PSs Teaigesr tol jlal go 32 OPI Pl G93 7S Neo, Sroile ses FANS Adel se at ay; SEG Hai Sah Sl A oS ay el Per So teh so) Alba SL ! ee Ta : Ja Gat PE serzhaings JG AINE . ‘ POS) bailbelos teil i apie Spey ane pl atsore spleens Ey Be oO Ife ios 53H) \ailllap, me ae e ashlee Stools law Ws eh tals abhi cele, eg Pisb\e \ ae VaticanThe Book of Ingenious Devices (Kitab al-Hiyal) by the Bani (sons of ) Misa bin Shakir Translated and annotated by Donald R. Hill D. Reidel Publishing Company @ Dordrecht, Holland / Boston, U.S.A. / London, EnglandLibrary of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Mubammad ibn Masé ibn Shakir, d. 873, The book of ingenious devices (Kitab al-hiyal). Translation of Kitab al-hiyal Bibliography: p: Includes-index~ 1. Mechanical engineering — Early works to 1800. 2. Mechanical movements — Early works to 1800. I. Abmad ibn Masé, ibn Shakir, 9th cent,, joint author. I. Hasan ibn Misa ibn Shakir, 9th cent., joint author. III. Hill, Donald Routledge. IV. Title. TSl44-M8313 620.106 78-1865 ISBN 90-277-0833-9 Published by D. Reidel Publishing Company, P.O. Box 17, Dordrecht, Holland Sold and distributed in the U.S.A., Canada, and Mexico by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Inc. Lincoln Building, 160 Old Derby Street, Hingham, Mass, 02043, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved Copyright © 1979 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any informational storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner Printed in The NetherlandsTo the memory of my parentsTable of Contents Preface and Acknowledgements Part I. Introduction 1. Life and Works of the Bana Misa. The Manuscripts of The Book of Ingenious Devices Earlier Information on The Book of Ingenious Devices Historical Context of The Book of Ingenious Devices Motifs Transliteration of Arabic letters Presentation and Translation eI aeeen Notes to Introduction Part II. The Book of Ingenious Devices List of Models Translation and Annotations “Appendix Bibliography Glossary Index, 244, 250 = 266Preface and Acknowledgements As with my previous book, on al-Jazari, the main purpose of this book is to provide scholars with an English version of the original Arabic, in this case assembled from all the known documents. No full version of the Bandi Miisa’s work has yet been published in any language, and I feel that itis of the greatest importance to present this important work under one cover. The discovery of a third major manuscript, superior to the two already known, adds considerably to the value of such a work, not least because the reputation of the Band Miisa is enhanced by the realisation that many of the errors in the other two manuscripts were the fault of copyists and draughtsmen. Each Model is. provided with an untouched photograph from one of the manuscripts, a line drawing giving equivalent Roman lettering, and a commentary. Where I felt it to be necessary I ‘have added my own explanatory drawings. By this means, I hope that the construction and operation of the Models will be made fully comprehensible. I take great pleasure in expressing my gratitude to the Leverhulme Trust Fund for making mea Research Award from 1974 to 1976, which has been of the greatest help to me in pursuing my research. To Dr David A. King of the Smithsonian Institution Project in Medieval Islamic Astronomy in Egypt I owe a great debt, since it was he who made me aware of the existence of MS. A.3474 in the Topkapi Library in Istanbul. Without this manuscript, which proved to be a copy of the Bandi Misa’s treatise superior to the two major MSS already known, this work would have been much the poorer. I also thank Prof. Fuad Sezgin of Frankfurt University for assisting me to obtain microfilm of important documents. I also wish to express my appreciation of the growing co-operation between myself and Prof. Ahmad Y. al-Hassan and his colleagues in Aleppo University. I expect this co-operation to bear fruit in the publication of the Arabic texts to which my own works will be complementary. Texpress my gratitude to Prof. Galal Shawki of Cairo University for supplying me with information about the values of weights and measures used by the Bani Misa and for suggesting a possible identification for ‘Utarid, whose glosses on the text appear several times in the Vatican manuscript. To these specific cases I must add my gratitude to the many members of the academic community who, over the past four years, have aided my efforts with advice, encouragement and, most of all, friendship. To single out any individual by name would be invidious and unnecessary. I acknowledge with gratitude the assistance given to me by libraries in providing me with photographic copies of material in their possession, particularly the libraries of Topkapi, Istanbul; Vatican; Berlin; Gotha; and Leiden. Also for their granting me permission to reproduce photographs from their manuscripts in this book. It is, furthermore a pleasure to thank the staff of the libraries which I use regularly, for their courteous and efficient services, namely the British Library, the Library of the School of Oriental and African Studies and Senate House Library — the last two named being institutions of the University of London. ixx Preface and Acknowledgements I now take for granted the high quality of the typescripts I receive from Mrs Nina Fuller, for which I record my continuing gratitude. I would like to express my deepest thanks to the Reidel staff for their efficiency and the quality of their work, and indeed for the kindness and courtesy which they have always extended to me. Those who know my dear wife Pat understand how much I owe to her encouragement and support, and how impossible it would be for me to express my gratitude in a manner that would do justice to my deepest feelingsPart I Introduction1, Life and Works of the Bani Misa The Bani (sons of) Misa were among the most important figures in the intellectual and political life of ninth century Baghdad and played a key réle in the founding and development of Arabic science and technology. Fortunately we have a good deal of information about them in biographical and historical works, the most important of which are listed briefly below, with the abbreviations used in references given in parentheses after each source.* Separate articles are devoted to the Bani Miisa in several works, of which the earliest is the Fihrist of Ibn al-Nadim,’ composed 377/987—8, pp. 378—379 (F). Ibn al-Qifti, 568/1172—646/1248, p. 208 draws some of his material from Ibn al-Nadim and some from unknown sources (Q). Additional information is given by Ibn Khallikin, 608/1211—681/1282, pp. 161—163 in his Biographies of Illustrious Men (K), and by Bar Hebraeus, 623/1226—685/1286, History of the Dynasties, pp. 264—267 (H). Abu? I-Fida’, 672/1273—732/1331, Universal History, vol. 1, Bk 2, p. 49 provides what is virtually a copy of Ibn Khallikan’s article (A). There are other works which do not contain separate entries on the Bani Misa, but rather a number of scattered references to their activities. Perhaps the most important of these is the great history of al-Tabari, 224/839—310/923, Series III (T). Al-Tabari was living in Baghdad while the brothers were active in the political and intellectual life of the city and his mentions of them, though brief, therefore have particular value. Of a similar nature are a number of references in the first volume of the biographical dictionary of Ibn Abi Usaybi‘a, 590/1194—668/1270, which are of interest for the light they throw upon the relationships of the brothers with the Caliphs and with other scholars (U). Finally, there are a number of references to the brothers’ astronomical studies in Ibn Yanus, d. 39/1009 (Y), and in the Chronology of al-Biriini, 362/973—c.442/1050 (B). The three brothers were called, in order of seniority, Muhammad, Ahmad and al- Hasan. We do not know their dates of birth but Muhammad died in 259/873 (F.K) and could hardly then have been less than seventy years old because the youngest brother al-Hasan was already a brilliant geometrician in the reign of al-Ma’min (198/813— 218/833) (H. 264). Their father, Misa bin Shakir, is usually described as al-Munajjim meaning either astronomer or astrologer, although in his youth he is said to have been a resourceful highwayman who made the roads in Khurasin unsafe (H. 264). By all accounts, however, he became a noted astronomer and a close companion of al- Ma’miin when the latter was residing at Marw in Khurasdn before he became Caliph in 198/813, When Misa died he committed his sons to the care of al-Ma’miin who entrusted Ishaq b. Ibrahim al-Musa‘bi with their guardianship. Ishaq sent them to the bayt al-hikma (house of wisdom) where their tutor was Yahya b. Abi Mansi and they completed their education in that establishment. In general they were said to have been * In other words each Arabic source is given a letter reference, e.g. F, Q, K, H, A and so on, and these are used in this section in association with page numbers. Thus H. 264 signifies page 264 of Bar Hebracus’, History of the Dynasties. 34 Introduction skilled in geometry, ingenious devices (hival), music and astronomy. According to Ibn al-Nadim and Ibn Khallikan their weakest subject was astronomy, but this seems to conflict with the opinions of Ibn Yiinus and al-Birini, both good judges, who spoke highly of the accuracy of the Bana Miisa’s astronomical observations. Muhammad, who was the most influential of the brothers, specialised in geometry and astronomy, and excelled Ahmad in all the sciences except in the construction of ingenious devices. Al-Hasan was a brilliant geometrician with a retentive memory and great powers of deduction. A rival once tried to discredit him in front of al-Ma’miin by saying that al- Hasan had read only six of the thirteen books of Euclid’s Elements. Al-Hasan replied by saying that it was unnecessary for him to read the remainder because he could arrive at the answers to any of Euclid’s problems by deduction. Al-Ma’min acknowledged al-Hasan’s skill, but did not excuse him, saying: “laziness has prevented you from reading the whole of it —it is to geometry as the letters a, b, t, th? are to speech and writing.” (H. 264). Al-Hasan is rarely mentioned by name elsewhere in the sources and may have preferred to devote his time to scholarship, whereas his brothers were involved in a variety of undertakings. At the time of their entry into the House of Wisdom the Bani Miisa were poor and needy (H. 264) but under the successors of al-Ma’miin they became wealthy and influential. They devoted much of their wealth and energy to the quest for the works of ancient writers, and sent missions to Byzantium to seek out such material and bring it to Baghdad (F.Q). Muhammad is said to have made a journey to Byzantium in person. The renowned translator Thabit b. Qurra accompanied Muhammad on his return to Baghdad and began his studies in Muhammad's house (F. 380. U. 215). The brothers used to pay about five hundred dinars a month to a group of translators who worked in the House of Wisdom (U. 187). The most outstanding of these translators were Thabit b. Qurré and Hunayn b. Ishaq, both of whom were proficient in Greek, Syriac and Arabic. They rendered numerous works into Arabic and made important original contributions.? Muhammad was on friendly terms with these men, particularly with Hunayn, who translated and composed books at the request of his patron (U. 102, 193, 199, 205). Several of these works were on medical subjects, which indicates that the brothers’ interests were not confined to the physical sciences. Indeed, Thabit b. Qurra wrote a report on atmospheric phenomena that had been observed by himself and the Bani Miisa (U. 219). Apart from their réle as scientists and patrons of scientists, the Bani’ Misa, particularly Muhammad, were employed by the Caliphs on various undertakings, and became involved in the turbulent political life of Baghdad. One of their earliest tasks, carried out on the orders of al-Ma’min, was to check the circumference of the Earth, given by the ancient writers as 24000 miles. To do this they went to the level desert of al-Sinjar in northern ‘Iraq, accompanied by a group of observers. They set up a base point from which they measured the altitude of the Pole Star, and then walked due north in a straight line, using a rope for measuring and marking their route by pegs, until the altitude of the Pole Star had increased by one degree. They then repeated this procedure towards the south, after which they went to the locality of al-Kiifa in southern ‘Iraq and carried out similar measurements. The value they arrived at was 663 miles for one degree of latitude, giving the circumference of the Earth as 24000 miles (K.A.)Life and Works of the Band Masa 5 Muhammad and Ahmad later became concerned with public works. They were among a group of twenty men responsible for the construction of the new town of al- Ja‘fari for the Caliph al-Mutawakkil (T. 1438) and are mentioned as having directed the excavation ofa canal between Basta and Wasit (T. 1747). In this field, as in others, they did not take kindly to competitors and are said to have plotted against anyone who rivalled them in knowledge (U. 207). They became enemies of the famous philosopher al-Kindi (T. 1502) and caused him to lose the favour of al-Mutawakkil who ordered him to be beaten and allowed the brothers to confiscate his library (U. 207). According to the account of Ibn Abi Usaybi‘a (207208) the envious nature of the brothers almost led to their downfall. They had also alienated al-Mutawakkil from Sanad b. “Ali, a good engineer and a friend of al-Kindi, When al-Mutawakkil commissioned the brothers with excavation of a canal known as al-Ja‘fariyya, they subcontracted the work to Ahmad b. Kathir al-Farghni “whose knowledge was greater than his achievements, because he never completed a work”. Al-Farghdni made a serious error in his levelling, such that the canal would never have filled to the required depth. When rumour of this reached al-Mutawakkil he threatened to crucify Muhammad and Ahmad on the banks of the canal if the report proved to be true. In desperation they turned to Sanad b. ‘Ali who would only give his assistance if they undertook to return al-Kindi's books to him. When this had been done, Sanad said that he would tell the Caliph that no mistake had been made; because the Tigris was at its highest level the error would not be detectable for four months, and the astrologers had predicted the death of al-Mutawakkil before this period had expired. Within two months the Caliph was assassinated and the conspirators escaped retribution. In his last years Muhammad was deeply involved with palace politics, in the period during which Turkish commanders were assuming effective control of the state. After the death of al-Muntasir he successfully campaigned for the nomination of al-Musta‘in in preference to Ahmad b. al-Mu‘tasim, because the latter was a friend of al-Kindi (T. 1502). When Baghdad was besieged by the army of the Caliph’s brother Abu Ahmad, Muhammad was sent by al-Musta‘in’s commander ‘Abd Allah b. Tahir to estimate the strength of the enemy forces (T. 15578). He was at al-Musta‘in’s side when the Caliph addressed the rebellious populace (T. 1634) and he was one of a delegation sent by Ibn Tahir to Abu Ahmad’s army to ascertain the terms for al- Musta‘in’s abdication (T. 1641). These reports are interesting for the information they give us about Muhammad’s standing in the courtly circles, but his political activities were not of the first importance since it was of little moment who occupied the Caliphal throne when real power lay elsewhere. The réle of the Band’ Masa in fostering the work of translators and scientists can hardly be overestimated, but their own scientific achievements were far from negligible, Al-Birdni mentions their calculations for the length of the solar year (B. 61) and Ibn Yiinus tells us that he made use of their astronomical observational records, which were numerous and accurate (Y. 42, 62, 98, 132, 133, 142, 146, 148). A list of their works is given by Ibn al-Nadim and Ibn al-Qifti, as follows:* 1. Book on the steelyard (garastiin) (F.Q). 2. Book of Ingenious Devices (hiyal) — by Ahmad (F.Q.). 3. Book on the long, curved figure (i.e. the ellipse) — by al-Hasan (F.Q.).sane oe 10. ll. nn 13. 14. 15. ar 17. 18. 19. 20. Introduction Book of the first movement of the sphere (spheres in Q) — by Muhammad (F.). Book on conic sections — by Muhammad (F.Q.). Book of the Three [?] — by Muhammad (F.). Book of the geometrical shape, as demonstrated by Galen — by Muhammad‘ (F.Q). Book of the Parts (proportions?) — by Muhammad (F.Q.). Book in which it is demonstrated by didactic means and by geometrical method that there is no ninth sphere outside the sphere of the fixed stars — by Ahmad (F). In (Q,) this reads: denial of a ninth sphere — by Ahmad. Book on the beginning of the world — by Ahmad (F.). In (Q.) this reads: on the first of causes. Book on the question put to Sanad b. ‘Ali by Ahmad b. Misa (F.Q.). Book on the nature of speech (alam) — by Muhammad (F-). Book on the questions discussed between Sanad b. ‘Aliand Ahmad b. Misa (F.). Book on the measurement of the sphere, division of an angle into three equal parts and calculation of the mean proportional between two quantities (F.Q.). ‘Astronomical tables — as mentioned by al-Birani and Ibn Yunus. Two works on time, edited by Thabit b. Qurra (Q. 117). ‘A work on war engines (Haji Khalifa I, 394). On the sphere (Hauser 10. Without exact references). On the construction of astrolabes (Hauser 10. Without exact references). Description of a musical automaton (E. Wiedemann, Amari Festschrift (1909) 169—180. Wiedemann made his translation from a text published by Professor Cheikho in Bayrut, but gives no details). The most important of these works apart from the Book of Ingenious Devices was known in the medieval west as On the Measurement of Plane and Spherical Figures, in a Latin translation by Gerard of Cremona, Liber trium fratrem etc. This was probably No. 14 above —see Suter 21. The Latin text was published by M. Curtze (Nova Acta der Kaiserl. Leop. Carol Deutschen Akad. der Naturf. 49, Nr. 2, 1883).2. The Manuscripts of The Book of Ingenious Devices There are three major manuscripts and two fragments. The major manuscripts are:* 1. Vatican No. 317 (Abbreviated to V.). 2. Berlin/Gotha (Abbreviated to B. or G.) This manuscript is in two parts — Berlin, Catalogue von Ahlwardt No. 5562 and Gotha Catalogue von Pertsch No. 1349. 3. Topkapi Seray Miikesi A 3474 (Abbreviated to T.) ‘The first two of these were used by Wiedemann and Hauser but the third, as far as [am aware, has not previously been brought to the notice of scholars. Before discussing the quality of the manuscripts it is first necessary to establish a plausible numerical sequence for the Models, taking the Vatican MS as a basis. This consists of 74 leaves and 92 illustrations, although one of the latter, that for Model 68, is repeated. The number of each Model is given in abjad letters at the start of the description, giving the following sequence 1. Folios 2R—37R: Models 1—S5, in continuous sequence, all complete, with illustrations, with the exception of the illustration for Model 13, which appears on an unnumbered page between folios 47 and 48. pei Yh PA fe Model 60 starts on the top of 37V. by the abjad number 56. This section is enclosed by a continuous line on 37V. Text continues on 41V and ends on 42R, with illustration. Model 56 starts on 41R. by the abjad number 60, and the first part ends on 41V, where a line is drawn across the page; it continues on 49R, under a line that crosses the page, and is completed, with illustration, on 49V. Model 58 starts on 39V. with its correct number. There is a complete folio missing which is supplied by SOR and SOV. The Model is completed on 40R, with illustration. Model 67 starts by its correct number at the bottom of 48V, continuing to the line drawn across 49R. It continues below the line in.37V and is completed, with illustration, on 38R. Model 68 starts by its correct number on 49V. It continues on 51R and is completed, with illustration, on SIV (this is because SOR and V are devoted to Model 58). Folio 52 (R and V) repeats 51 (R and V) including the illustration for Model 68. In this section (ic. 37V to 52V) the remaining Models are complete, with illustrations, and the texts are not broken: * Photographs from Vatican, Berlin and Topkapi are reproduced by kind permission of those libraries, namely: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana; Orientabteilung der Staatsbibliothek, Preussicher Kulturbesitz Berlin; Topkapi Sarayi Mizesi MiidiirlfG. A photograph from Leiden (App. 3) is reproduced by kind permission of the Library of the University of Leiden. 78 Introduction Model 57 38R—39V Model 59 40R—40V, Model 61 42V—43V Model 62 43V—44V Model 63 44V—45V Model 64 45V—46V Model 65 46V—47V Model 66 = 47V—48V Despite this confusion the text and illustrations of Models 56—S8 are all complete. 3. Folios 53R—73V: Models 69—90. in continuous sequence, all complete, and with illustrations. 4. Folio 74: 74R has the second part of the text for 92, with illustration. 74V has the full text of 93 without illustration. The page ends with the statement that this is the end of the book, and gives praise to God. This sentence, however, together with much of the text on 74R and 74V, is partly obliterated. Model 91 is therefore missing. The Vatican manuscript thus contains 90 complete Models, and two incomplete ones. ‘The Berlin /Gotha manuscript follows the same numerical sequence as Vatican 317 if we accept the numbering of the folios, since individual models are not numbered. Up to Model 42 the illustrations have the numbers written on them in words, for those Models which appear in the manuscript. The folios are numbered in Arabic, whereas Vatican and Topkapi are in Roman. 1. B. Folios 1V—-I0R Models 1—10 complete, with illustrations. First sentence of Model 11 is at bottom of 10R. 2. G. Folio 19V Models | and 2, with illustrations, are given on this page, in a different handwriting from the rest of the manuscript. 3. G. 20R—37V Models 1933 complete, with illustrations. The first few words of the text of Model 19 are missing. 4. G. 37V—38V Text of Model 34. The illustration on 38V, however, is that of Model 42, and the illustration for Model 34 is missing. 5. G. 38V—47V Models 35—41 complete, with illustrations. 6. From this point onwards G is disarranged. We have the following sequence: (a) 47V, 48R. Model 42, first part. (b) (The Arabic page numbering then omits folios 49 and 50. 48V and 51R occur twice, with different texts), (© 48v(1) Continuation of Model 42. (@) SIRU) End of Model 43, with its illustration.The Manuscripts of ‘The Book of Ingenious Devices’ 9 (©) 48V(2) SIR) First part of Model 48, without initial sentence. (f) SIV, S2R, 52V Model 44. Illustration on 52V. (g) 52V, 53R, 53V Start and finish of Model 45, with most of the text missing. Its illustration on 53V. (h) 53V to 5SV Model 46 complete. Its illustration is on SSR. @ S8V to STR Model 47 complete. Its illustration is on 57R. G)_57R (at bottom) —_ Initial sentence of Model 48 (see (e) above). Illustration of Model 48 on 57V. (k) S7V (at bottom) _ First sentence of Model 49. (Pagination omits folios 58, 59, 60). (). 6IR to 62R Model 50. Start missing. Illustration on 62R. (m) ©2R (bottom) to top of 67V. Models 51 to 55 complete, with illustrations. (n) 67V Middle section of Model 60. (0) 68R. 68V Middle section of Model 67, with its illustration on 68V. (p) 68V to 73R (Folio 71 missing) The illustration of Model 67 is on 68V. These pages then cover Models 57 and 58, the second being complete. Model 57. First sentence, bottom of 68V. Final section 7OR, illustration on 70V. Model 58. Start 70V, second part 69R, third part 69V, fourth part 72R, Conclusion 72V to 73R. Illustration on 72V. (q) 73R and V. Model 59. Last sentence missing, no illustration (Folios 74 and 75 missing) () 76R to 77V Model 56. Illustration on 77V is of Model 60. Illustration for Model 56 is in B. 89V (see below). (8) 78R to 79R Model 61, complete. Illustration on 79R. ® BV Start of Model 62. Gotha text ends. ‘The Berlin text resumes where it broke off. by continuing the text of Model 11, to completion. This page is therefore presumably 10V (see above). The text then continues from the end of the Gotha Manuscript, ic. with Folio 80, and the continuation of Model 62. With two minor exceptions the text is then continuous for the remainder of the manuscript, folios 80R to 143, paginated in sequence, and covering the remainder of Model 62, and Models 63100, all complete, and with illustrations. The exceptions are that on 89V the illustration is of Model 67 instead of Model 56 (see above 6(r); and for Models 97 and 98, although the text is in the correct sequence, the illustrations are reversed, that for 97 appearing under the description of Model 97, and vice versa. Topkapi A.3474 does not follow any orderly sequence in its Roman letter pagination (there is no Arabic) and the numbering of the Models (in abjad letters at the start of each) often disagrees with the numbering in Vatican 317. The table which follows was felt to be the simplest way of comparing the two manuscripts.10 Introduction No. in No.in Location in State of completeness in A.3474 No. in Vat.317 Topkapi A.3474. Leaves. this book A3474—_ in correct sequence 1 1 IR Missing, except final sentence and 1 illustration 2 2 IR, 8V Complete. Illustration on 8V 2 3 3 8V, 9R Complete. Illustration on 9R 3 4 4 9V, 10R Complete. Illustration on 10R 4 5 5 1OR, 10V, IIR Complete. Illustration on 11R 5 6 6 IR, IV, 12R Complete. Illustration on 12R 6 7 7 12R, 1V, 2R, 2V Complete. Illustration on 2V 7 8 Missing 8 9 Missing 9 10 Missing 10 i n 3R Incomplete. Only final part of text, 11 and illustration 2 2 3v, aR Complete. Illustration on 4R 12 1B B AR, SR, 5V, OR Text complete. No illustration 13 4 14 ov, 7R Part of text erased. Illustration on 14 6Y, repeated on 7R 1s 1s 7R, TV, 8R Complete. llustration on 8R 15 16 16 8R, 12, I3R Complete. Illustration in 13R 16 7 "7 1BR, 13V, 14R Complete. Illustration on 14R 7 1B 18 14R, 14V, End of text and illustration missing 18 19 19 15R lll missing except last few sentences, 19 and illustration, on 15R 20 Missing ‘Appendix 1 21 20 ISR, 15V, 16R Complete. Illustration on 16R 20 2 21 16R, 16V Complete. Illustration on 16V 21 2B 2 VIR, 17V, 18R Complete. Illustration on 18R 2 4 2B I8R, 18V, 19R Complete. Illustration on 19R 2B 25 24 I9R, 19V, 20R Complete. Illustration on 20R 24 26 25 20R, 20V, 21R Complete. Illustration on 21R 25 27 26 21R, 21V Complete. llustration on:21V 26 28 27 2R Complete. Illustration on 22R 2 29 29 23R Complete. Illustration on 23R 2 30 28 22V, 23R Complete. Illustration on 23R 29 31 30 23R, 23 Complete. Illustration on 23V 30 32 31 23V, 24K Complete. Ilustration on 24R 31 3 32 24V, 25R Complete. Illustration on 25R 32 34 3 2SR, 25V, 26R Complete, Illustration on 26R 3 35 34 26R, 26V Complete. Illustration on 26V 34 Missing 35 26V, 27R Complete. Illustration on 27R 35 36 36 27R, 27V, 28A ‘Completes Ilustration on 28R 36 37 37 28R, 28V, 29R, 29V Complete. Illustration on 29V 37 38 38 30R, 30V Complete. Iustration on 30R 38 39 39 30V, 31R, 31V Complete. Ilustration on 31V 39 40 40 31, 32R, 32V Complete. Ilustration on 32V 40 41 al 32V, 33R, 33V Complete. Illustration on 33V 41 2 a 33R, SIR, SIV Complete. Illustration on SIR 2 4a a3 SIV, 52R, $2V Complete, Illustration on 52V 43The Manuscripts of ‘The Book of Ingenious Devices No. in No.in_ Location in State of completeness in A.3474 No. in Vat. 317 Topkapi A.3474. Leaves, this book A3474 in correct, sequence 44 44 S2V, S3R, 53V Complete. Illustration on 53V 44 45 45 S6V, S7R, S7V ‘Complete. Ilustration on 57V 45 46 46 S8R, 58V, 59R ‘Complete. Mlustration on S8R, re- 46 peated on 59R 4 41 SOR, 59V, 60R, 60V Complete. Illustration on 60V 47 48 48 S4R, 54V, SSR Complete. Illustration on 55R 48 49 49 SSR, SV, S6R, S6V Complete. Illustration on S6R 49 50 50 56V, 35R, 35V Complete. Illustration on 35V 50 SI SI 36R, 36V Complete. Illustration on 36V st 32 2 36V, 37R Complete. Illustration on 37R 2 3 3 37V, 38R Complete. Illustration on 38R 3 54 34 38R, 38V ‘Complete. Illustration on 38V 54 55 55 39R, 39V Complete. Ilustration on 39V 55 56 Missing 56 37 64 BIR, IV, 82R, 82V Complete. Illustration on 82V ST 58 65 83R, 83V, 84R, 84V Complete. Illustration on 84V 38 59 66 85R, 85V Complete. Illustration on 85V 59 6 56 39V, 40R, 40V, 41R Complete. Illustration on 41R 60 61 ST 41R, 41V, 42R, 42V Complete. Illustration on 42R 6 a 38 42V, 43R, 43V, 44R Complete. Illustration on 43V oy 6 9 44R, 44V, 76R ‘Complete. Illustration on 76R 683 “4 60 76R, 76V, T7R Complete. Illustration on 77R 64 65 6 77R, T7V, T8R Complete. Illustration on 78R 65 66 a 78V, T9R, T9V Complete. Illustration on 79V 66 6 6B 80R, 80V, 81R Complete. Illustration on 81R o7 68 68 6IR, 61V Start missing. Illustration on 6IR_ 68 oy 69 61V, 62R, 62V ‘Complete. Illustration on 62V re) Missing 70 63R, 63V, 64R, 64V Complete. Illustration on 64V Appendix 2 0 1 65R, 65V, 66R, 66V Complete. Illustration on 66V 0 1 Missing n n 7311 TSR, 75V, 67R Start missing. Illustration on 67R 72 B ” 67A, 67V, 68R, 68V Complete. Illustration on 68V B “ 8 68V, 69R, 69V Complete. Ilustration on 69R ” 8 6 69V, 70R Complete. Illustration on 70R 75 6 n 70R, 70V, 71R Complete. Illustration on 71R 6 7 B TIR, T1V, 2R ‘Complete. Illustration on 72R 7 B 9 PR, RV, TR Complete. Ilustration on 73R B 2p 80 TBR, 73V, TAR Complete. Illustration on 74R 9 80 81 7aR Start of tgxt only, No illustration 80 81 Missing 81 2 83{7] 45K Text missing. Illustration on 45R_— 82 83 84 45R, 45V, 46R Complete. Illustration on 46R 83 84 85 45V, 45R, 46V, 47R Complete. Illustration on 46V 84 85 86 47R, 47V, 48K, Complete. Illustration on 47V 85 86 87 48R, 48V, 49R Complete, Ilustration on 48V 86 87 88 49R, 49V Complete. Illustration on 49V 87 88 89 SOR ‘Complete. Illustration on SOR 88 89 90 Sov Start of text only. No illustration 8912 Introduction Upon analysis of the three manuscripts, therefore, we can extract the following data. 1. The Vatican MS contains, according to its own numeration and allowing for the confusion between 37V and 52V, Models | to 90 complete, Model 91 missing, and parts of Models 92 and 93. The text ends at the close of Model 93. 2. Berlin /Gotha probably originally contained the same Models, up to 93, as Vatican, since the missing folios appear to match the lacunae in the text. Furthermore, the numbering on the illustrations of the first forty-two Models, bearing in mind that Models 11—19 are missing, matches the numbering of the texts in Vatican. Berlin/Gotha has a further seven complete Models. Taking the two manuscripts together we can therefore assemble 100 Models. 3. Topkapi has 71 complete Models which also occur in Vatican. There are a further 11 incomplete Models, in which the surviving texts or illustrations, or both, match the relevant sections in Vatican. There are also 5 that are missing completely, but whose numbers are also missing from the text. One can therefore assume that these 5 were originally in the Topkapi manuscript, and have since been lost. We therefore come to 87 Models which were in all three manuscripts. Alll of these show a unity of style and treatment, and we can assert with some confidence that they are from the hand of the Bana Miisa. 4, There are two Models which occur in Vatican and Berlin/Gotha which were evidently never in Topkapi. These are, in Vatican numeration, Nos. 20 and 56. A note in Vatican by the side of Model 20 says that this Model was not in the copy with which it (.e. the copyist’s main exemplar) had been compared. This copy that was used for comparison had been in the possession of Shaykh Abu Nasr Yahya b. Jarir. The Model itself is a fountain, but is virtually an essay on the effects upon discharge of varying the static head. It seems to be quite out of place since it occurs ina sequence of trick vessels. It is considered that this Model may therefore be an interpolation, and it has been placed in the Appendix (No. 1). No. 56 seems to have been out of sequence in the manuscript(s) from which Vatican and Berlin/Gotha were copied (see above). Nevertheless, it has the true Bandi Miisa feeling, and occurs among a number of similar devices. It has therefore been left in as a Bandi Misa original. 5. There are also two Models which appear in Topkapi, not in Vatican or Berlin/Gotha. These are Nos. 35 and 70 in Topkapi numbering. The first is certainly an original. Its referred to in the description for Model 37, and indeed the latter is almost incomprehensible without reference to No. 35. Model 35 is therefore included in the main section. Equally certainly, Topkapi No. 70 is an interpolation. It refers to similar Models in the preceding three chapters, which do not exist, and were presumably part of another work. It is also quite dissimilar from any other Model, and as described and drawn it would not work. It therefore appears in the Appendix (No. 2). 6. We now have 89 Models, 87 of which were certainly by the Bani Masa and two almost certainly. These appear as Nos. | to 89 in this book (see Table above). Of the remainder, al-Jazari had inspected Nos. 89, 90, 91, because he criticises them quite severely (p. 157), and there is no reason to suppose that al-Jazari was deceived by interpolations. No. 94 was certainly not by the Bani Miisa since its composer refers back to No. 92, and perhaps 93, with remarks such as “as the Bani Missa didThe Manuscripts of ‘The Book of Ingenious Devices B previously”. It seems reasonable, therefore, to include Nos. 90 1093 in the original text. 7. Of the remaining seven Models, No. 94, as mentioned above, was by another hand. ‘The remaining six cannot be attributed to the brothers with any certainty. There is an interesting comment at the end of the text of Model 93 by a certain Abu-"l- Hasan ‘Ali b, Ahmad al-Hasib (the reckoner). He says that he kas inspected this, ninty-fifth Model in a copy written by Fath, the slave of the Bandi Mais and that this copy had amendments in the handwriting of Muhammad b. Musa. If, therefore, No. 93 should be No. 95, this implies that there are at least two genuine Models missing. Supposing that the original work contained 100 Models, this would imply that at least two of the final six are later additions. There is no certainty about this, however, since al-Hasib would have been mistaken, and there might have been more than one hundred Models. Moreover, the last three Models in our numbering were the kind of inventions that would have occurred to Ahmad b. Miisa to assist him in his civil engineering projects. The question must be left open. The lest six Models have been left in the main body of the work, but this is not intended as a judgment upon their authenticity. To repeat, and following the numeration in this book, it is considered that Models 1 to 87 may be attributed with certainty to the Ban Misa, Models 88 to 93 are probably from their hand, Model 94 certainly is not, while the authenticity of Models 95 to 100 cannot be established. Before considering the quality of the main manuscripts we must discuss briefly the two fragments. The first isin a long MS., Or. 168 in the Library of the University of Leiden, most of which is devoted to geometry. It contains, however, seven mechanical devices, namely Models 74—78 and 84 from the Ban Masa and one device which is not in any of the other MSS. This is similar to the large dispensers and may have been the work of the Bani Miisa, since it embodies principles which they frequently used. But since the attribution is not certain it has been placed in the Appendix. The case for its authenticity is weakened by its omission from all the other MSS., and by some variations in the vocabulary. The other fragment is in the New York Public Library, Indo-Persian Spencer Collection MS. 2, Risala-i Hakim Muhammad Yasin. It appears in the MS. after the “Archimedes” treatise (see Hill 2), and a musical automaton attributed to Apollonius of Byzantium. There are six folios without text, which carry only some very faint sketches. There is then a title page with the words “treatise on ingenious devices by the Banii Misa b. Shakir the astronomer”. There follow twelve pages of Arabic text in farsi script, with a number of illustrations. Several pages of text and illustrations are damaged and almost impossible to read. The text begins “In the name of God, the compassionate the merciful. Selection from the book of movements.” Only two of the devices can definitely be identified as from the treatise of the Bana Masa, namely Models 95 and 97 (both lamps). There are also two from al- Jazari (II 1 and 2) and several unidentified devices. The manuscript repeats the ascription to the Banii Massa in the final page. The date is given as 1030/1620, so thisisa very late work, compiled from a number of works Returning to the main manuscripts, these can be assessed in ascending order of merit; Berlin/Gotha, Vatican 317, Topkapi A.3474. The main point of similarity between the three is that all are written in legible naskhi. Without question,4 Introduction Berlin Gotha is the worst of the three, although at first glance it looks good, being handsomely written with most of the consonantal points added. The illustrations are apparently well-executed, one sectional elevation to each Model, as in all the manuscripts. Closer inspection reveals, however, that the text is full of omissions and errors, the latter clearly indicating that the copyist had little understanding of the subject matter. The illustrations are inaccurate and seldom carry any identifying letters —and the identifying letters are given in the text in a most inconsistent and haphazard manner. The copyist was clearly more concerned with calligraphy than with accuracy. The manuscript is dated Friday, 15th Jumada I, A.H.607 = 4th June 1210 A.D. (significantly, perhaps, he has the day of the week wrong: it was a Thursday). Incidentally, al-Jazari could not have seen this copy, since he had completed his book before it was made. According to the note at the start of Model 23 the copyist of the Vatican text was a certain al-‘Afrit, the philosopher. Judging by the notes on the side of Model 20 (Vatican 20, Appendix No. | here) and at the end of Model 37, the copyist had two manuscripts to work from, one of which had been in the possession of Shaykh Abu Nasr Yahya bin Jarir. The writing is untidy with many deletions and marginal additions, but one soon discovers that these are valid corrections for errors and omissions. A great number of these also amend mistakes and omissions in the Berlin/Gotha text and this permits two suppositions: either the Vatican copyist was using Berlin (Gotha together with a second, better manuscript, or the copyists of both manuscripts had one identical exemplar, while the Vatican copyist had a second in addition. There are also a number of comments in the Vatican text by a certain ‘Utarid e.g. in Models 37, 64 and 65. This may have been ‘Utarid b, Muhammad al-Hasib al-Munajjim, author of a book on burning mirrors (Catalogue of the Institute of Arabic MSS, Cairo. Catalogue No. 3, Section 4, MS No. 15). The illustrations in the Vatican MS are in fact better than those in Berlin/Gotha and they carry the identifying letters. These letters, however, are carelessly applied and do not always correlate with those in the text, which are themselves given in almost as slipshod a manner as are those in Berlin Gotha . Topkapi A.3474 is superior to Vatican 317 in every respect, and very much superior to Berlin Gotha. It is not so untidy as Vatican but there are many marginal additions and again, in a great number of cases, these also supply omissions from the Vatican text. We could therefore surmise that the two copyists had a common exemplar available to them but this seems less likely than in the Vatican: Berlin/Gotha comparison. The illustrations in Vatican are quite similar to those in Berlin/Gotha whereas those in Topkapi are different from those in the other two, and much superior. It seems unlikely that a copyist, however, unfamiliar with the subject, would have failed to make use of these illustrations if he had had them available. It is probable, therefore, that the Topkapi copy came from a completely different source. There is not much to be gained by this kind of speculation, We know that many copies of the treatise were in circulation over a period of many centuries so unless a manuscript dating back to the 3rd/9th century comes to light, we shall probably never know exactly the contents of the original. It is quite clear, however, that Topkapi is a more faithful copy than the other two. This may not be apparent from a reading of the translation, which records textual variants between Topkapi and Vatican, because theThe Manuscripts of ‘The Book of Ingenious Devices 15 Jatter supplies a number of omissions that occur in the former, although the reverse case is probably more frequent. The omissions in Topkapi are usually attributable to ‘copyist’s eye’ — the eye sees a word and picks a passage that follows the same word a sentence or so later. This type of error also occurs in Vatican, but it contains more omissions which can be attributed to lacunae in the exemplar. Nevertheless, the ‘comparison was invaluable, since it enabled the reconstruction of a more integral text than would have been possible from one of the manuscripts alone. The superiority of Topkapi lies not so much in the text itself, but in the illustrations and identifying letters. ‘The illustrations are clear, and serve as valuable complements to the text; they are by no means perfect but the faults are usually trivial and do not hinder understanding. All the figures of animals, birds and humans are drawn, whereas in the other two manuscripts they are omitted, an omission which frequently renders the drawings almost incomprehensible. The figures are handsomely drawn too, as a glance at the reproductions will confirm. It would be tedious to list all the other points in which the illustrations in Topkapi surpass those in Vatican and Berlin/Gotha — in some cases line drawings from Vatican are supplied alongside the Topkapi reproductions, so that readers may make their own comparisons. To take only one instance, the taps in Topkapi are properly drawn, whereas in the other manuscripts they are simply conventional symbols. It is interesting, incidentally, to notice that in a number of cases Hauser was obliged to add dotted lines to the Vatican illustrations in order to make them match the text; in Topkapi Hauser’s additions frequently appear in the original illustrations. The identifying letters in the text and on the drawings are, of course, an absolutely essential aid to comprehension. As mentioned above, in Berlin/Gotha and ‘Vatican these are used in the most careless manner: letters occur in one passage and are changed in another; letters in the illustrations do not match those in the text and, in any case, Berlin/Gotha usually omits them altogether from the illustrations; consonantal points are rarely used, so that it is impossible, for example, to distinguish a “j” from an “h”; the lettering also often differs between the two manuscripts. Using only these two manuscripts, as Wiedemann and Hauser were obliged to do, and as I did in the early stages of my work, makes translation a frustrating task, since it is impossible to reconcile faithful translation with comprehensibility. With Topkapi this problem largely disappears, since the faults listed above do not often occur. Even the consonantal points are usually given, to the extent that a small letter (h) is written under the large one, so that the reader cannot confuse it with (j) or (kh). It is the accuracy of the illustrations and the consistency of the identifying letters, above all, that establishes the superiority of this over the other two, and leads to the conviction that it follows the original very closely. In the translation the superiority of the illustrations is clear, but the weakness of the lettering in Vatican is masked, because the Topkapi lettering has been used whenever the text is available. This is the one instance where variants are not given, because to have done so would have given the reader endless distractions, without adding much of value. Finally, there is one fault in the lettering which is common to all the manuscripts, namely that letters are sometimes duplicated. Indeed, in some instances (e.g. Model 37) the same set of letters is used twice, at the left-hand side and at the right-hand side of the vessel. Elsewhere, this duplication does not occasion ambiguity, if the letters are widely separated on the illustration. This weakness has not been corrected by using substitute letters or by16 Introduction other means since this would be a distortion of the original, but it is hoped that the notes which accompany the Models will resolve any difficulties. Itis implied in the foregoing that a correlation has only been made between Topkapi and Vatican, and this is indeed the case, since nothing would be added to the translation by making comparisons with Berlin/Gotha. For every Model that is complete, with illustration, in Topkapi this manuscript has been used as the primary document, Vatican as the secondary. This applies to 71 Models. Where Topkapi is incomplete this order is reversed. The distinction is not absolutely rigid, however, because correct readings have been preferred to incorrect, even when the incorrect version is in the primary document. In several Models, there was no alternative but to use Berlin /Gotha: by itself for Model 91 and Models 94—100, and in part for Models 92 and 93.3. Earlier Information on The Book of Ingenious Devices This work enjoyed a great reputation in medieval Islam. The earliest reference we have is in the Fihrist “Book of Ingenious Devices (hiya!) by the Bana Musa b. Shakir the astronomer, and it contains a number of movements”. (F. 397). Ibn al-Qifti says that “their book on hiyal is marvellous and famous”. (Q. 208). Bar Hebraeus is the first to mention Ahmad as having been concerned largely with this subject: he says. “Ahmad was lower than him {ie. Muhammad] in all the sciences except in the construction of hiyal, in which things were revealed to him such as had been revealed to no-one [else]”. (H. 264). Ibn Khallikan, having mentioned at the beginning of his article that the Band Masa were famous for their book on hiyal, says later “their book on hiyal is wonderful and rare, and includes every strangeness. I have studied it and found it the best and most delightful of books. It is one volume.” (K. 161—162). Ibn Khaldiin (734/1333— 780/1378—9) writes “there exists a book on mechanics that mentions every astonishing remarkable and nice mechanical contrivance. It is often difficult to understand, because the geometrical proofs occurring in it are difficult. People have copies of it. They ascribe it to the Band Shakir.”® The only comment we have by a technical man is that of al-Jazari,” in the introduction to that section of his book (composed 602/1206) that deals with fountains. He says “I did not follow the system of the Band Masa, may God have mercy upon them, who in earlier times distinguished themselves in the matters covered by these subjects.” He goes on to make his criticism of the Band’ Masa’s fountains, which he considered to be unreliable; in particular he thought that the intervals between the changes of shape of the fountains were too brief. The only modern studies of major importance on the Book of Ingenious Devices are the papers published by E. Wiedemann and F. Hauser in the early years of the present century. Their joint papers deals with the large drink dispensers (Models 75—87),® and provides descriptions of the operation of the devices together with modified copies of the original illustrations with Roman lettering, Hauser’s much longer work covers the remaining devices, and was based upon a translation and information on sources supplied by Wiedemann.? These papers are of considerable merit and allow anyone with technical training and a working knowledge of German to obtain a good understanding of the operation of all the devices. Hauser’s work contains a great deal of information on the sources, on the life and works of the Band Masa, a survey of similar works by Greek and Arab writers, a full description of the available manuscripts, and transliterated Arabic equivalents of technical terms. Much of the credit for this presentation must be given to Wiedemann. Thereafter the treatment is much the same as in the joint paper — descriptions of the devices, modified copies of the illustrations, explanatory notes and drawings. In general the work of Wiedemann and Hauser achieves the purpose for which it was, presumably intended: that of informing an audience of historians of science, and engineers interested in the history of their profession. Even in this context the information they provide on source material is inadequate, since proper references, including the edition and date, are never given. For a wider public Hauser’s ”18 Introduction explanations of the principles — hydrostatic, aerostatic or mechanical — that are embodied in the devices are seldom adequate for a layman. Wiedemann and Hauser were handicapped by their ignorance of the existence of MS A. 3474, and were therefore unable to distinguish between copyists’ faults and faults in the original. The superior quality of A. 3474 can be taken as verification that the Bani Misa were more conscientious and accurate in their descriptions and illustrations than would appear from the other two major manuscripts. Finally it must be said that there is no substitute fora full and proper translation, together with faithful photographic reproductions of the illustrations from the manuscripts.4. Historical Context of The Book of Ingenious Devices If the Book of Ingenious Devices had been written in modern times the authorship would probably have been assigned to Ahmad, with due acknowledgements to Muhammad and al-Hasan for their assistance and encouragement. The Arabic commentators are unanimous in ascribing the work to Ahmad and, after the mention cof all three brothers in the opening of two of the MSS, only Ahmad is mentioned thereafter. It is reasonable to suppose that Ahmad was the engineer of the family, al- Hasan the geometer, while Muhammad took a general interest in all the sciences, was the main force behind the collection and translation of earlier works, and also involved himself in politics and public works. Ahmad’s book was not intended to define and demonstrate basic principles of pneumatics, hydrostatics and mechanics, and should not be judged by its failure to do so. We can be fairly sure, from the list of works written by the brothers or commissioned by them, that they were not unfamiliar with mathematical and scientific principles, and that Ahmad’s method of presentation was therefore deliberate and not due to ignorance. What he was concerned to do was to describe the machines that he had designed: whether they were constructed by himself or by a craftsman working under his guidance is not particularly relevant. Compared with the Greek works, they contain far less theory and a much greater degree of engineering inventiveness. There is no doubt that Ahmad was justifiably proud of his ability as an engineer, and that, as Bar Hebraeus implies, many of the devices embodied techniques and mechanisms that were his own inventions. The book represents a marked advance in mechanical engineering, and this should be borne in mind when we consider its derivations. The documentary sources that may have been available to Ahmad were written in Greek, the most important being the Pneumatics of Philo,'® the Mechanics’ and Pneumatics? of Hero, and the treatise on a water-clock attributed 1 to Archimedes. In addition, there was a centuries old tradition in Syria, unbroken by the Arab conquest, for the construction of water-clocks and associated automata.'* The knowledge of mechanics therefore came to Baghdad in Hellenistic guise, but it would be an over-simplification to postulate a Greek written tradition as the sole inspiration of the Bani Missa and their successors, although it was perhaps the main inspiration. The pre-eminence of the Greeks in the pure sciences cannot be questioned, and we are only becoming aware of their contribution to mechanical technology,'* but in identifying the Greek elements in early Arabic mechanics we are faced with a number of problems, most of which can be attributed to our lack of knowledge of the scientific and technical advances made between the time of Hero and the time of the Bani Misa, a span of about eight hundred years. Our information is particularly meagre for Byzantium and Sasanid Iran. We know, of course, that the sciences flourished in Alexandria under the Roman Empire; one has only to cite the names of Hero (first century), Ptolemy (second century), Diophantos and Pappos (both third century) as eviderice that Greek science was still full of vigour during this period. We have less knowledge about technology in Roman times — Vitruvius, writing during the reign of 1920 Introduction Augustus, is still the main documentary source.'® There were also a number of anonymous improvements in the construction of machines for practical purposes. For instance, the sagiya or chain-of-pots drawn by animal power through a set of gears became a really effective machine in the fourth or fifth century with the introduction of the ratchet-and-pawl!? and the siege engines operated by men hauling on ropes entered the Islamic area from the Far East towards the end of the first/seventh century.'® The main flow of ideas, on present evidence, seems to have been from west to east. Thus the centre of learning at Gondéshapir (Arabic: Jundaysabir) in south western Iran was probably founded by Greeks, although it did not rise to eminence until the arrival of Nestorian Christians from Edessa and Nisibis in the sixth century. The language of instruction was Syriac, but there is a tradition that the introduction of medical studies, the main subject taught at Gondéshapitr, was due to an Indian. It may be considered as the centre through which Byzantine learning passed to Baghdad.9 Of importance also were the Sabeans of Harran in upper Mesopotamia, of whom Thabit b. Qurra was one.?° They had preserved a large corpus of Greek scientific writings, also in Syriac, and were to be very influential in the development of Arabic science in Baghdad. It cannot be doubted, however, that there were significant advances in Iran and further east, although attestation is scanty. Writing in 600/1203, Ridwan b. al- Sa‘Ati quotes a tradition to the effect that some of the techniques used in water-clocks were transmitted to Greece from Iran and were incorporated in clocks built in Byzantine Syria.?! Certainly, many of the traditional crafts of Iran are of ancient origin,?? and it seems likely that metalworkers, for instance, would have moved from Iran into Baghdad when the city’s cultural life began to flourish. We cannot say with certainty which of the Greek works were known to the Bani: Misa, with the exception of Hero’s Mechanics, translated by Qusta b. Luga during their lifetime.?° It is probable that other works of Hero were also available to them, since his reputation among the Arabs was already high in the tenth century. ‘Umar Ibn Muhammad al-Kindi (ca. 361/970)* mentions Hero’s writings on pneumatics, and that he constructed clocks; ?* Ibn al-Nadim says that he wrote a book on automata (p. 397). The Arabic text of Philo’s Pneumatics, as it exists in A.S. 3713, Aya Sophia, Istanbul, probably dates from the fourteenth century and contains late Hellenistic and Islamic additions, but the chapters by Philo himself may have been known in Arabic much earlier than this. Ibn al-Nadim knew of the “Archimedes” water-clock, which he calls “a book on the construction of an instrument that casts balls, by Archimedes” (p. 397). Again the existing manuscripts contain Islamic additions, but it is possible that the earlier chapters were known to the Bani Masa. It is symptomatic of the difficulties that arise when attempting to untangle the Greek and Arabic traditions that the penultimate section of the “Archimedes” contains “snakes-and-birds” parerga, very similar to the motifs described in Chapter 40 of A.S. 3713 (195—198 in Prager), but the language in the “Archimedes” section indicates that it was composed in Arabic. Problems of this kind, together with the Band Misa’s omission of any acknowledge- ment of the works of predecessors, makes identification of their sources and isolation of their own contribution a matter of some difficulty. It may be best to clarify the problem, for a start, by listing those models of the Band Misa that have close counter- parts in Philo and Hero; chapter numbers are taken from Prager and Woodcroft. *Not to be confused with the philosopher Abu Yasuf Ya‘qab al-Kindi, a contemporary of the Band Misa (see above),