tke surface (out of 12 units) that is ol~scured,is the last table in
VI. 8.
Ptolemy co~nputesA(d) for both solar and lunar eclipscs using a constant ratio far
rnroon: rsunand rs,zodow : rnloon.This qproximation does not hother liim, siuce the entries
in the table are rounded crudely. For a solar eclipse he miscalculates (Figure 11.9)
_M_Z_ SD
rmmn
31; 12
12
%=.
Thus, for a solar eclipse 2r,,, is taken to be 12 units, wlticlt gives 2r,,,,
12;46 units. For a lunax eclipse, 2r,,,,
(11.16)
= 12; 20 or
The analyses for a solar and lunar eclipse are identical; I follow the former. Setting
a = SK and b = K M , subtraction gives
sA2magest \I.?,302. See also note 61. Comnentators as early as Pappus noticed tlJs error; Me A.
ftome, Commentai~esTome I, 261.1
Error
12
6
Error
21
18
18
3
9
1
4
3
4
2
4
1
1
2
4
3
4
2
1
12
1
1
6
5
6
4
8
0
error plot
Figure 11.9: The calcdaiim of eclipse area digits. For a solar eclipse the left lwdy is the
Sun and the right body is the Moon. For a lunar eclipse the left body is the Mo~ma i d
the right body is the Earth's shadow. IE both cases the unit of measurement is twelfths
of the eclipsed body's diameter.
From the +hi triangles AKS and A K M ,
l'nzoon
 A K ~= b2
and
2
T,~,,
 4K2
= a2.
aud &.riding by b
+ a this gives
are
(11.18)
I
Arca(GASG) =  ( A G ) ( S K )= ca
2
and
Area(AAA4G) = cb.
(11.22)
c
.
r
(1123)
Alr'
c
A . G = 2 sin'   2 sin' AS
ruun
A ~ G
= 2 sin'
and
mmn
This gives10
AGS from ADGS gives ADGK, and similarly subtracting AGM from AZGM gives
AZGfi. Adding ADGK to AZGII' gives
AZGD =
rrZunsin' A
rsun
180"
 ca
sin'
+ rrmOon
180"
2
rrnoon
 cb.
Converting to area units (where the area of the left circle is 12 units) and substituting
(If .lS), we have finally
11.11. For the solar table, some sin~plificationand only a small error results if r,,
is
taken to be 12 units. Tlte table is recomputed for rmOon= 12, 12;20, and P2;46 units.
The average sigued errors of the entries for these three parameter values are respectively
2.683, 0.401, and 2.187, iu units of the last place (removing the entries for d = 0 a i d
d = 12). This suggests that 12;20 was the due used to compute the table.
% I< is to the left of S the equations are slightly different.
x iu the following equations refers to the number rather than the parallax function.
13.7, 302. The correct value of ?r is 3; 8,29,44,. ...
I f Ahagest

Error
7
12
6
0
3
7 .
2
2
1
0
Table 11.5: The solar and lunar eclipse area convcrsion tables (V1.8)
Figure 11.10: The solar eclipse area conversion table: error plot
X
1
10
11
12
Digits
Figure 11.11: The lunar eclipse area conversion table: error plot
The tables of VI.8 are followed by a discussion of their use in predicting solar and lunar
eclipses, but the discussion is not relevant to the constructioil of the tables themselves.
Book VI concludes with the calculation of the angle between the ecliptic asd the arc
joining the centres of t l ~ etwo bodies at certain phases of the eclipse. Although these
rurgles have no astronomical relevance, Ptolemy included them (as well as a s m d diagram
givkg the angle between the ecliptic and the horizon) since they were traditionally used
for astrological purposes and weather forecasting.12
Several si~iqdifyingassumptions are made in the calculation of the angles of inclination. First, the diagram (Figure 11.12) is assumed to be planar; second, the radius of the
hlooa is assunled to be 0; 16,40 always; and third, the Moon's path MlM2M3is assumed
to be pw&d to the ecliptic SB. Gken the digits of obscurstion d, Ptolemy's first god
is to calculate the mgle ~ ( d=) LShl1M3 between the ecliptic and the arc joining the
Figure 11.12: The cdcdation of angles of inclination for a total lunar eclipse. Mi axe the
ceutres of the Moon at the beginning of eclipse, beginning of totality, and mideclipse; S
is the centre of the Earth's shadow. For a partial lunar eclipse M2does not exist. For a
solar eclipse S is the centre of the Sun.
centres of the two bodies at the beginning of the e ~ l i p s e . ' ~For a total lunar eclipse
Ptoleluy also cdculates a2(d) = LSM2.M3, the angle of inclination at the beginning (or
end) of tot ality.14
For a solar edipse: we have
13Clearly, under Ptolemy's assumptions this is the same as the angle at the end of the eclipae.
14Note that a function similar to uz(d) representing the angle of inclination s t begiming of totality
exists also for a total solar eclipse, but since d never reaches 13 it is not tabulated.
SA4,
al( d l = L S A ~ ~= M
sin'
~ 
siw1
. rsun
G(rarrn
f rmoon)
Also,
w llich gives
The tables of the angles of inclination are recomputed in Table 11.6, with an error
plot in Figure 11.13. The errors are unremarkable. Since both al(cl)and a2(d)require
the value of Sh&, a test for dependence between a1 m d 02 is suggested. However, SM3
is easy to calculate with great accuracy, and only one entry of
02
test would not detect dependence, since rounding accounts for almost all of the error.
The tables for the prediction of eclipses reveal little of interest. They contain some errors
in cdcuiation uilcliwacteristic of the Almagest tables, including an error in the solar
eclipse area. conversion calculation that. affects all the entries in one table. The theoretical
Chapter 12
Planetary Longitudes (Books PXXI)
Following the book on eclipse theory, Ptolemy analyzes tlw motion of the socded fixed
stars. He describes the phenomenon of precession, the fact that the fixed stars unldcrgo
a westward rotation of &out 1' per ccntllry parallel to the cc.liptic messured wit11 respect
to the equinoctiid points. A large part of B O O ~VII
~ S and 1'111 consists of a list of the
ecliptic coordinates of over 1000 stars. Tllc star catalogue is one of the great achievements
of ancient astronomy, and has been studied more thoroughly than much of t l ~ eAimagest.
Unusual errors ill the stellar coorclinates in the catalogue llil~cled many to snggest that
Ptolemy took some or d l of the coorclinates directly from an earlier catalogue, perhaps
Hipparchus's, and adjusted those values for precession before including them in his work.
Tlus accusation dates s t least to the tenth century,' and has led to much controversy.
Modern scholars have by no means settled the issue2 I exclutlc the star catalogue from my
study, since it is at least theoretically based on observatious rather than culnputatio~s.
The only celestial bodies that rerni~infor Ptoleiny to consider are the plancts visible to
the naked eye: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. His account of t h i r motion
falls roughly into three parts: first, the planets' longitudes iu Books IXXI; second, the
traditional topics of retrograde motions and nasimum elongations in Book X I ; and third,
the planets' latitudes in Book XIII. Book IX begins with gcucral cousiderations such as
the relative clistauces of the five planets fiom the Earth. Since there is
ILO
observable
lG. Grasshofi, The History of Ptolemy 'a Star Caialogue, [28], 2021.
6 . Grasshoff, The ifistoy of Rolemy's Star Catalogue, [28], for a summary of hktoricd and
modern views.
2See
244
ymal1ax for any of the pluets,3 Ptolerny has no empirical Lasis to prefer m y ordering.
Tlie only distinguishing feature between the planets is that R4ercury u d Veilus "always
move in the Sun's vicinity'?,*whereas Mars, Jupiter and Satnrn may be anywhere in the
zodiac at a give11 time regardless of the Sun's position. Mercury and Venus are called
the inferior planets and are considered to be closer to thc Earth than the Sun. Mars,
Jupiter, a d Saturn are c d e d the superior planets and are considered to be further
from the Earth than the Sun. This is "the order assumed by the older astronomer^]."^
present unique pntterns. All five planets move dong the ecliptic, never straying from it
by more than a few degrces. They also travel from west to cast along their paths in the
same direction as the Sun m d Moou. Howe~rer,on a more or less regular basis, every
planet slows and stops, then travels backward for a short while before stopping again
and continuing its forward progess. These retrograde moCions may be explained with
the epicyclic model, by assuming the plauet rotates quickly enough on its epicycle to
couteract the niotion of the epicycle on the deferent. TLc variations in the planets'
motions are not regular euough, ho~vcver,to be accounted for by such a siuqde model.
Ptolemy's models for dl the planets except Mercury share the same structwe, digeriarg
only in the values of their parameters. We w i l l see that the layout of the tables for these
planets suggests tliat, tlic model was developed in two stage^.^ The first stage would have
been identical with the simple epicyclic model, but with the Earth remowd from the
coltre of the deferent by an amount EQ = 2e (Figure 12.1). For the sake of di'scussing
Aimagcst 13.1, 419.
4dlrnagest ZX.1, 420.
5Almagest LS.1,419.
'0.Pcdersen, Suruey, 278; 0.Neugebaucr, HAMA, 1634.
the second stage, the deferent circle is renamed the equant. The apogee A is fixed, and
the planet moves on the epicycle in tlie same direction that t . 1 1 epicycle's
~
ccrttre C moves
ou the equant. The arcs subtended by LAQC and LA,CP illcrease at constant rates.
The second model (Figure 12.2) rejects the equant. as the carrier of the epicycle's
centre. 4 secoxlcl circle, the deferent, is introduced with tJw same radius as the equant
and with its centre D midway betwecn the Earth and the cell tre of the equant. Although
the ceutre of the epicycle (now labelled G) rotates on the <lt.icrent,the centrc of uniform
motion is still tEc centre of the equant Q. Thns L AQG incrcirses at a constant rate rather
than ADG. Ptolemy does not motiv&e this significant revision, remarhl3lc since it is a
clear violation of uniform circular motion. As we shall see, llis tabfes are structured to
permit. t'ne reader to see clearly the cliffereuce between tfic longitudes prcdictcd by the
Figure 12.2: Tlw second plaaetary model. The original eqtration of centre a = LQCE
reamins, a d the correction factor is 5 = L CEG.
Eccentricity e
Radius of epicycle r
Saturn
3;25
6;30
two models. The parameters enteriug the cdcdatioss in the tables axe the escentricity
e and the radius of the epicycle r . Their vdues ase give11 for dl the planets except
12.2
Ptolernyis satisfied with the equantdeferent model for the superior plmets, nlld it suffices
for Veuus dso under tlte provision that Veilus' meail longitndc is set to be idclltical to the
Sun's. Far hlercury, some fadty obsesvaf,ionsand parameters, and the large eccentricity
of its orbit, led Ptolemy to believe that its perigee is not 180' removed from the apogee
but rather tirat there arc two perigees, both 120' removed from the apogee. Tlus requires
a s u b s t a t i d modification to the basic planetary model for Mercury.
Ptolemy effects the change by reirrtroducing the circulw parvus from thc lunar model.
epicycle's centre G, but with the same velocity. The centrc of uniform motion for the
epicycle centre is the poiirt
the mean centrum, illcreases linearly, and U G always points in the direction of the
&lean Sun.
 120;307,
?In the Planehry H;irpo&ses the distailce ELi is still 3 units, but tlre radius of thc circdm pam4~1
is only 2: units.
Gartner, "The Mercury horoscope of Marcantio Michiel of 'Srclricen, [34], 10917;0.Pedrrscu,
S'umey, 3234.
The first step iu the cdcdation of a plaaet.'s longitude is, as usual, the deterruinaiion of
its mean longitude A, ( t). Since the apogee of each planet has a fixed longitude, P tolemy
prefers to measure longitude using the apogee as the fixed point rather than the vernal
cqai~tox.Thus the meal1 centrum h ( t ) = LAQG (Figurc 12.2) increases linearly and
may be fouud u s h g the mean motion tables for planetary loilgitude ghen in IX.4:
~ ( t= )wt
4 ~n(0).
The mcan longitude may be found by adding the longitude of the apogee
(12.1)
249
From this the cdcu!ation foHows two stages: fisst to acconiii for the fact tlmt the Earth
is not the centre of miform motion, and second to account fax the planet's positioia on the
epicycle. In the first plailetary model the difference betwecu the mean cen trum m d the
true centrum c(t) = LAEC is easily seen to be a = LQCE, ?Be (uncorrectd) equation
of centre. The clrange from the first to the second rnoclel causes the epicycle's centre
For the second moctci the true equation of centre is not a = LQCE, but q = f QGE.
Since q = cm  c m d a. = c,  ( c
Thus f xfer to b as the correction factor, the difference bet ween the equations of c a t r e
for the two models.
uses mechanisms
DH = e s i n c ,
and
QH = r cosc,.
(12.6)
Then p = GE, the distance from elle Earth to the centre of the epicycle, may be found
J(J ~ MI(eOsin
%)2
+ e cos
~,,~)2
(12.10)
The two ecpations of centse are now easily found. From sight triangle GTE, the true
ctjnation of centre is
q ( q l i )= LTGE = sin'
ET
 sin'
EG
2e sin c,
TILLSgives
C E = J(60
+ 2e cos
ET
2e sin c,,
J(GO
+ 2e cos
(12.14)
~ , ) 2
The mode1 for h4ercury requires a different calculatiou, but Ptolemy proceeds as
doselq. as possible to his reasoning fur the other planets. The mean centrum c, = L AUG
(Figure 12.3) increases finealy? and differs from the true centnun c = LABG by the
cif
ccjuation of centre q = LUGE. Join D and Zj' (Figure 12.4). T ~ a s l g k&UD is isosceles
LQDU = LQUD
Cm
= 2'
e sin c,
DU =
sin c,,,/2
'
c,
3cm
C','
3%
GM = JGDZ
 DM2 = 1 3600  (2e cos sin T ) 2 ,
Y
and by subtractim,
Projed E w t o
EIV = e sin c,
and
253
z,
Ptolcmy gets
VAT = ecosc,.
