Article A Bat To Uy Sic 2001

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/266997465
Greek mechanics in Arabic context: Thābit ibn Qurra, al-Isﬁzārī and the
Arabic traditions of Aristotelian and Euclidean mechanics. In: Intercultural
transmission of scientiﬁc kno...
Article in Science in Context · June 2001

DOI: 10.1017/S0269889701000084
CITATIONS READS
3 143
1 author:
Mohammed Abattouy
Mohammed V University of Rabat
47 PUBLICATIONS 40 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
History of mechanics, in the context of the long term and broad history of physics View project
Galileo Research View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Abattouy on 04 July 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Science in Context 14(1/2), 179–247 (2001). Copyright © Cambridge University Press
DOI: 10.1017/0269889701000084 Printed in the United Kingdom
Greek Mechanics in Arabic Context: Thābit ibn Qurra,

al-Isfizārı̄ and the Arabic Traditions of Aristotelian and Euclidean
Mechanics
Mohammed Abattouy
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin
Fez University – Dahr el-Mehraz, Department of Philosophy
Argument
Assuming the crucial interest of Arabic material for the recovery of the textual tradition of
some Greek texts of mechanics, the following article aims at presenting a partial survey of the
Graeco-Arabic transmission in the field of mechanics. Based on new manuscript material
dating from the ninth to the twelfth century, it investigates the textual and theoretical
traditions of two writings ascribed to Aristotle and Euclid respectively and transmitted to
Arabo-Islamic culture in fragmentary form. The reception and the impact of the Peripatetic
Mechanics are analyzed on the basis of texts edited by al-Khāzinı̄ as well as by the comparative
study of the proof of the law of the lever in three authors: Pseudo-Aristotle, Thābit ibn Qurra,
and al-Isfizārı̄. The codicological analysis of the extant manuscripts of Maqāla fı̄ ‘l-mı̄zān – a
rather systematic treatise on the balance ascribed to Euclid – leads to the assumption that it
is a Greek fragment edited in Arabic. This reconstruction of the Arabic tradition of Euclidean
mechanics is further elaborated by an annotated synopsis of al-Isfizārı̄’s systematic recension
of the text.
Abbreviations
– Mech. Prob. = Pseudo-Aristotle’s Mechanical Problems
– Maq. mı̄z. = Pseudo-Euclid’s Maqāla fı̄ ‘l-mı̄zān
– Irshād = Al-Isfizārı̄’s Irshād dhawı̄ al-irfān ilā sināat al-qaffān
– Kit. qar. = Thābit ibn Qurra’s Kitāb fı̄ ‘l-qaras˙ tūn
– Lib. kar. = Liber karastonis, the Latin translation ˙ of Kit. qar.
– Kit. mı̄z. hik. = Al-Khāzinı̄’s Kitāb mı̄zān al-hikma.
˙ ˙
I. Setting the Stage
I. 1. Introduction
In the process of massive transmission of the scientific heritage of the Antiquity to
Islamic culture in the ninth century, several Greek mechanical texts were translated
into Arabic, and in some cases, these translations are the only extant versions of the
180 Mohammed Abattouy
original texts. These translations set the stage for the emergence of an original and
self-contained tradition of Arabic mechanics comprised of treatises on different
aspects of mechanical arts. The authors of this important scientific and technical
corpus are known as scientists as well as skillful mechanicians and artisans. Their
writings gave birth to a scientific tradition with theoretical and practical aspects, and
involving questions relevant to both the construction of instruments and the social
context of their use. Some of these Arabic treatises were translated into Latin in the
twelfth century and influenced the medieval Latin tradition.
The expression “Arabic mechanics” refers to the mechanical texts written in Arabic
during the classical age of Islamic civilization. Hereafter, emphasis will be made on a
group of such texts dating from the ninth through twelfth centuries. Some were
translated from Greek, and others were composed originally in Arabic in the central
and eastern parts of Islamic lands. The vast majority of the source material relied upon
is comprised of manuscripts not yet edited. In several cases, the material discussed is
brought to light for the first time. Hence constant attention will be paid to the
codicological, textual, and historiographical data related to the relevant new sources.
The following article will present a partial survey of the complex picture of the
Graeco-Arabic transmission of theoretical mechanics, focusing on the reconstruction
of the Arabic traditions of two Greek texts of mechanics ascribed respectively to
Aristotle and to Euclid. Transmitted in fragmentary form to Arabic culture, these texts
were translated, edited, summarized, and commented upon.
The authors and the texts that will be our main interest are the following:
1) Nutaf min al-hiyal, an Arabic partial epitome of Pseudo-Aristotle’s Mechanical
Problems: The famous˙ Problemata Mechanica, apparently the oldest preserved text on
mechanics, is a Greek treatise ascribed to Aristotle, but composed very probably by
one of his later disciples. It deals with simple machines and many concrete
phenomena on the basis of a constant procedure: the attempt to reduce them to the
balance, and hence to the “marvellous properties” of the circle.1 It has been long
claimed that the Peripatetic Mechanics was not transmitted to Arabic culture. It is
possible now to affirm that this is not true, and that the scholars of Islamic lands had
access to it at least through a short text entitled Nutaf min al-hiyal (elements/extracts
of mechanics),2 a significant partial Arabic version included in ˙the Fifth Book of Kitāb
mı̄zān al-hikma, al-Khāzinı̄’s encyclopedia of ancient and medieval mechanics.
˙
2) Pseudo-Euclid’s two texts on the balance and on heaviness and lightness: No Euclidean
writing on mechanics is extant in Greek and no ancient source ascribes to the Greek
1
For the history of the Greek text and the debate about its authorship, see Aristotele 1982, 17ff. and Micheli
1995, 23–35, 133–152. Apparently completely unknown during the European Middle Ages, it was
rediscovered in the Renaissance and printed in 1497 in Venice on the basis of a manuscript brought from
Byzantium; it exerted then a considerable influence on the mechanical debates in the sixteenth century: see
Rose and Drake 1971.
2
All the translations quoted in the article are mine, unless otherwise indicated. They are extracted from my
edition and translation of a large corpus of Arabic mechanical writings (ninth to seventeenth centuries) due
to be published in the near future: see Abattouy forthcoming.
Greek Mechanics in Arabic Context 181
geometer a work in this field. Nevertheless, the Arabic manuscript material imputes
to him the authorship of two short texts on the theory of the balance and some
problems of hydrostatic physics: Maqāla fı̄ ‘l-mı̄zān (Treatise on the Balance) and Kitāb
fı̄ ‘l-thiql wa ‘l-khiffa (Book on Heaviness and Lightness). The former was transmitted
only in Arabic, whereas the latter is extant in Arabic and in Latin. In form, the two
treatises follow the model of Greek mathematical works, as they rest on a set of
axioms or postulates on the basis of which a number of mechanical theorems are then
proved. The two short tracts complement each other in such a way that it was
suggested that they are remnants of a single treatise on mechanics, possibly written by
Euclid (Bulmer-Thomas 1971, 431). However, they might have been granted the
Euclidean label for their strict deductive structure, probably during the process of the
first editions of the Euclidean corpus in Antiquity. At any rate, it seems that the two
texts were transmitted to Arabic culture after they were already catalogued as
Euclidean works.
3) Thābit ibn Qurra and his Kitāb fı̄ ‘l-qarastūn: Thābit ibn Qurra (d. 288 H / 901)
is one of the most outstanding scholars in the˙ tradition of Arabic science in the ninth
century. He conducted remarkable research in mathematics, astronomy, mechanics,
and natural philosophy. His knowledge of Greek and of scientific matters allowed him
to revise and emend the translations of several Greek scientific texts rendered into
Arabic by his colleagues. He is the author of Kitāb fı̄ ‘l-qarastūn (Book of the
Steelyard), undoubtedly the most influential text of the Arabic mechanical ˙ tradition.
It was translated into Latin in the twelfth century by Gerard of Cremona under the
title Liber karastonis.3 Another mechanical text by Thābit ibn Qurra is Kitāb fı̄ sifat al-
wazn (Book on the Description of Weight), a short text on the equal-armed balance ˙
which survived only through its reproduction in Kit. mı̄z. hik. (al-Khāzinı̄ 1940,
33–38).4 ˙
The Arabic text of Kit. qar. is extant in four known copies. Three of them contain
complete texts with variant readings. Two of these are preserved in London (India
Office 767/7, folii 198–208) and in Beirut (Bibliothèque Saint Joseph, MS Codex
223/ 11), and were the object of recent studies respectively in Jaouiche 1976 and
Knorr 1982. The third copy was preserved in Berlin (Berliner Staatsbibliothek MS
559/9 [Ahlwardt 6023], folii 218b–224a). Used by Eilhard Wiedemann for the
German translation of Thābit’s work (Wiedemann 1911–12), the MS was reported
lost at the end of World War II. We were fortunate, Paul Weinig and I, to rediscover
it in the Biblioteka Jagiellonska in Krakow in October 1996. As for the fourth copy,
mentioned here for the first time, it is deposited in the Laurentiana Library in
3
The Latin text is edited with English translation in Moody and Clagett 1952, 88–117.
4
Composed of five sections preceded by a general introduction, the main topic of the text is the survey of
the conditions pertinent to get equilibrium in weighing with balances, primarily of the equal-armed sort. It
was translated into German by Wiedemann in 1908 (Wiedemann 1970, 495–500) and partially into English
by Knorr (1982, 206–208).
Florence (MS Or. 118, folii 71r–72r).5 It consists in an extract from Kit. qar.
comprising three pages. The first two reproduce the introductory part of the treatise
where the dynamic founfation is exposed, whereas the third one includes a large
extract from a scholium which occurred only in a Beirut MS copy (and known as
Beirut Scholium). The existence of this partial copy of Kit. qar. is of particular
significance. Besides enriching the textual tradition of Thābit’s writing, it provides a
supplementary weight to its first part, transmitted independently from the rest of the
text, certainly because of the type of dynamical analysis elaborated in it.6
4) Al-Muzaffar al-Isfizārı̄ and his treatise Irshād: Abū Hātim al-Muzaffar ibn Ismāı̄l
˙
al-Isfizārı̄ flourished in Khurāsān (north-east Persia) around ˙ 440–510˙ H/1048–1116,
during the reign of the Saljūq dynasty over the Eastern part of the Islamic world.7 He
was contemporary to the celebrated mathematician and poet Umar al-Khayyām
(1048–1131) and to Abd al-Rahmān al-Khāzinı̄. Immediate predecessor of the latter,
his work holds an eminent place ˙ in Kitāb mı̄zān al-hikma. Al-Isfizārı̄’s life and career
may be reconstructed with the help of the meager ˙information gleaned from short
notices in very few historical sources, such as the paragraph dedicated to him by Zahı̄r
al-Dı̄n al-Bayhaqı̄ (d. 1170). According to the latter, al-Isfizārı̄ exercised teaching, ˙
constructed an accurate balance, and wrote works on mechanics, meteorology, and
mathematics (al-Bayhaqı̄ 1988, 125). The historian Ibn al-Athı̄r (1160–1233)
mentions furthermore that al-Isfizārı̄ was one of the scholars who carried on the
program of astronomical observations in Isphahan from 1075 in the observatory
founded and sponsored by Malikshāh (Ibn al-Athı̄r 1967, VIII, 121). But in spite of
his multifaceted activities, al-Isfizārı̄’s oeuvre remained largely unknown up to now.
In the field of mechanics, where he contributed his most significant works, two of his
texts are extant: a two-part treatise on the steelyard and a collection of compiled
summaries (sometimes with comments) extracted from the mechanical works of
Heron, Apollonius, and Banū Mūsā.8
Al-Isfizārı̄’s most significative writing, which has never been studied before, is
undoubtedly Irshād dhawı̄ al-irfān ilā sināat al-qaffān (Guiding the Learned Men in the
Art of the Steelyard), a treatise on the ˙ theory and the practice of the unequal-armed
balance in which different textual traditions from Greek and Arabic sources are
compiled for the elaboration of a unified mechanical theory. It is extant in a unique
5
The codex consists essentially in a copy of Mahmūd ibn Qāsim al-Isfahānı̄’s (fl. 513/1119) summary of
˙ 140.
Apollonius’ Conics (Talkhı̄s al-makhrūtāt): Sezgin 1974, ˙
6
On this point, see below˙ Sect. III.2.˙
7
Al-Isfizārı̄’s bio-bibliography is reconstructed in Abattouy 2000c.
8
This collection is preserved in two manuscript copies: MS 351 in John Ryland Library in Manchester and
MS QO 620 H-G in the Uthmāniyya University Library in Hayderabad. Until now, it has never been
mentioned except in the catalogs of Arabic manuscripts. It includes, in the following order, a long reworked
version of Banū Mūsā’s Kitāb al-hiyal (Book of Mechanics), a commentary on selected parts of the first two
books of Heron’s Mechanics and˙ a short text entitled Kitāb fı̄ al-bakara (Book of the Wheel) ascribed to
Apollonius, probably an extract from the text on the screw ascribed to Apollonius of Perga by Proclus and
Pappus.
copy preserved in Damascus (al-Asad National Library MS 4460, al-Zāhiriyya

Collection, folii 16a–24a) and in an abridged version reproduced by al-Khāzinı̄ ˙
(1940, 39–45) which is of exceptional value as it contains a very important section on
the construction and use of the steelyard. This section, which constitutes an integral
part of al-Isfizārı̄’s work, is omitted from the Damascus copy of the Irshād. It grants
the text of the Khurasanian scholar an exceptional status to which few other Arabic
mechanical writings might pretend.
Two texts constitute the main source of al-Isfizārı̄’s Irshād: Thābit ibn Qurra’s Kit.
qar. and the Maq. mı̄z. ascribed to Euclid. The structure of the Irshād is elaborated as
follows. First, the problem of the center of gravity is discussed in relation with the law
of the lever, then Thābit’s proof for the theorem of equilibrium and the contents of
Maq mı̄z. are systematically reviewed successively in the ensuing two sections, while
Propositions 4–5 of Kit. qar. are reworked in the last and fourth section. Known
before only through its partial edition by al-Khāzinı̄, the Irshād is revealed to be a
major source. It will be studied here for the first time in connection with the
corresponding parts of Thābit’s and Pseudo-Euclid’s texts on the balance.
5) Al-Khāzinı̄’s Kitāb mı̄zān al-hikma: In connection with al-Isfizārı̄’s work, special
mention should be made of Abd ˙ ar-Rahmān al-Khāzinı̄ (fl. 1115–1130),9 his
immediate successor, whose encyclopedic work, ˙ the famous Kitāb mı̄zān al-hikma
(Book of the Balance of Wisdom), the most important and comprehensive work ˙ on
mechanics in the Middle Ages, from any cultural area (Hill 1993, 60), is a real mine
of information on mechanical knowledge up to the early twelfth century.10
Completed in 515 H (1121–22), it covers a wide range of topics related to statics,
hydrostatics, and practical mechanics, besides reproducing abridged editions of several
mechanical texts by or ascribed to Greek and Arabic authors. Al-Isfizārı̄, al-Khāzinı̄,
and their colleagues and pupils compose what might be called the “Khurasanian
school” of mechanics in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.11 This school took the
form of an informal group of scholars who maintained a lively debate on mechanical
problems and brought the tradition of theoretical and practical works on the balance
to a culminating point and a high level of sophistication.
9
Not to be confused with Abū Jafar al-Khāzin (fl. 960), the astronomer and mathematician author of Zı̄j al-
safāih (Table of Planes). Al-Khāzinı̄ worked in the court of the Sultan Sanjar, third son of Malik-Shāh (d.
˙485/1092),
˙ who after having been governor of Khurāsān, became the overall ruler of the Saljūq empire in
1118. It is to him that our scholar dedicated his astronomical work al-Zı̄j al-mutabar al-sanjarı̄ and Kit. mı̄z.
hik. (al- Khāzinı̄ 1940, 9). On al- Khāzinı̄’s life and works, see Hall 1973 and Abattouy 1997, 2000b.
˙ Several manuscript copies of Kit. mı̄z. hik. are conserved. The most significant one was discovered in Iran
10
in the nineteenth century by Khanikoff˙ and deposited in Saint Petersburg (Russian National Library,
Khanikoff collection, MS 117). It served for a partial publication and translation (Khanikoff 1860) and was
later collated with two Indian copies for the establishment of a complete Arabic text (al-Khāzinı̄ 1940). A
partial copy, discovered in Jerusalem in the 1940s, was transcribed and published by Fuād Jamı̄ān in Cairo
in 1947. A complete Russian translation of Kit. mı̄z. hik. was executed recently in Rozhanskaya 1983.
11 ˙
Umar al-Khayyām too might be considered as a member of this group; he is the author of two short texts
on specific gravities and the hydrostatical balance, both reproduced in al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 87–92, 151–153.
I. 2. Graeco-Arabic Transmission of Mechanics: General Survey
Greek and Arabic mechanics are so intermingled one in the other, textually and
theoretically, that they may be considered actually as two moments of one common
tradition. An important segment of this tradition is comprised of a group of Greek
texts extant in Arabic versions, and some of them are known only through these
versions after the loss of their Greek originals. This segment includes writings by or
ascribed to Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes, Philon of Byzantium, Menelaus, Heron of
Alexandria, and Pappus. Translated in the early phase of Graeco-Arabic transmission,
they exerted a seminal influence on the formation and the development of Arabic
mechanics. The texts ascribed to Aristotle and to Euclid will be deliberated
thoroughly in the next sections. Hereinafter, we shall account briefly for those by
Archimedes, Heron, and Pappus.12
Despite the highly creative impact Archimedes had on Arabic mathematics, it
seems that his main mechanical treatises such as Equilibrium of planes and Quadrature
of the parabola were not translated into Arabic. Some elements of his theory of centers
of gravity were disclosed in the mechanical texts of Heron and Pappus,13 and it was
at least through this channel that a current of Archimedean statics emerged in Arabic
mechanics in the works of al-Kūhı̄ and Ibn al-Haytham (tenth-eleventh centuries).14
In turn, Archimedes’ work on Floating Bodies was available in Arabic in the form of
a very brief summary entitled Maqāla fı̄ ‘l-thiql wa ‘l-khiffa (Treatise on Heaviness and
Lightness). It consists of a short digest of mere statements of the postulates and
propositions of Book I and the first proposition of Book II without proofs.15 The
phrasing of the statements of the postulates and propositions in the Arabic text differ
from what is extant in the Greek one. Now since the Greek and Latin versions are
issued from uncertain traditions, the existence of an Arabic version having some
12
Philon’s Pneumatics and Menelaus’s work on specific gravity were preserved only in Arabic. We know neither
the authors nor the dates of their translations. The former was edited and translated into French by Carra de
Vaux (Philon 1902), and the latter was rendered into German in Wurschmidt 1925. A manuscript discovered
in Lahore in 1979 (Heinen 1979, 1983) includes a text by Ibn al-Haytham in which a largely expanded
recension of Menelaus’ work is extant. An overall summary of the Arabic tradition of Greek mechanics is
presented in Abattouy 1999.
13
In the Arabic text of Heron’s Mechanics, Archimedes is quoted several times on the questions of equilibrium,
distribution of loads on their supports and centers of gravity, but these scattered quotations can hardly amount
to a systematic exposé, as claimed in Drachmann 1963.
14
The mechanical writings of al-Kūhı̄ and Ibn al-Haytham on centres of gravity are accessible only in an
abridged and joint version edited in al-Khāzinı̄ (1940, 15–20). In his encyclopedia of sciences, al-Akfānı̄
(fourteenth century) (1989, 742–744) criticized al-Kūhı̄’s work on centers of gravity, remarking that his
deductive system is not rigorous enough (tasāhala fı̄ muqaddamāt barāhı̄nihi); en revanche, he qualified the book
of Ibn al-Haytham on the same topic as “useful” (mufı̄d). In his correspondence with al-Sābı̄ (edited and
translated in Berggren 1983), al-Kūhı̄, alluding to the contents of his work, said in particular˙ that it includes
a proof of the law of the lever. The potential future discovery of his treatise shall mean the recovery of a
fundamental source of Arabic theoretical mechanics.
15
A MS copy of this text was published in Zotenberg 1879 and translated into English in Clagett 1959, 52–55.
This Arabic summary is reproduced equally in al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 20–21.
original discrepancies is a valuable element for any recovery of the structure of the
original Archimedean text. For example, instead of one postulate in the Greek text
of On Floating Bodies as established by Heiberg, the Arabic version starts with four
postulates, of which the fourth corresponds to the opening postulate in the Greek
extant text. Now, the set of three premises that are wanting in the Occidental versions
and which open the Arabic Maqāla contains the very principle of specific gravity.16
In this context, the little that was known of the Archimedean mechanical corpus
is by itself a historical problem requiring an explanation, since it means that this
corpus knew no diffusion in Late Antiquity. It is amazing to observe that the same
works that played the known seminal role in the genesis of modern science in
sixteenth- and seventeenth century-Europe were kept in total oblivion during
hundreds of years. It is hard to imagine this today, but these are the accidents of
history. Actually, the lack of diffusion of Archimedes’ mechanical works in ancient
times was directly related to their theoretical content and, hence, to the way in which
they were perceived by successive generations of mechanicians. The formal, statical
stand of Archimedean mechanics with its complete commitment to a formal
geometric mode of proof made it irrelevant to the needs of craftsmen and artisans. In
contrast, the works of scholars like Heron, Philon, and Pappus, more interested in the
practical properties of machines rather than in the formal aspect of their analysis, were
closer to the preoccupations of practitioners. Hence, it seems that the hard rules of
survival tend to favor noticeably useful elementary texts, which are copied and
transmitted. This could be the reason why their treatises were recorded and diffused
in Hellenistic times and later in Islamic civilization.17
The Mechanics of Heron was translated by Qustā ibn Lūqā under the title Fı̄ raf al-
˙
ashyā al-thaqı̄la (On Lifting Heavy Objects).18 After the loss of the Greek original
text, it survived only in this Arabic version. Comprised of three books, it deals with
various problems of mechanics, without trying to account for them in a systematic
16
“Some bodies and fluids are heavier than others. Then it is said of a body that it is heavier than the [other]
body, or that a fluid is heavier than another fluid, or that a body is heavier than a fluid, when two equal
quantities of them of the same measure are taken and weighed, one of them proves heavier than the other.
But if their weights are the same, it is not said that one of them is heavier than the other. The one which is
said to be heavier is the one which has greater weight”: Maqāla li-Arshimı̄dis fı̄ ‘l-thiql wa ‘l-khiffa, MS Paris
Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex 2457, f. 22v; Muqaddamāt Arshimı̄dis wa qazāyāhu fı̄ ‘l-thiql wa al-khiffa, MS
Gotha Forshung- und Landesbibliothek, Codex 1158, f. 40v. ˙
17
On the signification of the non-transmission of Archimedean mechanics to Arabic science, see Abattouy
2001b.
18
This translation was ordered by Abū al-Abbās Ahmad ibn al-Mutasim, as it is clearly indicated in the
˙ by the philosopher
incipits of several extant manuscripts. This patron, tutored ˙ al-Kindı̄, is the son of the Caliph
al-Mutasim. As indicated by Gutas (1998, 125–126), he is not to be confused with Abū al-Abbās Ahmad ibn
˙ ibn al- Mu tasim who reigned as the tenth Abbası̄d Caliph under the title of al-Musta˙ ı̄n from
Muhammad
862 ˙to 866. The Arabic text ˙ of Heron’s Mechanics was edited and translated twice, respectively, by Carra de
Vaux in 1893 (with French translation) and by Schmidt and Nix in 1900 (with German translation). On the
evidence derived from the incipits, see the recent reprints of both editions: Heron 1976, 3 and Heron 1988,
1 (Arabic text).
way. The first book is meant as an introduction to the study of mechanics, intended
as the science of the moving powers and their effects. It deals with the working of
wheels, the problem of the inclined plane, and the theory of equilibrium (center of
gravity, balance of weights, etc.), with extracts from Archimedes’ relevant lost works.
It is in this frame that a “physical definition” (had tabı̄ı̄) of the center of gravity
ascribed to Posedonius is presented: “the center ˙of gravity
˙ or inclination is a point
which, when the weight is suspended from it, it is divided in two equal parts” (Heron
1988, 73). The Second Book deals with the five simple machines or powers: the
windlass, the lever, the pulley, the wedge, and the screw. First a description is given
of each of the powers and their use, followed by the general theory of their function
and examples of their combination. Next comes a group of seventeen problems
similar to those of the Peripatetic Mech. Prob., although this work is never mentioned
or quoted from directly. Finally, the Third Book is entirely devoted to the description
of different machines and mechanical accessories necessary for lifting heavy loads and
the practice of some of the five powers.
Pappus’ Mechanics forms the last and eighth part of the famous Mathematical
Collection. It consists mainly of excerpts from Heron, which appear to have been more
or less paraphrased or revised by Pappus or by a later editor, in addition to sections
by Pappus himself. It was translated into Arabic under the title Madkhal ilā ilm al-hiyal
(Introduction to the Science of Mechanics), probably in the circle of the Banū Mūsā˙
19
brothers in ninth-century Baghdad. The Arabic extant version is more or less similar
to the Greek extant text, save for certain discrepancies in the phrasing of some
passages and a large final paragraph which survived only in the Arabic version.
II. The Arabic Tradition of Pseudo-Aristotle’s Mechanics
As indicated previously, the Peripatetic Mech. Prob. was known in classical Arabic
culture at least in the form of the epitome reproduced in the Fifth Book of Kit. mı̄z.
hik. (al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 98–100). This fragment represents a reliable abridged version
˙ the preliminary two sections of the pseudo-Aristotelian text where the theoretical
of
foundation of the treatise is disclosed. Edited under the title Nutaf min al-hiyal, it is
attributed directly to Aristotle; as we will see below, it begins with the ˙sentence
19
The Arabic version of Pappus’ Mechanics is known in two copies preserved in Istanbul: Topkapi Sarayi
Museum, Ahmet III MS 3457.1, and Ayasofia Library MS 3624 (Sezgin 1974, 175). MS 3457 served to the
transcription of the Arabic text in Jackson 1970. This MS copy was executed by al-Sijzı̄ from a copy owned
by the brothers Banū Mūsā. This circumstance affords another connection between this scholar and the three
brothers; on the sense of this connection see Sect. IV.2. On the basis of his comparison between the Arabic
translations of Heron’s and Pappus’ Mechanics, Jackson (1970, x-xiv) inferred that they stem from the
competition of two groups of scholars and patrons, the first connected with the Abbası̄d dynasty and the
philosopher al-Kindı̄, who patronized the Arabic rendering of the first Greek text, and the second led by the
bothers Banū Mūsā, who apparently commissioned the translation of the second.
“Aristotle said.”20 It includes a methodically arranged compendium of the

