Early Debate

Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, vol. 28 (2018) pp.
1–30
doi: 10.1017/S0957423917000078 © 2018 Cambridge University Press
THE EARLY GREAT DEBATE: A COMMENT ON IBN AL-

HAYTHAM’S WORK ON THE LOCATION OF THE MILKY
WAY WITH RESPECT TO THE EARTH
ANDREAS ECKART
I. Physikalisches Institut, Universität zu Köln, Zülpicher Str. 77,
50937 Köln, Germany
Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Auf dem Hügel 69, 53121 Bonn, Germany
Email: eckart@ph1.uni-koeln.de
Abstract. At the very beginning of the last millennium Ibn al-Haytham greatly
contributed to the investigation of the Milky Way. Here, the only three currently known
versions of his work on the location of the Milky Way are compared to each other and
discussed. A comparison of the texts and an early translation into German by
E. Wiedemann in 1906 reveals several differences that triggered a new critical
translation of the passed down text. We give detailed comments on the work and check
the validity of Ibn al-Haytham’s arguments. We also discuss his work in the framework
of the ‘Great Debate’ on the Milky Way that took place around 1920, more than a
decade after Wiedemann’s translation. We find that Ibn al-Haytham’s work is certainly
at the peak of the unaided-eye era of the Milky Way’s discovery. Through his own
argumentation and in comparison to Ptolemy’s observations Ibn al-Haytham clearly
identifies the Galaxy as an extraterrestrial body that is not part of the atmosphere but
much further away than the Moon. With some of his statements on the stellar positions
passed down by Ptolemy, Ibn al-Haytham also anticipates the concept of stellar proper
motions.
Résumé. Au tout début du dernier millénaire, Ibn al-Haytham contribua de façon
importante à la recherche sur la Voie lactée. Les seuls trois témoins actuellement
connus de son traité sur la localisation de la Voie lactée seront ici comparés et discutés.
La comparaison entre ces témoins, d’une part et la traduction allemande de ce traité,
faite en 1906 par E. Wiedemann, d’autre part, révèle plusieurs différences, ce qui nous
a incité à proposer une nouvelle traduction critique du texte transmis. Nous donnons ici
un commentaire détaillé de ce traité et nous testons la validité des arguments d’Ibn al-
Haytham. Nous discutons aussi ce traité dans le cadre du ‘Grand Débat’ concernant la
Voie lactée qui eut lieu autour de 1920, plus d’une décennie après la traduction de
Wiedemann. Il nous est apparu que le travail d’Ibn al-Haytham se situe à coup sûr au
faîte de la période d’observation, à l’œil nu, de la Voie lactée. S’appuyant sur sa propre
argumentation et sur les observations de Ptolémée, Ibn al-Haytham identifie clairement
la galaxie comme un corps extra-terrestre, qui n’est pas une partie de l’atmosphère mais
qui se situe plus loin que la lune. De plus, à l’occasion des jugements qu’il porte sur les
positions stellaires transmises par Ptolémée, Ibn al-Haytham anticipe le concept de
mouvements stellaires propres.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Syracuse University Libraries, on 13 May 2018 at 08:28:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0957423917000078
2 ANDREAS ECKART
1. INTRODUCTION
The attention of early researchers was drawn to the Milky Way, since it appears
as a very extended, diffuse, and cloud like object in the night sky. It was Ibn al-
Haytham who convincingly combined ancient knowledge with new
observations to put constraints on the distance and nature of the Milky Way.
Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham, or in short Ibn al-Haytham, or
in a Latin version Alhazen or Alhacen was a mathematician, astronomer and
philosopher born in Basra. He died after 1040 AD in Cairo.1 He devoted
important contributions to the fundamentals of optics, mathematics, astronomy
and meteorology.2 Rashed (2007) stresses that although Ibn al-Haytham is best
known for his work in optics, this astronomical work comprises 25 treatises
which amount to a quarter of his total publications. The number of astronomical
treatises is twice the number of texts he wrote in optics. Here we give detailed
comments on the work by Ibn al-Haytham on the location of the Milky Way.
Ibn al-Haytham’s work on this topic had first been translated into German by
E. Wiedemann at the University of Erlangen in 1906.3
Ibn al-Haytham’s contribution to the determination of the Milky Way’s
location has to be seen as part of a long discussion on that topic. Anaxagoras
(500–428 BC) and Democritus (460–370 BC) proposed that the Milky Way
consists of distant stars.4 Aristotle (384–322 BC) proposed it to be a
phenomenon of the upper atmosphere.5 Olympiodorus the Younger (c. 495–
570 AD), said that it is sub-lunar and therefore must have a parallax. He is
referring to stellar positions published by Ptolemy (c. 100–170 AD), but he also
discusses the possible change of colors of the planets if the Milky Way were a
phenomenon of the upper atmosphere6 and the planets sometimes would be
1
See Roshdi Rashed, ‘The celestial kinematics of Ibn al-Haytham’, Arabic Sciences and
Philosophy, 17 (2007): 7–55 and ‘Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen)’, in Helaine Selin (ed.),
Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western
Cultures (Dordrecht, 2008), pp. 405–7.
2
Roshdi Rashed, Les mathématiques infinitésimales du IXe au XIe siècle, vol. 2: Ibn al-
Haytham (London, 1993); vol. 3: Ibn al-Haytham: Théorie des coniques, constructions
géométriques et géométrie pratique (London, 2000); vol. 4: Ibn al-Haytham: Méthodes
géométriques, transformations ponctuelles et philosophie des mathématiques (London,
2001); vol. 5: Ibn al-Haytham: Astronomie, géométrie sphérique et trigonométrie (London,
2006).
3
Eilhard Wiedemann, ‘Über die Lage der Milchstraße nach Ibn al Haiṯam’, Sirius, 39, Heft 5
(1906): 113–15.
4
The Works of Aristotle‚ ed. William D. Ross (Oxford, 1931), vol. III: Meteorologica, trans.
Erwin W. Webster, I, 8, 345 a 25–26: ‘(2) Anaxagoras, Democritus, and their schools say
that the milky way is the light of certain stars.’ Tofigh Heidarzadeh, A History of Physical
Theories of Comets, From Aristotle to Whipple, Archimedes: New Studies in The History
and Philosophy of Science and Technology, 19 (Berlin, New York, 2008).
5
Meteorologica I, 8, 346 b 10–15.
6
Heidarzadeh, A History of Physical Theories of Comets.
THE EARLY GREAT DEBATE: ON THE MILKY WAY 3
seen through it. Similarly sceptical of Aristotle’s idea of the Milky Way as part
of the atmosphere were Philoponus (c. 490–575 AD), Ibn al-Biṭrīq (around 830
AD) and Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq (808–873 AD). Lettinck7 points out that Ibn Sīnā
(980–1037 AD) does not mention the Milky Way, when summarizing
Ptolemy’s Almagest. This fact may indeed indicate that he thought of the Milky
Way as being a truly celestial object at a very large distance from the Earth
rather than a phenomenon of the upper atmosphere.
The Arabian astronomer Ibn al-Haytham made the first systematic attempt
of searching for the Milky Way’s parallax, and he thus ‘determined that because
the Milky Way had no parallax, it was very remote from the Earth and did not
belong to the atmosphere’.8 Hence, although not being the first who thought
about the Milky Way being a celestial object,9 Ibn al-Haytham definitely had
the advantage of combining Ptolemy’s data with his own observations and
therefore covering a long baseline in time.
During and after Ibn al-Haytham’s time the discussion on the composition
and the location of the Milky Way continued. The Persian astronomer Abū
Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī (973–1048 AD) proposed the Milky Way to be ‘a collection
of countless fragments of the nature of nebulous stars’.10 The Andalusian
philosopher astronomer Ibn Bājja (1058–1138 AD) proposed that the Milky
Way was made up of many stars which almost touched one another.11 But he
considered the Milky Way as a phenomenon of both, the atmosphere and the
celestial sphere. Although Ibn Rushd (1126–1198 AD) was closer to the
meteorological interpretation12 he also attempted to find a parallax of the Milky
Way, e.g., in the constellation of Aquila. Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (1210–1274 AD,
Persian) wrote in his Tadhkira: ‘The Milky Way, i.e., the galaxy, is made up of
a very large number of small, tightly-clustered stars, which, on account of their
concentration, seem to be as cloudy patches. Because of this, it was likened to
7
Paul Lettinck, Aristotle’s Meteorology and its Reception in the Arab World, with an edition
and translation of Ibn Suwār’s Treatise on Meteorological Phenomena and Ibn Bājja’s
Commentary on the Meteorology (Leiden, 1999).
8
Wiedemann, ‘Uber die Lage der Milchstraße nach Ibn al Haiṯam’; Mohamed Mohaini, Great
Muslim Mathematicians (Skudai, 2000) pp. 49–50.
9
See Table 2.1 in A History of Physical Theories of Comets, p. 25.
10
Al-Bīrūnī, Kitāb al-Tafhīm li-awā’il ṣinā‘at al-tanjīm, The Book of Instruction in the
Elements of the Art of Astrology, translated by Robert Ramsey Wright, (London, 1934),
p. 87:
.‫ﳎﻤﻮﻉ ﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻨﺲ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﺴﺤﺎﺑﻴ"ﺔ‬
11
Josep Puig Montada, ‘Ibn Bājja’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Retrieved 2008-07-
11).
12
Heidarzadeh, A History of Physical Theories of Comets, p. 27. See also Hossein Masoumi
Hamedani, ‘La voie lactée: Ibn al-Haytham et Ibn Rushd’, in Ahmad Hasnawi (ed.), La
lumière de l’intellect. La pensée scientifique et philosophique d’Averroès dans son temps
(Leuven, 2011), pp. 39–62.
4 ANDREAS ECKART
milk in color’.13 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292–1350 AD) proposed the Milky
Way galaxy to be ‘a myriad of tiny stars packed together in the sphere of the
fixed stars’.14
During the Renaissance in Europe, telescopes allowed researchers to
separate the Galaxy’s ‘milk’ into individual stars. This was first documented by
Galileo Galilei (c. 1564–1642 AD). Friedrich Wilhelm Herschel (1738–1822
AD) attempted a first determination of the shape of the Milky Way as deduced
from star counts in 1785.15
In the following a detailed analysis of Ibn al-Haytham’s text is presented in
section 2. In section 3 it is discussed what Ibn al-Haytham could and did
actually observe. Then, in section 4, these findings are embedded into the
scientific and historical development of our knowledge on the nature of the
Milky Way as it was gathered in the time following Ibn al-Haytham. This
includes an evaluation of a translation of his text in the early 20th century. The
paper concludes with a critical translation of Ibn al-Haytham’s text on the
location of the Galaxy in Appendix I. In Appendix II we give the full Arabic
text of Ibn al-Haytham’s work on the Galaxy based on the Leiden version with
some changes derived from the comparison to the Selimiye and Tehran copies
of the text.
In Tab. 1 we give an outline of Ibn al-Haytham’s text. In the third column
we give the location of the section in the Leiden copy of the text. For the
approximate beginning and end of the sections the numbers indicate the page
and line numbers separated by a dot.
13
Jamil Ragep, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī: Memoir on Astronomy (al-Tadhkira fī ‘ilm al-hay’a),
Edition, Translation, Commentary and Introduction, Sources in the History of Mathematics
and Physical Sciences no. 12, 2 vols. (New York, 1993), p. 128; Arabic p. 129, 19–21:
‫ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺻﻐﺎﺭ ﻣﺘﻘﺎﺭﺑﺔ ﻣﺘﺸﺎﺑﻜﺔ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﺟﺪ>ﺍ ﺻﺎﺭﺕ‬،‫ﺠﺮ"ﺓ‬H ‫ ﺃﻋﲏ ﺍ ﹶﳌ‬،‫ﻨﻴ"ﺔ‬H‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﹶﻠﺒ‬
.‫ﻬﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﱭ ﻟﻮﻧ>ﺎ‬H‫ ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺷ]ﺒ‬،‫ﺎ ﻟﻄﺨﺎﺕ ﺳﺤﺎﺑﻴﺔ‬T‫ﻣﻦ ﺗﻜﺎﺛﻔﻬﺎ ﻭﺻﻐﺮﻫﺎ ﻛﺄ‬
14
John W. Livingston, ‘Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah: a fourteenth century defense against
astrological divination and alchemical transmutation’, Journal of the American Oriental
Society, 91.1 (1971): 96–103, p. 99.
15
William Herschel, Esq. F.R.S., ‘[XII.] On the construction of the heavens’ (Read February
3, 1785), Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. 75 (1785): 213–
66; reprinted in: Scientific Papers (Dreyer 1912), vol. I, pp. 223–59.
Section Content Location

