108 vues

Transféré par capricornusdim

- NatureofTheSiderealZodiacRafaelGilBrandColor
- Human Types - Classical Astrology
- Timing%20Techniques
- The Disease of the Moon: The Linguistic and Pathological Evolution of the English Term “Lunatic”
- The Classical Use of Triplicities by Deborah Houlding
- ASTRONOMIA ETRUSCA
- Vettius Valens Entire
- Basis
- Manuel I Komnenos and Michael Glycas: A Twelfth-Century Defence and Refutation of Astrology
- tic Time Lords - Demetra George
- Astrology and Cycle of Deeds
- Parapegma
- Algebraic Geometry_Van Der Waerden
- Anthology - Vettius Valens
- Our Roots in the Sun – Heliocentric Astrology
- Sepharial Prognostic Astronomy
- An Astrological House Formulary
- Guide to Astrology By Raphael
- John Frawley - Sports Astrology
- Navamsa Technique 1

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 21

B . L . VAN DER WAERDEN

Wieslacher 5

8053 Zurich, Switzerland

INTRODUCTION

I N THE YEARS 295-283 B.c., Timocharis observed positions of the moon and

of Venus with respect to the fixed stars.’ About 280 B.c.,Aristarchos of Samos

proposed the heliocentric hypothesis.2 At about the same time, a man named

Dionysios established an astronomical calendar based on the assumption of

a tropical year of 365 y4days3 An anonymous observer used this calendar

to date his observations of Mercury, Mars, and Jupiter made in the years

270-239 B . c .The

~ observations of Timocharis and those of the unknown ob-

server complement each other nicely: Ptolemy was able to use the observa-

tions of Timocharis for the moon and Venus, and the anonymous observa-

tions for Mercury, Mars, and Jupiter.

In another case too we have two series of observations that complement

each other. Timocharis observed the declination of twelve fixed stars, and

Aristyllos observed the declination of six more stars.5 From independent in-

vestigations by Rawlins and Maeyama6 we may conclude that the observa-

tions of Aristyllos were made with great accuracy between 280 and 240 B.C.

We may suppose that Timocharis observed his declinations between (say) 290

and 270 B.c., and that Aristyllos continued the program of Timocharis.

It seems that here a team was at work, consisting of three observers and

a calendar maker (or perhaps of three observers only). What was the purpose

of their teamwork?

In all cases in which we know the whole story, the purpose of astronom-

ical observations is always: to determine the constants of an astronomical

system, with the ultimate aim of computing tables based on that system. For

instance, Ptolemy used the observations of Timocharis and Aristyllos and

of our anonymous observer in order to determine the constants in his theory,

and next he composed ”handy tables” for the use of astrologers. The same

order of events can be observed in Babylonia, in India, in the Islamic realm,

and in Western Europe. So it is not unreasonable to suppose that the purpose

of the observations made in Alexandria between 295 and 239 B.C. was: to de-

525

526 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

based on that theory.

Now if this is assumed, we may ask: What kind of theory was it that the

observers had in mind? In a recent paper7 I have shown that the most prob-

able candidate for this theory is the heliocentric theory of Aristarchos. Thus

the question arises: Can we find traces of tables based on the heliocentric

system?

To answer this question I shall first discuss the ancient testimonies con-

cerning Aristarchos of Samos and Seleukos of Seleukia, next the work of the

great Hindu astronomer Aryabhata, and next the Persian table set Tables of

the Shah.

A R I S T A R C H O S OF S A M O S

The testimonies about Aristarchos have been collected and commented upon

by Thomas Heath.8 I shall use his translations. The earliest, most important

testimony is from the Sand-Reckoner of Archimedes:

You (KingGelon) are aware that "universe" is the name given by most astronomers

to the sphere, the centre of which is the centre of the earth, while its radius

is equal to the straight line between the centre of the sun and the centre of the

earth. This is the common account ( T U ypacpopwa), as you have heard from

astronomers. But Aristarchus brought out a book consisting of certain hypoth-

eses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the

universe is many times greater than the "universe" just mentioned. His hypoth-

eses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves

about the sun in the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of

the orbit, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same centre

as the sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the earth to revolve

bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the centre of the

sphere bears to its surface.

As Archimedes himself notes, the last statement cannot be taken literally.

A point cannot have a ratio to a surface area. What is meant is, that our dis-

tance to the fixed stars is so large as compared with the diameter of the orbit

of the earth that one can assume that orbit to be concentrated in one single

point. For Aristarchos this assumption was necessary, because otherwise the

apparent distances between fixed stars would vary in the course of the year.

The next testimony is from Plutarchos, De facie in orbe Lunae, c.6,

922F-923A:

Only do not, my good fellow, enter an action against me for impiety in the style

of Cleanthes, who thought it was the duty of Greeks to indict Aristarchus of

VAN DER WAERDEN: THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM 527

Samos on the charge of impiety for putting in motion the Hearth of the Uni-

verse, this being the effect of his attempt to save the phenomena by supposing

the heaven to remain at rest and the earth to revolve in an oblique circle, while

it rotates, at the same time, about his own axis.

Plutarchos is certainly right in saying that Aristarchos assumed a rotation

of the earth about its own axis, for in a heliocentric system one is forced to

assume as axial rotation of the earth.

SELEUKOS OF SELEUKIA

Most ancient astronomers rejected the idea of a motion of the earth, for

reasons explained by Aristotle in De cuelo and by Ptolemy in Almagest 1.7.

The only astronomer who is known to have accepted the theory of Aristarchos

is Seleukos of Seleukia. What do we know about his life and work?

