Skip to main content
Log in

Mean Motions in Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypotheses

  • Published:
Archive for History of Exact Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the Planetary Hypotheses, Ptolemy summarizes the planetary models that he discusses in great detail in the Almagest, but he changes the mean motions to account for more prolonged comparison of observations. He gives the mean motions in two different forms: first, in terms of ‘simple, unmixed’ periods and next, in terms of ‘particular, complex’ periods, which are approximations to linear combinations of the simple periods. As a consequence, all of the epoch values for the Moon and the planets are different at era Philip. This is in part a consequence of the changes in the mean motions and in part due to changes in Ptolemy’s time in the anomaly, but not the longitude or latitude, of the Moon, the mean longitude of Saturn and Jupiter, but not Mars, and the anomaly of Venus and Mercury, the former a large change, the latter a small one. The pattern of parameter changes we see suggests that the analyses that yielded the Planetary Hypotheses parameters were not the elegant trio analyses of the Almagest but some sort of serial determinations of the parameters based on sequences of independent observations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Duke D.W. (2005) Ptolemy’s treatment of the outer planets. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 59: 169–187

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Duke D.W. (2008) Mean motions and longitudes in Indian astronomy. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 62: 489–509

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Evans J. (1998). The theory and practice of ancient astronomy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 362–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler D.H. (1987) The Mathematics of Plato’s academy. Oxford University Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein B.R. (2002) On the Babylonian discovery of the periods of lunar motion. Journal for the History of Astronomy 33: 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, N.T., N.M. Swerdlow and G.J. Toomer. 1987. The Canobic inscription: Ptolemy’s earliest work. In From ancient Omens to statistical mechanics, eds. J.L. Berggren and B.R. Goldstein, 55–73. Copenhagen.

  • Heiberg, J.L. 1907. Claudii Ptolemaei opera quae exstant omnia. Volumen II. Opera astronomica minora, 69–145. Leipzig. There is an English translation of the Greek part of Book 1 by A. Jones (unpublished, 2004) and it is the source of all English excerpts that appear in this paper.

  • Jones A., Duke D. (2005) Ptolemy’s planetary mean motions revisited. Centaurus 47: 226–235

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer O. (1975) A history of ancient mathematical astronomy. Springer–Verlag, New York, pp 781–833

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Stahlman, W.D. 1960. The Astronomical tables of Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1291. Ph.D. dissertation, Brown University.

  • Toomer G.J. (1984) Ptolemy’s Almagest. Duckworth, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Duke.

Additional information

Communicated by A. Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duke, D. Mean Motions in Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypotheses . Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 63, 635–654 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-009-0049-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-009-0049-y

Keywords

Navigation