DIO vol. 1, # 2-3 - DIO, The International Journal of Scientific History

174 1991 December DIO 1.3 ‡9
was a geocentrist (& astrologer). It is DR’s contention (a point so self-evident that it would
hardly even be controversial, except in a Hist.sci community that has become obsessed with
“whiggism” & “paradigms”) that: there is a correlation between [i] the sort of intelligence
required to discern that heliocentrism is preferable to geocentrism, and [ii] that which is
required for contributing new insights to a science. (Likewise, I suggest that, in modern
academe, one might detect a correlation between [a] competent, talented scholarship and
[b] insistence on honesty, incorruptibility, & rejection of unethical compromise with a gang
— or ring 291 — of Nibelungs.)
S2 Hipparchos’ historical rôles as propagandist, preserver, & calendarist will of course
always be remembered (with varying degrees of gratitude). But it is as a dedicated observer
that he will shine forever bright in the history of astronomy. The quality of Hipparchos’
massive (astrolabe-based) Ancient Star Catalog (1025 objects) — which Pliny 2.95 rightly
calls a bold inheritance left to all mankind — was not improved upon until 17 centuries later
(Tycho 1598: see DIO 2.1 ‡4). Hipparchos’ most admirable trait, which Muffiosi regard
as showing his mental inferiority to Ptolemy (see [Muffia 1990] pp.204f), will ensure his
rank among history’s premier early scientists: he refused to fake observations to accord
with theory: §N15 & §R14.
S3 We are by now well beyond the firm inductions that culminated in §N-§O, and are
swimming in fun but obviously speculative areas. So, rather regretfully, I leave off analysis
at this point. But, it’s been grand. And my thanks 292 again to the Muffia for handing me
the Almajest 4.11 problem, which I’d foolishly skimmed past for so long.
References
Almajest. Compiled Ptolemy c.160 AD. Eds: Manitius 1912-3; Toomer 1984.
Archimedes. Works c.260 BC. Ed: T.Heath, Cambridge U. 1897&1912.
J.L.Berggren & B.Goldstein 1987, Eds. From Ancient Omens to Stat Mech, Copenhagen.
A.Bowen & Goldstein 1988. At Leichty, Ellis, Gerardi 1988 p.39.
John Britton 1967. On the Quality of Solar & Lunar Param in Ptol’s Alm, diss, Yale U.
DSB = Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Ed: C.Gillispie, NYC.
J.Evans 1987. JHA 18:155 & 233.
Geographical Directory. Compiled Ptolemy c.160 AD. Ed: C.Nobbe, Leipzig 1843-5.
O.Gingerich 1972. Centaurus 17.2:173.
O.Gingerich 1976. Science 193:476.
O.Gingerich 1980. QJRAS 21:253.
O.Gingerich 1981. QJRAS 22:40.
O.Gingerich 1988. JHA 19:142. Review of Berggren & Goldstein 1987.
O.Gingerich 1990. JHA 21:364. Review of R.Newton 1982.
B.Goldstein 1978. Science 199:872. Review of R.Newton 1977.
B.Goldstein & A.Bowen 1983. Isis 73:330.
B.Goldstein & A.Bowen 1989. Centaurus 32:272.
Gerd Graßhoff 1990. History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue, NYC. [Muffia 1990]
Thos.Heath 1913. Aristarchus of Samos, Oxford U.
J.Heiberg 1907, Ed. Claudii Ptolemaei Opera Astronomica Minora, Leipzig.
Alexander Jones 1983. ArchiveHistExactSci 29.1:1.
Alexander Jones 1990. Trans Amer Philos Soc 80.7:1.
Alexander Jones 1991H. JHA 22.2:101.
Alexander Jones 1991M. Isis 82.3:441.
291 The title of Wagner’s immortal cycle obviously has at least 2 meanings. Have we here stumbled upon a 3rd?
292 My gratitude is but the merest trifle, beside that which Hist.sci archons will (very privately) feel towards
Lord Hoskin for directly causing DR to become the discoverer of the solutions to the Hipparchos math (§N & §O) of
Almajest 4.11 and (fn 288) Almajest 3.1. I will only comment that: if one assents to the use of missmen as hitmen,
the responsibility for disaster is one’s own, and no one else’s.
1991 December Journal for Hysterical Astronomy 1.2 ‡9 99
of the Muffia, vs. the extensive published abuse heaped upon the Johns Hopkins Univ
Applied Physics Lab’s late Space Sciences Division Supervisor, R.Newton (Ptolemy skeptic)
by JHA & its various Editors such as O.Gingerich (Muffia satellite) & N.C.Swerdlow
(Muffioso): see sampling at DIO 1.1 ‡§C7. E.g., the editorial gang at Lord H’s usually
effete-British Journal for the History of Astronomy has publicly branded RN’s work
“intelligence-insulting” & “garbage”. 13 By contrast, Lord H suppressed Rawlins 1999’s
brief, mild appraisal. Though the paper had been accepted because it contained certain
important DR discoveries, 14 it remains unpublished. [Later appeared at DIO 9.1 ‡3.] (The
Editor-for-Life’s ban made an incalculable contribution to peace in the ancient astronomy
history field, since it led straight to the starting of DIO.) The one-sentence statement of
Rawlins 1999 which was anathema 15 to the JHA (& its referee K.Moesgaard):
Newton’s conclusion [that Ptolemy deceived] 16 has been attacked with
such passionate disbelief in a variety of journals . . . that many onlookers may
not be aware that a number of scholars agree that Ptolemy has indeed been
shown to have been a liar.
DR’s main aim was to tell the hitherto protected JHA readership that there was a live
scholarly controversy over Ptolemy’s integrity. JHA’s aim was to suppress that truth long
enough to make it obsolete. Without DIO, this neatly circular plan would certainly have
succeeded. Which tells us worlds about the honesty & worth of the Hist.sci community.
B3 Lord H was delighted to find a pretext for (keeping his readers just as uninformed
as I’d noted, by) not publishing the above simple factual sentence (§B2); so his 1983/3/21
response to my letter was death to the paper & exile for DR:
I think we shall both benefit if we agree to refrain from writing to each
other, both now and for the indefinite future.
13 Sources: HamSwerdlow 1981 p.62 (JHA, published almost simultaneously with suppression of DR’s intolerable-statement!)
& Swerdlow 1979 p.530 (American Scholar, whose Editorial Board was blessed at the time by the
presence of the JHA’s O.Gingerich). Swerdlow is now on the JHA Board.
14 Some of the central material of Rawlins 1999 was cited by the paper’s JHA referee (Moesgaard 1983 p.57).
15 One notes that, a few years prior to the incident noted here, Muffiosi Asger Aaboe & Bernard Goldstein both
disappeared from the JHA’s windowdressing Board of Advisory Editors. They were, no doubt, merely objecting
to JHA stationery’s mis-spelling of “Asger” as “Asgar”. It was purely coincidental that, around this time, the JHA
committed the heinous indiscretion of publishing a single short note (JHA 8:200-203; 1979) by R.Newton, even
though the note’s conclusion was immediately followed (same page) by obligatory anti-thoughtcrime commentary by
K.Moesgaard on “Hipparchus and his Babylonian [!] colleagues”. Another correlation: shortly after Isis published
DR in 1982, Toomer left the Isis board. These coincidences led to a decision that is not coincidence: DIO decided
from the outset to forego the usual formality of listing an “Editorial Board”. Such boards may look good, but they
[a] add nothing to handsome journals’ actual quality (see DIO 2 ‡4 fn 65), and [b] render them hostage to censors’
tantrums. (What priorities could lead a publisher to invite that sort of tradeoff?) The JHA learned its lesson and so
went to serpentine logical extremes to avoid repeating the mistake of publishing RN: see DIO 2.1 ‡3 §B. Happy
ending: the JHA Board now includes enough Muffiosi to ensure that the JHA will never do anything stupid again. . . .
16 Virtually every scholar on both sides of the Ptolemy Controversy now agrees that Ptolemy deceived — even the
2 leading Neugebauer-Muffia capos (Toomer 1984 p.672, Swerdlow 1989 p.54). But the Muffia denies this is lying.
Which is a semantic ploy that merits frank translation as: we lost this Controversy to the hated R.Newton & DR (who
said right along that Ptolemy deceived) — but haven’t the integrity to admit it. See §H2 (options [e]&[f]). Indeed, the
sliminess of a certain volk partially accounts for the detail required in this paper when pointing out these bad-losers’
follies. Incidentally, let no one wonder at an article which takes space to appreciate others’ gyrations: [a] Muffiosi
are notorious for the rabidity of their attempts to squish, humiliate, hurt, starve, & destroy perceived competitors —
and to salt down the accursed spot they formerly occupied. See: §C11 & fn 41 and DIO 1.1 ‡1 §C6-§C7 & fn 16.
Since DIO is bound to be falsely painted as purely negative-critical, I urge a comparison, of these unrelievedly vicious
Muffia comments (upon RN & DR), to DR’s attitude (fn 174) at: DIO 1.1 §C12 ‡6 fn 27, DIO 2.1 ‡3 fn 3, ‡4 fn 18,
& here at, e.g., fn 9, §C1, fn 71, fn 73, fn 104, fn 105, fn 211, §N1, fn 223, §P1, fn 275, fn 277, & fn 280. [b] The
prime ancient subject of this paper is an astronomer, Hipparchos, whose sole surviving work (his Commentary) is a
bloated nitpick at the work of previous authors (Eudoxos & Aratos). (Hipparchos protests in his preface that he’s not
seeking glory through carping at others’ work; and Sarton 1959 p.65 accepts the plea. [Vs. Strabo 2.1.36.])