I Title and author of contribution 1.1–1.4
II Abstract 1.5–1.10
III Comparison to the parallax of the Moon 1.11–1.15
IV When would a parallax of the Galaxy occur? 1.15–2.8
a) Single location on Earth, two sky locations 1.15–1.17
b) Two locations on Earth, single sky position 1.17–2.5
c) Setting of the Galaxy towards the horizon 2.5–2.8
V Reference to scholars in general 2.8–3.3
a) Comparison to the Moon 2.8–2.15
b) Galaxy positioning with respect to the stars 2.15–3.3
VI Reference to Ptolemy and the Almagest 3.3–3.7
VII Summary of Almagest on the Galaxy 3.7–3.13
VIII Comparison to Ptolemy’s data 3.13–4.9
a) From all places on Earth 3.13–3.17
b) Single night all directions in sky 3.17–4.3
c) Diversity of Ptolemy’s data 4.3–4.9
IX Appraisal of Ptolemy 4.9–4.14
X Summary 4.14–5.1
Tab. 1: Structure of Ibn al-Haytham’s text
2. ANALYSIS OF IBN AL-HAYTHAM’S TEXT
2.1. General structure of the text
Ibn al-Haytham presents a well organized discussion. The logical structure of

the text is summarized in Tab. 1 and very closely resembles the typical structure
of scientific publications today:16 Title and author(s) (section I), abstract
(section II), introduction (section III), observations (section IV), comparison
and analysis (section VI–VII), summary/conclusions (section X) and
acknowledgements (section IX). The complexity of the presentation is not
larger than that of the related texts of Aristotle or Ptolemy as they are quoted
and used in Ibn al-Haytham’s work and Wiedemann’s comments.
16
Despite of that structure Wiedemann calls the line of thoughts (‘Gedankengang’) circuitous
(‘umständlich’) and the presentation of the material as very broad (‘die Breite der
Darstellung’). He does so not only for this particular text but also for Ibn al-Haytham’s work
on optics, on the translation of which Wiedemann was very active.
6 ANDREAS ECKART
2.2. How are the Arabic manuscripts linked?
The Leiden copy of Ibn al-Haytham’s text on the location of the Galaxy is
written in a well readable Naskh style writing. The Leiden copy is listed in the
Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden under the archive number MS Or. 184/10.17
There is only one copy in the Leiden collection, first translated into German by
E. Wiedemann at the University of Erlangen in 1906. There is no date given in
numbers or writing. The text of Ibn al-Haytham on the location of the Galaxy
is part of a compendium (in the following meant as a ‘bound collection of
essays’) that contains several educative texts on a variety of topics. The
(second) front page of the compendium lists the contents including Ibn al-
Haytham’s text. The different texts in the compendium are mostly written
consecutively on the available paper (also Ibn al-Haytham’s text contains a
section of a following text), such that it can be assumed that the text copies
were compiled together and are potentially of similar origin or age. The
compendium is marked with the ACAD:LVGD stamp, with which all books
and manuscripts of the Leiden University Library collection are marked since
the time of Daniel Heinsius (1580–1655 AD).
Although no explicit date is given for this compendium, one finds a second
stamp depicting an eagle holding a snake in its beak with a text above it. This
stamp can be seen in several manuscripts of the orientalists Jacob Golius (1596–
1667 AD) and possibly Levinus Warner (c. 1618–1665 AD).18 The same size
seal marks text no. 150 in MS Or. 1228 (the snake, however, cannot be seen
clearly and the eagle can only be identified through the relative locations of the
head, wing and body sections).19 However, in the Leiden text MS Or. 198 we
can clearly identify the same stamp with the same text on top, probably pointing
at a former owner of the manuscript: Ṣāḥibuhu Muḥammad ʿAlī.20 Here, stamp
and writing have the same quality as in the compendium containing Ibn al-
Haytham’s text. Hence, Ibn al-Haytham’s text most likely entered the Leiden
collection in the early 17th century and is potentially even older than that.
The Selimiye copy is written in a Persian Nastaleeq style script and is part of
a book that is registered in the Selimiye Library inventory in Erdine, with the
number of 713/16. It was given to the library by Celebi Mustafa Pasha in 1806
AD (1221 AH). No date can be found on the book (private communication,
Musa Öncel). Celebi Mustafa Pasha was an Ottoman Grand Vizier from June
1807 to July 1808 and the donation to the collection shows that the text had a
17
Petrus Voorhoeve, Codices Manuscripti: Handlist of Arabic Manuscripts, Band 7 von
Codices Manuscripti (Dordrecht, 2014), and private communication, J.A.N. Frankhuizen.
18
See Jan Just Witkam, Inventory of the Oriental Manuscripts of the Library of the University
of Leiden, vol. 1: Manuscripts Or. 1–Or. 1000 (Leiden, 2006, 2007); vol. 2, manuscripts Or.
1001–Or. 2000 (Leiden, 2006, 2007).
19
Ibid., vol. 2.
20
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 85.
certain value for him. The Tehran version of the text is written in a style closer
to Naskh than a Persian Nastaleeq style. This copy is the 9th of 21 essays in a
compendium belonging to the Literature Faculty of the University of Tehran
which is now kept at its central library (private communication, Dr. Susan
Asili). The text has been written in the early 19th century. The copyist as well
as the exact date, however, are not known. This Tehran manuscript has been
dedicated through Hajj Ibrahim Gazvini and the date of the endowment is 1822
AD (1238 AH). In the first folio of the compendium there are two seals:
1. Mohammad Jafar Ibn Alinaghi and 2. Mohammad Ibrahim Ibn Mohammad
Taghi 1813 AD (1229 AH) who have been owners of the document.
Some differences between the text versions occur at the beginning. Here, the
Bismillah, further appraisals, as well as the first two sentences found in the
Leiden text occur in a different order:
Leiden: Bismillah, 1st sentence, 2nd sentence
Selimiye: 1st sentence, Bismillah, appraisal, 2nd sentence
Tehran: appraisal, Bismillah, 2nd sentence, 1st sentence, appraisal
The Leiden version represents the simplest and shortest version of this
arrangement. In this text version the Bismillah and the first two sentences are
written in a centered text block that has the same line separation but a 20%
smaller line width compared to the remaining text.
The Selimiye and Tehran versions represent more decorated versions of the
text, with the Tehran version even showing an artistic arrangement of the first
few words (see first footnote in the translation). The appraisals at the end of the
texts are also all different.
One may compare corrective annotations by the copyist that have been
written at the side of the text or above the lines. There is only one of these
annotations in the Leiden version. The Selimiye and the Tehran copy comprise
5 to 6 of them.
Excepting the differences and the absence of diacritic points (a very large
number of which is missing in the Selimiye text) one can also compare the
number of differences (added or missing words, syllables, grammatical forms)
with respect to the Leiden version. For both the Selimiye and the Tehran version
one finds about 20-25 differences. Excluding for all three versions the first 5%
and the last 1% of the text (that contains the appraisals) then the agreement of
the main text body in word count and order is about 97%. This means that the
main body of all texts is almost identical, and the small differences do not at all
any harm to the content or the understanding of it. A few interesting examples
can be given for these differences between the texts:
D1: Section [Va] of the text says that all scholars agreed on the fact that
whenever the Moon comes closer to the Earth, its parallax will become
greater. The text tries to be very explicit on it and in order to remove any
8 ANDREAS ECKART
possible doubt on the direction of motion both the Selimiye and Tehran texts
say: ‘to the Earth from the Moon’. Here, the Leiden text says: ‘to the Earth
from the Earth’ which does not make sense in this context. For this statement
the Leiden version obviously does not fulfill the desired intention of a
precise description and that particular piece of text represents most likely an
inaccuracy in the copying process.
D2: In section [VI] of the text the reader is informed about the fact that Ptolemy
explained the state of the Galaxy in the Almagest. In the Tehran version the
word for Galaxy appears twice whereas the second world should be
‘Almagest’. This obvious error has then been corrected by the copyist.
D3: At the end of section [VII] we find an interesting example of a possible
misplacing of a diacritic point: Here, it is described how Ptolemy prepared
his observational data for publication. Both the Leiden and the Tehran text
say: that after he recorded it and ‘made it eternal’ (written with a letter ‫ﺧـ‬
‘khāʾ’: with the diacritic point on top of the letter; khalladahu, see footnote
to the translation). In the Selimiye version we find: He recorded it and
‘bound it as a book in leather’ (written with a letter ‫‘ ﺟـ‬jīm’: jalladahu, with
the diacritic point below the letter). Since all three versions of Ibn al-
Haytham’s text are copies of other texts (or the original), it is unclear what
the original text says. While at several positions the text mentions long time
spans (e.g. sections [VIIIc] and [Vb]), nothing is said about eternity. Long
time intervals are always mentioned in the context of observations and not
in the context of the eternal duration of information. The text discusses,
however, that the positions of the stars were compiled and written down in
the Almagest (e.g. in sections [VI] and [IX]). It is also entirely possible that
Ibn al-Haytham has indeed seen a copy of the Almagest in the form of a
bound book.21
In all cases it appears that the text copies were produced rather quickly and that
complicated statements or non-Arabic words sometimes were misread or
replaced by something similar in meaning or script. In almost all cases this was
then detected and corrected either – as it seems – by the copyist himself or
potentially by a second more experienced person.
It is a priori unclear which copy precedes the other, however, the Selimiye
