Archive for History of Exact Sciences

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-020-00271-y

The gravitational influence of Jupiter on the Ptolemaic

value for the eccentricity of Saturn

Christián C. Carman1

Received: 26 November 2020 / Accepted: 8 December 2020

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The gravitational influence of Jupiter on Saturn produces, among other things, non-
negligible changes in the eccentricity of Saturn that affect the magnitude of error of
Ptolemaic astronomy. The value that Ptolemy obtained for the eccentricity of Saturn
is a good approximation of the real eccentricity—including the perturbation of Jupi-
ter—that Saturn had during the time of Ptolemy’s planetary observations or a bit
earlier. Therefore, it seems more probable that the observations used for obtaining
the eccentricity of Saturn were done near Ptolemy’s time, and rather unlikely earlier
than the first century AD. Even if this is not quite a demonstration that Ptolemy
used observations of his own, my argument increases its probability and practically
discards the idea that Ptolemy borrowed values or observations from astronomers
further back than the first century AD, such as Hipparchus or the Babylonians.

1 Introduction

Carman and Recio (2019) compare the values of the parameters that Ptolemy used
and their counterpart optimized values for a model built according to Kepler’s first
two laws. The comparison shows that in most cases Ptolemaic parameters are rea-
sonably good—particularly those of the outer planets—an accuracy that explains the
empirical success of Ptolemaic models. Still, while the parameters of Mars and Jupi-
ter are almost optimal, those of Saturn appear to be not so good. Most importantly,
Saturn shows a comparatively poor value for its eccentricity. The optimal Keplerian
value is 7.2 parts, but the Ptolemaic value is 6.8, representing more than 5% error,

Communicated by Alexander Jones.

* Christián C. Carman
ccarman@gmail.com
1
Centro de Estudios de Filosofía e Historia de la Ciencia (CEFHIC), Universidad Nacional de
Quilmes (UNQ) and Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET),
Roque Sáenz Peña 352, B1876BXD Bernal, Buenos Aires, Argentina

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 C. C. Carman

while for the other two outer planets the error in their eccentricities is smaller than
1.5%.
This is an odd difference because, in principle, the model for Saturn should not
offer any particular problem for obtaining optimal parameters, and it is certainly not
in a worse situation than those of Jupiter or Mars. In this paper I will argue that,
actually, the Ptolemaic value for the eccentricity of Saturn is more accurate for his
time than the optimized Keplerian one. Kepler’s laws do not take into account the
gravitational perturbations of the planets with each other. These perturbations are
negligible for most planets and this justifies (Carman and Recio 2019)’s strategy
of comparing Ptolemaic with optimized Keplerian parameters. Saturn and (to a
lesser extent) Jupiter, however, are exceptions. The gravitational influence of Jupiter
on Saturn produces, among other things, changes in its eccentricity. In particular,
the value that Ptolemy obtained is a good approximation of the real eccentricity—
including the perturbation of Jupiter—which Saturn had during the time of Ptole-
my’s ostensible planetary observations.
This analysis has an interesting corollary. Duke (2005) has shown that Ptolemy
manipulated the data he used for obtaining the parameters of the outer planets.
Based on this finding, he concludes that “[e]specially in the case of the outer plan-
ets, the original source of the model parameters must be considered as unknown.”
The change of the eccentricity of Saturn is not negligible over time. This change
makes it more probable that the observations used for obtaining the eccentricity
of Saturn were near the time of Ptolemy, and rather unlikely earlier than the first
century AD. Even if this is not quite a demonstration that Ptolemy used observa-
tions of his own, my argument increases its probability and practically discards the
idea that Ptolemy borrowed values or observations from astronomers further back
than the first century AD, such as Hipparchus or the Babylonians. Ptolemy offers
the parameters of his models in at least four astronomical works that are, in prob-
able chronical order: the Canobic Inscription (Jones 2005), the Almagest (Toomer
1998), the Handy Tables (Mercier 2011) and the Planetary Hypotheses (Goldstein
1967; Hamm 2011). There are no changes in the parameters of most of the planetary
models. There are changes, however, in Mercury and Saturn. The case of Mercury is
easy to explain: because it is not visible most of the time, it is hard to make a good
model; but this is not the case of Saturn. I think that the gravitational influence of
Jupiter on Saturn could explain the difficulties that Ptolemy apparently had with fix-
ing the parameters for Saturn.
In the first section, I will offer an analysis of the iterative method (IM) that
Ptolemy described in Almagest X.7, XI.1 and XI.5 for obtaining both the eccentric-
ity and longitude of the apogee. This explanation will allow us to understand how
the eccentricity that this method finds varies as a function of the selected opposi-
tions. In the second section I will describe how the perturbation of Jupiter on Saturn
changes the eccentricity of Saturn. In the third one, I will show that the Ptolemaic
value is consistent with the application of the IM to oppositions that took place dur-
ing the time of Ptolemy’s own observations or earlier, but not beyond the beginning
of the Christian era. Finally, in the conclusion I will set this result into the wider
discussion about the empirical basis that Ptolemy used for obtaining the parameters
of his planetary models.