In Chapter XVI of his Geographia, Strabo mentions several "Chaldaen" as-

tronomers. At the end he adds: "Seleukios of Seleukia was a Chaldaean too."

As Strabo himself notes, the word Chaldaean has two meanings. Firstly,

a Chaldaean people existed. A Chaldaean dynasty, to which the great king

Nebuchadnezar I1 belonged, reigned in Babylonia from 626 to 539 B.C. Sec-

ondly, Babylonian astrologersand astronomerswere often called "Chaldaeans."

Strabo calls them "the so-called Chaldaeans". Their writings were translated

into Greek and used by later authors like G e m i n ~ s . ~

The "Chaldaean" astronomers mentioned by Strabo are Kidenas,

Naburianos, Sudines, and Seleukos. The first two are also known from astro-

nomical cuneiform texts under their Akkadian names Nabu-Rimannu and

Kidinnu.

Among several cities named Seleukia, the best known is Seleukia on the

Tigris, the capital of the Seleucid kingdom. It is possible that the astronomer

Seleukos lived or was born in this city, but it is also possible that his native

town was Seleukia on the Erythrean Sea, for the doxographer "Aetios," fol-

lowed by Stobaios, calls him XFXEUKOSb 'Epu9paioq.10He is said to have

observed the tides. According to Strabo (1.1.9), he stated that the tides are

due to the attraction of the moon, and he also knew that the height of the

tides depends on the moon's position relative to the sun.l1

As an astronomer, Seleukos seems to have been held in considerable es-

teem. According to Stobaios (Eclogae physicue, 1.21), he assumed the universe

to be infinite.12

Concerning the relation between Aristarchos and Seleukos we have an im-

portant testimony of Plutarchos. In his discussion of a statement of Plato on

the motion of the earth (Quuestiones Plutonicu, Qu. 8) , he writes:

528 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

pfi pEpqXavqaOa1 ouv~xopkvqv,~ a pkvouoav, i bnha orp~cpopkvqvKai

bmhoup6vqv voEiv' bq O D T E ~ O VApiotapxoq K a i E ~ ~ E UhnoSsiKvuoav'

KO~

6 ~ Z VGnoeEp~voq

, p ~ v o v b* oz C ~ ~ E V KK aOi hocpaivbpEvog.

~,

In my translation of the first half of this sentence I shall follow Heath.I3 For

the last part, in which Aristarchos and Seleukos are quoted, I shall present

my own translation, and justify it afterwards. I propose the following trans-

lation:

Was it necessary to conceive that the earth "rolling about the axis stretched

through the universe" [this is a quotation from Plato] was not represented as

being held together and at rest, but as turning and revolving, as Aristarchos

and Seleukos afterwards proved, the former stating it only as a hypothesis, the

latter showing it by reasoning?

In the last part of this passage, Plutarchos uses three verbs to characterize

what Aristarchos and Seleukos did, namely ~ Z O S E ~ K V U h oW~L

i e, q p t ,

irnocpaivo.

Heath translated a form of the first verb as "maintained," but the usual

meaning is "proved." For the second verb I have adopted the translation of

Heath "stating as a hypothesis." The third verb can have the meaning "stating

as a definite opinion," but my translation "showing by reasoning" is equally

possible. I shall now explain why I prefer the latter translation.

Plutarchos says first that Aristarchos and Seleukos both "proved"

( ~ T O S E ~ K W Othe~ Vmotion

) of the earth. As Heath rightly remarks, one cannot

"prove" an astronomical hypothesis in the strict sense of the word. What one

can do, and what Copernicus actually did, is: to deduce consequences from

the hypothesis and to verify them empirically. I now suppose that this is what

Aristarchos and Seleukos did according to Plutarchos, and that he denoted

this activity by the verbs ~ Z O S E ~ K and V U ~irnocpaivo.

~

In this connection, I may note that Ptolemy, speaking of the activity of

earlier astronomers who composed certain "eternal tables," uses a related verb

t this sense. In Almagest IX.2, Ptolemy critizes these as-

b ~ t s ~ i ~ v uinpjust

tronomers, saying that they "tried to explain the phenomena by assuming ec-

centric circles or concentric circles carrying epicycles or even -by Zeus! -a

combination of the two." They "declared the anomaly connected with the

ecliptic to be so and so large, and the anomaly relative to the sun so and so

large," and they wanted "to prove the uniform motion on circles" through so-

called "eternal tables".

Now the verb ~ S E ~ K W ~ I I, have translated by "to prove," is a syn-

which

onym of b ~ o t i ~ i ~ v uIpsuppose

t. that both verbs, used by Plutarchos and

Ptolemy, have the same meaning, namely: to compute planetary positions from

a geometrical theory, and to compare them with reality.

VAN DER WAERDEN: THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM 529

Now let's turn to Plutarchos. He first says that Aristarchos and Seleukos

both "proved the heliocentric hypothesis. Next he corrects himself and makes

a distinction between the two. He says that Aristarchos only stated it as a

hypothesis, which implies that he did not prove it in the sense just explained.

The first assertion that both proved it is now restricted to Seleukos alone,

but instead of ~ O ~ E ~ K he ~ Ithe synonym hnocpaivo, or rather the

uses

V U

medium bnocpaivovat, which according to Liddell and Scott can be used like

the active.

I suppose that Aristarchos did not dispose of a sufficient number of obser-

vations to determine the constants of his theory. Also, the accurate determi-

nation of these constants and the calculation of planetary positions requires

trigonometrical methods, which were not available at the time of Aristarchos.

