Omar Khayyam, Mathematicians, and "Conversazioni" with Artisans

Author(s): Alpay Özdural

Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 54-71

Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural

Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/991025
Accessed: 18-02-2016 15:52 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/991025?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society of Architectural Historians and University of California Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Omar Mathemati
Khayyam,
and with
Conversazioni Artisans
ALPAYOZDURAL,KingFaisal University
intricate that decorate the monu-
Thements of thegeometric patterns
Islamic world have always intrigued contem-
porary architectural historians. These patterns, cleverly inter-
locking with each other to create infinite compositions on wall
surfaces and highly sophisticated configurations of muqarnas
(stalactites), are believed to have been created by architects or
artisans who were not only masters in their own crafts but also
competent in geometry. The general expectation is that these
architect-artisans, like all practical people, were not in the habit
of producing any sort of written material; therefore, their
exquisite works are regarded as the only evidence of their skill
in geometry.
The remarks of a young Ottoman geometer, however, cast a
shadow of doubt on this assumption. While reading from a
book on geometry and explaining it to the mother-of-pearl
workers (specialized carpenters) at their workshop in the
gardens of Topkapi Palace, he said:
Regarding that which is called the science of geometry [handasa],in this
age [1570], if the science of geometry is discussed among architects
[mi'mtr] and learned men ['dlim], each one will answer, "Yes, we have
heard of it, but in essence we have not heard how the science of geometry
works and what it deals with." Now this noble book fully describes that
fine science. As long as a person does not understand this rare and
agreeable science, he is not capable of the finest working in mother-of-
pearl, nor can he be expert and skilled in the art of architecture.'
Considering the fact that the young geometer made this
remark while Ottoman architecture was enjoying its golden
period under the leadership of the great architect Sinan, the
implication is outrageous. It can, of course, be dismissed
conveniently as a gross exaggeration. Even the underlying
reason for such an exaggeration, one has to admit though, is
enough to contradict the general assumption of attributing a
genius for geometry to architect-artisans.
The famous mathematician-astronomer Abu 'l-Wafa' al-
Bfizajani (940-98), who wrote a book on geometry specifically
yahtajuilayhial-sdni' min a'mdlal-handasa
for artisans, Kitdbhfjim
(The bookon what the artisan requiresof geometricconstructions),
54 JSAH / 54:1, MARCH 1995
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
was sharing the same concern
hereafter GeometricConstructions,
for the inadequacy of artisans of his time in geometry.2 He
wrote:
I know that artisans [sunntd]construct figures in round forms unmethodi-
cally. ... In order to create fine works, the artisan has to quit working by
the eye-measure. Instead, he must determine the dimensions of sides of
the pentagon, hexagon, decagon, or other figures as we explain in this
book.3
To make his point clearer, he expanded on the same issue:
What an artisan illustrates is an approximation of the geometric
construction, which he perceives to be correct through his senses and
observations. He is not concerned with diagrammatic proofs. [On the
other hand], when a geometer [muhandis] establishes the proof of a
problem by deduction, he never questions whether the correctness of the
construction is observable. However, it is not justified to distrust every-
thing that an artisan sees as correct, since these are usually taken from
constructions which were previously proven by geometers. The artisan
and the surveyor [mnsah]take only the end product of a problem but pay
no attention to how the correctness is determined; therefore they may
commit fallacies and errors. The geometer believes in the correctness
through required proofs if he can derive the meaning of the construction
of the artisan and the surveyor.4
More than six centuries had passed between these comments of
the two mathematicians. During this period in the Islamic
world, the field of mathematics enjoyed great advances, and
numerous monuments were produced in the field of architec-
ture with increasingly exquisite applications of geometry. The
words of both mathematicians indicate a close collaboration
between geometers and architect-artisans, and, in so doing,
suggest a relation between the developments in these two
fields. One can not help but wonder why, therefore, the
Ottoman geometer was still claiming architect-artisans had no
notion of geometry. How could the achievements in mathemat-
ics, which were apparently reflected on architectural monu-
ments, have had no effect on the improvement of artisans'
knowledge?
Another common point between these two sources seems to
provide us with a plausible answer to this question. The

