Planetary latitudes in medieval Islamic astronomy: an analysis of the non-Ptolemaic latitude parameter values in the Maragha and Samarqand astronomical traditions

S. Mohammad Mozaffari

doi:10.1007/s00407-015-0172-x

Archive for History of Exact Sciences

September 2016, Volume 70, Issue 5, pp 513–541 | Cite as

Planetary latitudes in medieval Islamic astronomy: an analysis of the non-Ptolemaic latitude parameter values in the Maragha and Samarqand astronomical traditions

Authors
Authors and affiliations

S. Mohammad MozaffariEmail author

Article

First Online: 18 January 2016

Received: 04 July 2015

187 Downloads
3 Citations

Abstract

Some variants in the materials related to the planetary latitudes, including computational procedures, underlying parameters, numerical tables, and so on, may be addressed in the corpus of the astronomical tables preserved from the medieval Islamic period (zīj literature), which have already been classified comprehensively by Van Dalen (Current perspectives in the history of science in East Asia. Seoul National University Press, Seoul, pp 316–329, 1999). Of these, the new values obtained for the planetary inclinations and the longitude of their ascending nodes might have something to do with actual observations in the period in question, which are the main concern of this paper. The paper is in the following sections. In the first section, Ptolemy’s latitude models and their reception in Islamic astronomy are briefly reviewed. In the next section, the medieval non-Ptolemaic values for the inclinations and the longitudes of the nodal lines are introduced. The paper ends with the discussion and some concluding remarks. The derivation of the underlying inclination values from the medieval planetary latitude tables and determining the accuracy of the tables are postponed to “Appendix” in the end of the paper.

Keywords

Nodal Line Maximum Latitude Apsidal Line Handy Table Latitude Model

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Prof. Benno Van Dalen (Germany) for his valuable helps; especially, I owe my information of the planetary latitudes in Ibn Yūnus’ Ḥākimī Zīj to him, who kindly supplied me with his informative transcription and translation of the related chapter in that zīj. Of course, only I should be held responsible for any error. This work was financially supported by the Research Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha (RIAAM).

Appendix: Planetary inclinations and latitude tables

In order to derive the inclinations from the planetary extremal latitudes and parameter values adopted in the zījes of the Maragha and Samarqand traditions, we make use of both modern and Ptolemy’s methods. The first consists in solving trigonometrical equations resulted from the configuration of the ecliptic, eccentric, and epicycle at the northern or southern limit (in the case of the superior planets) and at the nodes (for the inferior planets). The latter is to extract the inclinations from the maximum and minimum latitudes by interpolation in the epicyclic equation tables, an approximate method explained in Almagest XIII.3.⁵⁹

Maragha: inferior planets

Figure 3 shows the configuration of the eccentric and epicycle of Venus when the centre of the epicycle is at either of the nodes of the eccentric, i.e., $\pm 90^{\circ }$ from the apsidal line; in this position, the inclination of the epicycle is in the line of sight. The radius of the eccentric $\textit{OC} = R = 60$, the eccentricity $\textit{TO} = e$, the distance from the earth to the centre of the epicycle $\textit{TC} = (R^{2}- e^{2})^{1/2}$, and the radius of the epicycle $\textit{CP} = r$. We let the true epicyclic anomaly $\alpha = \angle \textit{ACP}$, so that $\textit{PP}^{\prime } = \textit{QQ}^{\prime }= r\hbox { sin }\alpha $, $\textit{PQ} = P^{\prime }Q^{\prime } = r\hbox { cos }\alpha \hbox { sin }i_{1\max }$, and $\textit{CQ}^{\prime }= r\hbox { cos }\alpha \hbox { cos }i_{1\max }$. For Mercury, the direction of the inclination of the epicycle is reversed, as the epicyclic apogee A is inclined to the north; also, $\textit{TO} = 2e$. The latitude $\beta = \angle \textit{PTQ}$ is found from the below formula (negative sign for Venus and positive sign for Mercury):

$$\begin{aligned} \sin \beta _{{\mathrm{icl}}} (\alpha )=\pm \frac{\textit{PQ}}{\sqrt{(\textit{TC}+C{Q}^{\prime })^{2}+Q{Q}^{\prime 2}+\textit{PQ}^{2}}}. \end{aligned}$$

(1)

If $\alpha = 180^{\circ }$, for which the latitude of the inferior planets reaches its maximum value, all that is necessary is to solve triangle TBC in which $\angle BTC = \beta _{\max }$:

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\textit{TC}}{\sin (\angle \textit{TBC})}=\frac{\textit{CB}}{\sin (\angle \textit{CTB})}\hbox { or } \frac{\textit{TC}}{\sin (\beta _{\max } +i_{1\max } )}=\frac{r}{\sin (\beta _{\max })} \end{aligned}$$

(2)

and so, $i_{1\max } = (\beta _{\max }+i_{1\max }) - \beta _{\max }$. Therefore, $i_{1\max }$ can be conveniently found from TC, r, and $\beta _{\max }$.