On the other hand, if we suppose that Seleukos was a near-contemporary of

Hipparchos (second century B.c.), trigonometrical methods and accurate ob-

servations were available at his time, so that he was in a position to "prove"

the heliocentric hypothesis in the sense just explained.

The translation adopted by Heath: knocpatvop~voq= "stating as a defi-

nite opinion" is philologicallypossible, but in my opinion improbable. Seleukos

was a competent astronomer. He knew that the motion of the earth is a hy-

pothesis and not a certain fact. He knew that other hypotheses explain the

phenomena just as well. Aristarchos, the initiator of the heliocentric theory,

had called it a hypothesis only. Why should his follower Seleukos enunciate

it as a definite assertion? This would be a strange and unusual behavior. The

astronomer Geminos, quoted by Simplikiosin his commentary on the Physics

of Aristotle (ed. Diels, 291-92), says that it is the task of the astronomer to

introduce hypotheses to explain the phenomena, leaving it the physicist to

investigate "what is by nature suited to a position of rest and what sort of

bodies are apt to move."

For these reasons I shall assume that SeIeukos determined the constants

in the heliocentric theory and developed methods to compute planetary posi-

tions from this theory. Maybe he computed tables himself, or he enabled his

successors to compute tables for the need of astrologers.

WORK OF ARYABHATA

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

a little later.15It is based on the assumption of epicycles and eccenters, so it

is not heliocentric, but my hypothesis is that it was based on an originally

530 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

sequel.

In the history of astronomy, we may observe a tendency to get away from

the idea of a motion of the earth. It is always possible to transform a heliocen-

tric theory into a equivalent geocentric theory by putting the earth at rest,

while retaining the relative motions of the sun and the planets as seen from

the earth. For instance, Tycho Brahe transformed the system of Copernicus

into a geocentric system in just this way.

Another example. h b h a t a assumed a rotation of the earth. His followers

accepted his methods of calculation, but they put the earth at rest.

Consequently, if we consider a set of tables or a set of rules for computing

planetary positions, it is often not possible to see whether the underlying theory

is heliocentric or geocentric. However, there are details which may give us

more information about the origin of the theory.

THEFIRSTTRACE

One such detail is the axial rotation of the earth. In a geocentric system

there is no reason to assume such a rotation. The assumption of an axial rota-

tion does not simplify the system, and there are strong arguments against this

assumption (see e.g., Almagest 1.7).On the other hand, in a heliocentric system

one is forced to assume a rotation of the earth. Now, if a heliocentric theory

is transformed into a geocentric theory, one may or may not retain the axial

rotation.

Most Hindu astronomers did not assume a rotation of the earth, but Ary-

abhata did assume it. We can explain this by supposing that his theory was

derived from a heliocentric theory.

Of course, this is not a conclusive proof: it is only an indication of a pos-

sible explanation of a curious fact.

THESECOND

TRACE

To explain what I mean by the second trace I must first examine the trans-

formation of a heliocentric into a geocentric theory a little more closely.

Let me start with Venus. In the earliest epicycle theory16 the sun rotates

on a small epicycle about the "mean sun," and Venus rotates on a larger epicycle

in such a way that the centers of the two epicycles are always in one line from

the earth. An equivalent theory is explained by Theon of Smyrna in his Ex-

positio rerum mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium (ed. Hiller,

VAN DER WAERDEN: THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM 531

FIGURE1.

186-87): in this the epicycles of Venus, Mercury and the sun are concentric.

In both theories the center of the Venus epicycle is in the direction of the mean

sun.

Now let us consider the heliocentric theory. I feel we may safely assume

that Aristarchos made the earth move in an eccentric circle, for the anomaly

of the apparent motion of the sun was known already at the time of Kal-

1ipp0s.l~On the other hand, the eccentricity of the orbit of Venus is very small,

so it is not unreasonable to suppose that Aristarchos made Venus move on

a concentric circle about the sun.

Now if this model of the motion of the earth is transformed into a geocen-

tric theory, one had to make the sun move on an eccentric circle and to make

Venus move on an epicycle having its center at the center of the sun. Thus,

the eccentric cycle carrying the epicycle of Venus will have the same apogee

and the same eccentricity as the sun’s orbit (see FIGURE1).

In a genuine epicycle theory for Venus, the eccenter carrying the epicycle

is independent of the sun’s orbit. Its apogee and eccentricity are determined

from observations of Venus, whereas the apogee and eccentricity of the sun

are determined from eclipse observations. The probability that the apogee

and eccentricity of Venus coincide with those of the sun in very small. In fact,

in Ptolemy’s theory they do not coincide, nor do they coincide in the Aryabha-

tiya of Aryabhata. According to the latter treatise the apogee of the sun is

at 78 degrees, and that of Venus at 90 degrees. The eccentricities are also

532 ANNALS N E W YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

FIGURE2.

of Shukla's translation of the Aryabhatiya.ls

However, the same h a b h a t a also conceived another astronomical system,

the "Midnight System," so called because in this system the Kaliyuga was sup-

posed to begin at midnight. The constants of this system are known from

Brahmagupta's treatise Kha~dakh~dyakalg and from the "old Siiryasid-

dhiinta" of Varaha Mihira.20

The relation between this Midnight System and the more sophisticated Sun-

rise System underlying the Aryabhatiya have been carefully investigated by

P.C. Sengupta.21 In the Midnight System the apogees of the sun and Venus

are both at SO', and their eccentricities are also equal. This fact can be ex-

plained by assuming that the Midnight System was originally derived from

a heliocentric system.