(12.24)
Then
(12.26)
which simplifies to
p(c,) =
\/s2
(12.27)
Ptolemy gives tables for the uncorrected equation of centre a(&) and tlie correction
. .,
factor 6(%), for all five planets and the standard arguments c, E {6",12",.. .,90,930,,
MI0}.Since a user of the tables simply needs to add the d u e s a(c;,) a d &(c,) to give
q ( h ) and never requires a or
...the third [colunin] wilf contain the equations corresponding to the mean
position in longitude.. .under the simplifying assumption that the centre of
the epicycle is carried on the eccentre which produces the mean motion lie.
the above circle, but on mother. . ..In this place, siiice this is a fscir:ntificj
treatise, it mas appropiate to display this way of separating the zodiacal
Indeed, in his later Hanciy Tables the two are combined to forin a table for q(%).l1 Since
12.11 with error plots in Figures 12.512.14. Note that the colnplexity of the calculations
for Mercury's true equation of centre does not reflect an increased error: in fact, the
Mercury tables are the llrost accurate of all the planets, both for a(%) and for q ( k ) .
Error
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
1
0
1
2
1
c,,~
Error
c,,,
cr(c,,)
93
9G
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126
129
1
138
4;45
Error
1
Error
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
Error
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
Error
0
":
0
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
Error
Error
0
1
1
0
0
I
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
0
0
Error
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Figufe 12.11: Venus uncorrected equation of cext rr: table: error plot
Error
Error
Error
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Tzble 12.9: Venus true equation of centre table (XI.11)
Error
1
Error
Error
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Error
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
 Error
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
Error
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Probability
0.151
0.304
0.151
0.696
0.304
0.500
0.500
0.696
0.941
0.151
Table 12.12: Planetsry equatim of centre tables: interpolation grid test results
12.3.1
c,,
Altbough inspection does not suggest interpolation for odd values of c,, in the latter
parts of d l the equation of centre tables, for completeness I examined the possibility by
applying the interpolation grid test of S3.3 to all five tables for a, and tlle five reconstructed tables for q. The results, in Tczble 12.12, give the probability of obtaining a node
error rank sum as great or greater than the observed node rank sum. I conclude that the
errors for cdd c,, are not. significantly greater than the errors for nearby even c,.
Conclusioii
Saturn
Saturn
Jupiter
Jupiter
Mars
Mars
Ve11us
Venus
Mercury
Mercury
Table 12.13: Error cluster.ing test results for the planetary equation oi cen trc tables
much less conclusive.
12.3.3
The Almagest tables for a a i d S are at least in theory relat,ccl by (12.5). A computation
of tables for 5 sl~ouldintroduce the errors in the tables for a , along with the unknown
errors in the calculations of q. The dependence may not be present if, for instance, S WG
calculated from some pre\ious tables for a , or if other errors mask those iutroduced by
a.
The table dependence test of $3.1 was performed on the t d ~ l e sfor all five planets,
testing for dependence of the $tables on the atables. In each case file entries !or
c,,, = 180" are removed, since no calculations are involved.
cwp
are, respectively, the correct and Ptokmy's values for a (wliere an is cotuputed using
the parameters given in the text). The quantity a~ is the ralue of a reconshcted from
Plailet
Spearman's p
Lignificance
UTilcoxoilT
Significance
Saturn
0.348
< 29%
828.5
0.000
Jupiter
0.858
814
0.000
Mars
0.712
< $%
< $%
592
0.260
Veuus
0.896
< $%
503
0.930
Mercury
0.750
< $%
693
0.021
d u e
The results, in Table 12.14, show that p is significantly positive, although of varying sizes,
for the tables for each planet. This suggests that roundoff error obscures some of the
depeudence, an unsurpsislng result since Ptolemy's values for 6 are rounded drastically
cornpared to their absolute size. The Wilcoxon test results give p values for rejection
of the hypothesis t h t the median is zero in favour of a l ~ c d i a nless than zero. They
favour dependeucc for Saturn, Jupiter and Mercury (strongly for the first two), but give
insigzrificant results for hfass and Venns. This does not necessarily indicate a divergence in
the methods of cdcul,, :ion. Due to the differences in the parameters, different calculations
are involved for each p: :let, so roundoff error may affect tablcs by varying aiuounts from
table to table.
12.4
Once the longitude of the centre 3f the epicycle G (Figure 12.2) is deter~ninedusing ttre
equation of centre, the o d y qumtity left to find is the angulx displacement. from 5: to
the planet P caused by the planet's location oil tlie epicycle. Ptolemy assumes that the
planet rotates uxiiformly around the epicycle with respect to the point A, on the epicycle
furthest from the centre of the equant
is a h e a r function of time, and may be found using mean iliotion tables wliich Ptolemy
provides in IX.4. Since A,,, does not lmve the same longitude i t s the centre cf tlre epicycle,
Ptolemp converts tlre ruean anomaly to the true anomaly n ,(t) = IA,GP, ~vhereA, is
tlte point on the epicycle directly behilid the centre G observed from Earth. From Figure
+ q(crn).
(12.30)
or a,), and to a lesser estent by the epicycle's distance fronr the apogee A (represented
by c, or
c).
P L = r sin a,
and
(12.31)
The distauce p(c,,,) =PEGhas already been found in the calcnlations for thc ecluatioll of
centre (12.10). Thus:
Accordingly, the ratio of tlte whole line EGL to L P mill be given. Hence
L LEP will be @en, md we will have coinputed the angle AEP which cumpxises the a.ppareut distance of tlie planet fsom the apogee.12
12Almagest XI.9, 545. The letters representing some of tlie points have been changed lme to conform
to my diagram.
PL
EL
p(c,)
sin a ,
sin a,
1%
(12.32)
'
siinilitl. situatioils by using the Pythagorean Theorem to find the hypotenuse EP, and
applying an arc sine. Then
EP = J E L ~+ P L , =
~
sin a,)',
(12.33)
+ ( r sin a,)?
(12.34)
(7.
PL
sin a ,
d ( p ( ~ , ) r cos a,)?
For Mercury the mean m d true aaomdy are defined i d c i l t i d y to the above, where
Gn
U. Mercury
nlovcs on its epicycle with coilstant velocity relative to A,,,, so that a , may be found
using the meail motion tables (IX.4). From (12.30) and q(cr,,)ione may find a,. From this
point tlte argument above applies equally well to Figure 12,3, giving (12.34) for Mercury
also. The difference iu the models affects only p(c,).
Since the equation of anomaly is a function of two varial~les,Ptolemy uses his interpd?ttion method to tabulate it. The weak variable is %, so p is evaluated fox the extreme
d u e s of c,, where the epicycle centrc
(For
Mercury, Ptolemy defines pz(a,) = p(a,, 120),the location of the perigee. The difference
itl the model leads to different d u e s of p.) In addition, Ptolemy computes p for c, = ck,
A
c:,
271
em, and a
third function
Ptolexny does uot give cO,, explicitly in the AZmagest for m y planet, since its precise value
does not arise in calculstions (except indirectly in the interpolation tables, to follow).
Pedersen has derived the expression
tables for pl and pz reconstructed by the appropriate additions or subtractioils. All tables
are computed for a, E (6',.
I".
33
30
36
42
48
54
GO
66
72
78
84
90
2;50 1
3;20
3;49
'
4;17
4;42
5; 4
5;25
5;42
5;55
6; 5
6;12 1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
/ 105
108
111
114
117
120
123
12G
129
132
135
IXXI)
612
Error
1
G; 9
6; 5
6; 0
5;55
5;48
5;40
5;31
5;21
5;lO
4;58
4;45
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a,
po(a,)
138
141
144
147
150
153
156
159
162
165
168
171
174
177
180
4;31
4;lG
4; 0
3;43
3;25
3; 7
2;48
2;29
2; 9
1;48
1;27
1; 6
0;45
0;23
0; 0
Error
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
a,
6
12
18
24
55
42
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
90
/
'
112(~,,)
0;38
1;15
l;52
2 2
3;33
4; 4
4;34
5; 1
5;24
5;45
6; 3
6;16
6;27
6;34
1I
Error
1
I/
/
2
,
a,
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
117
2
1
2
0
1
1
120
123
126
129
132
135
p,(a..)
6;35
6;36
6;36
6;36
6;33
6;30
6;25
6;12
6; 3
5;54
5;43
5;32
5;19
5: 5
/
II
Error
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
159
162
165
168
171 I
174
/
i'ia 1
240
2;19
1;56
1;34
1;ll
0;49
7;2:
2
1
2
1
2
2
0
"
I pt(u,) / Error
1 6 1 0;56 0
12 1 1;51 I 0
/
a,
18
24
130
36
42
48
54
60
GG
72
78
84
90
2;45
3;"
4131
5;21
G;10 I
655
7;38
8;16
8;51 1
9;22 i
9;48
10; 9
10;25
1
1
1
a,
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
53
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126
129
132
135
/ pl(a,)
10;30
10;33
10;35
10;35
10;33
10;30
10;24
10;15
10; 5
8;54
9;41
9;25
9; 8
8;48
8127
'
Error
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
p, ( a , ) Error
1
138 8; 4
1
141 7;39
a,
144
147
150
153
156
159
162
165
168
171
174
17'7
180
7;13
6;44
6;13
5;41
5; 7
4;32
3;56
3;18
2;40
2;0
1;20
0;40
0; 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
Error
0
a,,
138
141
144
147
150
153
156
150
162
165
168
171
174
177
180
Error
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
I Error
l o
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
pz(a,)
93
11;28
96 11;32
99 11;34
102 11;35
105 11;34
108 11;32
111 11;26
114 11;19
117 11; 9
120 10;58
123 10;43
126 10;27
129 10; 8
132 9;48
135 9;25
a,
Error
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
a,
138
141
144
147
150
153
156
159
162
165
168
171
174
177
180
pz(a,)
9;0
8;32
8; 2
7;31
6;57
6;21
5;43
5; 4
4;24
3;42
2;59
2;15
1;30
0;46
0; 0
Error
1
1
1
Error
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
Error
0
1
0
1
] J ~ ( u " ) Error
2;24 [
11
11
a,
93
Error
0
1
0
a, I po(a,) Error
138 40;45
2
141
144
1
147
1
1
1
0
1
150
153
156
159
162
165
168
171
174
177
1
0
1
1
1
180
Error
a,
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
1%
129
132
135
Error
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
2
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
Error
1
1
0
0
Error
Error
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
1
1
2.5
30
60
90
120
150
Degrees
180
Error
a,
Error
a,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
123
126
129
132
135
5
1
1
1
1
138
141
134
147
150
153
156
159
162
165
168
171
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
:i 1
1
180
f Error
1
0
1 0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Table 12.27:
Error
5
1
1
a,
99
102
108
lo5
111
114
117
0
0
0
2
f
a,
138
141
144
147
150
153
156
159
162
table ( X I . l l )
Error
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
p~ ( a , ) Error
18;20
0
18;35
1
0
18145
f
18;54
18;59
0
19; 1
1
19; 0
1
18;57
0
18;50
0
18;39
0
18;24
0
1
18; 5
17;41
0
0
17;13
0
16;41
Error
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Error
0
a,
po(a,)
Error
138
19;lO
1
Error
Error
1
Error
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
>C
0 5 ,
X
A
, 0 5
f
X
X


 
X

nx
xx
x
__X
I
_
_
*<
X
X
;rC

_ __ _
Probability
Saturn
Saturn
Jupiter.
Jupiter
Jupiter
Mars
Mars
Mars
Venus
Venus
Venus
Mercury
Mercury
Merctirv
Table 12.31: Planetary equation of anomaly tables: interpolation grid test results
12.4.1
Since many of the equation of anomaly tables change considerably more quickly for
high a , than for low a,, the use of interpolation for the odd values of a, in the latter
part of tlie tables would cause large errors. Nevertheless, thc interpolation grid test was
applied to all 15 equation of anomaly tables to consider thc possibility that the entries
for the odd d u e s of
a,
oi obtaining a node error rank sum as great or greater than the node error rank sum in
the tables. They do not decide in favour of interpolation for any of the tables.
12.4.2
E r r o r clustering
Most of the equation of anomaly tables exhibit some error clustering. The results of
Conclusion
Planet a i d Table
Saturn
p(runs 5 19) =
Saturn
Saturn
 0.24%
p(runs 5 20) = 2
1 OD00
Jupiter
p(runs 5 20) =
Jupiter
p(runs
< 19) =
Jupitex
p(runs
Mars
= 38.56%
= 0.7'2%
= 19.79%
= 1.69%
Ve11us
Vems
0.05%
p(runs _< 18) = 5
10000 
Venus
A'Ia3.s
Mars
p(runs
< 20) =
 46.63%
R4ercury
p(runs
Mercury
p(runs 5 20) =
= 14.02%
hkrcury
p(ru1~s5 18) =
= 1.18%
4663
Table 12.32: Error clustering test results for the p1aietary ccjuatiou of a n a l d y tables
seems to contain a bias of about one minute, violating the test's requirement that the
error distribution be symmetric. As an approximate compensation, the errors in this
table only are decreased by one minute before applying the test. Most of the test resi~lt~s
favour clustering, with varying levels of confidence.
12.43 Dependences between the equation of anonlily tables for each planet
For each &net, the equation of anomaly is calculated for three different d a c s of h.
289
p(OO)= GO S e;
p(c%) = 60;
p(180)= 60  e.