I L
a b
' 1
!
cI
Ottoman geometer mentioned that the science of geometry
was discussed among architects and learned men. It seems
logical to infer that, in sixteenth-century Istanbul, architects
and mathematicians were in the habit of coming together at
special gatherings in order to discuss the application of geom-
etry to architecture. Abu 'l-Wafa'was quite precise about this
sort of meeting (hereafter referred to as a conversazione).5He
stated:
I was present at some conversazioni
[majilis]held among a group of
artisansand geometers.6
He then gave the account of a particular conversazioneat which
they discussed the problem of "composing a square from three
squares," in other words, the construction of a square the side of
which is equal to V3. Evidently, in tenth-century Bagdad, it was
customary for artisans to meet with mathematicians to seek
advice on certain problems concerning the application of
geometry to architecture and related arts.
If conversazioniof this sort were common enough in two
major cities with different cultural and political settings, sepa-
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?t
I
FIG. I: a) Abu 'I-Waf~i'sfigure provingthe
Pythagoreantheorem;b) The ornamentalpat-
tern of Abu 'I-Wafi-'sproof, general;c) The
ornamentalpatternof Abu'I-Wafa's proof,the
ratioof 1:2.
rated from each other by six centuries, it would be reasonable to
think that this sort of gathering represented a widespread
phenomenon in the Islamic world. It can thus be expected that
when architectural and scientific activities were being concen-
trated in urban centers, there was a constant dialogue between
architect-artisans and mathematicians in the form of conversa-
zioni that served as the vehicle to exchange knowledge between
the two groups. Practitioners, who were deficient in theoretical
knowledge, had convenient access to advanced mathematics
by way of these meetings; scholars, who were not experienced
in practical applications, there found the opportunity to be
involved in architecture, the visual results of which were pleas-
antly rewarding. Though solving the immediate problems
by way of a dialogue was evidently a convenient means for
artisans to learn, this probably explains why there was no real
improvement in their knowledge of geometry during those six
centuries, as they would tend to implement only capsulized
solutions.
Unlike Greek mathematicians who developed mathematical
sciences for the sake of rigorous thinking and the disciplinary
OZDURAL:
OMARKHAYYAM
AND THEARTISANS 55
value of the subject, Muslim mathematicians were always more
concerned with the practical and immediate consequences
rather than the theoretical qualities of their work.7 It can be
easily be imagined that, throughout the centuries during which
mathematical sciences have flourished, some of the great
mathematicians, such as Abu 'l-Wafa',enjoyed being involved in
architecture and related arts through conversazioni.Thus, some
of the aesthetic, structural, or spatial innovations that we
observe in the products of the major architectural centers of the
Islamic world may be explained as the contributions of certain
mathematicians.8
The proposition that the conversazioneacted as the mode of
exchange for architectural and geometrical knowledge in ma-
jor urban centers of the Islamic world can be supported by
further references to this phenomenon in several other sources.
For instance, al-Din Jamshid al-KIshi (d. 1429), an
Ghiy.th
outstanding mathematician-astronomer, related in the letter to
his father a debate between him and the master mason, and
other mathematicians who sided with the mason, about the
leveling instrument used at the site of the Samarqand Observa-
tory.9 What Al-KIshi described there can be considered as a
conversazioneat the construction site. This sort of conversazione
seems to have been a common phenomenon, particularly in
fifteenth-century Khurasan. In the literary sources that give the
accounts of the laying out of buildings and the start of building
operations, geometers (muhandisdn)were always mentioned as
being present together with architects, masons, and/or other
sorts of artisans.10In the gatherings that were held to start the
construction works, apparently, the expertise of the geometers
was considered essential.
Another document of significance is an untitled treatise
about a geometric problem written by the celebrated poet-
philosopher-mathematician-astronomer Omar Khayyam
(1048-131)." The solution of this very same problem later
occured in the form of an ornamental pattern in an anonymous
Persian treatise written exclusively for artisans, Fi taddkhul
al-ashkdlal-mutashdbiha'dw mutawdfiqa(On interlockingsimilaror
correspondingfigures),hereafter InterlockingFigures." At the end
of the untitled treatise, Omar Khayyam commented on what
gave him the incentive to write it:
Ifitwere not for the highness of this meeting... and for the obligation to
the proposer of the question ... I would have been far away from this
wilderness.'3
The present article expands on Omar Khayyam's untitled
treatise so as to establish that the meeting he attended was
indeed a conversazionewith artisans, the proposer of the ques-
tion was most probably an architect-artisan, and, therefore,
"wilderness" refers to the field of architecture. To prove its
point, the present study follows the story of the special ornamen-
tal pattern that originated from a proof in Abu 'l-Wafa'"s
56 JSAH / 54:1, MARCH 1995
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Geometric Constructions, brought into realization by Omar
Khayyam in this treatise, and several practical constructions of
which are illustrated in InterlockingFigures. By studying this
unique example we also gain insight into how mathematicians
and artisans collaborated and into the actual results of this
collaboration. Our search starts with GeometricConstructions,in
which Abu 'l-Wafa'gave the account of the conversazionethat he
attended in Bagdad.
Abu 'l-Wafd"s book
GeometricConstructionsis a unique combination of practical
geometry and theoretical geometry. As a work on applied
geometry, it is comprehensive and highly didactic; as a work on
pure geometry, it is the best one ever written by a Muslim
mathematician.14 It contains almost everything that an artisan
would require of geometry and is organized in a very systematic
manner. Abu 'l-Wafa"sobjective in writing this book was to lead
artisans along the methodical path of theoretical geometry so
that they would achieve excellence in their works. At the
beginning of the chapter in which he discussed the conversazi-
one, he mentioned that dissecting the geometric figures was a
technique widely used by artisans and adds:
In this chapter we set the rules, all that are to be used by artisans,
because, according to the principles, they commit gross mistakes in
dissecting and composing [squares].15
In a book that was necessarily intended for artisans, Abu 'l-Wafa'
singled out this chapter and devoted it exclusively to artisans;
indeed, he treated it in a distinctive manner. When a geometer
proposed an algebraic solution to the problem of "composing
a square from three squares," none of the artisans were
satisfied. They wanted to see the three squares being dissected
into parts and then reassembled into a single square. Realizing
that the only way for artisans to accept a proof was to see it in
tangible shapes, Abu 'l-Wafa'thus offered an ingenious solution
to that effect. Evidently, the mission he assigned himself was
not to teach artisans the most advanced mathematical tech-
niques of his time, but to initiate a sound understanding of
geometry.
During the same conversazione,Abu 'l-Wafa' provided the
artisans with a novel proof of the Pythagorean theorem. Here,
he neither multiplied the lines, as Al-Khwirizmi did in his
proof, nor described the squares on lines as Euclid had. Those
notions would have been too abstract for artisans to come to
terms with. Instead, he dissected the given square into four
congruent right triangles rotating around a central square in
such a way that these parts could be reassembled into two
squaresthatcorrespondedto the sidesof the triangles;so thatif
one of the sides was known, the other could be found [Figure
la]. What Abu 'l-Wafa' displayed here reflects only his own
resourcefulness in finding a way to demonstrate an abstract
theorem to practical-minded artisans, not the general level of
Muslim mathematics of his time.16
This proof, which was offered in a conversazione,was the
starting point of the creation process of the pattern under
consideration; the realization of it was later achieved by the
efforts of Omar Khayyam, after another conversazione--the
point that this study aims to demonstrate. In order to bridge
the gap, the process in between is reconstructed hypothetically,
supported by some physical evidence and mathematical inter-
pretations, in the remaining part of this section.
The inherently ornamental quality of Abu 'l-Wafa'"sfigure,
which was originally conceived for didactic purposes, appar-
ently caught the attention of artisans. The revolving symmetry
of the figure, they realized, could easily be translated into a
dynamic decorative pattern. By joining four more of the
congruent triangles along their hypotenuses to the original
square, a larger square composed of four rhomboids could be
obtained [Figure ib]. After this transformation, Abu 'l-Wafa"s
figure became one of the popular ornamental motifs that we
now observe on a number of architectural monuments, such as
the west iwan of the Masjid-iJami' of Isfahan [Figure2].
The rhomboid is one of the common components of the
ornamental geometric patterns throughout the Muslim world,
and it plays an important role in the subsequent discussion. It
thus needs to be explained first. This kite-shaped figure was,
and still is, generally known to artisans under the names in
different languages that correspond to almond (hence, hereaf-
ter it is referred to as such).'7 When two non-isosceles congru-
ent triangles are joined together along their longest sides (the
LIfi ?-
?3V-
S;<
Z figure. It could simply be used as a single motif by choosing any
Z1I I
Z33 a J
~j2~ J
0o
~O
()Q
FIG. 2: Two variations of the motif of Abu 'I-Wafd's proof: the west iwan of
Masjid-iJimi' of Isfahan(from Rassad, "Masjed-eJame " [see n. 43], 3).
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
hypotenuse, if it is a right triangle), the combined form is either
a parallelogram [Figures3a, 3b] or an almond [Figures3c, 3d].
General properties of the parallelogram were well-known and
widely discussed, particularly in Greek geometry; but the
almond had not previously been a very popular topic in
mathematical literature.'s On the other hand, artisans were
familiar enough with the basic properties of the almond to
make extensive use of them in their designs. These properties
can be summarized as follows: the line on which the congruent
triangles are joined becomes the primary diagonal and the
symmetry axis of the almond; the two diagonals intersect each
other perpendicularly, and the bisecting lines of the opposite
angles meet each other on the axis; if the length of the shorter
sides of the almond are marked on the longer sides, the
intersection point of the bisecting lines is equidistant from the
marked points and the comer of the shorter sides; the almond
can thus be subdivided into three smaller almonds, two of them
being congruent, by drawing lines from the intersection point
to the three equidistant points [Figures3e, 3f]. Such subdivision
of the almond was one of the common tools of artisans to
generate a variety of interlocking patterns of almonds, poly-
gons, and polygonal stars.
Abu 'l-Wafa"s figure represents a general theorem that can
be applied to any ratio between the two unequal sides of the
almond. This ratio, at the same time, corresponds to the
tangent of the angle of rotation. By definition, the following
condition always exists: if the longer side of the almond is called
x and the shorter one y, then the side of the central square is
equal to x - y, and the side of the outer square is equal to x + y
[Figure ib]. The neatness of this property apparently encour-
aged artisans to explore the possible variations ofAbu 'l-Wafa"'s
ratio that they liked. The property also allowed artisans to
generate compositions of various interlocking patterns, if the
appropriate ratios were selected. Note that the main consider-
ation for Muslim artisans in selecting a proportion was the
flexibility it offered and the constraints of the geometric
properties of the pattern, not the reputed superiority of certain
systems.19
So far as can be observed in the published illustrations, most
of the existing examples of the pattern have a ratio of 1:2
between the sides of the almond; for example, see Figure 2.
These are all single motifs, but the reason why artisans favored
this ratio was most likely the following consideration: when the
sides of the almonds are related to each other by a ratio of 1:2,
the side of the central square corresponds to the full length of
shorter side, y, and the side of the outer square becomes 3y
[FigureIc]; in this arrangement the subdivision of the almonds
allowed artisans to generate a composition of interrelated
squares and almonds by repeating the main square unit in
either direction of the rotation angle [Figure4].
OZDURAL: OMAR KHAYYAMAND THE ARTISANS 57
 a
eI
FIG.3: a, b) Generalpropertiesof the parallelo-
gram;c, d) Generalpropertiesof the almond;
e, f) Subdivisionof the almond into smaller
almonds.
What the ratio of 1:2 rendered was fine; but for artisans, no
achievement was final. Once a pattern was found, its variations
were exploited by generations of artisans, but, as far as we
know, the same composition was never repeated. Artisans were
always in need of fresh patterns to add to their repertoire. Abu
'l-Wafa"s proofwas a rich source; they could explore it in depth
to discover new versions. The majority of the examples that we
can observe on existing buildings are from Persia and Khurasan
and it appears that the pattern of Abu 'l-Wafa"'sproof was
particularly popular among the artisans of that area. Indeed,
most of the extant copies of Abu 'l-Wafa"'sGeometricConstruc-
tions are Persian translations.20
Hypothetically, we can imagine a clever artisan in Isfahan
envisaging a potential special ratio between the sides of the
almond, which makes it possible to generate a more elaborate
composition [Figure 5]. This in fact is another version of Abu
'l-Wafa"'sfigure. The visualization is not very difficult; it re-
58 JSAH / 54:1, MARCH 1995
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
quires little to imagine that the subdivision of the primary
almonds is performed by drawing a perpendicular through the
axis so that the longer sides of the secondary almonds are equal
to the shorter sides of the primary ones, y, and the shorter sides
of the former to the side of the central square, x - y. The
realization of the pattern, one supposes though, is beyond the
reach of the artisan. To cope with that sort of a problem, he has
to be equipped with an advanced knowledge of mathematics.
Given his limited knowledge in practical geometry, the only
option open to him is to ask advice from mathematicians. Let
us suppose that he does so in a conversazione,and Omar
Khayyam responds in the following way [Figure6]:
[What the artisan wants is to construct a right triangle, ERT, with the
necessary condition that, if it is dissected into a right triangle and an
almond, the following relations would exist: RI = BI; ER = EB = TI. Let
us suppose that the required triangle ERT is constructed. Erect the
 perpendicular HR on the diagonal ET, then the triangle REH is the artisan can be formulated as a general problem of ratios:] to divide
congruent to the triangle TIB (since corresponding angles are equal and the one-fourth AB of the circle ABCD by a point R into two parts such
TI = ER). Hence RH = TB and EH = IB. But the triangle REK is similar that if RH is drawn perpendicular to the diameter BD, the ratio of AE to
to the triangle RIL (since corresponding angles are equal). Then RH is the same as EH to HB.21
ER: EK = RI : RL. But EK = HR and RL = HB and RI = EH. Then
ER : HR = EH : HB. Let the circle ADCBR be drawn having the point E With the final formulation of the problem, which Omar
as its center and AE as its radius. Consequently, the specific question of
Khayyam posed in the untitled treatise, the hypothetical recon-
struction ends. After attending the meeting, apparently, he
worked out the solution and wrote a treatise about it. In the
following section, so as to supply credence to the foregoing
reconstruction, the treatise is analyzed with the aim of demon-
strating that he addressed it to artisans as well as to his learned
colleagues.

Omar Khayyam's treatise

The untitled treatise by Omar Khayyam, which was discov-
ered around 1960, is available in various languages and so
far has only attracted the attention of historians of math-
ematics.22 The treatise is about a problem for which the
author offered a variety of solutions: a cubic equation, two
geometric constructions by means of conic sections, and a
numerical interpolation in trigonometric tables. This prob-
lem appeared to be of particular interest to Omar Khayyam
as he wrote a whole essay on it. It is of critical importance to
the history of mathematics as it motivated Omar Khayyam
to make major contributions to algebra and number
theory.23 It is also of great significance to the history of
Islamic art and architecture as it becomes the evidence of
Omar Khayyam's involvement in the ornamental arts, and

1 T

A
E
rH

c/
I I

it

....
I
E?

•I /

-___
FIG.4 (Top): The compositiongeneratedby the ornamentalpatternof Abu \"
'I-Waf 's proofsubdividedinaccordancewiththe ratioof 1:2.
FIG.5 (Bottom):The compositiongeneratedby the ornamentalpatternof Abu FIG. 6: Hypothetical reconstruction of the artisan's problem
concerning the
'I-Waf 's proofsubdividedinaccordancewiththe specialratio.
special ratio.