13
The gravitational influence of Jupiter on the Ptolemaic value…

2 Analysis of the iterative method

Ptolemy introduces an IM to obtain the eccentricity and longitude of the apogee in

the case of the outer planets (Duke 2005). See Fig. 1. The IM finds the best eccen-
tricity and longitude of the apogee so that the motion appears as a uniform motion
from the equant point Q, at a distance QO = 2e, while the center of the circle D is at
distance OD = e and the observer is at O. The input data are the time and true lon-
gitude of three mean oppositions, i.e., when the elongation between the mean Sun
and the planet is exactly 180°. During mean oppositions, the center of epicycle ­Cn
and planet ­Pn is aligned as seen from O, so, in the Ptolemaic framework, the effect
of the epicycle is eliminated. This allows Ptolemy to work directly on the deferent.
In a heliocentric framework, however, the orbit of the Earth is eliminated, so the IM
should also work equally well if, instead of introducing the time and the geocentric
longitude of mean oppositions, one introduces the time and the heliocentric longi-
tudes of any position of the planet. (The parameters obtained, however, will not be
the same because one would be working with the true and not the mean Sun—for
more details see (Carman and Recio 2019, 50–51).)
If the analysis is performed using mean oppositions in a geocentric framework,
the closest we could expect the mean oppositions to be is around 25°. In a heliocen-
tric framework, however, the three consecutive observations can be as close as nec-
essary, making it possible to analyze the influence of the location of the observations
used in the parameters obtained with greater accuracy. This possibility explains why

Fig. 1  Ptolemaic model for a superior planet representing three mean oppositions. O is the observer; D,
the center of the deferent, and Q, the equant point. When the center of the epicycle is at ­C1, ­C2, and C ­ 3,
the planet is at P
­ 1, ­P2 and P
­ 3, respectively. In the three cases the planet and the center of the epicycle are
aligned with the observer

13
 C. C. Carman

Fig. 2  Saturn’s local equant point and local eccentricity found by applying the IM as a function of the
angular distance from perihelion using 3 observations 1° apart