(12.38)
For Mercury,
A=
au)2
+ ( r sin av)2.
(12.40)
be the function giving the distance from the Earth to the planet for the
k t

d(p+ r cos
r sin a,
sin p;(av) = Ai(av) '
Replace i with j in the above and take ratios of the two eqnations. Afker simplification
we have
(12.42)
This equation gives an alternate method of calculation for the p,table once the pitable
has Bem completed. Siuce 4;(av) and sinp;(a,) have dready been found, the user may
h d sinpj(av) directly from Aj(a,) using (12.42). Thus Ptolemy may have used (an
pj(av) = sin"
sinp;(a,) .&(a,)
A,(au>
pj(a,) = sin'
r sin a,

Aj(L) '
For ease of catcdation, there is little to choose between these two methods.
Tlte alternate form of calculation clearly leads to some dependence between the tables
for pi 'idpi. Tbe direct method (12.44) may dso cause a dependence, since the quantities
Spearman's p
Significsncc
0.371
< 1%
0.636
< $76
< 3%
< $%
< 4%
< ;%
< :%
< $%
< $96
< 1%
0.686
Jupiter
0.771
Jupiter
0.661
Jupiter
Mars
Mars
1
1
PI
)
P2
0.593
Po
'Y1
0.666
PZ
0.479
PO t
~1 + ~2
0.598
0.371
Venus
po
+ p2
0.554
0.645
Mercury
Mercury
PO
Pl
31
+ P2
0.695
Wilcoxon T
Significance
< $%
< $%
0.673
< ;%
< $%
0.717
< $76
plauet, three dependence tests are performed: first, to test whether pl depends
011
po;
second, to test whether pz depends on po; and third, to test whether pz depends on p l .
tcsts
of the underlying table for p, and 1,;:. the values in the uulerlying table reconstructed
&om the dependent table working backward from (12.43) and Ptolerny 's  d u e for pj(a,).
Tztble 12.33 gives tlie Spearman p for tlre quantities ( p A  p ~ , p p p R ) and the 'IViEcoxon
statistic and siguificance level rejecting a median of zero in favour of a median less than
zero, wliich would favour dependence. Clearly the results are mixed. The high value of
p for every test suggests that other errors are confounding the dependence, if it exists.
12.5
Ncxt, Ptolemy must work from the values for the equation of anomaly at the selected
For
SO
that
Note that fl(cz,)= f*(c;) = 0, and that the domains of yfi and
fi
Ptolerny may talmlate them in a single interpolation table with arguments from 6" to
As before? fi and f2 are defined based on the assumption that the rate of change of
p with respect to c, is proportional to the rate of change of some other function with
rcspect to G,.
He argues:
The computation of this correction [fi and fi] is based only on the maximum
quation ([ie.] that formed IF +hctangent from the observer to the epicyc k ) at each i n t e r n d a t e distal;ie [ G ~for
];
be applied for any particular position [of the pkuiet] ou tile epicydc is not
increases at a rate similar to p with respect to G,.To Ptolemy, this implies that
For Mercury the definitions are identicaltl,except that 1180" is replaced by 120" i,n. (12.52)
to accoul~tfor the different location of the perigee.
14AlmtegwtXI.10, 546.
15Tbcorrects an error in the definition Pedersen gives for fi, Sururjg, 294,
294
To calculate fi,,as(c,,l)for a given cnl,Ptolenlr uses the fact that the line EP joiuing
the Earth to the planet nus st be tangelit to tile epicycle if 1) is to be maximized (Figure
EG
r
 sin' GP
P(c,~)
'
The same holds for Mercury, although the different definition of p(cnE)causes n difference
in the full expression for pm,,(c,).
Values for the parameters p,,,, (0),p,,
(180') (p,,,
cury) are given for each planet in XI.10 and recomputed in Table 12.34. The interpolation tables fl and
f2
in the lunar interpolatiou table (V.8, $9.7)occur through d l five tables. Note also that
the Saturn table for fi appears to be rounded to the nearest 30 units in the last place,
the Venus fl table to 5 units, and the Mercury fl table to 20 units, and the last three
elltries of the Saturn talde for
fi
linear interpolation for certain stretclies, but do not exhibit precisely constnnt values.
45;39
47;37
49;34
51;32
53;29
54;49
56; 6
57;24
58;42
59;2 1
60; 0
60;0
GO; 0
T&le 12.35: Saturn equation of anomaly interpolation table. E l gives the error calculated
with Ptolemy's values for the parameters. E2 gives the error calculated with the correct
d u e s for tlie parameters.
Ptolemy parameters
Actual parameters
100
1
?
3b
60
90
120
750
180
Degrees
Ptolemy parameters
1
Actual parameters
30
60
90
120
150
180
Degrees
Table 12.37: Mars equation of anomaly interpolation table (XI.11). Error representation
is ide~tticalto the Saturn table.
Ptdemy parameters
Actual parameters
F7
I
Ptolemy parameters
Actual parsmeters
Table 12.30: Mercury equation of aaomaly interpolation table (XI.11). Error representation is identical to the Saturn table.
Ptolemy parameters
Actual parameters
30
90
120
180
Degrees
12.5.1
The planetary equation of anomaly interpolation tables arc si~nilaxto their lunar counterpart in several ways (V.8; see 59.7). The functions are a31 defined by an application of
Ptolemaic interpolation, using the maximum equation of anomdg function to generate
tlze rate of change of the equation of anomaly itself. The equation (12.53) defining the
maximurn equation of anomaly is identical to its lunar counterpart (9.33). The error
patterns in the planetary tables are also reminiscent of thc lunar table: they are about
the same large magnitude, contain distiuctive patterns, and exhibit appaent vestiges
of linear interpolation. Thus it is natural to test the same hypothesis that explained
the errors in the lunar table: that the errors in the planetary tables are due to rounded
values for the maximum equation of anomaly and the use of linear interpolation in the
underlying p,,,
table.
p , , , ( c ~ , ) , and p,,,(180)
(p
,,,,
(120")
for Mercury), I conlputed backwards horn Ptolemy 's interpoldion tables to hypothetical
maximum equatiou of anomaly tables for all five planets. The reconstructior~sare given
30, or around 0160, 15, 30, and 45. Back computing from tllc table of fi for Venus gives
precisely 0 or 30 in the secoud fractioiral place. The tables for Mars aud the
f2
table for
The reconstructed d u e s for Saturn and Jupiter (Ta1,lt.s 12.40 and 12.41) have a
rounding uuit of 0; 0,3G for c,
c,,,
recoztstructed entries containing a 15 or 45 in the last place are those for c,, = 93", 99",
14T0, l53O, and 171" for Saturn, and c, = 9g0, 105*, 141'; 153', 15g0, lGGO, 171": and
301
lVOfor Jupiter; all odd. The first differelms confir; t!;at all ei~trieafor odd c, In these
two tables are linearly iuterpolated between the entries fox even c,,.
No further linear
it~terpol&mis present.
Tlte reconstiucted Mercury table contains a rounding uliit of 0; 1 for c,, < 90' and
>
BOO.
However, aJl ten entxies containing a 30 in the last place are for odd
c,,, . Inspection coi~fismsthat the entries for odd c,, are linearly interpolated between the
The table of fi for Venus contains no linear interpolation or odd entries of c,. The
tr~bleof fi for Venus a d both &Jars tables, while they cannot be reconstructed like the
others, clearly suggest that each entry for odd c,,, was interpolated between the entries
for even c,,. The lack of clustering around 0/60, 15, 30, and 45 in the third sexagesimd
place might have been cmsed by evaluating p,,,(c,)
tables.
The reconstructed tables of the planetary masimum equation of anomaly axe given
with errors and interpolated entries removed in Table 12.45. The error plots in Figures
12.4346 reveal little of interest. The apparentiy different units of rozlnding in the tables
of f~ for Saturu, Venus, and Mercury, and the three values of 60; 0 at the end of the
Saturn table, are not r e d variations hut may now be seen to be vestiges of the method
of calculation.
Reconstructed
5:.53, 0
5;53,30
5;54, 0
5;54,30
5;55,30
5;56,30
5;57,30
5;58,30
6 ; I), 0
6; 1,30
6; 3, 0
6; 5, 0
6; 7, 0
6; 9, 0
6;11,30
Reconstructed
Reconstructed
6;28,30
6;29,30
6;30,30
6;31,15
6;32, 0
6;32,45
6;33,30
6;34, 0
6;34,30
6;35, 0
6;35,30
G;35,45
6;36, 0
6;36, 0
6;36, 0
Table 12.40: Reconstruction of p,,,(c,)
for Saturn. The second column coutains the
back computed values, the third cofumn contains the recons t rncted values, awl the fri~rrth
column contains the first. differences of the reconstructed ralues.
Reconstructed
10;34, 0
10;34,30
10;35, 0
10;35,30
10;36,30
10;38, 0
10;40, 0
10;42, 0
10;44, 0
10;46, 0
10;49, 0
10;52, 0
10;54,30
10;57,30
11; 0,45
Reconstructed
Reconstructed
11;26, 0
A
;1,15
Table 112.42: p m a , ( ~ )for Mars. The secoud column coutains the back computed values,
aud the third column contains the first differences.
c,,
pmaZ(c,,)
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
54
GO
66
44;49, 0, 0
44;50,30, 0
44;52, 0, 0
44;54, 0, 0
44;56,30, 0
45; 0,30, 0
45; 5, 0, 0
45; 9,30, 0
45;15,30, 0
45;22, 0, 0
45;28,30, 0
Reconstructed
45;49, 0
45;50,30
45;52, 0
45;54, 0
45;56,30
45; 0,30
45; 5, 0
45; 9,30
45;15,30
45;22, 0
45;28,30
45;35,30
45;42,30
45;50, 0
A
93 46; 1,56,47 ;4, 5, 7
96 46; 6, 1,54 ;3,47, 9
99 46; 9,49, 3 ;3,45,52
102 46;13,34,55 ;3,47, 9
105 46;17,22, 4 ;3,45,52
108 46;21, 7,56 ;3,47, 9
111 46;24,55, 5 ;3,45,52
114 46;28,40,57 ;3,47, 9
117 46;32,28, 6 ;3,45,52
120 46;36,13,58 ;3,33, 2
123 46;39,47, 0 ;3,30,28
126 46;$3,17,28 ;3,17,38
129 46;46,35, 6 ;3,15, 4
132 46;49,50,10 ;3, 0,57
135 46;52,51, 7 ;3, 0,57
C,
pn,,z(crn)
Cm
138
141
144
147
150
153
156
159
162
165
168
171
174
177
180
A
;1,30
;1,30
3.27 0
2 30
;4, 0
4
7 730
;4,30
;6, 0
;6,30
;6,30
;77 0
1
l~rn*z(~rn)
46;55,52, 4
46;58,38,54
47; 1,24,27
47; 3,40,29
47; 5,56,31
47; 7,43, 2
47; 9,28,16
47;10,58, 6
47;12,25,22
47;13,44,56
47;14,59,22
47;15,44,17
47;16,29,12
47;16,57,26
47;17, 0, 0
A
;2,46,50
;2,45,33
;2,16, 2
;2,16, 2
;1,46,31
;1,45,14
;1,29,50
;1,27,16
;1,19,34
;1,14,26
;0,44,55
;0,44,55
;0,28,14
;O, 2,34
Table 12.43: Reconstrnction of p , , , , ( h ) for Venus. The second columu contains the
back conxputed values, the third colulnu contaius the reconstructed values for c, 5 90,
axid t.he last. cdu~uncontains the first differences of the reconstructed values.
Reconstructed
19; 4, 0
19;10, 0
19;18, 0
19;30, 0
19;45, 0
20; 3, 0
20;23, 0
20;45, 0
21; 8, 0
21;31, 0
21;55, 0
22;19, 0
22;39, 0
22;57, 0
23;15, 0
PmaZc m )
Reconstructed
Reconstructed
23;45, 0
Table 12.44: Reconstruction of pma,(cm) for Mercury. The second colurm~contains the
back computed values, the third c o l u ~ mcontains the reconstructed values, and the fanrth
column contains the f i s t differences of the reconstructed values.
Digit
Figure 12.37: Histogram of the second fractional sexagesimd places of the back computed
maximum equation of anomaly table for Saturn
Digit
Figure 12.38: Histogram of the second fractional sexagesimal places of the back computed
u~axiinumequation of anomaly table for Jupiter
Figure 12.39: Histogram of the second fractional sexagesimal places of the back computed
maximum equation of anomaly table for Mars
Digit
Figure 12.40: Histogram of the second fractional sexagesimal places of the back computed
maximum equation oi anomaly table for Mercury
Digit
Figure 12.41: Histogram of the second fractional sexagesimal places of the back computed
maximum equatiou of anomaly table for Venus, from the table for fi (c, 5 90)
Figure 12.42: Histogram of the second xactionalsexagesimal places of the back computed
maximum equation of anomaly table for Venus, from the table for fi (c,2 93")
Satur
Venus
Mercury

Table 12.45: The reconstructed maximum equation of anomaly tables. The errors are
given to the irearest 1/2 minute (1 minute for Mercury), to reflect the level of rotnnding
present in the tables,
X
X
30
60
90
Degrees
120
150
180
12.6
Summary of Results
The planetary lougitude tables contain a number of similarities. The equation of centre
and eqnation of anomdy tables for planetary motion share several charactexistics. None
may be verified to contain interpolation grids, yet many of these tables contain substantial
e~idenceof error clustering. The cause of tlr;s clustering cannot readily be identified. The
uncorrected and corrected equation of centre tables exhibit a numerical depende~~ce
for
three of the five planets; for the other two planets the dependence is likely obscured
by other sources of error. The equation of anomaly tables do not show dependences
on each other, but even if the dependence exists the errors nlay not be large enough
for the statistical test to detect it. Finally, the large error;
111 the
equation of anomdy
interpolation tables are due to rounding in the underlying (and reconstructed) masinlum
equation of anomdy tables; linear interpolation in these underlying tables causes some
of the error as well.
