He brings forward, in the introduction to his book, a few arguments
against the absurd notion, taught by some, that Earth is in motion,
turning on her axis or moving through space; but all that he proves
is the immense difficulty, even to a trained mind, of accepting these
theories, and the great authority of the philosophers who denied
them on abstract principles. Educated Greeks might still discuss the
nature of the heavenly bodies, as in Plutarch’s delightful dialogue
_On the Face of the Moon_, (written about half a century before the
days of Ptolemy), and might ridicule the law of gravity, laughing at
the absurdity of supposing that if the middle of a man’s body were at
the middle of the earth, his feet as well as his head would be “up,”
and that falling weights if they reached this point would stop short,
or oscillate to and fro. Yet even they all agreed that the fixed
stars do most probably move “in a circle of eternal and never-ending
revolution,” and that they are of a pure and eternal substance unlike
Earth; and for the professional astronomers of Alexandria these axioms
were assumed as the basis of all their work. Earth must be immoveable
at the centre of the Universe because the heavy stuff of which she is
made sinks necessarily to the centre and there remains in globular
form without need of support; the heavenly bodies must be in motion,
because, being of ethereal substance, it is their nature to revolve
eternally in circles.
This being granted, we can feel nothing but admiration for the extent
of Ptolemy’s knowledge, the comprehensiveness of his scheme, and the
skill and patience with which he overcame its difficulties.
Earth, according to Ptolemy, is but a point compared with the immense
surrounding sphere in which the stars are set, and this turns always
round us, communicating its motion (he does not inquire how) to sun,
moon and planets, so that day follows night, and the heavenly bodies
daily rise and set. For the slow movement of precession, which also
affects all heavenly bodies, Ptolemy accepted the least value of
Hipparchus, one degree in a century, only testing it in rather a
perfunctory way, which was a great pity, for he might have determined
it much more closely after an interval of some 250 years. But one man
cannot do everything, and he doubtless thought it best to spend more
time on the planets, whose intricacies had baffled Hipparchus and gave
him also a great deal of trouble.
He retained the great spheres which were supposed to carry them round
Earth, inside the star sphere, but the chief feature of his system is
the use of small spheres, which were fixed on the larger, and therefore
called “epicycles,” while the large were known as “deferents” or
carriers. The general principle of epicycles is very simple, as may be
seen by comparing the two diagrams.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account