the heliocentric framework is far more convenient than the geocentric in the analysis
of the accuracy of the IM.
It is widely acknowledged that the empty focus of the Keplerian model works rea-
sonably well as an equant point and that, indeed, it is the best possible equant point
(Evans 1984; Aaboe 2001; Carman and Recio 2019). The fact that the empty focus
is the best approximation, though not exactly the equant point at any time, means
that the actual equant point—i.e., the point from which the angular motion is seen
as a uniform motion at any time—varies. Let me call local equant point to the point
from which the planet moves uniformly when it is at a particular angular distance
from the apsidal line. A good way of describing the local equant point is to say that
it is the point from which the instantaneous speed of the planet at this longitude is
equal to the mean speed. If we plot the eccentricity 2e, understood as the distance
in parts (assuming R = 60 parts) between the Sun and the local equant point for any
possible distance of the planet from the apsidal line, we will see that the eccentric-
ity is slightly smaller when the planet is at aphelion and slightly greater when at
perihelion. Figure 2 plots in black the variation of the eccentricity in an optimized
Keplerian model for Saturn. The figure shows that while the average is around 7.2
parts, the actual equant point varies ± 0.1 part from the mean.
Since the IM finds the center from which the motion is uniform (assuming
bisection) during the planetary motion limited by the three observations used as
input, if the three observations are close to each other, the equant point that the
IM finds will be close to the local equant point for these observations. The gray
line in Fig. 2 plots the eccentricity found applying the IM to three observations
one degree apart from each other as a function of the angular distance from the
perihelion of the second observation. It shows that the eccentricity the IM finds
follows the local equant point to a certain extent. The difference is probably

13
The gravitational influence of Jupiter on the Ptolemaic value…

Fig. 3  Saturn’s Keplerian optimized equant point and local eccentricity found by applying the IM as a
function of the angular distance from perihelion using 3 observations 120° apart

explained by the fact that the IM assumes a circular orbit while the Keplerian
orbits are elliptical. When the observations are more distant from each other, the
peaks near perihelion and valleys near aphelion diminish. In the optimal situa-
tion, with three observations 120° apart, the shape of the eccentricity that the
IM finds moves up and down with respect to the Keplerian optimized equant
point. See Fig. 3.
Since the tropical period of Saturn is around 30 years and the observations
that Ptolemy reported in the Almagest that he made are no more than 16 years
apart (from 125 to 141), Saturn travelled only half of the zodiac during the time
of these observations. Figure 4 shows that the zone of the zodiac that Saturn
traveled was around the aphelion. The three mean oppositions that Ptolemy used
for obtaining the parameters of Saturn are marked with their corresponding
years: 126, 133 and 136. The first is around 100° apart from the third. Thus, the
application of the IM to the mean opposition belonging to that part of the zodiac
should give a value of the eccentricity consistent with the local equant point
around aphelion, which is smaller than the Keplerian optimized equant point.
Figure 5 shows the local eccentricity that the IM finds, but using observations
separated by 100° between the first and the third, thus resembling the configura-
tion that Ptolemy’s observations had. The eccentricity that Ptolemy found, there-
fore, should be smaller than the Keplerian optimized value. This value, however,
should be around 7.1, and not 6.83 as Ptolemy obtained. The particular loca-
tion of the oppositions used produces a value that goes in the expected direction
(smaller eccentricity). Still, this value is not enough to explain Ptolemy’s value,
for which we have to draw on the perturbation of Jupiter on Saturn’s eccentricity.

13
 C. C. Carman

Fig. 4  Saturn’s longitude during the time of Ptolemy’s observations. From 125 to 141, Saturn was
around the aphelion. Points 126, 133, and 136 show the position of Saturn at the mean oppositions that
Ptolemy used for obtaining the eccentricity and longitude of the apogee

Fig. 5  Saturn’s local eccentricity found applying the IM to observations 100° apart as a function of the
angular distance from perihelion

3 The gravitational perturbation of Jupiter on Saturn

Jupiter and Saturn are both very massive compared to the other planets and far from
the Sun so that their reciprocal perturbation can produce sensible differences, even

