
One of the most influential Greek astronomers and geographers  of his time, Ptolemy propounded the geocentric theory in a form that  prevailed for 1400 years. However, of all the ancient Greek mathematicians, it  is fair to say that his work has generated more discussion and argument than any  other. We shall discuss the arguments below for, depending on which are correct,  they portray Ptolemy in very different lights. The arguments of some historians  show that Ptolemy was a mathematician of the very top rank, arguments of others  show that he was no more than a superb expositor, but far worse, some even claim  that he committed a crime against his fellow scientists by betraying the ethics and integrity of his profession.  
We know very little of Ptolemy's life. He made astronomical  observations from Alexandria in Egypt during the years AD 127-41. In fact the  first observation which we can date exactly was made by Ptolemy on 26 March 127  while the last was made on 2 February 141. It was claimed by Theodore  Meliteniotes in around 1360 that Ptolemy was born in Hermiou (which is in Upper  Egypt rather than Lower Egypt where Alexandria is situated) but since this claim  first appears more than one thousand years after Ptolemy lived, it must be  treated as relatively unlikely to be true. In fact there is no evidence that  Ptolemy was ever anywhere other than Alexandria.  
His name, Claudius Ptolemy, is of course a mixture of the Greek  Egyptian 'Ptolemy' and the Roman 'Claudius'. This would indicate that he was  descended from a Greek family living in Egypt and that he was a citizen of Rome,  which would be as a result of a Roman emperor giving that 'reward' to one of  Ptolemy's ancestors.  
We do know that Ptolemy used observations made by 'Theon the  mathematician', and this was almost certainly Theon of Smyrna who almost  certainly was his teacher. Certainly this would make sense since Theon was both an observer and  a mathematician who had written on astronomical topics such as conjunctions, eclipses, occultations and transits. Most of Ptolemy's early works are dedicated to  Syrus who may have also been one of his teachers in Alexandria, but nothing is  known of Syrus.   If these facts about Ptolemy's teachers are correct then  certainly in Theon he did not have a great  scholar, for Theon seems not to have  understood in any depth the astronomical work he describes. On the other hand  Alexandria had a tradition for scholarship which would mean that even if Ptolemy  did not have access to the best teachers, he would have access to the libraries  where he would have found the valuable reference material of which he made good  use.   Ptolemy's major works have survived and we shall discuss them  in this article. The most important, however, is the Almagest which is a  treatise in thirteen books. We should say straight away that, although the work  is now almost always known as the Almagest that was not its original  name. Its original Greek title translates as The Mathematical Compilation  but this title was soon replaced by another Greek title which means The  Greatest Compilation. This was translated into Arabic as "al-majisti" and  from this the title Almagest was given to the work when it was translated  from Arabic to Latin.  
The Almagest is the earliest of Ptolemy's works and  gives in detail the mathematical theory of the motions of the Sun, Moon, and  planets. Ptolemy made his most original contribution by presenting details for  the motions of each of the planets. The Almagest was not superseded until  a century after Copernicus presented his heliocentric theory in the De revolutionibus of  1543. Grasshoff writes in  Ptolemy's "Almagest" shares with Euclid's "Elements" the glory of being  the scientific text longest in use. From its conception in the second century up  to the late Renaissance, this work determined astronomy as a science. During  this time the "Almagest" was not only a work on astronomy; the subject was  defined as what is described in the "Almagest".  
 
Ptolemy describes himself very clearly what he is attempting to  do in writing the work 
 We shall try to note down everything which we think we have  discovered up to the present time; we shall do this as concisely as possible and  in a manner which can be followed by those who have already made some progress  in the field. For the sake of completeness in our treatment we shall set out  everything useful for the theory of the heavens in the proper order, but to  avoid undue length we shall merely recount what has been adequately established  by the ancients. However, those topics which have not been dealt with by our  predecessors at all, or not as usefully as they might have been, will be  discussed at length to the best of our ability. 
 