1.5
30
60
90
1X )
< 90'):
error plot
750
Degrees
C h a p t e r 13
in Books 1);XI are not suited to finding them. Ptolemy devotes Book XI1 to applying
his theories to their calculation.
13.1
As I havediscussed previously, each planet (not including the Sun and Moon) periodically
slows and stops its westeast course along the zodiac, then travels backward for a short
time before stopping again and returning to its iorward motion, Ptolemy's planetary
models account for this motion by requiring that the planet move quickly on the epicycle,
in a direction opposite to that of the epicycle's centre on the deferent. When a plarret
the retrograde arc C = SlHS2, aad fionl this the duratiou of the retrograde motion
J = S/w,,wherc
Theorem. Apollonius studied the properties of the simple ryicyclic xuodel of planetary
motion, identical to Ptolemy's first model (Figure 12.1) esccyt that the Earth is at the
centre of the deferent rather than 2e u i t s fro111 the centre (Figure 13.1). Lei S be a, point
on the epicycle, lct 17 bc the point where the extension of E S crosses the epicycle again,
and let T be the iuidpoil~tof SIT. Apollonius proved that
i~
stationary point (that is, the planet appears to be rnotionl~ssobserved from the Earth
retrograde motion; S = S2 is the stafionary point at the elit1 of retrograde motion. Note
s2
= au(S2)is t l arc
~ A,VS2. The proof of
the theorem is ignored liere since only tllc fu~tdalllentalrelation (13.1) is rcquired for the
tables to follow.
13.2
s2,
the
cpantities C and J mag. be found easily by tlic relations almve. In the siniple epicyclic
model there i s olily one d u e for sl for each planet, but P tolm~y'smodel is considerably
more complicatecl: the distance p(c,,,) = EC: is always clmltging. Indeed, Apollonius'
Theorem does not apply even to Ptolemy's first model with t he Earth removcd from the
centre of the elefcrent. Instead Ptolclny finds sl as a functioii of the mean centrum c,.
ail(!
317
wit11 E G = ~ ( c , , , )fixed is approximately correct for all c, nc:arbj. This allows Ptolemy
to use Apollcrnius' Theorem.
To fitld sl(c,,,)directly, even with this simplification, is cornputatiolially difficult.
Ptolemy uses his interpolation rnetllod to reduce his labours by finding sl for three
t d u e s of c, only. The first is for E G = p(c,,) = 60 units. The other two are for c,

cliosen so that the opposition (or conjunction) in the middle of the retrograde arc occurs
cxactly when tlic epicycle's centre G reaches the apogee or perigee of the deferent. For
the apogee this mealis f hat
Mercury), since G will not have reached the apogee by tlic time the planet reaches the
stationary point S,; thus C, is slightly less than zero. For tlic perigee, p(c,) is not exactly
GO  e u n i t s for a similar reason; thus c,is slightly less than 180.Ptolemy acknowledges
this, but states that tlic eccentricity is s ~ n enough
d
to igilore the difference for Saturn
and Jupiter.* For the other three planets he computes sl for c, = 0' aud 180,and
~nakesa corzectiou later.
ESl E V = EH EA,
by Eucfid (fI.35), substitation gives
a(a
(13.4)
a11(1
318
Dividing (13.5) by (13.6) gives bZ, am1 taking the square root gives
ET
LEGT = sin'   sin'
EG'
a + Z,
.
60
2,
+G
 LSIGT = sin' a GO
 sin' .
r
(113.10)
Ptolemy proceeds siilrilarly for tile epicycle at apogee nud at perigee. The equation
+ for the apogee, and  for the perigee. Also, for the incan position
= cO,, Ptolemy llrd assumed that tlie velocities of the epicycle and of the 1)laneton the
epicycle are eq~mlto the mean velocities wi and w,. For t l apogee
~
and perigee cases,
ii/L
$ q,
L
.
r'
~ L I Lsecond,
~
c,,
< cO,,
Ptolerny argues:
17% obtained the arnounts for these [entries] [sl(%>]too from the [ntlmbers]
demonstratccl above for mean, least m d greatest dist tinces [sl(cO,), s1(0),
s1(180)],a i ~ dfrout the increments at distances in between these, wl~ichwe
Ifl
and
f2
from
demoilstratcs the distance of the epicycle, which, is thc principd factor affecting the difference ill [the position of] the ~ t a t i o n s . ~
Tltus, since p(c,,,) was already found in the process of calcuhting
p n z a Z ( ~=, )sill'
T

(13.17)
~(cm)
(see (12.53)), Ptoleiny uses these valiies of p to generate tltc interpolatory functions in
the usud m m ~ n e r : ~
for c,,
< cEZ,aid
for c,
and
> cz, are inferrcd, since no sample calculations are given for c, >
Cm*
Ptolerny computes sl(c,) for c,, E {0,6",12", .. . ,180}for each planet, omitting the
odd c, from the standard grid in the latter parts of the tables. (He also computes $2, but
since s2 = 360'
Tllc parameters
r , w,, md wt arc used precisely as given in the Almagest. Second, I perform the same
GThefollowing corrects an error in Pedcrsen's representation, Suruc.g, 350.
321
compuiation, exccpt tlmi 1use the value given by Ptolemy for the ratio w,/wtin XII.2
XII.6 iatl~erthan the csact ratio. Third, I use the interpolatioii methods (13.15) and
(13.16), with tllc parameters sl(OO),sl(c;), and s1(18O0) ns given in the test. Figures
13.213.6 give tltc error plots for all three nletl~odsof computation.
The inaguitutlc of tllc errors for the first two (exact) mctliods compared to the third
(interpolati~lg)~ucthodconfirms that the tables were calculated using Ptolemaic interpolation. The diiferenccs between t , l third
~
error and thc first two measure the effect
of using Ptolemaic iutcrpolation ratl~erthan some exact ~tlcthod. Note that they are
particularly largc for f\/lilrsand Mercnsy, due to tlbeir large eccentricities, a d in the case
of Mercury, due
to
O
{L
depicts the inhior effect, caused by Ptolcmy's errors in his d u e s for the ratios wa/w8.
Since the differellcc in t l m e errors is overwhelmed by the effcct of interpolation, I cannot
decide between Pt.olemy's ratios and the correct ratios.
Errors
Cm
96
Errors
114;10 0 0 0
1 1 0
SI(G~;)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
O
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
Errors
2 2 0
2 2 1
Errors
3 3
3 0
4 1
4 0
4 3.
4 0
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
4
4
4
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
3
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
4 1
3 0
3 3 0
3 3 0
3 3 0
3 3 0
4 4 1
4 4 0
3 3 0
2 1
3 3 1
3 3 0
3 3 0
4
4
Exact fonnula
Ptdemy 's w m
Errors
23 23
22 22
20 20
18 18
15 15
11 11
9 8
 7 7
3 3
2 2
2
2
4
5
5
41
"/
5
7
5
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
Errors
1G5;51 2 2 0
sl (c),
CW
9G
Errors
0 0 1
0 1 0
1 1 0
1 2 1
1 1 0
0 1 1
0 1 0
1 1 0
1 2 0
2
1
1
1
2
1
2 1
2 0
2 0
2 0
2 1
1 0
Exactformula
C;
Ptolemy's w a h t
Ir
Interpolation
Errors
10 11
12 12
16 1 G
22 22
29 29
37 37
44 44
Errors
38
29 29
18 19
9
9
2
2
13 13
23 23
33 33
42 42
43 49
5G 56
62 62
GG 66
69 69
G9 69
0
1
0
0
38
0
0
52 52 1
56 5G 0
60 GO 0
59 59 0
57 57 0
56 5G 1
55 55 0
52 32 0
38 38 0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Exact formula
x
Pldemy 5 walrHt
Intarpolabon
13.3
327
cts rcmain near t611eSun at alI times led Babylonian astroiiomers to dforts to find the
maximum elongation, the greatest difference in longiturlo between an iilferior planet
m d the Sun.7 The topic of maximmn elongations did not garner the sanle interest in
Ptolemaic astro~tomy,and even in tlie Atmapst this topic is restsicted to XII.9 and a
(13.23)
For Venus, Ptolerny begins by noting that the planet P is at its greatest elongation
when tlie line joiuing the Earth to tlic planet is tangent to tllc epicycle, behiid the epicycle's centre G fox
111
mean longitude is equd to Venus' mcsn longitude (since t l l ~Sun shares its longitudinal
iirotioli with both inferior planets); thus LAQG = AA  A,,.
Drop perpeu&culass from Q onto DG, from
Also, LAEP = X A  A.
LEDK = 90"
 ( A A  A),
k = LGDL = sin'
GL.
= sin'
GD
r f e siu(XA A)
GO
Tke angle betweeu DG' and the apsiclal line A E is now determined by
= LADG = LADL
(13.28)
S ~ S .
Q M = e sin nz
and
D4.d = L C
Tlrus
AfG= D G  D M = 60 ecosIr,
Then right triangle QAiG gives
O S ~ .
(13.30)
Cbapter 13. Re trogra tle Motions and Maxim am Elongations (Book XTII)
'
QGM,then, we have
Q M = sin'
LQGM = sin" 
QG
e sin 172
J(e sin m)2
+ (GO  e cos
(13.33)
m)2
Then
XA  A, = LAQG = LADG + LQGM = rn + n.
'0.Pederseu, Sutaey, 353.
'DAinzagesi!SII.9, 589, 591.
This deter~uinesthe Suu's mean longitude, ilencc !he Suu's equation of ccntre qja,n),
mlich gives the position of the true Sun (not slloml in Figure 13.7):
A(Sun) = A,,,
+ q(a.,,,).
(13.35)
VP(X) =
The difference bctween
111
+ +
(771
12)
 q(a,)  A,, .
(13.37)
(13.27).
Ptolemy calcdates
and
~2
(A E (0,300,.. .,330')). The tables are recomputed in Table 13.6, with error plots
in Figures 13.8 and 13.9. The errors arc of moderate sizc and present few problems.
q1(3300)= 45; 21 instead of 45; 22. This is not enough evideuce to conclude whether the
approximation w a s used.
13.4
is at least a valid geometrical argument. The moving def~rentin the Mercury mndd
renders this method i n d i d for Mercury, requiring a diffe~c a n t theory. T l k causes an
ius~mouutableproblem:
I Error
1
1.
0
1
1
2
5
1
0
1
0
2
q 2 ( X ) Error
46;22
45;31
1
44;49
44;25
44;31
44;55
0
1
1
3
45;41
46;30
47;13
1
2
2
4
47;35
47;34
47; 7
7
5
3
332
Figure 13.9: Mailnurn elongation table for Venus as cveniizg star: error plot
Now, accorcfing to our hypotlaesis for Mescury, wlaen tllc apparent position of
the planet [A] is given, ihe mean position in longitude A[],
cannot be found,
since line DG does not remain the same constant length, always equal to the
radkis of the eccentre [deferent] (as it does in the saine hypothesis for the
other [planets]).l1
Toomer notes that Ptolemy is corrcct in stating that A , cannot be found from X for
&fercury by Euclidean method^.'^
c,).
3O)
and
( a h r e A(c,) is
q(c,,,)=
LUGE
(Figure 13.10). K0t.e that the equation of anomaly p = L G E P is not in this iustance a
function of the p1;uiet's position on the epicycle, since that is ~ietenninedby (he condition
Nute that
Now LAEG = c,,,  q(c,,,). Thus Mercury's position relative to the apogee is
(13.39)
p(c,),
depeilclillg oil wlle tller b,lercury is a n~onliugor everting star rcspectively. Tkus Mercury's
longitude is
But A,,, = An
+ c,,.
30
wlierc q(a,,) is tlic solar equation. Tlle difference between (13.40) and (13.41) gives the
+ 3").
771
and
772
for
and
+ 3") if repeated, but not for X itself. Ptolemy uses linear in tcrpolation to
1j2.
72
elougations vl(X) and 712(X). This was done by varying c, ilntil A(%)
= X to six sexa
gesilnal places. Second, I recomputed using the linear interpolation adopted by Ptolemy.
Tlre recomputations arc given in Tables 13.7 and 13.8, wit11 crror plots in Figures 13.11
and 13.12. The recomputations yield only five differences hr+ween precise computation
and Ptolemy's linear iuterpolation. Tlms the iliteryolatioil does not iatrocl~icelarge errors, and other errors t c l d to overwLelm the diffesence betwen exact compatation and
interpolation. A large error appears ill the table for q2(2706),noted by both Neugebauer
The results on the tables on retrograde i~lotionsand maxiliium elongations confirm that
Ptolemy calculated as is stated in tlw Ahnagest. The tables of stations clearly use Ptolemaic interpolation to generate the eiltries, causiug errors wrying in magnitnde between
almost zero and one degree. The tables of ma>;imulnelongation contain sonkc substantial
errors, but in tllc case of Mercury, these errors are not diic to Ptolemy's use of linear
interpolation in the table's construction.