OZDURAL: OMAR KHAYYAM AND THE ARTISANS 59

This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
thus indicates his familiarity with the problems related to
architecture.
According to the historian Daoud S. Kasir, "Omar Khayyam
followed the tradition of Muslim writers by pursuing mathemati-
cal investigations only so far as they were needed to express and
interpret problems arising from investigations in such sciences
as astronomy and surveying and from commercial transactions
and inheritance law."24This recently-discovered treatise allows
us to add architecture and related arts to the fields of investiga-
tion that Omar Khayyam was involved in.
The story of the pattern under consideration proceeds with
the passage towards the end of the treatise in which Omar
Khayyam remarked on that particular meeting:
This is what passed through my mind considering my dissipated
thought, disturbed mind, and being occupied with facts which prevent
me from paying attention to these simple ideas. If it were not for the
highness of this meeting whose highness be lost forever and for the
obligation to the proposer of the question whom God will bless, I would
have been far away from this wilderness. My efforts are solely concen-
trated upon facts which are to me more important than those simple
ideas. My efforts are spent on those.25
Omar Khayyam'swords give us some clues about what sort of a
meeting it was. His praises of the meeting may suggest that
somebody from the court was present.26 The impression we get
is that the proposer of the question was a respected person; but,
to our disappointment, Omar Khayyam did not mention his
rank or his profession. He did say, however, that his feeling of
obligation towards that person prompted him to write this
work. It would be difficult to imagine that such a technical
question leading to the problem under consideration could
have been raised by royalty, unless, as seen in very rare cases, he
himself was a scientist or belonged to a craft.27Omar Khayyam
noted with some regret that, prior to the meeting, he was
occupied only with "facts" and paid no attention to "simple
ideas." For a philosopher-scientist like him, "facts"were the
truths reached through philosophical or theoretical studies,
and "simple ideas" were the mere practicalities of ordinary
works. We can infer therefore that at this meeting Omar
Khayyam was introduced to a practical field that he felt
enthusiastic about. As the word "wilderness" suggests, he
considered that what has been opened to him is a new field to
explore. He seemed to enjoy acquainting himself with those
"simple ideas," but again to our disappointment, he did not
specifically mention that these were the practicalities of architec-
ture. As we examine the remarks he inserted along the course
of his analysis, however, it becomes increasingly clear that
Omar Khayyam's main concern in writing the treatise was to
make it useful for artisans.
Omar Khayyam started the treatise by posing the problem
in the form of the aforementioned definition. After supposing
60 JSAH / 54:1, MARCH 1995
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the desired division is performed, that is, AE : RH = EH : HB,
he stated that the construction is possible if a hyperbola is
drawn so that it passes through the points E and L and its
asymptotes are the lines TM and TK [Figure 7a]. But the
positions of the point L and the asymptote TK are not known.
He realized that completion of the construction would be
difficult because it "needs a few introductions from Conic
Sections."Instead of carrying out the process to the end, he cut it
short: "Those who know conics can, if they wish, finish it
later."28Apparently, Omar Khayyam was not much interested
in accommodating mathematicians who already knew about
conic sections.
After the first unsuccessful attempt, Omar Khayyam
tried an alternative approach to the problem. As he
introduced it, he made a point of being more concerned
with practical people:
This method also needs some elements of conic sections but in many
ways is much easier than the first method, and its ideas are more useful.29
Here he tried to find a method that involves as few conic
sections as possible, so that it would be less difficult for people
other than mathematicians to grasp. "Useful" seems to be the
operative word. As long as both methods produce the correct
result, under which condition is "its ideas.. .more useful"? If
"ideas" are interpreted as "practical properties," then being
"useful"applies to a practical field.
Omar Khayyam started the analysisof this alternative method
by supposing again that the desired division has been made,
that is, AE : RH = EH : HB [Figure 7b]. He then proved ET =
ER + RH, or in his own words:
This analysis leads to a right triangle with the condition that the
hypotenuse is equal to the sum of one of the sides of the right angle and
the perpendicular to the hypotenuse.30
His intentions become more evident in the following passage:
This idea, that is, a triangle with mentioned properties, is very useful in
problems similar to this one. This triangle has other properties. We shall
mention some of them so that whoever studies this paper can benefit
from it in similar problems ... Another property of such a triangle is that
of the two sides of the right angle the longer one is equal to the sum
of the shorter one and the segment that the perpendicular separates
from the hypotenuse is toward the shorter side [that is, RT = ER +
EH].31
The solution of a geometrical problem can be "useful" only to
"similar cases of applications," not to "similar [geometrical]
problems." What Omar Khayyam meant, therefore, was "cases"
similar to the one he was dwelling upon. We can hence infer
that Omar Khayyam was dealing with this triangle with the aim
of making it "useful"to a field in which potential "similarcases"
were waiting to be applied. Architecture, with its related arts,
 M BT
L H R
C E _ KA
a D
H R
C A
E
b D
suggests itself as the field which would make the most use of
such a variety of geometric properties.
Omar Khayyam started the algebraic analysis of the prob-
lem with a note of apology, apparently directed to his nonmath-
ematician readers:
As the intelligent mathematicians of the past have used notations of
algebraists in order to simplify the intuitive solutions, we shall also follow
them. But the notations of algebraists are not necessary. We can dojust
as well without them. However, with these notations, multiplications and
divisions will become easier.32
In his major work on algebra, which he wrote exclusively for his
learned colleagues, he did not explain himself for using
algebraic notations.
Omar Khayyam drew the triangle ABC and supposed that
AC = AB + BD as the basis for the algebraic analysis of the
problem [Figure 8].33 He assigned the "unknown," x, for BD
and a rational length, 10, for AD and thus reduced the problem
to the solution of a cubic equation:
x3 + 200x = 20x2 + 2,000.34
After achieving the equation of the triangle (hereafter referred
to as Omar Khayyam's triangle), Omar Khayyam commented
on the general issues of algebra. He defined and explained
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FIG.7: a) OmarKhayyam's
attemptedsolution
of the problem by means of conic sections
(adaptedfrom Amir-Mo6z,"A Paper"[see n.
II], 324, fig. 2); b) OmarKhayyam's alternative
approach to the a
problemby using righttriangle
(adaptedfrom Amir-Moez,"A Paper," 325,
fig.3).
algebraic terms, brought forward an outlined classification of
various types of algebraic equations, gave a brief account on the
works of previous mathematicians concerning cubic equations,
and added:
But whenever cubes (x3) come in, ...we need solid geometry, and
especially conics and conic sections because a cube is a solid... .For
people who do not know conics, certain instruments are used.35
The last remark concerning the use of certain instruments for
executing conic sections is of crucial significance. In the context
of his previous remarks it leaves no room for doubt that the
practical people whom Omar Khayyam was addressing were
actually artisans. This remark serves as the link between what
Abu 'l-Wafa' proposed for constructions that involve conic
sections and the instrument used for the construction of Omar
Khayyam's triangle in InterlockingFigures.
In GeometricConstructions,Abu 'l-Wafa' offered mechanical
solutions for the special problems, "the duplication of the cube"
and "the trisection of the angle."36 Those were the problems
that occupied quite a number of Greek mathematicians and, as
the solutions required cubic equations, motivated the discovery
of conic sections. The solutions they proposed either made use
of conic sections or were reduced to mechanical procedures
OMARKHAYYAM
OZDURAL: AND THE ARTISANS 61
FIG.8: The righttrianglethatservesas the basis
for the algebraicequationof Omar Khayyam
(adaptedfrom Amir-Mo6z,"A Paper"[see n.
C T
I1], 327, fig.4).
that they called neusis(verging). In a verging procedure, a given
segment--or two equal segments-is inserted between two
given straight or circular lines in such a way that the segment
verges to a point. In a few cases certain devices were used, but
mostly it was performed by trial and error using rulers. Verging
procedures were also known to Muslim mathematicians under
the name "moving geometry." Abu 'l-WafP"s treatment of
special problems was very suggestive. While borrowing from
Greek verging solutions, he was careful in selecting the ones
that were most convenient for artisans.37 The message he
apparently wanted to convey was that in dealing with cubic
equations, verging procedures are the most suitable means for
artisans because they are both accurate and easy to operate. It
can thus be inferred from Omar Khayyam's remark that he
shared Abu 'l-Wafa"sopinion and was advising artisans to use
verging instruments. From InterlockingFigures,which was writ-
ten for artisans, we also learn that the cubic equation of Omar
Khayyam's triangle was actually solved by the aid of a moving
instrument called the "ruler-triangle." Considering Omar
Khayyam's previous remarks as well, it now seems safe to
conclude that the "people" who he is concerned with and "who
do not know conics" were in fact artisans. As he wrote the
treatise in response to a question raised in the aforementioned
62 JSAH / 54:1, MARCH 1995
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
. A
meeting, it would be logical to assume that the question was
sincehe wasa respectedperson,
askedby one of the artisans;
mostprobably hewasanarchitect. Themeeting,therefore, can
be definedasa conversazione.
OmarKhayyam
Thereafter, workedout the solutionof the
cubicequationbymeansof conicsections[Figure 9a]:intersec-
tion of the hyperbola NDK, which has AC and EC as the
asymptotes,and the semicircleDKB at the point K. Conic
sections were used by mathematiciansto reach theoretical
proofs,but never to obtainactualmeasurements.He promptly
advised artisans to that effect:
isknown
BysayingitisknowninvalueI donotmeanthatitsmagnitude
are
becausethesetwoideas different. known in valueI mean
Bybeing
what Euclid meant in the book of Constructions. That is, we can construct
a magnitude equal to it.38
To facilitate a practical construction of the problem, Omar
Khayyam offered an interpolated solution of the cubic
equation. He apparently assumed some artisans, like sur-
veyors, were familiar with trigonometric tables and angular
measurements:
Whoever wants to know this in arithmetic, if he looks carefully, he will not
find a way to it because whatever is obtained by conic sections cannot be
 obtained by arithmetic. If the seeker is satisfied with an estimate, it is up
to him to look into the table of chords of Almagest, or the table of sines
and versed sines [that is, I - cosine] of MotamedObservatory. He should
find an arc in the table that is the ratio of sixty, which is supposed to be
half of the diameter of the circle, to the sine of that arc is the same as its
cosine to its versed sine. We shall find this arc about fifty-seven degrees,
ofwhich the circle is three hundred and sixty, its sine about fifty pieces,its
versed sine about twenty-seven pieces and one-third piece, and its cosine
about thirty[-two] pieces and two-thirds piece. It is possible to compute
more carefully to the extent that the error would not be felt.39
Normally, Omar Khayyam should have ended the treatise
with the aforementioned closing remark; but afterwards he
offered an alternative solution by means of conic sections. He
apparently realized that the cubic equation he previously
proposed was rather a clumsy one, and offered a neater version
[Figure 9b]. Here the solution was more direct and reached by
intersecting the hyperbola AR with the semicircle EARC at the
point R. In this construction all the coefficients of the supposed
third-degree equation, which he did not cite, are taken as the
unit, 1. It corresponds to:
x3 + x1 + x = 1.40
In light of the present study, it can be maintained that a
problem asked probably by an architect-artisan in a conversazi-
T E C equationby meansof conic sections (adapted
K M
B L _D A
a N
P A
b E
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
one prompted Omar Khayyam to write a treatise, which moti-
vated him to make a major contribution to the science of
algebra.41 He outlined his subsequent work, The Algebra, so
accurately that it appears to have been almost ready in his