Ptolemy first of all justifies his description of the universe  based on the earth-centred system described by Aristotle. It is a view of the world  based on a fixed earth around which the sphere of the fixed stars rotates every  day, this carrying with it the spheres of the sun, moon, and planets. Ptolemy  used geometric models to predict the positions of the sun, moon, and planets,  using combinations of circular motion known as epicycles. Having set up this model, Ptolemy then goes on  to describe the mathematics which he needs in the rest of the work. In  particular he introduces trigonometrical methods based on the chord function Crd  (which is related to the sine function by sin a = (Crd 2a)/120).   Ptolemy devised new geometrical proofs and theorems. He  obtained, using chords of a circle and an inscribed 360-gon, the approximation    π = 3 17/120 = 3.14166 
 
and, using √3 = chord 60°,  
 √3 = 1.73205. 
 
He used formulae for the Crd function which are analogous to  our formulae for sin(a + b), sin(a - b) and sin  a/2 to create a table of the Crd function at intervals of  1/2 a degree.  
This occupies the first two of the 13 books of the  Almagest and then, quoting again from the introduction, we give Ptolemy's  own description of how he intended to develop the rest of the mathematical  astronomy in the work (see for example 
 [After introducing the mathematical concepts] we have  to go through the motions of the sun and of the moon, and the phenomena  accompanying these motions; for it would be impossible to examine the theory of  the stars thoroughly without first having a grasp of these matters. Our final  task in this way of approach is the theory of the stars. Here too it would be  appropriate to deal first with the sphere of the so-called 'fixed stars', and  follow that by treating the five 'planets', as they are called.  
 
In examining the theory of the sun, Ptolemy compares his own  observations of equinoxes with those of Hipparchus and the earlier  observations Meton in 432 BC. He confirmed the length of the tropical year as 1/300 of a day  less than 365 1/4 days, the precise value obtained by Hipparchus. Since, as Ptolemy  himself knew, the accuracy of the rest of his data depended heavily on this  value, the fact that the true value is 1/128 of a day less  than 365 1/4days did produce errors in the rest of the  work. We shall discuss below in more detail the accusations which have been made  against Ptolemy, but this illustrates clearly the grounds for these accusations  since Ptolemy had to have an error of 28 hours in his observation of the equinox  to produce this error, and even given the accuracy that could be expected with  ancient instruments and methods, it is essentially unbelievable that he could  have made an error of this magnitude. A good discussion of this strange error is  contained in the excellent article  Based on his observations of solstices and equinoxes, Ptolemy found the lengths of the  seasons and, based on these, he proposed a simple model for the sun which was a  circular motion of uniform angular velocity, but the earth was not at the centre  of the circle but at a distance called the eccentricity from this centre. This  theory of the sun forms the subject of Book 3 of the Almagest.   In Books 4 and 5 Ptolemy gives his theory of the moon. Here he  follows Hipparchus who had studied three  different periods which one could associate with the motion of the moon. There  is the time taken for the moon to return to the same longitude, the time taken  for it to return to the same velocity (the anomaly) and the time taken for it to  return to the same latitude. Ptolemy also discusses, as Hipparchus had done, the synodic month, that is the time between successive oppositions of the sun and moon. In Book 4 Ptolemy gives  Hipparchus's epicycle model for the  motion of the moon but he notes, as in fact Hipparchus had done himself, that  there are small discrepancies between the model and the observed parameters.  Although noting the discrepancies, Hipparchus seems not to have worked  out a better model, but Ptolemy does this in Book 5 where the model he gives  improves markedly on the one proposed by Hipparchus. An interesting  discussion of Ptolemy's theory of the moon is given in  Having given a theory for the motion of the sun and of the  moon, Ptolemy was in a position to apply these to obtain a theory of eclipses  which he does in Book 6. The next two books deal with the fixed stars and in  Book 7 Ptolemy uses his own observations together with those of Hipparchus to justify his belief  that the fixed stars always maintain the same positions relative to each other.  He wrote  If one were to match the above alignments against the  diagrams forming the constellations on Hipparchus's celestial globe, he  would find that the positions of the relevant stars on the globe resulting from  the observations made at the time of Hipparchus, according to what he  recorded, are very nearly the same as at present.  
 