and Tehran copies appear to be a rather more recent versions of the text that
21
As described by Don Baker in his work on ‘The golden age of Islamic bookbinding’
([Jeddah, 1984], pp. 13–15, at p. 13) the Arabs produced books sewn with silk and bound in
leather. Sahl ibn Bishr al-Isrā’īlī (c. 786–845? AD) is believed to be the first who translated
Ptolemy’s Almagest into Arabic (see e.g. Bernard R. Goldstein, ‘Astronomy and the Jewish
community in early Islam’, Aleph, 1 [2001]: 17–57). Hence, it is likely that the original
version of the text of Ibn al-Haytham on the location of the Galaxy indeed describes the fact
that he saw the Almagest as a bound book.
were donated to the corresponding libraries almost at the same time (around
1806–1822 AD). It therefore appears to be unlikely that they are copies of each
other. The Leiden copy is by far the least decorated version containing the
smallest amount of appraisals in the beginning and at the end of the text. It
appears that it is a version that has not been dedicated in the same way to an
existing collection as the Selimiye and Tehran copies. The less decorated style
may point at the fact that it has been copied either to replace an existing copy
or to extend and complete an existing collection, i.e., not necessarily given as a
donation or given without a special dedication. As the Leiden text entered the
collection probably in the early 17th century, and if we assume that the Selimiye
and Tehran copies may have been generated shortly before they have been
donated to their corresponding collections, it then appears to be unlikely that
the Leiden text is a template for the Selimiye and Tehran copies. It can,
however, not be excluded that the three manuscripts are linked through a
common previous version of the text. In Fig. 1 we show how the texts including
their translations may be related to each other.
Fig. 1: Relation of the manuscripts use in this comparison with the original text and
the present effort of a combined translation
10 ANDREAS ECKART
2.3. Hint for dating the original text
It is also interesting to note that in three books in which Ibn al-Haytham refers
to Ptolemy’s Almagest he vehemently criticizes him.22 Several works by Ibn al-
Haytham speak already about ‘doubts’ concerning Ptolemy’s work in their
titles.23 Here, in this work on the Milky Way, he is full of appraisals and positive
words on Ptolemy. When he mentions ‘suspicions’ in his context in section [VI]
he says first that he is the one ‘who clearly points out the truth’ and it appears
that the ‘suspicions’ are meant as ‘methodical suspicions’ i.e. cautiousness at
work. He describes him as a wise and responsible person. He says that ‘Ptolemy
is not one of those that put their work at risk by handling their observational
results or their interpretations with levity’ (section [IX]).
Also he looks upon Ptolemy as an honorable man: ‘If he had found a parallax
to the Milky Way he would have certainly mentioned that in his work’ (section
[IX]). This may be discussed in the context of when Ibn al-Haytham wrote this
text on the location of the Galaxy. On the one hand he already mentions in his
text the parallax of the Moon and Ptolemy’s results on that. On the other hand,
after enthusiastically criticizing Ptolemy’s work it is hard to believe that he had
only positive words for him during or after the time interval between 1028 and
1038. The Resolution of Doubts concerning the Almagest was completed after
1028.24 At that time he had already worked on the winding motion of the Moon
on which he had also expressed doubts on Ptolemy’s work. Other treatises that
deal with doubts on Ptolemy’s work were all written between 1028 and 1038.25
This indicates that his work on the location of the Galaxy could have been
written around or before 1028 and therefore can probably be considered as one
of Ibn al-Haytham’s earlier works in Astronomy.
2.4. Ibn al-Haytham’s case
The text centers around the idea that the distance of the Milky Way is larger
than the distance to the Moon. Only once, at the beginning of the text (section
[III]) the distances are mentioned in relation to the ‘half diameter’ of the Earth.
This is the standard unit of measurement in Arabic texts on the sizes and
distances of the celestial bodies.26
The fact that observational, astronomical, or mathematical facts are not
explained in greater detail may point at the possible existence of a more
explanatory original text. However, in its style the Leiden version may be closer
22
Rashed, ‘The celestial kinematics of Ibn al-Haytham’, p. 11.
23
Ibid., pp. 9–10.
24
Ibid., p. 10.
25
Ibid., p. 10.
26
E.g. Johannes H. Kramers, Analecta Orientalia, Posthumous Writings and Selected Minor
Works (Leiden, 1954), vol. II, p. 202.
to the original, since the brevity of the text has great advantages: One can
quickly read it, one can easily copy it, it is a great source for educative
discussions and explanations, and hence, it can be learned by heart very
efficiently. Learning a text by heart was a much favored way of comprehending
it in those days.
In Fig. 2 we highlight what the argument is that Ibn al-Haytham puts forward
to support his statement that the Milky Way is not a phenomenon of the
atmosphere, but that it is at least as distant as the Moon and probably even much
further away. Fig. 2 shows observational configurations described by Ibn al-
Haytham. The dashed line indicates the presence and amount of a parallax. The
thick black arrows indicate the assumed motion of the Galaxy as an atmospheric
object.
Fig. 2: Observational configurations described by Ibn al-Haytham

Fig. 2ab shows what one expects for a single observer and a star seen close to
the line of sight towards the Milky Way as an atmospheric phenomenon at three
different times t1 to t3 (section [IVa]). In Fig. 2a an essential parallax can be
measured. If no parallax happens to be measured, then the Galaxy needs to
move at an increasingly large speed if it gets to increasingly larger distances
with respect to the observer. In Fig. 2b a parallax is seen if the Galaxy is closer
to the observer than the stars and sets towards the horizon (section [IVc]). In
order to show no parallax in this case, the angular velocity of the Milky Way
with respect to the observer must be the same as that of the background stars.
In addition (as in the case for Fig. 2a), it also needs to have the same field
rotation as the section of the sky it is seen against. In that case, however, the
Milky Way (as an atmospheric object) is setting and must move to an
12 ANDREAS ECKART
increasingly smaller height above the ground as time goes by. However, in both
cases (Fig. 2ab) this will only result in a parallax free observation for a single
observer at one location. For all other locations a parallax will be observed.
Hence, these situations – and therefore the presence of a parallax – can be
excluded.
Fig. 2cd shows a star seen close to the Milky Way from two view points far
away from one another. Fig. 2c shows the situation for two observers separated
by a large distance from each other (section [IVb]). If the Galaxy is close, then
the line of sight towards the same star will penetrate it at different locations,
leading to the detection of a parallax. The absence of a parallax with respect to
distant stars as expected for an atmospheric structure (Fig. 2abc) led Ibn al-
Haytham to the conclusion that the Milky Way is at a large distance as shown
in Fig. 2d.
It is interesting to note that Ibn al-Haytham did not mention the possibility
put forward by Olympiodorus the Younger, that the colors of planets must
change as they pass through the Milky Way, under the assumption that the
Milky Way is a phenomenon of the upper atmosphere.27 This is a rather strong
argument and as an optician Ibn al-Haytham would certainly have used and
elaborated on it. This indicates that he did not know about it. But this fact then
also implies that he did not know of Olympiodorus’ inclination towards a
parallax of the Milky Way, and therefore gives a higher value to the originality
of Ibn al-Haytham’s evaluation of the problem.
2.5. Can the Galaxy have a distance to the Earth?
For Ibn al-Haytham that question could be answered easily. On the one hand
he was defeating the theory of the Galaxy as an atmospheric phenomenon – and
a cloud clearly has a distance to the observer. On the other hand he found that
the Galaxy is at a greater distance than that of the Moon (or in fact the sphere
of the Moon) and this sphere clearly has a distance to the Earth and the observer.
It is interesting to note that Ibn al-Haytham did not attribute a dedicated sphere
to the Galaxy, as was done later by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (see introduction).
In the present text by Ibn al-Haytham he only derives a limit on the distance
and does not clearly state at which distance the Milky Way is, or what sphere it
is located in.
From today’s point of view the situation is more complicated. We know that
the entire solar system is part of the Milky Way, and embedded well within it.
Although it is conceptually difficult to understand the distance to something
that encloses you, this concept is often used in modern research. As an example:
Depending on the exact shape of the stellar distribution and the radius of
influence of the super massive black hole (SMBH) at the center of the Milky
27
Heidarzadeh, A History of Physical Theories of Comets; see section 1.
Way28 scientists determine the inner radii of the central stellar cluster. In this
case this corresponds to the statistical distance of the SMBH to the closest
members of the surrounding stellar cluster. Similarly, if we speak of the
distance to the Milky Way, we mean (as Ibn al-Haytham did) the distance to
the milky appearance of it, i.e., to the multitude of stars which appear
unresolved on the accessible angular scales. The distance to these entities
depends on the section of the Milky Way and amounts to anything ranging
between several hundred light years and a few thousand light years. The Earth’s
distance to the center of the Milky Way is about 27.4 thousand light years.29
2.6. Describing details of Ibn al-Haytham’s observations
Wiedemann has pointed out that there is an inconsistency in Ibn al-Haytham’s