I3O. Neugebauer, HAhll.4, 234, note 10, aud G. Toomer, Aimagesf 596, note 102. My lccomputrttion
Neugebauer's 18;54 rather thau Tooxner's 18;53.
agrees with
a11tl
335
Errors
1 1
1 1
1 1
3 3
1 1
0 I
0 0
5
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
X
0
q2(X)
19;36
Errors
0
1
represents
( i ~ )
Figure 13.11: Maximum elongation t&le for Mercury as morning star: error plot
Figme 13.12: Maximurn elongation table for Mercury as evening star: error pldt
Chapter 14
The only inotio~isof celestial bodies left to be addressed ,\re the yluets' motions in
latitude. The models of longitude in Books IXXI were assumed to take gla,ce in the
ecliptic, but in reality the planets wander a~vaj7
from the eclil)tic by up to scvcral degrees.
Ptolemy deals witA the problem of latitude for the planets as lie did with the Moon: the
lougitucle theory is considered to be complete, unaffected b y any chmges irltroduced by
the account of lalitudes. Thus the original model remains iii the ecliptic for the purpose
of predicting longitudes (although Ptolemy does at one point argue that the changes
to the model do not affect the longitudes significantly). Siuce some of the vaxiations in
latitude appear to Bc ,&ted to the pli~net'sposition on the cpicyde, the longitude model
influences the latitude to some degree.
14.1
Ptolemy has difficulty with latitudes in the Almagest, The models lie uses arc so camplicated that he fill& it necessary to argue that the simplicit3. of a planetary inodd is less
important than its fit to the phenomena; since what is si11r~)le
for humans may not be
what is simple in lleavcidy things.' Even so, Ptolemy was clearly not satisfied with Elis
models, siace he simpiifics them considerably iu the later Ihzndy Tables. The phenomena of latitude are quai;:,rtively cliffcreiit for the superior
Ptolemy to constmict two different models.
;111d
Ascending
node
Figure 14.1: The placement of the deferent circle for the superior planets
Each superior planet traverses a path indined by several degrees to the ecliptic, similar
to Ptoleiny's model fox the Moon's latitude except that t l ~ cascending and descending
nodes for the plmets are fixed. However, marked variatious to this path depend on
the plauet's position on the epicycle. The regular motion is accounted for by placing the
deferent circle at a11 incliuation i to the plane of the ediptic (Figure 14.1). Tlle ascending
and desceiding nodes (where the clcferent crosses the planc of the ecliptic) remain in
place, unlike the modd for the Moon. The positions of the nodes are not related to
the position of the apogee of the dcfereut, except that tllc centre of the deferent D is
sontewhere North of thc~plane contaildng the ecliptic. Tllus i i ic line connecting the nodes
does not cut the clefemit in equal parts, and is at an oblicl~:t*angle to the apsidal line
QE.
G. Let the line betweeu the epicycle's centre G and the Earth E be projected onto
t h tilted epicycle by titldng the intersection of the disc oI fhe epicycle will1 the plane
perpendicular to the ecliptic containing E G (Figure 14.2). This line A,GII,, the first
diameter, conti~iiistllc epicycle's true apogee A,. The lint through the rcntre of the
epicycle a d in its plailc at right angles t,o the first diametct~.,the second diameter, is
always parallel to the ecliptic. The iitclination between t l ~ cdeferent and t.Lc epicycle j
varies so that it is zero at both nodes, and rcaches its maximum j,,
bottom of the deferent. The epicycle is always tilted so that ils true perigee JJ, is furthex
from the plane of the ediptic than tlle centre G. The exteut of the epicyclc's tilt varies
sinusoidally as it moves from the ascending node to the top uf the deferent i ~ l l donw~trdb,
Figure 14.3: Thc lneclliulism accouxting for the variation in the epicycle's tilt (superior
planets). The diagram is a vertical crosssection of Figure 14.2 along the line EG.
Ptolemy adds a ~ ~ i e c h a ~ ~
toi saccount
m
for this variation Ly attaching a s n d circle to
the line EG, positioned vertically (Figure 14.3). The circle is attached to tllc perigee 11,
in such a way tllat a poiltt H on the circle is the same distancc above the deferent as II,.
rotates aroulicl the circle with thc same velocity as the mcsn motion in longitude, so
Ptoleniy prefers to iueasure it from the top of the defwmt T (Figure 14.1). Thus
G (coui~terclockwise
viewed from above), deicrmines both c, and the mean longitude of the planet. Ptolemy
considers /? = / ? ( I I , a").
Since ,B is a double argument function, Ptolemy computos i t using interpolation. First
he computes @ for the two extreme 17alues of n: n = O0 wheu G is at its northern limit,
and n = 180' wlml G is at its southern limit. The con~lmtationof ,B(OO, a,) (Figure
14.4) Begins by projecting P orthogonally onto A,&, produc.ing I{. Next, IIC projects P
and I< onto the plane of t.lre ecliptic, producing L and B respectively. S i n e u , = LA,GP
(measured cour~terclockwise,aboiit 3130' in Figure 14.4),riglit triangle G K P gives
K P = r sin a,
aud
GK = r cos a,. 2
(14.1j
2Aetually S F = rsiuu, in the diagam, but I consider the nieasurement of IIP to br in the
343
triangle AlGII" g k s
. jmaz
.
. GK = r sm
cos av
(14.2)
cos a,.
(14.3)
(1,.
planet "by means of the t.heorems ivc went through before, iu treating the an~malies".~
cos a,.
(14.4)
EIc = Jp2
+ 2p cos jm..
cos a,)2
cos a,
(I.
sin ,.j
+ (r cos a,)'
cos a,)2,
(14.5)
(14.6)
(although Ptole~~iy
has uo need to clo this in his presentatic~n).Pedersen uses the good
approximation E K x EM in his analysis. Ptolemy does not use this approximation
in his sample calculatioli for Mars,4 dthougk E K = EM to all places displayed in the
sainplc calculatioils for Saturn and Jupiter.' For Jupiter, Ptolenty's phrasing suggests
titat the approxil~iatiouis u s d 6 I v I ~recomputations show that only four entries in the
clirectiofi of the epicycle's n~otionin Figure 14.4. GK is measured tonard the apogee.
3Afmtbgest XII1.4, 613. Ptvfefsen claims that it is 11ot solvable geonictrically, since it requires finding
the mean centrum fmin the true centrum (Swruey, 3667). Toomer disagrees (review of Sumeg, Archives
Iniernationules d'Histoire dcs Sciences 27 (1977), 13730).
4Almagest XIII.4. 619.
5 i t h ~ g e sXXII.4,
t
613, 61Y.
6A13nagesl XIII.4, 617.
344
sis tables affected by tile approximation? all in the Mars la ti tnde table for the southern
limit ( n = 180"). change in the first fractional sexagesimal place when the approximation
is sdoptecl. All foilr of tliese entries mere generated by linear interpolation (see $14.2.1),
and thus do m t allow one to decide whether the approximation was used.
Now riglit triangle EMK gives
and
E B = EIi cos(i + y ).
Note that
LP
(A full equation for ,/3(0,a,) may be generated by substituting equations for L P and EF
into the above, bnt it is very compEcatec1 and is omitted hcre.)
P( f 80,ci, j,
yields a
for all thee superior planets, for the standard arg~mentsa, E (6',12",. . ., 90,93",.. .,180).
'r
is measured U
I J W ~ ~ ~
I/
PP
Table
1 5ode Rank Sam Significance
19
0.420
Saturn h'ortlicm
0.420
19
Saturn Sou tltern
0.076
Jupiter Nortlmn
22
0.273
Jupiter SoutI~ern
20
0.997
12
Mars
Nortltcrn
0.273
20
Mars Soutliern
'1
Table 14.1: Interpolatioii teat results for the superior planet latitude tables. The Significance column gives the probability of obtaining a node rank sum as great or greater than
t.hat observed.
My recomputation is hiudered by some confusion regarcling tile value of thc longitude of
the apogee of tlrc deferent XA. This enters the calculation through the detcrrnination of
p. Ptole~ny'sdiscussiou of the application of the tables8 does not use the values of
XA
given in Books IXXI, h t rather valties rounded to the nearest 10'. Of eleven entries in
the tables where the value of X A (and hence p) makes a difference, eight favour the exact
d u e of X A . For the recolnpntations in Tables 14.214.7, first 1use the exact values of
hA a d generate p &om tliem by a numerical ðod. Second, I use the vallles of p given
in the text (all rounded severely). Only ten entries differ to the places given. Of these,
five favour the exact p xrd five favour Ptolemy's p. Two lmge computatiold errors in
a, = 174'
and
:I,
14.2.1
But, as the graph . ..shows, linear interpoiation has been used for. certain
sections am1 in pasticnlar near the maxima for the case of Mars wlicse the
Figare 14.5: From 0. Neugebauer, HATVIA, 1282. A graph of the values of the superior
planet latitude tables
curve shoultl end in a horizoiitd tangent. The resuliiug error is, Imvever,
negligible escepting [,f?(180,a , ) ]where it can reach 0;
I find no clear evidence for linear interpolation from either Xeugebauer's graph or the
tables for the Jtipiter and Saturn tables. The results of tl'c interpolatioi~test (Table
14.1) for a 9" grid and a , 2 90" are similarly inconclusive, wing both Ptolciny's stated
d u e s of p = p p , and the correct v;llues of p. The Mars titldes use linear i~i~erpolation
with a grid of 9' for large a,, u&kh may be seen by the first differences of the entries
(Tables 14.6 and 14.7). The lasge errors for a, = 174" ad 177" in the t,;J,le for Mars
at, the
southern limit were caused by this interpolation. .ripart horn these two entries,
the error never exceeds 0; 2. This grid is uuusual but not unprecedented, aucl is st:n&blc
347
considering the layout of the tables. For the Jupiter and Saturn tables the function's
Table 14.2: Table of latitudes at northern limit for Saturn (XIII.5). The error El is
cdculated using esact p; the error E2 uses the p given in t h v text.
Figure f 4.6: Table of latitudes at northern limit for Saturn: error plot
,!3(1805,u,)
2; 2
2; 3
2; 3
2; 4
2; 5
2; 7
2; 8
2;lO
2; 12
2; 15
2;18
2;21
2;24
2;27
2130
Table 14.3: Table of latitudes at southern linllt for Satur~l(XIII.5). The error El is
calculated using exact / I ; the error E2 uses the p given in tlie text.
Table 14.4: Table of latitudes at noxtllcm limit for Jupiter (XIII.5). The errors are as
for the Saturn tables.
Talh 14.5: Table of 1at.itudes at southern limit for Jupiter (XIII.5). The errors are as
for the Saturn t a l h s .
2
 
I
,&
x X x
Ptolemy s rho
X
Exact rho
X
____Y
=
X
Table 14.6: Table of latitudes at northern limit for hilass (XIII.5), ,8(0,u,). The errors
are as for the Saturn tables. The colulm labelled A gives the first diffcrcilces of the
entries.
Figure 14.10: Table of latitudes at nortllern limit for Mars: error plot
Ti~ble14.7: Table of latitudes at soutllern limit for Mars (XIII.5), P(180,a,). The errors
are as for the Saturn tables. The colulllu labelled A givcs the first differences of the
err tries.
Figure 11.11: TaMe of latit.u&s at southern limit fur h4ars: error plot
14.3
The tables give11 so far allow the user to find $(0,a,) mcl P(18Q0,a,).
Fxorn these
Ptolemy requires B(n,a,). Since the period of ret.urns of j is identical to the period of
returns of the latitude of the epicycle's centre G, P tolemp argues loosely t,hnt the d u e
of n, holding a, fixed, affects the latitude as if the planet were travelling on a single
circle inclined to the ecliptic rather tllaa both a deferent alltl an epicycle.l0 This gives a
situation identical to tlre lunar latitude tiieorp, where the latitude was
pm(n)
Ptolemy assumes that tile planet's latitude is approximately proportional to the Moon's
latitude, holdmg
and for f n
(1,
77
I< 90,
I> 90,
P(n, a,)
(37 )
= Prr*oon
5
b(180,a,,).
(14.15)
Ptolemy gives ,z table for g ( n ) = Pm,,,(n)/5" and iiistrlicts the reader to use (14.14)
or (14.15) as (zppropiistc to cdculate P ( n , a,). The table, wllich is reproducecl for each
lilanet in the AZmagesi, is given in Title 14.8, with an ersar plot in Figure 14.12. The
entries for n
< 90" are iclcntid to tlre entries for 180" n and are not given hiw. Ptolemy
&,,,(TL),
multiplying
by 12 and shifting the sexagesirnal poiut to tlre left, tllrls effectively dividing by 5".
hdeed, each extry is divisible by 12 in the last place. Howcvcr, several h a w noted that a
remlrstrtrction of the mctedying lunar latitude table does
nclt
355
the tatlc for ,&;,,,,(n) in V.8.12 The reconstructed vdues for ,,,(n),
snldler than tlic values in the original table of ,!?m,n(~z)
ralues of
12:
99"
102"
108"
111"
135"
138"
144"
153"
156"
165"
168"
(14.16)
is almost undetectable horn the nuiubers, Pedersen13 uses the approximation without
sualysis, and Ncugebauer states that "it is easy to see that tlze tables follow the law"14
given by the approximation. However, Ptolemy gives no indication that any approximation is used in his analysis for the superior planets,15 awl the difference between the
exact fonnda aid the approximatioil is too small to decide ~ d ~ i method
ch
11as used from
the nunAers alone.
14.3.1
The lunar latitude tablc reconstructccl &om the planetary table is clearly different from
the table of Dm,,, in V.8; perhaps it was an earlier table which Ptolemy later recomputed.
Where the recoilstructed table differs from the origind table, it is always by minus 1
minute. The errors theinselves rereal a clear bias of alnzost exactly 112 minute, as may
(YO!.
recoustritcted tablc.
Error
Error
71.