introduction giving a definition of mechanics and Problem 1 on the reason of the
accuracy in the larger balances as compared to smaller ones. This editorial part is
preceded by a relatively long technical discussion where the Peripatetic Problem 2 –
dealing with the suspension of the balance beam from above or from below – inspires
al-Khāzinı̄’s analysis of the different cases of incidence of the axis on the beam.
The existence of an Arabic abridged version of the Mech. Prob. has not been taken
into account in recent historiographical debates. Surprisingly however, the German
scholar Thomas Ibel had identified the passage in Kit. mı̄z. hik. as a partial Arabic
version of the Peripatetic text, and translated it into German ˙(Ibel 1908, 122–125).
Nonetheless, this brilliant achievement remained unnoticed, and not one of the
scholars who investigated the field of Arabic mechanics since then referred to it nor
happened to identify the corresponding passage in al-Khāzinı̄’s book when the latter
was published in a 1940 edition. Rather, recent works relied heavily on the claimed
non-transmission of the Peripatetic treatise to Arabic culture and drew from this
“fact” general conclusions relevant to the reconstruction of its textual history and to
the determination of its place in the history of mechanics.21 In this regard, the Nutaf
fragment provides a decisive proof confirming the transmission of the Peripatetic text
to Arabic culture and stands as an argument in favor of the possible existence of an
Arabic version much longer than the summary edited by al-Khāzinı̄.
Book Five of Kit. mı̄z. hik. is dedicated to the description and the trial of the
balance of wisdom, a huge ˙lever balance with equal arms having five scale-pans and
a running counterweight. Its first chapter – entitled “on the construction (sana) of
the limbs of the balance of wisdom according to the figure (haya) indicated˙ by the
eminent master . . . al-Isfizārı̄” – consists of a very minute description of the balance
of wisdom, probably according to written specifications by al-Isfizārı̄, whose name is
mentioned three times in the chapter. The fragment extracted from the Mech. Prob.
is introduced at the end of Section 4, following what might be considered the most
important part of al-Isfizārı̄’s description. This suggests that the paternity of the latter
is valid for all the material enclosed in the limits of the chapter, including the
fragment derived from the Peripatetic treatise. On this basis, he might be considered
20
This text is published with English translation and commentaries in Abattouy 2001a, and it may be
consulted in Abattouy 2000a. Several Arabic historical sources confirm that Mechanica Problemata was known
in Arabic culture as a title of an Aristotelian work. The earliest reference of this kind is reported in the
chronicle composed in 1053/54 by Ibn Fātik (1958, 184). Similar references are to be found in the thirteenth-
century bibliographical dictionaries of Ibn Abı̄ Usaybia and Ibn al-Qiftı̄. The former (1965, 104) mentions
˙
among the works of Aristotle, Kitāb fı̄ ‘l-masāil al-hiyyaliyya, ˙
maqālatān (Book on mechanical problems, in two
˙
chapters), whereas the latter (1903, 43) quotes the very Greek title of the text: “his book called ‘Mechanical
Problems’ (masāil hiyyaliyya) and entitled Mı̄khānı̄qā problı̄mātā.”
21
This is Micheli’s ˙(1995, 94–95, 117–119) attitude; the same ˙ point of view seems to inspire some of Knorr’s
(1982, 116) conclusions. For Jaouiche (1976, 28 ff.) and Rozhanskaya (1996, 615) it is unknown whether the
Mech. Prob. was translated into Arabic, although Jaouiche had the intuition that Thābit ibn Qurra’s proof of
the law of the lever relied on its initial chapters (Jaouiche 1976, 29), and Rozhanskaya (1983, 299–300)
identified the fragment edited by al-Khāzinı̄ as an extract from the Peripatetic Mechanics.
logically as responsible for the adaptation of this partial Arabic digest and also for its
insertion as a digression appended to the description of the parts of the balance. We
owe to al-Khāzinı̄’s predecessor indeed a whole body of recensions, reworkings, and
commentaries that comprise virtually the whole corpus of theoretical mechanics to
which he could have access, including Greek and Arabic works. Therefore, it would
be quite natural that he would produce a compendium of the Mech. Prob., one of the
major texts of ancient mechanics.22
As noted above, the Nutaf text is introduced at the end of the analysis of the
balance-equilibrium problem. Some of the terms used in this discussion are
characteristic of al-Isfizārı̄ technical vocabulary (yarjahanna, shāil, sādhaj), whereas
˙
others are typical of al-Khāzinı̄’s reworking of his predecessor’s writing on the balance
as edited in Kit. mı̄z. hik.-Book II. For instance, sahm is substituted for amūd, markaz
˙ al-kul, etc. Hence, one could suppose that the materials at
al-ālam replaces markaz
state were produced originally by al-Isfizārı̄, but reworked by al-Khāzinı̄.23
II. 1. Ingenious Solution of the Balance-Equilibrium Problem
The textual context in which the Nutaf is edited in Kit. mı̄z. hik. is marked by a
˙ treatment of this
thorough analysis of the balance-equilibrium problem. Al-Khāzinı̄’s
issue looks like an improvement of the Peripatetic Problem 2, which investigates the
accidents that arise from the suspension of the balance beam from above or from
below. Without our assuming a close connection between this Pseudo-Aristotelian
mechanical question and al-Khāzinı̄’s treatment of the balance-equilibrium, it is
hardly possible to understand why the Nutaf fragment was inserted precisely at the
place it occupies in the middle of the first chapter of the fifth part of Kit. mı̄z. hik.
Having apparently no direct bearing on the balance-equilibrium issue, the Nutaf ˙
fragment is, however, physically appended to it. Therefore, we must assume that it was
introduced with the aim of providing a theoretical foundation for this technical
problem, considered as one of the “marvels of mechanics” to be accounted for in the
framework, and with the categories of, the Aristotelian mechanical theory.
The second mechanical problem debated in the Peripatetic Mechanics asks why it
is that when the cord is attached to the upper surface of the beam of a balance, if one
22
A supplementary confirmation of al-Isfizārı̄’s direct knowledge of the pseudo-Aristotelian text is provided
by a passage of his Irshād where he says that the study of the steelyard requires “both geometrical and natural
arts, combining the two categories ‘why’ (lima) and ‘how’ (kayf)” (Irshād, f. 17a). Although this quotation is
slightly different from the corresponding passage in the Nutaf (where the text has mādhā (what) and kayf; see
below Sect. II.2), the conception of mechanics underlying it is characteristic of the Mech. Prob.
23
Giving, at the beginning of his Kit. mı̄z. hik., the list of scholars who worked on the balance before him,
al-Khāzinı̄ (1940, 8) mentioned al-Isfizārı̄ and ˙ praised his achievements, saying in particular that it was he who
invented the name “mı̄zān al-hikma” and that he spent some time improving it. However, he adds that al-
˙ to the description of the balance (shakl al-mı̄zān) and he died before he
Isfizārı̄’s performance was limited
could put it down in writing. Hence one is allowed to infer that the chapter opening Book Five of Kit. mı̄z.
hik. relies basically on the results of al-Isfizārı̄’s investigation to which al-Khāzinı̄ happened to have access.
˙
takes away the weight when the balance is depressed on one side, the beam rises again
and returns to horizontal equilibrium, whereas if the beam is supported from below,
when the weight is removed it remains in the inclined position (Aristotle 1952, 850a
3–6). This happens, the author answers, because when the support is from above and
a weight is placed in a scale-pan, the larger portion of the beam is above the
perpendicular represented by the cord; in this case, the greater part of the beam must
incline until the line dividing the beam into two equal parts coincides with the
perpendicular.
Fig. 1
For the illustration of the argument, the straight beam BG suspended from the cord
AD is posited. When the portion of the beam on the side of B is driven downward,
the beam takes the position EZ, so that the line dividing the beam into two halves,
which was originally DM, becomes DT, by the force of inclination (‘ , ´ rhopê).
Thus the part of the inclined beam which is on the side towards Z is greater by the
amount TP. Therefore, if the weight at E is removed, the side Z must sink because the
side E is shorter and consequently the beam returns to the horizontal position. This
restoration happens because of the excess weight of the lever to the right of the point
of support. In the other case, the contrary takes place, for then the part which is
depressed is more than half the beam. For this reason, it does not rise again and
remains inclined even when the suspended weight is removed. Positing the beam NX
divided into two halves by the perpendicular KLM, when a weight is placed at N the
beam takes the position OR, while KL becomes LT. KO is thus greater than LR by
KT. Therefore if the weight is taken away, the beam must necessarily remain in the
same position, because of the excess in the part KO which makes this part over half
the beam so that it acts as a weight and remains in the inclined position (Aristotle
1952, 850a 3–29).
The solution of the two cases as given in the Peripatetic Mechanics is essentially
correct. However, such a solution is interesting just as it serves as an introduction to
the formulation of the law of the lever in the third section of the Mech. Prob. In
contradistinction, in the opening chapter of Book Five of Kit. mı̄z. hik. the problem
of the incidence of the axis on the balance beam is formulated in statical ˙ terms and
in a more general way. In particular, it includes a third case neglected by Pseudo-
Aristotle. Moreover, contrary to the procedure followed by his Greek predecessor,
which was limited to a mere description of the phenomenon as it occurs concretely,
al-Khāzinı̄ produces an appropriate and suitable solution to the whole issue: the
equilibrium of the balance includes three cases to be considered, and all three depend
on the position of the axis with respect to the center of gravity of the beam. Hence,
the possible positions of the beam, whether it stays on the horizontal plane, comes
back to it when inclined, or remains depressed to one side, correspond in turn to the
coincidence of the axis with the center of the balance, and to the cases when the
former is situated above or below it.
In the first chapter of Book V, al-Khāzinı̄ describes the parts of the balance of
wisdom, in which he accounts successively for the beam (amūd) and the crosspiece
(ārida), a transverse component to which the pointer is fastened (section 1), for the
needle˙ or pointer (lisān: lit. tongue), a sort of index of the balance (section 2), and for
the two cheeks or scissors-shaped forks (fiyyārān) between which the needle moves
during the rotation of the beam (section 3). Section 4 bears a significant title:
“universal and general science on the rules of the axis, of the perforation (thaqb) and
of the weight (thigl)”. It deals with the theoretical and practical aspects of the different
cases of incidence of the needle on the beam and the accidental circumstances derived
from the friction between the axis and the beam that may obstruct the rotation of the
latter.
The balance referred to by al-Khāzinı̄ is composed of a system of heavy bodies
(beam, needle, and scale-pans) of which the conditions of equilibrium and stability
are characterized on the basis of the theory of the center of gravity developed earlier
in Books I-II. The analysis starts by considering the case of a heavy cylindrical beam
suspended in horizontal equilibrium. On disturbance of its equilibrium, the
incidence of the axis on it takes three possible positions, depending on whether the
axis of rotation passes through, above, or below the center of gravity of the beam.
These positions are called respectively “the axis of equilibrium” (mihwar al-itidāl),
“the axis of rotation” (mihwar al-inqilāb), and the “axis of constraint” ˙ (mihwar al-
iltizām), corresponding to˙ the cases called in modern terminology indifferent, ˙
24
unstable, and stable equilibrium. The three cases are characterized as follows:
24
In her survey of this part of al-Khāzinı̄’s work, Rozhanskaya (1996, 628) identified correctly these three
cases of equilibrium, but without relating them to the Peripatetic second problem. For a balance beam, the
equilibrium is said to be stable if small, externally induced displacements from that state produce forces that
tend to oppose the displacement and return the body to equilbrium. On the contrary, an equilibrium is
unstable if the least departures produce forces tending to increase the displacement. Finally, an indifferent
equilibrium corresponds evidently to the middle case in which the beam rotates on an axis situated exactly
in its center of gravity.
The beam being columnar in shape and deprived from the needle (sādhaj min al-lisān),
the axis lies on it in three ways. The first is [called] the axis of equilibrium (mihwar al-
itidāl), when the axis passes through the centre of gravity (markaz thiql) of the˙ beam
exactly in the middle. It is perpendicular to its length so that the beam readily gyrates in
obedience to the weigher (wazzān) and remains at rest in the position wherever it is left
to itself. It becomes naturally parallel to the horizon, for, when it is stopped, the arrow
(sahm, perpendicular line) departing from the centre of the world (markaz al-ālam) to its
centre of gravity divides it by cutting it into two equal halves.
The second is the axis of rotation (mihwar al-inqilāb), when the axis is located between
the centres of the world and of the beam. ˙ If the beam is put into motion, it turns upside-
down (inqalaba makūsān) naturally since the arrow departing from the centre of the
world divides it into two unequal parts so that the inclined [part] sinks (al-māil arjah)
and the beam turns over for this reason. ˙
The third is the axis of constraint (mihwar al-iltizām), when the axis is located above
the centre of the beam so that when the˙ latter is put into motion, the arrow departing
from the centre of the world to its centre of gravity divides it into two unequal parts. The
elevated [part] (al-shāil) being greater, it sinks (yarjahanna) and returns so that it stays
opposite to the horizon (yaqif alā muhādhāt al-ufuq). ˙For in this case the arrow divides
the beam into two equal halves, hence˙ this constrains it to parallelness [to the horizon].
(al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 96–97)
Instead of just describing what happens when the balance beam is supported from
above or from below, our author constructs a general explanation founded on
explicitly formulated theoretical principles and grounded in physical experience. His
procedure covers three cases, two of which correspond to those mentioned in the
Peripatetic Mechanics. Thus, when the axis is below the center of the beam, the latter
is said to remain inclined to one side; and when it is above the same center it is
constrained to return back to horizontal equilibrium. The third instance, when the
axis lies on the beam exactly in its center, is not discussed in the Greek text.
According to our present knowledge, it is in Kit. mı̄z. hik. that this case is taken into
˙
account for the first time. In the three cases, the Arabic text relies on a single
principle: the change in the positioning of the incidence of the axis on the beam with
respect to its center of gravity. The beam is designed explicitly as being free from the
needle or pointer and from any scale-pans or chains, and no weight is required to be
applied at one end of the beam, as it was stated in the Mech. Prob.
At this stage of the analysis, al-Khāzinı̄ considers the problem as abstractly as
possible, reducing it to an investigation of the point of incidence of the axis on the
beam. Considering a system consisting of a beam and pointer, he reduces its
conditions of equilibrium to that of a free balance beam, but in which the position
of the center of gravity differs. These considerations are easily fulfilled, provided that
the system is symmetrical relative to the axis of suspension, that is, that the balance
pointer has the form of a lozenge or rhombic-shaped object, and is fastened in the
center of symmetry of the beam. Without these conditions, the centers of gravity of
the balance beam and pointer will coincide neither with each other nor with the
point through which the axis of rotation of the beam passes. The conditions of
equilibrium for this case become more complicated when scales are suspended from
the balance beam.
To illustrate his reasoning, the author assumes the simple beam ABGD, divided by
MN lengthwise and by SO breadthwise. The point E where the two lines intersect
is the center of gravity of the beam.25 If this point is a readily obeying axis, the beam
stops wherever it is left to itself, for the perpendicular departing from the center of
the world K to E divides the plane ABGD into two equal parts (fig. 2b). Now, when
the beam is inclined to a side, two cases might occur. In the first, the posited axis H
is situated below (taht) E. In this inclined position, the beam is divided into two
˙ inclined portion (al-qit a al-mā ila) being greater, it induces
unequal parts and the
inclination and sinking (arjah) so that the beam˙ remains in this depressed station (fig.
2c). In the second case, the˙ axis Z is above (fawq) E, thus the line KZS divides the
plane into two unequal parts (fig. 2d). The elevated one (al-shāil) being larger, it
inclines downward (yarjahanna) and as a consequence the beam returns to the
horizontal position. ˙
Fig. 226
The solution elaborated by the duo al-Isfizārı̄ and al-Khāzinı̄ for the problem of the
balance-equilibrium is the first complete answer supplied to this question since it was
25
Previously al-Khāzinı̄ (1940, 95) had proposed a simple way to define the center of gravity of a heavy body,
merely by placing it across the edge of a knife until it is in horizontal position. The point where the knife
touches the body is then marked, and this procedure is repeated for the four sides of the body, so that the
intersection of the two lines departing from the symmetrical points thus fixed determine the center of gravity
of the body where it would meet the diameter of the world (qutr al-ālam). Note that al-Khāzinı̄’s definition
is in accordance with the one ascribed by Heron to Posedonius: ˙see above, Sect. I.1.
26
I added the figures 2b, 2c, and 2d.
formulated in the Mech. Prob. Founded on the concept of center of gravity, their
conjoined solution is without contest correct, simple, and elegant. It is not known
whether this result was transmitted to the European mechanicians in the following
centuries, but it is striking to note that some of the latter analyzed the problem at
stake along the same lines developed in Arabic mechanics.
The balance-equilibrium problem constituted a classical issue of medieval
mechanics and was discussed by Leonardo da Vinci, Tartaglia, Guido Ubaldo del
Monte, and others. It has never been argued before that it was dealt with equally in
Arabic mechanics.27 Actually the solution elaborated in Kit. mı̄z. hik. for this problem
˙
is very close to and predates the one proposed by the sixteenth-century Italian
mathematician Guido Ubaldo del Monte. In his Mechanicorum Liber (1577), this
question constitutes the subject of Propositions 2, 3, and 4, corresponding
respectively to al-Khāzinı̄’s third, second, and first case.28
Guido Ubaldo’s analysis of the balance-equilibrium represents a central point of his
mechanical work. It is the object of an amplified discussion in which he elaborated
long and passionate refutations of relevant theses of Jordanus, Tartaglia, and Cardano.
Actually, his treatment of the question is multifaceted and introduces various
considerations (such as the quest for absolute mathematical rigor in questions of
mechanics), but it agrees basically with the core of al-Khāzinı̄’s procedure. Indeed, the
analyses developed by the two authors come into accord and show basic similarities
in regard to a couple of principal features: the enumeration of the three cases, and the
treatment of the question in terms of center of gravity.
At the end of his theoretical discussion of the incidence of the axis on the balance
beam, al-Khāzinı̄ turns over to the examination of the accidental circumstances
caused by the friction of the axis with the beam and which obstruct the rotation of
the latter. This practical question is presented as a conclusion for the balance-
equilibrium problem. Its location at this place points out that al-Khāzinı̄’s
investigation of the whole issue was aimed precisely at this practical end, namely the
explanation of the way to fasten the needle to the beam. Considering the needle and
the crosspiece to which it is fixed as the axis of rotation of the balance, al-Khāzinı̄
describes the case when the needle is fastened to the beam as follows:
27
Ibel (1908, 119–121) translated into German the text in al-Khāzinı̄ corresponding to the discussion of the
balance-equilibrium problem, but he didn’t point out its link with Pseudo-Aristotle’s Problem 2 nor its
connection with the ensuing Nutaf fragment, which he rendered into German as indicated above.
28
The statements of the three propositions are: [II.] “a balance parallel to the horizon, with its center above
[and] having equal weights at its extremities which are equidistant from the perpendicular, when moved from
this position and released, will return and rest in it . . . . [III.] A balance parallel to the horizon, with its center
below [and] having equal weights at its extremities which are equidistant from the perpendicular, will be at
rest; but if moved and left tilted, it will move toward the lower side . . . . [IV.] A balance parallel to the horizon,
having its center within the balance and with equal weights at its extremities, equally distant from the center
of the balance, will remain stable in any position to which it is moved” (Drake and Drabkin 1969, 261). The
rest of Guido Ubaldo’s analysis is translated in ibid., 259–294 and commented upon in Gamba and Montebelli
1988, 229–246.
When we add to the weight of the beam the weight of the needle placed in its middle
at right angles, the centre of gravity differs from that of the free beam and must
necessarily be another point. Its rule (hukm) is like the rule of the centre of equilibrium
(markaz al-itidāl) in the free [beam], so˙ that if this point is made an axis the beam stops
wherever it is left to itself. The needle can be posited from above, in the direction of S,
the point L being the centre of gravity. If this point [L] is made an axis, it will be the axis
of equilibrium (mihwar al-itidāl). Hence every point posited above L is the axis of
˙
constraint (mihwar al-iltizām), for the arrow drawn to that point [from the center of the
˙
world] divides the plane into two unequal parts of which the elevated one induces
sinking so that the beam returns and stops in parallelness to the horizon.
Fig. 3
[In return] every point posited below L would be the axis of rotation (mihwar al-inqilāb),
so that when the beam inclines the inclining part is greater and the beam˙ rotates until it
turns upside-down. And if the needle is posited below the beam, in the direction of O,
its centre of gravity will be the point C, which is the axis of equilibrium. Hence, when
the beam is put into motion it stops wherever it is left to itself. But if the axis is made
above C, it becomes the axis of constraint (mihwar al-iltizām) so that the elevated part [of
˙
the beam] returns and stops opposite to the horizon. And if the axis is posited below C,
it becomes the axis of rotation [so that the inclining part of the beam being greater, the
beam will rotate until it turns upside down]. (al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 97–98)
Finally, at the end of the fourth section (Book V. chap. 1), al-Khāzinı̄ (1940, 98–99)
returns to scrutinize briefly the possible accidental impediments that must be avoided
in the motion of the beam on its axis. The difficulties that might derive from the
friction encountered by the rotation of the beam on its axis are of three orders,
according to whether the axis is a fixed support on which the cylindrical beam
rotates, so that its motion is hindered and as a result the rotation becomes arduous and
slows down, or that the axis is fixed within the beam (an yakūn al-mihwar thābitan fı̄hā)
˙ is suspended
so that it rotates on two poles; the same difficulty arises even if the beam
from a thin thread, since this last needs a certain bulk in order to support the weight
of the balance. Therefore, in the three cases – corresponding to the three instances of
equilibrium described above – the rotational movement meets some resistance. The
solution al-Khāzinı̄ advises is to suspend the beam from the scissors-forks (called
fiyyārān) by very thin threads after the crosspiece and the pointer had been fastened
to the beam according to precise specifications. In particular, he warns that the
following two operations must be attended to with great accuracy: the fastening to
the beam of the minjam, the crosspiece in which the needle is fixed and which stands
for the axis of the balance, and the perforation of the hole in which the needle is
introduced. Likewise, he advises that the beam be suspended from the two scissors-
forks by means of very thin threads (ibrı̄sim) so that it might gyrate readily. In this case,
he concludes, one may consider that the axis “becomes as if it were a line without
width” (khat lā-arda lahu) (al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 98).
The text ˙of the ˙Arabic partial epitome of the Mech. Prob. is inserted right after the
previous technical discussion on the balance, probably with the aim of supplying a
theoretical framework to this discussion. Considering the balance-equilibrium
question as a mechanical problem in the Peripatetic tradition, al-Khāzinı̄ sought to
account for it in the framework of the Aristotelian mechanical theory. At the least, this
is definitely an odd initiative, as it denotes that the author was not aware that he
improved to a large extent the original problem of his Peripatetic predecessor.
II. 2. Nutaf min al-hiyal: A Partial Arabic Epitome of the Mechanical Problems
˙
The Nutaf fragment is introduced under what seems to be a title: Nutaf min al-hiyal
(Elements/extracts of mechanics). That this group of words was intended as a title˙ for
the ensuing paragraph is suggested by the fact that the words are better understood
as a chapter heading. The original Greek title Mechanica Problemata would have been
better rendered by Masāil hiyyaliyya, in fact the very title quoted in Arabic historical
˙
literature as we have seen before. Hence, the “Nutaf min al-hiyal” indicates the notion
˙ section as an abridged
of selection from a longer text and thus identifies the following
29
Arabic epitome of the original work.
29
Hiyal refers obviously to mechanical devices, and may even be a hint at the Aristotelian Mechanics. The
˙
affinities between hiyal and machine-mechanics are studied in Abattouy 2000d.
˙
Fig. 4. Kit. mı̄z. hik., St. Petersbourg, Khanikoff Coll. MS 117, folio 66b (Courtesy of the
˙ Russian National Library, Saint Petersburg).30
From the very beginning, the epitome is deliberately placed under the authority of
Aristotle to whom authorship of the text is ascribed, placing thus the conception of
mechanics and the peculiar properties of the balance enumerated in the short
fragment as part of a recognized and coherent theory. The main ideas reported in the
Nutaf are related to the conception of mechanics and to certain basic properties of an
emblematic machine, the balance. First mechanics is defined as the art of using
devices in the case of difficult actions, like raising heavy weights by small forces:
Some elements of mechanics (nutaf min al-hiyal), Aristotle said [sic], which people find
˙
marvellous [and which occur] either in accordance with nature but of which one does
not know the cause, or contrarily to nature, and these are produced by art (bi-’l-sināa)
for the benefit of mankind, because nature follows always the same direction whereas ˙ the
needs of humans differ widely. And in every difficult action which happens contrary to
nature mechanical artifices (hiyal sināiyya) are needed, and for this reason the lesser
[things] overcome the greater˙ [things]
˙ (wa li-dhālika sārat al-asāghir taqwā alā al-akābir).