summary of Ptolemy’s description of the location of the Milky Way in the sky.
Ptolemy lists in text form bright stars that are close to edges of the Milky Way
with distances to the diffuse ‘milk’ of the Galaxy. These angular distances are
given in steps of 12 degree (the unit is τµήµα which equals the 360 1 part of a full
circle, i.e., one degree). In Tabs. 2 and 330 one can look at a list of these stars
(extracted from Ptolemy’s work) including their currently quoted magnitudes,
proper motions, and distances. Ibn al-Haytham says (in exactly the following
sequence of numbers) that in Ptolemy’s work separations of 1, 12 and 2 degrees
are listed (section [VII]). In a footnote Wiedemann states that the separation of
1
2 degree is not mentioned in Ptolemy’s text and Ibn al-Haytham is wrong.
However, having a close look at both the translation31 and an edition of the
28
E.g., Andreas Eckart, Rainer Schödel, Christian Straubmeier, The Black Hole at the Center
of the Milky Way (London, 2005); Clovis Hopman and Tal Alexander, ‘The effect of mass
segregation on gravitational wave sources near massive black holes’, The Astrophysical
Journal, 645 (2006): L133–L136.
29
Marzieh Parsa, et al., ‘Investigating the Relativistic Motion of the Stars Near the
Supermassive Black Hole in the Galactic Center’ (2017), Astophysical Journal 845, 22;
Anna Boehle, et al., ‘An improved distance and mass estimate for Sgr A* from a multistar
orbit analysis’ (2016), Astrophysical Journal 830, 17.
30
Floor van Leeuwen, ‘Validation of the new Hipparcos reduction’, Astronomy and
Astrophysics, 474.2 (November 2007): 653–64; Bernard Nicolet, ‘Catalogue of
homogeneous data in the UBV photoelectric photometric system’, Astronomy and
Astrophysics, Supplement Series 34 (October 1978): 1–49; SIMBAD Astronomical
Database as implemented by the Strasbourg astronomical Data Center (CDS) supported by,
e.g., Centre National d’Études Spatiales, the European Space Agency and the European
Southern Observatory.
31
Ptolemy’s Almagest, translated and annoted by Gerald J. Toomer, with a forword by by
Owen Gingerich (London, 1984; repr. Princeton 1998); Christian Heinrich Friedrich Peters
and Edward Ball Knobel, Ptolemy’s Catalogue of Stars, A Revision of the Almagest;
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication no. 86 (Washington, 1915).
14 ANDREAS ECKART
original text32 of the Almagest one finds that indeed the star χAurigae (star
XII12 in Toomer’s translation) is listed as being within 12 degree of the south-
western edge of the Milky Way. However, this quantity is not written in ancient
Greek letter numbers, but spelled out in a word as ἡµιµοιρὶω (ἡµι-µοιρὶω,
meaning ‘half part’).
Ptolemy also lists a star with a distance of 2 12 degrees from the Milky Way.
Here, again, 2 12 is not written in ancient Greek numbers but spelled out as δυσὶ
καὶ ἡµίσει meaning ‘two and one half’. This star is not mentioned in Ibn al-
Haytham’s work. One can think of several reasons to explain this. Ibn al-
Haytham may simply have forgotten to mention it, or maybe the original text
contained the value of 2 12 but the information was lost during the copying
process. The most likely reason, however, is that he did not mention it, because
this value has been attributed to a single object only, δ Monocerotis (star
XXXVIII19 in Toomer’s translation), and does not help to support his
statement. The value of 2 12 degrees corresponds to about 5 times the diameter
of the Moon. Hence, it is not useful for the discussion of a hypothetical parallax
of the Milky Way and it is much larger than typical parallaxes discussed in
connection to the Moon.
3. WHAT COULD AND DID IBN AL-HAYTHAM OBSERVE?
3.1. The achievable and required accuracy
In the first half of his text Ibn al-Haytham describes what one can observe and
how one can draw conclusions from observations about the location of the
Milky Way (section [IV]). As he has written several treatises on observational
astronomical topics33 and as he was a great optician, one can safely assume that
he indeed carried out observations and compared his results to the data provided
by Ptolemy. However, at the time of Ibn al-Haytham, Ptolemy’s observations
dated back at least some 900 years. Half a degree, or 30 minutes of arc,
corresponds approximately to the angular size of the Moon or the Sun in the
sky. If one stretches out one arm this corresponds to about half the angular
diameter of a finger. In order to clearly separate angular values by 12 degree
one needs to have a relative measurement precision of about one fifth of that,
32
Johan L. Heiberg, Claudii Ptolemaei, Opera quae exstant omnia, Vol. 1: Syntaxis
Mathematica, pars II (Leipzig, 1898), pp. 170–9.
33
E.g., On Seeing the Stars, On the Light of Stars, On the Light of the Moon, and The Motion
of the Moon (see e.g., Rashed, ‘The celestial kinematics of Ibn al-Haytham’).
i.e., 6 arcminutes or 0.1 degree.34 The angular resolution of the human eye is
about one arcminute if one tries to separate point sources, like stars. Effectively
it is a few arcminutes for faint or diffuse sources like the edges of the Milky
Way. This value is rather compatible with the value of 0.1 degree and implies
that the observational accuracy provided by the unaided eye is fully adequate
to measure the distances of stars to the edge of the Milky Way.
This compares also well to quantitative estimates of the precision reached in
Ptolemy’s data. For the absolute positional accuracy of Ptolemy’s catalogue
Shevchenko35 finds systematic and statistical errors of the order of one degree.
Eichhorn36 finds uncertainties for ecliptic latitudes and longitudes in Ptolemy’s
catalogue of 0.58 and 0.37 degrees, respectively. Brandt, Zimmer and Jones37
compare modern positions translated into Ptolemy’s time and find declination
errors of only about 0.1 degrees. Since, in comparable situations, the relative
uncertainties are usually always well below the absolute uncertainties, it is
therefore save to assume that both Ptolemy and Ibn al-Haytham could
determine the relative positional differences between bright edges of the Milky
Way and bright stars to within about a tenth of a degree. This relative precision
can clearly be reached using a mechanical device (i.e. a measuring stick) or
even the angular diameter of the tip of a thin, small finger seen at an arm’s
length.
Fig. 3: Estimating the distance to the Milky Way. The angles are shown magnified but
we assume the small angle approximation tan(α) ~ α.
34 1°
I.e., in modern terms this corresponds to a 5σ precision for 2
and a 10σ precision for 1°
(i.e., the bulk of the data listed in Tabs. 2 and 3) under the assumption of a normal distribution
of uncertainties.
35
Mykola Shevchenko, ‘An analysis of errors in the Star Catalogues of Ptolemy and Ulugh-
Beg’, Journal for the History of Astronomy, 21. 2 (May 1990): 187–201.
36
Heinrich Eichhorn, Astronomy of Star Positions, A Critical Investigation of Star Catalogues,
the Methods of their Construction, and their Purposes (New York, 1974).
37
John C. Brandt, Peter Zimmer, Patricia B. Jones, ‘Declinations in the Almagest: accuracy,
epoch, and observers’, Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage, 17 (2014): 326–38.
16 ANDREAS ECKART
Tab. 2: Ptolemy’s stars with given distances to the Galaxy

Magnitudes and current names were taken from Toomer’s translation of Ptolemy’s
Almagest. For stars XL31,35,36 magnitudes and current names have been taken from
translation by Peters & Knobel, Ptolemy’s Catalogue of Stars. Proper motions and
distances have been taken from van Leeuwen, ‘Validation of the new Hipparcos
reduction’. Apparent Magnitudes are from Nicolet, ‘Catalogue of homogeneous data’
and the SIMBAD catalogue.
Tab. 3: Ptolemy’s stars touching the Galaxy
In Fig. 3 we show that with a measurement uncertainty of 0.1 degree and no

detection of a change in relative positions between the stars listed by Ptolemy
and the edges of the Milky Way, the Galaxy can be placed at a distance of at
least five times the distance of the Moon. Dividing the necessary accuracy of
0.1 degree by 900 years which is the approximate time span between Ptolemy
and Ibn al-Haytham, this results in an upper limit of stellar proper motions the
stars are allowed to have in order to still let them appear to be located at the
same positions as provided in Ptolemy’s text (Almagest, Book VIII, section 2).
This proper motion value is of the order of 0.4 arcsecond per year for Ibn al-
Haytham’s time. With the only exception of the two closest stars, αCentauri
and 36(A)Ophiuchi, the total proper motion (adding the contributions in right
ascension and declination in square) of all stars in Tabs. 2 and 3 are well below
that value. Hence, within these uncertainties, the comparison that Ibn al-
Haytham performed was possible and absolutely valid.
3.2. Verifying the observational results today
Over a time span of 2000 years the limit in proper motion is of the order of 0.2
arcsecond per year which is also fulfilled by the bulk of stars in Tabs. 2 and 3.
Hence, we can still today investigate what Ibn al-Haytham observed in his time.
Fig. 4 shows the Constellation Auriga and Scorpius as retrieved via SkyView.38
The figures show the brightest stars in that constellation in relation to the Milky
Way. In this negative image the Milky Way is shown in gray. In the case of the
constellation Auriga Fig. 4 shows contour lines of constant surface brightness
delimiting the Galaxy’s circumference. In the case of Scorpius lines at two
surface brightness levels are shown. In all images the stars lie at about the same
surface brightness offset (a bit below one magnitude per resolution element)
with respect to the reference background, off the brighter Milky Way close to
them. The angular resolution of the images as well as the averaging kernel used
for plotting the contour lines result in images with an angular resolution close
to that of the human eye (see above).
Both regions shown in Fig. 4 refer to cases mentioned by Ptolemy (Tabs. 2
and 3) and Ibn al-Haytham (section [III]). The stars from Ptolemy’s description
are indicated by a thick black or white arrow. The separations of the stars from
the Galaxy are labeled by a black or white bar. The constellation Auriga
includes the star χAur as the closest star to the Milky Way in Ptolemy’s listing.
°
The two stars κAur and χAur have a separation of about 1° and 12 from the
edge of the Milky Way. Towards the constellation Scorpius the star τSco is
located about 1° from the eastern edge of the Milky Way. The star ηSco lies
‘between the milk’ and is located about 1° from the eastern edge and a bit more
from the western, inner edge which is less well defined – but in this case
Ptolemy is also not specific about the exact distances. Here, it needs to be
mentioned that this particular region in Scorpius is very difficult to be observed
from the northern hemisphere.
38
Using Axel Mellinger’s Milky Way Panorama as implemented under the SkyView Virtual
Observatory, a service of the Astrophysics Science Division at NASA/ GSFC and the High
Energy Astrophysics Division of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO).
18 ANDREAS ECKART
Fig. 4: Top: Constellation Auriga towards the Galactic anti-center.

Bottom: Constellation Scorpius.
In Alexandria and Cairo, where Ptolemy and Ibn al-Haytham stayed for most
of their lives, the largest elevation above the horizon of the ηSco region is only
about 16°, i.e. a bit more than the angular width of a fist held at an arms length.
So close to the horizon especially faint and extended objects are difficult to
observe. However, most of the stars Ptolemy and Ibn al-Haytham were
interested in, are located at much higher elevations during their culmination.
Fig. 4 demonstrates that there is indeed a surface brightness contour at
similar offsets with respect to the free reference regions nearby, from which the
stars κAur, χAur, ηSco and τSco can be found at about the distances from the
Galaxy mentioned by Ptolemy and Ibn al-Haytham. This implies that with a
well adapted eye these measurements can be done repeatedly with the same
accuracy.
3.3. The concept of proper motions
Ibn al-Haytham’s task is not trivial. He has to take into account that the Moon’s
°
diameter is only about 12 . He refers to the lunar parallax and needs to conclude
that the Milky Way is much further away than the Moon (section [III] and [V]).
Most stars listed in the Almagest have a separation of about 1° from the Milky
Way’s edge – i.e., about twice the diameter of the Moon (section [VII]). Only
°
a single star is as close as 12 . While the separations between the stars and the
°
edges of the Milky Way are given in multiples of 12 , this means that even with
two observers at two different locations (from which the solar occultations
appear to be full and partial at the same time; section [V]) it is difficult to claim
that the Milky Way is further away from the Earth than the Moon.
Basically the only and also the most convincing way of showing this, is the
involvement of time and hereby the concept of proper motion. This is also the
reason for Ibn al-Haytham to refer to the fact that Ptolemy did not quote a
parallax of the Milky Way and that this can only be justified by the fact that it
must have taken him a long time to compile the data for his description of the
star close to the edges of the Galaxy. Ibn al-Haytham makes a clear statement
on the fact that the position of the stars have not changed since the time of
Ptolemy (section [VIIIa]) and that the stars did not ‘depart’ from their places
(section [Vb]). Of course, as we know today, this statement is only true to first
order, given the limited precision of the measurements in former times.
Nevertheless, one may state that Ibn al-Haytham anticipated the concept of
stellar proper motions (although in the sense of their absence, and although he
calls them fixed stars in section III and IVac) as he considers that the positions
of the stars may have moved but are still the same as those determined by
20 ANDREAS ECKART
Ptolemy. In Europe only in the 17th century39 stellar proper motions were first
discovered and discussed by astronomers and physicists like Edmund Halley
(1656–1742 AD; using Hipparchus’ – about 190 to 120 BC data for
comparison), James Bradley (1693–1762 AD), Christian Mayer (1719–
1783 AD) and Wilhelm Herschel (1738–1822 AD).
4. NATURE OF THE MILKY WAY
4.1. The stellar nature of the Galaxy
It is interesting to note that even though Ibn al-Haytham and E. Wiedemann

mention Ptolemy (Ibn al-Haytham quotes Ptolemy intensively and Wiedemann
quotes him only in a footnote), both do not mention the fact that earlier
scientists (e.g., Democritus and Anaxagoras) had already stated that the Milky
Way consists of stars. While this may be understandable for Ibn al-Haytham as
in his text he was truly only interested in the location rather than in the
composition of the Milky Way, it is surprising for Wiedemann. In his final
paragraph Wiedemann briefly gives a summary of what ‘the ancients’ (‘die
Alten’) have thought on the nature of the Milky Way. However, he only quotes
Aristotle and ‘a few Pythagoreans’ as well as Theophrastus (about 371–287
BC), a disciple of Aristotle, on what their theories were. The theories he
mentions depict the Milky Way as a path of the Sun or see the Milky Way as a
kind of a meteor. Theophrastus’ idea of the Milky Way was that it is a gap
between two celestial spheres. However, even in the beginning of the last
century it was well known that the Milky Way consists out of stars, as it was
already general knowledge in the 17th century and supported by observations.
As an example we can take the text given in the translation of Description de
l’Univers by Alain Manesson-Mallet (1683) translated into German in 1719:
‘Beschreibung des ganzen Welt-Kreises’.40 Here, it is summarized that the
astronomers at that time agreed with Democritus, that the Milky Way is a large
association of stars. It is also stated in the same 17th/18th century compendium
that this can be shown using telescopes (‘Fern-Gläser’). Hence, even at a time
right after Galileo Galilei and just before Friedrich Wilhelm Herschel, it was
well known and accepted that the Milky Way consists out of stars – as claimed
already by the ancient astronomers.
39
James Evans, The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy (New York, Oxford, 1998);
Otto Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, 3 vols. (Berlin, Heidelberg,
New York, 1975), vol. 3, p. 1084.
40
Alain Manesson-Mallet, Beschreibung des gantzen Welt-Kreises, 5 Bände, Jung, (Franckfurt
am Mayn, 1719), Band 1: Eine deutliche Vorstellung der künstlichen und natürlichen
Sphaerae der Himmels- und Erd-Kugel, Gestirne, Lufftzeichen und der Nordländer, vol. 1,
paragraph 13, page 123.
4.2. The Early Great Debate
Unfortunately, in 1906 E. Wiedemann could not value Ibn al-Haytham’s work

properly, as he translated it too early, at a time at which the topic was not very
relevant yet. Only about one and a half decades later, in 1920, the so-called
‘Great Debate’ between Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis41 showed that the
Milky Way is just one stellar system amongst very many galaxies. At this time
Shapley (1918) had determined the approximate size of the Milky Way
measuring the distribution of globular stellar clusters around it. Opposed to
Curtis, Shapley first followed the idea that the spiral nebulae are part of the
Milky Way. However, the Great Debate was also preceded by the determination
of Doppler shifts in some of the brightest spiral nebulae by Vesto Slipher in
191242 and the detection of novae in spiral nebulae by Heber Curtis in 1917.
Both measurements showed that the spiral nebulae must be at very large
distances. These results implied that the Milky Way is most likely a stellar
island, very similar to the distant spiral galaxies. One can compare the situation
in 1920 with the one around 1000 AD. While Ibn al-Haytham showed that the
Milky Way is at a very large distance and not part of the upper atmosphere, the
first galaxies other than the Milky Way were observed by the Persian
astronomer ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ṣūfī (903–986 AD).43 He gave first records on
the Andromeda galaxy, as a ‘small cloud’ (laṭkha saḥābiyya). He also observed
the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) that is visible from Yemen. The LMC was
not found by Europeans until Magellan’s voyage to South-America in the 16th
century. Of course al-Ṣūfī could not know what he had found, since a crucial
piece of evidence was missing at that time: That is the distance to fuzzy objects
like the Andromeda galaxy and the Large Magellanic cloud.
In Fig. 5 we show how the available angular resolving power with respect to
the investigation of the nature of the Milky Way developed over the centuries.
It starts during the ancient Greek times with resolutions ranging from degrees
to discern boundaries between stellar constellations, to arcminutes to compile
stellar catalogues and determine the distances of stars to the edges of the Milky
Way. These observations were carried out with the unaided eye often supported
41
Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis, ‘The scale of the universe’, Bulletin of the National
Research Council, 2 (1921): 171–217; Harlow Shapley, ‘Globular clusters and the structure
of the galactic system’, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, vol. 30, no.
173 (1918): 42–54; Harlow Shapley, ‘On the existence of external galaxies’, Publications of
the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, vol. 31, no. 183 (1919): 261–8; Heber D. Curtis,
‘Novae in the spiral nebulae and the island universe theory, Publications of the Astronomical
Society of the Pacific, vol. 29, no. 171 (1917): 206–7.
42
Vesto M. Slipher, ‘The radial velocity of the Andromeda Nebula’, Lowell Observatory
Bulletin, 1 (1913): 56–7.
43
Description des étoiles fixes (Ṣuwar al-kawākib), Traduction Hans C. F. C. Schjellerup (St.-
Pétersbourg, 1874), pp. 118–19.
22 ANDREAS ECKART
Fig. 5: Progress in investigating the Milky Way
by mechanical devices to measure angles. Fig. 5 then shows how the era of the
unaided eye changed into the era of ground-based telescopes, leading to the
‘Great Debate’ in 1920 on the nature of the Milky Way. Here, the high angular
resolution observations could be used from arcminutes to outline extended
nebula to (first) a few arcseconds and (in more recent times) a fraction of an
arcsecond to detect, map and count galaxies at different distances as well as
stellar associations within the Milky Way. Future investigations continue to
follow this trend mainly along two paths: On the one hand astrometric satellites
like Gaia44 will measure the properties of about 1% of all 100 million Milky
Way stars. On the other hand cosmology satellites like Planck45 help to
determine the properties of the entire universe and the role the Milky Way plays
in it. The questions for an upcoming ‘New Great Debate’ are already being
asked: ‘What are the constituents of the Milky Way?’, ‘How did the Milky Way
form?’, and most importantly, ‘How unique is the Universe, the Milky Way is
part of?’.
Fig. 5 demonstrates that with his work on the distance to the Milky Way,
establishing the Galaxy as an extraterrestrial body and the widely supported
hypothesis that the Milky Way consists of densely packed stars, Ibn al-Haytham
44
Timo Prusti et al., ‘The Gaia mission’, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 595 (2016): 1–36.
45
Nazzareno Mandolesi, Carlo Burigana, Alessandro Gruppuso, Paolo Natoli, ‘The Planck
mission: recent results, cosmological and fundamental physics perspectives’, in Kjell
Rosquist et al. (ed.), Thirteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent Developments in
Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics and Relativistic Field
Theories (2015), pp. 333–51.
certainly is at the peak of the unaided-eye era of the Milky Way’s discovery.
Following the 1920’s nomenclature, one may refer to that era as ‘The Early
Great Debate’ on the nature of the Milky Way. While Ibn al-Haytham marks
the peak of this early evolution for the times before telescopes were in use in
astronomy, he is also amongst the first that discusses and uses the relative
steadiness of stellar positions in the sky, i.e., the absence of strong proper
motions. Hence, Ibn al-Haytham’s work on the location of the Galaxy is not
simply a thoroughly written traditional commentary of Ptolemy’s work, but he
used it and combined additional observational facts with it, to obtain a new
result which the reader can still verify by himself today.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the University of Cologne. Part of

