Dante and the early astronomers

by M. A. Orr

Cleomedes c. 20 b.c.

Theon of Smyrna c. 100 a.d.

Nor were other writers, such as Cleomedes and Theon of Smyrna, better informed, and they added nothing new to the advance of astronomical science.

Ptolemy c. 140 a.d.

But at last a worthy successor arose at Alexandria, the immortal Ptolemy, whom Dante met in that Limbo of antique spirits which was almost Elysium, although on the brink of the Inferno.

We do not know when Ptolemy was born nor when he died, nor where was his native town: we only know that his first recorded observation was made in the eleventh year of the Emperor Hadrian, that is a.d. 127, and his latest in a.d. 150, and that he lived and studied in Alexandria. He had splendid opportunities for carrying on the work of Hipparchus, for besides the use of the instruments in the Museum Observatory, he had at hand all the Museum records, which included the writings of Hipparchus. Ptolemy was not so painstaking and accurate an observer as Hipparchus, but he was a very able mathematician to whom it was evidently a joy to handle figures and work out problems. By examining a number of observations spread over several centuries, and combining them with his own, he was able to accomplish the task in which so many others had failed, and to frame a system which embraced all the celestial motions then observed. The monumental summary in which he set forth this system contains a great deal of interesting information about his methods and instruments, and about the work of Hipparchus, for whom he always expresses the most generous admiration. The original name of his book was the “Mathematical System of Astronomy,” but his admirers having called it the “Great System,” Megiste Syntaxis, the Arabs affixed their article al and gave it the name it preserves to this day, of Almagest. It remained the standard treatise on astronomy until the De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium of Copernicus appeared in 1543.

The name of his book indicates the scope of Ptolemy’s work. It was to represent all the observed motions of the heavenly bodies by means of a mathematical system, so that they became amenable to calculation; but to explain the causes of these motions was thought to lie quite outside an astronomer’s province. It was not for a mere observer and calculator to determine which motions were real and which apparent, else Ptolemy must have decided in favour of Earth’s rotation, for he says that it would be much easier to account for celestial motions on this assumption. Nor was it his business to investigate the substance of the stars. Little did he dream that astronomers would one day solve such problems, and uphold their conclusions in the face of all the world: for him, as for his contemporaries, the decisions of the philosophers, and especially of Aristotle, were final, and his task was to describe what he saw in the light of their teaching.

He brings forward, in the introduction to his book, a few arguments against the absurd notion, taught by some, that Earth is in motion, turning on her axis or moving through space; but all that he proves is the immense difficulty, even to a trained mind, of accepting these theories, and the great authority of the philosophers who denied them on abstract principles. Educated Greeks might still discuss the nature of the heavenly bodies, as in Plutarch’s delightful dialogue On the Face of the Moon, (written about half a century before the days of Ptolemy), and might ridicule the law of gravity, laughing at the absurdity of supposing that if the middle of a man’s body were at the middle of the earth, his feet as well as his head would be “up,” and that falling weights if they reached this point would stop short, or oscillate to and fro. Yet even they all agreed that the fixed stars do most probably move “in a circle of eternal and never-ending revolution,” and that they are of a pure and eternal substance unlike Earth; and for the professional astronomers of Alexandria these axioms were assumed as the basis of all their work. Earth must be immoveable at the centre of the Universe because the heavy stuff of which she is made sinks necessarily to the centre and there remains in globular form without need of support; the heavenly bodies must be in motion, because, being of ethereal substance, it is their nature to revolve eternally in circles.

This being granted, we can feel nothing but admiration for the extent of Ptolemy’s knowledge, the comprehensiveness of his scheme, and the skill and patience with which he overcame its difficulties.

Earth, according to Ptolemy, is but a point compared with the immense surrounding sphere in which the stars are set, and this turns always round us, communicating its motion (he does not inquire how) to sun, moon and planets, so that day follows night, and the heavenly bodies daily rise and set. For the slow movement of precession, which also affects all heavenly bodies, Ptolemy accepted the least value of Hipparchus, one degree in a century, only testing it in rather a perfunctory way, which was a great pity, for he might have determined it much more closely after an interval of some 250 years. But one man cannot do everything, and he doubtless thought it best to spend more time on the planets, whose intricacies had baffled Hipparchus and gave him also a great deal of trouble.