mind; therefore, it should not have taken too long to write. The
Algebra is dated to ca. 1074, and he was invited to Isfahan by
Saljukid Sultan Malikshah in 1073 and was put in charge of the
new observatory.42 Thanks to the construction work taking
place in Masjid-i Jami'-possibly in the south dome--during
that period, Isfahan was the hub of architectural activity and
certainly an ideal place for conversazioni.It is only natural to
expect that Omar Khayyam, the brilliant mathematician who
had recently come to Isfahan, was invited to attend one of these
meetings. It seems likely therefore that he wrote the untitled
treatise shortly after 1073, that is, ca. 1074.43 It is thus not
farfetched to suppose that the question was asked by the
architect who was at the time in charge of the construction-
possibly, the architect of the south dome, Abu 'l-Fath the son of
Muhammad the treasurer.
After publishing the untitled treatise, it can be presumed,
Omar Khayyam explained his findings to artisans in another
conversazioneand there he offered the practical solution of the
cubic equation by means of verging procedures. This appar-
ently is the solution reported by the anonymous author of
FIG.9: a) OmarKhayyam's
solutionof the cubic
fromAmir-Mo6z,"A Paper,"332, [see n. I I],
fig.7);b) Thealternativesolutionof the problem
by means of conicsections(adaptedfromAmir-
Moez,"APaper,"336, fig. 10).
B H
C
OZDURAL: OMAR KHAYYAM AND THE ARTISANS 63
InterlockingFigures; but he recorded four more constructions
concerning the same problem. Those are all approximate
solutions with varying degrees of accuracy yielding all but the
pattern under consideration. As the correct solution was avail-
able, why did artisans still produce the incorrect ones? The
following analysis seeks to answer this question.
The anonymous Persian treatise
InterlockingFigures, as a work on geometry, has been totally
ignored by historians of mathematics. For instance, Woepcke,
who published a comprehensive analysis of the Persian transla-
tion of GeometricConstructionsbased on the Paris manuscript,
made no mention of InterlockingFigures which followed Abu
'l-WafPa"swork in the same manuscript.44 Some historians of
architecture, on the other hand, attribute a high value to its
discussions of ornamental geometry.45 The treatise can be
described as a collection of geometric constructions concerning
various procedures and ornamental patterns and a few instru-
ments used by artisans. A critical assessment of its mathematical
content, particularlywhen compared to GeometricConstructions,
indicates that itwas the work of an artisan who had but a shallow
acquaintance with geometry, rather than of a geometer who
had been occupied with the ornamental arts.46 Its anonymous
author, to put matters succinctly, was deficient in the essential
knowledge and skills of geometry; his presentation lacked the
necessary organization, coherence, and clarity that are the
qualities normally expected from a geometer. In spite of all
these, his work, being the only known surviving authentic
written material on the subject of artisans' practice in geometry,
is a very valuable source of information for the history of Islamic
art and architecture.47
The recordings in InterlockingFiguresillustrate with certainty
that the triangle discovered by Omar Khayyam was actually
used by artisans as an ornamental pattern. The most direct
reference to this triangle, albeit mistaken in authorship, is
found in the following passage:
Correlations involved in this drawing concern conic [sections]. The
that
objective of it consists in constructing a right triangle in such a way
the sum of the perpendicular and the shorter side is equal to the
hypotenuse. Ibn Haytham wrote a treatise on the construction of such a
triangle, and there he described the conic sections, which turned out to
be a hyperbola and a parabola.48
As we have seen earlier, it was "a hyperbola and a circle," not "a
hyperbola and a parabola," the intersection of which solved the
cubic equation; it was Omar Khayyam, not Ibn al-Haytham
(965-1040), who wrote a treatise on the problem that the
anonymous author defined.49 These misquotations would al-
most certainly not have occurred had the anonymous author
read Omar Khayyam's treatise. His source of information was
apparently an oral one. He should not have mistaken
64 JSAH / 54:1, MARCH 1995
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"Khayyam"for "Haytham" had he seen it in writing; but these
names do sound alike. It can thus be inferred that he probably
heard about this problem during a conversazionebut recalled it
mistakenly.5o While Omar Khayyam's treatise was discussed
during this gathering, it would be reasonable to assume that he
was a mathematician who explained the solution of the prob-
lem and its construction.
The anonymous author gave more information, in his
disorderly and unknowing way, about the construction of the
pattern based on Omar Khayyam's triangle:
Here, the objective can be achieved by the aid of a "ruler-triangle."
As mentioned above, the objective of our drawing is four conical
figures [that is, almonds, which he calls turunj (orange) at other
places] with two right angles that surround an equilateral right-
angled quadrilateral [that is, a square]. Such conical quadrilaterals
[that is, almonds] AIHK, CHMN, DMLX, and BLKO describe the
four-cornered [that is, square] KHML [Figure 10]. Since the corner
H of the quadrilateral [that is, square] consists of two perpendicular
lines, then KH and [H]D are necessarily straight, but the triangle
AKC is right-angled and equal to the triangle CHD. This triangle is
right-angled too, because it is inscribed in the semicircle. Therefore,
the point H should be found on the arc [C]E. If the corner F on our
ruler is perpendicular, then the side AB is both perpendicular and
corresponds to the side AB [that is, AC, a mistake of carelessness] of
the square. And Allah knows best.51
What he set as the objective was to construct a pattern
composed of four of Omar Khayyam's triangles that sur-
round a central square, that is, the pattern under consider-
ation. What he described, however, amounted only to an
incomplete proof of its properties. Apparently, his recollec-
tion failed him in achieving the objective. When his quasi-
proof was compared with the proofs given by Omar
Khayyam, it becomes painfully transparent that our author
was only pretending to be a mathematician.52 Omar
Khayyam followed a logical sequence of theorems accord-
ing to a predetermined plan in order to reach the required
conclusion; whereas the anonymous author did not seem to
have a plan to follow or, for that matter, a conclusion to
reach. By using complicated terms instead of the ordinary
ones, he only exhibited his vanity.
It is not difficult to understand why the anonymous author
was so confused. Conic sections was too advanced a topic for
artisans of the time to fully comprehend. Despite the ambigu-
ity, however, his description provides us with sufficient informa-
tion to reconstruct what he failed to achieve. "If the comrnerF on
our ruler is perpendicular," he said, then, the ruler must be the
scale on the perpendicular leg of the triangle that he is
referring to [Figure10]. When the triangle is slid along the side
AB, it cuts the semicircle at a point, H, and FH + HG = AC =
AB = CD. Since this condition is true for every position of H,
 O
B < > F
LK
/ \
D N G C
the anonymous author was unable to realize the construction of
the pattern. He apparently failed to remember the following
step: in order to fix the position of the point H on the
semicircle, FH is required to be equal to HC; only then the
condition of the problem would be satisfied, that is, HC +
HG = CD. The problem can thus be reduced to a verging
procedure so as to determine the position of the point H at
which HC = HF.
Omar Khayyam said, "For people who do not know conics,
certain instruments are used." Indeed, the "ruler-triangle"
turns out to be precisely the verging instrument to perform the
construction of the pattern of Omar Khayyam's triangle. The
following is the reconstruction of the verging procedure that
was presumably proposed by Omar Khayyam in Isfahan and
transferred from one conversazioneto another until it reached
the one that the anonymous author attended, probably in
thirteenth-century Diyarbakir:
[Drawa semicircleon the given line AB and place a straightedgealong
the line.Slidea right-angledtriangle,whichhasa scaleon itsperpendicu-
larleg, alongthe straightedgeso thatit alwaysintersectsthe semicircleat
a point H. With an additional ruler measure and simultaneously
comparethe distancesHF and HC. Repeatthisprocessuntilyou reacha
position at which HF = HC. Mark this position of the point H and
completethe pattern.]53
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A
FIG. 10: The constructionof the pattern of
Omar Khayyam'striangle by means of the
vergingprocedureinInterlocking (adapted
Figures
from Bulatov,Geometricheskaiagarmonizatsiia
[see n. 12],342, fig.36).
The anonymous author was apparently unfamiliar with
verging procedures which, as Abu 'l-Wafa' indicated earlier,
were the most convenient means for artisans in coping with
problems that involved conic sections. However, it can be said
that his ignorance of this matter was not shared by all artisans.
The fact that Omar Khayyam's solution occurred in Interlocking
Figures,probably around 150 years later, points to the existence
of at least a small number of scrupulous artisans who were
willing to follow the advice of mathematicians.
The anonymous author described four more methods to
construct the pattern in question. Three of these were pre-
sented on the same drawing, but he did not mention elsewhere
that these drawings, and Omar Khayyam's solution as well,
were meant to produce the very same pattern. His silence
strongly suggests that he was not the author of any of these
methods but was simply recording the solutions worked out by
other artisans.54
He started the first construction by assigning an arbitrary
length, AD, to the diagonal of a square [Figure 11].55 He
marked the point C on a horizontal line at a distance of 2AD
and extended the line CD until it met the perpendicular at the
point E. He then marked the point H on the perpendicular at a
distance of 2AC from the point E and drew the line CH. From
the given point K, he drew a line parallel to CH to determine
the position of the point L, which concluded the construction.
OZDURAL:
OMARKHAYYAM
AND THE ARTISANS 65
What he failed to mention is that all the steps of this construc-
tion are in fact relevant for the execution of the pattern. The
angle of rotation corresponds to CG, to which the diagonal LR
of the primary almond is parallel; half of the angle of rotation
corresponds to CE, to which the diagonal LP of the secondary
almond is parallel. This construction turns out to be quite a
successful approximation of Omar Khayyam's triangle. The
angle of rotation it yields deviates only 0.2 per cent from the
theoretical value.
One of the methods in the second drawing was virtually
identical to the construction described above. Here, he started
the construction by assigning an arbitrary length, BC, to the
side of a square [Figure 12a]; the rest of the process depends
precisely on the same geometrical procedure as the previous
one [Figure 11].56 Such a slight variation was enough for our
author to be confused and regard these two as different
methods of construction.
In the third method, the position of the point Q was
determined as the arithmetic mean between LP, half of the side
of the square, and LZ, half of the diagonal of the square [Figure
12b]. The deviation between the result of this and the real value,
1.4 per cent, is rather large for a geometer to tolerate. The
fourth method produced yet a larger deviation, 2.9 per cent,
FIG. I 1: One of the approximatemethodsof
constructingthe patternof Omar Khayyam's
Figures(adaptedfrom
trianglein Interlocking
Bulatov,Geometricheskaia [see n.
garmonizatsiia
12],340, fig.33).
66 JSAH / 54:1, MARCH 1995
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
which is not acceptable even for an artisan if he is meticulous
[Figure12c]. Here, the length LX was found by intersecting the
quartercircle AMK and the semicircle KML at the point M,
erecting the perpendicular MN to the side KL, and making
LX = 2LN. The whole process amounts to 3LX = 2KX.
Whoever was the author of this last method seems to have had a
unique talent in complicating simple matters. Had this method
been used, Omar Khayyam's triangle would hardly be recogniz-
able, and to generate a composition out of it would have been
an impossible task.
The existence of these approximate methods suggests that
the verging construction of the pattern in question was either
unknown to, or not accepted by, most of the artisans. It might
be that they did not have access to Omar Khayyam's solution,
had not comprehended it fully as indicated by the anonymous
author, or were showing their preference for the traditional
methods instead of trying an unusual technique, however
simple and correct it was. Moving geometry was considered
inadmissible by the majority of Muslim mathematicians, let
alone the conservative-minded artisans. Whatever the reason
might be, it can be inferred that a conversazione,as a verbal
mode of transmitting knowledge, was a convenient means for
artisans but it was not always effective and productive in
K
7 I/
100
,
I
I
SI
S0,
1
/ B
 C

I X N L

\ I\ I
\ \
\I /
\\F \ \ /I
•\ t?• NI
IN / t b

\ \
-\ i1 /
\ N
\

\ \ /
' •,
N

\ \
\ \
•\

/ ~z \

\\ \
FIG. 12: Three of the approximate methods of

constructing the pattern of Omar Khayyam's

\ I
triangle in Interlocking Figures (adapted from

B C E G 0 Bulatov, Geometricheskaiagarmonizatsiia[see n.
12], 338, fig. 28).

promoting new ideas. Not all artisans were receptive to advice artisans; in the particular case of cubic equations, their advice to
coming from mathematicians (say, intellectuals of today; appar- artisans was to utilize verging procedures;
ently not much has changed since then). This may also explain b) InterlockingFigures, an anonymous work on ornamental
why the young Ottoman geometer seemed so displeased with geometry that was presumably written by an artisan, does not,
the artisans of his time. as a technical work, deserve the high praise it receives from
some scholars;
Conclusion c) The information provided by the anonymous author
The history and interpretation of Islamic architecture is full of suggests that a verbal mode of transmitting knowledge through
geometrical issues, and some of these are still unresolved. The conversazioniprevailed among artisans, but they were not always
present study illustrates a case that proves to be informative to informed about, or receptive to, mathematicians' advice.
both the history of architecture and the history of mathematics.
As the number of studies in depth on mathematical works of a Appendix
similar nature increases, one hopes, more of these issues will be A list of publications and commentaries on Abu 'l-Wafa"sbook,
resolved.57 On WhattheArtisanRequiresof GeometricConstructions:
Primarily, this study aims at providing evidence for the 1. Mashhad, Rida 37 (Persian), end of the tenth or the early
existence of conversazioni, at which mathematicians and eleventh century. The earliest extant manuscript that was
artisans collaborated to find solutions to the problems prepared at the request of Abu Mansir Baha' al-Dawla, the
concerning the application of geometry to architecture and Bujid ruler of Persia from 998 to 1013, by a translator whose
its related arts. The untitled treatise of Omar Khayyam name would perhaps have been ascertainable if the manuscript
proves to be a convincing document in this respect. Other had not been defective at the end; C. A. Storey, Persian
points that the study draws attention to can be summarized Literature, 2 vols. (London, 1972), 2:2-3. As the date can
as follows: be fixed to 998-1013, this manuscript is possibly one of the
a) Some mathematicians, such as Abu 'l-Wafa' and Omar two original Persian translations of Abu 'l-Wafa"s work,
weremorethanwillingto offertheirexpertiseto
Khayyam, either prepared by Najmaddin Mahmfid Shah or Abu