13
The gravitational influence of Jupiter on the Ptolemaic value…

Fig. 6  Mutual influence of Saturn (S) and Jupiter (­J1, ­J2, ­J3) around heliocentric conjunction, assuming
circular and concentric orbits. Before conjunction (­J1), Jupiter accelerates Saturn and Saturn decelerates
Jupiter. After conjunction ­(J3), the opposite happens

on the order of magnitude of the error in Ptolemy’s observations.1 Because Jupiter is

more massive than Saturn, the influence of Jupiter on Saturn is significantly greater
than the influence of Saturn on Jupiter. This influence is acting all the time, but,
because it depends on distance, the perturbation is around 12 times greater at the
heliocentric conjunction of both planets than at opposition. Thus, it is sufficient to
consider only what happens at conjunctions for a qualitative analysis.
Conjunctions between the two planets occur approximately every 20 years. The
tropical period of Saturn is around 30 years, so it advances 2/3 + 2.7° of its orbit
from conjunction to conjunction. Consequently, after three conjunctions, Saturn is
again approximately at the same position, moving one turn and about 8°. The three
conjunctions produce an approximately equilateral triangle that moves its vertex
about 8° every 60 years. One vertex of the triangle will reach the original position of
the next when it moves 120°, i.e., after 43 conjunctions and around 900 years. Con-
sequently, the whole cycle of perturbation between Saturn and Jupiter has a period
of about 900 years.
Given that Jupiter moves faster than Saturn, Jupiter overtakes Saturn. See Fig. 6.
When Jupiter is reaching on Saturn, Jupiter’s action on Saturn makes Saturn decel-
erate, while the opposite happens when Jupiter overtakes Saturn: Saturn accelerates.

1
For an account of the discovery of the perturbations see (Wilson 1985). I follow Wilson in the qualita-
tive explanation of the change of the mean speed. I am grateful to Hernán Grecco for his explanation of
the change in the eccentricity; Hernán has also produced for me the data for building the chart with the
change of the instant (perturbed) eccentricity of Saturn over time.

13
 C. C. Carman

The opposite, though to a lesser extent, happens with Jupiter. If both orbits were per-
fectly circular, coplanar, and concentric, there would be no net effect.
Even if not circular, their orbits are so close to a perfect circle that the difference
is irrelevant. The fact that they are not concentric, however, implies important net
effects. The perturbation produced before and after conjunction will not be the same
because the distance of the planets is not the same. See Fig. 7. When the trajectories
of the planets get close to each other as the planets advance in the zodiac, Saturn
decelerates before conjunction and accelerates after it, just as before. Still, given
that Jupiter is further from Saturn before conjunction (when the effect is decel-
erative) and closer to it after conjunction (when the effect is accelerative), the net
effect will be accelerative. On the contrary, when the trajectories are separating, the
opposite happens. Jupiter behaves in exactly the contrary way to Saturn, though to
a lesser extent. Therefore, there is an accelerating net effect in Saturn when the two

Fig. 7  Mutual influence of Saturn (S) and Jupiter (­J1, ­J2, ­J3) around heliocentric conjunction, assuming
eccentric orbits. Above, the two trajectories are getting close to each other (the net effect is accelerative
for Saturn and decelerative for Jupiter). Below, the two trajectories are moving apart from each other, and
the opposite happens

13
The gravitational influence of Jupiter on the Ptolemaic value…

Fig. 8  Configuration of the triangle of conjunctions between Saturn and Jupiter during Ptolemy’s time.
The conjunctions took place at years 113, 134, and 153. C ­ Jup and C
­ Sat are the centers of the orbits of
Jupiter and Saturn, respectively. S is the Sun. Thus, line AB, passing through both centers separates the
accelerative zone (from B to A) from the decelerative zone (from A to B). πJup, πSat, αJup, and αSat are the
perihelion and aphelion of Jupiter and Saturn, respectively