In these two book Ptolemy also discusses precession, the  discovery of which he attributes to Hipparchus, but his figure is  somewhat in error mainly because of the error in the length of the tropical year  which he used. Much of Books 7 and 8 are taken up with Ptolemy's star catalogue  containing over one thousand stars.   The final five books of the Almagest discuss planetary  theory. This must be Ptolemy's greatest achievement in terms of an original  contribution, since there does not appear to have been any satisfactory  theoretical model to explain the rather complicated motions of the five planets  before the Almagest. Ptolemy combined the epicycle and eccentric methods to give his model for the motions of  the planets. The path of a planet P therefore consisted of circular  motion on an epicycle, the centre C of the epicycle moving round a circle  whose centre was offset from the earth. Ptolemy's really clever innovation here  was to make the motion of C uniform not about the centre of the circle  around which it moves, but around a point called the equant which is  symmetrically placed on the opposite side of the centre from the earth.   The planetary theory which Ptolemy developed here is a  masterpiece. He created a sophisticated mathematical model to fit observational  data which before Ptolemy's time was scarce, and the model he produced, although  complicated, represents the motions of the planets fairly well.  
Toomer sums up the Almagest in as follows:-  
 As a didactic work the "Almagest" is a masterpiece of  clarity and method, superior to any ancient scientific textbook and with few  peers from any period. But it is much more than that. Far from being a mere  'systemisation' of earlier Greek astronomy, as it is sometimes described, it is  in many respects an original work. 
 
We will return to discuss some of the accusations made against  Ptolemy after commenting briefly on his other works. He published the tables  which are scattered throughout the Almagest separately under the title  Handy Tables. These were not merely lifted from the Almagest  however but Ptolemy made numerous improvements in their presentation, ease of  use and he even made improvements in the basic parameters to give greater  accuracy. We only know details of the Handy Tables through the commentary  by Theon of Alexandria but in  the author shows that care is required since Theon was not fully aware of Ptolemy's  procedures.   Ptolemy also did what many writers of deep scientific works  have done, and still do, in writing a popular account of his results under the  title Planetary Hypothesis. This work, in two books, again follows the  familiar route of reducing the mathematical skills needed by a reader. Ptolemy  does this rather cleverly by replacing the abstract geometrical theories by  mechanical ones. Ptolemy also wrote a work on astrology. It may seem strange to  the modern reader that someone who wrote such excellent scientific books should  write on astrology. However, Ptolemy sees it rather differently for he claims  that the Almagest allows one to find the positions of the heavenly  bodies, while his astrology book he sees as a companion work describing the  effects of the heavenly bodies on people's lives.  
In a book entitled Analemma he discussed methods of  finding the angles need to construct a sundial which involves the projection of  points on the celestial sphere. In Planisphaerium he is  concerned with stereographic projection of the celestial sphere onto a  plane. This is discussed in   where it is stated:-    In the stereographic projection treated by Ptolemy in the   "Planisphaerium" the celestial sphere is mapped onto the plane of the equator by  projection from the south pole. Ptolemy does not prove the important property  that circles on the sphere become circles on the plane. 
 
Ptolemy's major work Geography, in eight books, attempts  to map the known world giving coordinates of the major places in terms of  latitude and longitude. It is not surprising that the maps given by Ptolemy were  quite inaccurate in many places for he could not be expected to do more than use  the available data and this was of very poor quality for anything outside the  Roman Empire, and even parts of the Roman Empire are severely distorted. In   Ptolemy is described as:-  
 ... a man working [on map-construction]  without the support of a developed theory but within a mathematical tradition  and guided by his sense of what is appropriate to the problem.  
 