this work was supported by fruitful discussions with members of the European Union
Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 312789,
Strong gravity: Probing Strong Gravity by Black Holes Across the Range of Masses.
Supported by the University of Sharjah and the German Academic Exchange Service
(DAAD), parts of the article are based on a Muqaddima to a talk given at the Sharjah
Center for Astronomy and Space Sciences (SCASS).
We are grateful to Roshdi Hifni Rashed for helpful discussions, support and
spawning the composition of this paper, J.A.N. Frankhuizen (Leiden
Universiteitsbibliotheek, The Netherlands), Musa Öncel (Selimiye Library, Erdine,
Turkey), and Susan Asili (University of Tehran, Central Library, Iran) for providing
essential information on the still existing copies of Ibn al-Haytham’s text on the
distance to the Milky Way. We also thank Kostas Markakis and Behrang Jalali (both
from the University of Cologne) for support and discussions on the topic.
APPENDIX I: CRITICAL TRANSLATION OF IBN AL-HAYTHAM’S TEXT

ON THE LOCATION OF THE GALAXY
Words added for improvement of readability are written in round and square
brackets. Words or sections added in from the Selimiye and Tehran version are
described in the footnotes. The text is separated in sections that are given in
roman numbers in square brackets. These sections have been introduced in
section 2.1 and in Tab. 1 as they represent logical entities of the Ibn al-
Haytham’s text. These sections are used for reference throughout the paper.
24 ANDREAS ECKART
[I] In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful46
Answer of Shaykh Abū ʿAlī Ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan

ibn al-Haytham
to the question of an inquirer about the Galaxy, if it is in the atmosphere
or in the firmament47
[II] You asked, supported by God, if the Galaxy is in the atmosphere or in the
firmament. The answer is that it is in the firmament and its distance from the
surface of the Earth is enormous48 in relation to half the Earth’s diameter and
enormously higher than the sphere of the Moon. The proof of it is that if the
Galaxy were in the atmosphere or at a location not very far from the surface of
the Earth, then it should have a parallax,49 [III] and its parallax should appear
relatively to the fixed stars, that are seen in it, such as the parallax of the Moon
appears in its relation to the body of the Sun50 at times of solar occultations due
to the proximity of the Moon to the surface of the Earth. In no way is there51 a
parallax of the Galaxy.
[IVa] For the parallax appears in two ways: The first of them [occurs] if one
looks from a single location on the surface of the Earth towards the Galaxy in
two different directions (locations) of the sky.
[IVb] For52 if the Galaxy is looked at from any location on the face of the
Earth and if any of the fixed stars are seen in it (in the Galaxy), then if one looks
to them53 from a different location at a large distance from the first location at
46
The Tehran version starts with a calligraphic line: Four words, written at an angle of about
45°: ‫ﻭﻗﻔﹰﺎ ﺻﺤﻴﺤ>ﺎ ﺷﺮﻋﻴ>ﺎ ﻣﻠﻴ>ﺎ‬, translated as ‘endowed, truthful, just, religious’. This may
indicate that the text is possibly a religious endowment.The Tehran text then starts with ‘Oh
gentle yourself’ followed by the second sentence of the Leiden text version (first in black
ink of the Leiden text) and then the first sentence (in red ink) of the Leiden version. The
Teheran text version then continues with ‘Ibn al-Haytham, God consecrated and came to a
unified solution on this (topic) and he said that ...’, then followed by the main body of the
text. The following text is written in red ink in the Leiden text version.
The Selimiye text starts slightly differently. Written in red, as a heading: ‘Answer to the
Question about the Galaxy for ʿAlī ibn al-Haytham’. Then, continued in black ink: ‘In the
name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful from whom we seek good success for
completeness (fulfillment); Answer of the virtuous Shaykh Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥusayn
ibn al-Haytham about ..... )’. The remainder of the Leiden text is now written in black ink.
47
jism al-samāʾ (body of the sky), translated as firmament.
48
mutafāwit, translated as enormous.
49
ikhtilāf manẓar (change in aspect), here translated as parallax.
50
jirm al-shams, figure or body of the Sun.
51
laysa yūjad bi-wajh min al-wujūh, translated as ‘In no way is there’.
52
This entire sentence is missing in Wiedemann’s translation from 1906.
53
I.e., the stars and the Galaxy.
the same time, 54 then this star is seen outside and far away55 from it [the
Galaxy].
[IVc] [One also sees a parallax]56 if one looks towards the Galaxy, while it
is in the midst of the sky, and one sees one of the fixed stars in it. If the Galaxy
then sets to the horizon, this star is then seen from this location [of the observer]
outside of the Galaxy and far from it.
[Va] The mathematicians have made this very clear that no suspicions can
be held against these two ideas. It is not right if dissent arises about them. This
is because they investigated this view point for the case in which the Moon
covered57 the Sun at the times of its occultation. Then the Sun is covered
[partially] by the Moon for some locations on the Earth and at the same time it
is completely obscured at other locations.
It is outlined by their (the mathematicians) explanation that if it were closer
from the Earth to the Moon,58 its parallax would be stronger.
[Vb] If the Galaxy is observed from all locations on Earth at all positions in
the sky and at all times there is no parallax. This means that there is not a single
star of which one sees in it (the Galaxy) a change in position relatively to the
edges of the Galaxy – and the star that one sees in it (the Galaxy) does not move
from its place away of it.
[VI] The proof which points out the truth of this matter and which leaves59
no doubt is that Ptolemy explains the state60 of the Galaxy in the book
Almagest.61 He gathered the locations and listed the stars you see in it (the
Galaxy) and verified the location of all stars that you see in it from its edge
(with respect to the Galaxy).
[VII] He says that for a certain62 star within the Galaxy, its distance to the
eastern and western edge of the Galaxy is one part (degree); for a different star
its distance to the edge is half a degree; for [yet] a different star its distance
from the edge is two degrees. A certain star touches the Galaxy from the eastern
and western direction. He mentioned all stars that are in the Galaxy and touch
54
fī dhālika al-waqt, translated as ‘at the same time’.
55
‘far away’ is missing in the Selimiye text.
56
wa-kadhālika, translated as ‘one also sees a parallax’.
57
min ajl sitr, meant is a partial coverage in contrast to a full coverage (kusūf).
58
Leiden version says ‘from the Earth’ but the Selimiye and Tehran versions say ‘from the
Moon’, which makes more sense (see section 2.2 for explanation).
59
Only the Selimiye text has an additional word: yusqiṭu.
60
ḥāl here translated as ‘state’ rather than ‘construction’ as in Wiedemann’s translation. The
word ‘state’ is closer to the genuine translation of the word ḥāl and implies also ‘a state in
time’, whereas ‘construction’ is more static.
61
In the Tehran version the word for Galaxy appears twice whereas the second world should
be ‘Almagest’. This has been corrected by the copyist (see comments in section 2.2).
62
The translation of al-fulānī by Wiedemann as ‘star x’ and ‘star y’ is not exact; al-fulānī is
better translated as ‘a certain’.
26 ANDREAS ECKART
the Galaxy. [Such] he recorded and wrote down all [stars] noted in his book and
immortalized it as a book.63
[VIIIa] If one looks at the Galaxy from all places on the Earth at all times,
then you see the stars that are in it always at locations determined by Ptolemy
and he showed them not to change and not to alter. If someone does the
observation64 at any time, then he finds the matter as Ptolemy mentioned it.
[VIIIb] The same is true,65 if an observer looks towards the Galaxy in a
particular night in any direction of the sky, he finds the stars that are in it (the
Galaxy) at places noted down by Ptolemy not to change and not to alter.
[VIIIc] Had the Galaxy a parallax, [then] Ptolemy would have realized it
during his observations, while he66 had observed them (the stars) for a long time
and at different points in time. Since it was not possible for him to obtain all
the positions of stars that are in it (the Galaxy) without [observing for] a long
time and at different positions in the sky. [During] the time spans he observed
them in it (the stars in the Galaxy) each night, [the Galaxy] must have changed
its position in the sky. If the Galaxy’s position in the sky had changed, then its
parallax should have been apparent for him, if it had a parallax.
[IX] Ptolemy is not one of those that put once observations and statements at
risk. If the Galaxy had a parallax, then Ptolemy would have realized that. If he
had realized some hint of a parallax of the Galaxy, he would not have
determined the positions of the stars that you see in it, but he would have noted
down a parallax, as he stated the parallax for the Moon which he explained and
laid out in detail.
[X] It became clear from what we have presented that the Galaxy has no
parallax and if it does not have a parallax, it is not in the atmosphere and is not
at a location close to the surface of the Earth. But it (the Galaxy) is above the
sphere of the Moon and at a location [very] far from the surface of the Earth.
This is what we wanted to explain about the state of the Galaxy.67
63
In the Leiden copy of the text one finds khalladahu which was translated by Wiedemann
correctly as ‘and made it eternal’. In the Selimiye copy, however, one reads jalladahu which
refers to the word jild, leather, and must therefore be translated as ‘he bound it in a book’.
64
In the Leiden and Tehran versions one finds: iʿtabara muʿtabir, translated as ‘someone does
the observation’. Selimiye: i‘tabara taghayyur, translated as ‘observed the changes’.
65
wa-dhālika.
66
All three copies say wa-huwa qad. In the Leiden copy huwa is added by the copyist in the
margin.
67
‘about the state of the Galaxy’ is missing in the Leiden version. After the word ‘explain’ in
the Leiden copy one finds the Arabic letter ‫ ﻫـ‬with a down stroke (this letter is used in
several end phrases of several texts in the Leiden compendium, and may stand for al-nihāya:
the end), and then ‘God be praise and gratitude’; instead in the Selimiye version the final
praise is ‘God knows what is right’.
‫‪THE EARLY GREAT DEBATE: ON THE MILKY WAY‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫*‬
‫‪APPENDIX II: ARABIC TEXT‬‬
‫ﺑﺴﻢ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ‬