OZDURAL:
OMARKHAYYAM
ANDTHE ARTISANS 67

This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ishaq ibn 'Abdallah Kitibdni; see the Paris manuscript, appen-
dix no. 6.
2. Tahran, Danishgdh 2876 (Persian), the eleventh or twelfth
century; Fuad Sezgin, GeschichtedesarabischenSchrifttums,7 vols.
(Leiden, 1974), 5:324.
3. Mashhad, Rida 5357/139 (Arabic commentary), by Ka-
mdladdin Mfisa ibn Muhammad ibn Man'a (1175-1242), the
early thirteenth century. According to Ibn Khallikdn, Ibn Man'a
highly extolled Abu 'l-Wafa' and possessed a number of his
books; Ibn Khallik•n, BiographicalDictionary,trans. Mac Guckin
de Slane, 4 vols. (London, 1868), 3:320.
4. Cairo, Dar, riyada 260 (Arabic), the thirteenth century;
Sezgin, Geschichte(Leiden, 1978), 7:408.
5. Istanbul,Ayasofya2753 (Arabic),the early fifteenth cen-
tury (Sileymaniye Kiitfiphanesi, microfilm archive no. 375).
Thismanuscript As
waspresentedto UlughBeginSamarqand.
mentioned on the title page, Abu 'l-Wafa"sbook was dedicated
to Mawlana al-Malik Shahinshdh al-Ajall al-Man-sfir Baha'
al-Dawla. He could have assumed the title of ShhdmnshMh only
after Persia fell under his reign in 998. Abu 'l-Wafa'died either
in 997 according to Ibn Khallikan, or in June 998 according to
Ibn al-Qifti; Ibn Khallikdin,Biographical Dictionary, 321; Ibn
al-Qifti, Ta'rih al-hukama',ed. J. Lippert (Lepzig, 1903), 288.
Thus, it seems more likely that the manuscript was not copied
from the original work but translated back into Arabic from one
of the earlier Persian translations, possibly the manuscript
Mashhad, Ridd 37 (appendix no. 1).
Ayasofya 2753 includes annotations apparently added by the
copyist himselfwho, in all probability, was one of the mathema-
ticians gathered in Samarqand during Ulugh Beg's reign.
Those annotations, which particularly deal with theoretical
proofs of Abu 'l-Waf'i"sconstructions, give us a better insight
into the practical approach of Abu 'l-Wafi'. As a plausible
possibility, it can be suggested that 'Ali Kushchu, who was the
last one in charge of the observatory, took the manuscript with
him to Istanbul after the death of his friend Ulugh Beg and
placed it in the library of Ayasofya Madrasa, where he served as
professor for the rest of his life.
6. Paris, Bibliothbque Nationale, ancien fonds persan 169
(Persian), the early seventeenth century; Storey, Persian Litera-
ture, 2:2. According to the information given by the translator,
Abu ibn 'Abdallah Kitibani, he made use of an earlier
Ish.q prepared by his contemporary Najmaddin Mahmfid,
translation
a talented mathematician. Bulatov dates this manuscript to the
early eleventh century by arguing that Najmaddin Mahmiid
had lived during that time; Midhat Bulatov, Geometricheskaia
garmonizatsiiaarkhitektureSredneiAziiIX-XVvv (Moscow, 1978),
51-52. Bulatov's argument is very convincing; but it applies to
the original translation, possibly the manuscript Mashhad,
Rida37, certainly not to this late copy.
7. Mashhad, Rida 144 (Persian commentary), by Muhammad
68 JSAH / 54:1, MARCH 1995
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Baqir Zain al-'Abidin (active in 1637-38), the seventeenth
century.
8. Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, arab. 68 (Arabic).
9. Uppsala, Tornberg 324 (Arabic), 933-34 [?]. This manu-
script, although virtually identical to Abu 'l-Wafa"swork, has a
very unusual title, Kitdbal-hiyalal-rahdniyawa-l-asrdral-tabf-'fyafi
daqd'iq al-ashkdl al-handasiya (The book of pneumatics and the
natural mysteryin subtletiesof thegeometricfigures ), and is wrongly
attributed to Al-Fdrdbi (d. 950). The mistake is corrected by
Toomer and by Hogendijk; G. J. Toomer, Diocleson Burning
Mirrors (Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York, 1976), 23; J. P.
Hogendijk, Ibn al-Haytham's'Completionof Conics'(New York,
Berlin, Heidelberg, and Tokyo, 1985), 62.
10. Woepcke, "Analyse et extrait d'un recueil de
Francois
constructions g0omrtriques par Aboul Wafa',"JournalAsiatique 5,
no. 5 (1855): 218-56, 309-59; the Paris manuscript. Mainly due
to the fact that Abu 'l-Wafa"s name and title, professor,was cited
several times in the text of the Paris manuscript, Woepcke
assumes that GeometricConstructions was actually composed by a
student of Abu 'l-Wafa'.Since the Paris manuscript was copied
from an earlier Persian translation, this fact can be traced back
to the earliest one, possibly the manuscript Mashhad, Ridd 37
(appendix no. 1), and Najmaddin Mahmfid might indeed be a
student of Abu 'l-Wafa'.While translating the book, it seems, he
felt entitled to insert the name and title of Abu 'l-Wafa'in the
text.
11. Heinrich Suter, "Das Buch der geometrischen Konstruk-
tionen des Abu '1Wefa',"Abhandlungenzur Geschichteder Natur-
wissenschaftenund Medizin 4 (1922): 94-100; the Milan manu-
script.
12. S. A. Krasnova, "Abu-l-Vafaal-Buzjani, 'Kniga o tom chto
neobkhodimo remeslenniku iz geometricheskikh postroeniy',"
nauki v stranakhVostokal (1966): 42-140;
Fiziko-matematicheskie
the Istanbul manuscript.
13. S. A. Krasnova and A. Kubesov, Al-Farabi, matematichekie
traktati(Alma-Ata, 1972); the Uppsala manuscript. The authors
acknowledge the close resemblance between the Uppsala manu-
script and Abu 'l-Wafa"swork but, instead of questioning the
authorship of the manuscript, they suggest the latter was
perhaps based on the former.
Notes
For the transliteration of the Arabic, Turkish, and Russian words that appear
in the present text, the system adopted by The Encyclopediaof Islam (2d ed.) is
followed. For the sake of convenience, subscript bars are omitted and 'j" is
substituted for "dj"and "i," "q"for "k,"and "ch" for "'." I would like to express
of the Arabic
my gratitude to Taner Avci for his assistance in the translations
passages.
I Ca'fer Efendi, Risdle-iMi'mdriyye,an Early-Seventeenth-CenturyOttomanTrea-
tise on Architecture,trans. Howard Crane (Leiden, New York, Copenhagen, and
Cologne, 1987), 28; see also Orhan Serif G6kyay, "Risale-i Mimariyye-Mimar
Mehmed Aga-Eserleri" (Treatise on architecture, the architect Mehmed Agha
and his works), in Ismail HakkzUzuncarsdzyaArmagan (Ankara, 1976), 113-215.
 The only manuscript of Risale-iMi 'mdriyyeexists in the Topkapi Sarayi Museum
Library, YY339.
2 Al-Nadim, who gives full information about Abu 'l-Wafa"'s life and all his
works, does not cite GeometricConstructionsin Fihrist, which was completed in
988-89; Al-Nadim, The Fihrist, trans. Bayard Dodge, 2 vols. (New York and
London, 1970), 1:xxi. It can thus be concluded that GeometricConstructionswas
written sometime between 988-89 and 997 or 998, the two alternative dates
given for Abu 'l-Wafa 's death. The original work in Arabic, which was composed
of thirteen chapters, is not extant today. All the existing copies are in one way or
another incomplete. The fact that most of the copies are Persian translations
indicates that it was popular in Persia. For the list of all the available publications
and commentaries, see appendix. In the present text, the references are made
to the Istanbul manuscript, Ayasofya 2753, which includes fifteenth-century
annotations; see appendix, no. 5.
3" )A'lamu 'inna al-sunna( ya malfna al-'ashkali fil mudawwaraat wa 'alayha
bil qismah ... fa' inna al-sina al-jayidd 'indahum an yabtadi al-sina' bid&rbmin
al-nadhir al-qarniya yasilu ila miqdar dil' al-mukhammas aw al-musaddas 'aw
al-mu'ashshar 'aw ghayruha min al-'ashkil fi h~dha al-kitdb
."Ayasofya 2753, 21. krim bayann•hffi
4 "Fainna al-sana' 'aridshhumi yuqrab 'ilayhi al-'amalfi wa yazhar lahu sihhlt
ma narahu fi al-his wa 'l-mushahada wala yubili bil barshin al-khutuitiya wa
'l-muhandis idhi qami lahu al-burhin ' la al-shay bil tawissum lam yas' al sihhit
dhalikai bil mushdhada 'aw lam yassuhhu 'ala anna lashakka inna jami' m~
yarhifi al-sana innama huwa makhifdh mimmdiya'mIlahu al-muhandis 'wwdila
al-burhin 'hla sihhatahu fainna al-sana wa 'l-masah innamd ya khidu min
qnma' zibtadahu
al shay wala yufakkiru fi al-wujfih allati tathbitu dhalika bihi
waliajil dhilika qit ydqi al-ghdl~t wa 'l-khiti fa' amma al-muhandissihh.t faqad
'ulima sihhat mi nuridhu bil barahin idha kdna huwd al-mustdkhrij lilma'ani
al-lati 'mala 'alayhi al-sana wa 'l-masah .. ." Ayasofya 2753, 52-53.
5"Conversazione: a meeting for conversation, esp. about art, literature,
science, etc." Longman Dictionaryof Contemporary English (Bath, 1978), 241.
6"Laqqd hadqrtu fi bq•'d al-majilis wafihi jama'a min al-sunna' wa '1
muhandisin .. ." Ayasofya 2753, 53.
7 This point is discussed in more detail by Daoud S. Kasir in The Algebra of
OmarKhayyam(New York, 1931), 18-19.
8 Renata Holod argues that traditional modes of
transmitting architectural
knowledge through example and through verbal or visual notation do not allow
for the explanation of those innovations, and suggests that a more thorough
awareness of the history of engineering may be necessary; Renata Holod, "Text,
Plan and Building: On the Transmission of Architectural Knowledge," in
Theoriesand Principles of Design in the Architectureof Islamic Societies,ed. M. B.
Sevtenko (Cambridge, Mass., 1988), 1-2, 11, n. 4. She cites the works of
Banfi
Miisa ibn Shakir as the examples to be studied. Although one of the three
brothers was a technologist as well, all were prominent mathematicians, and, like
all others, they were referred to as muhandis(geometer; see nn. 4, 6). The word
muhandis, which originally meant "one who does geometry," in the modern
usage corresponds to engineer with a narrower meaning, "one who applies
geometry." It seems more reasonable to think of muhandis in its original
meaning rather than engineer,unless it is used in late sources. Therefore, Holod's
suggestion and my proposition actually amount to the same point, that is, a
thorough awareness of the history of mathematics may prove to be useful in
explaining some of the innovations that we observe in major monuments of the
Islamic world. For a probable illustration of this point, see n. 43.
9
Aydm Saylh, Giydth al-D-n al-Kdshrs Letter on Ulugh Beg and the Scientific
