Farīd al-Dīn Abu al-Ḥasan ‘Alī b. al-Fahhād’s astronomical tradition as represented in the prolegomenon to his Alā’ī zīj (1172 AD) shows his experimental examination of the theories of his predecessors and testing the circumstances of the synodic phenomena as derived from the theories developed in the classical period of medieval Middle Eastern astronomy against his own observations. This work was highly influential in late Islamic astronomy and was translated into Greek in the 1290s. He evaluated al-Battānī’s Ṣābi’ zīj (d. 929 (...) AD) and al-Khāzinī’s Sanjarī zīj (fl. 1115 AD) with regard to the conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn in 1166 AD and found the errors of, respectively, about 35 and 10 days in the times predicted, which are verified by a recalculation on the basis of these works and modern theories. His inspection of the four solar theories established by his Islamic predecessors with respect to the quantitative differences between their predicted times for the occurrence of the vernal equinoxes is also correct. His calculation of the parameters of the solar and lunar eclipses in April 1176 has the errors of up to 1 h in the time and one digit in the magnitude. A general result of this study is that solely the evaluation of the synodic phenomena could mislead the judgment about the reliability and worthiness of the contemporary theories. (shrink)

ArgumentIn theAlmagest, Ptolemy finds that the apogee of Mercury moves progressively at a speed equal to his value for the rate of precession, namely one degree per century, in the tropical reference system of the ecliptic coordinates. He generalizes this to the other planets, so that the motions of the apogees of all five planets are assumed to be equal, while the solar apsidal line is taken to be fixed. In medieval Islamic astronomy, one change in this general proposition took (...) place because of the discovery of the motion of the solar apogee in the ninth century, which gave rise to lengthy discussions on the speed of its motion. Initially Bīrūnī and later Ibn al-Zarqālluh assigned a proper motion to it, although at different rates. Nevertheless, appealing to the Ptolemaic generalization and interpreting it as a methodological axiom, the dominant idea became to extend it in order to include the motion of the solar apogee as well. Another change occurred after correctly making a distinction between the motion of the apogees and the rate of precession. Some Western Islamic astronomers generalized Ibn al-Zarqālluh's proper motion of the solar apogee to the apogees of the planets. Analogously, Ibn al-Shāṭir maintained that the motion of the apogees is faster than precession. Nevertheless, the Ptolemaic generalization in the case of the equality of the motions of the apogees remained untouchable, despite the notable development of planetary astronomy, in both theoretical and observational aspects, in the late Islamic period. (shrink)

This paper presents an analysis of the systematic astronomical observations performed by Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Maghribī at the Maragha observatory between 1262 and 1274 AD. In a treatise entitled Talkhīṣ al-majisṭī, preserved in a unique copy at Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Muḥyī al-Dīn explains his observations and measurements of the Sun, the Moon, the superior planets, and eight reference stars. His measurements of the meridian altitudes of the Sun, the superior planets, and the eight bright stars were made using the mural quadrant of (...) the observatory, and the times of their meridian transit using a water clock. The mean absolute error in the meridian altitudes of the Sun is ~ 3.1′, of the superior planets ~ 4.6′, and of the eight fixed stars ~ 6.2′. The clepsydras used by Muḥyī al-Dīn could apparently fix time intervals with a precision of ± 5 min. His estimation of the magnitudes of three lunar eclipses observed in Maragha in 1262, 1270, and 1274 AD is in close agreement with modern data. (shrink)

This paper analyses a kinematic model for the solar motion by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, a thirteenth-century Iranian astronomer at the Marāgha observatory in northwestern Iran. The purpose of this model is to account for the continuous decrease of the obliquity of the ecliptic and the solar eccentricity since the time of Ptolemy. Shīrāzī puts forward different versions of the model in his three major cosmographical works. In the final version, in his Tuḥfa, the mean ecliptic is defined by an eccentric (...) of fixed mean eccentricity and a mean obliquity fixed with respect to the celestial equator, and the center of the epicycle, which is inclined to the eccentric, moves on the eccentric with an annual period. By an additional slow motion of the sun on the epicycle, the true eccentricity of the solar deferent, defined by the annual motion of the sun, and the sun’s extreme declination from the equator change, accounting for the reduction of the eccentricity and the obliquity of the ecliptic since the time of Ptolemy. (shrink)