0
1
0
138
0
i
1
1
147
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
141
144
150
153
156
159
162
1G5
168
171
174
177
180
Error
11
2
8
7
2
16
13
1
4
9
5
4
4
7
0
Error
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
I
0
Ta.ble 14.8: Planetary latitude interpolation table (XIII.5) and reconstruc tccl lunar latitude table
1
1
Lunar Table (V.8)
I Reconstructed Table (XIII.5) 1
1
1 Positive Error Negative Error Positive Error Kegi~tiveError
5
1
I Modern buudizlg 1
4
13
Truncation
I1
Table 14.9: Errors in the lunar latitude tables (origind artucl reconstructed) using both
~izodernrounding and truncation
14.3.2
Error clustering
The error clzrsterii~gtest of $3.2 was applied to the recou.structed lunar latitude table
(Table 14.8) undcr the hypothesis that. truncation was used railrer than modern rounding.
This requires tllnt o milst not be generated from the proportion of entries within
the correct
3 of
T  ~ U C .I l ~ ~ t e i ~ d ,
the simulations to
(renwiug the errtry fur n = 180") gives a = 0.0050437. Cl~u~paring
the 7 ruus of error observed in the table (cdcdated using tr~lucation)gives
14.4
Vmus a i d Merc~tryh a w much larger epicycles t h ~ uthe sapcrior pluiets, so that vluiatious caused by tlle planet's position on tlie epicycle are ntrlcli easier to cletcct. Perhaps
this helped lead Ptolenq to construcf a more coniplicdml ~uodelfor the latitudes of the
inferior planets.'7 The model for the inferior planets shares the nmizil: fci~tuzesof the
origind model: tlle incliuations of both the deferent and thc cpicycle are varicd to fit tlle
observed latitudes as \
dl
as possible. However, since the l)kenomeila u c different for
(b) and (d)). When G irloves away from tlie node the defcrcnt becomes inclined to the
ecliptic, reaclung its ~llnsimurninclination i = ,,i
(c)).
the ecliptic for Vezlus, a i d below the ecliptic for Mercury. Second, the i~udesare 90'
removed from bhe apogee of the defercnt.18 Thus the incli~litfiollis at its maximum when
G is at apogee and at perigee. Mote that the argument of :r~tituden is thus equal to the
t.me centrum c ( f ) ,the distance from i l ~ ephnet's apogee to G.
The epicyde itself contains two l~lotionswltich alter the ixldinations of the first and
second diameters. The f i ~ s dimetcr
t
undergoes s similar siuusoidal ~ m t i ~to*its
i coulr
terpart in the model for tlie superior planets: except that it is in the plane of the deferent
at apogee m d perigee and reaches its maximum deviation j = j,,,
Venus, this deviation is oriented so that the perigee of the epicycle points npward at the
170.Pedersen, Saruey, 360, For an analysis of the kinematic ntotic!.i of Venus and Mercury see R.
Ridden, T h e latitudes of Yetnus and Meretrry in the Aimagest", 1881, 9.5111.
18h'ok that G reinains above the ecliptic except at the nodes, so that it makes no sense to define
ascending and desceudig uodes.
Figure 14.13: Thc latitude model for Venus. The diagrams represent the progression of
G from apogee (a) to tlie node (b): on to perigee (c), and findly to the otltcr node (d).
360
rtode after the apogee (Figure 14.13(b)) and downward at the node before the apogee
(Figure l4.l3(d j j. The secord dimwter, wllich was fixed for the superior planets, varies
with the s a n e siuusoidal motion as the deferent and the first diameter. At the nodes
the second diameter is parallel to the ecliptic (Figure 14.13(11) and (d)). At the apogee
tlte sfant 1; readies its maximum k,,,,,
to tilt upwards from West to East. for Venus. At the perigee the slant is I;,
(Figure
14.13(c)), so that the second diameter tilts downwards from West to East. For Mercury
and k,,,,
motiolls of i, j a d k wit11 small circles similar to the device used to tilt the epicycle for
tlic superior plancts (Fignre 14.3), altbhoughsome of these circles are placed on the diagram sligl~tlyoff center so that uniform rotation of the circles produces the four positions
of Figure 14.13.'"
14.5
Co~rstrucdingtables to find the latitude ,!? for the inferior plantbts with so many interacting
effects would be very difficult. P t'olemy adopts the simplifying approximation that the
latitude effects caused by the inclination, the deviation, and the slant may all be treated
independently.20 Thus
by
= ,z,
cos n..
(14.20)
To find ,O1(n), Ptclemy argues fllat the situation for the inc~liua~tion
is a g a h similw to
Thus
(14.21)
Ptolemp sets
PI ( n )z i . g ( n ) = it,,,,
(14.22)
cos n g ( n ) ,
where g(12) is tllc same function derived from tlle table for
planets .
To find
Thus for the first time P tolemy implicitly uses the a?proxilmtion
(14.24)
g ( n ) z cos n.
The table for g ( n ) , identical to the ta.bles given for the sul)cr,'or planets, is repeated for
both Venus and Mercury.
14.6
Although the deviation is affected Ly the inclination, PColcmy has alrcad y made the
simplifying assumption that the tltrce latitude effects are i~lclepetident. Wide ,LIZ is a
function of two argumcuts n and a,, Ptbolelny begins by crdculatiug
p2 at
orlc of the
nodes. Siilce P2(9o0,a,) = P2(2'i00, a,), it is unimportant which node is cl~osm." For
21AlmagestXIII.4, 631.
22Almagesi XIII.G, 636.
23Pedersen's analysis (Su.raey, 3779) cl~oosesthe node prior to apogce ( n = 270),while Toomer's
diagram (Almagest, 607) cl~oosesthe node after apogee (n = 90).
and the inclination and the slant are zero. The distance p = EG
from the Eart4ht o the epicycle's centre is roughly its mean distance, 60 uuits for Venus
and 56;40units for Mercury.24
Iu Figure 14.14, tlten, it is requilcd to fincl the planet's angle of inclination, LMEP.
Now EC; = p is given above, LEGIT, = j,,,,,,
from P auto ,4,IT,,to forill I<. Also clrop K and P onto the l)lane of the eclil)tic, forming
GIi = r cos uo
and
(14.25)
"Ptdemy states wrongly that the value for Mercury was found previously (Almagest SIII.4,6089,).
Neugcbaucr (HAMA, 221) filtds p = 56; 37, alld Toomer (Almagest, 600 uote 33) finds p = 5G; 43,g.I find
tlic saim value as Tooiuer. The correct value of p for Venus is easy to calculate, and my recomputation
agrees with Neugelaucr's 59; 59,13 (HAMA, 221).
= r cos a,
GL = GI<cos j ,
sin 3
,,,,,,.
and
Then
a11d
EP = ~ E +
WMP2 =
jn,,,)2
+ IiL*.
t ( r sin a,)2
(1
)2,
(14.31)
E P = Jp2
cos a ,
1.2
(14.32)
B2( 2 m 0 ,a,)
= L k f E P = sin'
AJP
KL
= sin' EP
EP
To find ,B2(12, a,), P tolemy uses the same tecllnique he il~tsoducedfor the inclirtation
fmction. He asscsts that
I;j. the rotatioil 3f oue of tlle srna.11 circ!es, as before), reachiug its maximum at n = 2?P.
Thus
(14.34)
Ptoleiny tabnlstes P2(2700,a,) for Veilus and Mercury, using the standard gsid a, E
(Go,.
. . ,9DG,93", . . . ,180"). Note that p2> 0 for a, < 90, a i d P2 < 0 for a, > 90'. The
slxdute values appear in the tables, and the text gives instructions concerning whether
to add or subtract the tabulated value when computing
of the tables for B2(27o0,a,)
P itself.25 My recomputations
14.15 a i d 14.16. The large errors in the Venus table for large a, and the first differences
of the ei~tries,illake it char tllat Ptolciny interpolated on intcr~& of 9@for a,
> 90, an
uuusual but reasoual>leclloice wilsidesing the layout of the tables. He has already used
the same gsid in several of the lunar parallax taldes and in the Mars latitude tables.26 The
t d d e for Mercury is considerably more accurate; thus it is unclear whether interpolation
was used. The first differences are too irregular and the tabulated values too accurate
to admit the possibility of linear interpolation. The interpolation test gives a node rank
sum of 17, and a signific;~ncelevel of 0.727, confirming this conclusion.
To compute
,&(?I,
a,) for any n, Ptolemy uses the same device he used for
for
11
PI. Since
g(n  90')
Pz(n, a c ) :
.P2(29O0,u . ~ )
"The interpolation test for this grid givcs a node rank sum of 19, aud a significance level of 0.420.
Tlic cause of the test's failure is evident from Table 14.10: the errors in the nodes are often cancelled
coi~ddentallyby tlw error caused by the lineax interpolation.
j4
Error
j?~
0; 5
Error
0
,Bs Error
1;59
Table 14.10: The deviation table for Ve~ius(XIII.5), ,02(2i00,a , ) . The colurlzn fabelled
A gives the first cliffereuces of the entries.
Figure 14.15: The dv:i;l t ion table for Venus: error plot
Error
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
u,
138
141
144
147
150
153
156
159
162
1G5
1G8
171
1'74
177
180
1
0
0
0
0
P2(27P,
a " ) Error

Figure 14.17: T l ~ ecomponent of the latitude due to slant and the planet's equation of
anomaly. Note that p = LGEP,but Is drawn in the figarc after rotating the epicycle
into the plane of the deferent (from the solid to the dotted circle).
71.
is niaxixnizcd
by n, for Venus For Mercury the clifference is more sul~stantialand will ileed tcr be
addressed.
Although it is possilde to work out a formula for
m
h(O0,
a,.) similar to his carlier work
368
vital to the tables: I give ouly a genet 31 ooutli~lehere. Figure 14.17 shows
tliat tlic slant is vitally connected to the planet's equation of snomaly p(a,, c,) (c,= 0"
at the apogee), In fact, /j3is the elevation of the side EP of the angle GEP. Now, as a,
which gives
(1,.
difficnlty clealing nitk the proper defiilitiou of p, since the cguation of anomaly should
il: actuality be the smdles angle p' ill Figure 14.17 if the flatness of the model in the
czrslicr long<tutle tbeory is replaced by the current model. Ptolemy argues that both p
nlicl
11'
reach their maxiinurn for the same value of a,. He also concludes, i i ~ o r r e c t l y , ~ ~
that tlle difference 11  1)' reaches its maximum for the sanlc value of a,, and does some
calculations to sllow that the original equations of anomaly p are close enough to the
corrcctcd equat,ious of anoilzaly pt for this extreme value of a, to justify leaving the
original theory u~lclrangccl.
c,
P3
in (14.37) above are indeed rounded values of the largest entries in the
tables far Po(a,) found ill XI.11 (see Tables 12.26 and 12.29), 45;59 for Venus aad 22;2
for Mercury.
The final calculation of P3(n,a , ) from i l 3 ( O 0 , a,) is axlalogoms to the procc$ures for
and
Pa. Since a smdl circle regulates the size of k, &(n. a,,)nay be found
a1
by
This formula is adequate for Venus~but for h'lercury Ptoleli~ymust still account for the
variation caused by the changing value of p. He approxiimks this effect by decreasing
~ ~ E Wthe
I
92,
& ( n , a,)
0.9 y ( 1 1 )
@ 3 ( 0 ,a,,).
. , ,, 90,
93") .. ., 180"). The multiplicative constants quoted in tltc text2$ (2; 30/4G for Venus,
2; 30/22 for Mercury) nia y have had several values in actual coinput ation. Pcclersen gives
of anomaly values froin the planetary po(a,) tables rather than the rounded vdrres given
iu XIII.4. The ta1;les are recomputed by multiplying 2; 30/1G and 2; 30/22 Lj: Ptolemy's
~)o(u,)table in Tables 14.12 and 14.13, with error plots in Figures 14.18 arid 14.19.
28Almagest XIII.4,631.
29Pederser, Suruey, 384.
300.
Xengebauer, HAMA, 222.
Error
0
0
0
0
0
'
a,
93
96
99
102
0
0
0
0
105
108
111
114
117
120
135
Error
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Error
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Error
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
a,
93
96
39
102
105
108
111
114
117
120
132
135
Table 14.13: The slant table for Mercury (XIII.5)
Directiox of Error
Positive
Neg ;L tIve

I/ 0; C,48 1
19
2
;s
0; G,48,28
14
4
0; 6,49
= 0; 6,49,5
10
5
9
5
'
Table 14.14: Directiou of errors in the recomputation of tlle Mercury slant table for
candidate values of the ratio fi3,,,,/p,,,,
For Venus, only one crsor occurs in t l ~ eentire table for t l ~ eratio 2 ; 30/4G. Pedersen's
0; 3,16 gives six errors. all negative, while Neugebauer's 0; 3,15 gives 16 errors, all posi
tive. Thus I conclude that P tolemy either multiplied by 2; 30, then divided by 46, or that
Ire took tile ratio 2 30/4G to at least t h e e fractional sexagesilual places. B 0th hypotheses
require about the same amouni of effort in calculation. The ratio 2; 30145; 59 is so close
to 2; 30/46 that only tlle entry for u, = 126' changes, froxi Ptolemy's
45;14to 45;15.
Tlie simplicity of cdculation of this table implies that no further tests are llecessary.
For himcury tlte situation is more complicated. Since thc table is merely a multiple of
an earlier table, tJle only possible source of error is the value used for the ratio 2 ; 30/22.