trajectories are getting close and a decelerating net effect when the two trajectories
are separating.
In Fig. 8, line AB goes through the centers of the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn
dividing the zone in which the two orbits are getting close (the accelerative zone,
from B to A) from the zone in which they are moving apart (the decelerative zone,
from A to B). Because the conjunctions form an equilateral triangle, two of them
will usually be in one zone and the third in the other one. Therefore, the net effect
will be accelerative if two are in the accelerative zone and decelerative if two are
in the decelerative zone. Because the triangle moves slowly, half of the 900-year-
period is accelerative and half decelerative. Figure 8 represents the configuration
during Ptolemy’s time.
Figure 9 shows the difference in minutes between the heliocentric longitude of
Saturn and Jupiter including perturbations together with a simple Keplerian orbit
from − 700 to 250. The difference can reach more than a degree, so it should be
detectable in a Ptolemaic model. It is not difficult to see how the effect of Jupiter on
Saturn is greater than that of Saturn on Jupiter. The shape of the difference shows a
period of around 900 years in a change of the mean speed, reaching a maximum for
Saturn of around − 550 and a minimum around − 100.
The shape of the figure also shows, however, a sinusoidal shape of shorter period
superimposed to the greater of 900 years. In the case of Saturn, this smaller sinusoidal

13
 C. C. Carman

Fig. 9  Difference in minutes of degree between a simple Keplerian model and a model including Sat-
urn’s and Jupiter’s perturbations as a function of years

shape has a period of around 30 years, Saturn’s tropical period, and shows that some-
times Saturn moves faster than it would be expected to move at perihelion and slower
at aphelion, while sometimes it is the opposite. There is not only a change in the mean
speed, but also in the instant speed, or better said, in the anomaly. This difference
implies a change in the eccentricity because, if the planet is moving faster at perihelion
and slower at aphelion, then the eccentricity must be greater to produce this greater
change of speed and, if the planet is going slower than expected at perihelion and faster
at aphelion, then the eccentricity must be smaller. Consequently, the influence of Jupi-
ter on Saturn changes not only the mean speed, but also the eccentricity of the orbit. In
conclusion, the eccentricity of a planet increases if the difference between maximum
and minimum speed increases. This change happens if Jupiter accelerates Saturn when
Saturn is close to its perihelion and decelerates Saturn when it is close to its aphe-
lion. On the contrary, the eccentricity of a planet diminishes if the difference between
maximum and minimum speed decreases. This change happens if Jupiter accelerates
Saturn when Saturn is close to its aphelion and decelerates Saturn when it is close to its
perihelion.

13
The gravitational influence of Jupiter on the Ptolemaic value…

Fig. 10  Instantaneous eccentricity of the orbit of Saturn (assuming an apsidal line going through the
mean Sun) from − 700 to 200 in parts, where 60 parts are the radius of the deferent

4 The value of the eccentricity of Saturn during the Ptolemaic epoch

Figure 10 plots the instant eccentricity over time converted to the mean Sun
from − 700 to 200. The chart shows that while the mean value is around 7.2—as
expected—the maximum value reaches around 8 parts and the minimum around 6.7.
The value that Ptolemy found (6.83 parts) is consistent with the lower limit of his
time.
Figure 11 plots the eccentricity found applying the IM to 3 successive mean
oppositions from − 700 to 200. The chart shows that the IM does a pretty good
job finding the true—perturbed—eccentricity. The instant eccentricity shows more
pronounced peaks than the eccentricity that the IM finds. This is an expected out-
come, for the eccentricity that the IM finds could be understood as the average of the
instant eccentricity of the three observations used, smoothing the peaks.
Figure 12 plots, in gray, the eccentricity that the IM finds applied to all possible
combinations of the mean oppositions during the time of Ptolemy’s observations,
i.e., from 126 to 141. In black, the figure plots the eccentricity found applying the
IM to three consecutive mean oppositions. In both cases, the eccentricity is depicted
as a function of the average of the time of the three observations. As expected, there
is some variation in the value of the eccentricity depending on the three mean oppo-
sitions used, but the average is clearly around 6.9, i.e., 6;54 parts. So, the Ptolemaic
value, 6;50 parts, is quite a good approximation. This makes it likely that Ptolemy
obtained the parameter applying the IM to his own observations. But, as Fig. 11 also
shows, a similar value could be obtained when Saturn was around the apogee in the

13
 C. C. Carman

Fig. 11  Saturn’s eccentricity (2e) found by applying the IM to three successive mean oppositions from
− 700 to 200

previous four tropical periods, i.e., around 100, 70, 40 and 10 CE. Consequently,
either Ptolemy obtained the value from his own observations or he borrowed the
value of the observations from astronomers working in the first century CE.
As I have already mentioned, Fig. 12 plots the values for the eccentricity found
by combining all possible trios in the set of mean oppositions from 126 to 141, using
the correct times and longitudes of the oppositions. The average for 2e is 6;56,28
parts, and the standard deviation is 0;3 parts. But, as (Duke 2005) shows, the IM is
extremely sensitive to small changes in the input data. In fact, if one runs the same
analysis allowing for an error of ± 12 h in time and 0;15° in longitude, one obtains
an average value of 6;57,15 parts and a standard deviation of 0;35 parts. Thus, while
the average is fairly stable, the standard deviation increases considerably. This dif-
ference is also true even allowing for a larger error. For example, with a possible
error of 0;30° in longitude and, again, ± 12 h in time, the average changes less than
5′ of a part, but the standard deviation is around 1 part.2 This change in values prob-
ably shows that Ptolemy obtained his value not applying the IM only to one trio, but
to many of which he obtained an average value. This is expected since we know that

2
In order to obtain these values, I randomly added a value between ± 12 h to the correct time and a value
between ± 15′ to the correct longitude to each of the 16 oppositions. I then calculated the average and
standard deviation of the found eccentricities. I repeated this process 50 times. The final values are the
average of the 50 tries. In all cases, I omitted the trios including two consecutive oppositions because in
these cases a small error produces inaccurate results and Ptolemy was, almost certainly, aware of it.

13
The gravitational influence of Jupiter on the Ptolemaic value…

Fig. 12  Saturn’s eccentricity derived using mean oppositions during Ptolemy’s time. In gray, the eccen-
tricity found by the IM applied to all possible combinations of the mean oppositions during the time of
Ptolemy’s observations, i.e., from 126 to 141. In black, the eccentricity found applying the IM to three
consecutive mean oppositions. In both cases, the eccentricity is drawn as a function of the average of the
dates of the three observations used in the IM

Ptolemy was aware that his method was extremely sensitive to small variations in
the input data (Duke 2005, 182).
In any case, a value of around 6;50 parts can only be obtained using observa-
tions close to apogee, which is consistent with the time of Ptolemy’s observations.
Thus, if some astronomer other than Ptolemy obtained the value with observations
of his own, we can assume that he also worked with observations close to apogee,
which would be odd, but not impossible. Similarly, if Ptolemy used observations
from the past for applying the IM, they should have also taken place around apogee.
If Ptolemy had had reliable observations of mean oppositions far from the apogee,
he would have surely used them, because that would have improved the result of the
IM. It is not necessary to possess a profound understanding of the geometry implicit
in the IM to understand that the more separated the three observations are, the better
the result will be. It is enough to understand that the method obtains the center of a
circle using three points. No doubt, Ptolemy understood that the more separated the
points were, the more reliable the center would be. Consequently, all in all, I think
that we cannot rule out the possibility that Ptolemy derived the value from observa-
tions from first century CE astronomers, but it is more likely that Ptolemy obtained
the value using his own observations.
We can confidently dismiss the supposition that Ptolemy borrowed the value of
the parameter, or the observations to obtain the parameter, from astronomers earlier

13
 C. C. Carman

Fig. 13  Saturn’s eccentricity found by applying the IM to three consecutive mean oppositions as a func-
tion of the average of the time of the three observations used in the IM, during Ptolemy’s time, and Hip-
parchian and Babylonian epochs

than the first century AD. In the Almagest, besides his own planetary observations,
Ptolemy uses Babylonian observations from − 271 to − 229, most likely the earliest
he had. Even if Ptolemy did not use Hipparchian planetary observations, it is not
unlikely that he could have known some of them.3 It would be difficult to explain
why Hipparchus criticized planetary models without making his own observations,
but it is clearly not impossible. Making retrodictions from the planetary models
of his time and comparing them with accurate Babylonian observations would be
enough. In any case, if Hipparchus made planetary observations and Ptolemy had
them, he did not use them for obtaining the eccentricity of Saturn. Figure 13 shows
that during both epochs, Babylonian and Hipparchian, the eccentricity that the IM
finds would always be greater than 6.8 parts and the average in both cases would be
around 7.5 or 7.4. Therefore, we have strong reasons to think that Ptolemy did not
obtain the value using observations taken from Hipparchus or the Babylonians.4

3
Ptolemy says in Almagest IX.2 that even if Hipparchus did not develop planetary models, he made a
compilation of planetary observations arranged in a more useful way. It is not clear whether this compi-
lation included his own observations or not. Ptolemy also says that Hipparchus used these observations
to show that the phenomena were not in agreement with the hypotheses of the astronomers of his time
(Toomer 1998, 421).
4
There are at least two reasons that make it impossible to find vestiges of the gravitational perturbation
of Saturn on Jupiter. On the one hand, the change of Jupiter is smaller than that of Saturn. On the other,
given that Jupiter’s tropical period is around 12 years, Ptolemy (or whoever calculated the eccentricity)
could use observations of oppositions uniformly distributed along the entire zodiac, obtaining a value for
the eccentricity closer to the Keplerian one. The mean value of Jupiter’s eccentricity during the Ptole-
maic epoch is, including Jupiter’s perturbation, around 5.42 parts; the same value applies to the Hippar-
chian epoch, and around -250 diminishes to 2.35 parts. The difference is too small to be detected.

13
The gravitational influence of Jupiter on the Ptolemaic value…

5 Concluding remarks

Dennis Duke concludes his (Duke 2005) by asserting that “[i]n the end it is clear
that Ptolemy’s manipulation of data for the outer planets is completely consistent
with his treatment of the inner planets, the Sun and the Moon. In each case he
produces purported ‘observations’ which he claims he made, and which he claims
are the empirical basis for his model parameters. And in each case, those claims
have been found to be not the case. Especially in the case of the outer planets, the
original source of the model parameters must be considered as unknown.”
I have shown above that there are reasons to think that the astronomer who
obtained the value for the eccentricity of Saturn used observations of mean oppo-
sitions close to apogee not earlier than the first century CE, and that, most likely,
this astronomer was Ptolemy, who applied the IM to his own observations. Had
he applied the IM to observations earlier than the first century CE or directly bor-
rowed the value of the eccentricity from previous astronomers, like Hipparchus
or the Babylonians, the value would have been considerably greater. The case of
Saturn is the only one in which the perturbation of another planet changes the
parameters so much to be detectable in the order of magnitude of Ptolemaic error.
Therefore, given that, in the only case in which it can be detected, the analy-
sis favors the Ptolemaic origin of the value, I am cautiously optimistic in believ-
ing that Ptolemy is also the author of the values for, at least, the other two outer
planets.
Ptolemy says in Almagest IV.9 that he changed some of the earlier, some-
what incorrect, assumptions in the models of Mercury and Saturn, because he
later acquired more accurate observations. He does not mention anything else
later when he develops the models of Mercury (IX.6–10) and Saturn (XI.5–8),
but (Hamilton et al. 1987) have convincingly argued that those earlier, somewhat
incorrect, values are attested in the Canobic Inscription. If this is the case, while
several parameters for Mercury have been modified, in the case of Saturn, only the
eccentricity has been certainly altered. (There are many differences, but these are
usually attributed to scribal errors—see (Jones 2005).) The value for the eccen-
tricity (2e) is 6;30. The parameters of the Handy tables are the same of those
of the Almagest. The Planetary Hypotheses present many changes, mainly in the
latitude theory (Swerdlow 2005) and the mean motions (Duke 2009). Regarding
the geometrical parameters of the longitude models, however, the parameters of
Mercury and (probably) Saturn have been modified. In the case of Saturn, the
eccentricity has been modified, but it is not clear if it is the same as the Almagest
or a bit smaller (6;40). The changes in the model for Mercury are easy to explain,
because the planet is not visible most of the time, and, when it is, the light of the
Sun and the refraction pose extra challenges in obtaining accurate values. This,
however, is not the case for Saturn.
Figure 12 shows that if Ptolemy applied the IM to observations around 125,
the earliest limit of the set of observations used in the Almagest, he would have
actually obtained a value slightly smaller than the 6;50 parts proposed in the
Almagest. This could therefore explain the earlier and somewhat erroneous value

13
 C. C. Carman

for the eccentricity of the Canobic Inscription. Still, 6;30 parts is too small a
value, because the minimum is around 6;45. So, the origin of this parameter still
remains unknown. In any case, it is clear that Ptolemy was struggling with the
eccentricity of Saturn during a long period, as might be expected for a value that,
because of Jupiter’s gravitational influence, was not stable even during his time.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dennis Duke, Hernán Grecco, Anibal Szapiro, Diego Pel-
egrin, Gonzalo Recio and Gustavo Zelioli for discussing previous versions of this paper. I would also like
to thank Silver and Teddy Brea for their support. This research was supported by the Research Project
PICT-2016-4487 of the Agencia Nacional de Promoción de Científica y Tecnológica of Argentina.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References
Aaboe, Asger. 2001. Episodes from the Early History of Astronomy. New York: Springer.
Carman, Christián C., and Gonzalo L. Recio. 2019. Ptolemaic Planetary Models and Kepler’s Laws.
Archive for History of Exact Sciences 73 (1): 39–124. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0040​7-018-0219-x.
Duke, Dennis. 2005. Ptolemy’s Treatment of the Outer Planets. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 59
(2): 169–187. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0040​7-004-0086-5.
Duke, Dennis. 2009. Mean Motions in Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypotheses. Archive for History of Exact Sci-
ences 63 (6): 635–654. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0040​7-009-0049-y.
Evans, James. 1984. On the Function and Probable Origin of Ptolemy’s Equant. American Journal of
Physics 52: 1080–1089.
Goldstein, Bernard R. 1967. The Arabic Version of Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypotheses. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society 57 (4): 3–55.
Hamilton, N. T., N. M. Swerdlow, and G. J. Toomer. 1987. ‘The Cannobic Inscription, Ptolemy’s Earli-
est Work’. In From Ancient Omens to Celestial Mechanics, eds. J. L. Berggren and B. R Goldstein,
Copenhagen, 55–73.
Hamm, Elizabeth. 2011. ‘Ptolemy’s Planetary Theory: An English Translation of Book One, Part A of the
Planetary Hypotheses with Introduction and Commentary’. Ph.D., University of Toronto, Toronto.
Jones, Alexander. 2005. Ptolemy’s Canobic Inscription and Heliodorus’ Observation Reports. SCIAMVS
6: 53–97.
Mercier, Raymond. 2011. Πτολεμαίου Πρόχειροι Kανόνες. Ptolemy’s Handy Tables, Volume 1b. Tables
A1–A2. Transcription and Commentary. Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain. Louvain-
la-Neuve: Université Catholoque de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, Louvain-la-Neuve.
Swerdlow, Noel. 2005. ‘Ptolemy’s Theories of the Latitude of ThePlanets in the Almagest, Handy Tables
and Planetary Hypotheses’. J. Z. Buchwald and A. Francklin (Eds.), Wrong for the Right Reasons.
Archimedes 11. Dordrecht: 41–71.
Toomer, G. J. 1998. Ptolemy’s Almagest. 1. Princeton paperback printing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press.
Wilson, Curtis. 1985. The Great Inequality of Jupiter and Saturn: From Kepler to Laplace. Archive for
History of Exact Sciences 33 (1–3): 15–290. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF003​28048​.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13