‫ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺦ ﺃﰊ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﳊﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﺍﳊﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﺍﳍﻴﺜﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌـﺠﺮﺓ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳍﻮﺍء ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﺟﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء؟‬
‫ّ‬
‫ﺍﳌـﺠﺮﺓ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳍﻮﺍء ﺃﻡ ﰲ ﺟﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء؟‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﺳﺄﻟﺖ – ﺃﻳﺪﻙ ﺍﷲ – ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﺟﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺑُﻌﺪ‬ ‫‪٥‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺗًﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻧﺼﻒ ﻗﻄﺮ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺮ ً‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﰲ ﺍﳍﻮﺍء ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﻟﻴﺲ ﲟﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﻟﺒُﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺮﻫﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ّ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﳍﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﻭﻟﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺮ‬
‫ﺑﻘﻴﺎﺳﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺟﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﰲ ﺃﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﻛﺴﻮﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ‬ ‫‪١٠‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬

‫ّ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ‬‫ﺍﳌﻨﻈﺮ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻬﲔ‪ :‬ﺃﺣﺪﳘﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﻟﻌﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺍﳍﻴﺜﻢ ﺑﺴﻢ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺑﺴﻢ ‪. . .‬ﺍﳊﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ‪ :‬ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻋﻦ ّ‬
‫‪٢–١‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻨﻪ ﻧﺴﺄﻝ ﺣﺴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﻖ ﻟﻠﺘﺘﻤﻴﻢ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺦ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺿﻞ ﺃﰊ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﳊﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﺍﳊﺴﲔ ﺍﺑﻦ ]ﺱ[‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺑﺴﻢ ‪. . .‬ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ :‬ﺑﺴﻢ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ ﻋﻮﻧﻚ ﻳﺎ ﻟﻄﻴﻒ ﺳﺄﻟﺖ ﺃﻳﺪﻙ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻦ ّ‬
‫‪٥–١‬‬
‫ﻫﻞ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳍﻮﺍء ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﺟﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺦ ﺃﰊ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﳊﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﺍﳊﺴﲔ ﺑﻦ ﺍﳍﻴﺜﻢ‬
‫ﻗﺪﺱ ﺍﷲ ﺭﻭﺣﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﻭﻫﻮ ]ﺕ[ ‪ ٤‬ﺃﻡ ‪ :‬ﺍﻭ ]ﺕ‪،‬ﻝ[ ‪ ٥‬ﻫﻮ ‪ :‬ﻧﺎﻗﺼﺔ ]ﻝ[‬ ‫ﻗﺪ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺑﺘﺔ ‪:‬‬ ‫‪٩‬‬ ‫‪ ٦‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ]ﺕ‪،‬ﺱ‪،‬ﻝ[ ﻗﻄﺮ ‪ :‬ﰲ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ]ﺕ[ ﻭﻟﻈﻬﺮ ‪ :‬ﻭﺍﻇﻬﺮ ]ﺱ[‬
‫‪٨‬‬ ‫‪٦‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ‪ :‬ﺃﺿﺎﻑ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﰲ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻪ‪> :‬ﻣﻮﺿﻌﲔ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﲔ‬ ‫ّ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺑﺔ ]ﺕ[ ‪ ١٠‬ﺟﺮﻡ ‪ :‬ﺣﺮﺭ ]ﺕ[ ‪١٢‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ< ]ﻡ[‬
‫*‬
‫‪MSS Leiden, Or. 184/10 fols. 87r–89r‬‬ ‫‪]; Tehran, Danishka 15, fol.‬ﻝ[‬ ‫‪37v-38r‬‬ ‫‪]; Edirne,‬ﺕ[‬
‫‪Selimiye 713/11‬‬ ‫‪]; cf. Hossein Masoumi Hamedani, L’optique et la physique céleste: L’œuvre‬ﺱ[‬
‫‪optico-cosmologique d’Ibn al-Haytham, thèse Université Paris 7, 2 vols. (Paris, 2006), vol. I,‬‬
‫‪pp. 119–22‬‬ ‫‪].‬ﻡ[‬
‫‪Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Syracuse University Libraries, on 13 May 2018 at 08:28:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,‬‬
‫‪available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0957423917000078‬‬
‫‪28‬‬ ‫‪ANDREAS ECKART‬‬
‫ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﲔ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء؛ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ّ‬
‫]ﻝ–‪٨٧‬ﻅ[ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﺭﺃﻯ ]ﺱ–‪٢‬ﻭ[‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﻮﻛﺒًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺑﺘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺎ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻛﺐ‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﰲ ﻭﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ّ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ً‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻓﻖ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺭﺃﻯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﻮﻛﺒًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺑﺘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺻﺎﺭﺕ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ً‬
‫ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺎ ﻋﻦ ّ‬
‫ً‬ ‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻛﺐ ﻳﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻊ‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﻨﻴﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻴّﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﺑﻴﺎﻧًﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﺿﻪ ﺷﻲء ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻳﺼﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺼﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺒﻬﺎﺕ ﻭﻻ ّ‬
‫‪١٠‬‬ ‫ﺃﺟﻞ ﺳﺘﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﰲ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻛﺴﻮﻓﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﺗﺴﺘﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻤﺮ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﺗﻨﻜﺴﻒ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﺃﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺘﺒﲔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻗﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﺕ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﳍﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻋﲏ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ‬
‫‪١٥‬‬ ‫]ﻝ–‪٨٨‬ﻭ[ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﻯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺒﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﻪ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪.‬‬‫ﺇﱃ ﺣﻮﺍﺷﻲ ّ‬
‫ﻼ ﻳﺴﻘﻂ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﻬﺎﺕ ﺃﻥ ]ﺱ–‪٢‬ﻅ[‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﺤﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺩﻟﻴ ً‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺠﺴﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺼﻞ‬ ‫ﺑﻄﻠﻤﻴﻮﺱ ]ﺕ–‪٣٨‬ﻭ[ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺣﺎﻝ ّ‬
‫‪:‬‬ ‫‪ ١‬ﺇﱃ ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ]ﺱ[ ‪ ٣‬ﻛﻮﻛﺒًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻛﻮﻛﺐ ]ﺱ[ ‪ ٣‬ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ‪ :‬ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ ]ﻡ‪،‬ﻝ[ ‪ ٤‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻛﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ‪ :‬ﻛﺘﺐ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ”ﺇﱃ ﺍﻻﻓﻖ“‪،‬‬ ‫ّ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ]ﻝ[ ‪ ٥‬ﻭﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ‪ :‬ﻧﺎﻗﺼﺔ ]ﺱ[ ‪٥‬‬
‫ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ ‪:‬‬ ‫‪١٠‬‬ ‫ﻭﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ‪ :‬ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ]ﻝ[‬
‫ً‬ ‫‪٧‬‬ ‫ﻭﺃﺷﺎﺭ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ]ﺕ[ ﻛﻮﻛﺒًﺎ ‪ :‬ﻛﻮﻛﺐ ]ﺱ[‬
‫‪٦‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻨﻜﺴﻒ ‪:‬‬ ‫‪١١‬‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺸﻤﺲ ]ﺱ‪،‬ﻝ[ ‪ ١٠‬ﺗﺴﺘﺮ ‪ :‬ﻳﺴﺘﺘﺮ ]ﻝ‪،‬ﻡ[‪ ،‬ﻳﺴﺘﺮ ]ﺕ[ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻤﺮ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺮ ]ﺱ[‬
‫‪١٠‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻨﻜﺴﻒ ]ﺕ‪،‬ﺱ[‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻨﻜﺸﻒ ]ﻝ‪،‬ﻡ[ ‪ ١١‬ﻭﻳﺘﺒﲔ ‪ :‬ﻭﺗﺒﲔ ]ﺕ‪،‬ﺱ‪،‬ﻡ[ ‪ ١٢‬ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ‪ :‬ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ]ﺱ[‬
‫‪ ١٢‬ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺮ ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ]ﻝ[ ‪ ١٣‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ‪ :‬ﻧﺎﻗﺼﺔ ]ﺕ[ ‪ ١٤‬ﰲ ﻛﻞ ‪ :‬ﻧﺎﻗﺼﺔ ]ﺕ[ ‪ ١٥‬ﻳﺮﻯ ‪ :‬ﺗﺮﻯ‬
‫]ﺱ[ ‪ ١٦‬ﻳﺒﻌﺪ ‪ :‬ﺗﺒﻌﺪ ]ﺱ[ ‪ ١٦‬ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻛﺐ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ]ﺕ‪،‬ﺱ[ ‪ ١٧‬ﻳﺴﻘﻂ ‪ :‬ﻧﺎﻗﺼﺔ ]ﺕ‪،‬ﻝ[‬
‫‪ ١٨‬ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺠﺴﻄﻲ ‪ :‬ﺃﺛﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ]ﺕ[‬
‫‪THE EARLY GREAT DEBATE: ON THE MILKY WAY‬‬ ‫‪29‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺣﻘﻖ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻛﻞ ﻛﻮﻛﺐ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻮﺍﺷﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﻭﺑُﻌﺪﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﺷﻴﺔ ّ‬ ‫ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﱐ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺟﺰء ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻛﻮﻛﺐ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺇﻥ ﺑُﻌﺪﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﺷﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻧﺼﻒ‬
‫ﺟﺰء‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻛﻮﻛﺐ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺇﻥ ﺑُﻌﺪﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﺷﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺟﺰﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﱐ‬ ‫‪٥‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺫﻛﺮ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰲ‬

‫ﳝﺎﺱ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﺛﺒﺖ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﻭﺩ ّﻭﻧﻪ ﻭﺧﻠّﺪﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺎﺱ ّ‬
‫ّ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻭﻗﺎﺕ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ّ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺩﻫﺎ ﺑﻄﻠﻤﻴﻮﺱ ﻭﻋﻴّﻨﻬﺎ ﻻ‬ ‫ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﱵ ّ‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﺮﻯ ً‬
‫ﻳﺘﻐﲑ ﻭﻻ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﻋﺘﱪ ﻣﻌﺘﱪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺷﺎء‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺪ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫‪١٠‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ]ﻝ–‪٨٨‬ﻅ[ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ ﺫﻛﺮﻩ ﺑﻄﻠﻤﻴﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻧﺎﻇﺮ ﺇﱃ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺿﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺫﻛﺮﻫﺎ ﺑﻄﻠﻤﻴﻮﺱ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻐﲑ ﻭﻻ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﺒﻄﻠﻤﻴﻮﺱ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺭﺻﺪﻩ ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺻﺪﻫﺎ ﺯﻣﺎﻧًﺎ ﻃﻮﻳ ًﻼ ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﺃﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻟﻪ ]ﺱ–‪٣‬ﻭ[ ﲢﺼﻴﻞ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ‬ ‫‪١٥‬‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻃﻮﻳﻞ ﻭﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ‬

‫ﺭﺻﺪﻫﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ّﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء‪ .‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺍﺧﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ّﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻪ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳍﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻄﻠﻤﻴﻮﺱ ﳑﻦ ﲡ ّﺰﻑ ﰲ ﺃﺭﺻﺎﺩﻩ ﻭﰲ ﺃﻗﺎﻭﻳﻠﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﻠﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻇﻬﺮ ﻟﺒﻄﻠﻤﻴﻮﺱ؛ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻇﻬﺮ ﻟﺒﻄﻠﻤﻴﻮﺱ ﺷﻲء ﻣﻦ‬ ‫‪٢٠‬‬
‫‪ ١‬ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻯ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻯ ]ﺕ‪،‬ﻝ[ ‪ ٣‬ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻝ ‪ :‬ﻓﻨﻘﻮﻝ ]ﺕ[ ‪ ٣‬ﺍﻟﻔﻼﱐ ‪ :‬ﻧﺎﻗﺼﺔ‬
‫]ﺱ[ ‪ ٤‬ﺃﻭ ‪ :‬ﻭ ]ﺱ[ ‪ ٤‬ﺟﺰء ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ‪ :‬ﺟﺰءﺍ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍ ]ﺱ[ ‪ ٥‬ﺁﺧﺮ ‪ :‬ﺃﺛﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺻﺢ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ‪ :‬ﻧﺎﻗﺼﺔ ]ﺕ[ ‪ ٧‬ﻭﺧﻠّﺪﻩ ‪ :‬ﻭﺟﻠﺪﻩ ]ﺱ[ ‪ ٩‬ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ‪ :‬ﺃﺛﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ‬
‫]ﺱ[ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺎﺱ ّ‬
‫‪٧‬‬
‫ﺣﺪﺍﻫﺎ ]ﺕ[ ‪ ١٠‬ﻣﻌﺘﱪ ‪ :‬ﺗﻐﲑ ]ﺱ[ ‪ ١٠‬ﺷﺎء ‪ :‬ﺷﻴﺌﻨﺎ ]ﺱ[ ‪ ١٠‬ﻭﺟﺪ ‪ :‬ﻭﺣﺪﺕ‬ ‫ﺣﺪﺩﻫﺎ ‪ّ :‬‬
‫]ﺕ[ ‪ّ ٩‬‬
‫]ﺱ[ ‪ ١٤‬ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ :‬ﻧﺎﻗﻀﺔ ]ﻝ[ ‪ ١٤‬ﻫﻮ ‪ :‬ﺃﺛﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ]ﻝ[ ‪ ١٥‬ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ ‪ :‬ﻧﺎﻗﻀﺔ ]ﺕ[ ‪ ١٦‬ﻭﰲ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺤﺮﻑ ]ﻡ[‬‫ﰲ ]ﺕ[ ﻛﻞ ‪ :‬ﻧﺎﻗﺼﺔ ]ﺱ[ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﻬﺎ ‪ :‬ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻌﻬﺎ ]ﺕ[ ﲡ ّﺰﻑ ‪ :‬ﻳُ ﱢ‬
‫‪١٩‬‬ ‫‪١٧‬‬ ‫‪١٦‬‬
‫‪30‬‬ ‫‪ANDREAS ECKART‬‬
‫ﺣﺪﺩ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﳌﺎ ّ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ّ‬
‫ﻭﻓﺼﻠﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺷﺮﺣﻪ ّ‬‫ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺫﻛﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺮ ّ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ‬
‫ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﺒﲔ ﻣﻦ ﲨﻴﻊ ﻣﺎ ﺫﻛﺮﻧﺎﻩ ﺃﻥ ّ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻦ ﳍﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻴﺴﺖ ﰲ ﺍﳍﻮﺍء ﻭﻻ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﻗﺮﻳﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ‬
‫‪٥‬‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻓﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺮ ﻭﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ]ﻝ–‪٨۹‬ﻭ[ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺭﺩﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫‪:‬‬‫ﺣﺪ ﻭ ]ﺕ[ ‪ ٣‬ﳍﺎ ‪ :‬ﺃﺛﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ﻣﻊ ”ﺻﺢ“ ]ﺕ[ ‪ ٤‬ﻗﺮﻳﺐ‬ ‫ﺣﺮﺭ ]ﺱ‪،‬ﻝ[‪ّ ،‬‬‫ﺣﺪﺩ ‪ّ :‬‬
‫‪ّ ١‬‬
‫ﻗﺮﺏ ]ﺕ[ ‪ ٦‬ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﲔ ‪ :‬ﻛﺘﺐ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ‪” :‬ﻭﷲ ﺍﳊﻤﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﺔ“ ]ﻝ[‪” ،‬ﰎ ﻭﻟﻮﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﳊﻤﺪ‬
‫ﺑﻼ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ“ ]ﺕ[ ‪ ٦‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ‪ :‬ﻧﺎﻗﺼﺔ ]ﻝ‪،‬ﺕ[‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺘﺐ ﻧﺎﺳﺦ ]ﺱ[ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ”ﻭﺍﷲ ﺃﻋﻠﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺍﺏ“‬

Early Debate

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Early Debate

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, vol. 28 (2018) pp.

THE EARLY GREAT DEBATE: A COMMENT ON IBN AL-

Section Content Location

Tab. 1: Structure of Ibn al-Haytham’s text

2. ANALYSIS OF IBN AL-HAYTHAM’S TEXT

2.1. General structure of the text

Ibn al-Haytham presents a well organized discussion. The logical structure of

2.2. How are the Arabic manuscripts linked?

2.3. Hint for dating the original text

2.4. Ibn al-Haytham’s case

Fig. 2: Observational configurations described by Ibn al-Haytham

2.5. Can the Galaxy have a distance to the Earth?

2.6. Describing details of Ibn al-Haytham’s observations

Wiedemann has pointed out that there is an inconsistency in Ibn al-Haytham’s

3. WHAT COULD AND DID IBN AL-HAYTHAM OBSERVE?

3.1. The achievable and required accuracy

Tab. 2: Ptolemy’s stars with given distances to the Galaxy

Tab. 3: Ptolemy’s stars touching the Galaxy

In Fig. 3 we show that with a measurement uncertainty of 0.1 degree and no

3.2. Verifying the observational results today

Fig. 4: Top: Constellation Auriga towards the Galactic anti-center.

3.3. The concept of proper motions

4. NATURE OF THE MILKY WAY

4.1. The stellar nature of the Galaxy

It is interesting to note that even though Ibn al-Haytham and E. Wiedemann

4.2. The Early Great Debate

Unfortunately, in 1906 E. Wiedemann could not value Ibn al-Haytham’s work

Fig. 5: Progress in investigating the Milky Way

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the University of Cologne. Part of

APPENDIX I: CRITICAL TRANSLATION OF IBN AL-HAYTHAM’S TEXT

Answer of Shaykh Abū ʿAlī Ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan

‫ﺑﺴﻢ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ‬

‫ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ‪ :‬ﺃﺿﺎﻑ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﰲ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻪ‪> :‬ﻣﻮﺿﻌﲔ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﲔ‬ ‫ّ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺠﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺫﻛﺮ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰲ‬

‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻃﻮﻳﻞ ﻭﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎء‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ‬

‫ﺣﺪﺩ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ‬

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi