Editing Ptolemy (section)

=== ''Mathēmatikē Syntaxis'' ===
{{main|Almagest}}[[File:Bodleian Library Pococke369 roll332 frame38.jpg|thumb|upright=1.1|Pages from the ''[[Almagest]]'' in Arabic translation showing astronomical tables.]]

Ptolemy's ''[[Almagest]]'' (originally {{Langx|grc|Μαθηματικὴ Σύνταξις|translit=Mathēmatikē Syntaxis}}, {{Lit|Mathematical Systematic Treatise}}) is the only surviving comprehensive ancient treatise on astronomy. Although [[Babylonian astronomers]] had developed arithmetical techniques for calculating and predicting astronomical phenomena, these were not based on any underlying model of the heavens; early Greek astronomers, on the other hand, provided qualitative geometrical models to "save the appearances" of celestial phenomena without the ability to make any predictions.<ref>
{{cite book
 |last=Schiefsky |first=M.
 |year=2012
 |section=The creation of second-order knowledge in ancient Greek science as a process in the globalization of knowledge
 |url=https://mprl-series.mpg.de/studies/1/12/index.html
 |title=The Globalization of Knowledge in History
 |series=MPRL – Studies
 |place=Berlin
 |publisher=Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften
 |language=en
 |isbn=978-3-945561-23-2
}}
</ref>

The earliest person who attempted to merge these two approaches was [[Hipparchus]], who produced [[geometric model]]s that not only reflected the arrangement of the planets and stars but could be used to calculate celestial motions.<ref name=Jones-1991>
{{cite journal
 |last=Jones |first=Alexander
 |year=1991
 |title=The adaptation of Babylonian methods in Greek numerical astronomy
 |journal=[[Isis (journal)|Isis]]
 |volume=82  |issue=3  |pages=440–453
 |doi=10.1086/355836  |jstor=233225
 |s2cid=92988054  |issn=0021-1753
|url=http://archive.nyu.edu/handle/2451/49537
 }}
</ref>
Ptolemy, following Hipparchus, derived each of his geometrical models for the Sun, Moon, and the planets from selected astronomical observations done in the spanning of more than 800&nbsp;years; however, many astronomers have for centuries suspected that some of his models' parameters were adopted independently of observations.<ref>
{{cite web
 |url=http://www.dioi.org/cot.htm#mjpg
 |title=Dennis Rawlins
 |publisher=The International Journal of Scientific History
 |access-date=7 October 2009
}}
</ref>

Ptolemy presented his astronomical models alongside convenient tables, which could be used to compute the future or past position of the planets.<ref>
{{cite journal
 |first=Bernard R. |last=Goldstein
 |year=1997
 |title=Saving the phenomena: The background to Ptolemy's planetary theory
 |journal=[[Journal for the History of Astronomy]]
 |volume=28 |issue=1 |pages=1–12
 |doi=10.1177/002182869702800101
 |bibcode=1997JHA....28....1G
 |s2cid=118875902
}}
</ref>
The ''Almagest'' also contains a [[star catalogue]], which is a version of a catalogue created by Hipparchus. Its list of forty-eight [[constellation]]s is ancestral to the modern system of constellations but, unlike the modern system, they did not cover the whole sky (only what could be seen with the naked eye in the northern hemisphere).<ref>
{{cite journal
 |last=Swerdlow |first=N.M.
 |year=1992
 |title=The enigma of Ptolemy's catalogue of stars
 |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/002182869202300303
 |journal=[[Journal for the History of Astronomy]]
 |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=173–183
 |doi=10.1177/002182869202300303
 |bibcode=1992JHA....23..173S
 |s2cid=116612700
}}
</ref>
For over a thousand years, the ''Almagest'' was the authoritative text on astronomy across Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.<ref>
 S. C. McCluskey,
 1998,
 ''Astronomies and Cultures in Early Medieval Europe'',
 Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr.
 pp. 20–21.
</ref>

The ''Almagest'' was preserved, like many extant Greek scientific works, in Arabic manuscripts; the modern title is thought to be an Arabic corruption of the Greek name {{tlit|grc|Hē Megistē Syntaxis}} ('The greatest treatise'), as the work was presumably known during [[late antiquity]].<ref>
{{cite journal
 |last1=Krisciunas |first1=K.
 |last2=Bistué |first2=M. B.
 |year=2019
 |title=Notes on the transmission of Ptolemy's ''Almagest'' and some geometrical mechanisms to the era of Copernicus
 |url=https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/136161
 |journal=Repositorio Institucional CONICET Digital
 |volume=22 |issue=3 |page=492
 |bibcode=2019JAHH...22..492K
 |issn=1440-2807
}}
</ref>
Because of its reputation, it was widely sought and translated twice into Latin [[Latin translations of the 12th century|in the 12th century]], once in Sicily and again in Spain.<ref>Charles Homer Haskins, ''Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science'', New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing, 1967, reprint of the Cambridge, Mass., 1927 edition</ref> Ptolemy's planetary models, like those of the majority of his predecessors, were geocentric and almost universally accepted until the reappearance of [[heliocentric]] models during the [[Scientific Revolution]].

====Modern reassessment====
Under the scrutiny of modern scholarship, and the cross-checking of observations contained in the ''Almagest'' against figures produced through backwards extrapolation, various patterns of errors have emerged within the work.{{sfn|Wade|1977}}{{sfn|Lewis|1979}} A prominent miscalculation is Ptolemy's use of measurements that he claimed were taken at noon, but which systematically produce readings now shown to be off by half an hour, as if the observations were taken at 12:30&nbsp;pm.{{sfn|Wade|1977}}

The overall quality of Ptolemy's observations has been challenged by several modern scientists, but prominently by [[Robert R. Newton]] in his 1977 book ''The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy'', which asserted that Ptolemy fabricated many of his observations to fit his theories.{{sfn|Goldstein|1978}} Newton accused Ptolemy of systematically inventing data or doctoring the data of earlier astronomers, and labelled him "the most successful fraud in the history of science".{{sfn|Wade|1977}} One striking error noted by Newton was an autumn equinox said to have been observed by Ptolemy and "measured with the greatest care" at 2pm on 25 September 132, when the equinox should have been observed around 9:55am the day prior.{{sfn|Wade|1977}} In attempting to disprove Newton, Herbert Lewis also found himself agreeing that "Ptolemy was an outrageous fraud,"{{sfn|Lewis|1979}} and that "all those result capable of statistical analysis point beyond question towards fraud and against accidental error".{{sfn|Lewis|1979}}

The charges laid by Newton and others have been the subject of wide discussions and received significant push back from other scholars against the findings.{{sfn|Wade|1977}} [[Owen Gingerich]], while agreeing that the ''Almagest'' contains "some remarkably fishy numbers",{{sfn|Wade|1977}} including in the matter of the 30-hour displaced equinox, which he noted aligned perfectly with predictions made by Hipparchus 278 years earlier,{{sfn|Gingerich|1980}} rejected the qualification of fraud.{{sfn|Wade|1977}} Objections were also raised by [[Bernard R. Goldstein|Bernard Goldstein]], who questioned Newton's findings and suggested that he had misunderstood the secondary literature, while noting that issues with the accuracy of Ptolemy's observations had long been known.{{sfn|Goldstein|1978}} Other authors have pointed out that instrument warping or atmospheric refraction may also explain some of Ptolemy's observations at a wrong time.<ref>
{{cite journal
 |last1=Bruin |first1=Franz
 |last2=Bruin |first2=Margaret
 |title=The equator ring, equinoxes, and atmospheric refraction
 |journal=Centaurus
 |year=1976
 |volume=20 |issue=2 |page=89
 |doi=10.1111/j.1600-0498.1976.tb00923.x
 |bibcode=1976Cent...20...89B
}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite thesis
 |last1=Britton |first1=John Phillips
 |title=On the quality of solar and lunar observations and parameters in Ptolemy's ''Almagest''
 |year=1967
 |publisher=Yale University
 |degree=Ph.D.
}}
</ref>

In 2022 the first Greek fragments of Hipparchus' lost star catalog were discovered in a [[palimpsest]] and they debunked accusations made by the French astronomer [[Jean Baptiste Joseph Delambre]] in the early 1800s which were repeated by R. R. Newton. Specifically, it proved Hipparchus was not the sole source of Ptolemy's catalog, as they both had claimed, and proved that Ptolemy did not simply copy Hipparchus' measurements and adjust them to account for precession of the equinoxes, as they had claimed. Scientists analyzing the charts concluded:

<blockquote>It also confirms that Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue was not based solely on data from Hipparchus’ Catalogue.<br/>

... These observations are consistent with the view that Ptolemy composed his star catalogue by combining various sources, including Hipparchus’ catalogue, his own observations and, possibly, those of other authors.<ref>
{{cite journal
 |last1=Gysembergh |first1=Victor
 |last2=Williams   |first2=Peter J.
 |last3=Zingg      |first3=Emanuel
 |date=November 2022
 |title=New evidence for Hipparchus' star catalogue revealed by multispectral imaging
 |journal=[[Journal for the History of Astronomy]]
 |volume=53  |issue=4  |pages=383–393
 |doi=10.1177/00218286221128289
 |bibcode=2022JHA....53..383G |issn=0021-8286
 |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00218286221128289
}}
</ref>
</blockquote>