From the early ninth century until about eight centuries later, the Middle East witnessed a series of both simple and systematic astronomical observations for the purpose of testing contemporary astronomical tables and deriving the fundamental solar, lunar, and planetary parameters. Of them, the extensive observations of lunar eclipses available before 1000 AD for testing the ephemeredes computed from the astronomical tables are in a relatively sharp contrast to the twelve lunar observations that are pertained to the four extant accounts of (...) the measurements of the basic parameters of Ptolemaic lunar model. The last of them are Taqī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ma‘rūf’s trio of lunar eclipses observed from Istanbul, Cairo, and Thessalonica in 1576–1577 and documented in chapter 2 of book 5 of his famous work, Sidrat muntaha al-afkar fī malakūt al-falak al-dawwār. In this article, we provide a detailed analysis of the accuracy of his solar and lunar observations. (shrink)

Ibn al-Zarqālluh (al-Andalus, d. 1100) introduced a new inequality in the longitudinal motion of the Moon into Ptolemy’s lunar model with the amplitude of 24′, which periodically changes in terms of a sine function with the distance in longitude between the mean Moon and the solar apogee as the variable. It can be shown that the discovery had its roots in his examination of the discrepancies between the times of the lunar eclipses he obtained from the data of his eclipse (...) observations over a 37-year period in the latter part of the eleventh century and the predictions made on the basis of the lunar theories in the Mumta $$\textit{\d{h}}$$ an zīj (Baghdad, ca. 830) and al-Battānī’s zīj (Raqqa, d. 929), which were available to him at the time. What Ibn al-Zarqālluh found is, in fact, a special case of the annual equation of the Moon, which is applicable in the oppositions and, thus, in the lunar eclipses. The inequality was discovered independently by Tycho Brahe (d. 1601) and Johannes Kepler (d. 1630). As Ibn Yūnus (d. 1009) reports in his $$\textit{\d{H}}$$ ākimī zīj, Ibn al-Zarqālluh’s medieval Middle Eastern predecessors, the Persian astronomers Māhānī (d. ca. 880) and Nayrīzī (d. 922) as well as ‘Alī b. Amājūr (fl. ca. 920), were already acquainted with the problem of the eclipse timing errors, but it had remained unresolved until Ibn Yūnus provided a provisional, and incorrect, solution by reducing the size of the lunar epicycle. As we argue, the diverse ways to tackle the same problem stem from two different methodologies in astronomical reasoning in the traditions developed separately in the Eastern and Western regions of the medieval Islamic domain. (shrink)

Some variants in the materials related to the planetary latitudes, including computational procedures, underlying parameters, numerical tables, and so on, may be addressed in the corpus of the astronomical tables preserved from the medieval Islamic period, which have already been classified comprehensively by Van Dalen. Of these, the new values obtained for the planetary inclinations and the longitude of their ascending nodes might have something to do with actual observations in the period in question, which are the main concern of (...) this paper. The paper is in the following sections. In the first section, Ptolemy’s latitude models and their reception in Islamic astronomy are briefly reviewed. In the next section, the medieval non-Ptolemaic values for the inclinations and the longitudes of the nodal lines are introduced. The paper ends with the discussion and some concluding remarks. The derivation of the underlying inclination values from the medieval planetary latitude tables and determining the accuracy of the tables are postponed to “Appendix” in the end of the paper. (shrink)

ArgumentThe present paper is an attempt to understand how medieval astronomers working within the Ptolemaic astronomical context in which the annular eclipse is an unjustified and impossible phenomenon, could know, define, justify, and later make attempts that led to success in predicting annular solar eclipses. As a context-based study, it reviews the situation of annular eclipses with regard to the medieval hypotheses applied to the calculation of the angular diameters of the sun and the moon, which was basic for contemplating (...) the possibility of annular eclipses. This gives the premises and the preliminary insights that were necessary to clarify the complex situation of the annular eclipse in the late medieval Islamic period and to explain the historical mechanisms leading to justifying the phenomenon during that period. This was, first due to a convincing and efficient observational evidence which, of course, was available only to a number of medieval astronomers and significantly for only a limited time period, and, second, the result of an amazing interaction amongst various astronomical traditions available to them. At a more general level, the research aims to inspect or, at least, to give some impressions of the essential conditions, i.e., identification of phenomenon, empirical evidence, and the justifying underlying tradition, under which it became possible in the tradition-based science of the `medieval period to permit a not-already-defined and tradition-opposed phenomenon to be posed and justified. (shrink)