Thus, as for Veuns7 o m should expect. all erroneous ent.rics to be on the same side
(positi rye or negative) of the correct wlues. Table 14.14 givcs the number of errors, both
positive and negative, for all the calldidate ratios. The distribution of errors in this
table lead me to reject Neugebauer7s 0; 6,48 and possibly 2; 30/22; 2, but the difference
between Pederscn's 0;6%49 and 2; 30122 is too small to dlctw a choice. I conclude that
the
slant, table does not desive fsom Ptolemy's tal~lern(a,) in XI.11, but from
14.8
The Almagest colicludes ivith a small set of tables giving the elongations of the planets
from the Suil at the times of first and last visibilities. The proldem was of greater interest
to Babylonian astronomers than to
Pt o l e m ~ .who
, ~ ~ does not discuss them
as thoroughly
a,
from those discussed in tlris work, and are not dealt with bcre.
14.9
Summary of Results
The planetary latitude tables reveal some of the more intercs ting discoveries i ~ this
r work.
The recalculations show that linear interpolation with a grid of 9" was used for the latter
portions of some of the tables of latitudes. The planetary latitude interpolation table
appears to derive from an underlying table, either of lunar latitudes or of trigonometric
origin, differing horn the lunar latitude table in Book V ill that truncation rather than
modern rounding was used. The difference between the \:cwus and Mercury tables of
slant strongly suggests that the Mercury table is not based
OIL
equation of anomidy, but another, possibly earlier version of the same table,
310.
Neugebauer, HAMA, 242.
Chapter 15
Conclusion
The only significant example of this situation is the second lunar equation of anomaly
table (59.6).
15.1
411 unexpected but strong verification of identity between the descriptions in the text
a ~ procedures
~ d
used for the tablcs appears in the analysis of the lunar a i ~ planetary
l
interpolation tablcs, wllcre I show that the mru;imum equatjcui of anomaly tables implied
by Ptoleuty to be an iutermediate stage in the calculation actually exist (59.7, 12.5). I
have also shown that the tables of planetary stations conforiil to Ptoleiny's suggest,ed me
of Ptolemaic iatcrpolation in the calculation process considerably more closely than to
the correct vdues ($13.2).
The values of astroilomical parameters used in the tnl~lesare Best determined by
van Dalen's estiutators'
implicit in the taldes coilform very closely to the parsiiietcrs in the text. R. Newton's
conclusio~~s
that the parameters in the tables ase slightly diff'went from thosc in the text2
(usually values tllat are completely unsupported in the litcrature) are slmwn to suffer
from a lack of proper ststistical methodology Generdy his estimations a d rejections
of the text parameters are due to the application of traditional descriptive statistics
in a very nontrs&tioual statistical problem. The depcndwces between cntries due to
iuterpolatioa a i d other sources cause lus confidewe i n t e r d s for the parailleters to be
far narrower thait they should be. An analysis taking tltcsc dependences iuto account
lB. vau Dalen, '&Astatistical method for recovering unknown paramvters from medieval astrmomicd
tables*, [122], 85145.
2R.Newton, T l ~ eOrigins of Ptolemy's Astronomical Parameiers, [YO], 15156.
cllord t a l k Neither tlle chord supplclnent formula nor the chord addition formula were
used ill the actual constrr~ction(54.8). This does not imply deceit by the author. Rather,
i t suggests that tlic purpose of the test's description of the table was to make available a
full range of trigononietric tools and to sllow how one may construct a chord table from
them. The actual construction bypasses these two numericdly unstable formulas, giving
secure results.
15.2
A full range of findings from the table dependence test l~clpsclarify the question of
clependences between tables that are theoretically connected. In several cases the findings
are inconclusive. These iuclude the dependence of two of the three shadow length tables
on the latitude table ($7.2.1). One may well argue that this calls into question the
positive finding of dependence for tlle tliird shadow length t d e . The relations between
the original planetary equation of centre tables (a)and the corrected tables (q) are
verified nu~nericallywith strong results in three of five cases (512.3.3). The other two are
inconclusive, prohably dne to the obscuration of other errors clue to rounding. The lack of
a11 apparent relation between the trios of planetary equatioil of anomaly tal~les($12.43)
is likely clue to tlle tenuous nature of the connection betwccu the three (in a numerical
sense). Finally, the strong result that the chord interpolation table is considerably more
accurate t l ~ mclcpendeaxe on the chord table itself wodd admit (54.9) is proof that
the author used more sexagesimal places to calculate the table than the three places
displayed.
377
Overall, these mixed results are ilot unespected. The ~uathematicdui~tureof the
problem and thc high accuracy of the tables' entries nlakcs i t likely that many dependences are obscured. To conclude that s tl~eoreticallyclepcldent table does not in fact
derive from the underlying table nrllen tlle dependent table is not more accurate that1
calculation hoin tlte ullderlying table would allow is a difficult, matter. In endl individual
case, one would l>e reqnired to idel'tify the main sources of the errors arisiilg from the
calculation from the uuderlying to the dependent table, or reconstruct the actual underlying table in a conviilcing nlanner (as I did in my analysis of the lunar and planetary
interpolation tables, 39.7, 12.5) to ascertain that
110
The implicatious of these test rcsi~ltsdo not seriously call into question the autlkenticity of the autlior's presentation. The only strong eviclcnce of s lack of connection
between the table and tlle text conceriliaig dependence between tables is the chord table
and the chord interpolation table, wlme the supposed link can be conclusively severed
(s4.9). Still, it is reasonable to suppose that the two were in fact coznputed together
(although not precisely as stated in the text), and that the chords were rounded to three
sexagesinla1 places to preserve the accuracy of the figures.
15.3
of anomaly tables: not present in the A h a g e s t but recondrUct&l in this work, were
calculated with t l ~ eaid of linear interpolation as well (59.7, 12.5). Finally, it seems clear
that linear interpolation was also used near the end of the Mnrs tables of latittldes and the
Venus latitude deviation table, but probably not throughout these tables ($14.2, 14.6).
> 90" (59.5.1). Iu tlte latter case in particular, the discovery of the grid may imply
some method of computation that, strictly speaking, does not fall under tlle class of interpolation. A local method of calculation, perhaps exact but more likely approximative,
may have generated the internodal entries from the grid elltries using trigonometric or
other functions.
(z
in entries near each otlier in the table. This effect may bc caused by interpolation or
other inethods of computation relyinp; on nearby entries to generate new ones. However,
this study clearly indicates that tlie effect is much greater than may be expected from
tlre application of these methods.
The cause of this effict is likely a coiubiuation of several factors besides local forms
of cdctilation. In several. tables, such as the solar equation table (8.4), the dependence
3?9
is statistically significaut but does not imply that the calcirlations themsdves were in
any way dependent. A purely ~natlwluaticaleffect, described in $3.2, arises when ekte
functio~i'ssecond de~ivi~tive
is sufficiently small and tlie rounding is sufficiently crude
relative to the increase of tlie function from entry to entry. In these situations stretches
of entries can be lineady related to the argumerit, so that the errors are the resiilt of
subtracting a linear function from the computed function.
Many results, however, show a sigiiificant cluste~ingof error that cani~otbe explained
by this effect. These include the solar and lunar parallax tables ($10.2.2, 10.4.1, 10.4.2),
some of the planetary equation of centre tables (both a and q , $12.3.2), and several of the
plmetary equation of anomaly tables (512.4.2). For many of these tables, ir~tcrpolation
and some other local foruis of calculation can be safely ruled out on grounds of practicality
alone. It seems that the only plausible explanation is that tlie author(s) of these tables
routinely smootlml the pattern of entries in the table by adjusting the cntries up or
down one or more units in the last place, to give the appearance of a smootldy changing
function. This would liave been done on an ad hoc basis, without any standardized
algorithm. As a result, it is impossible to test this l~ypotllesisusing a stz~tisticaltest
beyond verifying that the errors do in fact cluster in a way that might be exyected by
such a procedure.
15.5
Certain other nunlerical methods used iu the Almagest deillonstrate a certain practical
1;nowledge of tlie errors involved in interpolatiou and a desire to offset them. My suggestion that some of the cltord interpolation table entries were illtentionally rounded upward
requires that the author of the table was aware that linear interpolation would impose a
negative error, and therefore that he was aware of the concavity of the graph, at least in
a numerical sense. A sirdar strategic use of rounding occurs in the eclipse interpolation
taljlc:.
15.8
Several questions conccriiing specific tables arise from tlus study. The method used to
gcncrate tlic t a l h of dcclinatious from the nodes (56.3)is a fascinating problem, and
may not have a single consistent answer. It is certain that the grid exists. Yet the
internodal entries, while less accurate than the nodes, are still more accurate than any
obvious iliterpolation method would dlow. Also, the apparent dependence between the
first two lunar parallax tables
The unusual nature of the data from a statistical point of view creates interesting
problems that I llave att.empted to address. The data are Ip their nature observational,
and no controlled experiment can replace them. The deterministic quality of the data creates several unique problems; for instance, the inathematical nature of the functions being
calcdated irnplics that normal distribution assumptions may often fail. I have therefore
turned primarily to nonparametric tests and only occasionally used other methods. The
nature of the data seems t c exclude the randomness that one is required to assume in
statistical metllodology. Although many situations studied by statistics do not in themselves represent random processes bxt yet may be approximated by them, the situation
with the data in tlle Almngest: seems particularly thorny. In most cases of the type arising
in this work, a rxildom model may be found to fit the data fairly effectively." However,
unusual dependences may creep into tlte data in unexpected ways. It is ~lulikelythat
these problems irill ever be fully s01red.
Scvcral fiistorical questions arise from this work. The most obvious is tile connection
between the Almagest tables and those in the H m d y Tables. This is a resea~chprob!ex\l
that ma> be addressed in subsequent studies. General qwestions about the uumerical
tables include tbc verification or denial through iluinerical or statistical means that the
anthor(s) of the Almagest tables smootl~eclthe entsies. This is part of the broader problem
of finding a consistent and plausible model of calculation tlmt matches the entries ia a
given table with a high rate of success (say, 95%). If the elltries mere smoothed? t+llis
problem may ilever be solved for the Almagest tables. I h a w had some prc$vious success
with al1illalili"s auxiliary table^,^ wliiclr do not seem to ~01ltiti11smootlled cntrics.
The broader questions of authorship and placement of the tables in their llistorical
context may only receive partial answers through a numerical analysis of this type. Certain dependences and lacks of depeudences have illustrated that the text is often a fair
reflection of the tables, but also that there are important clivergences. Tllc structure of
the tabies found iu this work does not refute or verify that, Pt'olemy hilr~self(or his assistants) authored the tables. The Almagest was a large masterworli, y e a s in the making, a
culmination of Ptolemy's early astronoinical efforts. It is tlmefore not surprising to find
evidenc.e of earlier versioils of the same table, different rouncliilg methods used in different
tables, and so forth. Nor is it unsettling to find that the text's method of calculation
differs from the table's method in several places. Tile purpose of the Almagcst is in part
pedagogical: it is intended to exp1icat.ethe rnetl~odsof astronomy, including the methods
of the required ~nathematics.~For t.lre reader's benefit, tllc text is shaped to present
Appendix A
Statistical Glossary
This tllesis makes certain necessary assumptions concernizg the reader's knowledge of
sti&stical ~netllodsa d language. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of this thesis,
many of its reaclcrs may not be sufficiently conversant with the terns used to follow
the argunzentatioxl. Rather than clutter the text with cad111 explanations of concepts
that m e basic to the field of statistics, I include here a glossary of statistical terminology
used in tlie work. Mathematical definitions are not included here; for these the reader
is invited to collsult any general statistics text, and H. Neave and P. W7orthington's
biuing a large quantity of data in some way fiom different distributions results in
I11
..
, x, wld yl . . . ,y.,
XI,
Cumulative distribution function The illtegra.1 of the density function of a distribution. The d u e of the CDF for a given argument
J:
21
384
Descriptive statistics Any term that ineasures some property of a set of data rather
t1ta1.r m&i~rgiufeselrces about the underlying distribution. Examples include the
saxnple mean and sample s t a n d a r d deviation.
Dispersion The tendeucy of a population to spread around its centre (usually the
mean or median). The s t a n d a r d deviation is one method to measure dispersion
&out the mean.
Distribution Tlle psttcru of variation of a random variable. To say that a variable is
normally distributed, for example, implies that its density function follows
the bell curve.
Distributionfree metfiods/tests See nonparametric methods/tests.
Estimator A statistical procedure that estimates the valuc of some quantity based on
a random saiuple of data that depends on tlus quantity in some way.
xj.
Inferential statistics 4statistical procedure that makes some inference about the underlying distribution from the sample data.
.. ., rcnl a i d
sz, .
..,x,.
XI,
xi
sion.
Matched pairs See paired data.
Nonparametric methods/tests 4 collection of statistical methods t h a t makes no
assumptions about, the underlying distribution of the data (normal or otherwise).
This is acco~nplislledtypically by ranking the data, and working wi tli the ranks
rather than t l ~ eosigind data. The avoidance of the distribution assuinption comes
at the cost of a loss of decisionmaliing power. Sometimes known as distri bu tionfsee
methobs/tests.
Ma~lyempirical processes
Normal distribution The familiar bellshaped &stributioi~+
and events may be described using the normal distribution. The central limiting
(1it.h
the random models assumed by statistical methods are more likely to be valid far
such data.
Onesided t e s t 4 test of significance where the null hypothesis states that a q ~ i { i :i
tity is equal to a certain value, versus the alternative that the quantity is greatr~t
tltarr that value. Alternatively, one may replace "grcater than7' with ''less than".
See also twosided test.
Outlier A data value that is in some way well outside the pattern established in the
rest of the data. This ma>be caused by an error in data entry or something that
went. awry in the data collection. Since it is always possible that an outlier redly
does come from the same population as the rest of the data, there must be some
reason (external to datistics) to exclude it.
X I ,.
. .,s,
Population A (theoretically infinite) collection of observr~tionsfrom which an experiment selects a finite number, Tllis collection is determined by its distribution.