THETHIRD

TRACE

In an epicycle theory, in which the planets move on epicycles carried by

eccentric circles, the position of any planet is determined by two angles x and

y (see FIGURE2). The first angle x is the angle ACS, where A is the apogee

of the eccentric circle, C its center (or in Ptolemy's system the equant point),

and S the center of the epicycle. The second angle y is the angle BSP, where

P is the planet, while SB is the prolongation of the line CS.

VAN DER WAERDEN: THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM 533

FIGURE3.

The angles x and y are linear functions of time. Their values at any instant

may be calculated from tables of mean motions. As soon as they are known,

the direction EP can be computed by plane trigonometry.

In the theory of Aryabhata, the eccentric circle is replaced by a second

epicycle, the "manda epicycle", with centre M (see FIGURE3 ) . If one draws the

parallelogram ECSM, one sees that it makes no difference whether the point

S moves on an eccentric circle centered at C or on a small epicycle carried

by a circle centered at E.

For the trigonometric calculation of the true latitude of any planet, it does

not matter whether one starts with a heliocentric or with a geocentric theory.

However, there is one characteristicdifference. In a genuine geocentric theory

the primary quantities determining the configurationat any time are the angles

x and y. The period of x is the sidereal period of the planet, and the period

of y is the synodic period. On the other hand, in a heliocentric theory of Venus

(or Mercury) the primary quantities, which determine the positions of the

earth and Venus as seen from the sun, are not x and y, but

L = u + x = mean longitude of sun

and

z =u + x + y = heliocentric longitude of Venus,

where u is the longitude of the apogee. The period of z is the heliocentric period

534 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

other hand, in the geocentric theory, this period has no importance whatever.

Now let us look at the text of the Aryabhatiya. Stanzas 3-4 of the first

book read in the translation of Shukla:

3-4. In a yuga, the eastward revolutions of the Sun are 43,20,000; of the

Moon, 5,77,53,336; of the Earth, 1,58,22,37,500; of Saturn 1,46,564; of Jupiter,

3,64,224; of Mars, 22,96,824; of Mercury and Venus, the same as those of the

Sun; of the Moon's apogee, 4,88,219; of [the Sighrocca of] Mercury,

1,79,37,020; of [the Sighrocca of] Venus, 70,22,388; of [the Sighroccas of] the

other planets, the same as those of the Sun; of the moon's ascending node in

the opposite direction [ i e . , westward], 2,32,226.

The words "the Sighrocca of" are not in the text: they are added by the

translator. Aryabhata himself just says "of Mercury 17 937 020, of Venus 7

022 388." Clark's translation agrees with that of Shukla.

Obviously, the revolutions of Mercury and Venus considered by h a b h a t a

are heliocentric revolutions.

Because of these three traces, I think it is highly probable that the system

of Aryabhata was derived from a heliocentric theory by setting the center

of the earth at rest.

system described by Al-Biriini and Al-Sijzi and ascribed, in both sources, to

the Book of the Thousands of AbU Ma'shar al-Balkhi.22This system is based

on the assumption of a "world-year" of 360 000 years. In this period, all planets

are supposed to perform an integer number of revolutions, starting from po-

sitions near 0" Aries at the beginning of the period.

The numbers of revolutions of the planets in 360 000 years according to

Abii Ma'shar are recorded by Al-Hashimi and Al-Biriini. In the following

table I reproduce the parameters from Pingree's studyz3and compare them

with those derived from the "midnight system" of Aryabhata:

Planet Abii Ma'shar

___ -

Midnight System

Saturn 12 214 12 214 -%

Jupiter 30 352 30 352 -%

Mars 191 402 191 402

Venus 585 199 585 199

Mercury 1494 751 1494 750

Moon 4 812 778 4 __

812 778

VAN DER WAERDEN: THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM 535

It is seen that the numbers ascribed to Abii Ma'shar agree exactly with

those of Aryabhata in three cases, and nearly in three other cases. Also, in

both systems, a conjuction of all planets in 3102 B.C. is assumed. According

to Abii Ma'shar the conjunction took place in the early morning (at midnight

for Babylon) on Thursday, February 17, but according to Aryabhata it took

place at the end of the same day, at midnight for Lanka.

The system of Abu Ma'shar is more primitive and less accurate than that

of Aryabhata, mainly because of the shorter period of 360 000 years. The

longer period of Aryabhata allows a better adaptation to observed longitudes.

It is very remarkable that Abti Ma'shar has only one number of revolu-

tions for every planet, and that his revolutions are heliocentric revolutions.

In Babylonian astronomy and in the system of Ptolemy every planet has two

periods: a sidereal and a synodic period. The only known theory in which

every planet has only one period of revolution is the heliocentric theory. There-

fore I suppose that the astronomical system adopted by Abti Ma'shar was

derived from a heliocentric theory.

Concerning the origin of this system we have several testimonies. Al-Sij-

zi, in his summary of Abti Ma'shar's Book of the thousands, ascribes the

system to "the Persians and some of the Babyl~nians."~~ In another version

of al-Sijzi's summary, only the "Persians" are mentioned. Still another, most

important testimony is found in al-Biriini's Chronology. Al-Birtini discusses

Abu Ma'shar's "star-cycles" of 360,000 years and says that Abii Ma'shar "had

computed these star-cycles only from the motions of the stars, as they had

been fixed by the observations of the Persians" (my italics).25

Already elsewhere I have investigated the identity of the "Persians" and

the "Babylonians"mentioned in our testimoniesl26I shall now discuss the two

cases separately.

THEPERSIANS

In the extant treatises of Al-Biriini the expression "the Persians" occurs

very often. According to E. S. Kennedy, "the Persians" is a generic term com-

prising Ya'qtib ibn Tariq and Al-Khwarizmi and the Zij-iShiih.Z7 The latter

is a table set composed in Sassanid Persia under Khusro Aniishirvan

(531-579) and revised under Yazdigerd I11 (632-642). In most cases, when Bi-

riini refers to "the Persians," he just means the authors of the Tables of the

S h d ~These

. ~ ~tables are lost, but their contents can largely be reconstructed

from other sources.29 Burckhardt and I have shown that the Tables of the

Shah are based on the assumption of a conjunction of all planets at Babylon,

midnight between February 16 and 17, 3102 B.C.The same date was also as-

536 ANNALS N E W YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

sumed in the system of Abii Ma'shar. So, we may conclude that Abu

Ma'shar's system was based on the Tables of the Shah.

THEBABYLONIANS

According to Al-Sijzi, the world-year of 360 000 years and the cycles of

Abii Ma'shar are due to "the Persians and the Babylonians." Is this statement

reliable? It occurs within a passage in which several world-years are compared,

namely

(1)a period of 4 320 millions of years, ascribed to "those in a region of

India,"

(2) a period of 4 320 000 years, ascribed to "the partisans of Arjabhaz,"

(3) a period of 360 000 years, ascribed to "the Persians and some of the

Babylonians".

The first two ascriptions are correct. The period (1)is the "Kalpa" of Brah-

magupta, and the period (2) is the Mahsyuga" of Aryabhata (= Arjabhaz).

As far as the Persians are concerned, the ascription (3) is confirmed by the

testimony of Al-Biriini. So let us see whether we can make sense of the

ascription to "the Babylonians."

Elsewhere I have gathered several references to the "Babylonians" in Greek

and Arabic s0urces.3~From these references it results that we have to distin-

guish between the "Chaldaeans" and the "Babylonians". For instance, the as-

trologer Vettius Valens ascribes to the "Babylonians" a certain duration of the

year, namely

365 + 1/4 + sari days,

and he ascribes to the "Chaldaeans" another duration of the year. I have also

shown that the "Chaldaeans" are early Hellenistic authors, whose methods

are closely related to those used in the cuneiform texts, whereas the "Babylo-

nians" were late Hellenistic auth0rs.~1

Al-Biriini ascribes to the "Babylonians" a method to compute the rising

times of the zodiacal signs. I fully agree with Neugebauer32 that this method

is a late Hellenistic invention, based on the insight that the earth is spherical

and may be divided into parallel zones having different "climata."

One of the Babylonians was "Teukros the Babylonian," of whom we have

extensive fragments in Greek as well as in Arabic. According to Franz Boll,33

who edited the fragments in his book "Sphaera," Teukros must have lived in

the first century B.C. or slightly earlier. In Arabic sources he was called "Tinkelos

the Babylonian" or "Tinqeros the Babylonian."34

The work of Teukros was well known in Sassanid Persia and in the Islamic

VAN DER WAERDEN: THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM 537

was translated from Greek into Persian, and from Persian into Arabic. The

Arabic translation is contained in the "Great Introduction" of Abii Ma'shar.

The Greek text of the treatise as well as the Arabic text and a Greek transla-

tion, was published by B O ~ I . ~ ~

Abii Ma'shar's direct source was, without any doubt, a Persian text, for

he mentions several Persian names of decans. In his introduction he ascribes

the text to "the old learned men of Persia, Babylonia, and Egypt."

In Abii Ma'shar's text, the author Teukros is mentioned several times, and

no other Babylonian author is mentioned. From this, we may tentatively con-

clude that for Abii Ma'shar the expression "the learned men of Babylon" is

just a synonym of "Teukrosthe Babylonian." If we assume that the same thing

holds for the expression "some of the Babylonians" used in al-Sijzi's excerpt

from Abii Ma'shar, we may conjecture that the latter derived his "World-

Year" of 360 000 years from a lost treatise of Teukros.

Not let us return to Aryabhata.

sian "world-year" of 360 000 years, and his numbers of revolutions are exactly

or nearly 12 times those of Abii Ma'shar, as we have seen. The multiplica-

tion of the period by 12 enabled Aryabhata to attain a better adaptation to

the observed phenomena.

The Tables of the Shah, the system of Abii Ma'shar, the Midnight System,

and the Sunrise System of Aryabhata all have in common the assumption

of a conjunction of all planets in mid-February, 3102 B.C. The assumed dates

of this conjunction are slightly different in our sources, namely: midnight

February 16/17 Babylon in the system of Abu Ma'shar and in the Tables of

the Shuh, midnight February 17/18 Lanka in the "midnight system" of

Aryabhata, sunrise February 18 Lanka in the "sunrise system" of the h y a -

b hatiya .

The difference between the dates are due to different assumptionsconcerning

the duration of the year. The differences between the durations according to

Abii Ma'shar and Aryabhata amount to approximately 1 day in the 3 600

years between the conjunction and the lifetime of Aryabhata. This explains

the difference of one day in the dates of the conjunctions.

As Kennedy has shown in his paper on the Tables of the Shah, the maxima

of the anomalies of the planets in that work were nearly the same as in the

538 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

sun and the moon these maxima "came from the Hindus to the Persians."36

Thus we may assume the following dependence:

Aryabhata

This direction of the dependence is chronologically correct. h a b h a t a

reached the age of 23 years in A.D. 499. On the other hand, we know from

al-Bifini,j7 that Khosro Anoshirvan convoked an assembly of astronomers

in A.D. 556 and ordered them to correct the Tabfesof the Shah. Al-Hashimi

informs us38 that Khosro compared the A h a g e s t with the Arkand, that is,

with the midnight system of Aryabhata, and found that this system accords

better with the observations that the Almagest. So he ordered the astronomers

to compute tables according to the Arkand. Thus, all our sources agree that

the Tables of the Shah are based on the midnight system of Aryabhata.

However, if we take at its face value Bifini's statement that the as-

tronomers were ordered to "revise" the tables, we must conclude that an ear-

lier version of the tables existed that was not dependent of the Arkand. This

conclusion is confirmed by a statement of Ibn Yiinus to the effect that the

Persians "observed the solar apogee at 77" 55' about A.D. 450, that is, half

a century before the time of A r ~ a b h a t a . ~ ~

The epoch of the Tables of the Shah was midnight Babylon.40This seems

to indicate that the tables were based on a Babylonian treatise (perhaps by

Teukros).

As we have seen, Aryabhata and the authors of the Tables of the Shah as-

sumed a conjunctionof all planets in mid-February, 3102 B.C. In a recent paper41

I have shown that this alleged conjunction was not observed, but calculated

from a planetary theory. It cannot have been observed, because about this

time no such conjunction took place.

In the same paper I have argued that the conjunction of 3102 was calcu-

lated by a Hellenistic astronomer or astrologerwho wanted to date the Deluge.

According to al-Bifini,*Z "the sages among the inhabitants of Babylon and

the Chaldaeans" have made several attempts to date the Deluge by calculating

conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn. Some of these astrologers assumed 3580

VAN DER WAERDEN: THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM 539

B.C. to be the date of the Deluge. Others, including Abii Ma'shar, supposed

that a Deluge would occur once in every 180000 years, and that the last deluge

before their own time had occurred in February 3102 B.C.

All calculations of Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions are based on the calcula-

tion of mean longitudes. In ancient Babylonian tables, as we know them from

cuneiform texts, the notion "mean longitude" does not occur. O n the other

hand, in Greek tables such as the Handy tables of Ptolemy the prescription

is: First compute mean longitudes and next add or subtract correction terms.

Tables of this kind require trigonometry, so they cannot have existed before

Apollonios (about 200 B.c.). Only after 200 B.C. has the calculation of not

observed conjunctions become possible.

k t me summarize my conclusions. After the discovery of trigonometry,

tables were calculated by trigonometrical methods. By the aid of these tables,

several Hellenistic authors tried to date the Deluge by calculating conjunc-

tions of Saturn and Jupiter in the fourth millennium B.C. One of these attempts

led to the discovery of an approximate mean conjunction of all planets in 3102

B.C. Next, a new theory and new tables were fabricated, based on the assump-

tion of a mean conjunction of all planets in February of this year, and of an

exact repetition of all planetary positions at the end of a certain World-Year.

These tables were used, with corrections, in Sassanid Persia. Aryabhata cor-

rected the theory, replacing the Persian world-year of 360 000 years by a period

twelve times as large.

ETERNAL TABLES

are periodic, that is, after the completion of a certain number of years the

motions of the planets are repeated. Since the cycles of Aba Ma'shar are de-

rived, according to al-Birtini, from those of the "Persians," we may safely as-

sume that in the earliest version of the Tables of the Shah the motions were

also periodic with a period of 360 000 years. A table set based on such a period

may well be called "perpetual" or "eternal": If the motions in a world-year are

known, the motions, and hence the positions, are known for all times.

Such "eternal tables" are mentioned by Vettius V a l e n ~and ~ ~Pt01emy.~~ I

feel that the genesis of the system of Abii Ma'shar with its world-year of

360 000 years can best be understood if we assume that the "eternal tables"

used by Vettius Valens were already based on the assumption of a similar

world-year.

Now let us compare the way in which the anomalies of the planets are com-

puted according to h a b h a t a with the indications of Ptolemy concerning the

540 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

FIGURE4.

calculation of the same anomalies in the ”eternal tables.” Although the indi-

cations of Ptolemy are rather vague, we shall see that they agree well with

what we know from the Aryabhatiya.

To pass from the mean longitude of any planet to its true longitude, one

has to add correction terms, the so-called “equations.” In the Aryabhatiya

two kinds of equations occur, namely

(1)the mandapala or ”equationof axis”f, a function of the angle x in FIGURE

4,

( 2 ) the 4ighrapala or Qighraequation g , a function of the angle y in FIGURE5 .

In Aryabhata‘s “double epicycle theory” we have two kinds of epicycles:

the manda epicycle from which the mandapala is calculated, and the Sighra

epicycle from which the Sighrapah is calculated. Both epicycles are carried

by concentric circles. Some years I explained the rules by which the

corrections from mean to true longitudes are found according to Aryabhata,

and I have shown that these rules can be understood as yielding a reasonable

approximation if one supposes the center S of the epicycle to move on a ec-

centric circle with equant point, as in the theory of Ptolemy. The inventor

of this theory and of the approximation used by Aryabhata must have been

an excellent mathematician; my guess is that it was Apollonios of Perge.

A remarkable feature of this method is the fact that the two equations are

VAN DER WAERDEN: THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM 541

FIGURE5.

computed separately, not from a combined figure such as FIGURE2. More pre-

cisely, they are found separately in a first approximation. Next they are halved

and used to correct x and y, and then the final values of the manda and S i g h

equations are found. In this way, the use of two-argument tables is avoided.46

Now let us consider, once more, what Ptolemy says about the authors of

the "eternal tables". According to P t ~ l e m y these

, ~ ~ authors "tried to explain

the phenomena by assuming eccentric circles or concentric circles carrying

epicycles or even - by Zeus! -a combination of the two." These words are

well in accordance with our FIGURES4 and 5, for the motion on the manda

epicycle of FIGURE4 is equivalent to the motion on an eccentric circle, and

FIGURE5 shows a concentric circle carrying an epicycle.

Ptolemy continues: "They declared the anomaly connected with the ecliptic

to be so and so large, and the anomaly relative to the sun so and so large."

This means: they calculated the two anomalies separately, whereas Ptolemy

taught how to combine the two anomalies in a geometrically correct way.

But, says Ptolemy, their method was completely wrong, so that "some of

them missed their aim completely, whereas others succeeded to a certain ex-

tent." In my opinion, h a b h a t a and his predecessors belonged to those who

"succeeded to a certain extent," for their methods of calculation yielded a rea-

sonable good approximation, as I have shown previously.48

542 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

CONCLUSION

Combining the results of the preceding sections, we may draw a scheme

of the probable development:

Seleukos

Heliocentric Theory

Discovery of the

Conjunction of 3102 B . C .

Eternal Tables

(Periodic)

(Teukros the Babylonian?)

1

Early Persian Tables

Abii Ma'shar

NOTES

1. Almagest, VII.3 and X.4.

2. See Heath 1913 for details.

3. See van der Waerden 1983.

4. Ahagest I X , 264-67, 288-89, 352 and 386 (Heiberg).

5. Ahagest, VII.3.

6. Rawlins, D. (unpublished). See also Maeyama.

VAN DER WAERDEN: THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM 543

8. Heath 1913.

9. See van der Waerden 1972.

10. See Cumont.

11. See also Kroll in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Encyclopaedie, Supp. 5, cols. 962-63.

12. See also Pines.

13. Heath 1932, 108.

14. On this, see Sengupta, Clark, and Shukla.

15. In Billard it is shown that Aryabhata‘s theory is based on observations made about 510.

16. See van der Waerden 1974.

17. ibid.

18. See Shukla. (I have not seen the translation of Bina Chatterjee.)

19. Listed as Sengupta 1934.

20. Listed as Neugebauer and Pingree.

21. See Sengupta 1929.

22. See Kennedy and van der Waerden.

23. Pingree, 30.

24. See Kennedy and van der Waerden.

25. Sachau, 29.

26. See van der Waerden 1977.

27. See Kennedy.

28. See van der Waerden 1977.

29, See Kennedy and Burchhardt and van der Waerden.

30. See van der Waerden 1977.

31. See van der Waerden 1972.

32. See Neugebauer 1942.

33. See Boll.

34. Boll, 10 and Pingree, 10-11.

35. Boll, 25-30 and 490-539.

36. Burckhardt and van der Waerden, 4.

37. Kennedy and Saffouri and Ifram, Section 24:7-11.

38. Kennedy and Pingree and Haddad, 95, 11. 7-23.

39. Kennedy and van der Waerden, 323.

40. See Kennedy 1958.

41. See van der Waerden 1980.

42. Sachau, 28.

43. See Neugebauer 1975, 789.

44. Alrnagest, IX.2, 211 (Heiberg).

45. See van der Waerden 1961.

46. See Burckhardt and van der Waerden, or van der Waerden 1961.

47. See note 44 above.

48. See van der Waerden 1961.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Billard, R.

19n L’Astronomie indienne. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve.

Boll, F.

1903 Sphaera. Leipzig, 1903; reprinted Hildesheim, 1967.

544 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

1968 Das astronomische System der Persischen Tafeln I. Centaurus, 13: 1-28.

Clark, W. E.

1930 The Aryabhaega of Aryabhata, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cumont, F.

1927 La patrie de SCleucus de SCleucie. Syria, 8: 83.

Heath, T.

1913 Aristarchus of Samos, the ancient Copemicus. Oxford: University Press.

1932 Greek astronomy. London.

Kennedy, E. S.

1958 The Sasanian astronomical handbook Zij-i Shah. Joumal of the American

Oriental Society, 78: 246-62; reprinted in Kennedy et a / . , 319-35.

Kennedy E. S., Commentator and M. Saffouri and A. Ifram, translators

1959 A/-Biriini on transits. Beirut: American University of Beirut.

Kennedy, E. S., F. I. Haddad and D. Pingree

1981 The book of the reasons behind astronomical tables . . . by a/-Hiishimi,

Delmar, NY: Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints.

Kennedy, E. S. and B. L. van der Waerden

1963 The world-year of the Persians. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 83:

315-27; reprinted in Kennedy et al., 338-50.

Kennedy, E. S. et a / .

1983 Colleagues and Former Students. Studies in the Islamic exact sciences, Beirut:

American University of Beirut Press.

Maeyama, Y.

1984 Ancient stellar observations. Timocharis, Aristyllus, Hipparchus-; The dates

and accuracies. Centaurus 27: 280-310.

Neugebauer, 0.

1942 O n some astronomical papyri and related problems of ancient geography. Trans-

actions of the American Philosophical Society, 32251-63.

1975 A history of ancient mathematical astronomy, 3 vols. New York: Springer Verlag.

Neugebauer, 0. and D. Pingree

1970 The Paiicasiddhlntik2 of VarHhamihira. Kong. Danske Vidensk.-Selskab Hist.-

Fil. Skrifter 6,l.

Pines, S.

1963 Un fragment de SCleucus de SCleucie conserv6 en version arabe. Revue d’Histoire

des Sciences, 16: 193-209.

Pingree, D.

1968 The Thousands o f Abii Ma‘shar. London: The Warburg Institute.

Rawlins, D. Aristyllos’ date with vindications. Unpublished paper.

Sachau, E., Translator

1879 The chronology of ancient nations . . , . . , of Albiruni, London: William H.

Allen; reprinted, Frankfurt am Main: Minerva Verlag GmbH, 1984.

Sengupta, P. C.

1929 Aryabhata, the father of Indian epicycle astronomy. Journal Department of

Letters, Calcutta University, 1929: 21-56.

1934 Brahmagupta: Khandakhadyaka, translated by P. C. Sengupta. Calcutta:

University of Calcutta.

Shukla, K. S.

1976 Aryabhafiya of Aryabhata. New Delhi: Indian National Science Academy.

VAN DER WAERDEN: THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM 545

1961 Ausgleichspunkt, "Methode der Perser" und Indische Planetenrechnung. Ar-

chive for the History of Exact Sciences, 1: 107-21.

1972 Die "Aegypter"und die "Chaldaer,"Sitzungsberichte Heidelberger Akademie

1972, Fiinfte Abh.

1974 The earliest form of the epicycle theory. Journal for the History of Astronomy,

5: 175-85.

1977 The "Babylonians"and the "Persians."In Prisrnata: Festschrift f i r Willy Hartner,

W.G. Saltzer and Y.Maeyama, eds., 431-40. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.

1980 The conjunction of 3102 B.C. Centaurus, 24: 125-30.

1983 Greek astronomical calendars 111. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 29:

125-30.

- NatureofTheSiderealZodiacRafaelGilBrandColorTransféré parSaptarishisAstrology
- Human Types - Classical AstrologyTransféré parRadu Claudiu
- Timing%20TechniquesTransféré parkbr9121965
- The Disease of the Moon: The Linguistic and Pathological Evolution of the English Term “Lunatic”Transféré parMarkoff Chaney
- The Classical Use of Triplicities by Deborah HouldingTransféré parSittidath Prasertrungruang
- ASTRONOMIA ETRUSCATransféré parJesús Campos Márquez
- Vettius Valens EntireTransféré parGarga
- BasisTransféré parscott6459
- Manuel I Komnenos and Michael Glycas: A Twelfth-Century Defence and Refutation of AstrologyTransféré parByzantine Philology
- tic Time Lords - Demetra GeorgeTransféré parkether.thipharet5601
- Astrology and Cycle of DeedsTransféré parYogesh Dhekale
- ParapegmaTransféré parGarga
- Algebraic Geometry_Van Der WaerdenTransféré parandrei129
- Anthology - Vettius ValensTransféré parJoseph Ledzion
- Our Roots in the Sun – Heliocentric AstrologyTransféré parMichael Erlewine
- Sepharial Prognostic AstronomyTransféré parRoslyn Jamieson
- An Astrological House FormularyTransféré parsmartarpit
- Guide to Astrology By RaphaelTransféré parGarga
- John Frawley - Sports AstrologyTransféré parRoxana Sahana
- Navamsa Technique 1Transféré parBalasubramanian
- The Galileo AffairTransféré pardiomedescruz8663
- 1001 Notable Nativities-Alan Leo (1917)Transféré parkerberos516950
- Ancient Measurements of the Sun and MoonTransféré parJohn Steff
- 30088860 Sepharial Kabbalistic AstrologyTransféré parEZrider3
- Fred White - Guide to AstrologyTransféré pargregblus
- The AstrologyTransféré parRajender Saluja

- Lakoff - Cognitive Versus Generative LinguisticsTransféré parjarubirubi
- G13PJSTransféré parluis
- An Unidentified Flying Object, Or UFO, IsTransféré parmatthyjohnhp
- Wexford CarolTransféré paremmataylor
- Moksha Trikona.pdfTransféré parprashant_70
- gestsbeed1Transféré parapi-432102869
- 1922 Kozminsky Magic and Science of Jewels and StonesTransféré parBLINDED185231
- Bartel L. Van Der Waerden (Auth.)-Science Awakening II_ the Birth of Astronomy-Springer Netherlands (1974)Transféré parDiego Narvaez Medina
- ElementBuilderSETransféré parbarbiee2012
- rgggTransféré parMaci Costa
- Avasthas of PlanetsTransféré parAli Raza
- Statics BeerTransféré parBecherMahmalji
- Stoic Ontology BiblioTransféré parlorenzen62
- 1A Experiment DensityTransféré parsmishra2222
- Www Heavens Above ComTransféré parAleft
- A HIGH ALTITUDE NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENT SIMULATIONTransféré parShahinAbdi
- Econometrica Jan. 2013 GalaabaatarTransféré parBaigalmaa Nyamtseren
- Kristie.miller PublicationsTransféré parAndres Robert
- Walter Delaney - Ultra-PsychonicsTransféré partonytabu
- Dreams and Pruvate MythsTransféré parlector1992
- j.the Facts Now and ThenTransféré parSam Smith
- 50571424-Prasnagnana-BhattotpalaTransféré parfenixpluton
- The Idea of Being and Goodness in St ThomasTransféré parMatthew-Mary S. Okereke
- Etheric Double Powell PDFTransféré parRob
- Scientific Context for Big DataTransféré parDr. Gary E. Riccio
- Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental PhysicsTransféré parDisiciencia
- A New Physics Theory of Life - Scientific AmericanTransféré paraminshreya
- bibliografia astrologia tradicionalTransféré parDerick Teixeira
- the dehumanization of the otherTransféré parapi-301894375
- John DeweyTransféré parIamCcj