(al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 99) ˙ ˙
The text begins by placing the constancy of nature in opposition to the variety of
human needs. This allusion must have met a lot of echoes in Islamic thought. Here
the opposition of nature with human requirements leads to proclaiming the necessity
of the devices: what is against nature is produced by art and skill, with the
intermediary of artificial devices. Now, these may give birth to paradoxical effects in
which a small force overcomes a large resistance. This theme intersects with a major
assignment of ancient and medieval mechanics, namely the one concerned with the
different means to drag great weights with little force. As formulated in the Mech.
30
Note the bold line above the phrase “Nutaf min al-hiyal” which singularizes it as a heading for the ensuing
section. ˙
Prob., in its Greek as well as in its Arabic versions, such a thesis could provide a
theoretical leitmotiv for all the mechanical work done in this field.31
Being so, the mechanical problems have an intermediary epistemological status,
insofar as they are common to mathematical and natural sciences. Their methods of
resolution are mathematical whereas the application of their results is relevant to the
field of physics. In other words, the study of the properties of machines requires
mathematics as a tool of analysis and physics to account for the practical explanation.
The typical example in this respect is the lever, whose weight moves the heavy load
rapidly while the geometrical properties of the circle provide the reason of its action.
In general, the circle is the reason for all that happens in mechanical instruments,
because of its distinctive features. Therefore the properties of the balance are
explainable by the circle whereas those of the lever are referred to the balance:
The mechanical problems (al-masāil al-hiyyaliyya) are common to both the mathematical
and natural sciences, for the “how” (kayf)˙ in them belongs to mathematical sciences,
whereas the “what” (mādhā) belongs to the natural sciences, as in the action of the lever
(bayram): if its weight is increased it moves the heavy object [more] rapidly. The circle is
the cause of all this, and the like. The most marvellous is that in which contrary things
are combined, and in the circle are combined motion and rest. In its circumference
sinking and rising exist, and between them the tangency, just as the equal exists between
the greater and the smaller and the straight between the concave and the convex. And in
one movement of the circle there exists contrariety between forward and backward,
upward and downward. A [straight] line draws it by motion on one hand and by rest on
the other, ending where it started and proceeding to what it has left. The motions of the
points assumed on it differ in speed, the one closer to the end at rest being slower.
Therefore, the circle is undeniably the first and the origin of any and every marvel. The
things that occur in the balances occur because of the circle and are referred to it,
whereas those that occur in the lever are referred to the balance. And since a single circle
can move with two different motions, it is possible to produce circles that move with a
single motion from which many motions come about. This is the origin of many
contrary and marvellous motions. Only one of them is obvious but its cause is hidden.
(al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 99–100)
The central mechanical problem is said to be the lever, the instrument for lifting
heavy weights with small forces. However, the cause of such a peculiar phenomenon
31
For instance, Heron’s Mechanics was translated into Arabic under the title Fı̄ raf al-ashyā al-thaqı̄la (On
Lifting Heavy Objects); this title was coined with reference to the Barulcos, a machine for raising heavy
weights and described in the first chapter of the treatise. The theme of raising weights is characterized by
Pappus as follows: “They say that the crafts needed more than any others in human affairs, and which are
related to the field of mechanics . . . are [firstly] what is called in Greek the craft of manjānā, this being what
the ancients also used to call the craft of mechanics. For the masters of this craft raise great weights aloft by
means of their devices, contrary to the weight’s natural motion, with very little power” (Jackson 1970, A3).
In this light the description of machines for raising heavy weights occupied a central position in ancient and
medieval mechanics.
is not the law of the lever but the circle, which is said to be the source of all the
mechanical properties, including those of the balance. The singular attributes of the
circle are presented first in rhetorical terms, as the combination of the contraries one
in the other (the mobile and the immobile, the concave and the convex, motion and
rest, forward and backward motions). Then a more rational reason is given,
emphasizing the dynamic features of the circle: the farther a point is away from the
center the quicker it is moved by the same force. The focus on the qualities of the
circle denotes that the epitomist of the Arabic text was aware of its special status as a
theoretical principle.
After this general and introductory part, the Arabic epitome proceeds to the
statement of a specific question corresponding to Problem 1 in the Peripatetic
Mechanics. It is presented in the Nutaf under the heading of masala (question or
problem):
Problem (masala): It is also asked why the large balances are more accurate and of more
precision than the small balances. The principle of the answer regarding this reason is to
ask why, in the case of a line which departs from the centre of a circle and is long, and
therefore the distance of its end from the centre is a greater distance, the motion of its
end is faster when both its ends are moved by the same force. The fastest of two mobiles
is the one that travels over a greater distance in the same time, whereas the farther from
the centre travels over a greater distance along its circumference and the nearer a smaller
distance. It is inferred from this reasoning that the fulcrum of the balance is a centre, since
it is fixed and that the two sides of the beam which are on either side of the fulcrum stand
for the lines departing from the centre. If the beam is longer, the motion of its end, as
it is caused by the same weight, will be stronger than the motion it might have if it was
shorter. [Hence], when some weights are put in small balances, they do not produce
inclination (mayl) towards their side, because of their smallness and of the shortness of the
beam. But if they are put in a larger balance, an evident inclination results, because of the
length of the needle and of the beam. (al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 100)
If a large balance is more accurate than a smaller one, this is due to the fact that the
beam of the former is longer and the circular motion of its end is faster than the one
of the short beam even if they are both moved by the same force. The original
problem about the accuracy in the balances is reformulated in terms of the difference
of velocities according to the distance from the center. But this problem itself is not
accepted as a mere geometrical fact. It receives a dynamical explanation: the same
force generates different effects. In the original Greek text, the difference of velocities
according to the distance from the center is viewed as a result of the composite
character of circular motion, which is analyzed as a compound motion.32 The long
geometrical argument embodying this reasoning is skipped in the Arabic epitome,
which concentrates instead on the status of the motion of the balance beam,
32
This issue is surveyed in De Gandt 1982, 120–124.
considering the fulcrum as a center and focusing on the motions of the unequal arms
covering different distances with different speeds, the end of the longer arm being
moved with quicker motion, i.e. it travels over a greater distance in the same time.
Such an allusion to the center and to the rotation of lines departing from it is an
evident allusion to the model of the circle, which inspired this reasoning. The law of
the lever in the Mech. Prob. is justified exactly in terms of the circular motions of the
lever arms (see next section).
In answering the masala formulated above on the reason for accuracy in certain
balances, the Arabic text remains silent about the correctness of the answer furnished
by the Peripatetic author, to whom no criticism is addressed on this issue.33 As masters
of the art of weighing, al-Khāzinı̄ and al-Isfizārı̄ knew evidently that the Peripatetic
thesis was not correct in spite of the cleverness of the geometrical argument
sustaining it, i.e. the longer point from the center moves more freely.
The Arabic epitome of the Mech. Prob. is composed in a style strongly marked by
a remarkable conciseness, which makes it brief but comprehensive. Skipping all the
geometry that sustained Pseudo-Aristotle’s reasoning, it presents a rather reliable
compendium of the Greek text in which all the main ideas are maintained, although
they lack some of their original theoretical consistency. This is obvious in particular
in the manner that the principle reducing all mechanical motions to the circle is dealt
with. Being a characteristic and essential element of the Peripatetic theoretical
conception of mechanics, it is analyzed in so much detail in the Greek text so as to
constitute a real theoretical and ontological foundation for the whole treatise. In the
Nutaf fragment this special status is not emphasized enough. On the other hand, the
Arabic text does not mention at all the law of the lever. As we shall see below, Thābit
ibn Qurra constructed his proof of this same theorem along the same model indicated
in the Greek text. This could stand as an argument that he had presumably access to
a more complete text than the abridged one reproduced by al-Khāzinı̄.
III. Thābit ibn Qurra, al-Isfizārı̄ and the Dynamic Proof of the Law of the
Lever
In the history of mechanics, the Mech. Prob. has set the stage for a specific dynamical
treatment of the law of the lever – a major mechanical theorem of ancient and
medieval mechanics – which had a powerful influence, on the methodological and
conceptual levels, on the proof of this theorem in two major Arabic texts of
mechanics, Thābit ibn Qurra’s Kit. qar. and al-Isfizārı̄’s Irshād. However, the
33
In the Renaissance, several mechanicians contested that huge balances are more accurate than smaller ones,
such as Tartaglia in the seventh book of his Quesiti. Seeking a similar criticism in the Arabic texts of mechanics,
I checked more than two dozen writings on the balance dating from the ninth through the sixteenth century.
This check yielded a negative result, in that no trace of the pseudo-Aristotelian thesis was found. The result
supplied by this survey – still to be confirmed by further research – could stand as an argument that such a
“reprocheful silence” is meaningful enough to be worth all possible criticism.
Peripatetic justification of the theorem of equilibrium was greatly improved in the

Arabic tradition. Thus Thābit elaborated the first complete dynamic proof of the
theorem, stating it on the basis of explicit dynamic assumptions and integrating it in
a deductive framework. In his reworking of Thābit’s proof, al-Isfizārı̄ amplified his
predecessor’s dynamic outlook and enriched it with new insights.
III. 1. An Outlined Justification in Pseudo-Aristotle

The argument about the law of the lever in the Mech. Prob. proceeds from an
unbalanced lever, and its main geometrical relation is based on the notion that if the
equilibrium of the lever is disturbed its arm describes an arc whose length is inversely
proportional to the magnitude of the suspended load. This reasoning is disclosed in
the course of answering the third problem, which is formulated as follows:
Why is it that . . . the exercise of a little force raises great weights with the help of a lever,
in spite of the added weight of the lever; whereas the less heavy a weight is, the easier
it is to move, and the weight is less without the lever. (Aristotle 1952, 850a 30–33)
The effect of the lever with the addition of its weight was invoked first in the
introduction to the treatise, and it has been immediately made dependent on the
argument that “the original cause of all that such phenomena is the circle” (ibid.,
847a 15–16). As shown previously, the connection between the circle and the lever
includes also the balance, and it is justified theoretically by the intermediary of the
general explanatory principle mentioned above: the farther a point is away from the
center, the quicker it is moved by the same force. The validity of this principle for the
balance is subject to an extensive proof in the answer to Problem 1. Then, in the
course of answering Problem 2, three elements of the lever are distinguished: the
fulcrum, acting as center of the balance, and the two weights, the one which causes
the movement and the moved load. Based on this distinction the general principle
stated above is specified from the balance to the lever in Problem 3, where it is
furthermore rendered as a proportion, providing thus the unique explicit formulation
of the law of the lever in the whole Peripatetic treatise:
this being so, as the weight moved is to the weight moving it, so, inversely
( ´
˘

), is the length of the arm bearing the weight to the length of the arm
nearer to the power. (Aristotle 1952, 850a 39-b2)34
34
In the Equilibrium of Planes, Archimedes states the law of the lever in a more general formulation and makes
use of the same key word for inversion: [Book I, Prop. 6] “Commensurable [incommensurable, Prop. 7]
magnitudes balance at distances inversely (
´
˘ ) [proportional] to their magnitudes.” The inverse
ratio is rendered by Heath (Archimedes 1953, 192) as “reciprocally proportional,” whereas in the French
translation (Archimède 1971, 85) it is expressed more properly as [commensurable magnitudes are in
equilibrium at distances] “inversement [proportionnelles] à leurs poids.” The Greek term
´
˘
corresponds to the Arabic expression nisba mutakāfia or nisba alā al-takāfu; see below note 51.
The general statement of the law of the lever as an inverse ratio between the two
arms of the beam and the weights suspended from them is then justified dynamically
on the basis of an implicit assumption affirming that in concentric circles the arcs cut
by the same angle to the center are proportional to the radius:
The further one is from the fulcrum, the more easily will one raise the weight; the reason
being that which has already been stated, namely that a longer radius describes a larger
circle. So with the exertion of the same force, the motive weight will change its position
more than the weight which it moves, because it is further from the fulcrum. Let AB be
a lever (fig. 5), G the weight to be lifted, D the motive weight, and E the fulcrum. The
position of D after it has raised the weight will be H, and that of G, the weight raised,
will be K. (ibid., 850b 2–9)
Fig. 5
In other words, in the case of two bodies positioned on the ends of the lever AB,
of which the displacements describe similar sectors, if they are in inverse ratio of the
arms of the lever, the forces are equal and act in opposite directions. It is only with
this condition that the equilibrium is effected and maintained. Adopting an
indubitably dynamic method, the purpose of the author is to characterize
equilibrium of a system by the intermediary of the motions of its extremities.
However, this commonplace statement of the law of the lever is more likely an a
priori proof lacking any explicitly stated axioms or preconditions. Presented as a
consequence of empirical observations on the behavior of balances and levers, it
implies an antecedent knowledge of the law. Nevertheless, even in this schematic way,
the Peripatetic approach to the analysis of the law of the lever will remain
characteristic. Thābit ibn Qurra’s treatment of the same theorem may be viewed as a
strenuous effort to provide a rigorous and complete proof to the slight outline
presented by his Greek predecessor.
III. 2. Full Dynamic Proof: Thābit ibn Qurra

Kit. qar. was apparently the first Arabic writing to deal with the theory of the
unequal-armed balance, or, at least, the first one to systematize its treatment. The
mechanical theory it develops is articulated around the question of the conditions of
equilibrium of a homogeneous beam suspended from a point situated outside its

middle when several weights are hung from various points of the same beam. In other
words, the problem was to determine the weight to be applied at the extremity of a
homogeneous beam in order to maintain it in equilibrium when it is suspended from
any of its points. This problem is dealt with in the second part of the treatise (Prop.
4–6) in statical and geometrical terms. In the first part, a postulate and three theorems
set forth a dynamic analysis of the law of the lever markedly different from the
method adopted in the main body of the rest of the text.
Kit. qar. opens by a general postulate which plays an important role in Thābit’s
argument:
Of every two distances traversed by two mobiles in equal times, the ratio of one of the
two distances to the other is as the ratio of the force of the mobile (quwwat al-mutaharrik)
˙
in the plane distance to the force of the other mobile. This is a self evident and accepted
premise (muqaddama bayyina bi-nafsihā maqbūla). (Kit. qar., Beirut MS 223, 87; Jaouiche
1976, 146)35
Obviously, this is a principle familiar in Aristotelian natural philosophy, as well as

implicitly assumed in the Peripatetic Mechanics and in the mechanical writings of
Hero and Pappus. It constitutes the first theorem in a short work ascribed to Euclid
on heaviness and lightness, and it concludes Thābit’s writing on the balance entitled
Sifat al-wazn. The comment appended to it, far from presenting it as a trivial
˙
consequence, emphasizes its axiomatic character as a founding principle.36
III. 2. 1. Towards a Unified Theory of Motion
Thābit’s first postulate has the form of a dynamic principle seeking to establish a
general relationship of proportionality between the force of motion and the distance
traversed by the mobile: the forces moving two bodies are proportional to the spaces
traversed in equal times, s1/s2 : : f1/f2, with t1 = t2, or f1/f2 : : s1{t1}/s2{t2}. Two
35
Unless otherwise specified, I refer to the text of Kit. qar. as preserved in Beirut, Bib. Saint Joseph, Codex
223/11, 87–100, and to the Arabic text published in Jaouiche 1976, 146–169.
36
In Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics and Metaphysics, axioms are characterized as indemonstrable immediate
premises which are necessarily true, while the postulates are not self-evident as are the axioms but assumptions
without proofs of something which is a proper subject for demonstration. Such an epistemological pattern was
currently adopted in Arabic learning. For instance, al-Nayrı̄zı̄ states that the difference between postulates
(musādarāt) and axioms (ulūm mutaārafa) is that the latter are accepted just after being grasped by the mind
˙
(maqbūla . . . maa awwal wuqū al-fikr alayhā) (al-Hajjāj and al-Nayrı̄zı̄ 1897–1910, I, 14), whereas postulates
are accepted without intermediation (maqbūla . . .˙bi-ghayr tawassut) (ibid., 26). Accordingly, Thābit’s principle
must be considered as an axiom. Yet, given that it is not a principle ˙ common to all sciences and that it is
susceptible to be demonstrated, it is to be considered appropriately as a general hypothesis or postulate.
important assumptions are intermingled in this formula: a definition of force by the

intermediary of an Aristotelian dynamical law asserting the proportionality of the
force of motion to velocity (f1/f2 : : v1/v2), and the definition of velocity, in turn,
according to an Aristotelian pattern: velocities are equal if in equal times equal spaces
are traversed; therefore a velocity is greater if the same space is traversed in less time
(v1/v2 : : s1{t1}/s2{t2}).37
Establishing a general ratio between the distance of motion and the moving force,
Thābit’s general supposition founds, consequently, the theory of the steelyard in Kit.
qar. on solid ground consistent with the dynamical laws of Aristotelian natural
philosophy. With the condition that natural and violent motions are conceived
differently, the latter being due to a force whereas the former is the result of the
internal tendency of the mobile to fall downward, Aristotle assumes, indeed, that
with time and force constant, the distance traversed is inversely proportional to the
resistance (s1/s2::r2/r1), or with distance and force constant, time is directly
proportional to resistance (t1/t2::r1/r2). Furthermore, in violent motion, as far as the
force is great enough to overcome resistance, and with time and resistance constant,
the distance traversed is proportional to the force of the mobile: (s1/s2::f1/f2). In other
words, in the case of violent motion, the force is proportional to the velocity of
motion, and inversely proportional to resistance. Several passages in Aristotle’s
physical books assume further that speed is directly proportional to weight.38 In this
context, weight must represent in principle an inherent internal cause of natural
motion, although Aristotelian premises do not permit conceiving of weight as a
special kind of force.
Actually, in Aristotelian natural philosophy the downward natural motion of a
heavy weight does not entail the existence of a force, but the upward ascending
motion of the same object can be caused only by a force. However, this view is
challenged by the model of two concomitant contrary motions in a mechanical
system. Here, the identification of weight and force is inevitable. For instance, in a
lever at the ends of which two weights are suspended, it is evident that when one of
the weights descends – whether as a result of its greater heaviness or by a deliberate
action of pushing down – it lifts simultaneously the weight suspended on the other
side. The origin of the force inducing the motion upward lies precisely in the
37
The general statement of the proposition in Lib. kar. is followed by an example in which two walkers walk
in the same time respectively 30 and 60 miles: the “power of motion” (virtus motus) of the second walker is
double that of the first one, just as 60 is double 30. It is then concluded that “this proposition is admitted per
se and is immediately evident to the intellect” (Moody and Clagett 1952, 91).
38
A passage of the Physics states in particular that in the case of natural motion, the “forces of bodies in
heaviness or in lightness” are proportional to their “speeds” (faster motion): “We observe that things which
have a greater impulse of weight or lightness . . . move more quickly over an equal distance, and that in the
ratio which the magnitudes have to one another” (Physics IV, 216 a 11–16). Elsewhere, in a discussion of the
four terms of motion in the famous chap. VII.5, the couple mover-moved is replaced by ischus and baros (power
and weight) (ibid., 250a 9). The concept of force is discussed in many places in On the Heavens I, 173 b 30–274
a 2; III, 301 b 4–5, 11–13. For more details, see Clagett 1959, 428–32.
descending motion of the other weight, which acts as the cause of motion of the
ascending weight.39
As a matter of fact, however, Aristotle balked at making weight a “mover” i.e., a
cause of motion.40 In return, some of his successors arrived at the conclusion of
conceiving of weight as a special kind of force, authorized as they were by some
passages in Aristotle’s own books of physics. Consequently, they were led to locate in
the bodies the tendency to motion, which they expressed through the concept of
‘ ´ (rhopê). This term, which did not occur very often in Aristotle, was given by
Philoponus (sixth century) the status of a major scientific concept as the intrinsic
mover of the inanimate elements. Redefining nature, a source of motion and rest, and
conceiving of it as an intrinsic mover, the commentator thus laid the framework for
a natural philosophy founded on the principle that weight be considered an active
cause of motion and on the notion of a direct relationship of dependence between
force and speed of motion.41
The same conception constituted a background to Heron’s and Pappus’
mechanical works. In Heron’s Mechanics in particular, the weight of the mobile in the
balance, represented by mayl, the Arabic term for rhopê, is considered as an active force
of downward motion. Moreover, the weight produces mayl, inclination and motion,
and its action is quantified in a direct ratio with the bulk of the body. In other
passages, a strict symmetry is established between downward motion and upward
ascent.42
This doctrine, together with the innovations introduced by Philoponus, was
transmitted to Arabic culture and circulated in the milieu of natural philosophers. The
39
A theoretical tension about this point is apparent in Aristotle’s analysis of the lever as a mover when he says
that the lever moves its object unnaturally because it “is not by nature capable of moving what is heavy”
(Physics VIII, 4, 255a 23). In other words, a lever may be used for lifting something heavy but in itself it is
heavy and, as such, goes downward, i.e., when dropped. As a consequence, a lever by its intrinsic nature goes
downward and it may lift a weight upward in special conditions, i.e., when external force is applied to it.
40
Under the pression of his theoretical principle claiming that “everything moved must be moved by
something else . . . which is external and in contact with it” (Physics VII, 241b 34; 8, 256a 2 and Metaphysics
XII, 1073a 26).
41
Hence rhopê embodied in Philoponus’ commentaries the theory of the inclination of the bodies towards
their natural place. He affirms in particular that such a natural inclination is the criterion of differentiation
between natural and non-natural things (Philoponus 1993, 195, 24–28). Further, the weight is conceived of
as “the active cause of the motion downward” (Philoponus 1991, 678, 24–25). Thus, the bodies have the cause
of motion inside them and this is the only cause of difference in motion (ibid., 678, 29–679, 8), which
depends as a result on the quantity of downward tendency they have and which is proportional to their natural
weight (ibid., 679, 20–32). The shift of Aristotle’s doctrines in the hands of Philoponus is described in Sorabji
1987, 1990, and in Lang 1992, chap. 5, 97 ff.
42
For example, “why do greater weights fall to the ground in a time shorter than the time of lighter ones?
This happens when the force moving them from outside is greater, then they are more easily moved. Also,
if their internal force (quwwatuhā fı̄-anfusihā) is greater, they are moved easily. In natural motions (al-harakāt al-
tabı̄iyya), the force (quwwa) and the attraction (jadhb) are bigger for the greater weight than for the ˙ smaller
˙one” (Heron 1976, 177; Heron 1988, 81). The question why the horizontal rotation of the beam of a balance,
be it empty or loaded, is faster than when it is inclined is the occasion to develop the symmetry between
downward motion and upward ascent (ibid., 181–182; 84). Similar assertions are in Pappus (i.e., Jackson 1970,
A 59).
theoretical shift it represented emerged first in the school of natural philosophers of

Baghdad in which Aristotle’s Physics was translated into Arabic, together with the
commentaries of Greek commentators, especially the doctrines of Philoponus. This
translation was executed in the second half of the ninth century. It was in this context
that the conceptual field of mayl, the concept corresponding to , was
43
formed. In brief, the mayl represents a quality “by which the body opposes resistance
to that which hinders it from moving in any direction,” as in the case of the motion
downward of the stone or the motion upward of the blown up leather-bottle in
water, a sort of vis insita responsible for the motion which appears when the latter is
opposed. Connoting a notion of propensity coming from inside the bodies, it is
obvious in their motion and manifests an opposition to any obstacle that hinders the
body’s inherent tendency. Therefore, it might be considered as a mover.44
In this context, the theory of mayl might have promoted the doctrine of weight as
an intrinsic mover and, hence, the consideration of force as responsible for both
natural and violent motions. Surely it afforded to the mechanicians the philosophical
license for considering the bodies’ inherent heaviness as the motivating cause of their
motion in all directions. Thābit ibn Qurra’s analysis of the two concomitant upward
and downward motions of connected weights in a balance might have proceeded
from such an animated contemporary debate in the natural philosophy of his time.
It is not clear whether Thābit wished to reach such a wide and crucial conclusion
in his opening postulate, in the form of a unified conception of motion in which the
descending and ascending displacements of weights in a balance are attributed to the
same cause. Apparently, his postulate establishes only a relationship of proportionality
between the action of force and the distance traversed by the mobile, but the general
mode of its assertion allows considering it valid in any direction of motion.45
Moreover, Thābit’s position on this point seems to proceed from his negative attitude
43
In the kalām, the properties of mayl are expressed through the concept of itimād. The kalām refers to a
corpus of philosophical and theological texts organized in several schools of thought which developed in
Arabic learning in parallel with the discussions inspired by Greek philosophy. On the singularity of kalām and
its scope, see Frank 1992 and the note in Sabra 1996, 663–64.
44
Extensive debates on mayl and itimād enamel the works of al-Ijı̄, Ibn Sı̄nā, al-Rāzı̄, al-Tūsı̄ and others. In
˙
Ibn Sı̄nā, three kinds of mayl are specified: natural (tabı̄ı̄), violent (qasrı̄), and psychic (nafsānı̄). The more
˙
powerful the natural mayl is, the more it hinders the body to which it belongs to receive a violent mayl and
the motion due to this latter is weak and slow. But mayl is not identical to the body’s weight since it does not
show up when the former is in its natural place, and since it may increase and decrease, which the weight of
the body does evidently not do. Mayl and itimād are fundamental concepts that would repay investigation.
They constitute a crucial phase of the theoretical evolution that led from the Greek rhopê to the Galilean
momentum. The Arabic natural philosophy, an extensive and rich tradition in itself, constituted the background
for the above discussions. However, it lies beyond the scope of the present article. For more details, consult
Badawı̄ 1964–65, Pines 1979–86, I, 43 ff., Zimmerman 1987, and Lettinck 1994.
45
The allusion in the Postulate to the “plane distance” (al-masāfa al-mustawiyya) may be an indication of his
willingness not to limit it only to the motions of the two arms of the balance. As we shall see further (Sect.
III.2), the dynamic thesis entailed by Thābit’s postulate according to which the body’s magnitude is the unique
element to take into account in motion is further developed by al-Isfizārı̄. Likewise, the same thesis orientated
Thābit’s revision of a fragment ascribed to Euclid on heaviness and lightness: see below Sect. IV.1
towards several doctrines of the traditional natural philosophy.46 In brief, even if it is

just a modest contribution, the fruitful perspective opened by Thābit’s theorization
may be considered confidently as a significant step on the road which led finally to
the unified conception of motion in modern physics.47
III. 2. 2. The Geometrical Argument
Postulates 2–3 and Proposition I of Kit. qar. elaborate on the material expounded in
the introductory axiomatic part of Pseudo-Euclid’s book on the balance. The second
Postulate states that “every line divided into two equal parts and two equal weights are
suspended from its ends, if this line is suspended from the point dividing it into two
halves, it will be parallel to the horizon” (Kit. qar., Berlin MS 559, f. 219a; Jaouiche
1976, 146–147).48 The same principle is stated in Axiom I of Maq. mı̄z., where it is
enunciated in the case of a weighted lever. The third Postulate affirms that although
the two weights are displaced to the ends of the line so that they are made on two
perpendiculars erected on its ends, they will be kept in balance. The equilibrium will
be preserved in this position even though the lengths and the directions of the two
perpendiculars are different. This is proved immediately in the first theorem of Kit.
46
According to several sources, Thābit ibn Qurra held anti-Peripatetic doctrines regarding natural place, the
quies media and the infinite. Hence, rejecting the notion of a “natural place” for each one of the elements, he
proposed that the order of the universe is the result of two competing “attractions” (jadhb), one between all
sublunar and celestial elements, the other between all parts of each element separately (Sabra 1997, 31–33).
Further, he disagreed with the thesis of the existence of a moment of rest between two contrary movements.
It seems that al-Kūhı̄ supported Thābit on this issue (Ibn al-Nadı̄m 1871–72, I, 283); al-Kūhı̄’s work has not
yet been found, but traces of it are reported in Ibn Butlān and in Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādı̄ (Pines 1979–86,
I, 68, and Rashed 1999). Concerning the infinite, Thābit ˙ affirmed the actual existence of infinite numbers and
accepted the idea that one infinite can be greater than another and that two infinites are not necessarily equal
(Pines 1979–86, II, 423–429, and Sabra 1997).
47
Galileo Galilei was one of the first to express such a conception. Since his early De motu antiquiora (ca. 1590)
he considered that “the cause of all motions up as well as down can be referred to weight alone (causa reduci
ad solam gravitatem)” (Galilei 1890, 259.3–4; Galilei 1960, 22). Moreover, he unified the treatment of the
upward and the downward motion on the basis of the model of the balance, for in the balance, motion upward
as well as motion downward takes place because of weight, and hence “the motion of bodies moving naturally
can be suitably reduced to the motion of weights in a balance” (ibid., 259. 23–24; ibid., 23). Rejecting the
Aristotelian theory of natural motions, founded on the two fundamentally different directionalities for the
natural movement of the heavy and the light, he argued in favor of a unified causal theory of motion where
what needs to be known is the proportional relation of the weight of a body to the weight of a medium or
the forces that act upon it. This integrated view of motion is instantiated at greater length in Galileo’s works.
In the De motu, this model for solving motion problems is credited to Archimedes, showing thus that it
emerged in the mind of the Italian scholar in the context of mechanics.
48
The Postulates 2–3 and Prop. I are omitted from Beirut MS of Kit. qar.; I quote them from Berlin MS
copy.
qar. which has the form of a lemma discussing formally the property enunciated in the
last postulate.49
Fig. 6
The analysis of the law of the lever is introduced in Kit. qar. by the Proposition II
stating that any line divided into two different parts on a point which remains stable
describes, when it is endowed with a movement which does not bring it to its initial
position, two similar circular sectors having for radius respectively the long and the
short segments. The line AB (fig. 6) being divided into two unequal segments at the
point G, if this point remains still and that the line is rotated around it, the line AB
will describe two similar sectors AA and BB which belong to two circles of radii GA
and GB. In other words, when the line is moved around G, the arcs described by its
ends are proportional to the lengths of its two parts. Thus BB/AA :: BG/GA (Kit.
qar., Beirut MS 223, 87; Jaouiche 1976, 146–149).
Thābit designed this original proposition as a lemma intended to afford the
mathematical tools for the proof of the law of the lever in the next theorem.
Mathematically, the proposition defines the similitude of circular sectors. A line is
induced to move in a partial rotation about one of its own points held fixed; the
generated sectors are similar and the arcs proportional to the segments of the line that
generated them. The Arabic version of the proposition is equipped with a well-fitting
diagram and a neatly arranged argument. A major change is however the addition in
the Lib. kar. of a corollary stating that forces of motion are proportional to generating
lines.50 This observation is an immediate deduction from the preceding Postulate 1.
49
[Prop. I] “If one of the two weights is set at the end of a line which goes out from the end of the first line,
which is the axis, and which defines with it an angle other than a right one, then this weight will be as if it
were suspended at the foot of the perpendicular (masqat al-amūd), falling over the straight line of the axis from
that point in which it is suspended” (Kit. qar., Berlin˙ MS 559, f. 219b; Jaouiche 1976, 150). A corollary
appended to this theorem corresponds to the first proposition in Maq. mı̄z.
50
“We have already said that in the case of two spaces which two moving bodies describe in the same time,
the proportion of the power of the motion (virtutis motus) of one of the moving bodies to the power of the
movement of the other is as the proportion of the space which the first motion cuts to the other space.” Then
the corollary is stated in geometrical terms and concluded by these words: “This proposition is manifest to him
who speculates on it and who wants to understand it” (Moody and Clagett 1952, 93).
Prepared by the last proposition defining the similitude of circular sectors, the law
of the lever can now be stated. The general enunciation of the law is missing from the
Arabic version of Kit. qar., but it is extant in the Latin translation as Proposition III:
Since this is manifest now, then I propose [the following with respect to] every line
which is divided into two different segments and imagined to be suspended by the
dividing point and where there are suspended on the respective extremities of the two
segments two weights, and the proportion of the one weight to the other, so far as being
drawn downward is concerned, is [inversely] as the proportion of the lines (et quod
duorum ponderum proportionalium sicut proportionalitas duarum partium linee unius ad comparem
suam secundum attractionem suspenditur unum in extremitate unius duarum sectionum et
secundum in extremitate altera). [I say that in these circumstances] the line is in horizontal
equilibrium (tunc linea equatur super equidistantiam orizontis). (Moody and Clagett 1952,
93–95)
In the Arabic version the theorem takes the figure of the diagram:
This being proved, I say then that if the line AB [fig. 7] is suspended from point G and
that there are set at its ends, at points A and B, two weights proportional to its two parts
and inversely proportional to them (munāsibān li-qismayhi mukāfiān lahumā),51 the line AB
will be parallel to the horizon. (Kit. qar., Beirut MS 223, 87; Jaouiche 1976, 148)
Fig. 7
51
Jaouiche’s translation (1976, 149) of this phrase as “deux poids proportionnels et équivalents” is wrong,
although his analysis shows that he understood it correctly as implying an inverse ratio (ibid., 128). Likewise,
Gerard of Cremona’s translation of this same phrase (see above the Latin version of the law of the lever in Lib.
kar.) may induce the reader into error as if it means that the ratio of the weights to the distances is a direct
ratio. That nisba mutakāfia refers to inverse ratio is confirmed by explanations we find in Arabic scientific
literature. For instance, in his Kitāb al-tafhı̄m, al-Bı̄rūnı̄ (973–1055) defines takafū al-nisba as “when the second
and the third [terms of a poportion] are on the same side. This is obvious in the weights of the steelyard (athqāl
al-qarastūn), which is al-qabbān, where the ratio of the distance of the hook from the fulcrum to the distance
˙
of the [running] counterpoise (rummāna) from it is as the ratio of the weight of the counterpoise to the weight
which balances it in the scale-pan” (al-Bı̄rūnı̄ 1934, 17). The same definition occurs in an anonymous
scholium contained in the Arabic MS 1158 conserved in the Gotha Forschung- und Landesbibliothek, f. 41b,
and in al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 143. The scientific and terminological context in which emerged the Arabic
expression for inverse ratio is studied in Abattouy 2000e.
The demonstration follows immediately:
We cut from the longer AG [a segment] like GB and that is GD. If a weight equal to the
weight at B is suspended from point D, AB will be parallel to the horizon, so that if it
is inclined (mı̄la) from the higher D to the lower D, the weight at B would lift it (istaqalla
bihi) and raise it up (asadahu) to the higher D, making it traverse the arc DD. But the arc
DD is equal to the arc ˙ BB, for GD is as GB. Nevertheless, the arc DD and the arc AA
are traversed in the same time. Hence if we move the weight from D to the lower A and
we wish that it is raised up to the higher A, we will need to add to the weight at B an
addition such that the ratio of the whole to the weight at A will be as the ratio of the
arc AA to the arc DD, if these two arcs are traversed in the same time even though they
are different. This ratio is the ratio of one of the two parts of the line to the other. (Kit.
qar., Beirut MS 223, 87; Jaouiche 1976, 148–149)
The theorem is proved in two steps, for the symmetrical and the asymmetrical
cases. Taking on AG a segment GD equal to GB, if a weight equal to the one in B
is set at D, AB will be then parallel to the horizon. If the weight at D is inclined
downward, the weight in B will force it back, making it travel along the arc DD, equal
to BB, since GD = GB. Then if the weight is moved from D to A and set in the lower
position, if we wish to raise it up we must increase the weight in B so that the ratio
of the total weight at B to the one at A is equal to the ratio of the unequal arcs AA
to DD, which are however traveled through in the same time. Now this ratio is the
same as the one of the two segments of the line. Consequently, the non-symmetrical
case is reduced to the symmetrical one by the extension of the right arm of the lever
and by making the weight at the right side in motion. In order to obtain equilibrium,
the quantity of the weight on the left-side of the beam must be known.
The proof in the Latin version is more expanded than in the Arabic one. In both
cases, however, they are founded on the same implicit assumption (the force necessary
to maintain a weight in balance is able to raise it, and vice versa) and on some
dynamical considerations derived from Postulate 1. The proof as such proceeds in
three steps.
First, a lever is conceived of as a geometrical line divided into two equal parts, and
two equal weights are set at its ends. The lever is then in equilibrium. It follows, in
virtue of the implicit assumption, that if this equilibrium is broken the weight in the
elevated position will raise the lower weight and bring the beam back to equilibrium.
The motions of the two ends mark two equal sectors at equal distances from the point
of suspension of the lever. Then one of the arms is extended so that the weight at its
end is brought farther from the center. The lever remains evidently inclined on this
side. The third step which brings about the proof of the law consists in the
determination of the weight to set at the other end of the lever in order to regain
equilibrium. The transfer of the raised end of the shorter segment to its initial position
requires the addition to the weight placed there an amount such that the ratio of the
sum to the other weight is as the inverse ratio of the arcs traced by the ends of the
segments one to the other. This claim is justified merely by observing that these arcs
would be traversed in equal times and that they have the ratio of the segments
generating them. Such a reference to the “arcs traversed in the same time even if they
are unequal” shows clearly that Thābit was willing to prove his theorem on the basis
of the forces measured by the distances traversed by the mobiles. In other words, he
considered the dynamic principle enunciated in the first postulate as conferring
enough corroboration and substantiation to his proof so as to constitute a foundation
to it.
This interpretation gains further support from a passage stated at the end of the
proof in the Latin version in which an account of the forces entailed by the motions
of the endpoints of the beam is presented (Moody and Clagett 1952, 97). This passage
corrects the omission of these forces from the extant Arabic version of Thābit’s Kitāb.
The allusion to the “powers” in Lib. kar. is to be made in parallel with the corollary
to Prop. II where it is asserted that the forces at the endpoints are in the ratio of the
segments directly. Thus, the force of motion at the end of the longer segment exceeds
the other in the same ratio as the weight set there is exceeded by the other weight.
It follows that the beam will be in equilibrium.
Furthermore, Thābit’s argument cannot be admitted as correct without this
dynamic interpretation. The assumption that forces are proportional to weights and
that equilibrium obtains when the forces of the mover and of the thing moved are
equal is a sine qua non requisite for the soundness of the proof. Now, as we explained
in length before, this principle is accepted, whether explicitly or implicitly,
throughout the Peripatetic natural philosophy so that we can hardly deny Thābit had
it in mind.52
The terminology adopted by Thābit strengthens this dynamic view. The downward
and the upward motions in the connected system of the balance are said to be the
result of two concomitant inclining (muyyila) and ascending (istaqalla, asada) actions.
The descending of one weight makes the other ascend, so that the two˙ motions are
caused by the same action of weight. Thābit’s language in this crucial passage is not
as explicit as it could be, but it is clear that he conceived of the weight (thiql) as the
very reason of the two motions.
52
As noted by Knorr (1982, 77–78), in the case of the balance, the ratio of the forces of the weights at the
ends of its segments equals the ratio compounded of the ratio of the weights and the ratio of the lengths of
the segments, as Thābit has proved in Prop. II in Lib. kar. Now, since the ratios of the weights and of the
segments are taken inversely to each other, it follows that the forces have the ratio of 1:1. Hence they are equal
and the beam is in equilibrium. Thus, this theorem is an immediate consequence of the assumption of forces
as proportional both to weights and to speeds, that is to the distances traversed in equal times, as stated in
Postulate 1. As such, it might readily be admitted without explicit proof. For more details, see Jaouiche 1976,
81–85, 126–133.
The three first theorems in Kit. qar. in both the Arabic and Latin versions aim at
the justification of the principle of equilibrium in the case of the weightless beam.53
With marked contrast with the main body of the rest of the treatise, the proofs in this
section amount to little beyond qualitative description. But it is in this part of the text
that a clearly noticeable dynamical analysis of the basic principles of equilibrium is
elaborated. The dynamical mode of this section contrasts strikingly with the statical
and geometrical point of view maintained throughout the remainder of the treatise,
where complete proofs of the theorems are developed. Thus, the introductory part of
Thābit’s treatise embodies the author’s conceptual and methodological commitment.
Its place at the head of the treatise corroborates such a foundational role, and
furthermore, its transmission in one of the extant manuscript copies (MS Laurentiana
Or. 218) independently from the rest of the treatise provides supplementary support
to this interpretation.
III. 3. The Amplification of the Dynamic Outlook: al-Isfizārı̄
Thābit’s proof of the law of the lever was reworked by al-Isfizārı̄ in the second section
of his Irshād in a way that amplified the dynamic reasoning elaborated in the first part
of Kit. qar. In his reworking, al-Isfizārı̄ amplified the dynamical approach of his
predecessor. He did so by first introducing a set of general principles (mabādi) about
the motion of bodies,54 and, also, by improving the dynamic outlook by a series of
conceptual and terminological insights.
Al-Isfizārı̄’s analysis of the law of the lever opens with the statement of the
theorem:
Among the admitted primary assumptions (al-awāil al-maqbūla)55 in this art (sināa) is that
when a beam is suspended from a point situated in its middle and two equal˙ weights are
placed at two equal distances from the fulcrum, it will be parallel to the horizon. If the
weights equally distant from the fulcrum are different, the greater weight will sink
(yarjahanna) and will come close to the plane of the horizon, whereas the smaller weight
˙ constrained to move away from the plane of the horizon by the same distance.
will be
Their motions produce two sectors [of a circle]. (Irshād, f. 19b)56
53
At the end of his proof of the law of the lever Thābit notes in a short “scholium” that the validity of the
theorem depends on a condition, namely the representation of the beam of the balance as a straight and
weightless line. If the beam is considered as having weight, we should increase the thickness of the shorter arm
until that equilibrium is attained; then the beam can be viewed as a pure weightless line (Kit. qar., Berlin MS,
f. 220a; Jaouiche 1976, 150–151). Omitted in Beirut MS of Kit. qar. and from the Latin version, this scholium
represents the end of Thābit’s dynamic analysis in the first part of his treatise.
54
These principles are quoted and commented upon in Abattouy 2001b.
55
Awwal (pl. awāil, awwaliyyāt) denotes a type of the necessary and certain premises like the axioms. See for
example al-Tahānawı̄ 1862, II, 1512–13.
56
For al-Isfizārı̄’s Irshād I refer to the manuscript copy preserved in Damascus (MS 4460, ff. 16a–24a) and
sometimes also to the abridged version published in al-Khāzinı̄ (1940, 39–45).
Stemming from a tradition of competing views about the status of the law of the
lever,57 al-Isfizārı̄ introduced it as an admitted basic principle. Nevertheless, he
endeavored to demonstrate it, even though he presented his proof only as an
illustration (li-numaththil li-dhālika mathalan, Irshād, f. 19b).
In his proof, al-Isfizārı̄ follows the distinction effected by Thābit ibn Qurra
between the symmetric and the asymmetric cases, which correspond in turn to the
cases of equal and unequal weights suspended at the ends of a beam divided into two
halves. Like Thābit also, he relies on some auxiliary theorems of geometry (e.g., the
equality of the angles defined by the motions of the weights generating the sectors),
but he specifies, contrary to his predecessor, that the downward motion of the
descending greater weight is a natural motion whereas the upward motion of the
ascending weight is a forced one.
The proof runs as follows. Considering the line AB to be a beam suspended from
its middle G while two equal weights are hung at its ends, the beam will be evidently
in equilibrium. If the weights were different, A being the greater, then it sinks
downward along the arc AH according to the excess of its weight over the weight B,
whereas this last is forced to move upward along the same distance on the arc BE.
Thus the beam deviates from being parallel to the horizon and becomes extended
along the line HGE. Proceeding to the asymmetric case, this line is extended to T.
The angles AGH, BGT are opposite and they were produced by the intersection of
two straight lines, hence they are equal, for the arcs of equal angles are equal either
in the centers or on the circumference.58 Thus the two arcs AH, BE are equal, but
their physical status is not the same: the first is traversed by A in natural motion (bi-’l-
haraka al-tabı̄yya) while the second is passed over by B with forced motion
˙
(bi-’l- ˙ al-qasriyya). Al-Isfizārı̄ insists on the qualification of these motions as
haraka
˙
natural and violent and emphasizes that this difference is due to the weights
producing them:
The weight A descends (yanhadir) and the weight B ascends (yasad) because the
descending one is the heaviest of ˙ the two quantities. It is heaviness (thiql)
˙ which imposed
the sinking and the descending (al-irjihān wa al-inhidār), and the heaviest body produces
˙
necessarily such an effect. (Irshād, f. 20a) ˙
Then the demonstration shifts immediately to the asymmetrical case in which

equal weights are suspended at different distances from the fulcrum. Although this is
not noted explicitly, the weight B is taken away to a farther position on the larger
circle (fig. 8):
57
According to al-Kūhı̄ (Berggren 1983, 112, 58, resp. Ar. text and Engl. transl.), Archimedes and Euclid
considered the law of the lever as a “premise” (muqaddama) counted among the “necessary assumptions” (ulūm
darūriyya), whereas al-Alā ibn Sahl, a mathematician of the tenth century, based its validity on empirical
˙
grounds (bi-’l-tajriba).
58
According to Euclid’s Elements, III. Prop. 27 and VI. 33: “In equal circles angles standing on equal
circumferences are equal to one another, whether they stand at the centres or at the circumferences.”
Fig. 859
Now if the two weights A, B were made equal and that [the line] AB was suspended from
a point which is not in the middle, such as the point G, if the weight B was the farthest
from the fulcrum, it sinks and weighs in its descent towards the earth (yarjahanna wa
yatathāqal nāzilan ilā al-ard), moving along the arc BO. It moves the weight A, ˙which is
close to the fulcrum, so that ˙ this latter is forced to move (yataharraku maqsūran) to the
upper part of the arc AS. Their motions produce two similar sectors. ˙ For the beam AB
becomes similar to the line SO when it deviates from parallelness to the horizon while
suspended from the point G. The angles SGA, OGB being equal, the arc AS is part of
their circle [ASD], as the arc BO, which is also a part of their whole circle [TBO]. Now
the circles are unequal, for the longer part BG of the beam AB is the semi-diameter of
one of them and the smaller part the semi-diameter of the other [circle]. Thus the arc BO
is greater than the arc AS. Since the two weights A and B were supposed to be equal, the
motion took place because the arc BO, along which the weight B moves with a natural
motion (bi-’l-haraka al-tabı̄yya), is greater than the arc AS, along which A moves with
forced motion˙ (bi-’l-haraka ˙ al-qasriyya). (Irshād, ff. 20a–20b)
˙
An important feature of al-Isfizārı̄’s analysis at this stage is that when the beam is
suspended from a point not in the middle, the weight B leans downward and weighs
more and more, becoming heavier in its descent and moves along the arc BO so that
the weight A is raised by force. Such a double movement generates similar sectors.
The dynamical analysis seems to have inspired our author to a typically non-
Aristotelian idea, affirming that the body becomes heavier in its downward descent.
This means not only that the farther the weight is from the fulcrum, the heavier it
59
The diagram has been rotated so that the beam is made in horizontal position as required by the proof. The
lettering of the figure in the MS is erroneous; it has been corrected in consequence.
acts, but that in its downward descent on the lower sections of the same path, its
weight is increased. Such an interpretation is supported by the allusion to the nearness
to the center of the earth.60
To restore equilibrium, represented by the parallelism of AB to the plane of the
horizon, al-Isfizārı̄ follows Thābit’s procedure by advising to add to the body at A an
amount such that the ratio of their sum to the other weight at B is as the arcs traced
by the ends of the segments:
The line AB will become parallel to the plane of the horizon if the weight A was so
augmented that the ratio of the weight A together with this addition to the weight B is
as the ratio of the arc BO to the arc AS. The excess of the arc BO over AS requires the
sinking (irjihnān) of weight B and the excess of weight A with the addition over weight
B requires ˙the sinking of weight A. Therefore, we have here two distinct notions
(manayān mutabāyinān) each one of them requiring the sinking (al-irjihnān), namely the
weight and the distance (al-thiql wa ’l-bud). The excess of one of them˙over the other in
weight is as the excess of this latter over the former in distance. The equality between
them required the counterbalance (muqāwama) and that the beam is extended in
parallelness to the horizon, so that the line AB remains parallel to the horizon. The ratio
of the arc BO to the arc AS is as the ratio of the line GB to the line GA, as it was
demonstrated by Euclid in his book.61 Therefore the ratio of weight A – with the addition
– to weight B is as the ratio of line BG to GA, and this is an inverse ratio. Thus the
realization of the parallelness of the beam with the plane of the horizon depends also on
the existence of an inverse ratio between the two parts of the beam and the two weights
suspended from its ends. (Irshād, f. 20b)
Fig. 962
60
Formulated in the same terms in al-Khāzinı̄ (see below note 71), this idea seems to have been widely
diffused in the Arabic literature, as pointed out by Wiedemann, who indicated that it occurred in the works
of Nası̄r al-Dı̄n al-Tūsı̄ and Qutb al-Dı̄n al-Shirāzı̄. These authors described a vessel which contains more and
more ˙water as its position
˙ ˙ to the earth: see Wiedemann 1984, I, 41, II, 1035–36.
is nearer
61
There is no proof of the law of the lever based on sectors in Pseudo-Euclid’s Maq. mı̄z. This reference might
be an erroneous substitution of the name of Euclid to that of Thābit ibn Qurra. Al-Isfizārı̄ follows here
scrupulously Thābit’s proof of the law of the lever in Kit. qar.
62
I added this figure in order to simplify the complex configuration of the previous one.
As a conclusion to this long section of the Irshād devoted to the law of the lever,
the results thus derived for physical levers are applied to the problem of the forces
acting on the hand of someone holding up a beam (represented by a ruler or by a
small spear), well back along the shaft, in a horizontal position (Irshād, f. 20b). In this
rough experiment, al-Isfizārı̄ recognizes two components: the natural weight of the
beam which is neutralized when the latter is supported from its exact middle, and the
unbalanced weight which appears when the beam is supported from a point away
from the middle, a factor that produces forced motion about a center. The
explanation provided by our author on this point shows clearly the effect of forces,
and their role in inclining the motion of bodies or supporting them in equilibrium
when set in certain positions.
Al-Isfizārı̄’s proof coincides with Thābit ibn Qurra’s version of the law of the lever.
Following his predecessor, he reduces the arms of the lever scales to a circle, since the
proportions of the balance beam at both sides from the fulcrum are similar to lines
passing from the center of the circle, which is identified with the suspension point.
The motion of the ends of the unbalanced lever is seen in the light of the concepts
of “natural” and “forced” motions. Thus the descending load performs a natural
motion, whereas the ascending load achieves a forced one. According to al-Isfizārı̄’s
scheme, the cause of the forced motion of an extremity of the lever is the natural
motion of the other extremity, and this natural motion itself is occasioned by the
natural inclination of the heavy load towards the center of the world. In this way the
equality of inclinations is the condition of equilibrium, and the balance beam stays in
equilibrium if the inclinations of the loads at its two ends do not exceed each
other.63
Strictly speaking, al-Isfizārı̄’s proof of the law of the lever does not amount to more
than a reworking of Thābit’s analysis of the theorem of equilibrium, with frequent
literal correspondences. But he did not just repeat the latter’s proof. For example, he
overlooked Kit. qar.-Prop. II, although his use of the circles implies that this technical
theorem lay in the background of his proof. On the other hand, the geometrical
configuration he relied upon is slightly different and he expressed explicitly some of
the assumptions that remained implicit in his predecessor’s procedure. Making no
mention of the time of motion nor of the forces driving mobiles, en revanche he did
allude openly to the combination of weight and distance (al-thiql wa al-bud), pointing
out a preliminary notion of the statical momentum. Thus to achieve equilibrium in
the balance, two components must correspond to each other in a precise proportion:
the distances of the weights from the fulcrum and the natural heaviness of the loads.
The former are preferably dealt with in terms of the arcs described, while the latter
represent the intrinsic tendency of the weights towards the center of the world. Like
Thābit, al-Isfizārı̄ appeals to the concept of equalizing forces to justify the inverse
63
This was noted by Rozhanskaya (1996, 628) in her commentary on the corresponding section of al-
Khāzinı̄’s edition of al-Isfizārı̄’s work.
proportionality of weights and distances. As we have noted, this is missing from the
extant Arabic version of Kit. qar., but supplied in the Latin Lib. kar.
Amplifying the argument still further, our scholar established a strict parallel
between the natural motion of the descending weight and the violent motion of the
ascending one. He stressed that the reason for the two motions is the difference in
weight between the two loads, and thus identified natural and violent motions with
respect to their generating cause, namely the action of their own weight. His focus
on this idea leaves no doubt regarding his awareness that he was amplifying the
dynamic outlook he inherited from Thābit’s procedure. In addition, al-Isfizārı̄’s
terminology emphasizes the physical aspect of his reasoning. In particular, he makes
constant use of a crucial term, irjihān and its variants. Conveying a powerful dynamic
connotation, this term refers to the˙ notion of sinking and inclining downward, caused
by the action of weight. The systematic way in which the concept is employed
instructs on its status as a conceptual tool for the description of the action of the
internal and inherent inclination. In this light, irjihān and its variants embody no less
than the dynamic aspect of rhopê and mayl.64 ˙
IV. Arabic Euclidean Mechanics: Textual and Theoretical Traditions

The Elements of Euclid was one of the most read and commented upon texts in the
Arabic mathematical tradition. Other Euclidean texts were accessible in Islamic
culture, such as the Data, Phaenomena, Division of Figures, and Optics. All these works
survived in Greek versions, but for the Division, which was preserved only in Arabic,
and they follow the logical structure of the Elements, being organized in definitions
and demonstrated propositions. As far as we know, Euclid left no writing in
mechanics and the ancient sources did not ascribe to him any such work.
Nevertheless, two short texts related to mechanics are extant in Arabic and they are
clearly attributed to him: Maqāla fı̄ ‘l-mı̄zān (Treatise on the Balance) and Kitāb fı̄ ‘l-
thiql wa ‘l-khiffa (Book on Heaviness and Lightness). The following section is devoted
to the reconstruction of the Arabic tradition of these two texts. First a short survey
of the text on heaviness and lightness is presented. Then the textual tradition of the
treatise on the balance will be investigated in detail. Finally, the section will end on
a comprehensive review of al-Isfizārı̄’s reworking of Maq. mı̄z. in the third section of
his Irshād.
IV. 1. Bird’s Eye View on the Treatise on Heaviness and Lightness

The Arabic version of Kitāb Uqlı̄dis fı̄ ‘l-thiql wa ‘l-khiffa wa qiyyās al-ajrām badihā ilā
bad (Book of Euclid on heaviness and lightness and the comparison of bodies ˙one to
˙
64
The discovery of the conceptual meaning of irjihān in the Arabic tradition of mechanics constitutes one of
˙ vocabulary of this tradition. The issue will be analyzed
the most exciting results of my analysis of the technical
in a forthcoming publication.
the other) is extant in Thābit ibn Qurra’s revised and corrected edition (islāh). In
˙ ˙
general the editorial procedure of islāh was applied to texts which were transmitted
˙ ˙
and/or translated under certain defective conditions, so that their first version in
Arabic required emendation by an expert. In the case of the present text, the
procedure of islāh meant a more or less heavy editorial revision, with the plausible
˙ of
result that some ˙ the material in the extant version might be accredited to Thābit’s
revision enterprise.65
The text is known in three manuscript copies: Berliner Staatsbibliothek MS 258
(Ahlwardt 6014), folii 439r–440v, London India Office MS 923 (Loth 744), folii
98v–101r, and Hayderabad, Andra Pradesh Government Oriental Manuscripts
Library and Research Institute, Asafiyya Collection, MS Riyādı̄ 327, folii 257b–
258a.66 It was also transmitted in two Latin versions, of which ˙ at least one was
translated from Arabic. The two versions are not very different from the Arabic text.
The proofs of the theorems are, however, more elaborate in the Arabic version.67
The Arabic text of Pseudo-Euclid’s tract on heaviness and lightness consists of an
organized exposition in nine postulates and six theorems of dynamical principles
related to the motion of bodies in filled mediums. It develops a rough analysis of the
concepts of place, magnitude, kind, and force and applies it to movements of bodies.
The postulates bear on the definition of such notions as “equal” (mutasāwı̄),
“different/unequal” (mukhtalif), and “greater” or “larger” (azam, awsa) bodies in size
or magnitude, the ones which, accordingly, occupy “equal,” ˙“unequal,” and “greater”
spaces (amkina). The first three postulates are definitions of volume and size, by the
distinction between body (jurm) and space. Thus, size is defined in the sense of
volume, in terms of the dimensions of the containing place occupied by a body. The
next three are definitions of equality or inequality in force (quwwa) on the basis of
motion in the same medium of air or water in equal or less times, over the same
distances. The Aristotelian dynamical law is invested in this definition procedure:
force of motion is proportional to velocity (Post. 4: bodies equal in force are those
whose velocities are equal in the same medium), and hence velocities are equal if in
equal times equal spaces are traversed (Post. 5 is stated for the inverse case: bodies
different in force are those whose velocities are unequal, e.g., they traverse equal
distances in different times), and finally a velocity is greater if the same space is
traversed in less time (Post. 6: “those which are greater in force are those which are
65
In Ibn al-Nadı̄m (1871–72, I, 266) and Ibn al-Qiftı̄ (1903, 65), the Book on Heaviness and Lightness is quoted
among the genuine works of Euclid, but they don’t˙ make any mention of Thābit’s islāh of its Arabic version.
˙ ˙ copies.
Nevertheless, his revision of the text is attested in the titles of the three extant manuscript
66
There are no significant differences between the three manuscripts, and it seems that they stem from the
same original. A fourth source is the abridged version edited by al-Khāzinı̄ and consisting of statements of the
axioms and theorems without proofs: al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 21–22.
67
Curtze (1900) edited the two Latin versions. On the basis of his controlling the order of the letters in their
diagrams, he concluded that one was translated directly from Greek and the other from Arabic. The Latin text
was edited and translated into English in Moody and Clagett 1952, 26–31.
lesser in time” (azamuhā quwwatan asgharuhā zamānan), i.e., if the generated velocity
is greater).68
Finally, in the set of the last three postulates a definition of “kind” is built by the
intermediary of identity and diversity of kind (mutakāfi a, mukhtalifa fı̄ al-jins). Bodies
of equal size are of the same kind or different in kind if they have respectively the
same force or a different force in the same medium. Postulate 9 is about a specific
case: the difference in kind and the greatness of power may also result from a higher
density. Establishing a relation between volume and force, the denser body (ashadd
kathāfa) is the one having equal volume but greater force.
The theorems are six in number and supplied with proofs. Their arrangement
denotes a high level of editorial redaction: they are all stated in general formulations,
then in terms of the diagram (this step is systematically called mithāl –example), before
the disclosure of the proof, preceded in the first five theorems by the formulaic phrase
burhānuhu – its demonstration. The first theorem proves, inversely to Postulate 5, that
“of bodies which traverse unequal distances in equal times, that which traverses the
greater distance is the greater in force” (MS Berlin 258, f. 439a). As said before, this
proposition is similar to Thābit ibn Qurra’s first Postulate in Kit. qar. Prop. 2 asserts
that for two bodies equivalent in kind their force is proportional to the volume. The
converse is then supplied by Prop. 3, in the proof of which the previous theorem is
referred to: “the bodies equivalent in kind have the same ratio in force and in quantity
(izm)” (MS Berlin 258, f. 439b), hence force is proportional to volume.
˙Prop. 4, required in the proof of the next one, applies the Euclidean principle of
transitivity to magnitudes (“the bodies equivalent [in kind] to the same body are
equivalent one to the other”), whereas Prop. 5 describes the identity of kind in terms
of the inverse of Prop. 3 (“when the bodies are in the same ratio in quantity and in
force, they are equivalent [in kind]”). This follows immediately from Post. 7–8.
Finally, Prop. 6 grants a consistent and appropriate conclusion to the treatise. Relying
on Post. 9, it asserts that “of bodies different in quantity (izm) and equal in force with
respect to the same air or to the same water, the greater in ˙density is of lesser volume”
(MS Berlin 258, ff. 439b–440a). In other words, bodies of the same kind have power
proportional to their size, and this is manifested in their motion: they move at speeds
proportional to their quantity of matter.
The pseudo-Euclidean treatise on heaviness and lightness was intended manifestly
to provide an operative interpretation of the Aristotelian “law of motion” as applied
to the case of bodies falling freely through corporeal mediums, such that the factors
of motive power and resistance are measured by the densities of the body and of the
medium respectively. Because of its compact format, the text must have been very
popular among medieval authors for the interpretation of the concepts of force and
weight, and as a basis for the theory of motion in dense mediums. Thābit ibn Qurra,
its editor, used twice its first theorem as the founding postulate of his analysis in Kit.
68
For the Arabic text of Pseudo-Euclid’s work on heaviness and lightness, I refer to MS Berlin 258, folii 439r–
440v. Postulate 5 is on f. 439a.
qar. and as a conclusion to his writing on the equal-armed balance entitled Sifat al-
wazn. Besides, the impact this treatise had on Arabic mechanics can be measured˙
through the presence of similar ideas in Ibn al-Haytham and al-Kūhı̄’s mechanical
works, where they are developed to a large extent.69 Thus, the following statement by
the two authors reflects the same Aristotelian law relating force and speed directly:
The bodies of equal heaviness are those whose motions, when they move in the same
fluid from the same point [of rest], are equal; I mean that they traverse equal distances
in equal time. (al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 17)
Moreover, the force is characterized with reference to the physical properties of the
bodies (density, volume, and shape). Thus, defining density (kathāfa) and rarity
(sakhāfa) in a comparative way, it is said that bodies of greater density are of greater
force; correlatively, those with equal quantity and of lesser force are rare bodies. The
intermediate case of the bodies equal in force is then described in the same terms:
The bodies equal in force are those which are equal in density or rarity, and of which
equal quantities – with similar shape (shakl) – are equal in heaviness. Let’s call these
bodies “the equals in force.” And bodies differing in force are those which are not such.
Let’s call them “those differing in force.” (al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 16)
These assertions display evident theoretical and terminological affinities with the
last three postulates in the pseudo-Euclidean fragment. However, al-Kūhı̄ and Ibn al-
Haytham’s procedure is part of a more general dynamic framework, as shown by their
statements regarding the notions of weight and heaviness:
Heaviness (thiql) is the force with which a heavy body is moved towards the centre of the
world. A heavy body is the one which is moved by an inherent force (quwwa dhātiyya),
constantly, only towards the point of the centre, without being moved by that force in
any other direction. This force is inherent in it, not derived from outside nor separated
from it so long as it is at any point out of the centre. [The body] is constantly moved by
it as far as it is not impeded by any impediment, until it reaches the centre of the world.
(al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 16)
In the Arabic mechanical tradition, the distinction between weight (wazn) and
heaviness (thiql) of a body is a significative point to observe. The weight is constant
and measurable through weighing in a balance,70 while gravity or heaviness could
69
The similarity between Pseudo-Euclid and the two scholars’ views has been noted by Clagett 1959, 65–66
and Rozhanskaya 1996, 620–621.
70
A good instance of this is the definition opening Pseudo-Euclid’s Maq. mı̄z.: “weight (wazn) is the measure
of heaviness and lightness of one thing compared to another by means of a balance” (MS Paris 2457, f. 22b;
Woepcke 1851, 220). For the Arabic text of Maq. mı̄z., I refer to Paris MS 2457, ff. 21b.1–22b.11 and to its
transcription in Woepcke 1851, 221–225.
vary depending on the position of the body relative to a particular point, the center
of the world or the point of suspension of a balance. Hence, the concept of gravity
is correlated to that of force. In al-Kūhı̄ and Ibn al-Haytham’s abridged statements,
force is considered in an Aristotelian perspective as an inherent tendency of a body
to move downwards. Since heaviness is associated with force and the latter leaves the
body as it reaches the center of the world, heaviness should be null and devoid of any
effect at that center. Thus, gravity – the modern vocable for thiql – must be a variable
magnitude that changes along the straight line connecting the body with the center
of the world. Further, a body’s heaviness depends directly on that distance. Hence,
“bodies equal in force, in volume, in shape, and in distance from the centre of the
world, are equal” (al-Khāzinı̄ 1940, 17). On the contrary, “of every two heavy bodies,
equal in force, in volume, and shape, [but] differing in distance from the centre of the
world, the one which is more distant has the greatest weight (aktharuhumā budan
azamuhumā thiqlan),” i.e. the one closer to the center has a lesser gravity (ibid.,
˙ 71
20).
IV. 2. Maqāla fı̄ ‘l-mı̄zān, a Greek Fragment Edited in Arabic?
The extant Arabic text on heaviness and lightness ascribed to Euclid has been edited
by Thābit ibn Qurra. Such an editorial intervention is not recorded in the title of
Maqāla fı̄ ‘l-mı̄zān, the other Euclidean mechanical text. Nevertheless, the
codicological analysis leads to the conclusion that this text too has undergone a
similar editorial revision in the Arabic tradition.
Three manuscript copies of Maq. mı̄z. are known to exist so far: Paris Bibliothèque
Nationale, MS 2457, folii 21b–22b, Tehran Danishgāh Library, MS 1751, folii 62b–
64a and Mashhad Central Library, MS Aslave Quds D 5643, pp. 9–11.72 This last copy
is incomplete and untitled; it is interrupted in the last words of Prop. 3. In contrast,
the Paris copy, without contest the most important source for the Pseudo-Euclidean
writing, presents a complete and revised text. Significant differences exist between
this copy and the one preserved in Tehran. In particular, the latter lacks several
important passages. These gaps are precisely of decisive historical value, as will be
argued below. The Paris copy was executed in the mid-tenth century by the known
mathematician Saı̄d ibn Abd al-Jalı̄l al-Sijzı̄ in Shı̄rāz (South Iran), very probably for
his own use, while the Tehran copy was produced by some Abū Turāb ibn Ahmad in
˙
1283 H/1866–67 (Sezgin 1974, 120). Titled Maqāla li Uqlı̄dis fı̄ al-wazn wa al-mı̄zān
(The Treatise of Euclid on the Weight and the Balance), it is bound now in a
71
This proposition is further developed by al-Khāzinı̄ (1940, 24) who draws from it a spectacular consequence
regarding the variation of gravity of a body with its distance from the center of the earth: see Hall 1973, 344
and Rozhanskaya 1996, 621–22.
72
The only known source in modern literature for Maq. mı̄z. is Paris MS, transcribed and translated into
French by Woepcke in 1851, and rendered into English recently by Clagett (1959, 24–28) and Knorr (1982,
199–204).
collection of Arabic mathematical treatises written in the same hand, with some
fragments in Persian.
The collation of the different manuscript copies of Maq. mı̄z. and the exploitation
of the data provided by the variant readings they contain allow one to reconstruct the
tradition of the text. A significative result of this codicological investigation permits
no less than the reconstruction of the probable chronological order of composition of
the two main copies. According to this stemma, the Tehran copy was executed on the
basis of a text that predates the complete and corrected version preserved in Paris MS
copy, whereas the Mashhad copy is a later reproduction based on the latter.
The evidence on which this stemma is founded provides excellent means to
reconstruct the history of the original Greek text on the balance ascribed to Euclid.
It describes the meandering of its translation and edition into Arabic, probably in
Baghdad in the ninth century. The main phases of this process may be outlined as
follows. It seems, indeed, that the first stage was represented by the transmission of a
Greek fragment ascribed to Euclid on the basic properties of the balance. As it is
connected with scholars of the ninth century, this text was evidently translated into
Arabic in the early phase of massive translations of Greek scientific material. The
question of the authorship of the original fragment is difficult if not impossible to
decide. It is possible that Euclid wrote on mechanics, as it is equally possible that the
text was attributed to him later in Hellenistic times, as it was the case for some
writings linked to his name.73 At any rate, several elements corroborate the Greek
origin of the fragment on which the extant Arabic text is based. Besides the explicit
ascription to Euclid, which occurs in the title of the text in two manuscript copies,
the lettering of the diagrams in the treatise follows the Greek alphabetical order and
confirms its stated dependence on a Greek source.74
The Arabic translation of the fragment gave birth to a first, yet unsatisfactory
version. As it stands in the Tehran copy, this preliminary version, probably due to an
inexperienced scholar not well acquainted with complex mathematical reasoning,
was largely unintelligible. A copy of this translation arrived into the hands of al-Sijzı̄,
who copied it. The first stage of his copying is represented by the text in Paris MS
without corrections and marginal additions, i.e., an unrefined text, full of gaps and
73
Several works ascribed to Euclid are classified as “questionable works,” either as openly non-Euclidian
writings or as later re-workings of fragmentary material stemming from the Euclidean corpus. For instance,
the Catoptrica, a text on the theory of the mirrors, is ascribed to Euclid by Proclus but it is generally considered
to be a work of Theon (fourth century) who edited many Euclidean texts, including the Elements. On this
point, see Euclid 1956, I, 7–18 and Euclide 1990–94, I, 18–28.
74
Bulmer-Thomas 1971, 431; Knorr 1982, 83. Furthermore, ancient sources connect Euclid’s name with the
law of the lever; this is attested by a reference given in Liber de canonio (an elementary Latin text on the balance
of unknown provenience) and in a letter of al-Kūhı̄: see respectively Moody and Clagett 1952, 66 and
Berggren 1983, 58, 112.
lacking parts of the proofs. Now, this rough and provisional draft corresponds literally,
except for certain slight discrepancies, to what is preserved in the Tehran MS copy.75
Al-Sijzı̄ was not working as a simple scribe but as a scholar collecting material for
his own use. Logically, far from being satisfied with the text he had in hand, he
continued looking for a better one. Some time later he happened to have at his
disposal a complete text without gaps. This copy is to be associated plausibly with the
names of Banū Mūsā and Abū al-îusayn al-Sūfı̄, as al-Sijzı̄ himself recorded in the
colopohon of the Paris MS copy, producing ˙thus a valuable piece of information on
the sources available in his time for Maq. mı̄z. He said in particular that in another
copy, the text is attributed to Banū Mūsā and that he collated his final copy against
the one of al-Sūfı̄ (wa-āradtu bi-nuskhat Abū al-Husayn al-Sūfı̄).76 The attribution to
˙ be discussed
Banū Mūsā will ˙ with the
˙ later, but the collation ˙ copy belonging to al-
Sūfı̄, a contemporary of al-Sijzı̄ and a known astronomer of the tenth century,
˙
instructs on the rigorous style of work adopted by al-Sijzı̄.77 Relying on the new and
complete copy he had at hand, he submitted his first version of the Euclidean tract
to close and careful scrutiny in order to overcome its defects and shortcomings. In
particular, he undertook to fill the gaps by introducing corrections and missing parts
of the text. These corrections and additions are represented by the valuable marginalia
and insertions between the lines that we have in the Paris copy. The result was, in fine,
the production of a coherent and fully intelligible text (as shown in Fig. 10).
The glaring and numerous discrepancies between the two copies extant in the Paris
and the Tehran codices are represented mainly by the omission of several passages
from the latter. Now, all this missing material is available in the Paris copy as marginal
additions, when entire words and long phrases are concerned, or as insertions in the
body of the text, when it consists only of single words or letters. This was done
systematically so as to suggest that it is out of question to consider the added material
as the result of a simple update achieved by the scribe, in which some passages
neglected in a previous session of copying were introduced. We will see later that it
is equally impossible to attribute these insertions to al-Sijzı̄’s own initiative. All this
strengthens the hypothesis of the provenience of this material from a third source
containing parts of the text missing from the original prototype on which al-Sijzı̄
relied when he copied his first version. The fact that all the missing passages, words,
and letters were added as marginalia and insertions is a supplementary indication that
75
Despite the very late date at which it was executed (1866–67), the Tehran MS copy records direct traces of
the first and defective Arabic translation of the Greek fragment.
76
The colophon of Paris MS is missing in the Tehran copy.
77
Various indications show that al-Sijzı̄ revised several treatises he copied and which are included in the
collection of 51 Arabic mathematical works bound in Codex 2457, by collating his copying with other
manuscript materials. For instance he did so in the case of Archimedes’ text on heaviness and lightness (ff.
22v–23v), and for Pappus’ commentary on Book X of the Elements, submitted to a heavy revision: see the
critical apparatus to the edition of the Arabic text in Tomson and Junge 1930. In a study of the colophons and
the different foliations appearing on the pages of MS 2457, Kunitsch and Lorch (1993) concluded that most
of the items in the codex were indeed copied in al-Sijzı̄’s hand, including Maq. mı̄z
Fig. 10. MS Paris 2457, Maq. mı̄z., folio 22a