Reference Distribution A reference set of test statistics derived under the assumptions of the model. The actual test statistic is compared to the set of values attained
Regression The fitting of a linear model (of one or more variables) to an experimental
situation. An additional error tern is assumed to be normally distributed with
387
mean zero. In the case of a sill& variable, regfessioil is eqiiirdent to findizrit; the
Runs Sequences of (discrete) data that have identical values. Runs axe used in this work
to measure the frequency of clustering of errors.
sure the monotonicity of the relationship between matched pairs of data, X I ,. . . ,z,
and yl, . . . ,yn (whether y increases with z). Since thc data are converted to ranks
before analyzing, tlle Spearman rank correlation is placed with nonparametric
Symmetric distribution A distribution that is symmetric about its mean (or me
Appc~~cfis
A. Statis tical Glossary
388
If the significance level is not lorn, no conclusion about the null hypothesis may be
reached.
Test statistic A quantity derived fionz the data in some arithmetic manncr. The test
statistic is compared to a reference or theoreticd distribution of the quantity
generated from the hypotheses of the model to determine whether the model is
appropriate (the null hypothesis).
Twosample ttest 4traditional test designed to determine whether two samples come
from populations with different means. Normal distribution assumptions are
in effect.
Twosided test A t e s t of significance where the null hypothesis states th& a quanti ty is equal to a certain value, versus the alternative that the quantity is not equal
to that vahie. See also onesided test.
Uniform distribution A distribution such that ev,ry value in a certain sct of possible
values is eqiially liliely to be selected, in the discrete case. In the continuous case,
the distribution is such that the probability that a valne is selected from a certain
interval is proportional to the size of the interval.
Variance The sum of tlte squares of the differences between
rfi~idedby
72.
XI,.
. . ,x,
 1.
Weighted test 4 t e s t of significance that takes certain data into account. more heavily tban others, due to aa external factor that places more importance on such
entries.
Wilcoxon signed rank test for dispersion A nonparametric test clesigned to determine whether two paired data sets exhibit the same amount of dispersiou around
their medians.
Bibliography
[2] Aaboe, A. "On the tables of pl<wetary visibility in the Almagest and the Handy
Tables". Dnnsbe Videnskabernes Selskab; Historiskfilosofiske Meddelelser 37, no. 8
(1960).
[3] Derggreu, J. L. "History of Greek mathematics: a survey of recent research9'. Historia
Mathematicu 11 (19841, 394410.
[4] B erggren, J. E, "Mathematicaf lnetliods in ancient science: Astronomy". In Histoly i n Matltematics Education, ed. I . GrattmGuinness, special issue of Cahiers
d'Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences 21 (1987), 3349.
[9] Brittou, J. On the Quality of Solar and Lunar Observations and Parameters i n
PtoEemy 's "Almagest". P1i.D. dissertation, Yale, 1967.
[10] B rittoe, J.
(19691, 2941.
[I11 Britton, 3. Models and Precisim: Tlhe Quality of
ram.eters. New Yorl;: Garland, 1992.
390
Bibliography
39 1
1231 Gingerich, 0 . "Was Ptolemy a fraud?" Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical
Society 21 (1980), 25366.
[24] Gingerich, 0. "Ptolerny revisited: a reply to R. R. Newton". Quarterly Journal of
the Royal Astronomicd Society 22 (1981), 4044.
[25] Glowatski, E. and Gijttsche, H. Die Sehnentafel des IClaudios Ptolemuios. Munich:
R. Oldenbourg, 1976.
[26] Goldsteiu, B . "Remarks on Ptolemy's equant model in Islamic astronomy". In
Prismata: Natu~zu'issenschaftZicI~e
Studien. Festschrift fiir Willy Nartner. Eds, Y.
Maeyasna, TV. Saltzer. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1977. 16581.
[27] Goldstein, S. "Problems raised by Ptolemy's lunar tables". Journal for tt~eHistory
of Astronomy 13 (1982), 195205.
I281 Grasshoff, G. The History of Ptolemy's Star Catalogue. New York: SprirtgerVerlag,
1990.
Bibliography
392
1291 Halrns, PIT. (tr.) Composition MatJ~hatiqued e Claude Ptolgme'e (2 vols). Paris: H.
Grand, 1813, 1816.
[30j Halma, N. Commentslire de Thebn d'Alexandrie sur Ee premier livre d e la Composition Mat;heinatique d e Ptoleme'e (2 vols). Palis: Merlin, 1821.
[31] Hamilton, N., Swerdlow, N., and Toomer, G. "The Canobic Inscription: Ptolemy's
earliest work". In From Ancient Omens to Statistical Mechanics: Essays in the Exact
Scienccs Presented to Asger Aaboe. Eds. J . Berggren, B . Goldstein. Copenhagen
University, 1087. 5573.
[32] Hamadanizadeh, J. "A medieval interpolation scheme for oblique ascensions". Centaurus 9 (19G3), 25765.
1411 Hogendijk, J. "Three Islamic lunar crescent visibility tables". Journal for the History
of Astr0nom.y 19 (1988), 2944.
[42] Hogendijk, J. "New Light on the lunar crescent visibility table of Ya'qiib ibn TBriq"
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 47 (1988), 95104.
[43] Id, Yusuf. "A11 aridemma coiistruction for sight and oblique ascensions". The Mathematics Teach.er 62 (1969),66972.
Bibliography
393
1455 Jones, A. "P tolemy's First Commentator". Z'ransactions of the American. P,Jdosop/jical Society SO (1990).
[46j Jones, A. "Hipparrcl~us7
computation of solar longitudes". Journal for the History of
1531 Kennedy, E. S. and Transue, W. LLAmedieval iterative algorism". American Mathematical Monthly 63 (1956), 8083.
[54] King, D. "Ibn Yiinus' Very Useful Tables for reckoning times by the Sun". Archive
for History of Exact Sciences 10 (1973), 34294.
1551 Kiug, D , "AlIihalWs auxiliary tables for solving problcms of spherical astronomy" .
JournaE for the History of Astr0norn.y 4 (1973), 99110,
[5G] King, D. "Au aualog computer for solving problems of spherical astronomy:
the Shalik%%a quadrant of J a i d dDTE alhllZradTi6". Archives hh,mationalei:
[59] King, D. "011 the ;~stronornicaltables of the Islamic h/lidclle Ages". Studia Copernicana 13 (1975), 3756.
[GO] Ku~iitzsch,P. Der Abmagest. Die Syntaxis Mathematica des Claudius Ptotemius in
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1974.
ArabischLateiniscf~eriiber~ieferan~.
:
the
c?f Ancient
[74] Meugebauer, 0. "A Greek arithnletical method for findiug oblique nsceilsions". ,Jou?.
[SG] Newton, R. Ancient Astronomical Observations. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1970.
[$7] Newton, R. The Crime of CZaudius Ptolemy. B altiinore: Johns Hoplcirls University,
1977.
[78] Newton, R. "Comments on 'Was Ptoleiny a Fraud?' by Owen Gingerich". Quurierly
Journal o j the Royal Astronomical Society 21 (1980), 38899.
[79] Newton, R. The Origins of Piolemy's Astronomical Parameters. Baltimore: University of Maryland/ Johns Hopkius University, 1982.
[80] Newton, R. The Origins of Ptolemy 5 Astronomical Tables. Baltimore: University
of Maryland/ Johns Bopkins University, 1985.
[81] Pannekoek, A. A History of Astronomy. London: Allen and Unwin, 19G1. Reprinted
New York: Dover, 1989.
[82] Pedersen, 0. "Logistics and the theory of functions: an essay in the history of Greek
rnaihernaticsn. Archives Internationales $'Histoire des Sciences 24 (1974), 2950.
1831 Pedersen, 0. A Survey of the Almagest. Odense: Odensc University Press, 1974.
[84]Pedersen, 0. "The Almagest in tramlation". Review of G. Toomer, Ptolemy'~ Almagest (London: Duckworth; New York: SpringerVeslag, 1984). Journal for the
History of Astronomy 18 (1987), 5963.
f85] Petersen, V. and Schmidt, 0. "The determination of the longitude of the apogee of
the orbit of the Sun according to Hipparchus and Ptolemy" . C e n t a u r u ~12 (1967),
7396.
1881 Kdddi, R. ' T h e latitudes of Vems and Mercury in the Aiiagest". Archive for
History of Exact Sciences 1 9 (1978), 95111.
18'31 Rome, A. (tr.) Comrnentaires d e Pappus et d e The'on d'Alexandrie sur I'AEmageste (3
vols), Studi e Testi 54, 72,106. Tome I: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana: Roma, 1931.
Tome il: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana: Vatican City, 1936. Tome 111: B.iblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana: Vatican City, 1943.
1901 Rome, A. "Le problGme de 1'6quation du temps chez Ptol6m6en. Annales de la Socie'te'
Scientifique d e B1usel1es 59 (1939), 211?4.
[Ql]Shevchenko, M. "An analysis of errors in the star catalogues of Ptolemy and Ulugh
Beg". Journal for the History of Astronomy 21 (1990), 187201.
[92] Stahlman, W. The Astronomical Tables of Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1291. Ph.D.
dissertation, B rown University, 1960.
[93] Stahlman, \Y. Ptolemy's Handy Tables: The Astronomical Tables of Codes Vaticanw
Graecus 1291. Hamden, CT: Garland, 1993. To appear.
[94] Stahlnlan, TV. and Gingerich, 0. Solar and Planetary Longitudes for Years 2500
to $2000. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1963.
1951 Stephens, M. "Roundoff errors in medieval tables". Technical report of the Statistical Consulting Service, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Simon Fraser
University, 1988.
I981 Swerdlow, N. "Hipparchus' determillation of the length of the tropical year and the
rate of precession". Archive for History of Exact Sciences 21 (1980), 291309.
[99] Swerdlow, N. "Ptolemy's theory of the inferior planets". Journal for the History of
Astronomy 20 (1989), 2960.
(1001 T<zliaferro, R. (tr.) The Almugest, by Claudius Ptolemy. In Great Books of the
'Nestem World, vol. 16. Chicago: EncydopAia Biitiinnica, 1952.
[lOr] Tichenor, M."Late medieval twoargument tables for planet azy longitndes" . Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26 (1967), 12628.
Bibliography
11031 Tihon, A. "Les scoGes des Tables Faciles de Ptolem6e". Bulletin d e ilYnstitut flistorique BeZge de Rome 43 (1973), 49110.
[I041 Tihon, A. "Thbon d'Alexandrie et 4es Tables Faciles de Ptoldm4e". Archives Internationales dfHistoire des Sciences 35 (1985), 10623.
[I051 Tihon, A. LLLeLime V retrouvC du Cornmenetaire a l'AImageste de Th6on
d'AlexandrieV. L'Antigue Classique 56 (198'i), 20118.
11061 Toomer, G. "The size of the lunar epicycle according to Hipparchus". Ger~ta?em~s
12 (1967), 14550.
[I071 Toomer, G. "The chord table of Hipparchus and the early history of Greek
trigonometry". Centaurus 18 (1973), 628.
[I081 Toomer, G. "Hipparchus on the distances of the Sun and Moon". Archive for History of Exact Sciences 14 (1974), 12642.
[I091 Toomer, G. "Ptolemy". In Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. 11, 186208.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1975.
[I101 Toomer, G. Review of 0. Pedersen, A Survey of the Almagest. Archives Internationales d 'Histoire des Sciences 27 (1977), 13750.
[Ill] Toomer, G. Review of E. Glowatski and H. Gottsche, Die Sehnentafel des Klaudios
Ptoiemaios. Centaurus 21 (1977), 32123.
[I181 Vau Bruuuneleu, G. "The numerical structure of alKhaliE's auxiliary tables", Phg ~ i s28 (1991), 66798.
[119] Van Brwnmelen, G. L'Someresults concerning the interdependence of numerical
tables in Ptolemy's Almagest." To appear in Proceedings of the Canadian Society
for the History and Philosophy of Mathematics 18th Annual Meeting 5 (1992).
11201 Van 3 rummelen, G. and Butler, K. "Determining the interdependence of historical
astronomical tables". To appear, 1993.
[I211 Van Dalen, 5 . Wiskundzge cinalyse van Arabische astronomische tabellen uit de
rniddeleeuwen. M.Sc. thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Utreckt, 1987.
[I221 Van Dalen, B . "A statistical method for recovering unknown parameters from medieval astronomical tables". Centaurus 32 (1989), 85145.
[123] Van der Waxden, B. L. "Die Handlichen Tafeln des Ptolemaios". Osiris 13 (1958),
5478.
[I241 Van der Waerden, B.. L. Science Awakening. New York: Oxford, 1961.
[I251 Van der Waerden, B.. L. Science Awakening II. The Birth of Astronomy. Leyden:
Noordlroff, 1974.
[I%] Van der Waerden, B . L. "The motion of Venus, Mercury and the Sun in early Greek
Astronomy". Archive for History of Ezact Sciences 26 (19821, 99113.
11271 Van Oer Waerden, B. L. Geometry and Algebra in Ancient Civilizations. Berlin:
SpringerVerlag, 1983.
11281 Van der Waerden, B. L. "Reconstruction of a Greek table of chords". Archive for
History of Exact Sciences 38 (1988 j, 2338.
[I291 Wilson: C. "The sources of Ptolemy's parameters". Review of The 01igins of
Ptolemy's Astronomical Parameters (University of Maryland/Johns Hopkins University, 1982). Journal for the History of Astronomy 15 (1984), 3 7 4 7 .
[I301 'Mrlodarczyk, J. "Notes on the compilation of Ptolemy's catalogue of stars". Journal
for the H i s t o q of Astronomy 21 (1990), 28395.