Fig. 3
Configuration of the epicycle and the eccentric of Venus when the centre of the epicycle is at the ascending node of the eccentric, $\pm 90^{\circ }$ from the apsidal line

The underlying planetary parameters in the zījes of the Maragha tradition are as follows: the eccentricity of Venus in the Īlkhānī Zīj is $e\approx 1{;}2$ where $R = 60$, computed from the maximum tabular value $q_{\max } = 1{;}59^{\circ }$ for the equation of centre of the planet,⁶⁰ in al-Maghribī’s Adwār al-anwār e $\approx $ 1;3, from $q_{\max } = 2{;}0^{\circ }$.⁶¹ The value adopted for the eccentricity of Mercury, $e = 3;0$, and the radii of the epicycles of both the inferior planets in these two zījes are Ptolemaic, Venus: 43; 10, Mercury: 22;30.

Due to Ptolemy’s complicated model for Mercury’s motion in longitude of a movable eccentric, in Fig. 3: $\textit{TC} \ne (R^{2} -e^{2})^{1/2}$, but with Ptolemy’s value $e = 3{;}0, \textit{TC} \approx 56{;}40$.⁶² Then, with al-Maghribī’s value $\beta _{\max } = \beta _{\mathrm{icl}}(180^{\circ }) = 4{;}35^{\circ }$ for the maximum latitude of Mercury, one can compute $i_{1\max } \approx 7{;}2^{\circ }$ from (2).

Our historical method, i.e., Ptolemy’s solution, of which al-Maghribī quite probably made use, is an analogy between the extremal latitudes and inclination and the epicyclic equations and true epicyclic anomalies, respectively, in the sense that the extremal latitudes $\beta _{\mathrm{icl}}$(0) ($=\angle \textit{ATC}$ in Fig. 3; line AT not drawn) and $\beta _{\mathrm{icl}}(180^{\circ })\,(=\angle \textit{BTC})$ can be taken as the epicyclic equations in the correction tables for longitude corresponding, respectively, to the true epicyclic anomalies corresponding to the anomalies $\pm i_{1\max }$ and $180^{\circ }\pm i_{1\max }$ (in Fig. 3, assume that the epicycle is perpendicular to the ecliptic). When the centre of the epicycle of an inferior planet is at either of the nodes, i.e., $\pm 90^{\circ }$ from the apsidal line, its true eccentric anomaly, $\angle \textit{OTC}$ in Fig. 3, is $\kappa = \pm 90^{\circ }$, which corresponds to the mean eccentric anomaly $\bar{{\kappa }}\approx \pm 93^{\circ }$. At this position, from al-Maghribī’s table of the equations of Mercury, the following values for the epicyclic equation p can be derived:⁶³

$$\begin{aligned} 5{;}12^{\circ }\hbox { for } \alpha= & {} 180^{\circ } - i_{1\max }= 172^{\circ }\hbox { and}\\ 4{;}34^{\circ }\hbox { for } \alpha= & {} 180^{\circ }- i_{1\max } = 173^{\circ }. \end{aligned}$$

Al-Maghribī’s $\beta _{\max } = 4{;}35^{\circ }$ falls between these two values. So, with taking it as the epicyclic equation, the linear interpolation between $p = 5{;}12^{\circ }$ and $p = 4{;}34^{\circ }$ results in $\alpha = 180^{\circ }- i_{1\max } \approx 172{;}58^{\circ }$, and thus $i_{1\max }\approx 7{;}2^{\circ }$, which is in best agreement with our earlier derivation.

Table 5 shows that a table computed from this value is in good agreement with al-Maghribī’s tabular entries.⁶⁴

Table 5

Al-Maghribī’s table of the inclination of Mercury $i_{1\max } = 7;2^{\circ }$

144: MS. M: 3;6

In the case of Venus, using formula (2) with al-Maghribī’s value $\beta _{\max } = \beta _{\mathrm{icl}}(180^{\circ }) = 6{;}40^{\circ }$ results in $i_{1\max } = 2{;}37^{\circ }$ (note that because the eccentricity of Venus is small, $\textit{TC} \approx 60$). But this value cannot be derived from al-Maghribī’s table of the epicyclic equation of Venus according to Ptolemy’s procedure. As mentioned earlier, both in the Īlkhānī Zīj and in al-Maghribī’s Adwār, the radius of the epicycle of Venus is Ptolemaic, and as shown in Table 6, the tables of the epicyclic equation of the planet at mean distance in both zījes are equivalent to the corresponding one in the Almagest. Nevertheless, al-Maghribī has different values for the epicyclic equation for arguments $171^{\circ }$–$179^{\circ }$ (enclosed by the dashed lines in Table 6). I cannot explain why these entries are different, larger than the Almagest entries. As mentioned earlier, Ibn Yūnus has a greater value for the radius of the epicycle of Venus than Ptolemy ($r \approx 43{;}28$; see Table 6).⁶⁵ But, al-Maghribī’s equations for arguments $171^{\circ }$–$179^{\circ }$ can in no way be related to Ibn Yūnus’s.

