ONCEAGAINHIPPARCHUSANDTHEDISCOVERYOFTHEPRECESSION:

RESPONSETOMICHAELSCHTZ

DavidUlansey
CaliforniaInstituteofIntegralStudies

Inhisarticle"HipparchunddieEntdeckungder
Przession:BemerkungenzuDavidUlansey,DieUrsprngedes
Mithraskults,"MichaelSchtzcriticizesthreearguments
thatImake(or,inthecaseofthefirst,thathe
mistakenlybelievesImake)inmybookTheOriginsofthe
MithraicMysteries.[1]
ThefirsthastodowithHipparchus'sastrological
interests.Mr.SchtzclaimsthatIarguethatthefactthat
HipparchuswroteacommentaryonthePhaenomenaofAratos
provesthatHipparchuswasinterestedinastrology("beweise
sein'astrologishesInteresse,'"p.1).Infact,Imakeno
suchargument.Rather,theevidenceIuseinmybookto
demonstrateHipparchus'sastrologicalinterestsisentirely
independentofHipparchus'sAratoscommentary,inwhich,as
Schtzrightlypointsout,thereisnotrace("nichtdie
Spur,"p.3)ofastrologicalinterest.Ido,itistrue,
introducemydiscussionofHipparchus'sastrological
sympathieswithasentenceinwhichImentionthathewrote
acommentaryonAratos,butIdothisonlytoshowthat

2
HipparchustookaninterestinwhatItherecall"astral
mythology"afactwhichIimplyisinharmonywith
Hipparchus'sastrologicalinterests,butwhichIdonotuse
toprovethoseinterestsasSchutzclaims.[2]
ButtheimportantpointisthatMr.Schtz'sdiscussion
ofHipparchus'scommentaryonAratosisactuallyan
irrelevantsideissue,fortherealquestioniswhetheror
notHipparchuswasinfactinterestedinastrology.Andhere
Schtzdoesnotbothertoinformhisreadersthatthe
universalconsensusofhistoriansofastronomyisthat
Hipparchuswasindeedinterestedinastrology.InmybookI
citeOttoNeugebauer:

Hipparchusisoftenquotedintheastrological
literature....ItwasF.Bollwhofirstemphasized
thattheancientreportsconnectingHipparchus
withastrologyhavetobetakenseriouslyinview
ofthetimeoforiginofastrologicaldoctrinein
thesecondcenturyB.C.[3]

andD.R.Dicks:

ItwouldseemthatHipparchus'contemporaryfame
restedlargelyonhisastrologicalwork,helpedno
doubtbyhisforesightinwritingacommentaryon
themostpopulardidacticpoemofhistime
[Aratos'Phaenomena].[4]

Anevenmoreemphaticconclusionwasexpressedrecently
byG.J.Toomer,authorofboththedefinitivebiography
ofHipparchusandthedefinitivetranslationof
Ptolemy'sAlmagest(ourmainsourceforourknowledge
ofHipparchus):

[Itis]myconvictionthatastrologyhadno
importanceintheGreekworlduntilafter
Hipparchus,andthathisrole,bothdirectlyasan
advocateofastrology,andindirectlyasa
developerofastronomicalmethodswhichbecamean
essentialpartofit,waspivotal.[5]

Thus,irrespectiveofSchtz'squibblesaboutthenatureof
Aratos'PhaenomenaorHipparchus'scommentaryonit,the
onlyimportantfactisbeyonddispute:namely,that
Hipparchuswasindeedinterestedinastrology.[6]
Mr.Schtz'snextcriticismisthatIamwrongin
arguingthatHipparchus'sdiscoveryoftheprecessionofthe
equinoxescouldhavecatalyzedthecreationofanew
religion,sinceinSchtz'sopinionancientcosmologywas
suchthatHipparchus'sdiscoverywouldnothavecausedany
significantsurprise(inspiteofthefactthatitconsisted
inthediscoveryofapreviouslyunknownmotionofthe
entireuniverse!)However,Schtz'sopiniononhow
Hipparchus'sdiscoverymighthavebeenviewedatthetimeof

4
theoriginsofMithraismisbasedonnothingmorethanhis
ownspeculations,forheprovidesnoevidencewhatsoever
abouthowpeopleactuallydidrespondtoHipparchus's
discoverybeforethetimeofPtolemy.
ThereasonSchtzdoesnotprovideanyevidenceother
thanhisownspeculationsinsupportofhisopinionisthat
nosuchevidenceexists.Thisisduetothefactthatalmost
nosignificantastronomicalwritingssurvivefromthetime
periodbetweenHipparchusandPtolemy.Thelossofthese
writings,asIexplaininAppendixIVtotheGermanedition
ofmybook,wascausedbythetremendoussuccessof
Ptolemy'sAlmagest,whichmadeallearlierastronomical
writingsappearobsoleteandnotworthpreserving.[7]Otto
Neugebauerdescribesthiseffectasfollows:

Theeminenceof[Ptolemy's]works,inparticular
theAlmagest,hadbeenevidentalreadyto
Ptolemy'scontemparies.Thiscausedanalmost
totalobliterationoftheprehistoryofthe
Ptolemaicastronomy.[8]

AndG.J.Toomersays,

Thehistoryofastronomyinthe300yearsbetween
HipparchusandPtolemyisveryobscure,because
theunchallengedpositionoftheAlmagestinlater

5
antiquityresultedinthelossofallearlier
worksonsimilartopics.[9]

Underthesecircumstances,thereunfortunatelydoesnot
existanyevidencethatwouldallowustoknowwith
dependabilitywhattheresponsewastoHipparchus's
discoverybeforethetimeofPtolemyunless,asIsayin
AppendixIV,myinterpretationoftheMithraicmysteriesis
correct,inwhichcasewenowknowsignificantlymorethan
wedidpreviouslyabouttheimpactofHipparchus'swork.[10]
Perhapstherewasavarietyofresponses,rangingfromthe
simpleacceptancethatSchtzimaginestotheprofound
reactionthattheMithraicevidenceappearstoexpress.We
justdonotknow.
However,thecrucialpointisthatallthatisneeded
formytheorytobecorrectisthatonesmallgroupof
peoplesawdeepimplicationsinHipparchus'sdiscoveryofa
previouslyunknownmotionoftheentireuniverse.Thiskind
ofsituationis,infact,identicalwithwhatwefindinthe
originsofChristianity.Forasfaraswecandetermine,
immediatelyafterJesuswascrucifiednooneintheRoman
empireoutsideofonetinycircleofpeoplesawanyspecial
significanceinthisexecutionbytheRomansofaminor
Jewishprophet.Butofcoursethattinycircleofpeople
whoseexistencewouldbeentirelyunknowntoustodayifnot
forthewritingoftheNewTestamentsawtremendous
significanceintheevent,andtheirresponsecatalyzedthe

6
birthofanewreligionthathasnowpersistedfor2000
years.ThatisexactlythekindofscenariothatIimagine
ledtotheoriginsofMithraism,andinmybookIprovide
abundantevidenceforthesortsofintellectualand
religiousdevelopmentsthatcouldeasilyhavepredisposeda
smallgroupofpeopletoseeprofoundsignificancein
Hipparchus'sdiscovery.
Mr.Schtz'sfinalcriticisminvolvesmystatementin
mybookthatHipparchussawtheprecessionasbeingeithera
movementoftheentiresphereofthefixedstarsorasa
movementofthegreatcosmicaxisaroundwhichthesphereof
thefixedstarsrotates(Schtzdoesadmitthatthesetwo
formulationsaremathematicallyequivalent,p.9).[11]
SchtzclaimsthatHipparchuscouldnothaveseenthe
precessionasamovementofthecosmicaxis,sincethis
wouldhavehadunacceptableconsequencesforgeography,and
Hipparchuswasanaccomplishedgeographer(p.9).
However,hereagainSchtzisrelyingonnothingmore
thanhisownpersonalopinionandinthiscasewepossess
decisiveevidencethathisopinionisentirelyincorrect.
ThisevidenceconsistsinthedirecttestimonyofHipparchus
himself,asrecordedbyPtolemyintwoplacesinthe
Almagest.
Thefirstofthesetwopiecesofdirectevidence
preservedbyPtolemyconsistsoftheverytitleof
Hipparchus'smainworkontheprecession,OntheChangein
PositionoftheSolstitialandEquinoctialPoints.[12]This

7
titlecanonlybeunderstoodasreferringtoamovementof
thelocationsofthesolsticesandequinoxes(andthusof
thecosmicaxisandcelestialequator,whichdefinethe
positionsofthesolsticesandequinoxes)withrespectto
thesphereofthefixedstars.Thisisconfirmedbythe
secondpieceofdirectevidence:anexplicitquotationby
PtolemyfromHipparchus'sworkOntheLengthoftheYear,
whereHipparchusstatesthattheequinoxesmoveatleast1
degreepercenturybackwardsthroughthezodiac.[13]
ThetitleofHipparchus'sworkOntheChangein
PositionoftheSolstitialandEquinoctialPoints,andthe
directquotationfromhisotherworkOntheLengthofthe
Year,areuniversallyunderstoodbymodernhistoriansof
astronomyasindicatingthatHipparchussometimesdescribed
theprecessionnotasamovementofthesphereofthefixed
starsandthezodiac,butratherasamovementofthe
equinoxesandsolsticesandofthecosmicaxisand
celestialequatorwhichdefinethelocationsofthe
equinoxesandsolsticeswithrespecttothesphereofthe
fixedstarsandthezodiac:exactlytheunderstandingwhich
Schtz(onthebasisofnothingbuthisownopinion)denies
Hipparchuscouldhaveheld.
Itshouldbenotedthatinthosefewrandomfragments
ofdirectevidenceforHipparchus'sworkthatPtolemy
preserved,Hipparchusdoesnothappentomentionthecosmic
axisspecifically.However,aswillbepointedoutbythe
preeminentscholarsofancientastronomywhomIwillbe

8
citing(NoelSwerdlow,G.JToomer,andB.L.vander
Waerden),itisamathematicalnecessitythatifHipparchus
describedtheprecessionasamovementofthesolsticesand
equinoxeswithrespecttothefixedstars,thenhemustalso
haveunderstoodthecosmicaxisandcelestialequatoras
alsobeinginmotion,sincethesearewhatdefinethe
positionsofthesolsticesandequinoxes.
ThusNoelSwerdlow,oneoftheforemostcontemporary
historiansofancientastronomyandoneofthefewmodern
specialistsonHipparchus,sumsupthecurrentscholarly
consensusonHipparchus'sunderstandingoftheprecessionas
follows:

Hedescribediteitherasaneastwardmotionof
thesphereofthefixedstarsabouttheaxisof
theecliptic,therebyshiftingthestarsinthe
directionofincreasinglongitudewithrespectto
theequinoxes,orasawestwardmotionoftheaxis
ofthediurnalrotationinacircleabouttheaxis
oftheecliptic,shiftingtheequinoxesinthe
directionofdecreasinglongitudewithrespectto
thefixedstars.[14]

Ofcourse,whatSwerdlowsayshereisexactlythe
oppositeofSchtzclaimsisthecase.
Withregardtothefirstofourtwopiecesof
evidencethetitleofHipparchus'sworkOntheChange

9
inPositionoftheSolstitialandEquinoctialPoints
G.J.Toomer(who,asImentionedearlier,istheauthor
ofboththedefinitivebiographyofHipparchusandthe
definitivetranslationofPtolemy'sAlmagest)affirms
theunderstandingofthistitleasindicatingthat
Hipparchuswashereinterpretingtheprecessionasa
motionoftheequinoxeswithrespecttothesphereof
thefixedstars,ratherthanviceversa:

"Notethatthemotionwhichinmodernterminology
is'precessionoftheequinoxes'(i.e.amotionin
thedirectionofdecreasinglongitudesofthe
tropicalpointswithrespecttothefixedstars)
isdescribedbyPtolemyasamotionofthefixed
starswithrespecttothetropicalpointsinthe
directionofincreasinglongitudes.Thisaccords
withhistakingthetropicalpointsastheprimary
referencepoints.Hipparchus,however,seemsat
timestohaveadoptedthemodernconvention,to
judgefromthetitleofhiswork'Onthe
displacementofthesolsticialandequinoctial
points."[15]

AlthoughToomerdoesnotmentionthecosmicaxishere,in
personalcorrespondence(whichhehasgivenmepermissionto
citehere)hehasinformedmethatheisinagreementwith

10
Swerdlow'sformulationinthequoteabove,whereSwerdlow
saysthatHipparchussometimesdescribedtheprecession"as
awestwardmotionoftheaxisofthediurnalrotation...."
Specifically,ToomerinformsmethatheagreeswithSwerdlow
that(1)theevidenceinPtolemyshowsthatHipparchus
sometimesunderstoodtheprecessionasbeingamotionofthe
equinoxeswithrespecttothefixedstars,and(2)that
althoughHipparchusdoesnotexplicitlymentiontheaxis,a
mathematicallynecessaryconsequenceof(1)isthat
Hipparchussometimesunderstoodtheaxisofdiurnalrotation
asbeinginmotion.[16]
Regardingthesecondpieceofdirectevidence
Ptolemy'squotationfromHipparchus'sOntheLengthofthe
YearSwerdlow,inhisauthoritativearticle"Hipparchus's
DeterminationoftheLengthoftheTropicalYearandthe
RateofPrecession,"says,

Finally,itshouldbenotedthatinthequotation
fromOntheLengthoftheYearinwhichHipparchus
estimatestherateofprecession[AlmagestVII,2],
hedescribesitasawestwardmotionofthe
tropicsandequinoxesratherthan,asPtolemy
does,aneastwardmotionofthesphereofthe
fixedstars.[17]

ToomeragreesfullywithSwerdlow'sinterpretationof
thequotefromHipparchus,saying:

11

Hippparchusrevertedtothetopic[ofthe
precession]inalaterwork,"OntheLengthofthe
Year."Herehecametomoredefiniteconclusions.
Hedeterminedthatthetropicalandequinoctial
pointsmoveatleast1/100backwardthroughthe
signsoftheecliptic.[18]

OttoNeugebaueraswellinterpretsthequotationfrom
"OntheLengthoftheYear"asmeaningthatHipparchuswas
heredescribingtheprecessionasamovementofthe
equinoxeswithrespecttothefixedstars:

Inthework"Onthelengthoftheyear"Hipparchus
cametotheconclusionthattheequinoctialpoints
moveatleast1percenturyinadirection
oppositetotheorderofthezodiacalsigns.[19]

Wesee,therefore,thatNoelSwerdlow,G.J.
Toomer,andOttoNeugebauerareallinagreementthat
theevidenceshowsthatHipparchusdescribedthe
precessioneitherasamovementofthesphereofthe
fixedstarsorasamovementoftheequinoxesand
solstices.Inaddition,aswehaveseen,Swerdlowand
Toomerexplicitlypointoutthatamathematically
necessaryconsequenceofthisisthatHipparchus
sometimesunderstoodtheprecessionasamovementof

12
thecosmicaxis(whichdefinesthelocationsofthe
equinoxesandsolstices)withrespecttothesphereof
thefixedstars.
Ishouldmentionthatitwasthegreathistorianof
ancientastronomyandmathematics,B.L.vanderWaerden,who
firstpointedouttomethepresenceofthesetwo
understandingsoftheprecession(movementofthecosmic
sphereormovementofthecosmicaxis)inHipparchus'swork.
ItwasonvanderWaerden'sadvicethatIincludedbothof
theseunderstandingsinmybook.[20]Inalettertome(Nov.
14,1986)hewrote:

Iaminclinedtobelievethatthediscovery[by
Hipparchus]thatmadethegreatestimpressionwas
notthediscoveryofamotionofthefixedstars,
butthediscoveryofamotionofthepoleswith
respecttothefixedstars.(Emphasisin
original.)

Thus,contrarytoMr.Schtz'sunsupportedpersonal
opinionthatHipparchuscouldnothaveunderstoodthe
precessionoftheequinoxesasbeingamotionofthecosmic
axis,therealityexpressedbyHipparchushimselfand
explicitlyaffirmedbythegreatestmodernspecialistson
Hipparchusandancientastronomy,includingNoelSwerdlow,
G.J.Toomer,andB.L.vanderWaerdenisthatHipparchus
didsometimesdescribeitinpreciselythisway.

13
Finally,IshouldemphasizethatevenifMr.Schtz
werecorrect,andHipparchushaddescribedtheprecession
onlyasamovementofthesphereofthefixedstarsandnot
ofthecosmicaxis,thiswouldnoteffecttheargumentofmy
bookintheleast.ForHipparchus'sdescriptionofthe
precessionasanewlydiscoveredmovementofthesphereof
thefixedstarsthatis,anewlydiscoveredmovementof
theentirecosmos!isobviouslyastonishingenoughthatit
couldeasilyhavecatalyzedfarreachingcosmological
speculationslikethosethatmyresearchhasrevealedas
beingencodedintheiconographyoftheMithraicmysteries.
[21]

NOTES

1.Schutz'sarticleisintheElectronicJournalofMithraic
Studies,vol.1(2000),availableontheWorldWideWebat
http://www2.uhu.es/ejms/archives.htm.MybookisDavid
Ulansey,TheOriginsoftheMithraicMysteries:Cosmology
andSalvationintheAncientWorld(NewYorkandOxford:
OxfordUniversityPress,revisedpaperback,1991),
translatedintoGermanasDieUrsprngedesMithraskults
(Stuttgart:KonradTheissVerlag,1998).

14
2.Origins,p.76(=Ursprnge,p.68).Schtz(p.3)
disputesmydescriptionofAratos'sPhaenomenaasbeinga
workof"astralmythology,"buttherecanbenoquestion
thatastralmythologyisanessentialelementofAratos's
poem.Forexample,ofthefirst135linesofthepoem,45
aredevotedexplicitlytoconstellationmyths(3135:
catasterismofthebears;7173:catasterismofthecrown;
98135:catasterismofthevirgin).Schtzclaimsthatthe
Phaenomenaisrathera"compendiumoftechnicalastronomy"
(p.3),butthereisnotasinglecelestialmeasurementin
theentiretext!Indeed,Aratosdoesnotevenmentionthe
planetstheexplanationofwhosemovementswasthemain
concernofancientastronomyexceptforsixlines(45461)
whereheexplainsthatheisnotcompetenttotalkabout
them.(SeethediscussionbyDouglasKidd,Aratus:
Phaenomena[Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997]p.
343.)CertainlyAratosgivesanaccuratepoeticdescription
ofthecelestialsphereandoftherisingsandsettingsof
thestars,butifoneneedstocharacterizehisworkas
beinganyonething,itisperhapsneithermythologicalnor
scientific,butfundamentallypoetic.Itis,asDouglasKidd
pointsoutinhisrecenteditionofAratos,solidlyinthe
sametraditionasHomer'sdescriptionsofthe
constellations,Hesiod'sdescriptionsoftherisingsand
settingsofthestars,andSappho'sfamoususeofthe
settingofthePleiadestosuggestacertaintimeofnight.
AsKiddsays,"TheastronomyofthePhaenomenaislimitedto

15
whatwasrequiredforestimatingthetimeofyearormonth
ornight,forthepurposeofpredictingweatherconditions."
(Kidd,Aratus,p.13.)

3.Origins,p.80(=Ursprnge,p.71).

4.Origins,p.76(=Ursprnge,p.68).

5."HipparchusandBabylonianAstronomy,"inE.Leichty,
M.deJ.Ellis,andP.Gerardi,eds.,AScientificHumanist:
StudiesinMemoryofAbrahamSachs,OccasionalPublications
oftheSamuelNoahKramerFund,9(Philadelphia,1988),p.
362.Toomer'sbiographyofHipparchus(entitled
"Hipparchus")isinCharlesCoulstonGillispie,ed.,
DictionaryofScientificBiography(NewYork:Scribner's,
1978),Vol.XV,Suppl.I,pp.207224.Histranslationof
theAlmagestisentitledPtolemy'sAlmagest(NewYork,
Heidelberg,Berlin:SpringerVerlag,1984).

6.Infact,itshouldbeemphasizedthatevenifHipparchus
hadnotbeeninvolvedwithastrologyatallthiswouldnot
affectthebasicargumentofmybookwhatsoever,sinceit
seemstohavebeenthespeculationsabouttheprecessionby
theStoicsofTarsus,ratherthanbyHipparchushimself,
thatledtotheoriginsofMithraism.SeeOrigins,pp.8081
(=Ursprnge,p.72).

16
7.Ursprnge,p.122.Englishtranslationsoftheappendices
totheGermaneditionofmybookcanbefoundontheWorld
WideWebathttp://www.well.com/user/davidu/appendices.html.

8.OttoNeugebauer,AHistoryofAncientMathematical
Astronomy(NewYork,Heidelberg,Berlin:SpringerVerlag,
1975)vol.1,p.5.

9.G.J.Toomer,"Astronomy,"OxfordClassicalDictionary
(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1996)p.197.

10.Ursprnge,p.122.ForEnglishtranslationofthis
appendix,seeabove,n.7.

11.Origins,pp.789(=Ursprnge,p.70).

12.AlmagestVII.2[H12].Toomer,Almagest,p.327.

13."Forifthesolsticesandequinoxesweremoving,from
thatcause,notlessthan1/100thofadegreeinadvance
[i.e.,inthereverseorder]ofthesigns,inthe300years
theyshouldhavemovednotlessthan3degrees."
AlmagestVII.2[H16].Toomer,Almagest,p.328.

14.NoelSwerdlow,"OntheCosmicalMysteriesofMithras,"
ClassicalPhilology86.1(January,1991)p.54.Emphasis
mine.

17

15.Toomer,Almagest,p.321,n.2.Emphasismine.

16.Electronicmail,Jan.15,Jan.17,andJuly1,2002.I
amgratefultoProf.Toomerforgivingmepermissiontocite
hispersonalcorrespondence.HehasreadthesummaryIhave
givenhereofhispositionandapproveditforpublication.

17.NoelSwerdlow,"Hipparchus'sDeterminationoftheLength
oftheTropicalYearandtheRateofPrecession,"Archive
forHistoryofExactSciences,vol.21,#4(August29,1980)
p.304.Emphasismine.

18.G.J.Toomer,"Hipparchus"(seeabove,n.4),p.218.
Emphasismine.

19.Neugebauer,History,vol.1,p.293.Emphasismine.

20.SeethenoteonthisinmyOrigins,pp.134135,n.49
(=Ursprnge,p.71n.49).

21.ThusinmyPrincetondissertation(MithrasandPerseus:
MithraicAstronomyandtheAnatolianPerseusCult,1984)
whichwasthefoundationofmybook,Ibasedmyargument
entirelyonHipparchus'sinterpretationoftheprecessionas
amovementofthesphereofthefixedstars,sinceIhadnot
yetlearnedfromProf.vanderWaerdenofthescholarly

18
consensusthatHipparchushadactuallydescribedthe
precessionintwodifferentwaysatdifferenttimes.Inmy
bookIaddedthesecondoftheseways(theprecessionas
movementofthecosmicaxis)forthesakeofcompleteness
andaccuracy,butitisentirelyunnecessaryforthebasic
argumentofthebook(althoughitdoesprovidesome
interestingadditionalsupportformytheory.)