Another work on Optics is in five books and in it  Ptolemy studies colour, reflection, refraction, and mirrors of various shapes. Toomer  comments in   The establishment of theory by experiment, frequently by  constructing special apparatus, is the most striking feature of Ptolemy's  "Optics". Whether the subject matter is largely derived or original, "The  Optics" is an impressive example of the development of a mathematical science  with due regard to physical data, and is worthy of the author of the  "Almagests
 
An English translation, attempting to remove the inaccuracies  introduced in the poor Arabic translation which is our only source of the  Optics is given in 
The first to make accusations against Ptolemy was Tycho Brahe. He discovered that there  was a systematic error of one degree in the longitudes of the stars in the star  catalogue, and he claimed that, despite Ptolemy saying that it represented his  own observations, it was merely a conversion of a catalogue due to Hipparchus corrected for precession  to Ptolemy's date. There is of course definite problems comparing two star  catalogues, one of which we have a copy of while the other is lost.   After comments by Laplace and Lalande, the next to attack Ptolemy  vigorously was Delambre. He suggested that perhaps  the errors came from Hipparchus and that Ptolemy might  have done nothing more serious than to have failed to correct Hipparchus's data for the time  between the equinoxes and solstices. However Delambre then goes on to say   One could explain everything in a less favourable but all  the simpler manner by denying Ptolemy the observation of the stars and  equinoxes, and by claiming that he assimilated everything from Hipparchus, using the minimal value  of the latter for the precession motion. 
 
However, Ptolemy was not without his supporters by any means  and further analysis led to a belief that the accusations made against Ptolemy  by Delambre were false. Boll writing in  1894 says 
 To all appearances, one will have to credit Ptolemy with  giving an essentially richer picture of the Greek firmament after his eminent  predecessors. 
 
Vogt showed clearly in his important paper  that by considering Hipparchus's Commentary on  Aratus and Eudoxus and making the reasonable assumption that the data given  there agreed with Hipparchus's star catalogue, then  Ptolemy's star catalogue cannot have been produced from the positions of the  stars as given by Hipparchus, except for a small  number of stars where Ptolemy does appear to have taken the data from Hipparchus. Vogt writes:-  
 This allows us to consider the fixed star catalogue as of  his own making, just as Ptolemy himself vigorously states. 
 
The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy  came from Newton in   He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-  
 This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime  committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of  the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of  fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.  
 
Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every  observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes    
 [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and  discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning  the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that  he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In  every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and  it is a crime against science and scholarship. 
 
Although the evidence produced by Brahe, Delambre, Newton and others certainly  do show that Ptolemy's errors are not random, this last quote from believe, a crime against Ptolemy (to use Newton's own words). The  book  is written to study validity of these accusations and it is a work which I  strongly believe gives the correct interpretation. Grasshoff writes:-  
 ... one has to assume that a substantial proportion of the  Ptolemaic star catalogue is grounded on those Hipparchan observations which Hipparchus already used for the  compilation of the second part of his "Commentary on Aratus". Although it cannot  be ruled out that coordinates resulting from genuine Ptolemaic observations are  included in the catalogue, they could not amount to more than half the  catalogue.  
... the assimilation of Hipparchan observations can no  longer be discussed under the aspect of plagiarism. Ptolemy, whose intention was  to develop a comprehensive theory of celestial phenomena, had no access to the  methods of data evaluation using arithmetical means with which modern  astronomers can derive from a set of varying measurement results, the one  representative value needed to test a hypothesis. For methodological reason,  then, Ptolemy was forced to choose from a set of measurements the one value  corresponding best to what he had to consider as the most reliable data. When an  intuitive selection among the data was no longer possible ... Ptolemy had to  consider those values as 'observed' which could be confirmed by theoretical  predictions. 
 
As a final comment we quote the epigram which is accepted by  many scholars to have been written by Ptolemy himself, and it appears in Book 1  of the Almagest, following the list of contents
 Well do I know that I am mortal, a creature of one  day.
But if my mind follows the winding paths of the stars
Then my feet no  longer rest on earth, but standing by
Zeus himself I take my fill of  ambrosia, the divine dish.