Table 6

Tables of the epicyclic equation of Venus in the Īlkhānī zīj, al-Maghribī’s Adwār, and Ibn Yūnus’ Ḥākimī zīj

(1) MS. M: 5;22

With Ptolemy’s procedure, the maximum latitude $\beta _{\max } = \beta _{\mathrm{icl}}(180^{\circ }) = 6{;}40^{\circ }$ taken as the epicyclic equation at mean distance corresponds to an epicyclic anomaly $\alpha = 180^{\circ }- i_{1\max } = 177{;}28{,}38^{\circ }$, and thus $i_{1\max } = 2{;}31{,}22^{\circ }$ which is nearly equal to the Ptolemaic $2{;}30^{\circ }$. It can be assumed that $6{;}40^{\circ }$ is estimated from the observed latitudes of Venus near inferior conjunction with the sun, although estimating latitude in this location is extremely difficult and al-Maghribī’s error, like Ptolemy’s is close to $-2^{\circ }$, but it cannot be determined which of the two values for $i_{1\max }$ al-Maghribī actually derived from it. However, since the tabular entries for the inclination of Venus in his Adwār are in better agreement with computation from $i_{1\max } = 2{;}37^{\circ }$ than from $i_{1\max } = 2{;}30^{\circ }$ (see below), it seems to be safe to conclude that it is the first value that, in reality, underlies al-Maghribī’s table in the Adwār.

In Table 7, Cols. 2 and 3, respectively, indicate the Almagest ⁶⁶ and al-Maghribī’s table of the inclination of Venus in the Adwār. Cols. 4 and 5 give the recomputed values from the two values for $i_{1\max }$. Neither of the two sets of the re-computed latitudes is as consistent with the tabular entries as we have seen earlier in the case of al-Maghribī’s table of the inclination of Mercury (Table 5). The table was probably computed according to the following procedure: the entries for the arguments $0^{\circ }$–$96^{\circ }$) are nearly identical to the corresponding entries in the Almagest, except for the slightly improved increments of $0;1^{\circ }$ for the first five entries; this seems reasonable, since a small change in $i_{1\max }$ from $2{;}30^{\circ }$ to $2{;}37^{\circ }$ causes no critical change in the latitudes in this range (at most, $0{;}3^{\circ }$). But most of the entries in the latter part of the table appear to have been derived from multiplying the corresponding entries in the Almagest table by 6;40/6;22 (see Col. 6). It is noteworthy that applying similar procedures to computing the planetary equation tables can be found in Islamic astronomy, more remarkably, in al-Maghribī’s Tāj al-azyāj ⁶⁷ as well as in the Īlkhānī Zīj.⁶⁸

Table 7

Tables of the inclination $\beta _{\mathrm{icl}}$ of Venus in the Almagest, al-Maghribī’s Tāj, and Adwār the Īlkhānī Zīj

(1) M: 0;46 (2) M: 0;40 (3) C: 0;17, M: 0;15 (4) M: 0;7 (5) C: 2;45 (6) M, T: 4;26 (7) M, T: 7;26 (8) M, T: 7;56

In the Tāj al-azyāj, al-Maghribī has for Venus $\beta _{\max } =\beta _{\mathrm{icl}}(180^{\circ }) = 8{;}30^{\circ }$. The table of the planet’s epicyclic equation in this zīj does not have those strange entries found in the Adwār, but is identical to the Almagest/Handy Tables, and so to the Īlkhānī Zīj (Table 6). Both formula (2) and interpolation in the anomalistic equation table of Venus result in $i_{1\max } \approx 3{;}21^{\circ }$. Al-Maghribī’s values for the inclination and the recomputed values are shown in Table 7 (Cols. 7 and 8).

The entries in the latitude tables of the inferior planets in the Īlkhānī Zīj are given for each integer degree of the argument. Col. 9 in Table 7 shows the entries in the table of the inclination of Venus in the Īlkhānī Zīj. Both solving the trigonometrical equation (2) with $\beta _{\max } = \beta _{\mathrm{icl}}(180^{\circ }) = 8{;}40^{\circ }$ and interpolation in the table of the epicyclic equation of Venus results in $i_{1\max } \approx 3{;}25^{\circ }$. But the first half of the table, in the region of the arguments $0^{\circ }$–$90^{\circ }$, is identical to the corresponding table in the Almagest computed from $i_{1\max } = 2{;}30^{\circ }$. Moreover, re-computation of the table from $i_{1\max } = 3{;}25^{\circ }$ (Col. 10) shows that the results are by no means in agreement with the entries in the latter part of the table. In MS. P (fol. 44r) of the Īlkhānī Zīj, an unknown commentator has restored the latter half of the table to the Ptolemaic numbers and thus reduced the maximum latitude of the planet to $6{;}22^{\circ }$. We are told that this modification was done on the basis of the corresponding table in al-Maghribī’s Zīj, while, as we have seen above, his Tāj and Adwār have, respectively, the values $8{;}30^{\circ }$ and $6{;}40^{\circ }$ for the maximum latitude of Venus. It is worth noting that in his commentary on the Īlkhānī Zīj, al-Nīshābūrī briefly refers to this problem in the table of the latitude of Venus as a subtle point, but he offers no solution.⁶⁹ Since the table is intrinsically contradictory, I cannot speculate about the reasoning behind it. However, it was apparently reasonable enough for Ibn al-Shāṭir and the Samarqand astronomers to quote it in their own zījes.