(Courtesy of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris)
these are the consequence of an editorial enterprise such as the collation against
another textual source.78
The inserted passages concern the whole structure of Maq. mı̄z., including the
axioms, the statements of propositions, the proofs and even one diagram.79 A precious
marginal remark associated with the diagram of the proof of Prop. 2 in the Tehran MS
reads indeed:
The right way in the drawing of this figure (shakl) is to draw the two circles as tangent
(mutamāssatayn) at point G; their drawing as non-tangent is our error, because of the copy
from which we copied (wa rasmuhumā ghayr mutamāssatayn innamā waqaa ghalatan minnā
˙
li-’l-nuskha al-manqūl minhā). (Tehran MS 1751, f. 63a, bottom of the left margin)
This remark sounds like an explicit confession: the copyist himself had recognized
the corruption of the copy from which he worked. Needless to add that in the Paris
and in the Mashhad copies the two circles are effectively tangent at G.
Fig. 11. (Courtesy of the Tehran Danishgāh Library)
As said previously, al-Sijzı̄ specified in his colophon to the Paris MS copy of Maq.
mı̄z. that he found in another copy that the treatise was linked in certain sources to
the three brothers Banū Mūsā: “I found in another copy this treatise by/attributed to
the Banū Mūsā” (wajadtu fı̄ nuskha ukhrā hādhihi al-maqāla li-Banı̄ Mūsā) (MS Paris
2457, f. 22b, Woepcke 1851, 225). Although it is possible to infer from this phrase that
78
It is possible to infer from al-Sijzı̄’s colophon that until his final revision of Maq. mı̄z., he had access to at
least three copies: 1) the basic source from which he copied the first defective version, 2) the one from which
he got the missing passages and corrections, 3) the “nuskha ukhrā” (other copy) by or attributed to Banū Mūsā,
and finally 4) the one owned by al-Sūfı̄ against which he compared his final work. Copies 2 and 4 may be
the same document. ˙
79
For instance, the revision concerned the statement of Axiom 2 and the proofs of Propositions 2, 3, and 4.
The page of the Paris version reproduced in fig. 10 provides a clear idea about the large-scale revision
performed by al-Sijzı̄.
only a copy of the text belonged to Banū Mūsā,80 scholars of ninth century-Baghdad
who left valuable works in mathematics, astronomy, and mechanics, the sentence may
mean also that in the middle of the tenth century the authorship of the text was
ascribed to them.81
At any rate, al-Sijzı̄’s phrase implies that in his time the name of Banū Mūsā was
connected to the final Arabic version of Maq. mı̄z. The reason for such a connection
may be that the three brothers, or one of them, Ahmad, the mechanician of the
group, performed indeed the revision-edition of the˙ Greek fragment. In this case,
their role would amount to more than a simple translation.82 Rather, it would consist
of the correction of corrupt parts of the text and the addition of the missing material
necessary for the completion of the deductive structure of the treatise. The traces of
this editorial improvement are recorded by al-Sijzı̄. The reference by the latter to the
collation with an independent copy and the mention of the name of its owner, al-
Sūfı̄, forbid considering the added material to be the result of his personal
˙
initiative. 83
In this context, the connection between Banū Mūsā and the edition of Maq. mı̄z.
may be of decisive importance on another level. It may provide an exceptional clue
for the identification of their Maqāla fı̄ ’l- qarastūn, the treatise on the steelyard
attributed to them in Arabic sources and never found. ˙ 84 In a word, it is possible that
the work at stake is actually nothing else than their expanded edition of the fragment
attributed to Euclid on the balance. In this case, the latter would have been known
and transmitted in the Arabic tradition under two titles, one refering it to the Banū
Mūsā whereas the other ascribing it to Euclid. If this is true, the ascription to the
80
This is Clagett’s (1959, 28) opinion. For comparison, Knorr (1982, 112–114) is skeptical about Euclid’s
authorship of Maq. mı̄z. and seems to think that its ascription to him might have been done by an early Arabic
editor.
81
Woepcke (1851, 232n.) wrote à propos of the colophon mentioning Banū Mūsā that “cette circonstance
s’expliquerait par la supposition que les Benı̂ Mouça (sic) auraient traduit ou revu ce traité, et qu’un copiste
aurait omis le nom de l’auteur original.” This same opinion is adopted by Curtze (1874, 263), who considered
Maq. mı̄z. as an Arabic treatise by one of the Banū Mūsā brothers, and by Heiberg (1882, 11).
82
The brothers Banū Mūsā did not themselves render translations from the Greek. They commissioned them
to professional translators like Thābit ibn Qurra, Ishāq ibn Hunayn, Hilāl al-Himsı̄. En revanche, they are
famous for editing and improving on Greek original ˙material.˙In mechanics they˙ left˙ a valuable Kitāb al-hiyal
(Book of Machines) in which many of the machines described – consisting chiefly of a big variety of trick ˙
vessels for dispending liquids – are derived in design and operation from previous models occuring in Heron
and Philon’s works of pneumatics. Nevertheless, their work represented undoubtedly a significant advance in
mechanical engineering: see Hill 1979, 3–32.
83
Other texts of Greek provenience were improved in Islamic times in the frame of a similar process of textual
transmission and transformation. A notable example in the field of mechanics is Kitāb Arshimı̄dis fı̄ amal al-
binkāmāt (Book of Archimedes on the Construction of Water-Clocks). Extant only in Arabic, this treatise is
attributed in Arabic sources to Archimedes (Ibn al-Nadı̄m 1871–72, I, 266, Ibn al-Qiftı̄ 1903, 67), but it
contains Byzantine and Islamic additions: see Hill 1976, 1981. ˙
84
Ibn al-Nadı̄m 1871–72, I, 271; Ibn al-Qiftı̄ 1903, 316. In his notice of Euclid, Ibn al-Nadı̄m (ibid., 266)
˙
didn’t say a word about Maqāla fı̄ ‘l-mı̄zān whereas in the entry he dedicated to Banū Mūsā he opened the list
of the works attributed in his times to the three brothers by their Maqāla fı̄ ‘l-qarastūn. This could be
interpreted in the sense of his consideration that the two works are one and the same text.˙
three brothers was set as an independent segment at an early time.85 This could be the
source of the apparent confusion we find in the Arabic manuscript material which
ascribe to Euclid the edited version of a Greek fragment and attribute to Banū Mūsā
the authorship of a seemingly different treatise on the same subject.
Shoud this interpretation be correct, then it affords the first plausible solution for
the puzzle related to the Banū Mūsā’s text on the steelyard. Mentioned in the
bibliographical dictionaries, no trace of it has ever emerged in the recent
historiography.86 There is a great chance that its whole existence was the result of an
incorrect reference to the islāh by – or in the circle of – the brothers Banū Mūsā of
a Greek fragment received in ˙ ˙the early times of Graeco-Arabic transmission.
IV. 3. Al-Isfizārı̄’s Reworking of the Euclidean Theory of the Balance
The Treatise on the Balance ascribed to Euclid is devoted exclusively to the study of the
theory of the lever in deductive form, as it is composed of one definition, two axioms
and four propositions. Constructed along the tradition of Archimedean geometrical
statics, it uses the main procedures of the latter but without direct mention of the
concept of center of gravity, and presents a sophisticated demonstration of the law of
the lever.
In the Arabic tradition of mechanics, this text constituted a fundamental source for
al-Isfizārı̄’s mechanics. In this respect, the third section of the Irshād – an important
and long chapter – consists of a systematic recension of its contents. The title, Maq.
mı̄z., is nowhere mentioned explicitly, but al-Isfizārı̄ made direct references twice to
“Euclid’s book.” The context of his allusions left no doubt that he was referring
precisely to the fragment on the balance.87
The methodical survey of Maq. mı̄z. in the Irshād starts with the proof of a
proposition considered in the former as the second of two general principles or
axioms:88
[Axiom II] If there are placed two weights, either equal or unequal, at the two ends of
a beam and the beam is suspended by an axis from a point of it, the two weights keep
the beam in parallelness with the horizon. Then if one of the two weights is left in its
position at the end of the beam and there is erected from the other end of the beam a
straight line at right angles to the beam (fa-innahu in turika ahadu al-thiqlayni fı̄ mawdiihi
˙ ˙
85
Before the composition of Ibn al-Nadı̄m’s Fihrist, some time in the middle of the tenth century: see the
previous note.
86
Ahmad al-Hasan’s (1981, English introduction, 11) hypothesis that Thābit ibn Qurra’s Kitāb fı̄ ‘l-qarastūn is
˙
a “detailed ˙
version” of Banū Mūsā’s Maqāla on the same topic is pure conjecture not supported by˙ any
evidence.
87
Irshād, ff. 20b, 22 a. The second of these references is false: see above note 61.
88
For convenience of reference, the correspondence of the theorems in Maq. mı̄z. and in the Irshād runs in
the following order: Maq. mı̄z.: Axiom 2, Prop. 1, 2, 3, 4; Irshād: Prop. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Prop. 1 in the latter
corresponds to Prop. 3 of Kit. qar.
min taraf al-amūd wa uqı̄ma min taraf al-amūd al-ākhar khat mustaqı̄m alā zāwiyya qāima
˙ amūd) in any direction whatever,
˙ ˙
min al- and the other weight is suspended at any place
whatever on this line, then the beam will be parallel to the plane of the horizon as it was.
For this reason the weight does not become different because of the shortening of the
cords of one of the two sides of the balance and the lengthening of the other side (wa li-
hādhihi al-illa sāra al-wazn lā-yakhtalifu min qibal qisr khuyūt ahad jānibay al-mı̄zān wa tūl
˙ (Paris MS 2457, f. 21b, Woepcke ˙1851, 220)
al-jānib al-ākhar). ˙ ˙ ˙
This proposition is considered by al-Isfizārı̄ as part of the “sensible primary

principles (al-awāil al-mahsūsa) which are applied in this art/science (sināa)” (Irshād,
f. 20b). Even without this˙explicit heading, his readiness to prove it already
˙ announces
his reluctance to consider it as a generally accepted principle and his deliberate
disposition to challenge the axiomatic status it has in Maq. mı̄z:
For every beam suspended from a point while two weights are placed at its ends, and the
beam remains parallel to the horizon, if one of the weights is left in its position whereas
a line is drawn from the other part [of the beam] such that it is on right angles (fa-innahu
in turika ahadu al-thiqlayni alā makānihi wa uqı̄ma min al-taraf al-ākhar khat alā zawāyā
˙ that the other weight is suspended from a ˙point on that line,
qāima), and ˙ the beam
remains in parallelness to the horizon. For this reason the weights do not differ according
to the length of the chords of one of the two scale-pans of the balance and the shortness
of the other (wa li-hādha al-manā lā-takhtalifu al-awzān min qibal tūl khuyūt ihdā al-kaffatayn
min al-mı̄zān wa qisr al-ākhar anhu), because the difference in˙ weight˙ does ˙ not occur
˙
according to the distance of the weights themselves from the fulcrum (nuqtat al-milāq)
but according to the distances of their plumb-lines (masāqit ahjārihā) from it. ˙ (Irshād, ff.
20b–21a) ˙ ˙
The similarity of the vocabulary instructs on al-Isfizārı̄’s source for this proposition,
but his phrasing tends to be more explicit, as shown by his reference to the scale-pans
of the balance (instead of the cords mentioned in Maq. mı̄z.) and by his assertion that
the incidence of the weight is exerted along the perpendicular – called plumb-line
(masqat al-hajar)89 – drawn from the point of its suspension. Further, al-Isfizārı̄’s
˙ ˙ corresponds exactly to the third postulate of Thābit ibn Qurra in Kit. qar.
proposition
and to the lemma following it, where the plumb-line is called masqat al-amūd.90
˙
Whether or not al-Isfizārı̄ was inspired by Thābit’s formulation, the reflections of the
two authors on this property go back to the Second Axiom in Maq. mı̄z., which both
considered not as a granted principle but as a proposition to prove.
89
Masqat al-hajar, literally “place/point of fall of the stone,” is defined as a “line drawn from the angle of a
triangle ˙and ˙falling on the opposite side, producing there a right angle”: Ikhwān al-Safā 1975, I, 84; al-Bı̄rūnı̄
1934, 6. ˙
90
See above Sect. III.2.2.
Fig. 12
In his proof, al-Isfizārı̄ deals with the converse of the proposition announced,
establishing that the suspension of weights from lines set at angles that are not right
does not maintain the beam in equilibrium. Taking the beam AEG and suspending it
from E inside the circle ABGD of which E is the center (fig. 12), if two equal weights
are hung from A and G, AG will be in equilibrium. If weight A is removed to B, its
distance from the fulcrum E will be equal to the distance of the weight G from it.
Nevertheless, the plane ABGD will not stay in equilibrium, for the force of the
weight B (quwwat thiql B) is exerted along its plumb-line at point R. Now, EG being
longer than ER, “the weight G must sink and incline (yarjahanna wa yamı̄l) towards
the earth.” Similarly, the plumb-line of the weight G meets BD ˙ at H, and BE > EH;
it results from this the sinking of weight B (Irshād, f. 21a). Therefore the weights set
at the ends of lines going out from the two extremities of the beam and which are not
perpendicular with it cannot maintain the beam in equilibrium, even if they are
extended in the same plane.
The technique, used also in the pseudo-Euclidean fragment, of displacing weights
along distances from the point of suspension of the connected weights is an important
tool in al-Isfizārı̄’s proof. Such a technique acquires more and more relevance in
subsequent parts of the Irshād. On the terminological level, the use of mayl and irjihān
as synonyms is interesting to note, as this rhetorical figure amplifies the link between˙
the two terms and emphasizes their dynamic signification.
In the next step, al-Isfizārı̄ reviewed the proof of Maq. mı̄z.-Prop. 1. In the former,
this theorem allows the replacement of two weights by a single one with the
condition that double the distance from the fulcrum is taken into account. This
Archimedean technique appears at this place in the treatise, and it is progressively

amplified in the rest of the text. Thus the equally long lines AB and DE are considered
as two beams intersected on the axis G at right angles. Completing the square GH by
drawing parallels and setting three equal weights at A, H, and E, it is concluded that
“the three weights keep the two lines AB, ED in parallelness to the horizon” (Paris
MS 2457, f. 21b, Woepcke 1851, 220–221).
Fig. 13
The proof is elaborated in three steps. First, two weights are set at A and H in order
to keep AB in equilibrium. Then another weight is placed at E: together with the
weight set at H they keep ED in equilibrium. Finally the three weights are said to
maintain the two intersected beams in equilibrium. The proof is concluded by
observing that “the weight which was at point H was the only one which stood in
place (yaqūm maqām) of the two weights placed at points B and D, each of which was
equal to it” (Paris MS 2457, f. 21b; Woepcke 1851, 221).
Fig. 14
In his reworking of the theorem, al-Isfizārı̄ changed the geometrical configuration

by introducing the diagonal HR. The equal lines AB, GD (fig. 14) intersect at right
angles so that each is divided into two equal parts at the division point E. Setting the
lines AR, GR at right angles, it is stated that if E is considered a fulcrum and three
equal weights are placed at B, D, and R, “they will maintain the two beams AB and
GD in parallelness to the horizon” (Irshād, f. 21b). To prove it, al-Isfizārı̄ shows first
that two equal weights at B and R keep AB in equilibrium, and an equal weight at
D keeps – with the one at R – GD in equilibrium:
Thus the weight R alone counterbalances (yuqāwim) the two weights B and D, and this
is not deniable for the force of the two weights B and D is [exerted] on their plumb-line
along BD, which is the point H. Thus we have at the point R a weight and in the point
H two weights each of which is equal to the weight R. The line RE, which is the
distance of R from the fulcrum, is double the line EH, which is also the distance of the
two weights placed at the point H from the fulcrum. It results from this the parallelness
of the beam to the plane of the horizon. (Irshād, f. 21b)
The last step of the proof – that the three weights keep the two intersected beams
in equilibrium – is not formulated in Maq. mı̄z., even though it is admitted as a
conclusion of the proof (it was part of the enunciation of the theorem). In al-Isfizārı̄’s
reworking, it is stated explicitly that the weights at B and D weigh along their
“plumb-lines” and that the line BD is the horizontal projection of these two
perpendiculars which intersect at H. On the other hand, the reason why two weights
at H counterbalance one weight at R is given: because double the distance is taken
into account, since the diagonal ER is double EH.
The second proposition in Maq. mı̄z. represents a powerful theorem saying that the
movement of a load in the direction of the fulcrum can be compensated for by
moving an equal load from the fulcrum the same distance in the opposite direction.
After placing three weights at points A, E, and H (fig. 15), the theorem affirms that
they “keep the two lines AB, EG, and the planes of the two circles and every line
described therein, in parallelness to the horizon.” In order to prove it, the weight at
A is transferred to W and the one at E to Z: TH and the planes of the two circles
remain in equilibrium. Hence, the parallel displacements do not affect equilibrium
with respect to the horizontal position of TH, when the two displaced weights are
equidistant on opposite sides of it. Further, since lines EZ and AW are equal, the
concomittant shift of one weight away from the center and of an equal weight an
equal distance towards the center keeps the equilibrium as it was (MS Paris 2457, ff.
21b–22a, Woepcke 1851, 222–223).
Fig. 15
In the Irshād, Prop. 4 corresponds to the second theorem of Maq. mı̄z. It is

enunciated in terms of the diagram. While two equal weights are set at its ends, the
beam AB is assumed to be suspended from G (fig. 16):
I say that if [the weight] A is brought close (qurriba) to the fulcrum G by a quantity AD
and that a weight equal to the weight A is suspended from the point E, of which the
distance from the fulcrum is as the distance AD, then the line AB remains parallel to the
plane of the horizon. (Irshād, f. 21b)91
The geometry of the configuration is described in full.92 After the construction of

the figure, AR = RG and TG = HB. If HR is a beam suspended from its midpoint G
and two equal weights are placed at its endpoints, it remains in equilibrium. As a
consequence, the equal angles BHG and GRA will be also right angles. Hence, if we
remove the weight H to the point B, the circle ARG will sink (yarjahanna) and rotate
around AB, which will however not deviate from horizontal equilibrium. ˙ But if a
weight equal to the one at B is placed at T, with TG = GR, it would raise the point
R together with the weight placed therein and makes again HR parallel to the
horizon. With the three weights set at R, T, and B, the three planes recover parallelism
to the horizon. It is concluded then:
91
The folio 21b of the Irshād is defaced and hardly legible. The following exposition of the proof may suffer
from this material circumstance. Only a second and good copy of al-Isfizārı̄’s text can help in removing all the
difficulties.
92
HG and HB being equal to RG and RA, and the angles ARG, GHB being equal, then HB = AR. Likewise,
since TGR and ARG are right angles, AR and TG are parallel lines intersected by AG. Thus the alternate
angles TEG and RDA are also equal right angles. Therefore the angles A and D in triangle ADR are equal to
the angles G and E in triangle TEG. AD and EG being equal, hence TG and AR are also equal “as it was
proved by Euclid in his book” (Irshād, f. 22a). In spite of this direct reference to Euclid, it is nowhere stated
explicitly in Maq. mı̄z. that EG = TA (fig. 15), corresponding to al-Isfizārı̄’s equality TG = AR. But it is
evident that in the former this equality is assumed implicitly, since TA and EG are parallel and perpendicular
to AB. The reference could also be to the Elements, Porism to Prop. II. 4: since TG is the diagonal of the square
ARGT, AR and GT are sides of the same square.
Fig. 16
Since the lines TE, DR are perpendiculars to AG, the force of the two weights (quwwat
thiqlay) T, R is exerted on E, D. If we refer them (radadnāhumā) to their plumb-lines
(masqatay hajarayhimā), i.e. at the points D, E, the line AB will remain parallel to the
horizon˙ with
˙ the three equal weights at the points D, E and B. (Irshād, ff. 22a–22b)
The principle of two weights balancing a third equal one at half the distance from
the fulcrum is the key of the theorem. The commentary that the three planes are kept
in equilibrium together with three suspended weights is close to a similar sentence in
Pseudo-Euclid’s proof of the corresponding proposition. However, al-Isfizārı̄’s
demonstration is much more elaborate and provides all the geometry of the problem.
The conclusion is derived by calling on the previous theorem on “plumb-lines” and
by asserting that setting three weights at B, T, R or at B, D, E – the last two being the
perpendicular projections on AB of the weights set at T and R – keeps the planes of
the triangles GHB, GTE and of the semi-circle ARG in equilibrium. Hence the
conclusion that remained hidden in Pseudo-Euclid’s procedure is distinctly
formulated, namely that the two weights must be suspended together from a point in
the middle of ZW (fig. 15). This result is the very end al-Isfizārı̄ had in view in his
reworking of the proposition.
The next, third theorem in Maq. mı̄z. represents a powerful generalization of the
preceding Prop. 2, showing that it is not valid only for the part of the beam extending
from the fulcrum to one of the ends, but also for any point on the beam. The
displacement of weight acquires here a new dimension since it is built on a principle
of compensation between weight and distance. The line AB is posited as a balance
beam divided into two equal parts at G, and the two parts AG and GB are divided
respectively into five equal parts on D, E, W, Z (for AG) and T, H, L, M (for GB).
Three equal weights set at D, Z, and B are said to keep AB in equilibrium because
of the excess (fadl) of BG over GD. This procedure is embodied in a principle of
˙
compensation – effective in all the steps of the proof – according to which an excess
in weight is compensated for by an excess in distance.
Fig. 17
Thus, it is shown that TB is the excess of GB over DG “by virtue of which weight
B outweighs (yarjahu…alā)93 weight D”; but TB equals ZG in length and it is
equivalent (mukāfi)˙to it in “force of weight” (quwwat al-thiql), so that when weight
D is moved to E and weight B to T whereas weight Z is left in place, the three weights
keep the line AB in equilibrium, as it was proved in the previous theorem. This is
justified as before in terms of excess of weight and equality of distance. Thus, the
excess of TG over EG is TH, and TH equals ZG in length and is equivalent to it in
force of weight; thus TB is equal to TH in force of weight.94
The proof relies heavily on the difference between a weight/load (thiql) and its
force. Hence, moving a weight produces a change in its force proportional to its
distance from the point of suspension. At the end, it is concluded that from the
equality of certain distances follows the equality of the corresponding “forces of
weights.” Concretely, the theorem makes it clear that the “force of weight” depends
on three factors: the magnitude of the weight, the amount of distance of its shift
relative to the point of suspension of the system, and the direction of this shift,
respectively away or towards that point. In spite of the frequent use of the expression
“force of weight” the procedure is entirely statical, as it merely extends the results
given in the previous Prop. 2.95
Al-Isfizārı̄’s reworking of the pseudo-Euclidean theorem is the subject matter of
the fifth proposition of the Irshād, founded equally on the assumption that the
displacement of a weight in the direction of the fulcrum may be compensated for by
setting an equal weight at a certain distance from the same point. In Maq. mı̄z. the
theorem points out simply that these displacements bring about the same result on the
whole line GB, without following up the other steps of the demonstration, which are
carried on by al-Isfizārı̄. Furthermore, the latter’s reworking of the theorem
constituted the occasion of a new demonstration of the law of the lever, which is
enunciated clearly and distinctly:
93
Rajaha is rendered by “to outweigh” in order to account for the excess of one weight over the other.
94
“It is˙ proved similarly that all the quantities (al-maqādı̄r) which are taken over the line GB and which are
equal in length are equal in force of weight. It is then clear that the diminution of the force of weight when
the weight is moved from B to T is equal to the diminution that occurs if it is moved from T to H. The same
reasoning applies to all the quantities equal in length taken along GB” (MS Paris 2457, f. 22a, Woepcke 1851,
223–224).
95
This was noted by Knorr 1982, 85.
Every beam suspended from a point which is not in the middle and there are placed on
its ends two weights the ratio of one of them to the other is as the inverse ratio (bi-’l-
takāfu) of one of the two parts of the beam to the other, then the beam will remain in
parallelness to the horizon. (Irshād, f. 22b)
The line AB (fig. 18) is considered as a beam suspended from the fulcrum G so that
AG is the fifth part of GB. If a weight is suspended from A and its ratio to another
weight suspended from B is as BG/GA, then AB will be in equilibrium. Extending
the line to D so that GD = GB, if a weight equal to the one at B is placed at D, the
beam BD will be in equilibrium. Dividing the segment AD into four equal parts AE,
ER, RH, HD, the weight D is brought close to the fulcrum and placed respectively
at H, R, and E. Each time it is displaced in the direction of G, one, two, and three
weights – all of them equal to the one which is being displaced along DA – are
successively suspended at A. The beam remains all the time in equilibrium, even when
five equal weights are assembled at A, each one compensating for one of the five
segments along GD:
Fig. 18
We posited that the distance BG is five times the distance AG, hence the ratio of the
weight A to the weight B is as the ratio of the distance BG to the distance GA. When
there is an inverse ratio (nisba mutakāfia) between the two parts of the beam and the two
weights suspended from its ends, the parallelness occurs. (Irshād, f. 23a)
The comparison of Pseudo-Euclid and al-Isfizārı̄’s proofs makes clear their

similarities as well as their distinctive features. In the former the displacement is
assumed to take place along the two parts of the beam, as confirmed by the lettering
in fig. 17, whereas in the Irshād only the right-side part of the beam is divided so that
the displacement is supposed to occur exclusively there. Further, the displacement on
this part is supposed to be compensated by suspending additional weights from a
specific point whose distance from the fulcrum is the unity of length by which the
successive displacements towards the fulcrum are measured. This configuration is
more in conformity with the working of a real steelyard suspended from G with
different loads hanging from A while a counterpoise is set at the other end B, the
effect of which is conjugated with the distance from the fulcrum.
Al-Isfizārı̄’s procedure in the demonstration of his Prop. 5 combined Prop. 3 and
4 of Maq. mı̄z., producing thus a new justification of the law of the lever in which
the displacements occur only on one part of the beam at the extremity of which
weights – each being equal to the one at the other end – are successively hung, with
the proviso that the distances of the two ends from the point of suspension are kept
inversely proportional to the weights. With this proof in hand, al-Isfizārı̄ could
proceed to the converse of the last proposition in the pseudo-Euclidean treatise.
In the last and fourth proposition of Maq. mı̄z. a specific proof of the law of the
lever is elaborated. It is based on the Archimedean principle of compensation
between weight and distance and the Aristotelian concept of force is used once and
only casually. The lever is considered as a real balance beam rather than a geometrical
line. Two weights are taken in the ratio of 3 to 1, and it is sought to conclude that if
their respective distances from the point of suspension of the beam are inversely
proportional, the beam will be in balance.96
The beam AB is divided on point G into two unequal parts, and two weights are
suspended at A and B so that AG/BG = 1/3. The heavier of the two weights being at
A, AB is in equilibrium when weight A/weight B :: BG/GA. Then GA is extended
to E so that EG = GB, and EG = 3AG. Removing weight A, two weights equal to the
one at B are placed at E and G. EB remains in equilibrium, and this does not change
when weight E is moved to Z and weight G to A, or even if three weights each of
which is equal to the one at B are set at A. This is corroborated simply by the principle
of compensation between weight and distance (BG containing as much of AG as the
three weights suspended from A contain of multiples of the one at B).
Fig. 19
The extant text of Maq. mı̄z. does not contain any converse of Prop. 4. However,
al-Isfizārı̄’s Prop. 6 argues that
if a beam is suspended from any of its points and if two weights were placed on its ends
so that this inverse ratio (al-nisba al-mutakāfia) between the two weights and the two parts
of the beam is not fulfilled (lam takun . . . hāsila), then the beam will not become parallel
to the horizon. (Irshād, f. 23a) ˙ ˙
The theorem seems to be a result depending on the previous Prop. 5. In the proof,
AB is considered as a beam suspended from the point G, and two weights are placed
on its ends A and B so that the ratio of the weight at A to the weight at B is greater
than the ratio of BG to GA. Since no inverse ratio is fulfilled and no equilibrium is
96
“If a beam of a balance (amūd mı̄zān) is taken and divided into two unequal parts and its axis is made at
the point of division, and two weights are taken, the ratio of one to the other being like the ratio of the two
parts of the beam [one to the other], and the lighter of the two weights is suspended on the extremity of the
longer of the two parts and the heavier of the two weights is suspended on the extremity of the shorter part,
then the beam is in equilibrium (itadala al-amūd fı̄ al-wazn) in parallelness to the horizon” (MS Paris 2457,
f. 22a, Woepcke 1851, 224).
effected, the beam AB cannot be parallel to the horizon. In order to see if this is
however possible, it is assumed that the beam is in equilibrium with the initial two
weights: thus the weights A, B are not inversely proportional to their respective
distances, yet they are in equilibrium. Further, a third weight X is posited (natlub)
such that weight A/weight X :: BG/GA, with the obvious condition that weight ˙
X ≠ weight B. If weight X is placed at B, AB will be parallel to the horizon, “for the
inverse ratio between the two weights and the two distances is fulfilled.” By
hypothesis, the original two weights A and B realized the same condition when they
were set in their initial positions. We thus have the two unequal weights B and X
making precisely the same contribution to equilibrium at the same distance. Now,
since the originally assumed weights are not in this ratio, and that A is balanced by X,
the weights X, B must have the same force (quwwat thiql) for inducing inclination
(jadhb al-amūd ilā asfal) even if they are unequal. It is thus impossible that the original
weights were in equilibrium. This is what al-Isfizārı̄ means when he says that weight
A cannot have two different ratios to B and to X which in principle balance it from
the same distance, and two unequal weights cannot attract the beam downward with
the same strength. This is impossible (khulf lā-yumkin), since the greater weight must
have a greater effect. The proof concludes that the inverse ratio between the two parts
of the beam and the weights suspended from its ends is a necessary condition for
equilibrium, and, conversely, equilibrium is a powerful indicator of the existence of
such a ratio. The close interdependence established between effecting equilibrium
and the existence of inverse ratio is further reinforced as it is inscribed in an
ontological necessity:
Therefore, the parallelness of the beam to the plane of the horizon exists necessarily
(wājibat al-wujūd) when there exists the inverse ratio between the two parts of the beam
and the weights suspended from its ends. Similarly, the inverse ratio between the two
parts of the beam and the two weights suspended from its ends is fulfilled when there
exists the parallelness of the beam to the plane of the horizon. (Irshād, f. 23b)
At the end of his survey of the material derived from Maq. mı̄z., al-Isfizārı̄ turns
immediately in the subsequent fourth section of his treatise to review the last two
propositions – Prop. 4 and 5 – of Thābit’s Kit. qar. This material is preceded by an
important assertion in which he affirms that hereinafter his analysis is carried on
under the fundamental assumption that the balance is not a mere geometrical line but
a weighed beam:
The sequence of deductions to which we are accustomed according to the geometric

method (al-namat al-handası̄) has been founded on [the assumption] that the beam is an
˙ t wahmı̄). It is well known that a line has no weight and cannot be in
imaginary line (kha
balance nor can one˙ suspend a weighed object from it. Actually, it is not in our power
to produce a beam which is in reality merely a line, while the beams which are used in
the steelyards (al-qaffānāt) are heavy bodies whose weight conditions an excess and a
difference in the weighing, when the fulcrum is not at their middle. We wish now to
explain this and to set out premises which shall pave the way for us, and [to present]
preludes which shall lead us in the knowledge [of this question]. (Irshād, f. 23b; al-
Khāzinı̄ 1940, 44–45)
This assertion by al-Isfizārı̄ constitutes the first definition of the ponderable lever.97
In his reworking of the material derived from Maq. mı̄z., al-Isfizārı̄ made use of an
important concept which appears also in the pseudo-Euclidean fragment, namely the
concept of force of weight (quwwat al-thiql). As in the latter, he used this expression
in an original meaning entailing a sense of the effect of the load as produced in the
balance, depending not only on its weight but also on its position in the mechanical
system. In subsequent parts of his treatise, the perspective entailed by this concept is
further enriched by the signification of terms like irjihān (sinking), mayl (inclination),
jadhb (attraction, pulling), which emphasize the influence ˙ of weight and its role in the
inherent tendency of bodies downward as well as in the forced ascension of others
upward. Such a terminology highlights the dynamic aspect of the analysis and displays
a certain sensitivity for the concrete standpoint of the practitioner. Revealing a
remarkable and constant inclination to introduce dynamic considerations in static
analysis whenever possible, the Arabic tradition of mechanics is much more open to
practitioner techniques than any of the surviving texts from antiquity. In general, the
Arabic texts document knowledge about practical aspects of the construction and the
use of machines missing in ancient treatises. In this respect, al-Isfizārı̄’s analysis in the
Irshād is no exception. His treatise includes indeed a long and very technical section
on the practical aspects of the steelyard.98
Different text traditions are merged together in the mechanical work of al-Isfizārı̄,
including Thābit’s deductive theory expounded in Kit. qar., the system of propositions
of Pseudo-Euclid’s Maq. mı̄z., and other influences such as those derived from al-
Kūhı̄ and Ibn al-Haytham’s treatment of the centers of gravity, of which the obvious
influence is apparent in the first section of the Irshād. The unified theory of the
balance built in the latter is unique in Greek and Arabic mechanical traditions. In his
survey of the texts of his predecessors, al-Isfizārı̄ adopted a primary editorial and
textual strategy: to stay as close as possible to the original material; at the same time
he endeavored to introduce more or less deep and original changes. Concretely, he
did so by producing longer and more detailed proofs, supplying all the geometrical
tools, making explicit the concepts and procedures that remained unaccounted for,
and by using a new and sometimes sophisticated terminology. In brief, his strategy
97
This was observed by Rozhanskaya 1996, 627. As noted above (note 53), Thābit ibn Qurra had made the
validity of his formulation of the law of the lever dependent on the distinction between the ponderable and
the imponderable levers. Nevertheless, al-Isfizārı̄’s assertion is more explicit and general.
98
Even though it is absent from Damascus MS of the Irshād, the chapter on the construction and use of the
steelyard, edited only by al-Khāzinı̄ (1940, 44–54), is an integral part of al-Isfizārı̄’s work.
may be resumed as that of fidelity to the original text and a constant tendency to
improve it. This is probably the outcome of long experience at teaching. Actually, al-
Isfizārı̄’s mechanical corpus looks like a collection of manuals in which he elaborated
on the works of his predecessors.99 This feature is corroborated by al-Bayhaqı̄’s
testimony in the notice he devoted to al-Isfizārı̄, where he specified that he was
“compassionate and friendly towards those seeking instruction.” The didactic and
pedagogical dimension in our scholar’s works may arise from their having been
written originally as manuals for instruction. Such a piece of information needs to be
brought up in connection with the foundation of public schools (madāris) in Iran and
Iraq in the middle of the eleventh century by Nizām al-Mulk, the minister of the
Saljūq Sultan Malikshāh. However, although we are˙ informed – thanks to al-Bayhaqı̄
– that our scholar gave instruction to pupils, we have no further knowledge about the
contents of his courses or to what extent mechanics was integrated in the scientific
cursus of the Nizāmiyya schools which were beginning to spread all over the Islamic
world precisely in ˙ the time of al-Isfizārı̄.
V. By Way of a Conclusion
In this article, which deliberately took the form of an empirical study, the focus was
laid on the description of the conditions – codicological, textual, and theoretical –
that surrounded the transfer to Arabic language of a small group of Greek texts of
mechanics. The questions I sought to answer were of the following kind: under what
conditions did this transfer take place, first with regard to the issues of authorship,
translation, and editorship, and secondly with respect to the way the transmitted texts
were received in Islamic culture and to the influence and impact they exerted therein.
In the next few pages, I present a succinct summary of the issues debated and some
concluding remarks.
The main concern of the article was to reconstruct the Arabic traditions of two
Greek texts ascribed respectively to Aristotle and to Euclid, which were transmitted,
– apparently in fragmentary form – to Arabic culture, where they were translated,
edited, summarized, and used by scholars in their research. The reconstruction of the
tradition of Pseudo-Aristotle’s Mechanics was embarked upon on the basis of two texts
stemming directly from the Peripatetic mechanical treatise and both edited by al-
Khāzinı̄: an elaborated technical discussion related to the balance-equilibrium
problem (Problem 2 in Mech. Prob.) and a partial epitome entitled Nutaf min al-hiyal,
˙
99
In the introduction of the Irshād, al-Isfizārı̄ explicated this strategy by asserting that he merges in his treatise
“what I learned from the science of the ancients and of their wise successors” with “what I could bring myself
and what could be deduced by analysis” (f. 17a). Our author’s commitment to such a compilatory approach
is reaffirmed in his introduction to the collection of comments and extracts he compiled from previous
mechanical works: “We collected in this book what has reached us of the books on various devices (hiyal)
composed by the ancients and by those who came after them” (MS Manchester 351, f. 94b; MS Hayderabad ˙
620, 1).
directly attributed to Aristotle. The examination of the first item yields evidence that
it includes the correct and complete resolution of the balance-equilibrium problem,
accounting for the three cases of location of the axis of rotation of the beam, when
it is respectively above, at, or below the center of gravity of the system. Moreover, the
careful scrutiny of this solution in historical perspective induced an exciting result:
the solution devised – very likely – by al-Isfizārı̄ and reported by al-Khāzinı̄ had
predated a similar one proposed about four centuries later by Guido Ubaldo del
Monte. This raises naturally the question of a possible direct or indirect textual
transmission, which, in the state of our current knowledge, is difficult to decide.
Furthermore, the examination of the texts edited by al-Khāzinı̄ brought about
another noteworthy result: the availability of Pseudo-Aristotle’s Mechanics in Arabic
classical culture and the possibility for us to trace its influence. Indeed, the Nutaf min
al-hiyal includes a brief compendium of the Peripatetic definition of mechanics and
of ˙a mechanical problem claiming that larger balances in contradistinction to smaller
ones are more accurate. This text – translated above in full and accompanied with
short comments – represents a reliable abridged version of the two introductory
sections of the pseudo-Aristotelian text, where the theoretical foundation of the
treatise is disclosed.
The text of the Nutaf strengthens the conclusion, supported by other considera-
tions, that the foundations of Arabic mechanics were worked out very early in
dynamic terms rather than along the model of Archimedean statics. Actually the fate
of Archimedes’ mechanical writings in Arabic science represents by itself a puzzle to
be accounted for, in that no major Archimedean mechanical text was obviously
translated into Arabic, except for the treatise on Floating Bodies, extant in the form of
a partial list of propositions without proofs (probably the remnant of a full translation
not yet found). Apparently, this absence is to be explained by the fact that the
mechanical works of the Syracusan geometer were no longer widely circulated in late
antiquity, which in turn has to do with the way they were perceived by artisans and
mechanicians, more interested in practice-oriented handbooks than in abstract
mathematical analysis of machines and mechanical phenomena. However, the impact
of Archimedean mechanics was not completely null in Arabic context. A definition
occurring in the Arabic partial version of the hydrostatical Archimedean treatise
supplies the first known definition of specific weight, by establishing the difference in
heaviness between bodies and fluids in terms of comparison of equal quantitites of
them. Such an outstanding definition may stem from a Greek original, different from
all the extant Greek versions, although it may be assumed just as plausibly that it was
added by an Arabic editor.
The demonstration of the law of the lever illustrates an important aspect of the
impact the Peripatetic treatise had on Arabic mechanics. Formulated and justified
roughly in the latter on the basis of a dynamic procedure, this theorem was proved by
Thābit ibn Qurra and his proof was reworked later by al-Isfizārı̄. The comparative
analysis of this key proposition of mechanics illustrates the change introduced by the
two scholars. In particular, Thābit provided a full demonstration based on dynamic

assumptions. He proceeded from the same geometrical configuration set out in the
Peripatetic treatise: if the equilibrium of the lever is disturbed, its arm describes an arc
whose length is inversely proportional to the suspended load; thus forces are
proportional to weights and equilibrium obtains when the forces of the mover and of
the thing moved are equal. Thābit’s proof is founded on a dynamic principle
establishing a general relationship of proportionality between the force of motion and
the distance run over by the mobile. The application of this ratio to the motion in a
mechanical system leads to the assumption that downward motion is caused by the
body’s inherent weight. Now Aristotelian physics did not admit the weight as a
mover. Thus, the analysis of motion in the context of mechanics brought about a
significant advance in physical ideas: the perception of the role of weight in the
process of motion, and the tentative integration in a unified view of motion of what
the Aristotelian theory admitted as two contrary up and down displacements. To trace
back the successive stages of this development, a broad historical panorama was
sketched, starting from the criticisms raised by Philoponus against Aristotelian physics
– encapsulated in the concept of rhopê – to the reflections of Islamic natural
philosophers on the notion of mayl. The purpose of this survey was not to supply an
extensive study of the issue at hand, but merely to illustrate how Thābit’s procedure
embedded mechanical analysis in natural philosophy.
In his reworking of Thābit’s proof of the theorem of equilibrium, al-Isfizārı̄
amplified the dynamic approach of his predecessor. In consequence he was able to
formulate new notions and concepts. In particular, his combination of weight and
distance outlined a preliminary notion of the statical momentum. Moreover, setting
up a strict parallelism between the natural motion of the descending weight and the
violent motion of the ascending one, he characterized both as engendered by the
same generating cause, namely the action of their own weight.
The reconstruction of the tradition of “Euclidean mechanics” in Arabic context
was conducted in the second part of the article by means of the analysis of two short
texts ascribed to Euclid and dealing with the theory of the balance and some
problems of hydrostatic physics. First a paragraph was dedicated to a short survey of
the text on heaviness and lightness and to its impact. Known only through its Arabic
version edited by Thābit ibn Qurra, the extant version of the text contains evident
traces of this editorial enterprise. But given the lack of any Greek original, it is hard
to form an opinion about the nature and the extent of the editorial changes
introduced by Thābit. At any rate, he produced a condensed and consistent text, made
up of nine postulates and six theorems of dynamical principles related to the motion
of bodies in filled mediums. In order to illustrate the impact of this text in the milieu
of medieval Islamic scholars, we showed its connection with al-Kūhı̄ and Ibn al-
Haytham’s statements on heaviness, force, and speed.
In our investigation of the textual tradition of the other Euclidean text Maq. mı̄z.,
an important concern regards the interpretation of the variant readings in the two
main manuscript copies of the text. The collection and the interpretation of these
variants provide the possibility of reconstructing the stemma of the manuscript copies
and organizing them in a plausible chronological order. It turns out that the version
of the text preserved in Paris is the most significant one as it provides a thoroughly
revised version. On the other hand, the interpretation of other codicological and
textual data leads to the formulation of a far-reaching hypothesis according to which
Maq. mı̄z. was originally a Greek fragment transmitted to Arabic culture in
fragmentary form and edited by, or in the circle of, the brothers Banū Mūsā. As a
consequence, this would explain why it was attributed to them, or associated with
their name, in some sources. In this case, the sons of Mūsā ibn Shākir – to whom their
works are ascribed collectively even if we know that the mechanician of the group
was Ahmad – would have elaborated on the contents of the Greek original fragment,
˙
presumably already ascribed to Euclid, for the composition of the treatise as it is
extant now in Arabic. If this hypothesis is correct, it may also account for the absence
until now of any trace of Banū Mūsā’s Maqāla fı̄ ‘l-qarastūn, which could be nothing
else than their expanded edition of the treatise on the ˙balance attributed to Euclid.
In sum, the hypothesis thus formulated, some aspects of which are widespread in
modern literature, is substantiated by direct evidence and may stand indeed as a
coherent account of the origin of Maq. mı̄z. and of the various accidents surrounding
its textual history within the process of Graeco-Arabic transmission of mechanics.
Finally, the rest of the article is dedicated to a comprehensive survey of al-Isfizārı̄’s
systematic reworking – in the third section of his Irshād – of the propositions
composing the text arguably edited by Banū Mūsā. Al-Isfizārı̄ followed scrupulously
the structure of Maq. mı̄z., submitting to his critical review axioms, propositions,
diagrams and geometrical proofs. Merging the deductive system of Maq. mı̄z. with
text traditions stemming from other sources, mainly the body of theorems of Kit. qar.,
the mechanical theory elaborated by al-Isfizārı̄ took the form of a unified framework,
unique in Greek and Arabic traditions. Actually, the particular structure of the Irshād
reveals indeed its probable origin as a manual for teaching. We know from a
biographical narrative that its author did teach pupils, but we are not informed
further about the program of his courses. At any rate, the didactic and pedagogical
dimension of the text is unmistakable, and it would not be surprising to find out that
it was composed originally as a manual for the instruction on the main traits of the
prior mechanical knowledge.
An important result reached in the article regards the crucial interest of Arabic
material for the recovery of the textual traditions of the Greek mechanical texts,
which experienced a second life in the context of Arabic science. Such an approach
restages the relationships of Greek and Arabic mechanics by emphasizing their tight
and complex links on the textual and theoretical levels. Departing from the
observation of the intermingling of the two traditions, it is argued – as other essays
in this same volume show – that the reconstruction of one of them necessarily
requires taking the other into account.
And yet, in contradistinction, the significance of Arabic mechanics as a specific and

independent episode in the history of mechanical thinking should not be overlooked.
This article emphasizes the instrumental role of Arabic materials in the restoration of
Greek sources, but these materials form as well a distinct and self-contained tradition,
composed of dozens of original writings extended over about nine centuries. Many
of these texts are already accessible in the scholarship, and others are still in
manuscripts. The reconstruction of the Arabic tradition of mechanics in its full extent
is currently being undertaken in the frame of a research project at the Max Planck
Institute for the History of Science in Berlin. The preliminary analysis of the texts that
have been investigated so far establishes the importance of the Arabic tradition for the
development of the body of mechanical knowledge. With regard to content, the
Arabic treatises turn out to be much richer than what is known from the ancient
tradition. In particular, they contain foundations of deductive systems of mechanics
different from those inferred from Greek extant texts, as well as new propositions and
theorems. On the other hand, the Arabic treatises also represent knowledge about
practical aspects of the construction and the use of machines that is missing in ancient
treatises.
The central text of Arabic mechanics is undoubtedly Thābit ibn Qurra’s Kit. qar.
Together with early texts such as the works of al-Kūhı̄, Ibn al-Haytham, al-Ahwāzı̄,
Ilyā al-Matrān, it laid a solid foundation for the whole Arabic mechanical tradition.
˙
By the intermediary of these texts and others, original results, procedures, and ideas
were transmitted to subsequent generations of scholars, as reflected in the works of
the “Khurasanian school” of mechanics founded by al-Isfizārı̄ and al-Khāzinı̄. Their
writings, such as the Irshād and Kit. mı̄z. hik., illustrate remarkably the middle stage
of mechanics written in Arabic, characterized ˙ by an essential combination of
theoretical principles with a high level of expertise in the description of machines and
the explication of their workings.
The third and last phase of the Arabic mechanics is represented by a group of texts
dating from the fourteenth to the nineteenth century and originating principally
from Egypt and Syria. These two countries were unified during this long period by
the Ayyūbı̄d, Mamelūk, and Ottoman dynasties, respectively, and they constituted for
centuries a united economic and cultural space. Whence the raison d’être of this large
amount of writings on the theoretical and practical problems of the balance and
weights, as a direct outcome of the integration of economic and cultural activities in
this vast area. The authors of some of these texts are mathematicians, mechanicians,
and artisans. For others, the authorship is not yet established firmly. In the following
I mention some names and works for illustration.
Yaı̄sh b. Ibrāhı̄m al-Amawı̄ is a mathematician of Andalusian origin, who lived in
Damascus, where he taught mathematics (fl. 1373). Besides arithmetical works, he
wrote a treatise consisting in a collection of problems about weighing with hydrostatic
and normal balances. Nukhbat al-zamān fı̄ sināat al-qabbān is a short text on the
steelyard composed by Uthmān b. Alā al-Dı̄n ˙ al-Dimashqı̄, known as Ibn al-Malik
(fl. 1589). Risāla fı̄ amal al-mı̄zān al-tabı̄ı̄ is ascribed to his contemporary Taqı̄ al-Dı̄n
˙
ibn Marūf, a well known mathematician, astronomer, and mechanician who was
born in Damascus in 1525 and died in Istanbul in 1585. The work of Taqı̄ al-Dı̄n on
making the natural balance is reminiscent of a text with a similar title by Ibn Zakariyā
al-Rāzı̄ (865–923). The Egyptian astronomer Muhammad ibn Abı̄ al-Fath al-Sūfı̄ (d.
1543) composed several treatises on the theory ˙ and the practice of the ˙
˙ steelyard
balance (qabbān): on its sināa (art/science), amal (making), islāh fasād (repairing the
˙
defectuosity), qismat (division), ˙ ˙ the weigher). His
and on Irshād al-wazzān (guiding
writings enjoyed wide diffusion as is testified by the large number of extant copies.
Risālat al-jawāhir fı̄ ilm al-qabbān (Treatise of Jewels in the Science of the Steelyard)
is a ten-chapter text written by Khidr al-Burlusı̄ al-Qabbānı̄ (d. in 1672). His
˙ Abd al-Majı̄d al-Sāmūlı̄ left two writings
immediate predecessor or contemporary
on the “science” (ilm) and the “description” (tarı̄f) of the steelyard. The former is
extant in a manuscript copy with detailed marginal commentaries by Hasan al-Jabartı̄
˙
(1698–1774), himself author of al-Iqd al-thamı̄n fı̄mā yataallaq bi-’l-mawāzı̄n (The
High Priced Necklace in what Concerns the Balances), a systematic treatise on the
balance and weights. His predecessor Muhammad al-Ghamrı̄ (died before 1712),
dealt with the principles and the construction ˙ of the steelyard in several short texts.
Finally, Risāla fı̄ al-qabbān by Muhammad b. al-Husayn al-Attār, a Syrian author, is
among the last Arabic mechanical˙ works written˙ in the style ˙of ˙ the earlier tradition.
The author died in 1819.
The texts mentioned so far afford a precious testimony to the fact that scientific
and technical works – sometimes with a high level of originality – continued to be
composed in Arabic in the field of mechanics until at least the seventeenth century.
This corresponds to similar information derived from recent research in other fields
of Arabic sciences, like astronomy and mathematics. The ongoing research into this
later phase will undoubtedly change our appreciation of the historical significance of
Arabic science and of its place in the general history of science and culture.
Acknowledgments
This article is part of my participation in a Research Project headed by Professor Dr.

Jürgen Renn at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin. I am
grateful to Prof. Renn for his constant support and to my colleagues of the Frühe
Neuzeit Group for our valuable discussions on premodern mechanics. I am indebted
to Sonja Brentjes for generously helping me with copies of several original texts, to
the staff of the Library of the MPIWG, and to the Goethe-Institutes in Cairo and in
Damascus for their help in shipping copies of manuscripts to Berlin. A draft version
of the article was read by István Bodnár (Eötvös University, Budapest) who suggested
valuable corrections. I remain of course the only one responsible for all possible
errors.
References
Abattouy, Mohammed. 1997. The Arabic Tradition of Mechanics. General Survey and a First Account on the
Arabic Works on the Balance. Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science. Preprint n° 76.
Abattouy, Mohammed. 1999. “The Arabic Tradition of Mechanics: Textual and Historical Character-
isation. I. Greek Sources and Works of Practical Mechanics.” Majallat kulliyyat al-ādāb wa al-ulūm
al-insāniyya bi-Fās (Journal of the Faculty of Letters and Humanities in Fez) 12.1: 75–109.
Abattouy, Mohammed. 2000a. Nutaf min al-hiyal: An Arabic Partial Version of Pseudo-Aristotle’s Mechanica
Problemata. Arabic Text, English Translation ˙and Commentaries. Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the
History of Science. Preprint n° 153, 42 pp.
Abattouy, Mohammed. 2000b. “La tradition arabe de la balance: Thābit ibn Qurra et al-Khāzinı̄.” In
Quelques aspects de l’évolution des idées scientifiques. Antiquité et moyen âge (proceedings of two scientific
meetings held in Marrakech in 1997–98), 49–91. Rabat: Faculty of Letters Press, “Series Colloques
and Seminars, n° 83”.
Abattouy, Mohammed. 2000c. “Al-Muzaffar al-Isfizārı̄ ālim min al-qarnayn 5–6 H/ 11–12, muallif
˙ [al-Isfizārı̄ a scholar from the 5th–6th H/11th–12th, author
Irshād dhawı̄ al-irfan ilā sināat al-qaffān”
of Guiding the Learned ˙Men in the Art of the Steelyard]. In Quelques aspects de l’évolution des idées
scientifiques, 135–175. Rabat: Faculty of Letters Press.
Abattouy, Mohammed. 2000d. “Mechané vs. hiyal: Essai d’analyse sémantique et conceptuelle.” In
Imagination and Science, edited by A. Ben Maissa, ˙ 127–151. Rabat: Faculty of Letters Press, “Series
Colloques and Seminars, n° 90”.
Abattouy, Mohammed. 2000e. “Sur quelques démonstrations grecques et arabes de la loi du levier:
transmission et transformation.” In Āliyyāt al-istidlāl fı̄ ‘l-ilm [The Mechanisms of Reasoning in the
Sciences], edited by A. Ben Maissa, 7–43. Rabat: Faculty of Letters Press.
Abattouy, Mohammed. 2001a. “Nutaf min al-hiyal: A Partial Arabic Version of Pseudo-Aristotle’s
Problemata mechanica”. Early Science and Medicine, ˙ vol. 6 (2001), fascicle 2, pp. 96–122. Leiden: E. J.
Brill.
Abattouy, Mohammed. 2001b. “The Aristotelian Foundations of Arabic Mechanics (Ninth-Twelfth
centuries).” In The Dynamics of Natural Philosophy in the Aristotelian Tradition and Beyond: Doctrinal and
Institutional Perspectives. Proceedings of the Colloque (August 15–21, 1999) organized by the Center
for Medieval and Natural Philosophy, Nijmegen University. Edited by C. Lüthy, C. Leijenhorst and
H. Thijssen. Leiden: Brill. In press.
Abattouy, Mohammed. Forthcoming. The Arabic Transformation of Mechanics. The Birth of the Science of
Balances and Weights (Ninth-Twelfth Centuries).
Akfānı̄, al-, Shams al-Dı̄n. 1989. Kitāb Irshād al-qāsid ilā asnā al-maqāsid. Edited by Junuarius Justus
Withkam. Leiden: Ter Lugt Pers. ˙ ˙
Archimedes. 1953. On the Equilibrium of Planes Books I-II. In The Works of Archimedes. Edited by T. L.
Heath. Reprint of 1897–1912 edition. New York: Dover.
Archimède. 1971. De l’Equilibre des Figures Planes. In Archimède, Oeuvres, Tome II. Texte établi et traduit
par Charles Mugler. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Aristotle. 1952. Mechanica. Translated by E. S. Forster. In The Works of Aristotle. Vol. VI: Opuscula. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Aristotele. 1982. MHXANIKA. Tradizione manoscritta, testo critico, scolii. A cura di Maria E. Bottecchia.
Padua: Editore Atenore.
Badawı̄, Abd al-Rahmān. 1964–65. Aristūtālı̄s, al-Tabı̄a. Tarjamat Ishāq ibn Hunayn maa shurūh ibn as-
Samh wa ibn Addı̄˙wa Mattā ibn Yūnus wa ˙ ibn al-Tayyib.˙ 2 vols. ˙Cairo: al-hay a al-mi
˙ Abı̄ al-Faraj ˙ sriyya

˙
al-āmma li-’l-kitāb. ˙ ˙
Bayhaqı̄, al-, Alı̄ ibn Zayd. [1946] 1988. Tārı̄kh hukamā al-islām. Edited by M. Kurd Alı̄. Damascus:
Matbūāt mujamma al-lugha al-arabiyya. ˙
˙
Berggren, Lennart J. 1983. “The Correspondence of Abū Sahl al-Kūhı̄ and Abū Ishāq al-Sābı̄: A
Translation with Commentaries.” Journal for the History of Arabic Science 7:39–124. ˙ ˙
Bı̄rūnı̄, al-, Abū al-Rayhān. 1934. Kitāb al-tafhı̄m li-awāil sināt al-tanjı̄m. Book of the Instruction in the
˙ Astrology. Edited and translated by˙ R. Wright. London: Luzac.
Elements of the Science of
Bulmer-Thomas, Ivor. 1971. “Euclid.” Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Edited by Charles Gillispie,
IV:414–437. New York: Scribner’s and Sons.
Clagett, Marshall. 1959. The Science of Mechanics in the Middle Ages. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Curtze, Maximilian. 1874. “Das angebliche Werk des Euklides über die Waage.” Zeitschrift für Mathematik
und Physik 19:262–263.
Curtze, Maximilian. 1900. “Zwei Beiträge zur Geschichte der Physik im Mittelalter. 1. Das Buch Euclids
de gravi et levi. 2. Der Tractatus de fractionibus et flexionibus radiorum des Robertus Linconiensis.”
Bibliotheca mathematica 3.1:51–59.
De Gandt, François. 1982. “Force et science des machines.” In J. Barnes et al. Science and Speculation.
Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice, 96–127. Cambridge/Paris: Cambridge University Press /
Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
Drachmann, Aage G. 1963. “Fragments from Archimedes in Hero’s Mechanics.” Centaurus 8:91–146.
Drake, S. and I. B. Drabkin, eds. 1969. Mechanics in Sixteenth Century Italy. Selections from Tartaglia,
Benedetti, Guidobaldo, and Galileo. Translated and annotated. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Euclid. [1926] 1956. The Thirteen Books of Euclid’s Elements. Translated from the Text of Heiberg with
Introduction and Commentary by T. L. Heath. 3 vols. New York: Dover.
Euclide. 1990–94. Les Eléments. Traduits du texte de Heiberg. Volumes I-II: Livres I-IX. Traduction et
commentaire par Bernard Vitrac. Paris: PUF.
Frank, Richard M. 1992. “The Science of Kalām.” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 2:7–37.
Galilei, Galileo. 1890. Le Opere di Galileo Galilei. Edizione Nazionale. A cura di Antonio Favaro. Vol. I.
Firenze: Tipografia di Giunti Barbèra editore.
Galilei, Galileo. 1960. On Motion and On Mechanics. Comprising ‘De motu’ (ca. 1590). Translated with
introduction and notes by I. E. Drabkin and Le Meccaniche (ca. 1600). Translated with introduction and
notes by S. Drake. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Gamba, Enrico and Vico Montebelli. 1988. Le scienze a Urbino nel tardo rinascimento. Urbino: Quattro
Venti.
Gutas, Dimitri. 1998. Greek Thought, Arabic Culture. The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad
and Early Abbāsid Society (2nd–4th/8th–10th centuries). London/New York: Routledge.
[Hajjāj, al-, ibn Matar, and Nayrı̄zı̄, al-, al-Fadl]. 1897–1910. Codex Leidensis 399,1. Euclidis Elementa
˙ ex interpretatione al-’Hadschdschadschii
˙ ˙
cum commentariis al-’Narizii. Arabic and Latin text edited by R.
O. Besthorn et J. L. Heiberg. Parts I-III. Copenhagen: F. Hegel et Fil.
Hall, Robert A. 1973. “Al-Khāzinı̄.” Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Edited by Charles Gillispie, VII:
335–351. New York: Scribners and Sons.
Hasan, al-, Ahmad Y., ed. 1981. Banū Mūsā: Kitāb al-hiyal. Aleppo: Institute for the History of Arabic
˙ Science. ˙ ˙
Heiberg, Johan Ludwig. 1882. Litterargeschichtliche Studien über Euklid. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
Heinen, Anton. 1979. “On Some Hitherto Unknown Manuscripts of Works by Ibn al-Haytham.”
Communication to The Second International Symposium for the History of Arabic Science, University of
Aleppo, 5–12 April 1979. Manuscript, 20 pp.
Heinen, Anton. 1983. “At the Roots of the Medieval Science of Weights. A Report on an Edition
Project.” The Journal of Sophia Asian Studies (Tokyo) 1:44–55.
Heron von Alexandria. 1976. Heronis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt. 5 vols. Vol. 2 Mechanica et catoprica.
Edited by L. Nix and W. Schmidt. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner. Reprint of the 1st edit. Leipzig:
1899–1914.
Heron von Alexandria (Héron d’Alexandrie). 1988. Les Mécaniques ou l’élévateur des corps lourds. Texte
arabe de Qustā ibn Lūqā établi et traduit par B. Carra de Vaux, Introduction de D. R. Hill et
commentaires ˙par A. G. Drachmann. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Hill, Donald R. 1976. On the Construction of Water Clocks. London: Turner and Devereaux.
Hill, Donald R. 1979. The Book of Ingenious Devices. An Annotated Translation of the Treatise of Banū Mūsā.
Dordrecht: Reidel.
Hill, Donald R. 1981. Arabic Water-Clocks. Aleppo: Institute for the History of Arabic Science.
Hill, Donald R. 1993. Islamic Science and Engineering. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Ibel, Thomas. 1908. Die Waage im Altertum und Mittelalter. Erlangen: Junge (Erlangen, Ph.D. diss.,
1906).
Ibn Abı̄ Usaybia, Muwaffaq al-Dı̄n. 1965. Uyūn al-anbā fı̄ tabaqāt al-atibbā. Edited by Nizār Ridā.
˙ Maktabat al-hayāt.
Beirut: Dār ˙ ˙ ˙
˙
Ibn al-Athı̄r, Alı̄. [1378 H] 1967. Al-Kāmil fı̄ ‘l-tārikh. 9 vols. Beirut: Dār al-kātib al-arabı̄, 2nd edit.
Ibn Fātik, al-Mubashshar. 1958. Mukhtār al-hikam wa mahāsin al-kalim. Edited by A. Badawı̄. Madrid:
˙
Matbaat al-mahad al-misrı̄ li-’l-dirāsāt al-islāmiyya. ˙
˙ ˙
Ibn al-Nadı̄m, Muhmmad ibn Ishāq. 1871–72. Kitāb al Fihrist. 2 vols. Edited by Gustav Flügel, J.
Roediger and A. ˙Müller. Leipzig: ˙ F. C. W. Vogel.
Ibn al-Qiftı̄, Jamāl al-Dı̄n. 1903. Tārı̄kh al-hukamā. Edited by Julius Lippert. Leipzig: Dieterich’sche
˙
Verlagsbuchhandlung. ˙
Ikhwān al-Safā. 1975. Rasāil Ikhwān al-Safā. 4 vols. Beirut: Dār Sādir.
˙
Jackson, David E. P. 1970. The Arabic Version˙ of the Mathematical Collection
˙ of Pappus Alexandrinus Book VIII.
Ph. D. diss. University of Cambridge.
Jaouiche, Khalil. 1976. Le Livre du qarastūn de Thābit ibn Qurra. Etude sur l’origine de la notion de travail et
du calcul du moment statique d’une barre˙homogène. Leiden: Brill.
Khanikoff, Nicholas. 1860. “Analysis and Extracts of Kitâb Mizan al-Hikma, an Arabic Work on the
Water-balance.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 6:1–128.
Khāzinı̄, al-, Abd al-Rahmān. [1359 H] 1940. Kitāb mı̄zān al-hikma. Hayderabad: Dāirat al-maārif al-
˙ ˙
uthmāniyya.
Knorr, Wilbur R. 1982. Ancient Sources of the Medieval Tradition of Mechanics: Greek, Arabic and Latin Studies
of the Balance. Firenze: Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza.
Kunitsch, Paul and Richard Lorch. 1993. “A Note on Codex Paris BN Ar. 2457.” Zeitschrift für
Geschichte der arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaften 8:235–240.
Lang, Helen. 1992. Aristotle’s Physics and its Medieval Varieties. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Lettinck, Paul. 1994. Aristotle’s Physics and its Reception in the Arabic World. With an Edition of the
Unpublished Parts of ibn Bājja’s “Commentary on the Physics”. Leiden: Brill.
Micheli, Gianni. 1995. Le origini del concetto di macchina. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki editore.
Moody, Ernst and Marshall Clagett. 1952. The Medieval Science of Weights (Scientia de Ponderibus). Treatises
ascribed to Euclid, Archimedes, Thabit ibn Qurra, Jordanus and Blasius of Parma. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Philon. 1902. Le livre des appareils pneumatiques et des machines hydrauliques par Philon de Byzance. Edité et
traduit en français par le barron Carra de Vaux. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Librairie C.
Klincksieck.
Philoponus, Johannes. 1991. Corollaries on Place and Void. Translated by David Furley. London:
Duckworth.
Philoponus, Johannes. 1993. On Aristotle’s Physics 2. Translated by A. Lacey. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press.
Pines, Shlomo. 1979–86. Collected Works. 2 vols. Jerusalem/Leiden: Hebrew University/ Brill.
Rashed, Roshdi. 1999. “Al-Qūhı̄ vs. Aristotle: On Motion.” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 9:7–24.
Rose, Paul L. and Stillman Drake. 1971. “The Pseudo-Aristotelian Questions of Mechanics in Renaissance
Culture.” Studies in the Renaissance 18:65–104.
Rozhanskaya, Mariam M. 1983. “Al-Khazini, Kniga vesov midrosti” [The Book of the Balance of
Wisdom]. In Naučnoye nasledstvo [Scientific Heritage]). Moskva: Akademija Nauk SSSR 6:15–140,
276–308.
Rozhanskaya, Mariam M. 1996. “Statics.” In Encyclopaedia of the History of Arabic Science. 3 vols. Edited
by R. Rashed, III: 614–642. London: Routledge.
Sabra, Abd al-Hamid I. 1996. “Situating Arabic Science: Locality versus Essence.” Isis 87:654–70.
Sabra, Abd al-Hamid I. 1997. “Thābit ibn Qurra on the Infinite and other Puzzles. Edition and
Translation of his Discussions with ibn Usayyid.” Zeitschrift für Geschichte der arabisch-islamischen
Wissenschaften 11:1–33.
Sezgin, Fuat. 1974. Geschichte des Arabischen Schriftums. Vol V: Mathematik. Leiden: Brill.
Sorabji, Richard, ed. 1987. Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. London: Duckworth.
Sorabji, Richard, ed. 1990. Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and their Influence. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Tahānawı̄, al-, Muhammad. [1862] 1988. Kashshāf istilāhāt al-funūn. A Dictionary of the Technical Terms
˙ of the Musalmans. Edited by M.˙˙Wajı̄h
Used in the Sciences ˙ et al., Calcutta: W. N. Lees’ Press, 2 vols.
Reprinted Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag.
Tomson, W. and G. Junge. [1930] 1968. The Commentary of Pappus on Book X of Euclid’s Elements.
Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press. Reprinted New York: Johnson Reprint.
Wiedemann, Eilhard. 1911–12. “Die Schrift über den Qarastun.” Biblioteca Mathematica 12.3:21–39.
Wiedemann, Eilhard. 1970. Aufsätze zur Arabischen Wissenschaftsgeschichte. 2 vols. Hildesheim/New York:
G. Olms.
Wiedemann, Eilhard. 1984. Gesammelte Schriften zur arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaftsgeschichte. 3 vols.
Frankfurt: Institut für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften.
Woepcke, Franz. 1851. “Notice sur des traductions arabes de deux ouvrages perdus d’Euclide.” Journal
asiatique 4ème série 18:217–247.
Wurschmidt, J. 1925. “Die Schrift des Menelaus über die Bestimmung der Zusammensetzung von
Legierungen.” Philologus 80:377–409.
Zimmerman, Fritz. 1987. “Philoponus’ Impetus Theory in the Arabic Tradition.” In Philoponus and the
Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Edited by R. Sorabji, 121–129. London: Duckworth.
Zotenberg H. 1879. “Traduction arabe du Traité des corps flottants d’Archimède.” Journal asiatique 7ème
série 13:509–515.
View publication stats

Article A Bat To Uy Sic 2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article A Bat To Uy Sic 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Science in Context · June 2001

Galileo Research View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Greek Mechanics in Arabic Context: Thābit ibn Qurra,

copy preserved in Damascus (al-Asad National Library MS 4460, al-Zāhiriyya

I. 2. Graeco-Arabic Transmission of Mechanics: General Survey

II. The Arabic Tradition of Pseudo-Aristotle’s Mechanics

“Aristotle said.”20 It includes a methodically arranged compendium of the

II. 1. Ingenious Solution of the Balance-Equilibrium Problem

Peripatetic justification of the theorem of equilibrium was greatly improved in the

III. 1. An Outlined Justification in Pseudo-Aristotle

III. 2. Full Dynamic Proof: Thābit ibn Qurra

equilibrium of a homogeneous beam suspended from a point situated outside its

Obviously, this is a principle familiar in Aristotelian natural philosophy, as well as

III. 2. 1. Towards a Unified Theory of Motion

important assumptions are intermingled in this formula: a definition of force by the

theoretical shift it represented emerged first in the school of natural philosophers of

towards several doctrines of the traditional natural philosophy.46 In brief, even if it is

III. 2. 2. The Geometrical Argument

The demonstration follows immediately:

III. 3. The Amplification of the Dynamic Outlook: al-Isfizārı̄

Then the demonstration shifts immediately to the asymmetrical case in which

IV. Arabic Euclidean Mechanics: Textual and Theoretical Traditions

IV. 1. Bird’s Eye View on the Treatise on Heaviness and Lightness

IV. 2. Maqāla fı̄ ‘l-mı̄zān, a Greek Fragment Edited in Arabic?

Fig. 10. MS Paris 2457, Maq. mı̄z., folio 22a

Fig. 11. (Courtesy of the Tehran Danishgāh Library)

IV. 3. Al-Isfizārı̄’s Reworking of the Euclidean Theory of the Balance

This proposition is considered by al-Isfizārı̄ as part of the “sensible primary

Archimedean technique appears at this place in the treatise, and it is progressively

In his reworking of the theorem, al-Isfizārı̄ changed the geometrical configuration

In the Irshād, Prop. 4 corresponds to the second theorem of Maq. mı̄z. It is

The geometry of the configuration is described in full.92 After the construction of

The comparison of Pseudo-Euclid and al-Isfizārı̄’s proofs makes clear their

The sequence of deductions to which we are accustomed according to the geometric

two scholars. In particular, Thābit provided a full demonstration based on dynamic

And yet, in contradistinction, the significance of Arabic mechanics as a specific and

This article is part of my participation in a Research Project headed by Professor Dr.

View publication stats

You might also like