Activity Patronized by Him (Ankara, 1960), 101-2; see also E. S. Kennedy, "A
Letter ofJamshid al-Kishi to his Father," Orientalia 29 (1960): 191-213. The
debate took place in the presence of Timurid Prince Ulugh Beg, the founder
of the observatory, and other high-ranking people, but they did not take part in
it. Various aspects of this highly interesting debate is discussed in Alpay Ozdural,
"Giyaseddin Jemshid el-Kashi and Stalactites," Middle East Technical University,
Journal ofthe FacultyofArchitecture10 (1990): 34-35.
'o Bernard O'Kane, Timurid Architecturein Khurasan (Costa Mesa, 1987),
37-38. O'Kane expresses difficulty in interpreting the prominence given to
muhandisin these accounts (he gathers a list of twelve citations), and suggests that
it would more closely approximate surveyorrather than architect.When Al-KIshi
referred to mathematicians, he used the title muhandis.There appears no reason
why the very same word should assume a different meaning when it occurred in
other contemporary sources that include the accounts of building operations. It
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
thus seems logical to take muhandisin its original usage, geometer,in this context
too; see n. 8.
1 Ali R. Amir-Moez, "A
paper of Omar Khayyam," Scripta Mathematica 26
(1963): 323-37. See also G. H. Musahib, Hakim OmareKhayyamas an Algebraist,
Persian translation, Arabic edition, facsimile of the manuscript (Teheran, 1960);
S. A. Krasnova and B. A. Rosenfeld, "Omar Khayyam pervy algebraicheskiy
traktat,"Istoriko-matematicheskie issledovaniya(1963), fascicle 15.
12The only manuscript of this treatise exists in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale,
ancien fonds persan manuscript 169, following the Persian translation of Abu
'l-Wafa"'s GeometricConstructions(see appendix, no. 6). It is published in Midhat
S. Bulatov, Geometricheskaiagarmonizatsiia v arkhitektureSrednei Azii IX-XV vv
(Moscow, 1978), appendix 2, 325-54. The second word of the title, which
Bulatov reads as maddkhil(introduction), can also be read as taddkhul(interlock-
ing). I adopted the latter since it answers the content of the treatise better;
hereafter the treatise is cited as InterlockingFigures, and references concerning
the text and figures are made to Bulatov's publication.
13Amir-Moez, "APaper," 336.
'14M. Soussi, "'Ilm al-handasa," Encyclopediaoflslam 3 (1982): 414.
15 "Wa naj'al laha qawanin narja ilayha fa'anna jami mi yastdmiluhu al-
sunna' fi hadha al-bab bima 'usfil ya'mal a'layhi wa li'ajil dhalika tZq'a al-ghalt
al-kathir fama yuqassimfinahu wa yurrattibunahu..." Ayasofya 2753 (see appen-
dix, no. 5), 47.
16Some scholars are of the opinion that Abu
'l-Wafa' borrowed this figure
from Indian mathematics; Moritz Cantor, VorlesungenuberGeschichte derMathema-
tik, 4 vols. (reprint, New York and Stuttgart, 1965), 1:744-45; Adolf P.
Youschkevitch, Les mathematiquesarabes, trans. M. Cazenave and K. Jauishe
(Paris, 1976), 110. It seems more reasonable to consider it as a prompt response
to artisans' requirements. He might, however, have been influenced by Thabit
ibn Qurra's (836-901) method of dissection; see Thomas L. Heath, Euclid's
Elements,3 vols. (New York, 1956), 1:365.
17According to the information given by Al-Kdshi in the chapter on architec-
ture in his book, this figure was called ldwza (almond) in fifteenth-century Persia
and Khurasan; Ghiyath al-Din Jamshid al-Kashi, MiAfhal-hisdb (Keyfor arith-
metic), ed. Nabulsi Nader (Damascus, 1977), 220, 382. As Al-Jazari informs us,
the same Arabic name was used by Artukid artisans in the thirteenth century; Ibn
al-Razziz al-Jazari, The Book of Knowledgeof Ingenious Mechanical Devices, trans.
Donald R. Hill (Dordrecht and Boston, 1974), passim. Its current Turkish name
among stonemasons of Anatolia, based on my own observations, is badem
(almond). In another part of the Muslim world, Morocco, traditional artisans of
today continue to call it lawza; Andre Paccard, Le Maroc et l'artisananttradionnel
islamiquedans l'architecture(Annecy, 1983), passim. It has to be noted, however,
that the anonymous author of InterlockingFigures used two different names for
this figure, turunj (orange) and conical quadrilateral;Bulatov, Geometricheskaia
garmonizatsiia(see n. 12), 339, 341-42, 344.
i8 Al-Kashi briefly explained how to calculate the area of the almond and
treated it separately as one of the key elements of muqarnas;Al-KIshi, Miftih al-
hisdb, 222-25, 381-90. For the English translation of Al-Kashi's section on
muqarnas,see Ozdural, "El-Kashi and Stalactites" (see n. 9), 37-43.
19For further discussion of this point, see Lisa Golombek and Donald Wilber,
The TimuridArchitecture oflran and Turan (Princeton, 1988), 137-38.
20See n. 2 and
appendix.
21 Amir-Moez, "A
Paper" (see n. 11), 323.
22See n. 11.
23Amir-Modz, "APaper," 323.
24Kasir, TheAlgebra(see n. 7), 2.
25Amir-Modz, "A Paper," 336.
26As the debate that Al-Kashi related indicates, it was not unusual for royalty
to show interest in such meetings, particularly when the discussions concerned
architectural problems of the buildings they sponsored; see n. 9. Itwould not be
surprising, therefore, if Saljukid Sultan Malikshih or his vizier, Nizim al-Mulk
(who, according to an unconfirmed story, was an old friend ofOmar Khayyam),
was present at that meeting given that they were the sponsors of the south dome
of the Masjid-iJami' of Isfahan.
27For instance, Ulugh Beg was a well-known astronomer, and Ottoman
Sultan Abdulhamid II was an accomplished carpenter. We do not have any such
information, however, concerning contemporary Seljukid royalty.
28Amir-Modz, "A Paper" (see n. 11), 325.
29Amir-Modz, "A Paper," 325.
OZDURAL: OMAR KHAYYAMAND THE ARTISANS 69
 30
According to Euclid's Elements3.16, the tangent RT is drawn at the point R,
and the line EB is extended until it intersects the tangent at the point T. Draw
the line RE. Since the angle ERT is a right angle, the line RH is perpendicular to
the hypotenuse ET and, according to Elements6.8, EH: HR = HR: HT. Hence,
HR2 = EH. HT. Similarly, HR2 = DH. HB. Therefore, DH . HB = EH. HT.
According to Elements6.16, DH : EH = HT : HB. By decomposition of ratios,
ED: EH = BT: BH. But, AE : RH = EH: HB is the given condition. By two
exchanges, AE : EH = RH: HB. But, AE = DE. Thus, RH : HB = BT: HB.
Therefore, according to Elements5.9, RH = BT. But, RE = EB. Consequently,
ER + RH = ET; Amir-Moez, "A Paper" (see n. 11), 325-26.
3' Since ED : EH = BT: BH, by composition of ratios DH : EH = TH : HB.
By exchange of ratios, DH : HT = EH : HB. But, EH : HB = ER: RH. Since the
triangles ERH and RHT are similar, RE : RH = RT: HT. Thus, RT: HT = DH :
HT. Therefore, RT = HD. But, HD = ER + EH. Consequently, RT = ER +
EH; Amir-Moez, "A Paper," 326.
32Amir-Moez, "A Paper," 327.
3 Dotted lines are added to facilitate the comparision with Fig. 6.
34IfBD = x and AD = 10, then AB2 = x 2 + 100, according to Euclid, Elements
1.47. Since the triangles ABC and ABD are similar, AC : AB = AB : AD and
AB2 = AC AD. Then, AC = AB2/AD = 10 + x2/10. But AC = AB + BD. Then,
AB + BD = 10 + x2/ 10. If BD is subtracted, then AB = 10 + x2/ 10 - x. If this
equation is multiplied by itself, then 100 + 3x2 + x4/100 - 20x + x3/5 = 100 +
x2. When algebraic procedures are applied, the equation becomes 2x2 +
x4/ 100 = 20x + x3/5. When every term is divided by x, it becomes x3/ 100 + 2x =
x2/5 + 20. When it is multiplied by 100, we obtain the equation x3 + 200x =
20x 2 + 2,000; Amir-Mo&z,"A Paper," 327-28.
35Amir-Moez, "A Paper," 329. Several mathematicians attempted to devise
an instrument, which they called a perfectcompass,to perform drawings of conic
sections; see F. Woepcke, "Trois trait6s arabes sur le compas perfait," Noticeset
extraits 22 (1874): 1-176. Those instruments, which hardly had any practical
value, were actually intented for mathematicians, not "for people who do not
know conics"; therefore, what Omar Khayyam was referring to could not be a
perfect compass.
Omar Khayyam concluded his comments on algebra by providing a brief
outline of his subsequent work, TheAlgebra:
If the opportunity arises and I can succeed, I shall bring all of these fourteen
forms with all branches and cases, and how to distinguish whatever is possible
or impossible so that a paper, containing elements which are greatly useful in
this art will be prepared; Amir-Moez, "A Paper," 331.
36Ayasofya 2753 (see appendix, no. 5), 13-14, 2.19, 20, and 22.
37The Greek solutions that Abu 'l-Wafa'borrowed are: Heron of Alexandria,
Mechanics,2.11; Archimedes, Book ofLemmata, 18; Pappus, Collections,4.36-42.
For more information on verging solutions in Greek mathematics, see T. L.
Heath, A Historyof GreekMathematics,2 vols. (Oxford, 1965), 1:235-70; T. L.
Heath, The WorksofArchimedes(New York, 1921), c-cxxii.
38Amir-Moez, "A Paper" (see n. 11), 333.
3 Amir-Mo&z, "A Paper," 336. In accordance with Omar Khayyam's advice,
the angle BAC (Fig. 8) can be determined by more precise calculation as:
570 03i 53ii 34ii.
The trigonometric relation that he describes corresponds to:
1: sin BAC = cos BAC : 1 - cos BAC.
40 If the shorter side of the
triangle, AB, is taken again as 1 but the
perpendicular BD is designated as x, then the equation becomes:
x3 + 2x2 = 2.
41 See n. 35.
42Youschkevitch, Mathematiquesarabes(see n. 16), 94.
43Oleg Grabar, following the late Eric Schroeder, suggests that possibly
Omar Khayyam was behind the conceptual thinking that created the north
dome of the Masjid-i Jami' of Isfahan (1088, the first known example of
geometric decorations on dome surfaces); Oleg Grabar, The Great Mosque of
lsfahan (New York and London, 1990), 85, n. 5. Since the application of the
pentagram on the surface of the dome required the knowledge of spherical
trigonometry in order to transform the straight lines of the two-dimensional
schema into curves, it is plausible to think that Omar Khayyam, who was well
versed in mathematics and astronomy, and who had a delightful imagination,