Table 8

Equations of centre and eccentricities in Ulugh Beg’s Sulṭānī Zīj

Sulṭānī zīj, P1: fols. 135r, 138r, 141r, 144r, 147r; P2: fols. 152r, 155r, 158r, 161v, 165r

Samarqand: superior planets

The new planetary parameters obtained at the Samarqand observatory, as deduced from Ulugh Beg’s Sulṭānī zīj, are summarized in Tables 8 for the equation of centre and 5 for the equation of anomaly. In both, Cols. 2 and 4 show, respectively, the maximum and minimum equations tabulated in this zīj and Cols. 3 and 5 show the arguments, mean eccentric or true epicyclic anomalies, for which the extremal values are given.

The tables of the equation of centre in the Almagest are symmetrical and additive for half the table and subtractive for the other half, but in the Sulṭānī Zīj, they are displaced and always additive; the values $k_{1} = 1/2(\hbox {Max} + \hbox {Min})$ of the displacements and $q_{\max } = 1/2(\hbox {Max} - \hbox {Min})$ of the maximum equations of centre (note that $k_{1} > q_{\max })$, and the corresponding eccentricities $e=R \cdot \hbox {tan }1/2\,q_{\max }$, where the radius of the eccentric $R = 60$, are given in the last three columns of Table 8.

The tables of the equation of the epicyclic anomaly are also always additive, but they use a different type of the displacement explained as follows: for all the planets, the first half of the table, for arguments $0^{\circ }$–$180^{\circ }$, corresponds to the equation $p_\mathrm{A}$ of the epicyclic anomaly at greatest distance ($R+e$; for Mercury: $R +3e$), when the centre of the epicycle is located at the apogee, but the latter half of the table, for arguments $180^{\circ }$–$360^{\circ }$, to the equation $p_{\Pi }$ of the epicyclic anomaly at the least distance ($R-e$, excepting Mercury), when the centre of the epicycle is located at the perigee. In the case of Saturn and Jupiter, all the entries are increased by an amount $k_{2}$. For Mars and the two inferior planets, the first half of the table gives $p_\mathrm{A}$ while the entries in the latter part of the table were increased by $360^{\circ }$, i.e., $360^{\circ } -p_{\Pi }$.⁷⁰ The values $k_{2}$ are shown in Col. 6. Cols. 7 and 8 display the maximum values of the epicyclic equation, respectively, at apogee and perigee (for Saturn and Jupiter: $p_{\mathrm{A}, \max } = \hbox {Max} - k_{2}$ and $p_{\Pi , \max }=k_{2} - \hbox {Min}$). The last column gives the corresponding epicyclic radii (for all the planets, except Mercury, $r = \hbox {sin}(p_{\mathrm{A}, \max }) \cdot (R+e) = \hbox {sin}(p_{\Pi , \max }) \cdot (R - e))$. In the Sulṭānī zīj, there is a table for the differences $p_{\Pi }- p_{\mathrm{A}}$ and two interpolation tables for each planet, one for the epicyclic anomaly $0^{\circ }$–$180^{\circ }$ and another for the epicyclic anomaly $180^{\circ }$–$360^{\circ }$. The entries of the equation tables are carried to two sexagesimal places, except Mercury to one place, and are given for each integer degree of the argument (for Mars, from $150^{\circ }$ to $210^{\circ }$, the arguments are in steps of $0{;}20^{\circ }$). Their reconstruction on the basis of the values derived above is in good agreement with the tabular entries.

It merits noting that in his Commentary on Zīj of Ulugh Beg, Qūshčī explains the layout of the equation and mean motion tables in this zīj. The values he mentions for the maximum equations agree with what can be extracted from the tables, with the exception of very slight differences in $q_{\max }$ of Saturn ($6{;}37,4{{\mathbf {6}}}^{\circ }$) and Jupiter ($5{;}18, {{\mathbf {42}}}^{\circ }$). The parameters we deduced from the tables are in agreement with those he gives. As Qūshčī remarks, for all the planets, the mean eccentric anomalies are reduced and, inversely, the mean epicyclic anomalies are increased by the above-mentioned values for $k_{1}$ and are then tabulated; and for Saturn and Jupiter, the longitudes of the apogees are decreased by the above-mentioned values for $k_{2}$.⁷¹

Figure 4 shows the configuration of the epicycle and eccentric, inclined to the ecliptic, of a superior planet when the centre of the epicycle is at the northern limit. In order to derive the inclinations from the extremal latitudes in the Sulṭānī zīj, we should first know the distance ${ TC} = \rho ^{\prime }$ between the earth T and the centre C of the epicycle of a superior planet at the northern limit, which can be computed from the eccentricity (Table 8) and the value adopted for $\omega _{\mathrm{A}}$ as mentioned earlier in Table 3. Where $R = 60$:

Fig. 4
Configuration of the epicycle and the eccentric of the superior planets with respect to the ecliptic when the centre of the epicycle is at the northern limit

In Fig. 4, the distance $\textit{TC} = \rho ^{\prime }$ and the radius of the epicycle $\textit{CP} = r$. We again let the true epicyclic anomaly $\alpha = \angle \textit{ACP}$, and $\angle \textit{CTN}^{\prime } = i_{0}$, so that $\textit{PP}^{\prime } = \textit{QQ}^{\prime } = r\hbox { sin } \alpha , \textit{PQ} = P^{\prime }Q^{\prime } = r\hbox { cos }\alpha \hbox { sin }i_{1 \mathrm{max}}$, and $\textit{CQ}^{\prime } = r\hbox { cos } \alpha \hbox { cos }i_{1 \mathrm{max}}$, and now $QN = Q^{\prime }N^{\prime } = (\textit{TC} + \textit{CQ}^{\prime })$ sin $i_{0}$. The latitude $\beta = \angle PTN$ at either limit can be computed from:

$$\begin{aligned} \sin \left| {\beta (\alpha )} \right|= & {} \frac{(\textit{TC}+C{Q}^{\prime })\sin i_0 -\textit{PQ}\cos i_0 }{\sqrt{(\textit{TC}+C{Q}^{\prime })^{2}+Q{Q}^{\prime 2}+PQ^{2}}}\nonumber \\= & {} \frac{r\cos \alpha \sin (i_0 -i_{1\max } )+{\rho }^{\prime }\sin i_0 }{\sqrt{({\rho }^{\prime }+C{Q})^{\prime 2}+Q{Q}^{\prime 2}+PQ^{2}}}. \end{aligned}$$

(3)

First, in order to derive $i_{0}$, we let $\alpha = 90^{\circ }$ in (3); thus, we have:

$$\begin{aligned} \sin i_0 =\sqrt{1+\frac{r^{2}}{{\rho }^{\prime 2}}}\cdot \sin \left( \left| {\beta _{{\mathrm{icl}}} (90^{\circ })} \right| \right) \end{aligned}$$

(4)

Then, in order to derive $i_{1}$, we can solve a long trigonometric equation resulting from (3) for $\alpha = 180^{\circ }$, after substituting $i_{0}$ computed from (4), a given value for the northern or southern latitude for this epicyclic anomaly ($\beta _{\max }=\angle BTN^{\prime }$), and r and $\rho ^{\prime }$ in (3). Instead, similar to what we have done earlier in the case of the inferior planets, a simpler solution is to solve triangle TCB in which $\angle BTC = \beta _{\max }- i_{0}$:

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\textit{TC}}{\sin (\angle \textit{TBC})}=\frac{CB}{\sin (\angle \textit{CTB})}\hbox { or} \frac{{\rho }^{\prime }}{\sin (\beta _{\max } -i_0 +i_{1\max } )}=\frac{r}{\sin (\beta _{\max } -i_0 )} \end{aligned}$$

(5)

and thus, $i_{1\max } = (\beta _{\max }- i_{0 }+i_{1\max })- ( \beta _{\max }- i_{0})$.

Our formulae (4) and (5), applying the planetary parameters and the tabular latitudes in Ulugh Beg’s zīj (as mentioned in Tables 2, 8, 9), result in the inclinations in Table 2. Using Ptolemy’s solution, in which the extremal latitudes at the limits are taken as the epicyclic equations and the inclinations as the true epicyclic anomalies, as we have explained for the derivation of $i_{1\max }$ of the inferior planets, results in the same inclinations.

The tables in the Sulṭānī Zīj were generally calculated carefully, showing only minor deviations in the cases that have been examined,⁷² which is also true of the latitude tables at the northern and southern limits. Re-computation of the latitudes from the values derived for the inclinations is in good agreement with the tables in the Sulṭānī Zīj with no difference exceeding $0{;}1^{\circ }$ in the case of Saturn, $0{;}3^{\circ }$ for Jupiter, and $0{;}4^{\circ }$ for Mars. Table 10 is a specimen for Mars at the southern limit, which shows the greatest differences.

Table 9

Equations of the epicyclic anomaly and radii of the epicycles in Ulugh Beg’s Sulṭānī Zīj

Sulṭānī zīj, P1: fols. 135v, 138v, 141v, 144v, 147v; P2: 152v, 155v, 158v-159r, 162r-v, 165v

Table 10

Ulugh Beg’s table of the latitude of Mars at the southern limit $i_{0} = 1{;}20^{\circ }$, $i_{1\max } = 2{;}7^{\circ }$

References

Arabic Almagest, Ḥunayn b. Isḥāq and Thābit b. Qurra (trs.), MSS. S: Iran, Sipahsālār Library, no. 594 (copied in 480 H/1087-8 AD), PN: USA, Rare Book and Manuscript Library of University of Pennsylvania, no. LJS 268 (written in an Arabic Maghribī/Andalusian script at Spain in 783 H/1381 AD; some folios between 37v and 38r, corresponding to Almagest III.3-IV.9, are omitted).Google Scholar
al-Bīrūnī, Abū al-Rayḥān, 1954–1956, al-Qānūn al-mas‘ūdī (Mas‘ūdīc canons), 3 vols. Hyderabad: Osmania Bureau.Google Scholar
Brummelen, G.V. 1998. Mathematical methods in the tables of planetary motion in Kūshyār ibn Labbān’s Jāmi‘ Zīj. Historia Mathematica 25: 265–280.Google Scholar
Brummelen, G.V. 2006. Taking latitude with Ptolemy: Jamshīd al-Kāshī’s novel geometric model of the motions of the inferior planets. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 60: 353–377.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Caussin de Perceval, J.-J.-A. 1804. Le livre de la grande table hakémite, Observée par le Sheikh, $\ldots $, ebn Iounis. Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale 7: 16–240.Google Scholar
Chabás, J., and B.R. Goldstein. 1994. Andalusian astronomy: al-Zīj al-Muqtabis of Ibn al-Kammād. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 48: 1–41.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Chabás, J. and Goldstein, B. R., 2003, The Alfonsine Tables of Toledo, Archimedes; New studies in the history and philosophy of science and technology, vol. 8. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Chabás, J., and B.R. Goldstein. 2009. The astronomical tables of Giovanni Bianchini. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Debarnot, M.-T. 1987. The Zīj of Ḥabash al-Ḥāsib: A Survey of MS Istanbul Yeni Cami 784/2. In From deferent to Equant: A volume of studies on the history Dof science of the ancient and medieval near east in honor of E. S. Kennedy, ed. G. Saliba and D. A. King. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 500, 35–69.Google Scholar
Dorce, C. 2002–3. The Tāj al-azyāj of Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Maghribī (d. 1283): Methods of computation. Suhayl 3: 193–212.Google Scholar
Dorce, C., 2003, El Tāy al-azyāy de Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Maghribī, In: Anuari de Filologia, vol. 25, Secció B, Número 5, Barcelona: University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
Eastwood, B.S. 2007. Ordering the heavens; Roman astronomy and cosmology in the Carolingian renaissance. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastwood, B., and G. Grasshoff. 2003. Planetary diagrams—Descriptions, models, theories; From Carolingian deployments to Copernican debates. In The power of images in early modern science, ed. W. Lefèvre, et al., 197–226. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
al-Farghānī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Kathīr. 1669. Kitab fi ’l-ḥarakāt al-samāwiyaa wa jawāmi‘ al-‘ilm al-nujūm, Arabic edition and Latin translation by Jacobus Golius: Muhammedis Fil. Ketiri Ferganensis, qui vulgo Alfraganvs dicitur, Elementa Astronomica Arabicè et Latinè. Cum Notis ad res exoticas sive Orientales, quae in iis occurunt, Opera Jacobi Golii. Amstelodami. MS. P: Princeton University Library, Islamic Manuscripts, Garrett no. 135L, retrieved from http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/x920fw91b.
Glasner, R. 2003. Gersonides unusual position on position. Centaurus 45: 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, B.R. 1967. The Arabic version of Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypotheses. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 57: 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, B.R. 2002. Levi ben Gerson’s preliminary remarks for a theory of planetary latitudes. Aleph 2: 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, B.R., and J. Chabás. 2004. Ptolemy, Bianchini, and Copernicus: Tables for planetary latitudes. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 58: 453–473.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Ḥabash al-Ḥāsib, The zīj of Ḥabash al-Ḥāsib, MS. Berlin, Ahlwardt 5750 (formerly Wetzstein I 90).Google Scholar
Ibn al-Shāṭir, ‘Alā’ al-Dīn Abu ’l-Ḥasan ‘Alī b. Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-Muṭa“im al-Anṣārī, al-Zīj al-Jadīd, MSS. K: Istanbul, Kandilli Observatory, no. 238; O: Oxford, Bodleian Library, no. Seld. A inf 30.Google Scholar
Ibn Yūnus, ‘Alī b. ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Aḥmad, Zīj al-kabīr al-Ḥākimī, MSS. L: Leiden, no. Or. 143, O: Oxford Bodleian Library, no. Hunt 331.Google Scholar
Jones, A. 2000. Studies in the astronomy of the Roman Period IV: Solar tables based on a non-Hipparchian model. Centaurus 42: 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A. 2005. Ptolemy’s Canobic Inscription and Heliodorus’ observation reports. SCIAMVS 6: 53–97.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
al-Kamālī, Muḥammad b. Abī ‘Abd-Allāh Sanjar (Sayf-i munajjim), Zīj-i Ashrafī, MS. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, no. 1488.Google Scholar
al-Kāshī, Jamshīd Ghiyāth al-Dīn, Khāqānī zīj, MSS. IO: London: India Office, no. 430, P: Iran: Parliament Library, no. 6198.Google Scholar
Kennedy, E.S., 1951. An Islamic computer for planetary altitudes. Journal of the American Oriental Society 71: 13–21. (Reprinted in Kennedy et al. 1983, 463–471).Google Scholar
Kennedy, E.S. 1960. The planetary equatorium of Jamshīd Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Kāshī. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, E.S. 1990. Two topics from an astrological manuscript: Sindhind and planetary latitudes. Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften 6:167–178 (Reprinted in Kennedy 1998, Trace VI).Google Scholar
Kennedy, E.S. 1998. Astronomy and astrology in the medieval Islamic world. Aldershot: Ashgate-Variorum.MATHGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, E.S. and Ukashah, W. 1969. Al-Khwārizmī’s planetary latitude tables. Centaurus14: 86–96. (Reprinted in Kennedy et al. 1983, pp. 125–135).Google Scholar
Kennedy, E.S. 1983. Colleagues, and former students. In: Studies in the Islamic exact sciences. Beirut: American University of Beirut.Google Scholar
Krisciunas, K. 1994. A more complete analysis of the errors in Ulugh Beg’s star catalogue. Journal for the History of Astronomy 24: 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
al-Maghribī, Mūḥyī al-Dīn, Adwār al-anwār, MSS. M: Iran, Mashhad, Holy Shrine Library, no. 332; CB: Ireland, Dublin, Chester Beatty, no. 3665.Google Scholar
al-Maghribī, Mūḥyī al-Dīn, Talkhīṣ al-majisṭī, MS. Leiden: Universiteitsbibliotheek, no. Or. 110.Google Scholar
Mancha, J.L. 1990. Ibn al-Haytham’s homocentric epicycles in Latin astronomical texts of the XIVth and XVth centuries. Centaurus 33: 70–89.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Mozaffari, S.M. 2013a. Wābkanawī’s prediction and calculations of the annular solar eclipse of 30 January 1283. Historia Mathematica 40: 235–261.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Mozaffari, S.M., 2013b. Limitations of methods: The accuracy of the values measured for the Earth’s/Sun’s orbital elements in the Middle East, A.D. 800 and 1500. Journal for the History of Astronomy. 44: Part 1: issue 3, pp. 313–336, Part 2: issue 4, pp. 389–411.Google Scholar
Mozaffari, S.M. 2014. Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Maghribī’s lunar measurements at the Maragha observatory. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 68: 67–120.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Muḥammad al-Ṭabīb al-Muhtadī al-Mūṣilī, al-Jam‘ al-mufīd, MS. Iran: Parliament Library, no. 16238/3.Google Scholar
Nallino, C.A., ed. [1899–1907] 1969. Al-Battani sive Albatenii Opus Astronomicum. Publicazioni del Reale osservatorio di Brera in Milano. n. XL, pte. I–III, Mediolani Insubrum, Milan. The Reprint of Nallino’s edition: Minerva, Frankfurt, 1969.Google Scholar
Neugebauer, O. 1962. The astronomical tables of Al-Khwārizmī, In: Hist. Filos. Skr. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 4, no. 2, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Neugebauer, O. 1975. A history of ancient mathematical astronomy, 3 vols. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
al-Nīshābūrī, Niẓām al-Dīn A‘raj, Kashf al-ḥaqā’iq-i Zīj-i Ilkhānī (Opening of Truths of the Ilkhānī zīj, a Commentary on al-Ṭūsī’s Ilkhānī zīj), MSS. P1: Iran, Parliament Library, no. 1210, P2: Iran, Parliament Library, no. 1426.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O. 1974. A survey of Almagest, Odense: Odense University Press, 1974. With annotation and new commentary by A. Jones, New York: Springer, 2010.Google Scholar
Pliny, 1938–1962, Natural History, English translation (trans: Rackham, H.), 10 vols. Cambridge, MA–London: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann.Google Scholar
Qūshčī, ‘Alī b. Muḥammad, Sharḥ-i Zīj-i Ulugh Beg (Commentary on Zīj of Ulugh Beg), MS. Iran: National Library, no. 20127–5.Google Scholar
Ragep, F.J. 1987. The two versions of the Ṭūsī Couple. In From Deferent to Equant: A volume of studies on the history of science of the ancient and medieval Near East in Honor of ES Kennedy (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences), ed. G. Saliba and D.A. King, vol. 500, 329–356.Google Scholar
Ragep, F. J., 1993, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir on Astronomy (al-Tadhkira fī ‘ilm al-hay’a), 2 vols. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Ragep, F.J. 2004. Ibn al-Haytham and Eudoxus: The revival of homocentric modeling in Islam. In Studies in the History of the Exact Sciences in Honour of David Pingree, ed. Ch. Burnett, J.P. Hogendijk, K. Plofker, and M. Yano, 786–809. Leiden-Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Riddell, R.C. 1978. The latitudes of Venus and Mercury in the Almagest. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 19: 95–111.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Roberts, V. 1966. The planetary theory of Ibn al-Shāṭir: Latitudes of the planets. Isis 57: 208–219. (Reprinted in Kennedy 1983, pp. 72–83).Google Scholar
