around a center that did not coincide with that of the observer on the earth. That would explain why the sun appeared sometimes nearer the earth and sometimes farther away. The epicycle represented the heavenly body as moving along the circumference of one circle (called the epicycle) the center of which moves on another circle (the deferent). With better observations additional epicycles and eccentric were used to represent the newly observed phenomena till in the later Middle Ages the universe became a
"——Sphere
With Centric and Eccentric scribbled o'er,
Cycle and Epicycle, Orb in Orb"—[1]
Yet the heliocentric theory was not forgotten. Vitruvius, a famous Roman architect of the Augustan Age, discussing the system of the universe, declared that Mercury and Venus, the planets nearest the sun, moved around it as their center, though the earth was the center of the universe.[2] This same notion recurs in Martianus Capella's book[3] in the fifth century A. D. and again, somewhat modified, in the 16th century in Tycho Brahe's conception of the universe.
Ptolemy devotes a column or two of his Almagest[4] (to use the familiar Arabic name for his Syntaxis Mathematica) to the refutation of the heliocentric theory, thereby preserving it for later ages to ponder on and for a Copernicus to develop. He admits at the outset that such a theory is only tenable for the stars and their phenomena, and he gives at least three reasons why it is ridiculous. If the earth were not at the center, the observed facts of the seasons and of day and night would be disturbed and even upset. If the earth moves, its vastly greater mass would gain in speed upon other bodies, and soon animals and other lighter bodies would be left behind unsupported in the air a notion "ridiculous to the last degree," as he comments, "even to imagine it." Lastly, if it moves, it would have such