was possibly the one who conceived of such an idea. It can reasonably be
assumed that, between ca. 1074 and 1088, Omar Khayyam had attended several
conversazioni and had acquired a familiarity with architecture. To claim his
70 JSAH / 54:1, MARCH 1995
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
authorship of the design of the north dome appears now more likely than when
Grabar suggested it as an "unverifiable but attractive" possibility. It can also be
noted with interest that the proportion of the north dome is almost precisely
equal to the ratio of Omar Khayyam's triangle: the diameter at the springing
level/the height from the springing level to the apex = 1028 cm/666 cm = tan
570 03' 45"; the measurements are obtained from the photogrammetric survey
of the monument in Rassad Survey Company, "Masjed-e Jame' Esfahan,"
published paper presented to Symposiumon the PhotogrammetricSurveyofAncient
Monuments (Athens, 1974), 13. With its superbly arranged proportions, finely
articulated hierarchy of structure, and richly outlined muqarnas, the space
underneath the astounding north dome is certainly one of the greatest
achievements of the architecture of the Islamic world. If the foregoing argument
is indeed true, then what we observe here is the inspiring contribution of Omar
Khayyam, a very talented mathematician and a brilliant poet, to architecture.
44See appendix, no. 10.
45 For example Bulatov regards it as a textbook that explains the basic
principles of geometric decorations and which reflects the progress of applied
geometry of its time; Midhad S. Bulatov, "U istikov arkhitekturnoy nauki
srednego vostoka," NarodyAzii iAfriki 1 (1973): 99, 252; Bulatov, Geometricheskaia
garmonizatsiia (see n. 12), 52. Chorbachi goes even further and claims, "in
contrast to the simple shapes and polygons of Abu 'l-Wafa"•smanuscript, the
complex geometric shapes in Interlocking... Figures indicate a much higher and
later stage of development ..."; 1 Wasma'a K. Chorbachi, "In the Tower of
Babel: Beyond Symmetry in Islamic Design," An InternationalJournal:Computers
and MathematicswithApplications17 (1989): 755.
46 Most
significantly, the anonymous author exhibits a total ignorance of
GeometricConstructions.This point clearly indicates that InterlockingFigures was
not intended as the appendix to Abu 'l-Wafa"•swork, as Bulatov wrongly
assumes; Bulatov, "U istikov," 99; Bulatov, Geometricheskaiagarmonizatsiia,
51-52, 325. He dates the Persian translation of GeometricConstructions(the Paris
manuscript) to the early eleventh century and applies this date automatically to
Interlocking Figures; see appendix, no. 6. According to internal evidence,
however, it seems likely that the anonymous treatise was written sometime in the
early thirteenth century, after 1206, probably in Diyarbakir (a major city in
southeastern Anatolia); Alpay Ozdural, "An Ornamental Pattern of Cubic
Equations," Muqarnas (publication pending).
Generally the constructions in Interlocking Figures are of a stenographic
nature. It should, therefore, be considered as a sample of the repertoire of the
artisans working probably in the thirteenth-century Diyarbakilrarea. It would be
misleading, however, to assume that all the patterns and methods in this treatise
were the peculiarity of this period and area. As architectural knowledge was
transmitted mainly through examples, it is expected that some of these were
introduced earlier, and some continued to be employed by artisans of later
generations in several other locations.
47InterlockingFigures appears to be not the only work of this sort. Ca'fer
Efendi, the author of Risdle-i Mi'mriyye, informs us that he had published a
treatise on geometry prior to Risdle-i Mi mariyye(see n. 1); but this can not be
traced:
Because we have been connected with him [Mehmed Aga] for many years
until the present time [1614], for the most part closely, when certain subjects
concerning the science of geometry were being discussed, this humble servant
took and wrote down everything. In accordance with this, he set down and
composed a treatise concerning the science of geometry. However, previous
to this, books of deeds were written and composed about some of the
chief-architects. As books of deeds were written down for them, it was
necessary for us to write, in addition to that treatise on geometry, a book of
deeds about our generous Aga. Efendi, Risdle-iMimnriyye,22-23.
48 "Sootnosheniya etogo cherteja zaklyuchayutsya v konicheskikh [secheni-
yakh]. Tsel sostoit v tom, chtobi postroit takoy pryamougolniy treugolnik, visota i
samaya korotkaya storona kotorogo vmeste bili bi ravni gipotenuze. Ibn
Khaysam napisal traktat o postroenii takogo treugolnika, i tam govoritsya o
konicheskikh secheniyakh, yavlyayushchikhsya giperbolami i parabolami." Bula-
tov, Geometricheskaia garmonizatsiia(see n. 12), 341.
49Ibn al-Haytham, a prominent physicist-mathematician, wrote more than
180 treatises. The titles of all are listed and around seventy are extant today.
Although he made extensive use of conic sections, none of his works concerns
this particular problem. One of the treatises is about the perpendiculars of the
triangles, but there he investigates the sum of the perpendicular distances from a
point inside a triangleto the sides. For more informationon Ibn al-Haytham's
works, see Fuad Sezgin, Geschichtedes arabischen Schrifttums,7 vols. (Leiden,
1974), 5:365-74; H. M. Said, ed., Imnal-Haytham,Proceedingsof the Celebrationsof
the l000th Anniversary (Hamdard, 1971); Jan P. Hogendijk, Ibn al-Haytham's
'Completionof the Conics'(New York, Berlin,Heidelbergand Tokyo, 1985); R.
Rashed,"Laconstructionde l'heptagonregulierpar Ibn al-Haytham,"Journal
for HistoryofArabic Science3 (1979): 309-87; R. Rashed,"Ibnal-Haythamet le
theorme de Wilson," Archivefor History of Exact Sciences 22 (1980): 305-21; R.
Rashed, "Ibnal-Haythamet la mesure du paraboloide," Journalfor Historyof
ArabicScience5 (1981): 191-262; A. I. Sabra,"Ibnal-Haytham'sLemmasfor
Solving 'Alhazen's Problem'," Archive for History of Exact Sciences 26 (1982):
299-324.
50The anonymous author's inaccuraciessuggest that a verbal mode of
transmittingknowledge through conversazioni was prevalentamong artisans.
They seemed to have the tendencyof obtaininginformationthroughdialogue,
not byreading,even if theywereliterate.Holod arguesthatthe existenceof Abu
'l-Wafa's book indicatesa modicumof literacyamong artisans;Holod, "'Trans-
mission of ArchitecturalKnowledge"(see n. 8), 3. The anonymous author
himself is the most convincingcase for her point; but even then, he did not
manifestany knowledgeof Abu 'l-Wafa"swork;see n. 46. As Bloom rightly
pointsout, learningsomethingbyreadinga book is a distinctlymodernpractice,
and it is not likelyto imagine artisansborrowingAbu 'l-Wafa'sbook from a
libraryto read his instructions;Jonathan M. Bloom, "On the Transmissionof
Designsin EarlyIslamicArchitecture," Muqarnas10 (1993):21. Accordingto the
aforementionedaccountof the Ottoman geometer, it appears that the same
type of learning also prevailedamong the artisansof the imperial court in
sixteenth-centuryIstanbul.As the geometer was reading from a book on
geometry,he wasnarratingand explainingeach sectionto the artisans;Efendi,
Risdle-iMi'mtriyye (seen. 1),28 (accordingto the referencesgivenin the text, the
book thathe wasreadingfrommusthavebeen writtensometimebetween1540
and 1570). Listeningto oral explanationscan not be the most effectiveway of
acquiringa real familiaritywith geometry.If the Ottomangeometer'saccount
and Interlocking Figuresare consideredas sufficientevidencefor artisans'verbal
This content downloaded from 144.32.128.70 on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:52:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
mode of learning,then Abu'l-Wafa"'s book, in spiteof all his effortsin makingit
comprehensibleto artisans,was apparentlya futile exercise. Perhaps Abu
'l-Wafa'concievedof his book as an effectivereplacementforconversazioni, but if
so, then it failed to compete with the conveniencethat that sort of meeting
providedfor artisans.The same fate, it seems,was sharedby OmarKhayyam's
untitledtreatise.He addressedit to artisansas wellas his learnedcolleagues,but
it had not been readeven by the anonymousauthor,whowascertainlyone of the
highlyliterateartisans.
5' "Zdes tsel mojno dostignut 'lineykoy-treugolnikom'. Kak bilo skazano
vishe, tsel nashego cherteja-chetire konichesie figuri s dvumya pryamimi
uglami, okrujayushchieravnostoronniypryamougol'niychetirekhugolnik.Ta-
kovikonicheskiechetirekhugolniki AIHK,CHMN,PMLXi BLKO,opisivayush-
chie chetirekhugolnikKHML.Poskolkuugol H chetirekhugolnikaobrazavan
dvumya perpendikulyamimiliniyami,to neizbejno KH i [H]D--pryamie, a
treugol'nikAKC-pryamougolniy raven treugolnikuCHD. A etot treugolnik
pryamougolniyposkolkuvpisanv polovinuokrujnosti.Itak,nujnonaytitochky
H na duge [C]E. Esli na nashey lineykougol F-pryamoy, to storonaAB-
pryamayai sovpadaetso storonoyAB kvadrata.A Allakhznaetlusche."Bulatov,
Geometricheskaia (see n. 12), 341-42, fig. 36. Fig. 10 of the present
garmonizatsiia
text is adapted from the figure given by Bulatov,except for the ruler,which I
addedin orderto makethe vergingconstructionpossible.
52Forcomparision,see nn. 30 and 31.
53 Forthe date and placeof InterlockingFigures,see n. 46.
54See n. 46.
garmonizatsiia,339-41, fig. 33.
55Bulatov, Geometricheskaia
56 Bulatov, Geometricheskaia
garmonizatsiia,337-38, fig. 28. In both cases, the
tangentof the angleof rotationis determinedas 4/(4 - 2).
7 Forinstance,Al-Kishi'sKeyforArithmetic(see n. 17) providesus with some
crucial informationto resolve the seeming complexity of the geometry of
muqarnas;see Ozdural, "El-Kashiand Stalactites"(see n. 9), 31-47; Alpay
Ozdural,"Analysisof the Geometryof Stalactites:BuruciyeMedresein Sivas,"
Middle East Technical University,Journal of the Faculty of Architecture11 (1991):
57-71.
OZDURAL:OMAR KHAYYAMAND THE ARTISANS 71