I disagree with the recommendation of Hirschfeld in the strongest possible terms. I have no comment on his treatment of his real subject, Renaissance astronomy, but his treatment of Greek astronomy is a fairy tale tacked on for the sake of symmetry with the Renaissance. For those who want the mainstream account, I instead recommend the article by Stahl linked in the original post. In fewer pages than Hirschfeld he gives far more detail, an honest account of the extremely limited evidence. In particular, I suggest that one go in asking the question “Did the Greeks hold a geocentric model?” and not get distracted by discussion predicated on the assumption that the answer is known.
I agree that the first third of Parallax was disappointing, but the rest of the book is vigorously told and covers some very interesting material I’ve never seen written up elsewhere. It’s a book with a lot of redeeming merit.
I disagree with the recommendation of Hirschfeld in the strongest possible terms. I have no comment on his treatment of his real subject, Renaissance astronomy, but his treatment of Greek astronomy is a fairy tale tacked on for the sake of symmetry with the Renaissance. For those who want the mainstream account, I instead recommend the article by Stahl linked in the original post. In fewer pages than Hirschfeld he gives far more detail, an honest account of the extremely limited evidence. In particular, I suggest that one go in asking the question “Did the Greeks hold a geocentric model?” and not get distracted by discussion predicated on the assumption that the answer is known.
I agree that the first third of Parallax was disappointing, but the rest of the book is vigorously told and covers some very interesting material I’ve never seen written up elsewhere. It’s a book with a lot of redeeming merit.