Saliba, G., and Kennedy, E.S. 1991. The spherical case of the Ṭūsī couple. Arabic Science and Philosophy 1: 285–291. (Reprinted in Kennedy 1998, Trace VI).Google Scholar
Samsó, J. 1997. Andalusian astronomy in 14th century Fez: al-Zīj al-Muwāfiq of Ibn ‘Azzūz al-Qusanṭīnī”, Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften 11: 73–110. (Reprinted in Samsó 2007, Trace IX).Google Scholar
Samsó, J. 1999. Horoscopes and history: Ibn ‘Azzūz and his retrospective horoscopes related to the battle of El Salado (1340). In: Between demonstration and imagination; Essays in the history of science and philosophy presented to John D. North, ed. L. Nauta and A. Vanderjagt, 101–124. Leiden: Brill. (Reprinted in Samsó 2007, Trace X).Google Scholar
Samsó, J. 2007. Astronomy and astrology in al-Andalus and the Maghrib. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Samsó, J. and Millás, E. 1998. The computation of planetary longitudes in the zīj of Ibn al-Banna. Arabic Science and Philosophy 8: 259–286. (Reprinted in Samsó 2007, Trace VIII).Google Scholar
Shevchenko, M. 1990. An analysis of errors in the star catalogues of Ptolemy and Ulugh Beg. Journal for the History of Astronomy 21: 187–201.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, F.R. 1997. Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Steele, J.M. 2000. Observations and predictions of eclipse times by early astronomers. Dordrecht: Kluwer. reprinted by Springer.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Steele, J.M. 2003. Planetary latitudes in Babylonian mathematical astronomy. Journal for the History of Astronomy 34: 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Súrya Siddhánta: [1860] 1997. The Súrya Siddhánta: A textbook of Hindu astronomy, ed. P. Gangooly and E. Burgess (tr.), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.DGoogle Scholar
Swerdlow, N.M. 2005. Ptolemy’s theories of the latitude of the planets in the Almagest, handy tables, and planetary hypotheses. In Wrong for the right reasons, ed. J.Z. Buchwald, and A. Franklin, 41–71. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swerdlow, N.M., and O. Neugebauer. 1984. Mathematical astronomy in Copernicus’s De revolutionibus. New York: Springer.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Toomer, G.J. 1968. A survey of the Toledan Tables. Osiris 5–174.Google Scholar
Toomer, G.J. (ed.). 1998. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
al-Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn, Ilkhānī Zīj, MSS. C: University of California, Caro Minasian Collection, no. 1462; T: University of Tehran, Ḥikmat Collection, no. 165 + Suppl. P: Iran, Parliament 6517 (Remark: The latter is not actually a separate MS, but contains 31 folios missing from MS. T. The chapters and tables in MS. T are badly out of order, presumably owing to the folios having been bound in disorder), P: Iran, Parliament Library, no. 181, M: Iran, Mashhad, Holy Shrine Library, no. 5332a.Google Scholar
Ulugh Beg. Sulṭānī Zīj, MSS. P1: Iran, Parliament Library, no. 72; P2: Iran, Parliament Library, no. 6027.Google Scholar
Van Dalen, B. 1999. Tables of planetary latitude in the Huihui li (II). In Current perspectives in the history of science in East Asia, ed. Yung Sik Kim and Francesca Bray, 316–329. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.Google Scholar
Van Dalen, B. 2004a. A second manuscript of the Mumtaḥan Zīj. Suhayl 4: 9–44.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Van Dalen, B., 2004b. The Zīj-i Naṣirī by Maḥmūd ibn Umar: The earliest Indian Zij and its relation to the ‘Alā’ī Zīj. In Studies in the history of the exact sciences in honour of David Pingree, ed. Charles Burnett et al., 825–862. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Verbunt, F., and R.H. van Gent. 2012. The star catalogues of Ptolemaios and Ulugh Beg; Machine-readable versions and comparison with the modern Hipparcos Catalogue. Astronomy & Astrophysics 544: A31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viladrich, M. 1988. The planetary latitude tables in the Mumtaḥan Zīj. Journal for the History of Astronomy 19: 257–268.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
al-Wābkanawī al-Bukhārī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad, Zīj-i muhaqqaq-i sulṭānī, MSS. T: Turkey, Aya Sophia Library, No. 2694; Y: Iran, Yazd, Library of ‘Ulūmī, no. 546, its microfilm is available in the University of Tehran central library, no. 2546; P: Iran, Library of Parliament, no. 6435.Google Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

S. Mohammad Mozaffari
- 1
Email author

1.Research Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha (RIAAM)MaraghaIran

Planetary latitudes in medieval Islamic astronomy: an analysis of the non-Ptolemaic latitude parameter values in the Maragha and Samarqand astronomical traditions

Abstract

Keywords

Notes

Acknowledgments

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite article