B.

CMHJIFA

b n o r o iiE
3A
KPAGOTOn

U3A ATEni>ClBü
«MO.IOAAH r«APAHH*
MIR PUBLISHERS
IN THE SEARCH
FOR BEAUTY
by
V. Smilga

Translated from the Russian

by
George Yankovsky

MIR PUBLISHERS MOSCOW 1970

UDC 513.81(023) ■ 2 〇

RevLsod from the 1968 Russian Edition

Ha amAuàCKOM nabiKe
 CONTENTS

C h ap ter
1. Before Euclid—Prehistoric Times • 7
2. E uclid......................................... 26
3. The Fifth Postulate.................. 57
4• The Age of Proofs• The Beginning 81
5. Omar K hayyam .......................... 92
6. The Age of Proofs, Continued . .. 129
7. Non-Euclidean Geometnf. TheSolu-
tio n ............................................. 155
8• Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky . . 198
9. Non-Euclidean Geometry. Some Il~
lustrations.................................... 230
10. New Ideas. Riemann. Non-contra
dictoriness.................................. 246
1L An Unexpected Finale. The General
Theory of R e la tiv ity .......................269
12• Einstein • .301

5
 Chapter î

BEFORE EUCLID—
PREHISTORIC TIMES

The true beginning of this story goes back to

U ses immemorial.
Where was it, when and how did geometry
come into being? Where, how and when did it
lake shape and become a science? Who was the
very first to propose the axiomatic structure of
geometry?
We do not know, and most likely never will.
It is generally believed that he was a Greek.
But perhaps the glorified priests of Egypt or
the renowned chaldean magi are the true fath-
ers of science.
However all that may be, geometry arrived
in Greece in tho seventh century before the
Christian era.
It was there and then that the Greeks, admir*
ers of cold logic and the exquisite elegance of
pure intellect, lovingly polished to a brilliance
(or perhaps originated) one of the most beaut(*
ful creations of human thought—geometry.
Elegance indeed, yol actually the matter was
far more involved and intriguing. One thin^ is
certain, and that is that geometry sprang from
practical needs.
The development of logic (aad consequently
geometry as.well) wasiüQuenced.to sotne extent
by the. Greeks’ devotion to law.；and oratQry,
But in Egypt, too, geometry was important to
 men of the practical world一very important. And
as for endless litigations and court proceedings,
the Greeks were far behind the country of th©
pharaohs.
In a word then, a scriou5 analysis of this
question would take us too far astray; let us
be satisfied with the fact. Geometry has estab-
lishod itself. This is tho start of a gripping,
dramatic contest in pure logic that has conti-
nued for two and a half thousand years.
The history of tho fifth postulate goes back
just about as many years* It is as dramatic as
it is instructive, a detective story with aa unex-
pected but happy ending.
Now for the story.
Geometry, we believe, began with the Ionic
school. To be more precise, its founder was
Thales of Miletus who was believed to have
lived close to a hundred years (either from 640
to 540 or 640 to 546 B.C.).
We d 〇n ft seem to know very much about him.
We know for sure he had the title of one of
tho Seven Sages of Greece; we also know that
in accordance with the established reckoning he
was the first philosopher, the first mathemati-
cian, the first astronomer and, generally, the
first in all sciences in Greece. W© ini^ht sây
that he was to the Greeks what Lomonosov was
to the Russians: THE FIRST.
As a young man he most likely made his
way t 〇 Egypt on affairs of trade, for he began
his career as a merchant• Here, the pharaoh
Psainmetichus had just lifted the “iron curtain*1
and was beginning to allow foreigners into his
country.

8
 remained in Ejçypt for a good number
is, studying in Thebes and Memphis. La-
供 returned to Greece and founded a school
pkilooophy. Obviously, he appeared more as
popalarizer of Egyptian wisdom than as an
J rpendent thinker.
The view is that ho brought with him geo-
Miry and astronomy.
At any rate, there is one thing that all philo-
*ophere can learn from him—and that is con-
ciwim^ss- Legend has it thflt his complctô works
(vhich naturally wore all lost) consisted of only
«bout 200 poems■
We can only conjecture what he accomplished
in geometry, though Greek authors attributed a
great deal to him.
For instance, Produs Diadochus (we will bo
meeting him a^ain) claims that it was lha*
les—u 〇 other—that proved tho tlicorems
lhal:
(a) vertical angles are equal;
(b) the angles at the base of an isoscoles tri-
angle are equal;
(c) a diameter divides a circle in half. ...
And some others.
Assuming even that the historians of science
wrote tho exact truth, we still do not know whe-
ther Thales himself arrived at these theorems
or simply repeated ideas of the Egyptians.
Perhaps th« only definitely estalïlished fact
of tho scholarship of Thales of Miletus is his
prodiction of the solar eclipse of 585 B.C.
But legends grew up around him in hosts•
And this in itself indicates that bo was a scho-
lar of stature.
 One of tho stories is particularly dear to men
of learning. It is Aristotle who relates it:
‫״‬When Thales was reproached for his poverty,
since, as they said, studies in philosophy do
not create any profit, it is said that Thales,
foreseeing a rich harvest of olives on the basis
of astronomical findings, advanced during win-
ter a small sum of money he had accumulated 丨
to the owners of all the oil-presses in Miletus
and on the island of Chios. He was able to en-
gago tho oil-pre.sses cheaply, for there was no
competition from anywhere. When harvest time
arrived, there was a sudden demand by many
people for the oil-presses. Thales then rented
out the oil-presses at prices that he himself
desired.
1Thales thus accumulated a great deal of mo-
ney and proved in this manner that it is not
difficult for philosophers too to become rich,
the only thing is, however, that that is not tho
subject of their interests.**
VVe do not know what Thales did with the
money he made in this successful practical ap-
plication of astronomy. We hope he spent it
as a true philosopher would.
His pupils and followers apparently paid pro-
per attention to geometry in their philosophical
deliberations. However, the central mathemati-
cal school of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.
was the Pythagorean school.
The authentic biographical information about
Pythagoras boils down, in essence, to a fow
stories. In this respect, he is much like Thales
of Miletus. The obscurities bc^in with his origin.
Rortrand Kusscl sums the matter up by say-

10
 tkat some believe him to be the son of a
*j citizen named Mnesarch, others the son
tW çod Apollo, and adds that tho reader
u k e his pick.
It Î? further believed that Pythagoras lived
long a life as Thales—something in the
iniiy of one hundred years (perhaps 569 to
B.C.).
eain like Thales, he spent some twenty years
Ë^ypt imbibing wisdom, but later (here he
passed Thales) ho lived about ton years in
Babylonia adding still more to his store of
knowledge. It is also claimed that he travelled
in India, but oobody seems to believe it.
Boxers claim that Pythagoras took boxing
laurels in tho Olympic games, but the source
of such claims is never indicated. I have noth-
iag to support them either. As in the caso of
Thales, the oxciting thing is tho unexpected
combination of philosopher, mathematician and
boxer.
Pythagoras may not have done much in box•
ing, but in politics he did, and very actively,
though not at all successfully.
The citizens of the Sicilian town of Crotona,
where he founded his school after his wande-
rings in distant lands and also got tho town
involved in an exhausting war, finally asked
him to leave together with his school. Which
he did in rather much of a hurry, which was a
reasonable thing to do.
As a mathematician and scholar ho was a
giant, but nevertheless ho does not call forth
great admiration. His Pythagorean order of phi‫־‬
losophers and mathematicians is much too re­

11
 miniscent of a barracks and Pythagoras himself
suspiciously resembles a führt*rt though much
more cultured than any of those of the twen-
tieth century.
It is precisely Pythagoras himself—most likely
in a campaign to build up his authority—who
built up and popularized the idea that his lov-
ing father was tho fair-haired effulgent Apollo.
Actually he became the true fathor of the pre-
sently popular custom of attributing to himself
the scientific results of his pupils• There, the
matter was quite official. There existed a fiat
according to which the author of all the mathe-
matical studies of the school was to be named
Pythagoras.
Though one might repeat that such things are
done right and left today, tho passage of 25
centuries has greatly softened and civilized the
customs. The essence is the same, but the form
has become enobled.
Pythagoras is the unsurpassed leader here be-
cause he handled matters so that his faithful
pupils claimed him author of work done long
after his death. Quite understandably then—that
being the state of affairs in the Pythagorean
school—that the most cogent of all arguments
was a simple reference to The Aulhority Him-
self.
That is exactly how the wording went: wHe
said so Himself‫ ״‬. After which any discussion
was totally out of place—even dangerous.
He and his dear pupils also held in secret
their methods for solving mathematical prob-
lems. Too, ho compiled for the members of
his order a long list of taboos.

\2
 I quote from the rules of good manners of
th» gentlemen of the Pythagorean Club:
• i. Restrain from using beans in your food.
*2. Do not pick up what has fallen.
3‫״‬. Do not touch whit© roosters.
4‫״‬. Do not take a bite from a whole bread.
5‫״‬. Do not walk on a highway.
•*6. When removing a pot from the firet do
•ot leave trace« in the ashes， but mix the ashes.”
The list could bo extended. It was this bunch
tlwt rose to power in one Greek town， then i【i
another, implanting the cult of Pythagoras and,
accordingly, demanding compliance with their
statutes. With melancholy, Bertrand Russel re-
lates that those who were not reborn in the new
faith thirsted lor beans and so sooner or later
rose up in arms.
It is also told that he preached to the animals,
for he made little distinction between them and
human beings.
But the Pythagorean school advanced geo-
metry and mathematics in general. Very much
so, in fact* All of this taken together is not a
bad illustration of the danger of idealizing rep-
rcâcntatives of the exact sciences and of the
intellect generally.
Incidentally, to usf Pythagoras is mainly a
matbomaiician. Yet he himself and his contem-
poraries took the view that his profession was
tliat of a prophet. That was of course their
business, they were closer to events. But, as
we know, every prophet must be in part magi'
cian, demagogue and charlatan.
P y th a g o r a s w as a p p a r e n tly p a s t m a s te r in e a c h
field. The pupils tried hard too. According to
13
 had a g〇 〇 dIy numh‫״‬ of

3 養 涎 £ 纖
C op tic‫״‬ Of PyfhaCg o r a r ‫״‬nd X^nophaneT'LThe'
Srr yde〇
r‫ ״‬C‫ ״‬：
ar s；〇
hr： d a P〇 i‫ ״‬ted t h i 0 ^‫ ״‬r ， t - t‫״‬

14
 W# leave Pythagoras, but before doing so,
p■( one more curious story by one of his h 〇n-
«■rrd admirers. IIow devious indeed are the path-
n j s of science. Quite naturally, geometry, like
all branches of knowledge, was most carefully
cMcealed from the common people by the Py*
fiha^oreans. Who knows, perhaps to ibis day no
«〇e would know of geometry (outside the Py-
:cans) if it weren't for..,*
her© is the legond as to how tho Pythago-
account for the spread of geometry. One
of them is to blame, for he lost tho money of
the community. After that calamity, the com-
munity permitted him to earn tho money by
teaching gooroetry, and geometry was given the
name *4the legend of Pythagoras‫ ״‬.
A curious thin^ is that there seems to have
been a geometry textbook by that name.
As to the story itself, if there is a grain of
truth in it at all, then, though I do not consider
myself a malicious person, 1 would bo pleased
to learn that the truant Pythagorean had not
lost the money after all but had spent it in a
spree in the local port tavern swilling wine,
eating a white rooster with beans, biting a whole
roll of white bread and singing drunken songs
on the highway.
Another man contributed greatly to geometry,
and again to my taste he was an unpleasant
character.
His name was Plato (428 to 348 B.C.).
In his views, in his methods of setting up a
school, and in his love of self-advertisement,
Plato much resembles Pythagoras. Bat before
I say why I do not like him, let me oxplain

15
 wk^t his most significant contribution to geo-
m^iry is.
He is considered 一and perhaps justly so, for
I am not a specialist in the field—one of the
greatest philosophers of Greece. Indeed he did
a great deal for the development of mathema-
tics valued it highly. At the entrance to
his Academy he had, hewn in stone, the inscrip-
tion: ‫״‬Let no one destitute of geometry enter
my doors!‫ ״‬The point is that Plato believed
that ‫ ״‬the study of mathematics brings us closer
to the immortal gods‫ ״‬, and educated his pupils
in this spirit, adding mathematics where it was
needed and where it wasn't. Some of his pupils
became brilliant geometers. Plato had numerous
pupils and they naturally spread numerous
stories praising the teacher.
it was apparently Plato who first made the
explicit demand that mathematics generally and
geometry in particular bo constructed in deduc‫״‬
tive fashion. To put it differently, all the pro-
positions (theorems) must bo rigorously logi-
cally deduced from a small number of basic
statements called axioms.
This was a momontous step forward.
By the time Plato arrived on the scone, geo^
nietry had developed extensively.
A multitude of extremely complicated pro-
blems had been solved and hiiphlv involved theo-
roms proved. What was apparently lacking was
a clear-cut general scheme of construction• As is
froquontly the case in science, the development
of geometry was spurred tremendously by three
problems that adamantly refused to sue•
cumb.

16
 we have gone this far, I will state tho
was required, with Üuï aid of compass and
s ln iflit edge alone (no other instruments al-
W_ t d>, to .
(1) divide a given angle into three equal
pmris (trisecting the angle)；
(2) construct «‫ ד‬square of area equal to the
area of a given circle (squaring the circle);
(3) construct a cube of volume twice that of
• given cube (duplicating the cube, the Del•
phian problem‫)״‬.
It was only at the end of the nineteenth cen-
tury that it was proved that, thus posed, not
on e of 1 h e p ro b le m s is s o lv a b le , th o u g h a lţ
three arc readily resolvable if other geometrical
instruments are employed. They can also be
handled by utilizing arcs of a circle or loci
different from a straight line.
But the Greek rules only permilted compass
and straight-edge.
Plato even substantiated this requirement by
some sort of reference to the authority of the
gods. ..
That is why not one of the prohlems was
solved, but in tho effort geometry was greatly

2-1M7 17
expanded. Too bad we have no place or time
for the numerous exciting stories that along
with these problems. But we will recall a legend
to show that we are objective iu our attitude
towards Plato. One of the versions of this story
makes him out a very reasonable man.
Eratosthenes relator that once, on tho island
of Delos an epidemic of plague broke out. The
inhabitants of the island naturally turned to
the Delphian oracle who ordered to duplicate
the volume of the golden cubical sacrificial
repository to Apollo without altering its shape.
Plato was asked to advise.
He did not resolve the problem but interpre•
ted the oracle as meaning to say that the gods
were angry with the Greeks for tho endless
iuterueciae wars and desired that tho Greeks
should givo up warfare and engage ia the scion-
ces, particularly geometry. The plague would
then vanish‫״‬
Legends or no legends, Plato as philosopher
and man is ia my opinion extremely unpleasant.
It is not even the fact that he was supporter
of tho most rabid idealism and on every occa-
sion appealed to the gods. What is worse, he
built up a theory of the state taking as his inu-
del ncarliy Sparla—a real haven of fascism•
Too, tho basic planks of his utopia fully can-
form to the demands of nazism.
He spent his whole life fighting tooth and
nail against democracy in political life and
against materialism in spiritual life.
He uot only scourged the materialist-thinking
philosophers abstractly in his philosophical writ-
ings, but, demonstrating a very practical ap-
18
[ p w h io matters, often employod political do-
r^ H ă a lio n —a beloved weapon in all ages—-to
cientific opponents.
is even a story that ho bought up the
wmks of his bitterest enemy Democritus so as
ft» destroy them.
Democritus is a special topic of discussion.
If one agrees that the source of our modern
pkysics is to be sought among the Greeks (and
is most likely the case), then the distance
covered is great indeed—something like two tho-
• a n d years. From Aristotle to Newton. The
Soar primal elements of Aristotle—air, water,
•arth and fire—marked one of the first attempts
to define the concept of the ‫״‬elementary partie-
fes" of physics.
True, the Greeks did not know physics in
the modern sense of the word. At the heart
•f matters were 8|>eculative arguments, not ex-
périment. Rut this is not so important to us
•ow■
Perhaps it is the almost total absence oi ex-
périment that brings out the utterly amazing
conjecture of the sly philosopher Democritus of
Abdera.
Roughly half a century before Aristotle, he
believed that <11‫ ד‬substances consisted üf minute
indivisible parliclos—atom s^and that the diffe-
rent properties of substances were determined by
tho different qualities of the atoms themselves.
In a given substanco, however, all atoms were
identical and devoid of any individuality.
These views are so close in spirit to modern
conceptions that one of the founders of quan*
turn mechanics, Erwin Schrodinger, took great
2♦ 19
pleasure in startling his listeners with the ele*
gant paradox: ‫״‬The first quantum physicist was
not Max Planck but Democritus of Abdera.‫״‬
Most likely, Democritus would have been most
amazed to hoar this flattering comment, yet one
must agree that Schrôdinger surely has certain
when it comes to discussing quantum
theory.
The fat© of Democritus' views is remarkable
in yet another two ways. Firstly, not a single
one of his writings has come dowu to us. Ei-
ther Plato indeed succeeded in his neat little
methods of scientific discussion, or simply tho
books wore lost through the ages; at any rate ，
to our misfortune, tho ideas of one of the first
materialists iu the world can be judged only
on tho basis of extracts aud later retellings.
Secondly, the Grst popular-science treatise (and
popularizers of science should never forget this)
was devoted to a discussion of his ideas.
What is more, the book in question set a
world record, for the poem is of extreme length.
I am of cour^o alluding to the poem On the
Nature of Things (De rerum nalura) by Titus
Lucretius Carus, which was written some three
hundred years after tho death of Democritus—
two thousand years a^o.
By tho way, Democritus had it rather good
nevertheless, because traces of many other scho-
lars (particularly animig tho raateriîilists) have
been lost completely. For instance, there is still
great doubt about whothor Democritus' teacher
Leucippus ever lived. Then of cmirse it is en-
tirely conjecture whether Leucippus was co-au-
thor or author of the ideas of atomism.
20
 Then we have the version that the teaching
dl Democritus was borrowed from some cbaldean
M f i granted to his father by the Persian kin^
Xerxes.
And if we may permit ourselves a bit of mora-
Eiing, it is worth noting that in science ideas
*iv incomparably longer-lived than the memory
•f those who engender them. Incidontally, most
srienlisls in any branch of knowledge can grasp
Almost anything except this not-too-unexpected
idea.
But whoever was the founder of the atomistic
theory, and whether quantum mechanics has its
source in Democritus or the chaldeans, the views
of the atomistic school aro roughly as follows.
The world consists of atoms and void. The
atoms are unitary and indivisible. They an'
elementary and qualitatively invariable. Atoms
do not succumb to any kind of outside action
whatsoever, they are not generated «ind they are
indestructible. Primordial distinctions exist bet-
ween atoms, and theso distinction? determine
the variety of properties of all things.
 What we today regard as elementary particles
represents entities that are far removed, as to
properties, from the atoms of Democritus.
They appear and disappear, they convert from
one into another, and they aro roadily acted
upon—in a word, we must say that tho Greeks
were much more logical in their concept o! an
elementary particle than are the physicists of
the twentieth century.
There is a reliable statement made by Archi-
medcs 'vhich strongly suggests that Democritus
was a marvellous geometer. It would seem that
ho was the «ne who computed tho volume of a
cone and ajiyramid. That was a brilliant achieve-
ment, but unfortunately not many details are
known. Bo that as it may, of llio forerunners
of tho integral calculus the first was apparently
Democritus.
Another complicating circumstance is the fact
that practically our only source is a book by
Produs Diadochus. Since Produs was a follow-
er of Plato, ho hardly made any mention of
his scholarly opponents•
Quit© naturally, Democritus was enemy num-
ber one and was first to be banished from his-
tory.
The picture is practically the same with re-
gard to Anaxagoras♦ We know hardly anything
about the geometrical studies of that remarkable
philosopher who was one of the first materia-
lists. The only thing wo do know is that in
the dungeon where ho resided because of his
views, he investigated the problem of the squa-
ring of the circle. His philosophical views de-
finitely merit a good word.
2?
 Ii»cidentallyt this was best done by Plato.
:s one of his works we find a dialogue between
u Athenian (Plato himself) and a Spartan. This
f how Plato handles Anaxagoras.
Athenian: ‫״‬When we seek to obtain proof of
existence of the gods and refer to the sun,
Ute moon and the stars and the earth as divine
creatures, the pupils of these now sages object
that all these things arc only the ground and
tke stones and thoy (the stones, that is) are
quite unable to take care of the affairs of human
beings.‫״‬
Obvious, then, that Anaxagoras and his pu*
pils aiv siniply a product of murky Tartarus.
The Spartan straightway perceives the heresy
and cries out with indignation: ‫״‬What awful
barm is this for the family and for the state
that flows from sucb attitudes of the young
people!”
That is Plato and discussion.
I would be very pleased if his contributions
to tho development of geometry turned out to
be greatly exaggerated.
But as things stand today we mast admit
that his school brought forth a galaxy of bril-
liant mathematicians, and his is the first men-
tion of the axiomatic method.
To summarize then, in the fourth and third
centuries B.C. geometry was a fully developed
science. With traditions, with fully elaborated
methods of solving problems, mighty achieve-
ments and even a number of textbooks and
schools of thought.
There is no need or place to go into tho story
of all the geometers of the pre-Euclidean period.

23
Suffice it to give a list of the mathematical
giants of that period that preceded Euclid—
Thales of Miletus, Anaximander, Amerist, Mand-
riat, Eonipidus, Anaximedes, Democritus, Ana-
xagoras, Pythagoras, Hippias, Archytas, Hippo-
crates of Chios (no relation to the physician),
Antiphon, Platot Theaetetus, Eudoxus of Cnl-
dus (these last two are lowering figures, 〇
5ip〇ci-
ally Eudoxus, who lived between 400 and 337
B.C. and is believed to have also been an astro-
nomer, physician, orator, philosopher and geog‫־‬
rapher).
Menaechmus, Leodatus, Deinostratus, Arista ，
eus, Eudemus, Theophrastus, Theudius and yet
another couple of dozen names.
And also Aristotle.
Aristotle, beyond any doubt, is one of the
greatest minds in the history of humankind.
True, when balanced, the harm done by his
works almost tips the scales against the good.
Aristotle is hardly at all to blame for thist
but in the Middle Ages, his works, pared down
and purified to the point where they could no
longer engender fresh thinking, became the prin-
cipal "weapon of reaction.
But an appraisal of his works is a whole
history in itself. The only thing that need be
said here is that he was definitely and deeply
interested in geometry. Note that he paid spe-
cial attention to the theory of pârallel lines.
What is more, he contributed two extremely
important propositions to this field. Truet they
do not appear in the works that have come down
to us, but all succeeding mathematicians unani-
rnouâly attribute these statements to Aristotle.
24
 J u»ping out ahead of our story ， w’e jaaf
that the cleverest proofs of Euclid's uftji
Mslulate are based on Aristotle ,s ‫ ״‬principle .
We will come back later to what ^ is to tle said
akoat the properties of parallel lines. In the
M aniime ....
 Chapter 2

EUCLID

Enough about forerunners, let us begin the

count with Euclid.
He lived and worked in a time that is curious
in the extreme.
In the year 323 B.C., as a result of an acute
fever or of immoderate drinking, or simply due
to a şoodly portion of poison, the king of inor-
tal kings， Alexander of Macedonia, though a
relatively young man of thirty-thre«; years yet
,w.onj and weary, departed for a meet'ing with
his father Zeus,
The demigod was hastcly disposed of, for affairs
of state demanded attention. The empire had
to be divided, and this was rn> ordinary empire•
Within a matter of ten years, lands had been
conquered that exceeded the tiny poverty-strick-
en Macedonia by hundreds of times.
How and why this came about is not of great
iatorest to us hero. There were many reasons.
One of which, as it will be recalled, was that
Alexander of Macedonia was a horo.
Be that as it may, the world had changed
in ten years. Its boundaries had expanded four
times over, and now came the time to digest
the spoils. One thing was clear, it was too much
for one heir. And it would have been ridiculous
to have given it all to the infant son of Alexan-
der who was born several months after the fath-
26
m'* death, or to the second heir, Alexander s
iabecile step-brother. And so it came about
ikat the empire was ripped to pieces by those
hdoved geaerals that Alexander had not had
tis e to execute.
They concluded an eternal peace, pledged just
m eternal a friendship, drank heavily rejoicing,
clasped each other、 hand in a firm masculine
AMke and went their ways ... to begin slaugh-
tering and fighting <imong themselves.
The times were exciting. Kings grew up like
■ushrooms after a rain and were wi]>cd out
just as quickly. The lawful heirs, with no more
guilt than their origin, were by the beginning
of the second decade ©ithcr cut down or strâng-
led. The dynastic wars ami slaughter continued
for a few more decades.
That was how the extremely interesting era
of Hellenism got under way.
In this fracas, luck was on the side of the
circumspect Ptolemy, who sliced off Egypt as
lx: c ^ro
He rather successfully interfered in the quar-
rels of the Diadochi (heirs), more or lesa reason-
ably held in rcia (withia the confines of Egypt)
his desperate Macedonians whose sword-points
kept him in power. lie did not oppose the wor-
ship of black cats and crocodiles so dear to th ţ
hearts of the local scholars, and he himself
became a god ia accord with the position he
held (after all, he was a pharaoh). He plundered
the country, and he plundered effxcieutly. True,
nothing could really surprise tho Egyptians. lie
encouraged ti*ade, killed off—on ‫ ה‬small seal©—
those di&satisfied with the way things were goiogt
27
 ai— -v e ‫־‬ s ecÆ

‫« ״‬at the P,‫״‬lem^ lookt 1 /d e ^ e ‫״‬

! ■ ； p S S S

o n t faTts1‫ ״ ״‬aS，de «Uessw‫ ״‬rk «nd note facts,

28
 In the third and second centuries B.C.t Ale-
xandriahad become the (irincipal centra of learn-
img of the Hellenistic world. And the most
■agniGcent institution of learning was the cel-
ebrated Muwum of Alexandria wilh its famous
library. Unfortunately, it was plundered many
times, and to complete matters, all 70,000 scrolls
perished in a fire started in the seventh century
by some furious Arabian calif.
Incidentally, it se^ms that the calif was really
not so much to blame. The first one to have a
hand in it was the great Caesar—Gaius Julius
Caesar, a fairly decent writer of prosie and also
and mainly a general and political demagogue
with boundless ambition.
Too, there are extremely weighty reasons to
believe that in the main the work was that of
the early Christian church (at that time, extre-
mely tolerant of other faiths), which got out
ahead of the simpleton calif by about two hund-
red or so years. All the calif had to do was clear
away the remains. However that may be, the
very best work of tho Ptolemys awaited an
unpleasant fate.
At any rate, if wo are to remember the Ptolc-
rays for what good they did, it is for their
patronage of learning.
Human history has known many kingdoms
and more kings. It may be that historians will
trace the relationships of the doings of one and
anothor satrap and subsequent events. But the
living memory of tho people carrk*s along a neg-
ligible percentage of all this crown-bearing horde.
And what memory there is, is most often bad•
Those that stand out most—their luck—are
29
 cut-throats and adventurists like Tamerlane or
Napoleon.
But the role they play today in our life is
practically nil.
Since I have delved rather deep in these an-
cient variations on the topic of the frailty of
earthly kingdoms and their glory, let me con-
elude with a parable.
Some few decades prior to the iuvasion of
Mexico by the Spanish, a certain Aztec leader
with a totally unpronounceable name (let us
call him X) united all the tribes into a king-
dom, thus to some extent eliminating the feu-
dal fragmentation of the land. It was naturally
thought that tho kingdom and his dynasty
would last for long centuries. X himself ruled
long and happily.
But Mexico was soon visited by tho g«ingsters
of Cortez, and all that was left of the Aztec
empire was the ruins of what were onco magni*
ficent cities. But that is only half the story.
King X (the casika,io be precise) quito natu-
rally had a harem, for King X adored tho fe-
male sox.
He was indeed an extraordinary man, a talen-
ted lyrical poet. Most naturally, he wrote poetry
for his numerous wives in between attemling
to tho affairs of state. It is his sougs that can
still—today—be heard in lh 〇villages of Mexico.
We may rejoice once again that genuine works
of art arc always more lasting than any
empire.
It is probably worth recalling the name of
tho poet, but alas I only remember that it is
very long and hard to pronounce.

30
 So P tolem y the F irs t, S otcr, in v ite d E u c lid
to A le x a n d ria . There E u c lid w rote the Elements,
m ttfiique book u n p a ra lle le d in hum an h is to ry .
A ţa in I have to a d m it th a t p ra c tic a lly n o th -
d e fin ite is know n a bout E u c lid the man-
〇! course，a couple o f apocrypha we have.
it is said th a t a t Erst P to le m y h im s e lf wanted
•w ■ a s te r the in tric a c ie s o f geom etry• B u t‫ ׳‬he
_〇〇 found th a t the s tu d y o f m athem atics was
onerous a burden fo r a pharaoh. Then ho
ntviUMl E u c lid and asked h im (oh, su re ly, as
mme gentlem an w ould another): “ Is there n o t
some easier w ay o f grasping a ll the secrets of
le arniug? ‫ ״‬To w h ich E u c lid , the s to ry goes, rep-
lie d p ro u d ly and n o t so p u lite ly i *4There is no
ro y a l road to g e o m e try.‫ ״‬W o do not know w heth-
er P tole m y contiaue d s tu d y in g geom etry• Most
lik e ly he found c o m fo rt in the business more
su ita b le to kings (receptions, h u n tin g , d riu k in g
and h is harom ).
The other sto ry is th a t E u c lid was approached
by one young p ra g m a tis t, who asked: *1W h a t is
the practical us© of studying tho
W hereupon E u c lid , touched to the q u ic k , called
a slavo and said: “ G ive h im threepence，since
he m ust make gain o f w h a t he lea rn s‫ ״‬.
True, one is n o t in c lin e d to believe ciU ier
s to ry i f one bears in m in d the vie w th a t the
Greeks to o k o f wisemeu and m athem atics•
The firs t sto ry m ay be very pleasant to the
modern ear, b u t the second is ra th e r o b je c tio -
nable• One has to take in to consideration that
the Greeks th o u g h t... w e ll, on the other baud,
I guess 1 ju s t d o n 't kn o w w h a t the Greeks re-
a lly th o u g h t. S 〇niet l* n i a fra id , th o u g h t one

31
w ay, and others another. W p kn o w (th a t is,
w«* th in k we know ) that‫ ׳‬they despiseil a ll prac “，
cal a p p lic a tio n o f m atliom atica. A n d i t w ould
indeed seem th a t the p h ilo so p h ica l w orks of
those ages (p a rtic u la rly araong the follow ers of
P la to ) corroborate as m uch. R epeatedly, in fact.
T h a t m ay bo. A nd i t m ay bo true. B u t the grea-
test genuis o f m athem atics o f a n tiq u ity —A rc h i-
medes—was a jih y s ic is t, an exp e rim e n te r and
not a th e o re tic ia n . There is more. He was also
a first-class m ilita r y engineer who spent m any
years and m uch energy in b u ild in g an im preg-
nablc fortress out o f h is home tow n o f Syracuse.
O f course, P lu ta rc h , ta k in g upon h im s e lf to
ju s tify Archim edes, explaine d sham efacedly th a t
a ll those th in g s were to ys, in te lle c tu a l ban-
bles o f the philosop her. One however doos not
need to be perspicacious to realize th a t to plan
the defence o f y o u r tow n o q u ijip o d — w h a t is
m ore— w ith weapons o f y o u r own in v e n tio n is
more th a n sim p le recre a tio n . I rep e a t，an abso-
lu te ly — for those tim e s — im pregnable system of
defence. Just one l i t t l e asiàe: Archim edes and
his w o rk is a b e a u tifu l instance dem o n stra tin g
th a t in those d is ta n t n aive tim es physics and
o ther sciences played ju s t as im p o rta n t a role
in a ffa irs o f w a r as th e y do to d a y.
As to the «actual a ttitu d e o f the H e lle n is tic
w orld to the p ra c tic a l u tiliz a tio n o f m a ih o m a ti-
cai know ledge, we are n o t sure.
(lo n e ra lly speaking, sweeping statem ents about
th a t long-past epoch are alw ays a b it ir r ita tin g .
W e kn o w so lit t le ; fa r too fra g m e n ta ry and
a ccid e n ta l arc the fa cts of th a t past fo r us to
speak d e n n itc ly about the psyche and the eus-

32
 u>ms o f those people. I fear I am w a lk in g on
Û Û I ire iiiy s e lf ta k in g up a discussion o f in a t-
‫ מ «ו‬w ith w hich I am n o t so very fa m ilia r. B u t
M k m re tu rn in g to geom etry and E u c lid , I w ill
p e rm it m yself ju s t one re m a rk, i t is so te m p tin g .
There seem to be tw o extrem e trends in ap-
e a is a ls o f the ancients.
E ith e r the Greeks (the H e lle n is tic w o rld , in
p a rtic u la r) are id e a lize d , and the protagonists
th is v ie w la m e n t b it t e r ly the decline o f mo-
ra ls over the past 2,500 years and the forever-
I ■st days o f the chiltH iood o f m ankind w lie ii
F ^ p le were pure, n a ive and devoid o f ^ u ile
(th is is v e ry p o p u la r among sophisticated in te l-
lectuals w ith a h u m a n ita ria n sla n t).
O r— to take the o th e r extrem e— one need o n ly
sw itch on the vacuum cleaner or te le v is io n set
to realize modern m a n ’s to ta l m oral suprem acy
over representatives o f any e a rlie r c iv iliz a tio n .
T h a t often is the reasoning o f technologists,
the m ilita r y and o th e r exact professions (you
w ill excuse me fo r n o t in c lu d in g physicists" in
th is group)•
As is so often the case, the disciples o f the
opposing camps arc, e s s e n tia lly , a t one in th e ir
la c k of any d ^ ir e to in v e s tig a te tho m a tte r
seriously, and th e y re ly alm o st c o m p le te ly on
haphazardly amassed im pressions.
There is in a d d itio n a sce p tica l school o f
th o u g h t whose adherents c la im th a t hum an bo-
ings have been the same over the ages and th a t
m an's in te lle c t and m ural q u a litie s have n o t
changed s u b s ta n tia lly d u rin g th is m easly period
of o n ly 2,500 years.
The a u th o r sides more w ith th is la tte r vie w ,
5 - 1987 33
 though ju d g in g b y w h a t he— the a u th o r—has
read, h u m a n kin d has, over the past 2,500 years,
been im p ro v in g s lo w ly b u t su re ly. One w ould
lik e the advance to be somewhat more a ctive.
B u t th a t is a d iffe re n t question.
I t is uow p ro b a b ly tim e to e x p la in to tho
tire d reader w hy a book devoted to geom etry
digrc&ses tim e and again in to discussions about
e v e ry th in g b u t geom etry.
I w ill do th a t and then wo w ill re tu rn to E u-
d id .
T h is is in lie u o f an in tro d u c tio n .
Yes, w hat fo llo w s is ?oing to be about non-
E u c lid e an geometr>r and about the general th e ‫־‬
o ry o f r e la tiv ity , thü o rig in a tio n o f w h ich m ay,
w ith o u t s tre tc h in g the p o in t very fa r, be consi‫־‬
dered tho lo g ica l c u lm in a tio n o f the w hole s to ry
of the fifth postulate .
B u t w h a t s trik e s me as most in te re s tin g ia
th is s to ry , is n o t geom etry or the r e la tiv ity
th e o ry. U ltim a te ly » the e n tire epic about the
fifth postulate is ju s t as m uch w itness to the
pow er o f hum an th o u g h t as i t is to the rem ar-
kablo, alm ost fa n ta s tic narrow-m indedness of
m athem aticians. N o w onder, in c id e n ta lly , th a t
M ax P lanck p e rm itte d h im s e lf the perhaps ove-
r ly categorical b u t, g e n e ra lly, correct statem ent
th a t ‫ ״‬ia com parison w ith the th e o ry o l r e la ti‫־‬
v i t y ， the co n s tru c tio n o f non‫־‬E u clid e a n geo-
m e try is no more th a n c h ild ,s p la y ‫ ״‬. L e t ua,
how ever, n o t be too ju b ila n t. The im p o rta n t
th in g is som ething else.
The m ost im p o rta n t th in g , the most in s tru -
c tiv e th ia ^ , and i f yo u lik e , the most to u ch in g
th in g is th a t th is s to ry , w h ich we now begin,

34
 ‫ מ‬s y m b o li' U is an illu s tr a tio n o f ono o f the
^ s t q u a litie s lh a t m a rk o ff hum an boings from
tke other prim a te s and u n ite a ll races in to a
5tngle species. The reader has guessed w hat the
a « lh o r is a b o u t: he sings the praises o f the endeav-
to fin d o u t w h a t the w o rid is lik e in w h ich
we liv e , how o u r universe is constructed. And
he finds th a t the in to rn a tio n a lis in o f e a rth lin g s ,
t i e jn te rn a tio n a lis m o f epochs， cou n trie s and
peoples w ill e te rn a lly stand against the ju s t as
eternal c o a litio n o f narrow -m indedness, the b ro th •
erfaood o f satraps, go-getters, conquerors, d im -
bers, grabbers, and the w orst p o rtio n o f sports
Uns.
I f one could im agine fo r a m om ent the fa n '
ta stic p ic tu re o f E u c lid t O m ar K h a y y a m , Gauss.
Lobachevsky and E in s te in a ll in one room to -
^ t h e r , i t is h a rd ly lik e ly th a t N ik o la i L o b a ‫־‬
chevsky w ould feel tho need to seek o u t acquain -
tancer or, fo r la c k o f a to p ic o f conversation,
to say, ‫ ״‬how about a couple o f jo k e s .‫״‬
B u t on the o th e r hand, one has to a d m it,
a lb e it g ru d g in g ly , th a t th e jokes o f E u c lid 's
tim e (w ith s lig h t m o d ific a tio n s fo r lo ca l colour,

35
(►f course) alm o st f u lly exhaust the s p iritu a l
arsenal o f very m any o u r ro n lo m p o ra rie s.
In c id e n ta lly , i t is n o t w u rth id e a liz in g o itlio r
le a rn in g or the priests o f le a rn in g . H undreds
upon hundreds o f b r illia n t m inds have turned
o u t to be q u ite am oral personages.
A nd perhaps on© o f tho most a ttra c tiv e fea-
tures o f th is w hole s to ry is th a t ju s t as non-
E u c lid e a n geom etry lo g ic a lly c u lm in a te d in tho
a n c r a i theory of r e la tiv ity , so the g a la x y of
m ath e m a ticia n s— as a ru le , not o n ly re m a rka b ly
ta le n te d b u t h u m a n ly in te re s tin g people—ends
w ith E in s te in .
B u t le t us re tu rn to E u c lid !
To bei^in w ith , a few w ords— tho stronger,
the b e tte r—about a ll the beasts th a t liq u id a te d
the A le x a n d ria n lib r a r y . I f i t had n o t been des-
tro ye d , we w o u ld now know scores o f tim es more
about the Greek and R om an w orlds th a n we do.
W e w ould p ro b a b ly know about E u c lid as
w e ll. B u t, u n h a p p ily , as » f to d a y p ra c tic a lly
the most fu n d a m en ta l sourco oa E u c lid is Pro-
d u s Diadochus of C o n sta n tin o p le , a geometer
who w rote an exceedingly detailed Commentary
on the firs t book o f the Elements. Since we are
re fe rrin g to sources, a s lig h t re m a rk w ill not
be amiss.
W hen we tu rn to the h is to ry o f a n tiq u ity ,
tho effect is som ewhat lik e th a t o f regarding a
chain o f m ountains from an aeroplane. E v e ry ‫״‬
th in g is smoothed over, distances c o n tra c t，and
sm a ll features vanish. O n ly the general o ve ra ll
p ic tu re rem ains.
In v o lu n ta r ily we lo o k upon a ll Greek m athe-
m a ticia n s as alm ost contem poraries. N ote, th e n ,

36
 A a c Proclus (412‫״‬i8 5 A .D .) liv e d seven hundred
«Her E u c lid , a span o f lim e much greater
* a th a t w h ich separates us fro m Iv a n the
Terrible. Q u ite obvious then th a t the facts a t
A r c h a 1 disposal concerning the life o f E u c lid
mmn fragm e n ta ry and haphazard.
7kere is another a u th o r who liv e d a few deca-
before P roclus. He was the A le x a n d ria n
K s lh e m a tic ia n Pappus. He w ro te o f E u c lid des-
‫ ?תאדי״י‬h im as m ild t modest and, a t the same
t i w , independent. B o th relate the in c id e n t w ith
P iolem y. ‫ ״‬E x a c t‫ ״‬b io g ra p h ic a l data are m o stly
M » d on the rem arks o f an unknow n A ra b ia n
B a lh e m a tic ia n o f tho tw e lfth c e n tu ry : '4E u c lid ,
?‫?׳‬a o f N aucratus, tho son o f Zenarchus, know n
b j the name o f Geometer, a scholar o f olden
of Greek o r ijfin ，liv e d in S y ria , born in
T y ra ‫’’•■ ״‬
T h a t is a ll.
The man dissolved in tho a ^ H w ith o u t a trace.
W h a t rem ains is his w ork.
We repeatt the Elements is a book w ith o u t
p a ra lle l. For over tw o thousand years i t was
the p rin c ip a l and p ra c tic a lly solo m anual on

37
geom etry fu r scholars o f b o th the O ccident and
the O rie n t. As la te as ih o end o f the 19th cen-
tu ry , m any E n g lis h schools ta u g h t geom etry on
the basis o f an adapted e d itio n o f E u c lid 's
Elements. There can h a rd ly he a more eloquent
witness to its p o p u la rity . In th is sense, o n ly
the B ib le can compete w ith the Elements of
Geometry. B u t u n lik e tho B ib le , the Elements
are a rigorous system o f lo g ic. To be more pre-
cise, E u c lid ever s triv e d tow ards such a system.
Wo can presume th a t E u c lid was a fo llo w e r of
P la to and A ris to tle . P la to , as you re c a ll, deman•
dod a s t r ic t ly d e d uctive c o n stru ctio n o f m athem a-
tics. A t the fo u n d a tio n were axiom s: the basic
propo sitio n s th a t were accepted w ith o u t proof;
from then on, e v e ry th in g had to fo llo w w ith
u tm o st rig o u r from these axiom s.
T h a t was the id e a l th a t E u c lid a tte m p te d to
accom plish. A tte m p te d , because from the v ie w -
p o in t o f to d a y lit e r a lly h is w hole a xio m a tics is
unsatisfa cto ry.
B u t th a t is easy to say now, a fte r 25 centuries
of in v e s tig a tio n s . Ia its d a y t E u c lid 's lo g ic le ft
an o ve rw h e lm in g im pression.
A tte m p ts had been made before E u c lid to
describe geom etry on th e basis o f an a x io m a tic
m ethod. N o t bad a tte m p ts, e ith e r. B u t we can
assuredly say th a t E u c lid 's w ork was the most
successful，as w itness the unprecedented popu-
la r it y o f his book alre a d y ia a n cie n t tim e s— a
p o p u la rity th a t bro u g h t the book down th ro u g h
the ages to us.
One can say n il kin d s o f harsh (and true) th in g s
about E u c lid 's a xio m a tic s . B u t one should ne-
ver forget th a t the scheme its e lf became, since

38
H “ ■ e , tho canonical model fo r c o n s tru c tin g
* * y branch o f m athem atics. A nd o f course
m\i£t nevor forget th a t the Elements present
b ‫״‬r r e lle n t piece o f w r itin g by a s k ille d master,
m f-r« p ic a c io u s scholar and a m a g n ifice n t tea-
t h a t e x p la in s and ju s tifie s the universal
a u a ira tio n o f m a th e m a ticia n s fo r E u c lid and
k■» Elements. L o t us add th a t th is book brought to
ta» &>ld o f m athem atics scores o f young men who
te e r became the w o rld 's greatest m athem ati•
r:
The eiïoct o f E u c lid has been am azing th ro u g h -
^ 4 the ages and th ro u g h o u t the w o rld . Take
‫ »אײ־‬o f the most p ro m in e n t m ath e m a ticia n s o f
Renaissance, Cardano, w ho, i t m ust be add-
was a ra b id a d v e n tu ris t (n o t to say scoun-
4 ^ \) b u t there is no g e ttin g around his m athem a-
lic a l ta le n t and c u ltu re . H ero is how he adm ired
E u c lid 's Elements.
4^The irre fu ta b le strength o f th e ir dogmas and
Ik e ir perfection are so absolute th a t not a single
w ork can ju s tifia b ly be com pared w ith them .
As a consequence» there is such a lig h t o f tr u th
reflected in them th a tt a p p a re n tly , o n ly he is
capable o f d is tin g u is h in g the tru e from the false
in the in tric a te problem s o f geom etry who has
mastered E u c lid .‫״‬
In the m id d le o f the 19th c e n tu ry an outsta n -
din g geometer had th is to say: ‫ ״‬There has never
been a system o f geom etry, w h ich , in its e«sen-
tia ls , has differed from the p lan o f E u c lid ;
and u n til I see such w ith m y own oyos, I w ill
not believe th a t such a system can e x is t.‫״‬
T rue, i t m ust be said th a t in the m id d le o f
the 19th c e n tu ry , th a t geometer could have roa*

39
soiled more progressively and these words, aside
from w orship o f E u c lid , dem onstrate the au-
th o r's own hidebound conservatism .
We could go on c itin g numerous o th e r w r it-
ings in the same v e in , b u t wo w ill confine o ur-
selves to w h a t is p ro b a b ly the most b r illia u t
dem o n stra tio n o f the effect the Elements had on
lit e r a lly «ill fields o f th o u g h t. B enedict Spinoza,
celebrated philosopher o f the W estern w o rld , bor-
rowed tho e n tire p la n o f his basic w o rk, Ethics,
from E u c lid .
Perhaps the a u th o r ity o f Spinoza is n o t con-
v in c in g enough to some readers. I f i t is n ’ t, le t
mo m e n tio n Isaac N ew ton.
H is fun d a m e n tal w o rk, tho Principia (The
Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy)
copies E u c lid both in t it le and o u tlin e . A xio m s
form the s ta rtin g p o in t from w h ich a ll else
fo llo w s. Tho s im ila r ity m ay bo continue d be-
causo N ew ton ,s a xio m a tics turn e d o u t to be
ju s t as ephemera] as d id E u c lid 's .
One fin a l piece o f in fo rm a tio n . B y the year
1880, the Elements had appeared in 460 edi*
tioas.
Perhaps a w ord is in order, a t th is p o in t,
about the a x io m a tic m ethod its e lf.
I t was o n ly a t the b e g in n in g of th is tw e n tie th
c e n tu ry th a t we achieved a p e rfe c tly cle a r and
rigorous understanding o f d e d u ctive schemes. In
the m a in , m e rit fo r th is goes to the great Ger-
man m a th e m a tic ia n H ilb e r t.
In a rough and g re a tly s im p lifie d fo rm , the
m a tte r stands as fo llo w s. W e confine ourselves
in w h a t fo llo w s to the concrete m a te ria l o f
geom etry so as to a vo id to o m any a bstractions.

40
 Stage 1. A List of the Basic Concepts
F o u n d a tio n — Basic Concepts (basic elements).
These arc the re s u lt o f a prolonged experim en-
ta l s tu d y o f nature, a s tu d y both in tric a te and
confused am i nebulous aud more.
S tem m ing therefrom is a c e rta in abstra ct re-
flection o f a c tu a lity , re s u ltin g in Ihe B asic Con-
cepts. N o th in g a t a ll is said o f them in the a xio -
m atics. They como ready-m ade, as you m ig h t say.
T h is is n a tu ra l enough. To define the Basic
Concepts or n o tio n s, one needs other, fresh no*
tions, w h ich in tu rn w ith the a id o f... and so
on ad in G n itu m . One ha» to s ta rt somewhere.
As the French say, “ in order to make a dish
o f ra b b it stow, one a t least has to find a c a t‫ ״‬.
So wo havo the Basic N o tio n s. M a th e m a ticia n s
have a d e lig h tfu l w ay o f p u ttin g i t : these are
elem entary e n titie s th a t are not defined, they
are s im p ly stated. A s lig h t supplem ent, b y the
w ay. In the modern a x io m a tic s o f geom etry,
the Basic Concepts are d iv id e d in to tw o groups:
(a) basic images;
(b) basic re la tio n s.

41
 G e n e ra lly speaking, to d a y there are a t least
tw o e sse n tia lly d iffe re n t a x io m a tic schemes. In
w hat fo llo w s we w ill use the scheme in w hich
the Basic Images are as follo w s:
(1) p o in t, (2) s tra ig h t lin o t (3) plane.
N ow le t us see w h a t the Basic R e la tio n s are.
They arc fo rm u la te d as:
(1) to belong to , (2) to He botween, (3) m o tio n .
The Basic Concepts have been established.
We can now s ta rt the second stage.

Stage 2. Basic Axioms.

F or o u r Basic Concepts we mako a set o f
assertions th a t are accepted w ith o u t any proof.
These are axiom s. Spoaking in s t r ic t ly fo rm a l
fashion, i t is o n ly the axiom s th a t G il o u r Ba-
sic Concepts w ith liv in g co n te n t. O n ly they
im p a rt life . W ith o u t th e axiom s, the Basic Con-
c©pts are devoid o f any c o n te n t. T h e y are n o th -
in g . Am orphous ghosts. Tho axiom s define the
rules o f the game fo r these ‫ ״‬ghosts‫ ״‬. T hey o u t-
lin e a lo g ic a l ordor. The m a th e m a ticia n can say
o n ly one th in g about h is Basic Concepts, th a t
th e y obey such and such axiom s. T h a t and n o th -
in g else! A n d a ll because the m a th e m a ticia n
does n o t kn o w w h at he is ta lk in g about. He
demands o n ly one th in g : th a t h is axiom s bo
satisfied.
T h a t and n o th in g else!
W hen the a x io m a tic m ethod has been elabo-
rated to perfe ctio n , geom etry, speaking fo rm a lly ,
is converted in to au a b stra ct game o f lo g ic.
Tho n o tio n s o f p o in t, s tra ig h t lin o , plane,
m o tio n can mean a n y th in g , any e n titie s .

42
 L o t us co n s tru c t a geom etry fo r thorn. W©
w ill then c a ll o u r geom etry E u c lid e a n geom etry
i f the axiom s established fo r the **real‫^ ״‬co-
m e try o f E u c lid are fu lfille d .
For exam ple, one, and only onet straight line
can be drawn through two distinct points. T h is
is an axiom fo rm u la te d in o rd in a ry language.
I f we were to adhere s t r ic t ly to the te rm in o -
logy ju s t in tro d u c e d , we w ould have to make
the statem ent:
only one straight line can belong to tmo diffe-
rent points.
A nd so on in the same s p ir it. On the basis
of th is a x io m , a good exercise is to prove the
theorem : ‫ ״‬T w o s tra ig h t lin e s have o n ly one
p o in t in common.**
A t the present tim e , five groups o f axiom s
aro d istin g u ish e d in E u clid e a n geom etry* They
arc:
(1) axiom s o f connection;
(2) axiom s o f order;
(3) axiom s o f m o tio n ;
(4) the axiom o f c o n tin u ity ;
(5) th e axiom o f p a ra lle l lines.
There can h a rd ly be any use in e num erating
a ll these axiom s, wo w ill p u t them in the appen-
d ix , fo r, as H erodotus once said, n o th in g gives
such w e ig h t and d ig n ity to a book as an A ppend ix.
W e sh a ll have occasion to re tu rn to the axiom s
a num ber o f tim es. M ea n w h ile , we take up
Stage 3.
Stag« 3. The Basic Definitions Enumerated.
W ith the aid o f the Basic Concepts wo con^
s tru c t more co m p lica te d ones. For instance，flfi

43
angle is a figure formed by tun) half •lines (rays)
emanating from a single point.
A ca re fu l re a d in g o f th is phrase w ill make
i t clear a t once th a t one com plex concept (na*
m ely, ra y t or h a lf-lin e ) is used in the d e fin itio n
o f an angle.
O b v io u s ly , we should have given the deGni-
tio n o f th is n o tio n e a rlie r w ith the help o f the
Basic Concepts. T h is is ra th e r easy to do. The
reader cau check to see how m uch ho is now
im bued w ith the s p ir it o f de d u ctio n , and,
armed w ith a lis t^ o f axiom s, can t r y to solve
the problem .
I f i t turn e d o u t th a t in e m p lo y in g the Basic
Concepts, i t was im possible to define a ra y,
then one w ould have to place th is n o tio n in the
category o f Basic Concepts.
In ^e neralY a ll re m a in in g notions and de&ni-
tio n s arc in tro d u ce d w ith the aid o f the Basic
Concepts, and also (take note!) o f those axiom s
w hich are established b y us fo r the Basic Con-
cepts.
There rem ains the la s t,
Stage 4. Statement of Theorems. Proof of The-
orems.
W ith regard to our concepts (basic and non-
basic) we express p rop o sitio n s, theorems, w hich
wo prove.
T h a t, p ro p e rly speaking, form s the subject
m a tte r o f geom etry.
I should lik e to repeat once again th a t when
stated in those term s, geom etry is converted
in to an a b s o lu te ly a b s tra c t game, lik e , say,
chess.

44
 There, too, we have Basic Concepts, called
chessmen. The axiom s are the c o lle c tio n o f
rules o f tlie K^nie. F in a lly , ihere are theorems.
A c tu a lly , o n ly one theorem : how to checkm ate
the opponent.
In s o lv in g th is ‫ ״‬th e o re m ", a p la y e r proves
dozens o f lem m as ( a u x ilia r y theorems) in the
course o f a each tim e selecting the best
(in his o p in io n ) move in a g iven p o s itio n .
In c id e n ta lly , there is a difference between
games and geom etry. I t consists in the fa c t th a t
the partners v e ry often produce in c o rre c t proof.
In chests, fo r exam ple, no s tric t lo g ic a l c rite ria
fo r e v a lu a tin g every move or p o s itio n have ye t
been evolved. In geom etry th e y have. H ere, i t
is always possible to esta b lish w hether a new ly
fo rm u la te d theorem c o n tra d ic ts e a rlie r theorems,
and hence runs counter to s t i l l e a rlie r ones,
and consequ ently... U n ra v e llin g the r o ll to the
end, we a rriv e a t tw o p o s s ib ilitie s : e ith e r we
have erred in our reasoning, o r the theorem
ju s t fo rm u la te d is erroneous.
The form er p o s s ib ility is o f l i t t l e in te re s t to
science: tho o n ly th in g i t shows is th a t we have
handled the m athem atics p o o rly . B u t in the
la tte r case there is often a d e fin ite and very
im p o rta n t re su lt. I f we have become convinced
th a t o u r hypothesis (theorem ) is w rong， then
o ther theorems are rig h t, nam ely ihoso w h ich
c o n tra d ic t o u r own. I f there is o n ly one such
c o n tra d ic tin g theorem , thon we have proven i t
by our reasoning.
This last paragraph, though perhaps rather
nebulous and abstract in form, is an explana-
tion of a scheme th a t is very common in geo­

45
m etry (and m athem atics gen e ra lly). I t goes by
the name o f re d u c tio ad absurdum , o r in d ire c t
proof.
C oining down to e a rth again, le t us take a
specific caso to prove.
L e t there bo tw o perpendiculars dropped onto
a s tra ig h t lin e . U sing ra d ia n measure o f angles
and w r i t i n g ‫ ־^־‬in place o f 90 degrees, we find
tw o , and o n ly tw o, v a ria n ts : e ith e r they meet
a t some p o in t C o r th e y do n o t in te rse ct a t a ll.
L e t us provo th a t the secoud theorem is correct.
We do so b y the m othod o f rc d u c tio ad absurdum .
Assume th a t the firs t su p p o sitio n is fu lfille d
and th a t the tw o p erp e n d icu la r lin e s intersect.
Then we have a tria n g le ABC (fo r tria n g le we
w ill use the sym bol A« fo r angle the sym b o l /.)•
The rem arkable th in g hore is th a t the e x te rio r
Z^B is equal to the in te r io r ^ A . A n d o f course
the e x te rio r is equal to the in te r io r /_b.
B u t thero exists a theorem (we w i l l take i t
to be tru e ): ‫ ״‬A n e x te rio r angle o f a tria n g le is
alw ays greater th a n any in te r io r angle not ad*
ja ce n t to i t . ‫״‬
O ur tria n g le does n o t s a tisfy th is theorem.
Hence there can be no such tria n g le . Consequent-
ly , we are in e rror.
A check o f the reasoning shows th a t e v e ry th in g
is correct. Hence, the e rro r was made a t the very
beginn ing, whon i t was assumed the perpendi-
c u la r lin e s inte rse ct.
Thus, p e rp e n d icula r lines do n o t inte rse ct.
T h a t has been proved rig o ro u s ly . E u c lid called
noninte rse ctiog lines parallel lines. For the tim e
being we too w ill use th is te rm in o lo g y .

46
 c

To sum m arize, the n , we have found th a t tw o

s tra ig h t lin e s pe rp en d icu la r to a common s tra ig h t
lin o are p a ra lle l. We should also prove th a t
thc^o s tra ig h t lines do n o t in te rse ct in the lo -
wor h a lf-p la n e e ith e r. B u t th a t w ould s im p ly
be ropeating the preceding p roof, and o u r tim e
is lim ite d .
In c a rry in g out the p ro o f we re lie d on the
theorem o f the e x te rio r angle o f a tria n g le .
The a le rt reader w ill o f counse see th a t the whole
exam ple is ve ry im p o rta n t fo r w h a t is to fo l-
lo w , and so w ith o u t any more digressions we
w ill prove th is theorem too. I t is o f u ltim a te
im porta n ce to us, and to the e n tire sto ry in v o l-
v in g the fifth postulate .
True, the p o stu la te its e lf has n o t ye t been
fo rm u la te d in any w ay, b u t the w hole sto ry
o f the fifth postu la te sta rte d w ith th is very
theorem .
L e t there be a A ABC. L o o k! The e x te rio r
angle CeXi is c le a rly in d ic a te d by the arc. We

47
sh a ll prove th a t i t is greater than any in te rio r
angle n 〇l . i “ l j i 、
cent. to i t ; th a t is to say, g rm ile r
than and greater th a n /^B . We s ta rt w ith H.
D iv id e side BC by the p o in t D in to tw o equal
p a rts and draw a s tra ig h t lin o th ro u g h ■4 and
On th is lin e , m a rk off a segment DE equal
to i4Z) and connect p o in ts £ and C b y a s tra ig h t
lin e .
The tria n g le s ABD and DEC arc congruent.
Indcodf segments A D = D E and BD =D C as g i-
von in the c o n s tru c tio n . The angles CDE and
AD B are equal because th e y are v e rtic a l angles.
Hence, the tria n g le s are congruent on tho
basis o f a fa m ilia r c rite rio n .
B u t then /_B (or angle ABC) is equal to
angle A iid note! A ngle is o n ly a
p a rt o f angle Cext•
Thus, the e n tire angle C9Xi is greater (n a tu •
r a lly greater, fo r tho w hole is alw ays greater
th a n one of its parts) th a n angle B.
Some d o u b t rem ains about angle A . I t is
im m e d ia te ly fe lt th a t o u r co n stru ctio n w ill n o t
bo o f any p a rtic u la r h e lp , since in the figure
angle A is c u t in to tw o p a rts. I t w ould be {； ood
to p u t i t in the p o s itio n o f angle B, Perhaps
we should d ra w a s tra ig h t lin e from the vertex

48
B and repeat o u r c o n s tru c tio n and pro o f. B u t
then angle Ctxt w ill be located otherw ise.
A com plete analogy w ould re s u lt i f we p ro-
longed the side BC and regarded the new angle

Angle N is o f course greater th a n angle A .

We have ju s t proved as m uch.
A n in s p ira tio n ! A n g le N equals angle C€Xt
because th e y are v e rtic a l angles.
T h a t is a ll.
A n e x te rio r angle o f a tria n g le is greater than
any in te rio r angle n o t adjacen t to i t . W e have
proven th is and we can now cross o u t the
doubts we had on page 46 about the v a lid it y o f
the theorem .
I f we go over the p a th traversed w ith excee-
d in g care.*. A n d i f we check to see w h ic h axiom s
have been u tiliz e d in the p ro o f o f the theorem
o f the e x te rio r a n g le ... T o do th is we w ould
o f course have to v e rify the axiom s th a t were
used in p ro v in g the theorem s o f the congruence
o f tbo tria n g le s aud the e q u a lity o f v e rtic a l
angles.
Now i f a ll th a t were done, we w ould fin d th a t
we have u tiliz e d p ra c tic a lly a ll o f the axiom s.

49
 &

B u t nowhere have we taken advantage c ith e r

of the very n o tio n of nonin te rse ctin g (p a ra lle l)
s tra ig h t lines, nor (a ll the more sol) o f th co -
rems or axiom s coucerning such s tra ig h t lines.
The reader can easily v e rify th is b y ta k in g
the lis t of axiom s and a n a lyzin g a ll the Con•
cepts th a t are needed fo r the theorem o f an ex-
te ri or angle and fo r a ll a u x ilia r y theorems•
O ur deto u r has been too long and i t is tim e
to re tu rn to the axioms•
F irs t, lo t us figure o u t w hat lo g ic a l req uire -
meats th e y m ust s a tis fy .
O n ly tw o : (1) completeness and (2) indepen*
deuce
The firs t signifies th a t there m ust be a suf-
Ficient num ber of axiom s to prove or disprove
auy possible assertion concerning our p rim a ry
Basic Concepts or the more C om plex Concepts
b u ilt up from them .
The second im p lie s th a t we d id n o t take too
many axiom s. VVe have ju s t e x a c tly the uum ber
w© need. A nd n o t a single 0116 o f the axiom s can
be proved o r disproved w ith the oid o f the
others.

50
 B o th these demands m ay be fo rm ulated in a
single statem ent. The axiom s must be necessary
and sufficie n t.
Nm'ssity is a mjtiirement of completeness.
S ufficiency is a requirem ent o f independence.
To p u t i t very ro u g h ly , the requirem ents of
necessity and sufGcioncy s ig n ify th a t thore m ust
be e x a c tly the num ber o f axiom s as is needed,
n e ith e r more nor less.
Now fo r one very im p o rta n t refinem ent.
From the independence o f tho axiom s there
follow s stra ig h tw a y th e ir consistency. Indeed,
i f in our developm ent o f geom etry we a t some
stage a rriv e a t a theorem th a t co n tra d icts the
rest, th is w ill be a clear unpleasant in d ic a tio n
th a t there is som ething wrong in the found a tio n .
N am ely, th a t one a xio m (o r several) co n tra d icts
the rest. A n d i f there is an inconsistency, th a t
means th e y are n o t independent.
A c tu a lly , a ll these lo g ic a l argum ents are ex-
tre m e ly sim ple. B u t in a firs t reading th e y m ay
appear ra th e r in v o lv e d . M y suggestion is fo r the
roader to go over them once more.
For the present I w ould emphasize once again
th a t the requirem ent of independence o f axiom s
is stronger and more rig id th a n the requirem ent
of consistency.
Tho axiom s may bo consistent, b u t fro m ^th is
consistency i t does not y e t c le a rly fo llo w *th a t
one o f them m ig h t n o t be a c o ro lla ry o f the
others. Perhaps i t is a theorem . N a tu ra lly , when
a m athem atician proposes a system o f geom etri-
cal axiom s, he is obliged to prove tlie ir indepen-
dence! Let us stop our c h a in of reasoning a t th is
p o in t. There w ill be tim e and o p p o rtu n ity to

51
re tu rn to them again. W e w ill not miss the op-
p o rtu n ity and w ill n o t lose tim e e ith e r, o f th a t
I am certain.
Although everything that has just‫ ׳‬been writ‫־‬
Urnis rather simple, and 1 am positive the rea-
dor th in k s so too, E u c lid d id not know any o f
it . In tu it iv e ly he fe lt i t a ll, b u t he could not
form ulate i t in a cica r-cu t lo g ica l scheme.
Now a rigorous statem ent o f the problem of
the independence o f axiom s or tho rigorous in -
trod u c tio n o f the Basic Concepts was generally
beyond the ken n o t o n ly o f the Greeks but of
m athem aticians in a ll ages and peoples rig h t up
to the 19th ce n tu ry.
B o th the a xio m a tics and the proofs provided
by Euclid are actually a rather varicoloured
m ix tu re o f in tu itio n and lo g ic a l lacunae 一i f ono
regards them from tho s ta n d p o in t o f today.
Yet, on the other hand, Euclid advanced so
far and so crucially along the road to rigorous
logic that all other textbooks, and all other
‫ ״‬elem ents‫ ״‬cu rre nt in a n tiq u ity paled com ple-
t« ly when compared w ith the Elements.
W hen the Greeks spoke o f H om er they s im p ly
said the ‫ ״‬p o e t*\ and when the Greeks recalled
E u c lid f they said the ‫ ״‬maker o f the Elements".
A l l predecessors on the deductive p athw ay of
geom etric con structio n s wore forgotten.
There rem ained the Elements and th e ir crea-
to r E u c lid .
A lth o u g h the th irte e n books w ritte n by E u c lid
are believed to co n ta in m a in ly the results of
others, and fo r th is reason the question is often
debated as to w hether bo may be classed as one
of the greatest m athem aticians, ho was w ith o u t

52
> doubt a teacher o f the firs t m agnitude. W c may
also add th a t he was a p p a re n tly an inspired and
versatile scholar, fo r in a d d itio n to the Ele-
merits he also w rote Elements of Music, Optics,
Catoptrica^ Data Phaenotnena (a w ork on astro-
nom y), Introductio harmonica; then also ^ o rk s
I th a t came down to us and disappeared: the Po-
risms (in three books), Conies (in four books),
Perspective (in tw o books), Surjace-Tj>ci, On di-
visions and a Book of Fallacies.
A very im pressive lis t.
Most o f the books, i t is tru e , make no o rig in a l
I co n trib u tio n s , b u t the o u tp u t o f w ork is trem en-
dous. In c id e n ta lly , the Data was h ig h ly valued
b y N ew ton, w h ich is a ra th e r so lid recommen-
da tio n . E u c lid a p p a re n tly advanced s u b sta n tia l-
ly the h ig h ly com plex and e x c itin g d iv is io n o f
Greek geom etry devoted to the teaching o f co-
nic sections. H ow ever, he d id n o t in c lu d e those
results in the Elements, since there was a cur-
rent vie w th a t th is branch was u n w o rth y of
‫ ״‬pure m athem atics, whoso a im is to b rin g man
closer to g o d ‫• ״‬

53
 I t was again P la to who decided w h y precisely
the theory o f conic sections d id n o t b rin g one
closer to the d iv in e . The p o in t was th a t P lato
viewed as heresy the use in geom etry o f any in -
strum ents other th a n the compass and the
straight-edge, o r—w ha t is tho same th in g — the use
of lo c i other than the c irc le and the s tra ig h t lin e
(w hich lo c i were needed in the stu d y o f conic
sections). P la to passionately denounced the b r il-
lia n t geom etrician Menaechmus (in c id e n ta lly his
)，
friend who dem onstrated th a t the so lu tio n of
the notorious problem o f d u p lic a tin g the cube,
also th a t of tris e c tin g aa angle, is found rather
s im p ly if use is made o f new geom etrical in s tru -
ments.
P la to m aintained th a t a ll o f th a t “ spoils and
destroys the good of geom etry, fo r geom etry thus
strays away from incorporea l and m e n ta lly p©r-
ceivable th in g s and moves tow ards the sensorial,
m aking use o f bodies th a t are ne©d8d in the ap-
p lic a tio n o f in strum e n ts o f v u lg a r handi-
c ra fts '
O b vio u sly th is rebuke frightened poor E u c lid ,
and his w o rk on conic sections vanished w ith o u t
a trace.
There w ould seem to be som ething in the Ele-
ments dealing w ith re gular solids (polyhedrons)
th a t belongs to h im . In the th irte e n th book i t is
proved th a t there e xist o n ly five d iffe re n t types
of such solids. T h is is a b r illia n t, unexpected,
celebrated... classical resu lt.
G enerally speaking, there is much in the Ele-
ments other th a n geom etry. They contain ce rta in
essentials o f the theo ry o f numbers and the geo-
m e trica l theory o f irra tio n a l q u a n titie s. The three

54
 h ist books are devoted to solid geom etry. E ve ry
d iv is io n is preceded b y axiom s and postulates.
P roperly speaking， plane geom etry is ex-
plained in the first six books, the very firs t be-
g in n in g w ith axiom s and postulates.
M ath e m a tica l historians are s t ill n o t in agree-
m ent as to how E u c lid distinguish ed between
axiom s and postulates.
G enerally, to E u c lid f axiom s (w h ich he calls
‫ ״‬general a ttrib u te s o f our m in d ‫ )״‬are tru th s th a t
refer to aoy e n titie s (not o n ly geom etrical). For
exam ple, i f A is equal to C and B is equal to
C, then A is equal to B. Here, A and B m ay be
num bers，segments o f lines, w eights o f bodies,
triangles, etc.
Postulates, on the other hand, are p u re ly geo-
m etrical axiom s. For instance, E uclid^s firs t pos-
tu lâ te : ‫״‬A unique s tra ig h t lin o can be draw n
from any p o in t to any o th e r p o in t.*1
E u c lid also has Basic Concepts (common no-
tions).
There is h a rd ly any reason to give his e n tire
system o f axiom s—we have said th a t a dozen
tim es i f once— because i t is q u ite unsatisfactory.
There are, p ro p e rly speaking, s ix axiom s in
E u c lid *s plane geom etry, and we sh a ll n o t men-
tio n them . B u t the postulates are w o rth n oting.
Here are the Grst four.
I t must be required:
I. T h a t a s tra ig h t lin e m ay be draw n between
any tw o points.
I I . T h a t any term in a te d s tra ig h t lin e m ay be
produced in d e fin ite ly .
I I I . T h a t about any p o in t as centre a c irc le
w ith any radius m ay bo described.

55
 IV . T h a t a ll r ig h t angles bo equal.
For the tim e being we sh a ll not stress what is
bad in these postulates. As N ik o la i Lobachevsky
once said, forgive E u c lid and the Elements a ll
th e ir ‫ ״‬p rim itiv e shortcom ings‫ ״‬. The im p o rta n t
th in g fo r us a t present is th a t a ll fo u r postu-
lates are very elem entary in content. Here E u -
d id postulated a bso lu te ly n a tu ra l, comprehen-
sible tru th s th a t are p a rt and parcel o f our con-
sciousness and our in tu itio n . A l l is w e ll and
goodt a n d .‫ ״‬then we come to the fifth postulate.
 Chapter 3

THE FIFTH POSTULATE

Tho fifth postulate reads:

I f two lines are cut by a transversal and the
sum of the Interior angles on one side of the trans-
versai is less than a straight angle (2dt or 180°)f
the two lines will meet if produced and will
meet on that side of the transversaL
T h a tfs a fo rm u la tio n fo r you! F irs t o f a ll,
w h a t a lo t o ! words. S econdly, w h a t a lo t o f
geom etrical concepts. A person p o o rly fa m ilia r
w ith the fundam entals o f geom etry w ill find i t
hard to understand a n y th in g . The postulate d if-
fers ra d ic a lly fro m a ll the others. I t sounds more
lik e a theorem . A n d n o t a sim ple one e ith e r.
There Is q u ite o b v io u s ly som ething strange here.
Before we go any fa rth e r, a llo w me to bow to
E u c lid .
Though I m yself have no p roof, n a tu ra lly , I
am convinced th a t the fifth postulate was p u r-
posely fo rm ulated in th is e xtre m e ly undesirable

57
form . T herein lies the great wisdom o f the Mcrc<i-
to r oi the Elementsy\
O f a ll possible statem ents o f the B fth postu-
I<ate, E u c lid chose the most in tric a te and cum -
bersome one. W hy? To answer, le t us see how
he constructs geom etry.
A fte r the axiom s and postulates, E u c lid na-
tu r a lly proves theorems. He proves 28 theorems
s tra ig h t off w ith o u t once using the fifth postu-
late. I t is not needed. A l l 28 are in d iffe re n t to
the fifth postulate, fo r, as they say, they rofer
to absolute geom etry.
Am ong the tw e n ty -e ig h t there is also a theo-
rem o f the e x te rio r an^lo o f a tria n g le . In E u -
clid *s lis t i t is No. 16. The lis t term inates w ith ,
as you can easily im agine, No. 27 and No. 28.
These theorems co n ta in the so-called **direct the-
o ry ‫ ״‬o f p a ra lle l lines. We sh a ll prove them to -
gether.
L e t tw o s tra ig h t lin e s be intersected by a
th ird a t p o in ts P and P v
I t is asserted th a t if angle A equals angle A 1‫י‬
the straight lines are parallel.

58
 W o rk in g b y the re d u ctio ad absurdum m ethod,
we firs t assume th a t the s tra ig h t lines intersect
a t p o in t C. Then we get a tria n g le whose
e x te rio r angle A t is equal to the in te rio r an^lo
A n o t adjacent to i t . B u t th is is im possible.
The theorem ‫״‬A n e x te rio r angle o f a tria n g le is
always greater than any in te rio r angle n o t ad-
jacent to i t ‫ ״‬does n o t a llo w th is to occur!
Hence, the s tra ig h t lines cannot intersect when
produced to the rig h t.
There is a second p o s s ib ility . The s tra ig h t l i -
nes intersect a t p o in t Cx, Then we get the tria n -
gle P P \C X fo r w hich angle B is an e x te rio r ang-
lo and B x is an in te rio r angle n o t adjacent to
B•
But th e y being ver-
tic a l angles‘
But hypothesis); hencef

A c tu a lly th a t com pletes the proof.

For the h y p o th e tica l tria n g le P P tCu angle B
is an e x te rio r angle and B x is an in te rio r one
not adjacent to it . And th e y are equal. W h ic h
is im possible. Consequently, the tria n g le P P XCX
cannot e xist. Hence, the s tra ig h t lines do n o t
intersect in p o in t Cx e ith e r.
T h a t completes the p ro o f o f tho theorem.
I t is obvious to the roader th a t B and B x
were introduced so th a t fo r the h y p o th e tic a l tr ia n ‫־‬
gle PPi Cx we could co m p le te ly d u p lica te the
s itu a tio n th a t im m e d ia te ly arose fo r tria n g le
P P tC (the firs t tria n g le ).
Now, so as to c o m p le te ly repeat E u c lid , le t
us in tro d u ce fo u r more angles in to o u r d raw ing.
A glance a t the figure w ill in d ica te w hich ones.

59
 From the © q u a lity / _ A ^ / mA l there s tra ig h t-
way follow s a whole fa m ily o f equalities.
1. these angles are
called “ opposite e x te rio r angles’’ •
2. these are called
‫ ״‬opposite in te rio r angles‫ ״‬.
3. and,
n a tu ra lly , = A l l these angles are
called corresponding angles.

が 十 / ^ \ = ,‫זז‬
‫־‬T Z ^ i Œ î î t

Here, we have in te rio r and e x te rio r angles on

one side.
O beying the g enerally accepted order o f thiags,
I lis te d ^ a ll tw e lve e q u a litie s and now regrot it .
So m any can easily obscure a clear m a tte r. A n y
single ono w ould suffice. The o th e r eleven are
im m e d ia te ly obtained i f even one is v a lid . We

60
started w ith the e q u a lity -= Z A t. B u t any
other one w ould have boeu p e rfe ctly suita b le .
We proved th a t i f any one o f the tw elve ©qua-
litie s is fu lfille d , then the s tra ig h t lines are pa-
ra lle l. T h is is the essence o f E u c lid 's tw o the‫־‬
orems, No. 27 and No. 28.
In c id e n ta lly , i t is w o rth re c a llin g a t th is
p o in t th a t the theorem about the p a ra lle l nature
o f tw o lines perpend icular to a common s tra ig h t
lin e — the firs t theorem proved in th is book— is
a special case o f o u r theorem o f p a ra lle l lines.
Upon p ro v in g a theorem , the geometer always
investigates the converse. la the converse, one
proceeds fro m th a t w h ich is proved in the d ire ct
theorem, aad, n a tu ra lly , the a tte m p t is made to
prove w hat is already given in the d ire c t theorem.
One o f the most common lo g ic a l mistakes o f
beginners is connected w ith d ire c t and converse
theorems. I t is casually th o u g h t by m any th a t
the converse o f a theorem follow s d ire c tly from
the theorem its e lf.
T o disprove th is , le t me c ite the fa m ilia r rea-
soning o f C aptain W rungel o f childhoo d fame
w h ich I have k e p t in m y m em ory a ll these
years fo r ju s t such a case.

Direct theorem Converse theorem

(The theorem of Captjdn
Wrungel)
Any horriag is a Gsh Any Gsb is a herring

In keeping w ith ce rta in tra d itio n s o f p o p u la r-

science lite ra tu re , one adds a t th is p o in t th a t
the above exam ple is ju s t a joke. B u t I w on*t
bother to do th a t.

61
 Exam ples taken from geom etry (E u c lid e a n ):
Direct theorems Converse thcorcins
1. If in the triangles I. If £ , A B € = l A xB }C u
A B C and A XB XCX the then the sides
sides A B ‫ =־‬AXBX\ A B ^A ^u
AG &ih 1 A C = A \C X and
= / _ A i ， then = Z-^i•
ùABC^= ă A i B f i i ，
II. Two linos porpendi- II. If two parallel slra•
cular to a common ighl lines arc cut by
straight liuo are pa. a transversal, they
raUel. aru perpendicular to
it.
111. 1( l A B C is .similar III. If the propatliou
to tlictk AB AC
AB _ AC
A xBy A XCX bolds lur the Iriaug-
les A B C and A l B l C Xt
then tbo triangh*s
are similar.
In Exam ple IV , wo s h a ll colebrale by combi-
ning fo u r different theorems in to one.
IV. If ă A B C is an isos- IV. If in ă A B C
cclos trianglo (1) L A ^i_ C \
{A B K B C )t then: (2) the altitudes or
(1) L A ^l_ C . the medians, or tbe
(2) the altitudes or bboclors of t he ang-
the niodians, or the les A and C are equ*
bisectors of tbe ang• al, then the triangle
les A and C are equ- A B C is an isosceles
al triangle ( A B = BC)
In these examples, a ll the d ire c t thcoroms are
correct. I t is le ft to the reader to figure o u t w heth-
er tho converse theorems are also v a lid .
I t is a curious fa c t, in c id e n ta lly , th a t very
often, though the converse is q u ite correct, i t

62
is fa r more com plicated to find its p ro o f than
the proof o f the d ire c t theorem. N a tu ra lly ,
there is such a case in o u r examples as w e ll.
Theorem 2 (E xa m p le I V ) — the e q u a lity o f b i-
sectors in an isosceles tria n g le —has a sim ple
proof, whereas the converse (w h ich is an absolu-
te ly correct theorem) is somewhat o f a tr ic k y
geom etrical problem .
W ith the theorem o f p a ra lle ls provedt le t us
tr y the converse. We fo rm u la te i t as follow s:

Direct theorem of Converse theorem of

parallels
I f two lines are cut by a
third and the result is
厶バ + 厶 ^^ ■ ji (or
one o f the 12 etiualities
given earlier is fu lfille d )9
then the lines are parallel.
parallels
/ / two lines are parallel,
a third line intersecting
them will produce
+ L P \ = ‫( ״‬or any of
the 12 equalities given
earlier will be satisfied).

The converse theorem o f p a ra lle l lines was

taken by E u c lid as the F ifth P ostulate, though
E u c lid 's fo rm u la tio n o f the fifth postulate is
somewhat d ifle rc u t.
R ecall the d e iin itio n given a t the s ta rt o f th is
chapter. I t id w e ll w o rth the tro u b le . Here i t is.

63
 Postulate V, I f two lines are cut by a trans-
versai and the sum of the interior angles on one
side of the transversal is less than a straight an•
gle (that the sum ^ A + / _ C X is less than
2k (180e), the two lines will meet if produced
and will meet on that side of the transversal.
B o th the p u rp o se fu lly cumbersome way in
w hich E u c lid introduced the fifth postulate and
the fundam ental 28 theorems w hich preceded i t
and w h ich were proved q u ite indepe ndently of
i t , a ll go to dem onstrate the am azing in tu itio n
o f E u c lid or o f the one he borrowed the idea
from ( if th a t person existed).
I sh a ll tr y to e x p la in m yself and substantiate
m y c la im . T h is is a ll the more pleasant a task,
siac6 i t w ill be q u ite im possible to refute w hat
I havo to say. There are no facts a t a ll, thus
opening wide a ll o p p o rtu n itie s fo r an h is to rico -
psychological in v e s tig a tio n .
L e t us exam ine the in it ia l data.
B y the tim e the Elements were w ritte n , geo-
m e try had already grow n in to a m ature, w e ll-
elaborated science.
Behind i t la y three hundred years o f develop•
m ent and dozens of in tric a te problem s solved,
and several tough unresolved ones lik e the du-

64
p lic a tio n o f the cube. T hauks to P la to and A ris -
to tle , the deductive scheme was established, had
gained re co g n itio n and was flourishing.
The h is to ria n of geom etry could already revel
in tw o score names o f celebrated m athem aticians.
1 give th is num ber m eaning those scholars whose
names have come down to ua. For each one
of them there are u n dou btedly a t least ten geo-
meters o f lesser m agnitude whose names never
roached U3.
P ra c tic a lly a ll were in agreement th a t geomet-
ry should develop on the basis of axiom s. Ob-
v io u s ly , the m a jo rity were in f u ll accord w ith
A ris to tle in th a t axiom s and tho basic notions
should sa tisfy the requirem ent of being obvious.
As A ris to tle p u t i t , the fo rm u la tio n of the a x i-
oms themselves is a m a tte r o f too groat a re»•
p o a s ib ility to en tru st to m athem aticians. I t is
the supreme problem .
N a tu ra lly , then, o n ly the most w o rth y were
a d m itte d to resolve it .
Philosophers, in other words.
W hether tho geometers believed A ris to tle or
n o t，is not the p o in t; the p o in t is tlia t w ith A ris -
to tle ono agrees*
Thoro can be no d oubt th a t before E u c lid 's
tim e a tte m p ts had bc^n made (and numerous
ones) to prove the converse of the theorem of par•
allel lines. A nd I personally th in k th a t b y Eu*
c lid 's tim e i t was clear th a t tw o solutions exis-
ted:
1. To prove the converse theorem of parallels
on the basis of the re m a in in g postulates o f geo-
m etry, aod, by the rules o f the game, w ith o u t
the in tro d u c tio n o f any a d d itio n a l postulates.

65
 The adherents of th is school mast have pre-
sumed th a t the converse theorem o f p a rallels
was n o th in g more than a com plicated theorem

tulates.
2. To the fo u r postulates i t is possible to add
a fifth such th a t the converse theorem of parai-
lels w ould re a d ily be obtained w ith its aid . A nd
th is a d d itio n a l postulate m ig h t be form ulated
in such manner th a t i t w ould appear n a tu ra l and
obvious in the extrem e.
I t is h ard to believe th a t the predecessors and
contem poraries o f E u c lid — a ll b r illia n t geome-
tric ia n s o f llie age o f flo u ris h in g le a rn in g —could
aot conjure up a whole g a la xy o f e q u iv a le n t and
‫ ״‬o b vio u s‫ ״‬statem ents o f the fifth postulat« . I t
is hard to believe fo r the sim ple reason th a t
some o f them p ra c tic a lly beg to be stated.
T a k in g the firs t path , i t is q u ite n a tu ra l th a t
no success was achieved e ith e r a t th a t tim e or
d u rin g the tw o thousand years fo llo w in g E u c lid .
T oday, thanks to Lobachevsky, we know th a t
success was o u t o f the question. B u t th a t is w hat
we know today.
A l l the more a llu rin g was, most a p p a re n tly,
the second p o s s ib ility : to propose an e q u iv a le n t
b u t sim p le and n a tu ra l p o stu la te — to smear over
and cover up the unpleasant spot and calm down.
Num erous com m entators o f E u c lid who d e a lt
w ith the fifth p ostulat« d id ju s t th a t e x p lic itly
or in veiled form .
I t is im possible to believe th a t such an o u t-
sta n d in g m a th e m aticia n as E u c lid who profound-
ly researched the problem o f the fifth postulate
(and the e n tire c o n stru ctio n o f the firs t book of

66
tho Elements is witness to th is p a rtic u la r a tte n ‫׳‬
lio n w ith respect to the fifth postulate)» i t is
im possible, I in s is t，th a t be d id not come ac-
ross a num bor o f e q u iv a le u t aad ra th e r n a tu ra l
fo rm u la tio n s o f the fifth postulate. F or ia stan-
cet i f we com bine the d ire c t theorem on parai*
lels and the fifth postulate in E u clid e a n form ,
we im m e d ia te ly get:
A new fo rm u la tio n o f the f if t h postulate.
Through a point C lying outside a straight line
A B in a plane ABC, it is possible to draw only
one line that does not meet AB.
T h is statem ent is u s u a lly a ttrib u te d to the E n ‫־‬
B：Iis h m ath e m a ticia n P la y fa ir (18th ce n tu ry), b u t,
n a tu ra lly , i t was proposed b y very m any com-
m entators o f E u c lid m any centuries before P la y -
fa ir's tim e .
‫ ״‬P la y fa ir's a x io m ‫ ״‬does lo o k m uch more na-
tu ra l and a ttra c tiv e th a n E u c lid 's postulate,
doesn’t it?
Here is another fo rm u la tio n . I t is u s u a lly a t-
trib u te d to Legendre, though i t too was em plo-
yed e a rlie r by European and O rie n ta l geometers.
Legendre*s postulate . A line perpendicular tot
and a line inclined to, a common secant A B %lo-
cated in the same plane, definitely meet. (N a tu -

67
r a lly on the side o f the secant where the
in c lin e d lin e form s an acute angle w ith the so*
cant.)
A ^ a in a very p ic to ria l assertion. In place of
the E u clid e a n postula te we have a special case.
I t w ill re a d ily be seen th a t th is is q u ite s u ffi-
cie n t to provo the fifth p ostulate in the E u c li-
dean form (the con verse theorem of parallel
lines). In c id e n ta lly , fo r those who are making ：
th e ir firs t acquaintance w ith geom etry, th is is a
w o rth y and ra th e r in v o lv e d problem th a t m erits
some a tte n tio n . I w ill give a few h in ts and leave
(he rest to the reader.
Those who are n o t p a rtic u la rly excited about
th is p ro p o sitio n can s im p ly s k ip the m athem atics.
B u t we w ill accept the Legendre p o stu la te — a
lin e perpen d icu la r to , and a lin e in c lin e d to a
common secant m eet— and w i l l prove the fifth
postulate in the E u c lid e a n fo rm , w h ich is the
converse of the theorem of parallels.
F irs t le t us prove an a u x ilia ry theorem , a
lem m a.
L e t tw o s tra ig h t lin e s I and I I be intersected
by a th ir d so th a t Z .A < y and the sum
+ Then, by the d ire c t theorem we know
th a t these lines do n o t meet, fo r th e y are pa-
ra lle l.
L e t us again in v e s tig a to the p ro o f o f the d i-
rcct theorem .
From p o in t C drop a p e rp e n d icu la r o n to tho
s tra ig h t lin e / .
TW s can alw ays be done. The a p p ro p ria te the-
orem was proved w ith o u t a w ord a bout p a ra lle l
lines.

68
 Prove, g ive n our c o n d itio n ( / A < y ) , th a t the
perpen d icu la r CB is located as shown in the
draw in g .
Prove by means o f re d u c tio ad absurdum and
u tiliz e the theorem on tho e x te rio r angle o f a
tria n g le .
Wo then have N is tho un-
know n.
Then we have /_A + ^/D + /^N=7：m
(R ecall the hypothesis!)
N ow consider /\ABC .
There are three p o s s ib ilitie s fo r the sum of
its angles•

N ote: we cannot uso tho theorem th a t the sum

o f the angles o f a tria n g le is equal to r . T h is
theorem is a c o ro lla ry to the p a ra lle l postulate.
F irs t exam ine the hypothesis:
> :•

69
 Compare th is in e q u a lity w ith the e q u a lity
+ / Z ? + / A r= î ：and o b ta in
N ow em ploying Legendre's postulate yo u get
the s tra ig h t lines / and I I m eeting on the rig h t
o f p o in t B. T h is c o n tra d icts the hypothesis. Con-
sequen tly, the hypothesis is wrong.
Consider the hypothesis +
In e x a c tly the same way show th a t in th is
case the lines I and I I meet to the le ft o f p o in t
‫ ; ע‬tlie ii re je ct th is hypothe sis as w e ll.
You have proven two im portant theorems at
once:
1. The sum o f the angles o f the tria n g le ABC
is equal to it.
2. The angle N is equal to 90‫״‬.
N ow prove the converse p a ra lle l theorem by
e m plo yin g the fo llo w in g a u x ilia ry c o n s tn ic tio n .

70
 G iven: when / and I I are c u t b y a th ird lin e ,
le t Z - 4 + Z C i < ‫ ״‬and
1. D rop a perpen d icu la r onto the lin o I from
p o in t B.
2. D raw through B a lin e p a ra lle l to / / , th a t
is a s tra ig h t lin e th a t satisfies the **direct theo-
rem of p a ra lle ls ". Prove th a t i t w ill pass as
shown in the d ra w in g .
T h in k fo r a m om ent and then again make use
o f Legendre’s postulate to prove th a t the lin e
I I w ill intersect / .
Y ou have thus proved E u c lid 's postulate . B u t
do not forget th a t yo u made use o f an e q u iva-
le n t postulate.
I f you were somewhat embarrassed by the con-
d itio n convince yo u rse lf th a t i t does
not re s tric t the g e n e ra lity o f y o u r reasoning.
N ow check through to be sure there are no
errors in y o u r reasoning.
The above proof has a t least tw o no te w o rth y
features.
F irs t o f a ll, we prove in passing th a t as soon
as we took L e g e n d r e p o s tu la te (the e q u iva le n t
of E u c lid 's postulate ) we found a tria n g le the
sum of whose angles is equal to ‫ז‬： •
Secondly, I have never read ahout th is proof.
I th o u g h t i t up in a couple o f m inutes. I w rite
th is n o t because I am a m b itio u s and hope to
gain the a d m ira tio n o f the reader fo r my m atho‫־‬
m a tic a l ta le n t.
The equivalence o f the postulates o f Legendre
and E u c lid can be proved m uch more s im p ly
and e le g a n tly, in ju s t tw o lines. A l l one needs

71
to do is take tho fifth postulate in the form o f
P la y fa ir's axio m . (T hrough a given p o in t o n ly
one lin e can be draw n p a ra lle l to a given
s tra ig h t lin e .)
So, as yo u see, our theorem is u n w ie ld y and
xinneeded. Its sole ju s tific a tio n is th a t i t suggests
another one w h ich is indeed an im p o rta n t thco-
rem : if the sum of the angles of a triangle is
equal to tc, then the fifth postulate is valid. W h a t
is more, i t is useful fo r exercise. S t ill more im -
p o rta n t— most im p o rta n t— in my o p in io n is the
fa c t th a t such ‫ ״‬in v e s tig a tio n s ‫ ״‬dem onstrate how
the v e ry firs t nnivc st«ps take us d ire c tly to
ever new e quivale nts o f the Tifth postulat«. A nd
o f course there can be no doubt th a t our sim ple
chain o f argum ents was trie d o u t by any num ber
of com m entators o f E u c lid .
B u t now convinced how easy i t is to s im p lify
the statem ent o f the fifth postulate , wo u n w it-
tin g ly ask: w h y d id n o t E u c lid do th is h im so lf.
I 'm sorry b u t I cannot help m yself. Tho s itu a ti*
on demands a series o f rh e to ric a l questions« lik e :
Can i t be th a t E u c lid d id not tr y to provo his
theorem?
Is i t possible th a t a scholar o f th a t m agni-
tudo, such a perspicacious a n a lyst could not
o b ta in a few elom ontary co ro lla rie s and choose
fo r tho postulate the more n a tu ra l and obvious
one?
H o w can i t be th a t he, a fo llo w e r o f A ris to tle
and P la to , le t such an o p p o rtu n ity pass by?
H o w is i t possible th a t he ruined the whole
harm ony o f geom etry thus b rin g in g upon
h im s e lf the ire o f the im m o rta l gods o f O ly m -
pus?

72
 Can i t be th a t any one o f a host o f com m enta‫־‬
tors was able to penetrate deeper and b e tto r in to
the problem th a n he?
The a b s u rd ity is so o b vio u s.” The most
lik e ly version is the fo llo w in g .
E u c lid , lik e his predecessors, u n d o u b te d ly did
a tte m p t to elevate the fifth p ostulate to the
ra n k o f a theorem and prove i t w ith o u t in v o l-
v in g any supplem en tary assum ptions.
T a k in g in to account the e xception al p o sition
o f the fifth postulate in the Elements and also
the noto rio u s 28 theorems th a t preceded i t , one
can conclude w ith assurance th a t th is problem
w orried E u c lid and th a t he paid ve ry special
a tte n tio n to i t .
R eca llin g th a t a ll the methods o f elem entar)T
geom etry were fu lly elaborated in E u c lid 's day,
re c a llin g fo r instance th a t studies in the theory
o f conic sections were im m easurably more com-
(ilicated than most o f the reasoning in vo lve d in
ih o fifth postulate, re c a llin g (once again) th a t
tho Gflh postu la te —in the form th a t E u c lid in -
vested i t —is a challenge to the demands o f P la-
to and A ris to tle , o u trig h t e ffro n te ry, re c a llin g
th a t E u c lid t ju d g in g b y e v e ry th in g we know ,
was a true fo llo w e r o f‫ ״‬., and, fin a lly , re c a llin g
th a t E u c lid was a b r illia n t geom etrician.,* Re-
c a llin g a ll th is , we a rriv e a t one and o n ly one
conclusion.
In the process o f v a in atte m p ts to prove the
fifth p o stu la te t E u c lid most lik e ly found seve-
ra l equ iva le n t fo rm u la tio n s. S im ple ones. Ob-
vious ones. But E u c lid knew where to
stand.

73
 On the one handt he c le a rly understood that,
i t w ould be im possible to prove the postulate
w ith o u t in v o k in g some e q u iva le n t assum ption.
On the other hand, n o t one o f the e q u iva le nt
forms o f the fifth postulate satisfiod— to his li-
k in g — the requirem ent o f being self-evident. And
so he concluded th a t the s itu a tio n was ve ry sad
and the problem rem ained unresolved. A n d , lik e
an honest geometer, he decided to emphasize the
fact th a t tÈe fifth postulate was a rejected, despi-
cable monster in the closely k n it fa m ily o f axiom s.
T h a t being the case, there is every ju s tific a tio n
fo r choosing the most com plicated form . I t is
as i f E u c lid purposely nudged bis colleagues: do
not cherish any v a in hopes, do not seek consola*
tio n in the pleasanter equiva le n ts o f m y postu-
la te , do n o t a tte m p t to hide the blem ish. You
w ill never a tta in the desired self-evident nature
th a t we require o f axiom s. T h is postulate is no-
th in g other th a n the ‫ ״‬converse o f the p a ra lle l
theorem ‫ ״‬. I t has to be proved w ith the aid o f the
other postulates, or the beauty and harm ony of
geom etry w ill be ruined* I could n o t demote
th is postulate to the ra n k o f a theorem. Y ou tr y .
To p u t i t b rie fly , I presume th a t E u c lid had
a more profound grasp o f the s itu a tio n than d id
most o f h is com m entators. E ith e r th e y were h y -
pnotized b y th e ir own analyses and convinced
themselves th a t the postulate was proved, or
they attem pted to fo rm u la t« some e q u iva le n t
and wmore n a tu ra ln postulate . N ow E u c lid most
lik e ly c le a rly understood th a t he had n o t been
able to resolve the firs t problem , and to seek
self-evident statem ents w ould mean s im p ly to
aggravate the illness.

74
 In th is ra th e r balanced version o f m atters
there is a weak spot (o f course). I f there were some
k in d o f investigations^ then w hy d id n 't E u c lid
p u b lish them? T h a t is n o t clear to me. Possib-
ly he fe lt some inconvenience in p u ttin g fo rth
theorems th a t d id n o t lead to any results. Per-
haps, lik e m any great scientists, ho d id n o t lik e
to make p u b lic uncom pleted studies. Take
Gauss, who d id n o t p u b lis h his in ve stig a tio n s in to
non-E uclid ean geom etry! B u t maybe there was
a m anuscrip t a fte r a ll.
T h a t is m y strong p o in t: there is v e ry lit t le
in fo rm a tio n to prove or disprove a n y th in g in
th is m atter.
A c tu a lly the best source o f a n tiq u ity on the
h is to ry o f the fifth postu la te is P ro clu s1 commen-
ta ry on E u c lid . T h is , as the reader should b«ar
in m in d , was in the fifth c e n tu ry A .D .
Here we take leave o f E u c lid . In p a rtin g , a l-
lo w me to say a few w arm words.
E u c lid was a good, a b r illia n t ，m athem atician .
He was a great teacher. One wants to believe

75
th a t he was ju a t as good a man and th a t he live d a
long and happy life in h is sunny A le x a n d ria , d rin -
k in g w ith friends the sweet wine o f Chios or the
pungent w ine o f Cyprus— d ilu te d o f course be-
cause in e b ria tio n is a sin o f the Scythians b u t
not o f the Greeks—jo k in g to le ra n tly about P to-
Iem y, in s tru c tin g his p u p ils , reading Hom er and
w o rk in g to the ve ry end o f his days. We hope
th a t he praised the gods o f O lym pus for m aking
h im a geometer.
T h a t is the accepted way o f th in k in g , and
sincet fo r la c k o f facts, no one can disprove it ,
wo w ill th in k so too.
A nd w ith th a t, farew ell to you, E u c lid .
The problem has been posed.
L e t us see w h a t happend then.
The A ppendix T h a t I Promised. A L is t o f the
A xiom s o f P lane G eom etry
S ix Basic Concepts are considered, nam ely,
Three Basic Images (e n titie s ): p o in t, lin e , plane.
Three Basic R e latio n s: belonging (incidence),
ly in g between (fo r p o in ts), m o tio n or coincidence.
L A xiom s o f connection.
1. One and only one straight line can be
drawn through two points.
2. A straight line contains at least two points.
3. There exist at least three points not located
on one straight line♦
I I . A xiom s o f order.
2. Among any three points of a straight line,
there is always one and only one that lies be-
tween the other two.

76
 2. I f A and B are distinct points of a straight
line then there is at least one point C that lies
between A and B.
3. / / a line intersects one side of a triangle
(that is, contains a point lying between two ver-
tices)t then it either passes through tfie vertex of
the opposite angle, or intersects another side of
the triangle.
B y e m p lo yin g the axiom s o f order it is pos-
sible to deGne very im p o rta n t notions th a t w ill
be needed la te r on. N a m e ly: the concepts of
‫ ״‬line-segm en t", ‫״‬h a ll- lin e ‫( ״‬or ra y ), and ‫ ״‬an-
g le ，
，•
I I I . A xio m s o f m otion.
F or m athem aticians, m o tio n is a basic (p ri-
m ary) concept. The properties o f m athem atical
m otion are defined b y tho fo llo w in g axioms.
1. For a given transformation of motion (call
it D ) any point A of the plane undergoing trans-
formation passes into a single definite point A \
2. For a given transformation of motion D 9
a certain point A of our plane passes into any
point A \
3• For a given transformation of motion D 9
distinct points A and B are carried into distinct
points A f and B*.
These three axiom s dem onstrate th a t m o tio n
is a one-to-one tra n s fo rm a tio n o f a plane in to
its o lf.
4. A sequential execution of any two transfor*
mations of motion D x and D t is also a trans-
formation of motion. We shall call i t D t *Dv
5. Every motion D has an inverse motion D 'l9
such that the product D‫־‬X‫ ׳‬D is a motion that leaves
77
all points of the plane unchnngedt that is9 it is
a so-called identical transformation.
In vie w o f A x io m 4 i t is obvious th a t an idea-
tic a l tra n sfo rm a tio n (rest) should be regarded as
a special case o f the tra n sfo rm a tio n o i m otion.
These are follow ed b y axiom s w h ich demon-
strate th a t in m otion there does n o t occur any
*4d e fo rm a tio n n o i the plane.
6. I f motion transforms the ends of a line-seg~
m^nt A B into the ends of the line-segment A fB \
then any interior point of AB is carried into an
interior point of A*B\
N ow comes a most im p o rta n t a xio m , w ith o u t
w h ich i t w ould be im possible to establish the
concept o f the congruence o f figures.
7. I f A t B and C are three points of some
figure that do not lie on a single straight line,
then this figure may be translated so that:
(a) point A coincides with any preassigned
point A* of the plane;
(b) ray A B coincides with any preassigned
ray À ’B’ emanating from point A 、
(c) point C coincides with some point C* in
any preassigned half-plane resting on the ray
A 'B ( there are naturally two such half-planes).

78
Following thtsf no further movement of the figure
is possible.
A n d , fin a lly , an axiom w h ich shows th a t m ir-
ro r reflections are a special case o f the tra n sfor-
m ation o f m otion.
8. There are motions that carry segment AB
into BA and angle AOB into angle BOA.
These e ig h t axiom s deGno a ll iho properties
o f m o tio n , and i t is now possible to in tro d u ce
rigorou sly the n o tio n o f the e q u a lity^ or, to be
s c ie n tific , the congruence o f figures.
‫ ״‬Figure S is congruent to figure S l i f i t can
be made to coincide w ith figure S’ by means of
m o tio n •”
I t is now easy to prove the fo llo w in g theo-
rems:
1. Figure 5 is equal to its e lf.
2. I f S is equal to 5 ‫ ׳‬, then 5 ‫ ׳‬is also equal to
S•
3. 1! S is equal to S \ and S r is equal to S 9‫״‬
then S is equal to S f\
The axiom s o f plane geom etry are nea rly ex-
hausted.
W h a t rem ains are:

79
 IV . A xio m o f c o n tin u ity (D e«lekinflf9 axiom ).
I f all the points of a straight line are partitio-
ned into two classes—I and I I —suck that any
point of Class I I lies to the right of any point
of Class / , then either in Class I there is a right•
most point and then in Class I I there is no left-
most pointy or conversely%Class I I has a left-
most point‫ י‬and then Class I I does not have a
rightmost point•
To p u t i t cru d e ly, th is axiom im p lie s th a t
there are no gaps or e m p ty spots in the s tra ig h t
lin e .
I t is necessary to in tro d u ce th is axiom so as
to be able to con stru ct a rigorous theory fo r mca*
suring line-segments.
A nd fin a lly :

V. The p a ra lle l axiom .

Only one line can be drawn parallel to a gi*
ven line through a given point not on this line.
W e m ig h t ju m p ahead in o u r s to ry fo r a mo-
m ont to say th a t the a xiom atics o f Lobachev*
s k y 's geom etry differs from E uclidean axiom a*
tics solely in th is la st axio m . A l l the other a x i-
oms o ! both geometries coincide.
 Chapter 4

THE AGE OF PROOFS.

THE BEGINNING

We begin w ith a short lis t o f names. The pro-

blem o f p a ra lle l lines was attacked by A ris to t-
1g, Poseidonius, P to le m y, P ro d u s, S im p lic iu s ,
and Aganis in the ancient w o rld ; b y A I-H asan,
at-G usi A h-S hanni, an‫־‬N a iriz i, O m ar K h a yya m ,
Ib n a l-H a isa n , N a s ir-u d -D in , in the East.
B y C lavius, W a llis , L e ib n iz , Descartes, P la y -
fa ir, Lagrange, Saccheri, Legendre, L a m b e rt, Ber-
tra n d , F ou rie r, Am pere, d 'A le m b e rt, Schwei-
k a rt, T a u rin u s, Jacobi in Europe.
A nd b y scores o f know n and several thousands
o f nameless m athom aticians as w e ll.
The problem o f the fifth postulate wrecked so
m any m inds i t w ould be possible to f ill a good-
sized p s y c h ia tric h o sp ita l.
T h a t is no exaggeration e ith e r. M any spent
th e ir w hole life in v a in atte m p ts a t a proof, w in -
d in g up in m ystical te rro r or a p s y c h ia tric ward•
One o f the most unexpected in d ic a tio n s o f the
exceeding p o p u la rity o f the problem lies in a
rem ark made by S t. Thomas Aquinas.
S t. Thomas A quinas was a most p ro m in e n t
theologian o f the C hristian w o rld . In one o f his
researches he found i t necessary to solve a p ro-
blem o f exceptional d iffic u lty : ‫ ״‬W h a t is beyond
the c a p a b ility o f God?‫״‬
H e pointed o u t a num ber o f item s in th is
class.

81
 A ccording to St. Thomas A quinas, God cannot
d ra s tic a lly upset the fundam en tal laws o f na-
lu re . For instance, he cannot tu rn a hum an be-
in g in to a donkey. ( I t m ig h t be w o rth adding
th a t most people handle th a t problem d a ily w ith -
o u t any d iv in e aid•)
To continue , God cannot tire , be angry, sad
or take away m an's soul, and the lik e .
The lis t also contains an ite m th a t states
th a t God canuot make the sum o f the angles of
a tria n g le less than tw o rig h t angles.
I am alm ost convinced th a t th is example is
n o t accidenta l. S i. Thomas A quinas could have
chosen any o th e r more self-evident theorem. I t
is very lik e ly th a t he chose th is one fo r the sim -
pie reason th a t he was fa m ilia r w ith v a in a t-
tem pts to prove the fifth postulate and w ilh
the fa c t th a t the assertion th a t Mthe sum o f the
angles o f a tria n g le is equal to tw o rig h t angles‫״‬
is e q u iva le n t to the G lth postulate.
I t is o rd in a rily supposed th a t th is theorem
became know n in Europe in the 18th ce n tu ry.
S t, Thomas A quinas liv e d in the 13th century.
G u t wo must also say th a t A ra b ia n m athem a-
iicia n fl fu n d a m e n ta lly investigate d the problem
o f p a ra lle l linos and, among other th in g s, ob-
tained th a t re su lt as w e ll.
M any works m ig h t have been know n in
the e a rly M id d le Ages th a t were subsequently
lost.
Today i t is hard to realize ju s t how hopelessly
confused was the whole theory o f p a ra lle l linos
p rio r to Lobachevsky.
Today any good m athem atics m ajor in co l-
lege w ould need no moro than tw o or three weekâ

82
o f calm w ork to prove the theorom: i f the sum
o f angles o f a tria n g le is equal to then the
fifth postulate holds.
A nd he w ould pn>ve i t even i f ho were alm ost
to ta lly u n fa m ilia r w ith non-E uclidcan geometry
and, consequently, fo rm a lly in the same posi-
tio n as geometers o f the past.
As re ce n tly as the 18th ce n tu ry th is theorem
was considered—and r ig h tly so— to be one o f the
greatest a ttainm ontd o f science. 1 do not in the
least w ish to defend Ihe o b vio u sly pleasant the~
sis th a t *1people are more talent-ed to d a y ‫ ״‬. T h a t
is not the p o in t a t a ll. S im p ly , in scie n tific
w ork, confidence in the u ltim a te re su lt, a clear-
c u t knowledge th a t the approach is correct
proves to be an alm ost decisive factor.
A n A m ericau p h ys ic is t is reported to have
said th a t as soon as the a tom ic bomb was exploded
the production o f i t ceased to be a secret. T his
may be a s lig h t exaggeration, b u t in p rin c ip le
i t is correct.
I am sure the reader w ill recall how much sim -
p ie r i t is to solve a problem o r to prove a theo-
rem i f the answer is already known.
Now in the whole problem o f p a ra lle l linos,
o n ly one g u id in g idea is needed: the fifth postu-
late o f E u c lid is independent o f a ll the others.
W ith ju s t th a t knowledge, any m athem atician
today w ould re a d ily repeat most o f Lobachev-
sky 's results in a very short tim e . B u t he w ould
rem ain an ordinar>r m ath e m a ticia n . He w ould
know o n ly one th in g : ‫ ״‬you have to d ig here.‫״‬
A nd th a t w ould solve alm ost e v e ryth in g .
I th in k a casc from chess can offer enough
su pportin g evidence. Take any chess puzzle w hich

6• 83
States th a t w h ite has a w in n in g move. The usual
requirem ent in such a po sitio n is to rind an ele-
gant co m b in a tio n o f moves. A n y docent chess-
pla ye r can rosolve 90 per cent o f such problem s
in an hou r o r so. Y e t iu 90 cases o u t o f a hun*
dred he w ould never see such a co m b in a tio n in
an a c tu a l game.
These rem arks are to fo re s ta ll any stupid feel-
ings o f s u p e rio rity over m athem aticians o f earl*
ie r ages, i t is tru e th a t most o f the theorems in *
v o lv in g p ro o f o f the fifth postulate are q u ite ele-
m entary in th e ir log ic, and q u ite accessible to
grade-school students. W h a t is more, the lo g i*
cal errors of those who th o u g h t they had proved
the fifth postulate are aLso very elem entary. B u t
the elem entary nature is o v id e n t o n ly tod a y. In
the very same fashion, tw e n ty years hence ma-
ny o f iho problem s th a t plague scientists nowa-
days w ill appear rid ic u lo u s ly sim ple and naive.
T h a t is w hat so often happens in physics.
A fte r th is heavy dose o f general discussiont i t
is hig h tim e to re tu rn to the fifth postulate.
1 have tim e and a^ain repeated (the reader
w ill have to excuse m e ^ I a d m it I ' l l have to do
i t again), th a t a ll a tte m p U a t a proof were mo-
tiv a te d a c tu a lly by a single fa cto r: a certain
la ck o f elegance, a la c k o f beauty, as the a rtis t
w ould say.
I t rankled and i t ru ffle d the aesthetic feelings
o f scholars by its c o m p le x ity . Tho reaction to i t
was the same in ancient Greece, in Persia and
in Europe.
H ow d e lig h tfu l was the in d ig n a tio n o f one of
the greatest m athem aticians o f the A ra b ic world»
O m ar K h a yya m .

84
 u...E u c lid th o u g h t th a t the reason for the in -
tersection o f s tra ig h t lines was th a t the tw o an-
gles (in te rio r angles on one side‫< ־ ־‬Smi/ga) are
less than tw o rig h t angles.
‫ ״‬In so b e lie v in g he was rig h t, b u t i t can be
proved o n ly w ith the aid o f supplem entary argu-
ments. (K h a yya m believed th a t he had proved
the fifth postu la te 一Smilga)... B u t E u c lid accep-
ted th is promise and proceeded fro m i t w ith o u t
proof• I swear upon m y 】 ife ... th a t here we need
the aid o f reason, and th a t is its r ig h t . . . ‫״‬
‫ ״‬H o w could E u c lid have p e rm itte d h im s e lf to
enter th is statem ent in the in tro d u c tio n (w hich
means choosing i t as an ax i om. — whe-
reas he proved fa r more sim p le fa cts‫ ״‬. ‫״‬
L e t us see how the struggle went w ith the fifth
postulate. There were three canonical approa-
ches.
1. A postulate o q u iva le n t to the E u clid e a n one
was openly proposed. These authors form ed a
group called the ‫ ״‬m odest‫ ״‬o r ‫ ״‬pessim istic‫ ״‬trend.
2. R eductio ad absurdum is one o f the most
elegant and pow erful o f lo g ica l methods o f sol­

85
v in g m athem atical problem s. Here, no new pos-
tu la tc s were in tro duce d .
A theorem was form ulated co n tra ry in mean‫־‬
in g to the fifth p ostulate o r to one o f its equiva-
lents; th is was follow ed b y tho e la b o ra tio n o f
diversifie d corollaries in the hope th a t sooner or
la te r a ll th is w ould lead to a c o n tra d ic tio n ,
w hich w ould ipso facto prove th a t tho fifth pos-
tu la t« follow ed from the other axiom s, and the
problem w ould be solved.
T h is is the o p tim is tic , presum ptuous trend.
3. A n d , G aally, we havo the group o f ‫ ״‬eclectics‫ ״‬.
They proved some theorem e q u iva le n t to the
fifth postulate. A n d th e y proved i t w ith the un-
w ittin g em ploym ent o f some other e q u iva le n t
o f E u c lid 's postulate.
Trend No. 2, the o p tim is ts , had the hardest
tim e . They ke p t s trin g in g o u t the chain o f th e ir
theorems, floundering more and more in the co-
ro lla rie s, and s t ill fin d in g no co ntradiction s.
From the vantage p o in t o f to d a y we realize
th a t th is group o f m athem aticians a c tu a lly were
pro vin g tlie in it ia l theorems o f non-E uclideau
geom etry, and th a t th e y were on the most p ro-
m ising pathw ay, fo r o n ly in th is w ay one could
come to realize th a t the E u clid e a n postulate was
independent o f a ll the others. B u t th a t d id not
make th in g s easier fo r them . As a ru le , they
e ith e r 】 o st heart o r went over to the camp of
‫ ״‬oclectics‫ ״‬.
One m ust note th a t m any o f the proofs o f the
eclectic group are m a g n ific e n tly w itty .
To p u t the a ctu a l h is to ry in a rather crude
form , one m ig h t say th a t, in the m ain, atte m p ts
were made to prove tw o basic varieties o f the
fifth postulate:
1. A perpendicular lin e and an in c lin e d lin e
meet.
2. Tho sum o f the angles o f a tria n g le is equal
to 1C.
In th is w ay, several very p ic to ria l equivale nts o f
the fifth postulate w tw found. A t tim es the authors
realized th a t they had found an e q u iva le n t; at
other tim es th e y were deluded in to th in k in g th a t
th e y had proved the fifth .
Here are a few ersatz* postulates:
1. The locus o f p o in ts e q u id is ta n t from a gf-
von s tra ig h t lin e is a s tra ig h t line■
2. The distance between tw o n oninte rse cting
s tra ig h t lines rem ains b o u n d e d .**
3. There e xist s im ila r figures.
4. I f the distance between tw o s tra ig h t lines
firs t dim inishes upon m otion in some d ire c tio n

* In fonnulatiag the cquivalcnU of the fifth pos-

tulatc, I will always presume that overylhing occurs
in one plane.
** This is a less siriei demand than No. 1.

87
along these s tra ig h t lines, i t cannot begin to in -
crease u n til the s tra ig h t lines meet.
A nd so on.
In a ll there are about t h ir t y such statem ents.
F or the amusement o f the reader, I give seve-
ra l ‫ ״‬proofs‫ ״‬o f the fifth postulate w ith o u t any
c ritic a l com m entary• I f he so desires, ho w ill be
able to figure o u t w hat postulate was used each
tim e in place o f the fifih .
1. The proof o f Proclus. One o f the very first,
one o f the sim plest and one o f the cleverest.
Proclus sta rts o u t w ith A ris to tle 's assertion:
When we produce ttû〇straight lines from a point
of intersection the distance between them in-
creases without bound.
He takes th is to be an a xiom .
A c tu a lly , i t is a theorem . W h a t is more, i t is
a theorem th a t is q u ite independent o f the fifth
postulate. So we can re ly fu lly on th is tboorem.
I t belongs to *4absolute geom etry‫ ״‬and, hence ，
as we understand m atters tod a y, i t holds true
both in E uclidean geom etry and in the geome-
tr y o f Lobachevsky. R u t the p o stu la te —the oqui-
v a le n t o f P roclus— is d iffe re n t.

88
 Here is the proof, a c tu a lly an o u tlin e o f the
proof. I w ill n o t h old rig o ro u sly to the fo rm a l
scheme o f any proof. T h a t w ould be a l i t t l e too
much.
D raw tw o d e fin ite ly p a ra lle l s tra ig h t lines;
th a t is, such th a t Z ^ + Z ^ ‫־‬i = îr
D raw a th ir d s tra ig h t lin e . How? I t is shown
in the figure as a dashed lin e .
The distance between the dashed lia o and the
upper lin e (when m oving leftw ards) increases
w ith o u t bound. C onsequently, !hero w ill come
a tim e when i t w ill exceed the distance between
the p a ra lle l lines.
W e ll, and then i t w ill be clear th a t the
dashed lin e w ill c u t the low er lin e .
We suggest the reader fo rm u la te m atters in
rigorous fo rm and also state w h ich postulate
Proclus em ployed im p lic it ly .
2. The p ro o f o f W a llis .
We w ill prove th a t a perpendicular and an
in clin e d lin e to a common secant intersect.
From p o in t B drop a perpendicular to a se-
cant, producing a tria n g le ABC. Take a s im ila r
tria n g le such th a t its side corresponding %〇AC
is equal to AD.
In vie w o f its im p o rta n ce , make a special
draw ing. T h is is tria n g le A XD XF V
Superimpose the dashed tria n g le on our ^sABC
so th a t A XD X lies on AC. Then A XF X w ill lie
on our in c lin e d lin o and side D lF l w ill lie on
our perpendicular.
A c tu a lly , tho proof is com plete: there are o n ly
a few fo rm a litie s lo ft. I leave them to the reader.
L e t us not got too in vo lve d in examples. A
more in te re stin g p o in t is the fo llo w in g . Dozens

89
o f m athem atician s, people o f fa rflu n g cultures,
separated by centuries o f tim e and fre q u e n tly
n o t even kn o w in g the existence o f one another
reasoned in alm ost id e n tic a l fashion, repeating
one another in alm ost the sa mo words.
P rio r to tho 18th c o n tu ry T proofs o f the fifth
postulate via the mothod o f re d u ctio ad absur-
dum d id n o t s trin g o u t the chain o f corollaries
too fa r and d id u o t delve deeply in a n a ly ,is . A t
some m om ent they w ould say: there i t is t there
is the c o n tra d ic tio n . A c tu a lly , the co n tra d ic-
tio n turned o u t to be an e q u iv a le n t o f the fifth
postulate.
B u t since m atters d id n o t go very la r v there
were more hunters than ra b b its . There were more
m athem aticians w o rkin g on the fifth postulate
than there were d is tin c t inodes o f proof. A lm o st
a ll the greatest m athem aticians o f the w o rld en-
gaged tho fifth postulate. There is one about
whom I w a n t to say a b it more. N o t because
his in ve stig a tio n s iiit o the theory o l p a ra lle l

90
lines are som ething exception al. N o f n o t a t a ll.
H is most in te re stin g results were obtained in
the field o f algebra. He d id n o t advance much
boyond any o f the others in the theory o f p a ra i-
lels. In th is sense we w ill be g iv in g h im more
than his due o f a tte n tio n . W h a t is more, we w ill
n o t even speak about his proof o f the fifth pos-
tu la te . T ru e , the p ro o f he offers is e xtre m e ly cle-
ver. True, again, his influence on subsequent stu-
dies of O rie n ta l m athem aticians is d e fin ite ly fe lt.
F in a lly , the technique w h ich he em ployed was
extrem e ly su ita b le and was in advance o f W est-
ern m athem aticians by s ix hundred years. (We
shall touch on th is m a tte r somewhat la te r.) B u t,
re a lly , i t is not the fifth postulate th a t interests
us so m uch in th is book.
The e x c itin g th in g about th is man is th a t he
is a case w h ich illu s tra te s b e a u tifu lly how lit t le
are the differences between people o f a ll nations
and a ll ages.
I now speak o f the m ath e m a ticia n th a t is
known as the poet O m ar K h a yya m .
 C hapter 5

OMAR KHAYYAM

The f u ll name is G h iy a th u d d in A b u lia th

‫ ׳‬O m ar ib n Ib ra h im a l‫ ־‬Khayyam T. T o Europeans
he is s im p ly O m ar K h a yya m .
The E ast, as we a ll know , is the East., in con-
tra d is tin c tio n to the W est, w h ich is the W est.
The E ast, the O rie n t— to most people i t sig-
ni ties the usual c o lle c tio n o f harems, sultans,
the Is la m , ca lifs, em irs, mosques, m inarets, muez-
zins, b u rn in g sun, fou n ta in s, Genghis K h a n and
the shade of plane trees. The s tiflin g heat of
the high-noon sun, and la zin g in the shade.
T h a t is the O rie n t o f the past, a t least, the way
some people p ic tu re i t .
A l l these th in g s could be found, sultans, ca‫־‬
lifs , em irs and the rest. A n d even m any o f them
are s t ill found in the East.
N o tw ith s ta n d in g ... there never was any East.
There were and s t ill are dozens o f countries
and over a thousand m illio n hum an beings. These
m illio n s upon m illio n s o f people are q u ite d i-
versi Bod.
One m ig h t presume th a t th e ir in n e r w orld is
tho same as th a t o f dw ellers in the W est.
In c id e n ta lly , K ip lin g , who coined the famous
phrase about tho E ast and the W est, th o u g h t so.
Such is the idea th a t is advanced in h is celebra‫־‬
ted b a lla d , o f w h ich people u su a lly remember

92
o n ly the first lin e (such, alas, is the fate o f many
a b r illia n t poet).
Since th is chapter w ill be permeated w ith the
‫ ״‬atmosphere o f p o e try ‫ ״‬, le t us take a few lines
o f K ip lin g 's poem, a ll the more so th a t th e y are
indeed b e a u tifu l lines.
MOh, East i$ East, and West is Weâlt auJ never tho
twain shall meet.
Till Earth and Sky presently at God’s great Judg‫־‬
ment Seat;
But there ia neilher East nür West, Border nor Breed,
nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho* they come
from the ends of the earth!"

There is no use q u o tin g any fu rth e r because

w hat follow s is p it if u lly bad. The poetry is s t ill
excellent, b u t the to p ic and its resolution is a
te rrib le let-dow n, h a rd ly be tte r than a ro u tin e
H o llyw o o d film about the W ild West.
K ip lin g confined h im s e lf to a h ym n in honour
o f the s p iritu a l u n ity o f w arrio rs, heroes strong
ia body and s p ir it. Taken a t face-value, these
w arriors are som ething in the nature o f a pre-
image o f the noble b a n d its o f H o lly w o o d . B u t
i f one ignores his choice o f heroes, he can fu lly
agree w ith K ip lin g . Gangsters th ro u g h o u t the
w orld find a common language w ith ju s t as much
ease as hum anists in the w orld o f science.
U n fo rtu n a te ly , K ip lin g sang the praises o f the
form er and gave to them his am azing poetical
ta le n t.
T h is w hole discussion is very much to the
p o in t i f ono recalls th a t we are speaking o f G h iy a -
ih u d d in A b u lfa th ,O m a rib n Ib ra h im a l-K h a y y a m j
o f N ishapur.

93
 G h iy a th u d d in means ‫ ״‬the help o f f a it h ‫ ״‬and
is a tra d itio n a l t it le fo r a ll scholars, sincü in
those days the h iera rch ica l ladder o f scie n tific
knowledge was a p p a re n tly not so in v o lv e d . A b u l-
fa th means the fath e r o f F ath.
Khayyam was born in Nishapur， which was one?
of the chief cities of glorious Khorassan.
K h a y y a m — w h at we have taken as the last
name— means t^n t-m a k e r. M ost lik e ly h is father
or grandfath er was so engaged.
Ib n Ib ra h im is the son o f Ib ra h im .
F in a lly , O m ar, is the given name.
In short, O m ar K h a y y a m , who conquered the
W est in the 19th ce n tu ry and conquered i t as
a poet.
H e was firs t translated in to E n g lish and c-amo
o u t in 25 e d itio n s last ce n tu ry. In E ngland and
A m erica a d m ira tio n fo r K h a yya m developed in -
to an epidem ic• H e was quoted and praised，and
clubs named a fte r h im sprang up everywhere.
W illy n illy we shall have to delve in to the l i -
le ra ry side o f K h a y y a m . H is p oetry is indeed
b e a u tifu l; b u t his exception al p o p u la rity is due
possibly to a c e rtain ‫ ״‬m arvellous re v e la tio n ‫• ״‬
I t turned out th a t a thousand years ago, som©‫־‬
where in T u rke y, or In d ia , there liv e d a man
whose though ts and em otions excited people liv -
in g in the modern age o f the 19th cen tu ry.
More, he cast the thoughts and em otions ia mag-
n ific e n t poetical fo rm , w h ich was indeed ama-
zing.
T rue, in h is home land he was h a rd ly a t a ll
know n as a pool.
Thus arose tw o K hayyam s.
In the West was the poet.

94
 In the E a st，the m ath e m a ticia n , astronom er
and philosopher. Oh East is East and W est is
West.
W ho is th is O m ar K hayyam ?
Since I lean more to the o rie n ta l version, le t
us begin o u r sto ry o f the honourable wise man
and im am O m ar a l-K h a y y a m o f N ish a p u rt may
A lla h s a n c tify his dear soul.
“ In the name o f the gracious and m e rcifu l
A lla h , praise A lla h , the lo rd o f the w orlds, and
blessing unto a ll his p ro p h e ts.‫״‬
Thus d id K h a yya m , bound by a rig id tra d i-
tio n a l fo rm , begin his m arvellous ‫ ״‬Treatise on
the Proofs o f Problem s o f A lgebra and a l‫־‬M u l‫־‬
qa bala hM, a m a them atical w ork th a t was ro u g h ly
five hundred years in advance o f the m athem a-
tic s o f the O ccident.
T h is w o rk o f the ‫ ״‬greatest geometer o f the
E a st‫ ״‬, as th a t rem arkable encyclopai*dist o f the
O rie n t, the A ra b Ib n -H a ld u n w rote o f h im la -
ter, contains the firs t system atic th e o ry o f th ir d -
degree algebraic equations. I t was w e ll known

95
among A ra b ia n m athem atician s and undoubted-
ly exerted a tremendous effect on the develop-
m ont o f m athem atics in the E ast. In Europe,
tho firs t and ra th e r nebulous reference to i t oc‫־‬
curs o n ly in the year 1742.
The h is to ria n a c tu a lly o n ly says th a t i t w ould
seem, by the t it lo o f the m anuscript, w h ich is
in the Leyden M usoum , th a t one m ay suspect
th a t i t contains som ething a bout equations of
tho th ird degree» b u t ... ‫ ״‬I t is such a p ity th a t
none o f those who kn o w A ra b ic has any taste
fo r m athem atics and none o f those who have
mastered m athem atics has any taste fo r A ra b ia n
lite r a tu r e .‫״‬
W hen tho treatise o f K h a yya m was fin a lly
read, i t was found th a t h is results were repeated
(and in m aîiy respects surpassed) by no other
than Descartes. In c id e n ta lly , i t is possible th a t
in y e t another treatise th a t has been lo st irre -
trie v a b ly O m ar K h a y y a m w ont m uch fa rth e r.
W ho knows?
We know o f y e t another treatise o f O m ar
K h a yya m , to w it: ‫ ״‬Com m entaries on the D iffi-
c u ltic s in the In tro d u c tio n s to the Books of
E u c lid .‫ ״‬T h is com position o f the most glorious
sheikh, im am , O f the P roof o f T ru th , o f A b u l-
fa th ‫ ׳‬O m ar ib n Ib râ h îm a l-K h a y y ă m i is in three
books.
A g a in , th is treatise, in the beginning, lacks
o rig in a lity : ‫ ״‬In the name o f A lla h , so gracious
and m e rc ifu l. Praise A lla h , tho lo rd o f grace
and mercy, and peace be unto h is slaves and
in p a rtic u la r u n to M uham m ad, the lo rd of tho
prophets, and u n to a ll h is pure c la n •”
A l l th is r itu a l breaks off suddenly ju s t a

96
lin e down: ‫ ״‬The stu d y o f th« sciences and the
comprehension o f them b y means o f (rue proofs
is necessary fo r h im who seeks s a lv a tio n and
happiness•”
T hat*s enough. Ho who was eager to understand,
did. A lre a d y too m uch was said. On went the
soul-salvaging r itu a l.
“ A nd especially (o f course, most n a tu ra lly )
th is refers to the general notions and laws to
w hich one resorts in studies o f the hereafter,
proof of the existence o f the soul and its eter-
nalness, comprehension o f the q u a litie s th a t are
necessary fo r the existence o f the A lm ig h ty and
his magnificence (K h a y y a m is w orried beyond
reason about the m agnificence o f A lla h ), the an-
gels, the order o f cre a tio n and p ro o f o f the pro-
phecies o f the lo rd f the prophet (M uham m ad,
th a t is), to the orders and p ro h ib itio n s o f w hich
how in obedience a ll creatures (in c id e n ta lly ,
there was a tim e — in M edina 一 when Muhammad
introduced a very rigorous order and the best of
tho creatures o f A lla h were ever a t a tte n tio n )
in accord w ith the pleasure o f the A lm ig h ty A lla h
and the power o f m a n .‫״‬
W h a t a flawless piece o f w ritin g , i t w ould
seem.
Yes，i t w ould seem, fo r the e n tire paragraph
is one s o lid heresy, e xtre m e ly dangerous to any
orthodox preacher o f Isla m .
L e t the w orshiper o f A ris to tle sm ooth over
his w ritin g w ith h y p o c ritic a lly pious phrases,
fo r he w ill be understood by those o f tho same
views and those o f other views as w e ll.
O m ar's lu c k th a t, in general, Islam was a more
to le ra n t re lig io n th a n C h ris tia n ity , On the ave­
97
rage, th a t is. There was ao b u rn in g a l the stake.
B u t one could expect, wheu needed, a s w ift
plunge o f the dagger. V ery much so, in fact.
Even fo r ju s t a tin y b it o f heresy. On the other
hand, one could get around th a t too.
Then fo llo w s the Ireatiwo prope『 • (We sh a ll
have more to say about i t la te r on.) A ll the way
along, however, O m ar p u t in tUe proper pro-
p o rtio n s o f g lo ry to the A lm ig h ty A lla h , and
to his greatest creatio n , M uham m ad, and to the
whole lineage o f M uham m ad, to the great help
o f A lla h and more and more.
Praise the L o rd !
IIu w m erry and nice i t was for his creations.
H is creatures I moan. Note however th a t the
m e rc ifu l servants o f the m e rc ifu l C h ris t pushed
the in o rc ifu l A lla h in to the background and
again we begin “ in the name o f the gracious
and m e rc ifu l A lla h ‫ ״‬.
We know h a rd ly a n y th in g a t a ll about Om ar
K h a y y a m , o n ly a few fragm e n ta ry b its here and
there. B y w ay o f com plicated ‫ ״‬a stro n o m ica l‫״‬
com putation s on the basis o f in d ire c t findings,
the dates o f his life are, a p p ro x im a te ly , fixed
a t 1048 aad 1131. O r from 1040 to 1122. Or
from 1048 to 1122.
He was bora in N ishapur. A t th a t tim e , the
c it y was located in the em irate o f Khorassan.
T od a y, N ish a p ur is on the te rrito ry o f Ira u .
O m ar wrote his verses in the lite ra ry Persian
language, and his learned studies in A ra b ic.
Since, as lin g u is ts e x p la in , both modern Persian
and T a jik developed o u t o f m edieval Persian,
we may ju s tifia b ly say, to d a y, th a t K h a yyam
is a Persian poet and a T a jik poet.

98
 A few years p rio r to the b irth o f O m ar K h a y •
yam , th a t region o f tho ‫ ״‬calm am i la z in g ‫ ״‬O rie n t
was the scene o f b itte r battle s, and the leaders
o f the nomad S eljuks (Turkm ens) firs t routed
the e a rlie r sultans and then set up a collosal
em pire and a nice fresh dyn a sty o f S e lju kian
sultans.
W hat follow ed was ra th e r standard. F ig h tin g
fo r the throne among tho aspirants. The sultans
Gghting feudal lords and frenzied a tte m p ts o f
the feudals to rule b y themselves, indepe ndently.
In about one hundred and tw e n ty years the em-
p ire fe ll to pieces com pletely* B u t th a t period
o f tim e , w h ich to h is to ry is m inuscule, to a
hum an being is q u ite enough.
K h a yya m liv e d in the em pire o f the Seljuks
and liv e d q u ie tly fo r a long tim e , fo r he had
a patron. A strong prote cto r.
The great v iz ie r N iz a m -a l-M u lk .
N iz a m -a l-M u lk was possessed w ith the idea of
a strong state. A nd he furthered i t in m any
ways. H e a p p a re n tly believed th a t c u ltu re and
le a rning w ould strengthen his em pire and so,
lik e those dear P tolem ys o f a n tiq u ity , he p a tro -
nized his scholars in inauy a w ay.
H e h im s e lf was not above lite r a r y form s and
w rote a ra th e r serious, fun d a m e n ta l and very
in te re stin g — to h is to ria n s — w o rk e n title d the Book
of Government—a, sort o f handbook fo r sultans
who needed tra in in g (th e y c e rta in ly d id ). In th is
w ork o f p o p u la riz a tio n he engaged the services
o f h is scholars and in p a rtic u la r those o f O m ar
K h a yya m .
B u t before O m ar entered in to the service of
N iz a m -a l-M u lk ho had oadurod m uch indeed.

r 99
W hen a s u lla n is se ttin g up an em pire, the inha*
b ita u ts do not have i t easy a t a ll.
There is p ra c tic a lly no in fo rm a tio n about the
y o u th o f O m ar, other than th a t he m ay have
studied in N ishapur.
The sto ry goes th a t ‫ ״‬a t the age o f seventeen
years be atta in e d profound knowledge in a ll fields
of p h ilo s o p h y ‫ ״‬.
I t is said th a t he was Ma p ro fo u n d ly know-
ledgeable man in lin g u is tic s , M u s lim la w and
h is to ry ‫ ״‬and was a fo llo w e r o f A vicenna (A bu-
A li ibn-S ina).
I t is also related th a t be had a m arvellous
memory and th a t on one occasion he learned a
whole book b y heart a fte r reading i t seven times.
Some said lh a t he was a “ sage w ith extensive
knowledge in a ll fields o f p hilosop hy, especially
m athem atics‫״״‬
In a w ord, then, a ll sources (and also the
w ritin g s o f K h a y y a m him solf) describe a man
w ith encyclopaedic knowledge and a m ind of
exceptional g ifts and persp ica city.
A t the beginning, however, a ll these good
p o in ts worked more against h im than fo r h im .
He was com pelled to leave Khorassan, and we
&ad O m ar K h a yya m in Sam arkand.
Q u ite n a tu ra lly , a p a tro n was needed. And
O m ar found h im . W e do n o t know how, b u t
he d id . T h is ‫ ״‬m arvellous and incom parable judge
of judges the im am A b u - ïa h ir , m ay A lla h con-
tin u e his rise and m ay A lla h cast aside those
who are envious and w ish h im e v il‫ ״‬.
To p u t i t s im p ly , th is was the c h ie f judge of
Sam arkaud, a high-placed o ffic ia l. B u t o n ly A l-
lah re a lly knows whether ho possessed even a

100
 m in u te p o rtio n o f the m e rits th a t O m ar so pains-
ta k in g ly and sw eet-singingly described in his
algebraic treatise. A b it e a rlie r, in the in tro d u c -
lio n to the same treatise, O m ar w rote s u lle n ly
and b itte r ly :
‫ ״‬. ‫ ״‬I was deprived o f the o p p o rtu n ity o f en-
gaging re g u la rly in m y studies (o f algebra—
ga) and I could n o t even concentrate on m edita*
tio n about i t because o f the reverses o f destiny
th a t plagued me.
‫ ״‬We were witness to the death o f learned meo,
o f whom there rem ains a sm a ll and suffering
group. The harshness o f fate in these tim es pro-
vents them from g iv in g themselves w h o lly to reG-
ning and deepening th e ir learn in g .
‫״‬M ost o f those who to d a y have the aspect of
a scholar dross tr u th in falsehoodY w ith o u t going
beyond im ita tio n in science and o n ly pretending
to knowledge.
‫ ״‬The knowledge w h ic h th e y have amassed is
used fo r base purposes o f the flesh. I f th e y en-
counter a man th a t seeks the tr u th and loves
the tru th , i f ho atte m p ts to reject falsehood and hy-
p ocrisy and give up boasting and deceit, they ma-
k c h im the object o f th e ir co n te m p t and m o c k e ry.‫״‬
W hen reading an e xcerpt lik e th is , one no
longer wishes to relate the s to ry o f O m ar K h a y-
yam in the cool and s lig h tly iro n ic a l tone o f the
objective observer. There is no place fo r words
about the great and m e rc ifu l A lla h . Here life
is harsh and co ld . These b itte r lines were w ritte n
by a ve ry young man. A t th a t tim e he was hard-
ly more than tw e n ty -fiv e years o f age. Such a
desire vanishos co m p le te ly when wo re c a ll th a t
fo u r centuries la te r alm ost the very same th in g

101
 was w ritte n by G a lile o , and w ith in another five
centuries b y E in s te in .
I am n o t sure w hat O m ar wanted to say, b u t
the next sentence ( uA lla h helps us in a ll cases,
he is our refuge‫ ) ״‬follow ed by an e xtre m e ly long
paragraph p ra isin g the honourable judge o f Sa-
m arkand reads lik e a savage, vicio u s, razor-
sharp ta u n t.
L e t us n o t s tra y . O m ar was lu c k y . He found a
patron . W h a t is more, one “ w hose." presence
opened up m y chest and whoso society elevated
m y g lo ry , m y w o rk expanded due to his li^ h t
and m y back was strengthened because o f his
good deeds‫ ״‬.
So you see how w o n d e rfu l e v e ry th in g was.
Y e t th a t was o n ly the beginning. A lla h is never
grudging in his generosity.
O m ar K h a yya m is honoured (g lo ry be unto
A lla h !) by the frie n d sh ip o f the khakan o f B ukha*
ra h im se lf. W h a t th is t it le signifies, I do not
know , nor have I trie d to find o u t. A t any rate,
he was some k in d o f m in o r k in g o f sorts. A n d an
h is to ria n (a contem porary o f K h a yya m ) reports,
w ith an understandable tin g e o f e nvy, th a t
“ … khakan S ham s-al-M ulk elevated h im g re a tly
and seated the im a m O m ar on his th ro n e ‫ ״‬.
B u t the good deeds o f A lla h are indeed inex-
haustib le . A nd in the year 1074 M alik-S bah h im -
self (the khakan is o n ly a vassal o f the shah)
summoned O m ar to h is c o u rt in Isfahan and‫־‬
rejoice oh ye fa ith fu l!— makes h im his n a d in i.
Y ou w ould p ro b a b ly lik e to know w h a t a na-
d im is.
A ra th e r strange post. A su lta n is always
in need o f in te rlo c u to rs , conTidants, body-guards.

102
Thoso are the duties o f the n adim . He has his
meals w ith the ru le r, converses w ith h im and
engages h im ，th in k in g up a ll kin d s o f th in g s
in order to k i l l tim p . A n d o f course he shows
his a d m ira tio n fo r the wisdom o f the ru le r, the
courage，the beauty, the p o e tica l g ifts o f the
su lta n , fo r his steeds, his eagles and his concu-
bines. T rue, I do not know w hether he demon-
?trated the most b e a u tifu l flowers o f his harem
or n ot, but••••
No need fo r th is am ateurish ta lk , we give the
floor to the ra d ia n t patro n o f O m ar K h a y y a m .
N iza m ‫־‬a l‫־‬M « lk him self.
We quote from the Book of Government (Sia-
set-N ameh).
‫ ״‬The benefits o f the nadim are several: one
is th a t ho is a close frie n d o f the sovereign,
another is th a t since he is w ith the sovereign
day and n ig h t, ho acts as a body-guard, and in
case o f necessity— do n o t a llo w i t f oh, A lla h 一i f
there is some k in d o f danger, he sacrifices h is

103
body by using i t as a shield against th a t danger;
and fo u r th ly ， a thousand kin d s o f words can
be said to the na dim ra th e r th a n to those who
perform the duties o f the a m ils and the o fB ci-
als o f the sovereign; the fifth benefit is th a t
th e y re p o rt, lik e spies, on the affairs o f the kings;
the s ix th , th a t th e y converse in a ll manners
w ith o u t com pulsion about good and e v il, w hcth-
or in e b ria te or sober, thus b rin g in g about much
th a t is useful and p u rp o se fu l.‫״‬
So you see, s ix d is tin c t boncRis. Few indeed
can occupy such an honourable post. V ery
few.
wI t is necessary th a t the nadim be g ifte d by
nature, v irtu o u s , good-loo king, o f pure fa ith , a
guardian o f secrets, w ell-m annered; he must be
a n a rra to r o f stories, a reader o f w h a t is m erry
and w h a t is serious, he m ust remember many
legends, he must alw ays be ready w ith a good
word, a reporter o f pleasant news, a p la ye r o f
nardy and chess, and i f he can p la y some m usi-
cal in s tru m e n t and handle arms, a ll the bette r.
The nadim m ust be in accord w ith the sovereign.
To e v e ry th in g th a t takes place or th a t the so-
vereign utters, he m ust answer: ‫ ״‬E x c e lle n t, m ar-
v e llo u s ‫ ; ״‬he m ay not in s tru c t the sovereign w ith
words ado th is , do n o t do th is , w h y d id you
do th is ? ‫ ״‬H e m ust n o t so speak because the
sovereign w ill th en bo depressed and w ill reject
h im . I t is proper fo r the nadim to arrange a ll m att-
ers p e rta in in g to w in e ， recreation spectacles,
frie n d ly congregations, h u n tin g , the p la y in g of
chougan and the lik e , fo r th a t is w hat th e y aro
needed fo r•”
T h a t is a ll.

104
 Thus preached N ira m -a l-M u lk , who presented
K h a yya m to M a lik-S h a h as nadim .
W ith o u t d o u b t, an a m a zin g ly pleasant post.
H is to ria n s console us somewhat. Oii6 group
th in k s i t h ig h ly im p ro b a b le th a t K h a yya m was
honoured so g re a tly, and they believe th a t the
biographer exaggerated. Perhaps he wished to
elevate a sch o la rly colleague in the eyes o f tho
reader and allow ed fo r some exaggeration, a b it
o f boasting. Others feel th a t K h a yya m was in -
deed a n a d im b u t, th e y say, o f a somewhat
d iffe re n t k in d .
For N iz a m -a l-M u lk continues: ‫ ״‬M any sove-
reigns have made physicians and astrologers
th e ir nadim s so as to know the o p in io n o f each
o l them as to w h a t should be done b y them ,
w hat by the sovereign, w h a t needs to be done
to preserve nature and the h e a lth o f the sove-
reign. Astrologers observe the tim e and the hour;
fo r every m a tte r th a t is pleasant they give no-
tico and select a favourable h o u r.‫״‬

105
 Tn general, then, there is a fa in t hope th a t
K hayya m d id n o t have to arrange the d rin k in g
sprees o f M alik-S bah and locate concubines fo r
h im . B u t who knows? One th in g we can be sure
o f is th a t ho had to do e ve ryth in g th a t came
in to tho head o f the ru le r.
A t any rat«, he d e fin ite ly delved in to astro-
logy, though ju s t as d e fin ite ly he believed i t
to be nonsense.
As astrologer, O m ar K h a y ya m was an in d isp u -
table a u th o rity , b u t i t is his secret how i t came
about.
And w ith w h a t professional s k ill one had to
cringe in the courts o f the E ast! T im e w ith o u t
num ber!
On the whole, then, th is life w h ich to m any
was so pleasant, was th o ro u g h ly disgusting to
Om ar K h a yya m .
There were a few th in g s in exchange, though.
F irs tly , the co u rt sage o f M a lik-S h a h , his
c o n fid e n tia l agent, alm ost p a l, was inaccessible
to a ll servants o f the K o ra n , who were, oh, so
eager to make O m ar toe the lin e .
Secondly, O m ar was w e ll provided for. T rue,
he d id n o t have a fa m ily , b u t the p o s itio n o f a
scholar in those days was precarious, so much
.so in fa ct th a t i t was im possible to e xist w ith o u t
a patro n . So b e tte r a shah th a n some k in d o f
sm a ll fry .
T h ir d ly , perhaps most im p o rta n t o f a ll was
the p o s s ib ility to w o rk. O m ar had a t h is dis-
posai w lia t a t th a t tim e was a first-class obser•
v a to ry , the Isfahan O bservatory. A n d p ro b a b ly
the shah reasonably asHumod th a t his wisoman
should have some spare tim e fo r m e d ita tio n . A t

106
any rate, K h a yya m did a great deal d u rin g his
years a t c o u rt. Three years a fte r his a rriv a l hore
he had already com pleted h is ‫ ״‬Commentaries to
the D iffic u ltie s in the In tro d u c tio n s to the Book
o f E u c lid ‫ ״‬, where am onjf ce rta in other correc-
tio n s he proved—so ho th o u g h t— the fifth postu-
la te .
He was busy in the observatory and obtained
excellent results. A c tu a lly , be was the founder
o f the observatory, for w h ich he c o n s ta n tly reque-
sted money o f M alik-S hah fo r b u ild in g purposes.
A g a in a ro u tin e s itu a tio n .
No one was interested in his astronom ical w ork.
He com piled a calendar th a t was m a rve llo u sly
accurate, b u t the calendar was never accepted,
though his astro lo g ica l studies were viewed as
u n dou bte d ly valuable .
A num ber o f centuries la te r, K e p le r, who va-
lued a stro lo jjy lik e K h a y y a m d id , tread the same
pathw ay. I t was solely through astrology th a t
he achieved a p o s itio n in society, the means
for d a ily life and the o p p o rtu n ity to engage in
s c ie n tific studies.
O m ar d id not believe in a strology. H is to ria n s
have n o t y e t decided w hat his b e lie f was. There
seems to be on© and perhaps the most im p o rta n t
sym bol o f his fa ith : a person should stu d y scien-
ce and learn about how the w o rld is made. B u t
hero too the s itu a tio n is com plicated, so i t is
tim e to re tu rn to his vorses. Speaking generally,
i f we knew o x a c tly w h ich vorses were indeed
w ritte n by O n ia rf th e y w ould be an e xtre m e ly
valuable docum ent.
He did n o t consider h im s e lf a poet. Most lik e -
ly he wrote fo r h im s e lf and was n a tu ra lly less

107
secretive than in his p h ilo so p h ica l treatises, in
w hich he alw ays had to be e xtre m e ly careful,
ca u tio u s ly in te rp o la tin g m inuscule deviation s
from o rth o d o xy. M eanw hile specialists in l i -
te ra lu re are s t iil fig h tin g over w h ich verses are
genuin ely his.
The canonical te x t is claim ed to co n ta in 252
ru b ă ‫׳‬ls (qua tra in s). B u t here too the debate con-
tinues• A to ta l o î about 1 ， 000 q u a tra in s are as*
cribed to O m ar.
We s h a ll take i t th a t the versos are genuine.
Nevertheless i t is ra th e r d iffic u lt to determ ine
e x a c tly the p h ilo s o p h ic a l w o rld view o f Om ar
K h a y y a m . Even the specialist« are unable to
reach a single o p in io n , w h ich , in c id e n ta lly , is
how th in g s u s u a lly stand.
Some o f the verses are m agnificent even in
tra n s la tio n , and are be tte r in the o rig in a l, so
they say. T ru e , O m a r's topics are ra th e r re stric-
ted; fra n k ly speaking, tw e n ty to t h ir t y versos
fu lly exhaust e v e ry th in g th a t K h a yya m wanted
to say.
Now, so th a t tho reader can rest w ith some
good prose and nice p o e try, I w ill give a ra ther
unusual analysis o f K h a y y a m ’8 w orks and then
a few o f hi9 q u a tra in s.
O 'H e n ry , p ro b a b ly ir r ita te d b y the Om ar
K h a yya m craze, p u t the m a tte r in sto ry form
as follow s.
The hero o f his s to ry ‫״‬The H andbook o f H y -
men‫ ״‬，Sanderson P ra tt, cow boy, was caught in a
snow storm in the m ountains and had to s it i t out
w ith another cowboy, Idaho. I t was most lik e -
ly a case o f psychological in c o m p a tib ility : tra -
gedy was averted when th e y found tw o books.

108
 One was a Handbook of Indispensable Informa*
lion and the other was O m ar K h a yya m . In a
card game, Idaho won and chose K h a yya m , and
Sanderson got the handbook. O ver the monoto-
nous weeks each studied his book.
A t last released from the snow, the tw o cow-
boys returned to norm al life and be^an paying
co u rt to a charming[ w e a lth y w idow , each dis-
p la y in g his n o w ly acquired c u ltu re and u t i l i-
zing to the fu lle s t w h a t he had read. Id a h o 's
poetic g u id e —O m ar K h a y y a m —was defeated
ro u n d ly by the handbook, and the happy m ar-
riage o f Sanderson P ra tt was the w o rth y reward
o f the bearer o f common sense. As Sanderson
P ra tt p u t i t :
‫ ״‬I sat and read th a t book fo r fo u r hours. A ll the
wonders o f education was compressed in i t . I
forgot the snow, and I fo rg o t th a t me and o ld Idaho
was on the outs. He was s ittin g s t ill on a stool
reading away w ith a k in d o f p a r tly soft and
p a rtly mysterious lo o k sh in in g through his tan-
bark whiskers.
4‫ ״‬Id a h o / says I t *what k in d o f a book is
youra?*
‫ ״‬Idaho must have forg o t, to o t fo r he answered
moderate, w ith o u t any slander or m a lig n ity .
4‫ ״‬W h y ,' says he, *this here seems to be a vo-
lum e o f H om er K . M /
a4Hom er K . M . w h a t? ‫ ׳‬I asks.
M<VVhy, ju s t H om er K . M . , ‫ ׳‬says he.
“ ‘ Y o u ’ re a lia r • ’ says I , a l i t t l e rile d th a t
Idaho should tr y to p u t me up a tree. *No man
is going ,round signing books w ith his in itia ls .
I f it*s H om er K . M . Spopendyke, or H om er K . M .
McSweeney, or Ilo m e r K . M . Jonest w h y d o n ‫״‬t

109
you say so lik e a man instead o f b itin g off the
end o f i t lik e a c a lf chew ing off the t a il o f a s h irt
on a clothes-line?*
p u t i t to you s tra ig h t, S a n d y / says Idaho,
q u ie t. 4Its 's a poem b o o k / says he, *by Hom er
K . M. I co u ld n *t get co lo u r out o f i t a t firs t, b u t
there ,s a view i f you fo llo w i t up. I w o u ld n 't have
missed th is book for a p a ir o f red b la n k e ts.*‫״‬
The new O m ar K h a yya m convert, Idaho, then
gives an analysis o f the poet.
H e seems to be a k in d o f a wine agent.
H is regular toast is “ n o th in g d o in g ” ，and he
seems to have a grouch, b u t he k w p s i t so w e ll
lu b ric a te d w ith booxe t lia t his worst k ic k s sound
lik e an in v ita tio n to s p lit a q u a rt. B u t i t 's po*
e t r y / says Idaho, ,and I have sensations o f scorn
fo r th a t tru c k o f yours th a t trie s to convey sense
in feet and inches. W hen i t conies to e x p la in in g
the in s tin c t o f philo so p h y through the a rt o f
nature, o ld K . M . has got y o u r man beat by
d rills , rows, paragraphs, chest measurement, and
average annual r a in f a ll• ’ ”
P ra tt w a s n 't one to give in easily.
4'T h is H om er K . M m from w h a t leaked o u t
of his lib re tto through Idaho, seemed to me to
bo a k in d o f a dog who looked at life lik e i t was
a t in can tie d to his t a il. A fte r ru n n in g h im se lf
h a lf to death, he sits down, hangs his tongue
o u t, and looks a t the can and says—
•Ôh, w e ll, since we can*t shake the grow ler,
le t\s got i t fille d a t the corner, and a ll have
a d r in k on mo.*
4,Besides th a t, i t seems he was a Persian; and
I never hear o f Persia p roducing a n y th in g w o rth

110
 m entioning imless i t was T u rk is h rugs and M ai-
tese c a ts .‫״‬
Though lovers o f O m ar K h a yya m w ill be in -
d is a n t , we must a d m it th a t the basic topic
was grasped ra ther n e a tly b y the tw o cowboys.
True, one never knows w h a t e x a c tly O 'H e n ry
is d riv in g a t.
I t m ig h t w e ll be th a t as a true a d m in T of
O m ar K h a yya m , he s im p ly wished to illiis tr a to
the ancient b u t sad them e: forget p o e try i f you
w ant to achieve success w ith a ch arm ing la d y,
forget or give up a ll hopo. E sp e cia lly i f the
woman is the owner o f a tw o-storey house in
a neat lit t le p ro v in c ia l tow n.
Now fo r O m ar K h a yya m ‫״‬s verses. C ru d e lyt we
m ig h t d iv id e them in to three groups: ( I ) the
love and wine cycle; (2) the p h ilo so p h ica l cycle;
and (3) c iv ic ly ric s , the q u a tra in s in w h ich Om ar
describes more or less s tra ig h tfo rw a rd ly his a t-
titu d e tow ards his surroundings.

111
 Since I have been c o n s ta n tly balancing on the
b riu k o f s o lv in g psychological enigmas, let. »$
th is tim e tr y to figure o u t to what extent Omar's
verses convey the tru e image o f the w rite r h im -
self.
Perhaps ia th is sense ibe most m eaningful arc
the verses o f the th ir d cycle: ir r ita te d , f u ll of
g a ll, d e fin ite ly vicious.
O f a ll 252 verses, there is not a single one
th a t says som ething decent about the th in k in g
creations o f A lla h . E veryone gets i t in the neck,
b u t Om<ir is p a rtic u la rly b itte r tow ards the cler-
gy-
Oh, come w ith old K h a yya m , and leave the Wise
To ta lk ; one th in g is certain, th a t L ife flics;
One th in g is certain, and the Rest is Lies;
The Flower th a t once has blown fa r ever dies*

I t is q u ite n a tu ra l now to go on to the m erci-

fu l A lla h hirasolf. O m ar does not get along so
w e ll w ith the Lord in verses as he does in tre a ti-
ses.
Oh Thou, who d id s t P itfa ll ami w ith Gin
Beset the Road I was to wander in ,
Thou w il t not w ith Predestin'd E v il round
Inmesh, and Ihcn im pute m y F a ll to Sint
Oh Thoa, who Man of baser E arth d id s t make,
and ev'n w ith Paradise devise the Snake:
For a ll the Sin w herew ith the Fac« of Man
Is blacken1(!—Man*s forgiveness g ive —and ta ie !

T h is e n tire cycle m ay very lo g ic a lly be con-

eluded w ith q u a tra in s in w h ich O m ar explains
the s itu a tio n in w h ich he is com pelled to liv e
and w ork.
One Moment in A n n ih ila U o ir» Waste,
One Moment, of the* W e ll of Life to laste—

112
 o* T he, Sla,ra are »0*‫׳‬lin g and the Caravan
^ a r u fo r the Dawn o f N o lh iiiÿ - O li, make liasU !
‫ ״‬f〇 V!r. •〇‫ ״‬g, ] 10îï. 1onS* in P ursuit
U l T liw aod That endeavour and dispute?
B o tter be m erry w ith the fr u itfu l Grape
Than sadden after none, o r b itte r, F ru it.

The w rite r o f such ‫ ״‬ra d ia n t‫ ״‬verses is d e fin ite ly

n o t a man w ith an o p tim is tic tu rn o f m in d.
Complete s p iritu a l is o la tio n and no breaks in
the gloom .
And th a t invertod B ow l we c a ll The Sky
Wereunder craw ling coop's we liv e and die.
L i f t not your hands to I t fo r holp— fo r I t
As îniD otentlv ro lls as you o r I.
®H、
' 々 ®4*1•6[ — of Dais
Where D estiny w ith Men fo r Pieces plays:
H ith e r and th ith e r m 〇 vest and raale», and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays.

A g a in , n o t a single b rig h t spot, n o t even a

hopeful h in t. In the firs t cycle thero appear to
be co rta in prescriptions fo r arranging life . 0 ， H en•
r y s heroes ( I can repeat) grasped the g is t o f
the m a tte r q u ite precisely. In c id e n ta lly , the ürst
b ngush tra n s la tio n b y F itzg e ra ld paid special
and exceptional a tte n tio n to th is p a rtic u la r trend.
Iiito Üiis Universe* aad why not knowini?.
Tsor whencê, lik e W ater w illy -n ilJ y flo w in g
And oat of i t , as W ind along： the W w U ,
I know n o t trhtther, w illy - n iliy blowing.
You know, m y Friends, how J0ng since in m y House
For a new Marriage I d id make Carouao: Y
Divorced old barren Reason from m y Bed,
ak D ®‫ ״‬gfcter of the Vine lo Spouse.
Aht mi the C u p r-w h a t boois i t t 〇 repeat
ï lme i? underneath our Feet:
w » U # °5n ? 0‫ ״־‬10‫ י״יסזז‬and dead Yesterday,
W hy fre t about them i f To-day be sweet!

113
And fin a lly
A h f w ith tho (；
rape m y Tading l.ifo provide,
And wash m y Body whence the L ife has died,
And Jay me, shrouded in the liv in g I^eaf,
By some nol mdrequentod Garden-side.
T h at ev*n m y buried Ashes such a Snare
Of Perfume shall flin g «p in to the A ir,
As not a True B eliever passing by
B u t shall be overtaken unaware.
N o t so cheerful, I w ould say. B u t there is n 't
so m uch to buoy up one's s p irits .
For la c k o f any other hypotheses, le t us take
i t th a t the w rite r o f these q u a tra in s was indeed
O m ar K h a y y a m . A t least h u lf o f th o n i, th a t
w ill be enough.
The p o rtra it o f tho man who w rote these verses
would seem to be cle a r . 八 clever, g ifto d skeptic
and m isanthrope. De fin ite ly c u ltu re d , b u t to -
ta lly la c k in g in any k in d o f in te lle c tu a l in te r-
ests, a ll his days and n ig h ts spent w ith concu-
bines and w ine, in the com pany o l d rin k in g
revellers; and in a rare sober m om ent he w rites
m a n e llo u s , but deeply pessim istic verses. He
values n o th in g more in th is w o rld th a n ^ the
o p p o rtu n ity to carouse, and does so to the lim it
o f his strength and money.
A a in d ig e s tib le blend o f a B y ro n hero, a lo w -
class p a tric ia n o f Rome, G oethe's M ephistophe-
les, the debauchery o f a Russian m erchant o r
a French a ris to c ra t.
Om ar’s ideas are by no means ” w•
There have been skeptics and pessimists thro-
ughout the ages, and th e ir W eltanschauung does
not c a ll fo r a d m ira tio n •
O m ar, at tim es, appears close to spontaneous
m a te ria lism . A t any ra te t he abuses A lla h often

114
 enough. B u t on the other hand thcro are a goodly
num ber o f p a rtly m y s tic a l q u a tra in s; and, what
is there to adm ire in them?
In every age and period o f hum an h is to ry ,
m a te ria lis tic ideas have inspired m any th in k -
ers.
In the case o f K h a y y a m there is no need, how-
ever, to make allow ance fo r the in te lle c tu a l
naiveté o f th a t age compared w ith o u r own.
No need a t a ll to p a t past centim es on the back
goodnaturodly.
I f , however, we speak as equals and judge
by verses alone, tho image o f O m ar K hayyam
tho th in k e r loses m uch o f its lustre . There re-
mains a m agnificent poet, b u t n o t a ve ry lik e ‫״‬
able or profound person. We can understand and
ju s tify b u t we cannot agree.
L ite ra ry c ritic s do n o t speak so fra n k ly , per-
haps, because the p o e try o f O inar K h a y y a m is
firm ly placed along w ith the greats u f w orld
cu ltu re and so also is Khayyaim the man 一canon-
ized.
B u t i f I o n ly knew K h a y y a m the poet, I w ould,
a fte r a period o f enthusiasm fu r h is pessimisin,
between the agos o f 15 and 25, agree w ith 0 ‫׳‬H en-
r y ，though p a yin g f u ll due to his supreme poet-
ic a l s k ill.
H ow ever, the charm lie s in the fa ct th a t our
h y p o th e tic a l image is b u t a carica tu re , and lo p -
sided a t th a t. Because K h a y y a m was n o t a
poet by profession. Ho was a scholar. H is
business was le a rn in g . Verses? O n ly fo r recrea-
tio n .
H o u ris and wine? I f O m ar had b u t im b ib ed
a h u ndre d th p a rt o f tho w ine th a t flows through

115
his verses. I f his harem had contained a ton th
o f tho beauties whose praises he sang—he would
n o t have stre n g th le ft fo r a n y th in g else.
Yet all his contemporaries—well-wishers
ill-w is h e rs a lik e —are o f one o p in io n ：the h a jji
im a m O m ar was one o f the greatest o f learned
men o f th© Last*
Ju s t w h a t was he?
H e was a — , •
M a th e m a tic ia n . P robably the greatest in o n -
c n ta l h is to ry • T h a t, a t any rate , is the o p in io n
of m any m a th e m atica l h isto ria n s. The algebraic
w orks o f K h a y y a m are— no harm in repeating
it—brilliant• He made a thorough study of tţie
m athoraatica l legacy o f ih o Greeks. T h a t in i t -
self is q u ite some u n d e rta k in g re q u irin g years
of w o rk. 4 ‫י‬
A stronom er. R ecall the yoars he spent se ttin g
up the Isfahan O bservatory. Y ou remember the
constant prolonged astronom ical observations he
carried o u t, the reform o f tho calendar and the
new ly devised system o f chronolog y.
P a rt p h y s ic is t. H e produced a h ig h ly curious
treatise on Archim edes* celebrated problem ot
K in g H iero*s golden crow n, the problem th a t
tfave rise to Archim edes* la w and the tradem ark
the S oviet U n io n ’ s “ M olodaya G va rd ia
( ‫ ״‬Young G u a rd ‫ ) ״‬P u b lis h in g House.
Y e t th a t is n o t a lK From O in a r‫״‬s w orks i t is
e v id e n t th a t he had a fundam en tal knowledge
not o n ly o f A ra b ia n p h ilo so p h y b u t Greek as
well, particularly the philosophy of J r i s t o t l e
K h a yya m was oven too openly enravished w ith
A ris to tle . T h is is most e v id e n t in tho way h©
refers to A r is to tle — b rie fly and la c k in g in any

116
 em otion. In place o f the name, he w rite s Mp h il-
osopher‫ ״‬.
Philosopher and no o rie n ta l com plim ents.
Om ar could use e p ith e ts when he wanted to.
B u t he d id n 't hero. H o d id n o t w a n t em bellish*
merits, the in fla tio n o f w h ich he fe lt so keenly;
he d id n o t w ant fa lse ly honeyed p h ra ^ s to s tic k
to names th a t were re a lly dear to h im .
The philosopher was enough.
G enerally, whon O m ar gets down to business,
the p o e tica l, c o u rtie r, o rie n ta l style vanishes
w ith o u t a trace. Between the tra d itio n a l bows
to Allah, Muharnmad and the current patron
a t the beginning and end o f each piece o f w it in g ,
we find a restrained and reserved te x t. ’
References, argum ents, draw ings, form ulas.
E u c lid is s im p ly E u c lid , and n o t the prin ce o f
m athem aticians or the beacon o f knowledge
A p o llo n iu s is s im p ly A p o llo n iu s * P to le m y ju s t
P to le m y. A touch o f e d itin g hore and there and
the s ty le is th a t o f the tw e n tie th c e n tu ry . A ris -
to tle is the philosopher.
Wo have strayed a b it . W h a t is in te re s tin g
hero is som ething else. R e ca ll th a t ‫ ״‬Tho p h il-
?sopher w rote in a ve ry tu rg id confused style ,
: 'n y ^etai^ecî stu d y o f h is w ritin g s is an excep-
tio n a lly d iffic u lt jo b . Vm sure th a t today there
are n o t m any specialists in the h is to ry o f p h il-
osophy th a t have w orked through a ll o f A ris -
to tle s legacy in the o rig in a l Greek. Perhaps o n lv
a few philosophers sp e cia lizin g in the life and
w o rk o f A ris to tle . N ow thore is no d oubt th a t
On^ar K h a yya m studied a ll o f the w orks o f the
philosopher. Y e t A ris to tle is o n ly a sm a ll part
o f tho p h ilo so p h ica l legacy o f the O ccident and

117
Orient that Omar studied， as îs so eloquently
witnessed to by references to dozens of divers-
ifie d fu n d a m e n ta l w r i t i n g .
Speaking o f tho volum e o f digested liU srature,
K ha yya m is the envy of any academ ician in
philo so p h ica l science.
P hilosoph y does n o t exhaust O m ar. H e was
also knowledgeable in the K o ra n and M u slim
law .
T h is is not a ll.
He was also an astrologer. We have already
said th a t O m ar knew the tru e value o f a stro l-
ogy, but a good dose of information has to l>e
absorbed in order to grasp its rules. ,
B y the w ay, one o f the stories o f O m ar s
astro lo g ica l feats makes one th in k th a t he was
fa m ilia r ^ i t h the essentials o f meteorolojçy.
The re co lle ction is th a t o f an‫־‬N iz a m i as-Sa-
m a rk a n d i: ...
'• • t h e Sultan sent to M erv to the great hajji
(th is is follow ed by a trem endously long name)
to ask the imam Omar to predict the weather
and find o u t, i f they go h u n tin g , w hether thero
w ill be snow and ra in on those d a ys.‫״‬
K h a yya m th o u g h t lo r tw o days, in d ica te d the
tim e , «nd then ‫ ״‬w c n t and p u t the S u lta n on
horseback*‫ ׳‬. .
From then on， the action in an-Nizami s story
develops lik e a standard m ovie. No sooner was
the S u lta n o ff, th a n *4b la c k clouds appeared over
the la n d , the w in d blew and snow began to fa ll,
and a fog enveloped the e a rth . There was gon-
eral la u g h te r, and the S u lta n wanted to re tu rn ,
b u t the h a jji iinam (K h a y y a m , th a t is) to ld the
S u lta n n o t to worr>s fo r there w ould be no mois-

118
 t ‫ ״‬re in the course o f five days• T lie S u lta n went
on his h u n tin g t r ip , the clouds dispersed, and
fo r five days there was no m oisturo, and no one
saw any clo u d s•”
A t the end, the n a rra to r adds th a t K h a yya m ,
as fa r as he, tho n a rra to r, knows, had no fa ith
whatsoever in astro lo g y. B u t he had to be
able to forecast tho weather, because th a t was
one o f the standard demands made by sultans
upon th e ir wisemen. Consequently, he had some
knowledge o f m eteorology. ( I suppose th is w ould
bo^ the r ig h t place to d ra w sonic p a ra lle ls between
o rie n ta l sages and 2〇th c e n tu ry weathor bure-
aus, b u t I w o n ’t.)
So le t us add m eteorology to the lis t.
He was, fin a lly , a p h ysicia n . H is biographers
have tim e and again pointed th is o u t.
Besides, O m ar busied h im s e lf w ith the theory
o f m usic.
A nd Resides a ll else, he translated from the
A ra b ic in to Persian.
Last o f a ll, recall th a t i t was h is d u ty to per-
form , d a ily , a host o f m in o r duties for the Shah
in the nature o f forecasting the weather or in *
te rp re tin g dreams.
Oh yos! W e alm ost fo rg o t, he was also a poet,
a b r illia n t poet.
Now comes the question o f when he found
tim e fo r d a llia n c e w ith h is beauties.
A b o u t women I am uot sure, but about w ine he
d e fin ite ly was in the know . S uffice i t to recall
the h ig h ly professional analysis o f a v a rie ty of
wines th a t O m ar gives in tho treatise ‫ ״‬N auruz-
N am eh‫* ״‬
Now i f a ll his duties are recalled, ono is forced

119
to the conclusion th a t he had l i t t l e tim e indeed
to in d u lg e in the w orship o f Bacchus. Oh, he
sinned of course, no question o f i t . H e sinne<l,
b u t n o t excessively. • .,
In any case h is in te re sts are im m easurably
broader than one m ig h t th in k i f one focusses
o n ly on his q u a tra in s. .
Tho am azing th in g , howevor, is th a t Om ar
never says a n y th in g a bout science in liis verses.
H e w rote an autobio g ra p h y in ly ric s , a conies-
sion, you m ig h t say, y e t not a word about w h a t
was tr u ly the most im p o rta n t th in g in h is liie .
One m ig h t th in k th a t such themes were o u t-
side the traditions of oriental poetry•• y e t j i s -
dom and sages were ve ry ofte n praised. Also,
in poetry Omar did not caro much
ons i f ho handled tho a lm ig h ty m e rc ifu l A lla h
in such rough fashion. The o n ly th in g in his
poetry th a t can be regarded as re fe rrin g to şcien:
c〇 is some ske p tica l rem arks on a tte m p ts at

120
 le a rn in g the m eaning of being. O m ar K h a y y a m 's
w orld vie w is by no means so m iserable and
gloomy♦
The o n ly way to tie th in g s together is to pre-
sume th a t O m ar was s im p ly show ing 〇& to h im -
self by re je ctin g a ll and e v e ry th in g and by not
Gnding a single good w ord even fo r m athem atics.
Such coquetry is encountered m uch more fre-
q u e n tly than some are in c lin e d to th in k . P a rtie -
u la rly in tho case o f poets. Tbero is no reason
to be too tru s tin g when i t comes to ske p ticism .
Perhaps more credence can be given to his
th ir d cycle o f ‫ ״‬c iv ic ly r ic s ‫ ״‬. O m ar seems to
have been somewhat o f an ir r ita b le typ o , w ith
a ra th e r lo w o p in io n o f those about h im . B u t
tr y to be calm and good-natured when surround-
cd by knaves, m ountebanks, m oney-grubbers...
i f every single day you fear fo r the fu tu re , i f
i t is o n ly y o u r h ig h p o s itio n a t the c o u rt th a t
holds in check a pack o f th ic k -s k u lle d scholast‫־‬
ics ready to devour yo u in a m om ent o f weak-
nessY i i the p o s itio n you h o ld can disappear a t
any tim e because o f a sim p lo s lip o f the tongue,
o r an u n ca lle d -fo r sm ile.
T ry to bo m erry and respect those a bout you
i f every m o rning y o u are n o t sure how tho day
w ill end, i f yo u cannot be lik e others and i f
you have to lie every m in u te t every second and
w atch others round a b o u t yo u doing the same
w ith e vid e n t pleasure. T r y a ll th is , and note
too th a t yo u have no one in whom you can con-
fide, fo r to share such though ts is tan ta m o u n t
to a self-imposed e x ile a t best. T r y a ll these
th ings, and i f you have the ta le n t o f a poet,
ju s t see w hat k in d o f verses you w ill produce.

121
 B u t if , w h ile c le a rly re a liz in g a ll these things,
you can continue w o rk in g in te n se ly, re m a inin g
a pessim ist, a c y n ic and a d ru n ka rd o n ly in
poems, b u t in real life spending y o u r tim e,
energy and nerves in b u ild in g an observatory,
in v e s tig a tin g equations o f the th ird degree, w rit-
in g com m entaries on E u c lid t s tu d y in g A ris to tle
and w o rkin g w ith p u p ils ... I f you are capable
o f doing a ll ih is t then I w ill read y o u r verses
w ith pleasure. E sp e cia lly i f they are w ritte n in
yo u r o ld age and i f lo v in g p u p ils rem ain after
you.
The year 1092 was the beginning o f hard tim es
in the life o f O m ar K h a y y a m . In th a t year,
N iz a m -a l-M u lk —h is m ain p a tro n — was k ille d .
The k illin g was p ro b a b ly carried o u t by feu-
dal lords. The m urderer was a member o f one
o f the darkest, most fa n a tic a l and strange sects
in hum an h is to ry : the Ism a ilia n s. I recall th is
fo r the reason th a t there is a very curious b u t
o b vio u sly unauth entic legend to the effect th a t
K h a y y a m , N iz a m -a l-M u lk and the founder of
the Is n ia ilia n Sect Hasan Sabbah a ll studied at
one school and were ch ild h o o d friends.
in the same year, M a lik-S h a h w ith whom
Om ar had been so close also died.
The s itu a tio n was ve ry bad under the succes-
sors, b u t la to r he was able to arrange h is life .
A good deal o f money was needed fo r tlio ob-
servatory, b u t the subsidies were stopped, so
O m ar had to make requests here and there. He
eveu had to w rite a h is to ric o -d id a c tic treatise,
KN auruz-N am ehM, where, am on^ a host o f anec-
dotes and talos o f eagles, b e a u tifu l visages,
steeds, and wine is the persistent re fra in th a t

122
**Malik-Shah provided the money fo r the ob-
servatory, and he patronized men o f le a rn in g ‫ ״‬.
B u t, 1 repeat, th in g s worked o u t a fte r a ll.
F irs t the son and then the nephew o f N iza m -
a l‫־‬M u lk became vizie rs. P ro b a b ly by force of
h a b it they continued to support O m ar.
M eanw hile, the clergy were kcopinR a keen eye
on K h a y y a m . T h a t he had strayed very fa r from
orthodox Islam was long since e vid e n t. Occasion•
a lly y the sullen h o s tility cooled off, b u t i t in -
v a ria b ly boiled up anew. O m ar had to go in
fo r w r itin g sem i-loyal treatises, b u t th a t d id
n o t help ve ry much.
A t tim es h© was in to le ra n t. W hen he should
have ke p t q u ie t, be entered in to discussions
and to ld sheikhs and im am s to th e ir face w h at
he thou g h t o f them . Tow ards old age his tem per
grew worse, he was sharp-tongued, and s t ill,
despite his g lo ry and high-placed patrons, ho
had to make the p ilg rim a g e to Mecca, the h a jj•
‫ ״‬A nd from his h a jj he returned to h is home tow n,
where m orn in g and evening he v is ite d the place
o f prayer, h id in g his secrets w h ich w ill in e v it-
a b ly come to lig h t. He had no equal in astronom y
and philosop hy; in these Gelds he was prover-
b ia l. Oh, i f o n ly he had been given the g ift
o f a vo id in g inobcdience to g o d .‫״‬
Thus d id the lo y a l m u slim ü ja m a l ad*D in
ib n a l- K if t i w rite re g re tfu lly in his Histories
of the Sages,
I t is likew ise said th a t tow ards o ld age he
ceased ta k in g p u p ils and ‫ ״‬grudged w r itin g
books” •
D a rin g the la st ten to fifteen years he no longer
liv e d at tho co u rt. He somehow displeased the

123
 now S u lta n and e ith e r was asked to resign or
was s im p ly dism issed. Perhaps he le ft o f his
own accord n o t w ish in g to bo asked to go. He
had no fa m ily * The o ld man was lo n e ly , and
the greater p a rt o f h is gloom iest verses were
a p pa re n tly w ritte n d u rin g th is period.
H is p u p ils were, as before, glad to see h im ,
b u t he d id not seem in c lin e d to receive them .
To a ll th is add the fa ct th a t K h a y y a m was
conceited, and w ith the years his conceit grew;
fo r people o f th a t sort, o ld age, p a rtic u la rly a
luckless old age, is hard to endure.
T h a t he had a very h ig h o p in io n o f h im se lf
is acknowledged by h is biographers. A n d h is
own treatises t e ll the same s to ry. Even by o rie n t-
al standards, he w ould appear to have overdone
the self-e le va tio n o f h is person.
T h is is how one o f h is treatises begins: ‫ ״‬These
are the rays th a t emanate from the throne of
the k in g o f philosophers and the a ll-in u n d a tin g
pure lig h t o f w isdom o f the enlightened, s k il-
led, o u ts ta n d in g elevated, sagacious, great, ce-
le s tiu l, glo rio u s, w o rth y lo rd o f the P ro o f of
T ru th and C o n v ic tio n , the v ic to r o f philo so p h y
and fa ith , the philosop her o f b o th w orlds, the
lo rd sage o f bo th O rie n ts A b u lfa th 'O m a r ib n
I brăhlm a l-K h a y y â m ï ‫ ״‬. ‫״‬
Fourteen title s , self-im posed. A fte r th a t, the
beginn ing o f another treatise is a model o f mod-
esty: **...the honoured lo rd , P roof o f T ru th ,
philosopher, scholar, seat o f fa ith , k in g o f p h il-
osopbers o f the E ast and W e s t...‫״‬
A ra th e r decent d e s c rip tio n , title -w is e , is given
at the b e ^in a in g o f the tre a tise 4*N auruz-N am oh‫״‬
w hich was w ritte n , as you recall^ for the succes-

124
sors of M a lik-S h a h : “ •••the learned h a jji, p h il-
osopher o f the ago, c h ie f o f in ve stig a to rs, King
o f sch o la rs ...”
B u t i t is curious to note th a t a ll ‫ ״‬spe cia l‫— ״‬
m athem atical and p h y s ic a l 一 treatises o f K h a y -
yam begin in a restrained, d ry manner.
G lo rific a tio n appears in treatises of a general
nature. I t m ay be th a tt to p u t i t in to modern
lin g o , fo r purposes o f p u b lic ity he trie d to b u ild
up his image when the treatise could be read
by those th a t held the strin g s o f power. N a tu r-
a lly , such stratagems added y e t another h u m ilia -
iio n to the long lis t o f those th a t K h a y y a m had
to bear. A l l the more unpleasant to h im was th is
self-advertisem ent. The la s t piece o f i l l lu c k was
th a t tow ards the end he experienced real money
d iffic u ltie s .
I t is d o u b tfu l w hether ho a c tu a lly liv e d in
p o ve rty , as some o f h is m odem biographers
w rite . O ver the years he held h ig h offices and
most lik e ly had some reserves. A nd even to
the very end, despite a ll the a tta cks o f the cler-

125
gy, he remained Iho recognized ‫ ״‬k in g o f learned
men‫ ״‬. A lso, his nuiuerous p u p ils could support
h im i f the necessity were real.
So m y vie w is th a t O m ar d id not starve and
p ro b a b ly liv e d as prosperously as any sm all
trader. B u t expenditures had to be c u t. A t any
rate, ho com plains in a num ber o f q u a tra in s
o f p o v e rty and o f the hard tim e life was g iv in g
h im :
A h, Love! could you and I w ith H im conspire
To çrasp th is sorry Scheme of Things entire,
W ould n o l wu shatter i t to b iU —and then
Rc‫־‬inould it nearer to the IIe a r t‫״‬s Desire!

The aged O m ar was a p p a re n tly n o t ve ry happy,

the o n ly th in g th a t rem ained were kooks. I t is
said th a t he died w ith a book o f his beloved
A b u A li ib n ‫־‬Sina in h is hand*
One need n o t th in k th a t he was alw ays sigh-
in g and g rie v in g , b u t he was a broken man. A p -
p a re n tly he d id not w o rk d u rin g the last tw e n ty
years o f his life * e ith e r because he had no
strength, or no desire. L ife was at an end.
He died in 1128 and even th is date was h it
upon by accident., thanks to a sto ry related by
his p u p il an‫־‬N iz a m i as-Sam arkandi. I give i t
here in f u ll, fu r i t is fa r more im p o rta n t fo r an
understanding o f O m ar the man th a n a ll the
conjectures o f his contem poraries.
A n ‫־‬N iz a m i as-Sam arkandi relates:
“ In 506 (1112-1113 A . D•) the h a jji im am
K hayya m and the h a jji M uzaffar Isfa za ri were
a t the co u rt o f the E m ir A b u ‫־‬S a ‫ ׳‬da in the quar-
ter o f slave-traders in B a lh a . We m et a t a m erry
meeting• There 丨heard th a t the P ro o f o f T ru th
O m ar said: *My tom b sh a ll be in a spot where

126
the no rth w ind w ill tw ic e eacli year scatter
Dowers upon i t ' .
‫ ״‬I wondered a t tho words he spake, b u t I
knew th a t his were no id le words.
‫ ״‬W hen in 530 (1135/ ； S6 A .D .) I a rrive d in
N ishapur, several years had already passed since
th a t great man covered h is visage w ith the cur*
la in o f dust, the w o rld was w ith o u t h im . He
was my teacher. On F rid a y I went to his grave
and took a man w ith me to show me i t . He led
me to the graveyard o ! H ira . I turned to tho
le ft and a t the foot o f the garden w a ll I saw the
grave. A p ric o t and pear trees o f the garden
stretched th e ir branches over the w a ll and s p rin k -
led his grave w ith so m any o f th e ir flowers th a t
the ground was co m p le te ly covered. Then I re-
called the words th a t I had heard h im speak in
B alha and I weeped, for nowhere in the whole
w orld, from one end to the o ilie r, have I seen
the equal o f h im .‫״‬
We m ay be quit© sure th a t an‫־‬N iza m i was
absolute ly sincere. I t w ould bo hard to believe
th a t thus re c a llin g O m ar K h a yya m he desired
to elevate his re p u ta tio n in the eyes o f the m in-
isters o f Islam . B u t when a man is thus remem-
bered by his p u p ils, one believes th a t he was a
good man. T h a t a p p a re n tly was the most im -
p o rta n t th in g • One imxst believe a n -N iz a m i，for
o f a ll tho stories o f K h a y y a m , th is one is the
story o f a frie n d . O n ly in th is w ay can we judge
the a ttitu d e o f those who s p ir itu a lly were close
to h im .
V ery generally, Om ar s tr ik in g ly resembles Ga-
lile o in tem peram ent, in view s and in many
features o f his life . I t is as i f tw o close rela tives

127
live d a t d iffe re n t corners o f the w o rld separated
by an in te rv a l o f 500 years.
I sh a ll n o t t r y to ju s tify th is p a ra lle l. Anyone
w ith a l i t t l e pains can do i t fo r him se lf. As for
me, th e y are as o f oue k in . W ith K ip lin g I can
repeat th a t E ast is East..«
U n lik o the W est, w h ich is the W est,
 Chap U r 6

THE AGE OF PROOFS.

CONTINUED

They were m any. V e ry m any. No less than

a thousand.
On© w ay or another, e a rlie r or la te r, fortune
throw them in to com pany w ith the fifth postul-
ate and th e y plunged in to the lu rin g la b y rin th
o f theorems.
N o t a single one found a w ay out.
Some were confused from tho s ta rt, others
advanced some distance, b u t the end was in -
v a ria b ly the same.
Some spent th e ir e n tire live s, others retreated
e a rly. S t ill others w ent on u n t il nervous break-
down, m ysticism , despair overtook them , and
yo t others p h ilo s o p h ic a lly dispatched th e ir sheets
o f scribbled paper to the waste basket. The end
was in v a ria b le .
A num ber follow ed the m irage and th e y were
happy in the c o n v ic tio n th a t th e y had escaped,
b u t the end was s t i l l the same.
They bad covered the ground o f those th a t came
before, w ith o u t k n o w in g th a t th e y were travers‫־‬
in g the same false pathw ays. H ope w ould flare
up a t tim es, and one decisive th ru s t w ould seem
to have been enough. B u t again the end was
the same.
D ile tta n te s , professionals, naive m edio crities
and b r illia n t m athem aticians; Greeks, A rabs,
Persians, Europeans; those th a t stum bled a fte r

9-1997 129
the firs t few steps and those th a t fo u g h t on pers-
is te n tly and in v e n tiv e ly — fo r over tw o thousaii(]
years. They a ll met the same fate.
The fifth postulate was in v in c ib le . I t was one
o f those problem s th a t seemed too hard fo r the
hum an m ind tu resolve.
I t w ould appear th a t m athem aticians fo llo w -
ed to the le tte r the m o tto cu t on the grave of
C ap ta in S cott:

To Strive， to Seek、
To Find and Not to Yield
L ik e the snowy wastes o f the n o rth , the fifth
postulate devoured one a fte r tho other.
M ost le ft no traces a fte r them . B u t there were
some who perished n o b ly , le a vin g much to rera-
ember them by*

la the graveyard o f v ic tim s o f the ‫ ״‬f if t h ‫ ״‬there

is one o f exceptional honour, H e n ri Legendre.
Legendre was p ro b a b ly the greatest o f the
m athem aticians hypnotize d by the fifth p o stul-
ate. He was engaged in the problem fo r many
long years, a tta c k in g the monster from one side
and fro m another. He found evidence and then
had to reject i t , he proposed p ro o f a fte r proof,
passing from confidence in success to despair,
s t ill hoping fo r lu c k , b u t a t the end he had to
a d m it th a t no exact s o lu tio n had been found.
The acknowledgem ent is found in the ve ry t it le
o f his su m m a rizing w ork th a t he published at
the end o f his life (1833) ‫ ״‬M e d ita tio n s on V a -
rioua Methods o f P roof o f the Theory o f P a ra lle l

130
Lines or the Theorem o f the Sum o f the Angles
o f a T ria n g le ‫ ״‬.
As ofUm happens in science, th is cautious,
extensive, and u ltim a te ly pessim istic in v e s ti•
gation appeared when a s o lu tio n had already
been found and published in the Vestnik Ka•
zanskovo universiteta (The Herald of the Kazan
University)—the firs t published w ork o f Lo-
bachevsky.
A c tu a lly ， there should be no cause fo r sur-
prise. B u t the fa ct th a t e x a c tly tw e n tjr years
la te r, the Russian A cadem ician B u n yakovsky,
who a t any rate should have been acquainted
w ith the w orks o f Lobachevsky, published a
s im ila r s tu d y ... th is Ï9 indeed a sad com raentary.
N ote— I w ish to stress th is once again— note
the rid ic u lo u s nature o f th is event. B u t we w ill
come to th a t a b it la te r.
Ia h is numerous a ite u ip ts th rough the years
to prove the G flh postulate, Legendre displayed
b o th persistence and rem arkable ingenui-
ty •
F irs tly , he proved in elegant fashion a num ber
o f theorems o f ‫ ״‬absolute g eom etry‫ ״‬. Secondly,
in p ro v in g the fifth postulate v ia re d u ctio ad
absurdum he a c tu a lly found a series o f theorems
in Lobachevskian geom etry. He d id not a tte m p t
to prove the fifth d ire c tly ^ b u t ra th e r an equi-
v a le n t, or uthe sum o f the angles o f a tria n g le
is equal to ‫ד‬： ‫ײ‬.
He firs t trie d to prove the equivalence.
Even in our hom e-grown theorem , when the
postulate “ a p erpend icular and in c lin e d lin e
m eet‫ ״‬is investigate d fo r equivalence w ith the
‫ ״‬f if t h ‫ ״‬, one could already feel how closely tied

131
in the fifth was w ith the theorem o f the mm
o f angles of a tria n g le .
We o f course d id n o t give proof o f tho equN
valence o f th is theorem and tho Fifth postulate*
The com plet« p roof o f the equivalence o f any
tw o assertions contains tw o parts.
1. One firs t proves Mi f assertion A is assum-
ed, then assertion B fo llo w s from i t ‫ ״‬.
2. Then one proves the converse: ‫ ״‬I f asser-
tio n B is assumed, then fro m i t fo llo w s asser-
tio n A
In o u r case we have to prove th a t i f tho fifth
holds, then the sum o f the angles o f a tria n g le
is equal to n.
T h is firs t p a rt o f the p ro o f is a fa m ilia r theor-
em found in a ll school textbooks o f geom etry.
Tho second h a lf o f the problem was solved by
Legendre, and solved w ith a flawless techniquo.
L e t us see how ho operated. F irs t he proved
th a t:
(1) The sum of the angles of a triangle cannot
be greater than ‫ז‬:.
The p ro o f is rigorous. A nd o f course does not
in v o lv e the fifth postulate . lie even gives tw o

132
versions o f the proof. B o th are correct. Tho
method is the trie d and tested re d u ctio ad abs-
urdum . I t is assumed th a t thero exists a tria n g lo
the sum o f angles o f w h ich is (T?+a) and i t is
demonstrated th a t in th is case we in v a ria b ly
a rrive a t a c o n tra d ic tio n . The proofs are ra ther
sim ple.
I do n o t repeat th e m 9 fo r lovers o f geom etry
w ill then have the pleasure o f o b ta in in g the res-
u lt themselves.
Then fo llo w a few a u x ilia ry theorems and he
proves a v e ry im p o rta n t p ro p o sitio n :
(2) I f the sum of the angles in any one triangle
is equal to ‫ז‬：then it is the same in any other tri~
angle as well.
A ll proof is g iven w ith o u t in v o k in g the fifth
postulate. B y means o f absolute geom etry.
Now e ve ry th in g has been readied fo r the last
theorem o f th is series— p ro o f o f equivalence:
(3) I f the sum of the angles of a triangle ts
equal to tt, then Euclid's postulate holds, Gener-
a lly speaking, i f we accept the Hrst tw o asser-
tio n s f then the equivalence is im m e d ia te ly p ro v -
able w ith the aid o f <(o u rH theorem . I leave i t
to the reader to v e rify th is by h im se lf. In c id e n t-
a lly f th a t is ro u g h ly the w ay Legendre h im se lf
proved i t . There is o n ly one th in g le ft to o b ta in :
(4) The sum of the angles of a triangle cannot
be less than T h is, n o th in g more and tho fifth
postulate is proved!
Legondro then proceeds to prove i t .
The proof ho offers is m agnificent.
Elegant• S im ple. U nexpected.
I t contains e v e ry th in g th a t makes us adm ire
m athem atics. W ith one sole exception.

133
 I t is not correct!
S t ill and a llt i t deserves o u r a tte n tio n .
The method is again th a t o f re d u ctio ad abs-
urdu m . We have a tria n g le ABC. T h is is the
most im p o rta n t th in g and o u r s ta rtin g p o in t.
A nd the sum o f its angles, by hypothesis, is
equal to (?r—a).
Produce the sides o f angle A to in G n ity (some-
th in g we shall need a b it la te r).
N ow an a u x ilia ry co n stru ctio n . On the side
BC construct one more tria n g le , an exact copy
o f the Orst one. I t is depicted in the figure—
th is is tria n g le BCD. I t is so b u ilt th a t BD = AC
and CD =AB, I t is easy to see th a t th is can al-
ways be done. So fa r the theory o f p a ra lle l lines
does not como in to o u r reasoning in the least.
Now from p o in t D draw a s tra ig h t lin o . We make
o n ly one demand: that the line should intersect
both arms of the angle A . I t w ould seem to be
q u ite obvious th a t we could find n o t one b u t
m any s tra ig h t lines th a t w ould sa tisfy th a t con-
d itio n .
T h a t is enough. The problem is solved. The
fifth postulate is proved. The rest is s im p ly a

134
m a tte r o f uncom plicated technique. Take a lo o k
a t the figure. The sum o f the angles o f tho t r i ‫־‬
angles CDF and BED is in v a ria b ly less than
Indeed, Theorem 1 p ro h ib its i t from exceeding
‫זד‬, w h ile Theorom 2 plus the existence o f tria n -
gle ABC precludes the p o s s ib ility o f its being
equal to w.
H o w m uch sm a lle r is q u ite im m a te ria l to us.
More, the o n ly th in g wo a c tu a lly need is th a t
the sum o f the angles in these tria n g le s should
n o t exceed ic. W h a t rem ains are trifle s . Take
a look a t the large tria n g le A E t\ F in d the sum
o f its angles. T h is can bo done in a ra th e r c ir-
cuitous w ay.
W© have a to ta l o f fo u r sm all tria n g le s. The
sum o f a ll th e ir angles is equal: 2(‫ —זד‬a)H ‫) ן — ״ ( ־‬
+ ( 兀一8 ) = 4 r —2a— ţ 一8•
N ow note th a t the same sum may be w it t e n
somowhat d iffe re n tly . O u t o f the angles o f the
sm all tria n g le s, at p o in ts C, B and D three
angles can be arranged th a t equal tz in each
caso• Then there are angles a t tho vertices A ţ
E and F. B u t the sum o f these angles is precis-
e ly the sum o f the angles o f the tria n g le AEF.
A nd so: the sum o f the angles o f tria n g le
AEF-\-3 t:=A t:一2 a 2— ‫•ך‬
And so the sum o f the angles o f the tria n g le
i 4 £ / 3 + ‫״‬w = 4 î ： —2a—‫ —ץ‬S.
T h is is follow ed by a chain re a ctio n . Repeat-
in g in lite r a l fashion our co n stru ctio n fo r the
tria n g le AEF^ we b u ild a tria n g le w ith the sum
o f its angles less than (4—‫זד‬a), Then w© con-
s tru c t a tria n g le w ith the sum o f its angles less
than (8— : ‫ד‬a). In short, no m a tte r how s m a ll a
is, we can b u ild a tria n g le such th a t the sum

135
 of its angles is negative. B u t th is is an obvious
a b s u rd ity . O u r assum ption has led us ad abs-
urdum . W h ich com pletes the proof o f the theor-
em. The sum o f the angles o f a tria n g le cannot
be less than ?r. The p ro o f is indeed b e a u tifu l.
In professional term s, i t could be w ritte n down
in threo lines. A nd o n ly tw o operations in the
a u x ilia ry co nstructions.
B u t to presume th a t th ro u g h a p o in t inside
an angle i t is alw ays possible to draw a s tra ig h t
lin e th a t meets both sides signiHes th a t in place
of the fifth postulate we have intro d u ce d its
e q u iva le n t. A nd Legendre realized th a t. B u t i t
is such a p it y to give up a b e a u tifu l so lu tio n .
So, q u ite h u m a n ly , and somewhat p la in tiv e ly ,
he e xplains th a t the angle chosen fo r is
th a t w hich is less than 6 0 °( y j . Then i t is easier
to believo his prem ise. I t c e rta in ly is easier
to believe, b u t th a t does n o t a lte r m atters be-
cause i t is n o t possible to prove tho assertion
w ith o u t in v o k in g tho fifth postulate . So in the
end Legondre had to g ive up his proof.
There is more.
Let be a r b itr a r ily sm a ll. Less than auy
preassigned num ber. Less than, fo r instance,
—10
1 0 10‫ ־‬second o f arc. Even in th is case i t w ould
he im possible to provo Legendrevs assum ption.
I f th a t were possible, the C fth postulate w ould
be proved s tra ig h tw a y . I t is o f course possible
to prove Legendre’s hypothesis rig o ro u s ly for
points inside angles th a t are sufG cie n tly closo
to the vertox. B u t o n ly fo r clo se -lyin g po in ts,
whereas now t in our co n stru ctio n , a co n tra d ic­

136
tio n is o btaina ble o n ly when we go fa rth e r and
fa rth e r away from the vertex.
I f the analysis is continued à la Legendre, nu-
mérous curious e qu iva le n ts o f the fifth p o stul‫־‬
ato come to lig h t.
A c tu a lly , i t is thus possible to o b ta in a large
num ber o f theorems o f u on-E uclid ean geom etry.
Hero is a problem fo r recreation. In an analysis
o f Legendre's premise, dem onstrâto the fo llo w -
in g : le t bo aa angle a t the vertex o f a fa m '
il y o f isosceles tria n g le s ACBf A fC B \ A ^C B ‫״‬
and so fo rth .
Assuming that in this family there will always
be a triangle with altitude greater than any preas-
signed number^ we will prove the fifth postulate,
A ra th e r unexpected— w o u ld n ’ t you say— and
q u ite n a tu ra l, a t firs t glance, e q u iva le n t o f tho
fifth ! I t emerges ra th e r s im p ly in analysing
Legendre's proof* R u n n in g ahead o f o u r story,
i t may be noted th a t in Lobach evsky's geom-
e try the opposite theorem is correct•
 M ost o f the o ther w orkers d id not go so far as
Legendre. T h e y became entangled a t the very
b a n n in g ： .
B u t there were also more in te re s tin g works.
In the year 1889, the Ita lia n geometer B el-
tra m i found a fo rgotte n w o rk o f his c o m p a trio t,
the Je su it G iro lam o Saccheri, who as e a rly as
1733, a n ticip a te d and surpassed a ll the results
o f Logendre.
U p to th a t tim e i t was believed th a t nam ely
L e ^ n d r e had dem onstrated th a t:
(1) W ith o u t re so rtin g to the fifth postulate
o f E u c lid , by means o f the re m a in in g axiom s,
i t is possible to prove th a t the sum o f the angles
o f a tria n g le cannot be greater th a n tw o rig h t
angles (greater than 180。 , > ‫)זל‬.
(2) I f the fifth postulate holds, then the sum
o f the angles in one tria n g le a t least is e x a c tly
equal to 180° (to it).
Whence the conclusion:
I f the fifth postulate is not tru e , then the sum
of the angles ia a ll tria n g le s is less than 180°
« ‫•)״‬
Legendre wanted to believe th a t he had ref•
uted th is p o s s ib ility as w e ll, b u t— w e ll, we have
already spoken about th a t.
I t turned o u t th a t Saccheri had obtained a ll
these results m uch e a rlie r. W hat is more, his
in v e s tig a tio n , his chain o f theorems stretches
much fa rth e r than th a t o f Legendre. T rue, his
s ta rtin g p o in t was somewhat d iffe re n t. He be-
gan w ith a q u a d rila te ra l, n o t a tria n g le , ju s t as
O m ar K h a yya m had done a few centuries be-
fore.
The co n stru ction was as follow s:

138
 A#— — eB

1 \

A 」

1. Take a lin e segment AB,

2. E re ct perpendiculars a t the extrem e points
A and B and la y off on them segments A A 9
and BB* o f equal length.
3. Connect A* and w ith a s tra ig h t lin e .
Tho re su lt is a q u a d rila te ra l.
4. Take the m id p o in ts o f the bases C and Cf
and jo in them w ith a s tra ig h t lin e .
5• Take the ‫ ״‬second id e n tic a l co p y‫ ״‬o f the
q u a d rila te ra l A A ’B B ’ the q u a d rila te ra l
A tA f t and superimpose i t on the firs t so
th a t tho side B XB \ lies on the side A A \
I t is then easy to prove th a t angle A* is equal
to angle B \ and the s tra ig h t lin e CCr is per-
p e ndicu la r to b o th bases. The reader can finish
the rigorous proof o f th is theorem , and he can
also o b ta in th is re su lt in a s lig h tly d ifferent
w ay— by proceeding on the basis o f sym m etry.

139
 F or angle A 9 and angle B* there are threo pos-
s ib ilitie s :
⑴ th e y are equal to 90 。( = 全)；

(2) thoy are acuto, th a t is less than 90°

(3) th e y are obtuse, th a t is greater than 90°

(> !)•
F irs t o f a ll, Sacchori demonstrates th a t i f
any o f these p o s s ib ilitie s are realized in any
q u a d rila te ra l, then i t w ill be accom plished in
a ll possible q u a d rila te ra ls o f th is type•
He then su b m its p ro o f th a t:
1. I f tho ‫ ״‬hypothesis o f the obtuse anglo‫״‬
holds, then the sum of the angles o f any tria n g le
is greater than ‫ז‬： .
2. I f the 41hypothesis o f tho rig h t anglev> holds,
then the sum o f the angles o f the tria n g le is
equal to 1： .
3. I f the *4hypothesis o f the acute angle‫ ״‬holds,
then the sum o f tho angles o f the tria n g le is
less th a n n.
He then proceeds to prove th a t the uhypothes-
is o f the rig h t angle‫ ״‬is e q u iv a le n t to E u c lid fs
postulate .
Consequently, in order to prove the fifth pos-
tu la te i t is necessary to refute th e o th e r tw o
hypotheses.
Sacchori handled the *4hypothesis o f the ob-
tuse angle‫ ״‬w ith speed and com plete rig o u r.
There rem ained tho 44hypothesis o f the acute
a n g le ." I t thea transp ire d th a t a ll th is was o n ly
an in tro d u c tio n , fo r the real s to ry o n ly now
begins.

140
 On over a hundred pages Saccheri in vo sii^a te d
the consequences o f th is tr u ly tita n ic ‫ ״‬hypothes-
is o f the acute angle” .
He obtained one theorem a fte r the other, each
more te rrib le than the preceding one， b u t ho
clo a rly understood th a t so fa r there was no inn er
co n tra d ic tio n . Then he th o u g h t he had i t Y the
proof, the d iv in e spark th a t w ould reduce th is
hypothesis to ashes.
uTbe hypothosis o f the acute angle is absolut-
e ly false, fo r i t co n tra d icts the nature o f the
s tra ig h t lin e . ‫״‬
Here i t was th a t the enemy o f h u m a n kind
caught G iro la m o Saccheri. He was in error. C rud-
e ly.
B u t not do n o t h u rry w ith conclusions. Sac-
cheri was s tiH unsuro. H o fe lt som ething out
o f order and wrote:
ul could c a lm ly stop a t th is p o in t, b u t I do
n o t w a n t to give up the a tte m p t to prove th a t
th is adam ant hypothesis o f the acute angle th a t
I have already uprooted is in c o n tra d ic tio n w ith
its e lf.‫״‬
The game was thus resumed.
Saccheri again sought pro o f, b u t th is tim e in
another d ire c tio n .
H e wished to prove th a t i f one accepted the
‫*״‬hypothesis o f the acute angle*‫ ׳‬, i t w ould tu rn
o u t th a t the ‫ ״‬locus o f p o in ts e q u id is ta n t from
a given s tra ig h t lin e is a curved lin e ‫ ״‬.
A nd th is is rig o ro u s ly proved. Note th a t the
conclusion w ould appear to be so absurd as to
compel one to h a lt. B u t Saccheri realized th a t
th is was n o t y e t s u ffic ie n t.
A t th is p o in t le t us take leave o f Saccheri and

141
recall our honourable G h iy a th u d d in A b u lfa th
*Omar ib n Ib râ h îm a l-K h a y y â m l. I t is tim e Lo
d e liv e r the goods we prom ised and relate w hat
he d id in a tte m p ts to prove the fifth postulate.
Om ar began his p ro o f o f the fifth postulate w ith
a c ritiq u e (as was usual w ith a ll others) o f a ll
predecessors. He disproved the efforts o f Hero,
E u to x is , al-K hasan, ash-Shanni a n -N a iriz i. Also
he refuted A b u A li ib n -a l-K h a is a m who had
taken an e xtre m e ly curioan and novel pathw ay.
A li ib n ‫־‬a l‫־‬Khaisam proceeded from the h y -
pothesis th a t a lin o doscribikd by the upper end
of a perpendicular of given length is also a stra-
ig h t lin e i f the low er e x tre m ity is moved along
the given s tra ig h t lin e . (The figure shows a s tick
on a ro lle r and a dotted s tra ig h t lin e . T h a t is
how I attem pted to p o rtra y the postulate o f
A b u A l i ib n -a l-K h a is a m .)
A b u A l i ib n -a l-K h a is a m h im s e lf trie d to sub-
s ta n iia te th is assertion by reasoning about the
properties o f m o tion .

142
 o

T h a t is precisely w hat caused ce rta in in d ig -

n a tio n on the p a rt o f O m ar K h a yya m . He a t-
tacked A b u A l i fo r iu tro d u c in g m o tio n in to
geom etry. T h is is where O m ar was m istaken•
B u t A b u A li was like w ise in error. A c tu a lly ,
in his proof ho u tiliz e d an e q u iva le n t o f the Eue-
lidean postulate, to w it ‫ ״‬the locus o f p o in ts eq u i-
d is ta n t from a s tra ig h t lin e is also a s tra ig h t
lin e .‫ ״‬B u t he had hoped to prove i t , not p o stul-
ate it .
However K h a y }fam was also punished by A lla h
fo r his arrogance. I t was here th a t he fin a lly
fum bled the problem . U n w ittin g ly , he too om-
ployed the very same e q u iva le n t o f the fifth
postulate th a t A b u A H had• We sh a ll not go
in to O m ar's proof, for i t does n o t stand out
among the others. Wo need o n ly say th a t a ll
th is was inclu d e d o n ly to p e rm it ourselves a
tin y ly r ic a l in te rlu d e — a fte r a ll, m athem aticians
reason ra th e r w e ll, w hether in Greece, in K h o -
rassan or in It a ly ; no m a tte r th a t th e y seek
help fro m Zeus, A lla h or Jesus C h ris t— they

143
 s triv e tow ards flawless lo g ic and i f th e y err, i t
is on a very h ig h le ve l. A n d m any o f them fu lly
realized th a t tho assertion th a t ifthe locus of
e q u id is ta n t points fro m a s tra ig h t lin e is a
s tra ig h t lin e ‫ ״‬had to be proved.
The opposite version m ay sound stran^o, b u t
there do n o t seem to be any in n e r c o n tra d ictio n s
in i t ; the hypothesis w ill be refuted o n ly when
its consequences are reduced to an a b su rd ity.
So Saccberi renewed the struggle.
He analysed the ‫ ״‬curve o f equal distances”
w ith extrem e care, q u ite rig o ro u sly, u n t il— th a t
m om ent came— the d e v il led h im astray and
ho ... found the proof. A s tra ig h t lin e . A n d again
ho was m istaken. B u t Saccheri d id n o t see the
tra p and he was sure tho proof was a t la st ac-
com plished.
T h a t w ould have seemed to be a ll, tho w ork
was finished, the fifth p ostulate was proved, and
the book could go to the press.
I t d id . T h a t is, the book appeared a few m onths
a fte r his death (1733) under the sensational tit le
o f ‫ ״‬E u c lid e s a b om ni naevo v in d ic a lu s ,.. ‫ ״ ( ״‬Eue-
lid vin d ica te d o f a ll flaws, or an experim ent
establishin g the very firs t p rin c ip le s o f a u n i-
versai geom etry‫) ״‬.
B u t the conscience o f the scie n tist was, appar-
cntly» s t ill agitated . He w rote in conclusion:
‫ ״‬I cannot h elp b u t p o in t to the difference here
between the above-givon re fu ta tio n s o f both h y -
potheses. In the case o f tho hypothesis of the
obtuse angle, tho m a tte r is as clear as d a y ...
w h ile I have been unable to disprove the h y -
pothosis o f the acute angle other than b y p ro v-
in g ,..‫״‬

144
 In a w ord, then, Sacchori waa not satisfiod.
T h a t is c le a rly fe lt.
The la st tr ic k the d e v il played w ith h im was
vicious indeed. H is w o rk rem ained p ra c tic a lly
unknow n u n til 1889, a t w h ich tim e i t was of
p u re ly h is to ric a l interest.
A c tu a lly , G iro la m o Saccheri had b r illia n t ly
proved several dozen theorems o f non-E uclidean
geom etry, b u t his s ta rtin g positions fa ile d h im ,
fo r he was always c e rta in th a t he w ould soon
prove the fifth postulate.
W ith o u t k n o w in g o f the w ork o f Saccheri,
the German m athem atician L a m b e rt (1728-1777)
w ent deoper. He can b y rig h ts be considered
a d ire c t precursor o f non-E uclidean geom etry.
Lam bert began his analysis by e m p lo yin g a
somewhat d iffe re n t q u a d rila te ra l. I refer you
to the d raw ing. In i t there are three r ig h t an-
glos—A , A \ and R\ R egarding angle B f there
can be three hypotheses. T h a t i t is aculet rig h t,
o b tu ‘se.

145
 L a m b e rt ra th e r s im p ly liq u id a te d the “ hypo•
thesis o f the obtuse a n g le .‫ ״‬We have no tim e
to say how th is is done.
B u t th a t is n o t a ll• L a m b e rt realized th is
and stated th a t the ‫ ״‬hypothesis o f the obtuse
angle** was ju s tifie d on a sphere, i f one ascribes
to circum ferences o f groat circles the role o f
s tra ig h t lines. T h is is an exceedingly in te re st-
in g and profound observation.
The p o in t is tiia t b o th Saccheri and La m b e rt
refuted the 4*hypothesis o f the obtuse a ng le "
by rig o ro u s ly p ro v in g th a t i f i t is accepted tho
s tra ig h t lines A A* and B B r are found to in -
tersect in tw o p o in ts.
B u t th is runs counter to a fa m ilia r axiom :
one and o n ly one s tra ig h t lin e can be draw n
thro u g h tw o d iffe re n t points.
Ia c id e n ta lly t i t suffices to prove th a t A A* and
B B 9 intersect in one p o in t fo r one to reject the
‫״‬hypothesis o f the obtuse angle‫ ״‬.
The reader can amuse h im s e lf by v e rify in g
the la tte r assertion.
N ow on a sphere where tho arcs o f a groat circle
intersect a t tw o p o in ts tho ‫ ״‬hypothesis of the
obtuse angle‫ ״‬holds true.
A fte r th is s lig h t departure, L a m b e rt returned
to the plane. He dem onstrated th a t the Mhypo-
tbosis o f the r ig h t angle‫ ״‬is e q u iv a le n t to Eue-
lid 's postulate. Once again i t is necessary to
v e rify and refute the “ hypothesis o f the acute
angle” .
L a m b e rt began the analysis in the hope of
a rriv in g at a b s u rd ity and he extended h is chain
o f theorems beyond the p o in t readied by Sac-
cheri.

146
 He proved one o f the most rem arkable and
strange (a t firs t glance) theorems o f the geom-
e try o f Lobachevsky.
The area of any triangle is proportional to
the difference between■ lü à 。 and the sum of its
angles:
S ^ A (r. — l )

Here, ^4 is a num ber th a t rem ains constant for

a ll triangles, and I is the sum o f the angles
o f a tria n g le .
From th is i t im m e d ia te ly follow s th a t the
area o f any tria n g le cannot exceed

The o p tim a l case fo r us is when the sum of

the angles o f a tria n g le is zero. In tu rn , i t then
follow s im m e d ia te ly th a t one has o n ly to as-
sume the existence o f a tria n g le o f a r b itr a r ily
large area and the postulate o f E u c lid is p rov-
ed.
I t is again clear a t once th a t given the Mh y-
pothesis o f the acute angle‫ ״‬, or, s im p ly , given
Lobachevsky^s geom etry, there arc no s im ila r
triangles, because there cannot bo tw o incon-
g n ie n t tria n g le s w ith equal angles.
So the theorem th a t L a m b e rt proved may be
used to propose tw o new fo rm u la tio n s o f the
R fth postulate.
1. There exists a triangle whose area is greater
than any preassigned number.
Or:
2. There exist at least two similar triangles,
that isf triangles such that the areas are differ-
ent and all tfie angles are correspondingly equal.
147
(True, as you w ill re ca ll, th is e q u iva le n t o f
the fifth postulate was em ployed much ear-
lie r.)
B o th statem ents are e xtre m e ly n a tu ra l and
obvious.
There can be no d o u b t th a t the elem entary
consequences o f the theorem od areas were clear
to L a m b e rt. How ever, he d id not succumb to
the sly and delusive charm o f the obvious. Q uite
the co n tra ry, he was enticed b y the unmanage-
able ‫ ״‬hypothesis o f the acute a n g le .‫״‬
‫ ״‬I am even in c lin e d to th in k th a t the th ird
hypothesis ( 44the hypothesis o f the acuto an-
g l e 5 —.‫ ״‬/ni/ga) holds tru e oa some k in d o f im a-
g iu a ry sphere, fo r there m ust be so mo reason,
as a re su lt o f w h ich on the plane i t is so obdur-
ate to re fu ta tio n , wlioreas tho second hypothesis
is so am enable.‫״‬
T h a t is absolutely correct. Indeed, consider-
ing E u c lid 's geom etry to h old on the plane,
one can in d ica te such surfaces th a t w ill fu lly
accommodate the plane geom etry o f Lobachev-
sky.
These go by the name o f pseudospherical sur-
faces and were discovered by B e ltra m i. (We
s lia ll have occasion to exam ine such surfaces,
but m eanw hile let‫ ׳‬us see w hat else Lam bert
has to say.) ，
H is p rin c ip a l task is to prove th a t E u c lid 's
geom etry holds tru e on the plane. The rem ark
concerning pseudospheres is a su b sid ia ry con-
elusion.
A nd L a m b e rt fu lly roalized— one s im p ly must
adm ire the lo ^ ic of th is man— th a t he had not
proved a n y th in g .

148
 MTho proofs o f E u c lid 's postulate can be car-
ried so fa r th a t w h a t a p p a re n tly rem ains is hut•
a trifle . H ow ever, a thorough analysis demon-
strates th a t the w hole essence o f the m a tte r lies
in th is apparent trifle . I t o r d in a rily contains
e ith e r the pro p o sitio n being proved or the pos-
tu la ie e q u iv a le n t to i t . M
T h a t is his conclusion, and i t is a flawless,
precise one.
W ith o u t a d oubt he disentangled the problem
b e tte r th a n any o f his predecessors, h© carried
the analysis fa rth e r and enumerated a num ber
o f absurd (from the v ie w p o in t o f E uclidean in -
tm tio n ) conclusions to w h ich tho ‫ ״‬hypothesis
o f the acute angle‫ ״‬led, b u t he d id n o t find a lo g ic-
a lly flawless proof• A nd “ arguments called fo rth
by lovo or i l l - w i l l ‫ ״‬as he c la r ifie d them are not
the argum ents o f a geometer.
W h a t is more, deep w ith in h im L a m b e rt ne-
b ilio u s ly suspected th a t perhaps the fifth pos-
tu la to was, in general, unprovable. He discus­

149
sed the possible tr u th of the ‫״‬hypothesis of the
acute angle” .
In h is enthusiasm fo r the u n w in d in g c lia in o f
his theorems, he u n w ittin g ly broke away from
h is ucadomic s ty le . 4'T h e ro is som ething enchant-
in g here th a t even makes one w ish th a t the th ird
hypothesis be tru e.
‫ ״‬And s t i l l t dospit© such an advantage, I sho-
uld lik e th is not to bef for i t w ould in v o lv e a
wholo series o f other inconveniences.
41T rig o n o m e tric tables w ould then become in -
fin ite ly extended, s im ila r ity and p ro p o rtio n a lity
o f figuros w ould disappear altogether, n o t a
single figuro could then be represented other than
in absolute m agnitude, ând astronom y w ould
find m atters very d if f ï c u lt . ‫״‬
The words ‫ ״‬despite such an advantajçe‫ ״‬refer
to a rem arkable conclusion o f non-E uclidean
goom otry— the existence o f an absolute u n it of
leng th .
As wo soo, Lam bert was in possession o f th is
concept too. (We shall come back to the absolute
u n it o f le n g th la te r on.) U n fo rtu n a te ly , the w ork
o f L a m b e rt was likew ise overlooked b y ma the-
m aticians. T o the ve ry end o f his days, Lobach-
evsky know n o th in g o f i t .
I t is not clear, however, w hether one should
regret th is or not* I f Lobachevsky had known
about L a m b e rt's w o rk , i t m ig h t have saved h im
a couple of years o f w o rk, b u t i t also m ig h t have
quenched the in te re st in the problem , fo r he
m ig h t have convinced h im s e lf th a t a ll the in it ia l
results had boon already achieved.
Ue th a t as i t m ay, he d id not know o f th is
w ork.

ISO
 There was very l i t t l e distance to cover for
La m b e rt to become the a u th o r o f non-E uclidean
geom etry. A c tu a lly , o n ly one th in g had to be
done.
And th a t was to state fir m ly th a t the ‫ ״‬hypo-
thesis o f the acute angle‫ ״‬stood e q u iva le n t to
the fifth postulate.
N e ith e r the fifth postulate nor its countcrsta-
tem ent (the ‫ ״‬hypothesis o f the acute angle‫ ״‬in
the te rm in o lo jfy o f L a m b e rt) fo llo w from tho
other axiom s. They are q u it« independent. W h ic h
one is accom plished in o u r universe is s im p ly
a question o f experim ent.
One had o n ly to fo rm u la te c le a rly these, one
w ould th in k , sim ple though ts and believe th a t
th a t is e x a c tly the w ay th in g s stand, and the
rest w ould have been a sim ple m a tte r o f tech-
nique, so to speak.
A m ath e m a ticia n w ith tho endowments o f
La m b e rt could have re la tiv e ly s im p ly proven
a few dozen more theorems and could have, w ith
ju s t a l i t t l e e ffo rt, system atized them and thus
constructed the e n tire system o f non-Euclidcan
geom etry.
L e t us stop here fo r a m om ent.
The laws o f s c ie n tific c re a tiv ity are hazy in -
deed. Discoveries are made in a v a rie ty o f ways;
some a c c id e n ta lly , others appear to crow n the
efforts o f years o f o x c ru c ia tin ^ ly intense w ork.
A n y th in g is possible. B u t one la w is u n a lte r-
able. A n y u ltr a - b r illia n t provision th a t is in -
comprehensible to contem poraries, appears after
the passage o f fifty years (a hundred, a t
the most) n a tu ra l, sim p le and alm ost tri-
v ia l.

151
 In order to appraise a piece o f w ork p ro p e rly,
one has to a tte m p t to shed oneself o f the rang©
o f knowledge th a t has since accum ulated and
m e n ta lly p ic tu re the epoch under stu d y.
L e t us tr y to conjure up a p ictu re o f a geometer
o f the end o f the 18th ce n tu ry or the b e ^ in n in ^
o f the 19th c e n tu ry in v e s tig a tin g the fifth pos‫־‬
tu la to .
From an e a rly age we are to ld th a t the geom^
e try o f E u c lid is the most perfect creation o f
the hum an m in d . W e are n o t o n ly ta u g h t th a t
but we ourselves, as the years pass, succumb
more and more to the enchanting lo g ic o f the
proofs, s in k in g deeper and deeper in to the cold
beauty o f the draw ings, the lemmas and the
theorems, in to the illu s iv e kingdom o f the in -
te lle c t.
W e liv e in a closod w o rld , and the o n ly laws
governing o u r th in k in g processes are the laws
o f th is w o rld . G eom etry has long since changed

152
from w h a t i t was in ancient tim e s— ‫ ״‬the science
o f the m easuring o f the la n d ‫ ״‬. The problem
o f its r e a lity , o f its p ra c tic a l accom plishm ents
in our w o rld was solved so long ago th a t today
n o t a person gives any th o u g h t to i t any more.
Geom etry has so lo n g since risen from the
s in fu l earth to the m o u n ta in peaks o f the id e a lly
a b stract...
Th© ve ry idea th a t geom etry s t ill can and
m ust be verified by e xperim ent, th a t geom etry
is a c tu a lly o n ly one o f the d iv is io n s o f physics
can never enter oar m inds, for a t the very be-
g in n in g o f o u r days a t school we learned th a t
geom etry has been in man*s fa ith fu l sorvice for
several thousand years.
True, in recent lim n s the e n tire system of
axiom s has been undergoing a ce rta in c ritic a l
review .
True again, the notorious Fifth postulate is a
shock to our aesthetic feelings. B u t th a t is a ll.
There can be no doubt whatsoever o f the tru th
o f the fifth postulate. The o n ly th in g we are
d o u b tfu l about is w hether i t is a postulate or
n ot. We s im p ly suspect th a t a theorem has found
ils way in to the axiom s.
To suspect the fifth postulate as such, w ould
mean to p u t the w hole o f geom etry in doubt.
And i f th a t were so, then there w ould be ju s t
as m any grounds to suspect, say, the axiom th a t
44one and o n ly one s tra ig h t lin e can be drawn
through tw o p o in ts ‫ ״‬. O r any other axio m . Then
ono w ould have to revise the n o tio n o f lines.
A nd tho axiom s o f a rith m e tic . Then the ideal
stru ctu re o f ancient p ro p o rtio n s w ill tu rn in to
a shapeless conglom eration o f fragm ents. T h a t

153
is possible. B u t th a t is the w o rk o f a barbarian,
a vandal, n o t a m ath e m a ticia n .
There is n o th in g more perfect in the w o rld
than geom etry, and here there is o n ly one m in -
ute blem ish th a t embarrasses us— the fifth post-
ulato.
A s fo r tho other axiom s, they arc so obvious
th a t no serious problem could ever arise. S lig h t
m o d ifica tio n s and more polished form ulations?
Yes, those are possible. B u t o f no in te re st, when
one comes down to i t . T h a t is how we th in k ,
th a t is how m athem atician s have th o u g h t fo r
the past 25 centuries. To give up th is fa ith is
to give up e v e ryth in g we bave.
Wo s triv e tow ards beauty and h arm ony in
our E uclidean geom etry, and tow ards art u ltim -
ate finish to the ediGco i t is. Least o f a ll do we
contem plate destructio n .
A nd wo are convinced th a t to th in k one could
chango a single axiom in E u c lid *s geometry
w ith o u t a rriv in g at a h o rrib le a b s u rd ity is to
explodo the w hole system.
J u s t one th o u gh t is needed, one phrase, but
th a t th o u g h t is such th a t w ill change o u r e n tire
w orld view .
 Chapter 7

NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY,
THE SOLUTION

In 1911 the b ib lio g ra p h y on non-E uclidean

geom etry to ta lle d 4,200 w orks. Today, th a t num -
ber has risen to between 20 and 25 thousand.
N o t less than a thousand o f these are studies
o f an h isto ricO 'b io g ra p h ica l nature.
T h is is o n ly an estim ate, o f course, b u t i t is
based on such deHnite data th a t the actual num b-
er of w orks should bo s u b s ta n tia lly greater. We
shall take i t to be one thousand. P ro b a b ly at
least tw o hundred b<ioks and a rticle s have been
devoted e xclu sive ly to Lobachevsky.
So w h y p u t o u t one more? T h a t is e x a c tly tho
question th a t has plagued the a u th o r since he
began—even before he began his w o rk — and i t
s t ill stood a fte r the book was finished. Ono conso*
la tio n o f course is th a t such problem s arise in any
Geld. Just about in the year 1968 B .C .t a forgot-
ten ancient E g y p tia n pessim ist and skeptic com-
plained b itte r ly : u l i I could o n ly say som ething
th a t has n o t already been said m any tim es before!”
T h a t is s lig h t co m fo rt, a ll the more so since
the am ount o f w r itin g done in tho past fo ur
thousand years has n e a rly drowned h u m a n ity ,
though i f we are to believe the classics, a tr u ly
^ro at book is w ritte n once in a hundred years.
B u t a reasonable person o f m id d le a^o (the auth or,
by the way) cannot th in k in such term s. So wq
are le ft w ith the question! W hy?

155
 Indeed, w h a t can I add to the m any m any
volum es devoted to the h is to ry o f geom etry in
general and non-E uclidean in p a rtic u la r and to
the general th e ory o f r e la tiv ity in s t ill more
p a rticu la r?
F irs t o f a ll, we can say th a t the book is su-
p o rfic ia l. I t is, and could n o t be otherwise.
Even aside from p u re ly special questions, about
tw o years o f hard every-day w ork w ould have
to be spent in spading up and lo o k in g through
the more im p o rta n t b io g ra p h ica l sources. B u t
th a t in its e lf is not y e t su fficie n t. A conscien-
tio u s biographer has to make a thorough study
o f a ll the works o f the person in question and
investigate p a in s ta k in g ly the response o f the
s c ie n tific colleagues th a t were acquainted w ith
h im a n d /o r his w orks. H e sh o u ld ... tlicro is
even more th a t he should do.
In c id e n ta lly , Lobachevsky has such a biogr-
apher. I t is A cadem ician V . F. Kagan. He wrote
a m agnificent and profound biograph y o f L o-
bachevsky. A li t t le too profound, perhaps. I t
is not very easy to understand.
As a d ile tta n te in m athem atics (and fo r a va-
rie ty o f o th e r reasons) I realized th a t I could
not compele in those respects w ith Kagan. N e i-
thor could I compete w ith m any other biograph-
ers and in ve stig ato rs o f Lobachevsky and o f
other scientists th a t have been and w ill be mont-
ioned in th is book.

T h a t brings us s tra ig h t back to w h y I wrote

th is book. I t is im portant, to know , otherwise
those pages w ould not have been w ritte n (maybe
th a t w ould have been the best version).

156
 M y idea was th a t nobody had y e t w ritte n about
these heroes as human beings, not as outstand-
in g m athem aticians, men o f genius, b u t as norm -
al (or alm ost norm al) people.
T h a t is w h a t I set o u t to do —w rite a real book
about real men. A b o u t strong menf b r illia n t
men, celebrated men, groat m en,— b u t more im -
p o rta n t about the hum an-interest dow n-to-earth
doings o f these people, as people.
So to me and you, they are—here—o rd in a ry
people and n o t geniuses. The ve ry novel idea
th a t I have up m y sleeve is th a t a person
should‫ ״‬above a ll, be a person, a maa, a hum an
being. A n d even such a tr ifle as a bad tem per,
a disagreable d isp o sitio n ând a d ifr ic u lt nature
can disperse any k in d ly feelings stem m ing from
his w ork.
S ta rtin g in th is key, I find i t bard to decipher
m y own feelings w ith respect to Janos B o ly a i.
H is g ifts were am azing. A n in e x p lic a b ly b r il-
lia n t ta le n t. H is style alone proves th a t he was
a m athem atician by the grace o f God. I t was
o n ly la te r, in the 20th ce n tu ry th a t works on
m athem a tica l lo g ic began to be w ritte n in his
style . N o t a single e x tra w ord, u ltim a te ly com*
pact, flawless lo g ic, exceptional c la r ity o f rcas^
oning. In the ce n tra l p ro b le m — th a t o f the cons-
istency o f uoa-E uclideau geom etry, he advanced
fa rth e r th a n Gauss and Lobachevsky. A c tu a lly
he was very close to the basic idea o f proof.
He d id n o t find i t , b u l he c le a rly realized the
d ire c tio n in w h ic h i t was to be sought.
ITere he was ahead o f a ll tbo rest.
I t is q u ite possible th a t, fo r him se lf, he fo rm -
ulated the ideas o f non-E uclidean geom etry so-

157
 m cw hat e a rlie r than d id Lobachevsky. A b o u t
1823.
True, his w o rk was published tw o years la te r
than the firs t w ork o f Lobachevsky (1831).
B u t, generally speaking, le t lovers o f p rio r-
i t y debate th a t issue.
For th a t m a tte r, s t il l e a rlie r a German law yer
(a t one tim e professor o f law at K h a rk o v U n i-
v e rs ity ), Ferdinand S ch w e ika rt had mastered
the basic elem entary conceptions o f non-Eac-
lid c a n geom etry. T rue , he never published any-
th in g , b u t h is nophow, T a u rin u s, whom he got
interested in th is p roblem , p u t o u t a booklet.
Though an in co m p a ra b ly weaker m a th e m a ti-
cian than any in th is s to ry, T a u rin u s came very
clos© to a s o lu tio n . H e developed non-E uclidean
geom etry in ra th e r some d e ta il, solved a large
num ber o f subtle problem s, b u t he d id n o t have
a clear n o tio n o f the m a tte r. In the end he arrived
a t tho same p o in t th a t in ve stig a to rs o f the fifth
postulate had— an aU em pt to prove i t and, con-
se q u c n tly f the tr u th o f E uclidean geom etry.
T his is a ll the more su rp risin g since a t the
same tim e he w ould seem to have an excellent
grasp o f tho consistency o f his non-F uclidean con-
stru c tio n s , y e t...
We have already m entioned the fa ct th a t ac-
tu a lly o n ly one single idoa was n m le d fo r the
construction o f non-E uclidean geom etry. A n y•
one who striv e d to prove the fifth postulate by
re d u ctio ad absurdum in v a ria b ly came to theo-
rems of non-E uclidean geometry. Lobachevsky
h im se lf, w ritin g of Legendre, said:
<CI fin d th a t Legendre tim e and again took the
p ath w a y th a t I had so lu c k ily chosen.‫״‬

158
 B u t i t was the basic idea th a t Legendre la-
eked. I t was th is sole idea th a t was absent in
m athem atics for over tw o thousand years.
I t was first expressed, b u t was not fu lly re a li-
zcdt by L a m b e rt; i t was stated nebulously by
S chw eikart and T a u rin u s; Gauss had been in c li•
ned in th a t d ire c tio n fo r a long lim e w ith o u t
a c tu a lly m entioning i t . I t was o n ly R o ly a i and
Lobachevsky who form ulated i t cle a rly .
As to rig o u r and p ro fu n d ity , the first (and
o n ly ) w ork o f R o ly a i exceeded a ll others.
L a te r on, w o rkin g inte n se ly, Lobachevsky in*
vestigated non-E uclidean geom etry much more
b ro a d ly and in fa r greater d e ta il, b u t i f we com-
pare the first works, the more b r illia n t is th a t
o f B o ly a i.
The b rillia n c e o f his ta le n t was evident in a ll
things.
Ho was not o n ly a m athem atician of genius,
he was an e xtre m e ly g ifte d m usician. A t the ago
o f ten he had already w ritte n a num ber o f com‫־‬
positions. L a te r ho l)ecame an accomplished vio -
lin is t.
T h is does not exhaust the ta le n ts th a t B o ly a i
possessed. A p p a re n tly , be was one o f the best
fencers o f the c o u n try . T h is is no sim ple m a tter
in any c o u n try , b u t p a rtic u la rly so in H ungary.
F in a lly , his social view s mako h im closer to
us than any o f the other personages. IIo was hos-
tile to a ll n a tio n a lis m ; aa ardent supporter of
the H ungarian re v o lu tio n of 1848, he th o u g h t in -
tensely and p ro fo u n d ly on problem s o f social
being. H is ideas were a k in to those o f u to p ia n
com m unism . Towards the end o f his life he got
the idea o f co n stru ctin g a m athem atical model

159
o f an ideal state w ith the atm 〇( fin d in g a per*
feet b lu e p rin t for universal happiness.
The **theory‫ ״‬was called ‫ ״‬The teaching o f u n i-
versai good‫• ״‬
In m athem atics he combined the cold reason-
in g o f the fencer w ith the p o e try and in sp ira*
tio u o f the m usician.
B u t there is one th in g th a t hopelessly spoils
th is ch a rm in g image. Ftolyai had one fundam en-
ta l fla w ^ h is jealous, touchy, e g o tistica l am bi-
lio n coupled w ith a ve ry unpleasant tem pera-
m ent. T h a t is w h a t determ ined the course of
bis life . In the end i t ruined h im .
T ru e t I am a fraid to be too categorical in such
cases, and q u ite n a tu ra lly a ll th a t has n o th ing
whatsoever to do w ith any appraisal o f his w ork,
b u t i t is im p o rta n t when discussing his a ttitu d e
tow ards his fe llo w men. And B o ly a i, I believe,
belongs to th a t category o f people who a p p ly es-
s e n tia lly difTerent c rite ria to themsclvas and to
others about them . T h a t is w hy I do not fiiul
h im very pleasant. I w ould lik e n o th in g botU>r
tha n to learn th a t 1 am wrong.
As to m athem atics, his place in m athem atical
h is to ry is clear. Together w ith Lobachevsky he

160
enjoys f u ll rig h ts as tho creator o f non-E uclidean
geomotry.
True, there was yet a th ird person.
And here i t is th a t we onter upon th a t arduous
pathw ay o f p r io r ity litig a tio n , though, in m y
o p in io n , such questions m e rit h a rd ly a hun-
dredth o f the a tte n tio n th a t th e y so often c la im .
B u t the h is to ry o f non-E uclid ean geom etry is
o f exceptional interest from a p u re ly hum an
stand.
The firs t to como to the ideas o f a n o a -E u cli-
dean geom etry was the Gottengen genius, the
prince o f m athem aticians, the colossus, the t i -
tan, the first m ath e m a ticia n o f the w o rld , no
other than C arl F rie d ric h Gauss (1777-1855). T ho-
?e were o n ly a few o f the numerous title s th a t
ho boro d u rin g his life tim e , and— there are no
tw o ways about i t 一th e y are a ll deserved.
Gauss was unique among geniuses. As a ma•
th cm a tic ia n he was, w ith o u t any d o u b t, fa r abo-
ve B o ly a i and Lobachevsky. He was s im p ly a
scientist of a d iffe re n t category.
So i t was Gauss who w rote lim e and again
th a t the basic ideas o f non-E uclidean geom etry
were clear to h im oven a t the end o f the 18th
century-
I am p o sitivo th a t he w rote the pure tru th .
B u t he d id not p u b lis h his results e ith e r a t th a t
tim e or a t any tim o la t^ r. The results Gauss ar-
rived a t can o n ly be conjectured from his letters
and diaries th a t wore published a fte r his
death•
W h y d id he n o t p u b lis h his investigations?
Tho reason seems to bo know n, fo r he him self
gives i t a num ber o f tim es.

161
 For example* an excerpt from a le tte r to the
celebrated German m athem atician Bessel. I t wa.s
w ritte n afte r Lobachevsky had published his
w ork. T rue, Gauss had n o t yet heard o f it .
‫ ״‬Most lik e ly I shall not be able ve ry soon to
prepare m y extensive in ve stig a tio n s in to th is
problem so as to have them published. I t may
even be th a t I shall re fra in from doinff so fo r I
fear the ‫ ״‬Geschrei der B o o tie r‫( ״‬the cries of the
Boeothians) th a t w ill rise up when I express m y
views• ”
So C arl F rie d ric h Gauss was a fraid of the ‫ ״‬c ri-
es o f the B oeothians‫• ״‬
In th is day and age, classicism has to be de-
ciphered. W hether ju s tly so or n o t, I do not
know , b u t the in h a b ita n ts o f B oeothia were con-
sidered in ancient Greece to b© the most d u ll
and th ic k ‫־‬skulk*d o f a ll, and in the age o f Gauss
and Lobachevsky, the age ol classicism , quota-
tio n s fro m the classics were much in vogue.
I have always been ra th e r dissatisfied w ith
Gauss* explana tion•
I t v e ry w e ll may be th a t he stated one of the
reasons, perhaps even the basic one* B u t there
were u n d o u b te d ly others.
G a u s s wasn’ t the k in d to hush up a discovery
o f such exception al, u n p aralle led significance fo r
fear o f losing his a u th o rity . A ll the more so th a t
ho was ris k in g ve ry lit t le , for his a u th o rity was
so h ig h in the w orld o f m athem aticians th a t i f
Lobach evsky's m em oir had appeared w ith his
signature, a ll the ‫ ״‬B oeothians‫ ״‬w ould have ac-
claim ed i t and applauded non‫־‬E u c lid e a n geo-
m e try, b ow ing once more in reverence to the go-
nius o f Gauss.

162
 In c id e n ta lly , som ething of th a t nature actu-
a lly took placti. L o b a ch e vsky,s works attracted
a tte n tio n o n ly a fte r Gauss' death, when Gauss*
a ttitu d e towards non-E uclidean geom etry beca-
me know n. The new ideas then instantaneously
became understood and recognized. I f the w r it-
in g had been th a t o f Gauss there w ould have been
no doubts whatsoever.
I t was q u ite obvious th a t Gauss did n o t in the
least underestim ate his po sitio n in the com mu-
n ity o f m athem aticians. I am sure th a t, lik e the
prince o f m athem aticians th a t ho was, he could
c a ll his vassals to order i f there were any unrest，so
th a t the 4*Geschrei d e rB o o tie r‫ ״‬taken a ll by its e lf
could h a rd ly have frightened Gauss th a t much.
The c ru x o f the m a tte r lies elsewhere.
W hether Carl F rie d ric h Gauss was a good man
or bad has been under discussion b y h is biogra-
phers fo r a f u ll ce n tu ry, b u t one th in g is ce rtain:
Gauss pave his whole life to m athem atics.
To h im , m athem atics was a ll. I t was ju s t as
necessary fo r h im to solvo problem s as to breathe,
eat and d rin k . I t was an in s tin c t. There were
no such things as u n a ttra c tiv e problem s to
Gauss. He could spend m onths on the most rou-
tin e , monotonous co m p u ta tio n a l job. He could
com pile tables fo r weeks on end, and w ith the
greatest o f pleasure he w ould do w ork th a t in
th is enlightened age is handled by technicians,
lik e lis tin g weary colum s o f figures — for Gauss
they were a p p a re n tly in im ita b ly a llu rin g .
There is not a d iv is io n o f m athem atics th a t is
w ith o u t ce rta in fundam ental c o n lrib u tio n s made
b y Gauss. A sim ple enum eration w ould cover se-
veral pages o f te x t.

163
 He is a m azingly lik e Isaac N ew ton in tem pera-
m ent, typo o f c lia ra c lrr and way o f lifo , and it
seems no accident th a t N ew ton was his fa vo u rite
hero. L ik o N ew ton, Gauss was e xtre m e ly am-
b ilio u s . Y e t th is was not the a m b itio n th a t b u rn t
up Janos B o ly u i.
The firs t requirem ent was th a t he h im s e lf must
appraise his w o rk, he m ust be p o sitive , and lie
m ust be able to say to h im se lf: ‫״‬Gauss, th a t is
good.”
So i t was th a t numerous studies aw aited p u b li-
cation fo r the sole reason th a t th e y were n o t n n i-
shed, and there was m uch to do. Gauss e lim in a -
tod from his life e v e ry th in g th a t could in any
way d is tra c t h im from his w o rk. Gauss prayed
in the tem ple o f a cruel god, h© believed w ith
fa n a tica l in te n s ity and, lik o every fa n a tic, ho
was lim ite d .
He was harsh, even cru e l, ia his a ttitu d e to
people, though from h is own s ta n d p o in t he was
ju s t. B u t th is freezing condescension is q u ito jus-
tifia b ly perceived as indifference bordering on
rudeness. H is was a com plicated nature, a tr y -
în ^ person, such th a t can c a ll fo rth one's a d m ira -
tio n , w orship, b u t never love.
A b e lt Jacobi, B o ly a i are some o f the b r illia n t
m athem aticians c ru e lly h u rt b y Gauss.
n u t he d id n o t tr y to offead, and there is no
reason w h y people w rite th a t he was a consum ma-
te egotist and th a t he suffered when someone el-
se obtained o u tsta n d in g results. T h a t is n o t so.
I t is d e fin ite slander. Gauss alw ays paid f u ll due
to the genius o f his brethren. B u t i t was not his
fa u lt th a t th e ir results so o ftca s im p ly coincided
w ith w h a t he h im s e lf had achieved b u t had not

164
 yet published, and he had n o t y e t published them
fo r there was m uch s t ill to be done— the w ork
was so often n o t finishod.
Gauss has been reproached, and sorely so, for
h is review o f the w ork o f A b e l. W hy?
He w rote: uThe w orks o f A b e l are above my
praise, fo r they are above m y own stu d ie s.‫״‬
H o w can i t bo th a t people th in k th a t Carl
Gauss s im p ly lied? T h a t he never to o k up s im i-
la r problem s and d id n o t o b ta in s im ila r results?
O r is he supposed to p la y the p a rt o f a uoble
father? Is i t n o t enough th a t lens o f fundam en-
ta l theorems w h ich he had proved b u t, fo r a va-
rie ty o f reasons, had n o t published, were pub-
lished, by others so th a t the fame o f discovery had
to be divided?
Gauss d id n o t read the papers sent to h im for
review and d id n o t a llo w h is friends to give him
the m em oirs o f other scie n tists to read.
Ho wished to serve h is god in such fashion
th a t no one (and above a ll, be h im se lf) could
e n te rta in the slig h te st suspicion o f other people's
phrases ia his teachings.
H is love fo r m atbom atics was inseparable from
jealousy. T h is was the love o f a man, the love
o f a M u s lim . A n d he was c ru e lly h u rt i f one o f
his m any ‫ ״‬concubines‫ ״‬should &〇m uch as sm ile
a t anyone else. B u t he also knew th a t o n ly the
deserved entered h is harem, and th is consoled
h im somewhat. H e was alw ays ready firs t to re-
cognize the m e rits o f a r iv a l• B u t i t d id n o t give
h im jo y .
Thus Gauss liv e d an even, q u ie t, monotonous
life , w h ile in his b ra in there co n tin u o u sly rose
up and vanished m a rve llo u s ly m agaiücen tt im ­

165
measurably more b e a u tifu l w orlds than th a t in
w hich he existed.
I t is w o rth repeating th a t Gaus^ deservos w or-
ship, b u t i t is very hard to love h im . In fa ct, i f
i t were n o t fo r Archim edes and E in s te in , one
m i^ h t havTe to accept the fa ct th a t a genius of
m athem atics cannot be other than th a t.
A hundred or so years ago, I th iu k i t was
Emerson who said a ve ry curious th in g to the
effect th a t each m ay take w hat ho wants and
pay the fu ll price.
The price o f Gauss and Ntswton was e xtrem ely
high. E in s te in and, as fa r as I can judge, A rc h i-
medes, to o f received e v e ry th in g th a t those two
had, and got around p a y in g for it .
A n o th e r man o f the same m ould was N ik o la i
Lobachevsky. A lth o u g h he was b r illia n t ly g if-
tc d f he was a scie ntist o f a d iffe re n t class than
th is q u a rte t, b u t to m y m ind he was m uch more
pleasant than Gauss.
I m ust repeat th a t I w ould believe Gauss to be
» superior being, a man o f the fu tu ro or a descen-
dant o f a M a rtia n sage, i f i t were n o t fo r E ins-
te in .
One o f Gauss, loves was non-E uclidean geo-
m etry. WTiat was i t th a t dissatisfied Gauss and
w hy d id he not pub lish h is studies? Hero we
a^ain enter onto the s lip p e ry path o f psycho-de-
te c tiv c analysis, b u t i t is too la te to give up.
F irs t of a ll, the facts.
1• Gauss w rote in his p riv a te le tte rs —and there
is no reason to d oubt th a t w h a t he w rote was
the tr u th 一th a t the basic ideas o f non-E uclidean
geom etry were clear to h im as e a rly as the end
o f the 18t.h ce n tu ry. A t th a t tim e Lobachevsky

166
had n o t y o t begun s tu d y in g in th© jErymnasium
(secondary school), and B o ly a i had n o t oven been
born.
2• T lie exception al significance o f the problem
its e lf is obvious. I t is inconceiva blo th a t Gauss
could have underestim ated i t .
3. I t is a fa c t— and we sh a ll com© back to this
again— th a t Gauss made several a tte m p ts to mea-
sure the sum o f the angles o f a tria n g le formed
by the vertices o f three m o u n ta in peaks. Conse-
q u e n tly , he allow ed fo r the p o s s ib ility th a t the
geom etry o f nature m ig h t be non-E uclid ean.
4. A n in v e s tig a tio n o f Gauss' archives after
his death revealed o n ly ve ry meager sketches,
and n o th in g in the w ay oi a system atic conside-
ra tio n o f n o n-E uclid ean geom etry.
5. A fte r reading the w orks o f Lobachevsky
and B o ly a i, Gauss— in both cases—stressed the
fact th a t there was n o th in g essentially new th a t
he could find fo r him se lf.
Tru©j there is a s lig h t c o m p lic a tio n here. The
p o in t is th a t Lobachevsky gave an incom parab-
ly broader view o f the possible consequences of
non-E uclidean geom etry th a n B o ly a i d id . In th is
sense, th e ir works cannot be compared.
For instance, Lobachevsky carried his inves-
tig a tio n s to a staf^j th a t demanded ih o apparatus
of m athem atical analysis. One o f his w orks is
specially devoted to the a p p lic a tio n o f “ im a g i-
nary geom etry to the co m p u ta tio n o f d e fin ite in -
le g ra ls ” •
In the fragm ents th a t Gauss le ft, there is not
even a h in t th a t he had reached such problem s.
Nevertheless, one is led to th in k th a t Gauss was
pe rfe ctly sincere in his le tte rs. I f he d id not de-

167
velop non-E ucIidean geom etry so fu lly as Loba-
chevskyf thero can be no d oubt th a t he could
have very easily ... i f he had wanted to .
He o f course foresaw, in p rin c ip le , a ll the
routes o f non-E uclidean geom etry in to analysis. I t
is very lik o ly th a t he could have, w ith o u t any
tro u b lo , developed the scheme o f non-E uclidean
geom etry m uch more p ro fo u n d ly and f u lly be-
cause his genius and m atbom atical range were
unparalle led.
T h is last statem ent is beyond the shadow of
a doubt.
6. Be th a t as i t m ay, Gauss d id n o t invest
b is ideas in any k in d o f finished form and d id
n o t p u b lis h a n y th in g . I t is o n ly h is le tte rs th a t
show he possessed a great deal.
L e t us tr y to figure o u t W H Y .
W e reject Gauss* own e xp la n a tio n , w h ich is
about as co n vin cin g as the statem ent o f a s h ip ’s

168
 commandor to the effect th a t he failed to ca rry
o u t an im p o rta n t assignm ent fo r fear o f the ad‫־‬
verse reaction of some fishing boats th a t m ig h t
be lin g e rin g on the horizon.
W e ll, th a t may bo going too fa r, b u t ono spec-
tre could have pursued Gauss. T o accuse h im o f
m e d io c rity , as Lobachevsky was accused, is out
o f the question. No one w ould have dared to.
B u t the suspicion th a t Gauss m ig h t s im p ly have
gone mad is a p o s s ib ility , fo r one should n o t un•
derestim ate the conservatism o f m athem aticians
(scientists in general, fo r th a t m atte r).
The whole sto ry o f non‫־‬E uclidean geom etry is
the best instance o f th is nature. Even so la te as
the seventies o f last c e n tu ry , when i t was a l-
ready clear and the noncontradictoriness o f non-
E uclidean geom etry had been proved, when its
ideas had seen b r illia n t developm ent and were
supported aud strengthened b y the a u th o rity of
a ll the greatest m athem atician s o f tho w o rld ,
there were s t ill professional m athem aticians,
some in the ra n k of academ icians, th a t continued
to propose a ll manner o f proofs o f the llf t h pos-
tu la te and even refused a serious and obje ctive
consideration o f the geom etry o f Lobachevsky.
In c id e n ta lly , one o f tho most consistent, im -
placable opponents o f tho new ideas was B u n ya ‫־‬
kovsky, who in 1853 c o m p le te ly ignored the
works o f Lobachevsky.
How ever, there is no need to overemphasize
the conservatism o f m athem atician s. Gauss rea-
lized f u ll w e ll th a t the best scientists, the youn•
ger ones firs t, w uuld ;?rasp and p ro p e rly appraise
the new ideas. Too* he was not the k in d to re-
tre a t in the face o f possible unpleasantness.

169
 F irs tly , the m ost p ro m in e n t feature o f his be-
in g was a s tric t, dem anding p ride, even arro-
gance. Secondly, ho never betrayed m athem atics,
fo r he worshipped i t w ith the frig id passion o f a
p u rita n . He w ould do a n y th in g fo r m athem atics,
so no spectres w ould have stopped h im .
The n e xt suppositio n, to the effect th a t aGa-
uss d id not consider the problem so ve ry s ig n ifi•
cant and fo r th is reason he s im p ly d id not have
the tim e to in ve stig a te non-E uclid ean geom etry
fu rth e r‫ ״‬is ju s t as absurd.
B u t th a t w ould im p ly th a t Gauss was ju s t a
mediocre m athem atician devoid of much o f w hat
is called m a them atical c u ltu re .
W h a t is more, Gauss* numerous le tte rs th a t
b rin g in the to p ic o f non-E uclidoan geom etry,
co n s ta n tly tre a t i t as a problem o f the firs t ra n k,
ce n tra l to a ll m athem atics.
So w h y indeed d id Gauss not tu rn his energies
and his am azing unparalle led ta le n t to th is pro-
blem? W h y d id he rem ain s ile n t fo r so m any
years a llo w in g , in the end, Lobachevsky and Bo-
ly a i to o u ts trip him ?
T o get th in g s in to be tte r perspective, le t me
give a p ic tu re of the w hole problem o f non-
E uclidean geom etry.
As yo u re ca ll, when speaking o f axiom s and
axiom atic», we agreed th a t o n ly tw o demands
are imposed on the axiom s o f any m athem atical
th e o ry —completeness and independence. The com-
plet«ness o f a system o f axiom s im p lie s th a t
any conceivable assertion re la tiv e to the p rim a ry
notions can be proved w ith t h d r aid.
A xio m s p e rm it in v e s tig a tin g e ve ryth in g . Let
us not go too fa r in to abstract lo g ic, a few con-

170
 crete examples w ill be tte r serve our pur-
pose.
Suppose tw o chess players have studied the
game from a te xtb o o k th a t by accident failed
to m ention a s itu a tio n in w h ich one o f the pla-
yers cannot make a move w ith o u t in frin g in g tho
rules and h is k in g is n o t under a tta c k . T h is si-
tu a tio n is conveyed by a single chess te rm — sta-
lem ate. O ur players w ould n o t know w hat to
do. The game could not go 〇n T and th e y w ould
s im p ly have to in tro d u ce another ru le , another
axiom . In chess th is s itu a tio n represents a draw,
in checkers the side th a t in itia te s tho stalemate
wins.
B u t some new axiom has to bo chosen.
T h e ir system o f axiom s proved to bo incom -
plot©, for i t d id not p ro vid e for a ll possible s itu -
ations.
One could take fo o tb a ll w ith its elements of
11 players, the b a ll, the referee, goal, fie ld , etc.
And a^ain the axiom s (rules o f the game) have
to be form ulated so as to be able to judge unam*
biguously about any possible s itu a tio n o f the
elem entary e n titie » .
T h a t accounts fo r tho constant argum ents and
fights th a t break o u t in scrub games where the
p a rtic ip a n ts do n o t have a f u ll code o f ru le s—
hence the dangor o f neglecting axiom atics.
Though, as a ru le , the teams firs t come to certain
m o d ifica tio n s o f Uie terms about tho game as
applied to the local fie ld ; s e ttin g up a com plete
system o f a xio m a tics even concerning such a
sim ple game as fo o tb a ll is by no means an
easy m a tte r. W hence, again, a ll the trage-
dies.

171
 O r, to take a fin a l case, the c rim in a l code
should in p rin c ip le p ro vid e a com plete system of
axiom s governing a ll possible s itu a tio n s bazar^
dous to society.
The requirem ent o f completeness w ould seem
to be clear enough now . W o u ld seem! I f o n ly
th in g s were as sim ple as I have pictured them
here, m athem atician s w ould be in ecstasy.
I f I m ay be allow ed a few naive suggestions•"•
A system o f axiom s re la tiv e to a given group
o f basic (p rim a ry ) notio n s is com plete i f for any
general p ro p o sitio n A (any theorem ) re fe rrin g to
the given p rim a ry m otions, we can resolve the
fo llo w in g question on tho basis o f these axioms:
‫ ״‬Is A tru e o r false?‫״‬
N ow th in k over w h a t has ju s t been said. To
v e rify the completeness o f the axiom s we must
do no less than prove or refute every conceivable
l/wore/n. I f th a t is done，then any m athem atical
d is c ip lin e w ould be exhausted to the end. E x•
hausted in the same w ay th a t the game t ic ‫־‬t a o
toe has been.
O ur demand is o b v io u s ly u n re a lis tic .
E ven in such a co m p a ra tiv e ly sim ple system
as checkers, wo cannot precisely investigate the
basic theorem and answer the q uestion ：w hat re-
s u it should an id e a l game give?
S t ill less do we know o f the s itu a tio n in chess.
A nd less s t i l l can we p ro vid e fo r and analyse
a ll the theorems o f geom etry, a rith m e tic and, in
general, any m a the m a tica l d is c ip lin e .
T h a t is the reason w h y the whole problem of
the completeness o f a system o f axiom s must be
form u la te d q u ite d iffe re n tly .
We cannot here delve too deeply in to the

172
depths o f highor m athom atic& l lo g ic and so we
sh a ll nut g ive in f u ll the problem o f the com ple-
teaess of a system o f axiom s. Perhaps a b e a u tifu l
and incom prehensible phrase w ill suffice: a sys-
tem of axiom s is com plete i f auy tw o in te rp re ta -
lio n s o f i t co n ta in in g real coûtent are isom orphic.
L e t us now exam ine th is splendid statem ent.
The idea o f isom orphism was introduced by
H ilb e rt, and is one o f the most elegant finds of
th i? ce n tu ry.
B u t we w ill n o t speak about isom orphism .
A n instanco in w h ich a system o f axiom s was
incom plete has already been g iv e n ，and most
lik e ly the reader can th iu k up a few more
cases.
The requirem ent o f independence (or noncon-
tra d icto rin e ss)* w ould a t firs t glance seem to be
clearer. L e t us phrase the independence require-
m ent rig o ro u s ly .
L e t there be a group o f axiom s I (th is le tte r,
called sigm a, is o rd in a rily used to designate a
sum)•
L e t there be some k in d o f assertion A .
A nd tho opposite assertion is À . * *

• In Ch. 3 wc w roto th a t the requirement of non-

contradiclorinogs (consistency) of axioms is a special
case of th a t of indcpcndeuce. Somo textbooks, however,
stale lh a t a system of axioms must satisfy both the re-
quirem eat of coosistcncy and th a t of independence. The
p o in t is th a t w b a l is needed, p ra c tic a lly speaking, is
consistency of the axioma. I t is even convenient at
tim es to chooso somo of the axioms as independent
axioms. Therefore, the reauircm cats of consistency and
independence are frequently separated.
• * Tho bar on top o f the le tte r is a m athem atical
sym bol to denote tho contrary assertion.

173
 Then A is independent o f the group o f axiom s
Z i f ne ith e r A nor A co n tra d icts tbe group of
axiom s. In o th er words, bo th the assertion A
and the co n tra ry assertion A are co m p a tib le w ith
the group o f axiom s I .
A l l o f th is is ra th e r elem entary lo g ic, though
i t is p ro b a b ly a b it unusual, and so appears to
be com plicated. T h a t is w hy we shall e xp la in
e v e ry th in g fo r the case o f the fifth postulate.
We w ish to prove th a t the Fifth postulate is
independent o f a ll tbe other axiom s o f E u c lid *s
geom etry (here, the fifth postulate is an exam ple
of our assertion A ). W e express an assertion th a t
is co n tra ry to the fifth postulate (assertion À ).
For instance, we state th a t th ro u g h a given
p o in t a l least tw o p a ra lle l s tra ig h t iines can be
draw n to a given s tra ig h t lin e . (To s im p lify m at-
ters, we sh a ll w rit« the pustulate, w h ich is con-
tra ry to the G flh, upside down, lik e th is
八 e^»irusod>•
We now provo th a t \ 9^P|n]sod does n o t con-
tra d ic t the re m a inin g axiom s o f geom etry. T h is
means th a t no m a tte r how fa r and wide we de-
velop the possible consequences, we shall never
come to a lo g ica l c o n tra d ic tio n .
So fa r so good. N ow be careful. H ow is one
to be sure th a t there w ill never be any contra-
d ictio n ?
Suppose wo have proved tw e n ty noncontradic-
to ry theorems. T h is is no guarantee th a t a con-
tra d ic tio n may not appear in the tw e n ty -firs t.
A fte r p ro v in g one hundred, we can expect a fa i-
lure in the one hundred and firs t. The same goes
fo r the thousandth. I t is q u ite clear th a t in th is
way we w ill never o b ta in a rigorous proof of

174
consistency. B u t we m ust, fo r otherwise the pro-
blem w ill rem ain unsolved. I t w ould sctiin to be
a hopeless task. There do not appear to be any
conceivable pathw ays, o th e r than w h a t we have
described. A b s o lu te ly hopeless.
L e t us stop here again and concentrate for a
moment.
In the la tte r h a lf o f the nineteenth c e n tu ry,
ro u g h ly 20 years a fte r the deaths o f Lobachev-
sky and GauâvS，a rigorous proof was given o f the
noncontradictoriness o f n 〇n‫־‬E uclidean geom etry.
The proof was unexpected, im probable . W e w ill
relate i t a b it la te r.
The p o in t is th a t ne ith e r Lobachevsky nor
Gauss even suspected p o s s ib ilitie s o f th is nature.
Remember one th in g : the very p o s s ib ility o f fun-
d a m e n ta lly new ideas th a t w ould help to prove
Ihe noncontradictoriness o f non-E uclidean geo-
m etry was in those days ju s t as inconceivable as
the p o s s ib ility o f d e te rm in in g the chem ical com*
position o f a star. Ju st as inconceivable as over-
th ro w in g the mechanics o f N ew ton. Just as u n '
th ia k a b le as a therm onuclear reaction.
There was, a t th a t tim e , s t ill no clear concep-
tio n of axiom atica. There was com plete chaos in
a ll d e fin itio n s and axiom s o f geom etry, the d i-
sarray th a t was the legacy o f E u c lid .
M athem atician s bad n o t yet form ulated for
themselves p ra c tic a lly a n y th in g o f w hat has ju s t
been w ritte n .
I t was o n ly the b r illia n t B o ly a i who was gro-
p in g in the rig h t d ire c tio n . I am a fra id th a t even
Gauss was not fu lly receptive to his ideas. There
was o n ly a s e m i-in tu itiv e conception about
the notions o f independence and consistency.

175
 B u t then — W e ll, then i t is clear th a t i t is
altogeth er im possible to prove lo g ic a lly the uin -
dependence o f the fifth p o s tu la te ". No m a tter
how long the consistent chain o f theorems o b ta i-
ned by means o f \ oiB jnţsod, there w ill always
be the p o s s ib ility th a t the c o n tra d ic tio n is con-
cealed s t ill deeper. There w ill be a feeling th a t
wo s im p ly have not ye t reached it .
In despair, o f courset one could resort to ma-
n ip u la tio n s th a t are to ta lly a lie n to mathem a-
tic s —e xp e rim e n t. Far i f i t wore found— some
place in the universe— th a t non-E uclid ean geo-
m etry is accom plished, then the problem o f non-
contradictorin ess w o u ld ipso facto bo resolved.
Y ou re c a ll th a t Gauss attem pted to v e rify
w hat the sum o f the angles o f a tria n g le is equal
to . Q u ite ind e p e nde n tly o f h im , Lobachevsky as-
ked th a t s im ila r measurements be carried o ut.
Lobachevsky chose a be tte r ob je ct. A t his re-
quest, astronomers a t Kazan observatory measu*
red the angles o f a tria n g le whose vertices were
three stars. In b oth cases, the sum o f the angles
proved equal to p i ( it) io w ith in experim ental
error•
T h is re su lt d id n o t re fu te a n y th in g because even
i f E uclidean geom etry were n o t accom plished in
our w o rld , any d e v ia tio n from p i m ig h t be very
s lig h t.
As to proof, there was even less o f th a t; n o th-
in g in fa ct.
So w hat have we? Reasoning in accord w ith
rigorous lo g ic, one th in g rem ained, and th a t was
to conclude th a t the question was open. A nd w ill
p ro b a b ly rem ain so fo r ever. T h a t, in effect, is
w hat Gausa once said. ( Iu a p riv a te le tte r, na-

176
 tu ra lly .) Here is w hat he w rote: ‫ ״‬I in c lin e more
and more to the c o n v ic tio n th a t the necessity of
our geom etry cannot be proved rig o ro u s ly . A t
any rate, b y the hum an m in d fo r the human
m in d •”
T h is is open to the fo llo w in g in te rp re ta tio n .
I do n o t see any conceivable p o s s ib ility o f pro-
v in g th a t a postulate c o n tra ry to the & fth postu*
late (八 0)Kin)sod) does n o t c o n tra d ic t the other
axiom s o f geom etry. A n d althoug h in tu itio n o f
course h in ts to Gauss th a t the correct answer is
unon‫־‬E uclidean geom etry is ju s t as consistent as
E u c lid e a n ‫ ״‬, there is no proof.
The problem rem ains unsolved.
And i f th a t is the w ay th in g s stand, i t is en-
tir e ly in the s p ir it o f Gauss not to p u b lis h his
results. He could n o t ris k h is re p u ta tio n and
p u b lish a paper o f w h ich he was not one hund-
red per cent p o s itiv e . Ho d id n o t possess the idea
th a t w ould p e rm it c u ttin g the k n o t and re»ol-
v in g the m a tte r. So w h a t next? A t th is p o in t,

177
factors enter w hich are not di roc i l y connooltMl
w ith pure scû'nce.
One a fte r the other, his corre.spondents (Schwe-
ik a r t, M'anriniis, R«»lyai) jwmï! him lette rs which
contained a more or less broad h in t that i t was
im possible to provo the fifth postulate and th a t
the c o n tra ry p ostulate d id not ru n counter to
tho other axiom s o f E u c lid .
As fa r as S chw oika rt and T a u rin u s were con-
cernod, the idea was nebulous and stated in un-
w ie ld y fashion. Gauss saw the m a tto r in a clearer
lig h t.
P ic tu re Gauss fo r a m om ent. I t is not so easy
to give a d ire c t and honest answer. I t is n o t so
easy to present oaefs ideas to a S chw eikart and
give up c o m p le tely the hope, in one's heart o f
hearts, to resolve th a t accursed problem , e xp la in
tho s itu a tio n , and to advise: develop yo ur ar-
gum onis as f u lly as possible, and w ith tho grea-
test possiblo caro, fo r the more d ive rsifie d the
co ro lla rie s and tlieoreins you get, on the basis
o f the postulate c o n tra ry to the fifth , the more
secure w ill y o u r in n e r fa ith be th a t i t is noncon-
tra d ic to ry . E xam ine non-E uclidean trigonom e-
try , t r y to com pute the length o f curves in
n o n *E u d id e a u geom etry. G et, for exam ple,
an expression fo r the length o f a circum feren-
ce.
Gauss knew w hat tho length o f a circum ference
would bo in n on-K uclid ean jjeom etry. He gave
the fo rm u la in one o f h is le tte rs. B u t o u r ‫ ״‬ideal
Gauss‫ ״‬w ould o f course not w rite about such a
th in g to h is correspondent.
H e w ould keep s ile n t about h is own results,
and w ould o u tlin e an extensive program m e o f re-

178
^ a r c h t g iv in g oncouragem eiit and support to his
youn^ colleague. He w ould vvrilv:
MI m yself was a ttra cte d to th is idea, h u tt alas,
no m a lto r how fa r you develop yo n r theorems,
the question — u ltim a te ly —o f the noacontradictO '
rincss o f non-E ucIidcan geom etry is a question
o f fa ith . I t is im possible to o b ta in ‫ ה‬ri^rorons
proof. Ono can o n ly ro ly on oners in tu itio n .
*The p ro b a b ility o f e rror w ill alw ays rem ain.
You are young. Y o u r name is not canonized, you
can afford to w rito s illy things. I in s is te n tly
advise you to devote a ll y o u r energies to th is
problem . A w a itin g fu rth e r le tte rs , . . . ‫ײ‬
A re n U we expecting too m uch o f Gauss?
A lo t, b u t n o t too m uch.
Science knows o f such people and such
cases.
Tho phrase ‫ ״‬you are young enough to w rite
s illy th in g s " was a c tu a lly w ritte n once— by a
rem arkable man, teacher and p h y s ic is t, Ehren-
fest, to tw o young men, U hlenbeck and Gouds-
m it, when they had wanted to w ith h o ld p u b lic
ca tion o f a paper they had sent to a jo u rn a l.
L a te r, i t turned o u t to be th e ir c h ie f c o n trib u -
tio n to science. In c id e n ta lly , they got the most
fundam ental reasoning fro m E in s te in , who gave
i t unselfishly, ca rin g iio t a w h it about his own
p r io r ity in the m a tte r.
B u t Gauss was n o t tho ideal o f scientiTic dis-
intorestednesô. T ru e — th is we m ust say_ ho ne-
ver p e rm itte d h im s e lf any im p ro p e r actions
e ith e r. Ho was alw ays scru p u lo u sly honest.
W e ll, n e a rly alw ays so.
Because in the case o f non-K uclidean geometry
ho never explained h im s e lf fu lly and never gave

12• 179
 the true reason for n o t w a n tin g to p u lilis lt his
w ork.
In a ll his le tte rs he c h ild is h ly iuaiâted on his
fear o f tho ‫ ״‬rii'sch re i der B o o tie rM. These Boe-
othiaiïâ, lik o lifesavers, tu rn lip in alm ost eve*
ry le tte r dealing w ith noa-Euclidean geom etry.
I a d m it even th a t Gauss h im s e lf H a a lly be-
gaii to beliovo his pet excuse. B u t does th a t
change anything? N o th in g at a ll. One o f the
most subtle, co n v in c in g and widespread types o f
lie is th a t w hich you yourself have como to be-
liev© in .
F a ith is needed; th a t precisely is w hat con-
vinces others.
N on-E uclidean geom etry is likew iso a prod uct
of fa ith .
R o lya i and Lobachevsky bolioved. S tric tly
speaking, in tho most fundam ental problem , tho
c ru c ia l question, they reasoned as poets reason,
and n o t as w orshippers o f rigorous lo g ic.
“ T h is is correct fo r i t is b e a u tifu l” w ould
.seem lo be th e ir c h ie f argum ent. I t is w o rth going
in to . I said ‫ ״‬reasoned as poets reason". I t w ould
have been h otter and more correct to have said
ulik e m a th e m a ticia n s‫ ״‬, or more precisely s till,
‫ ״‬lik e people endowed w t h creative th o u g h t‫ ״‬.
The nature o f the creative process is u n ita ry
in its bn^ic and decisive features. M a th e m ati-
cians, physicists, poets, a rtis ts , engineers, m u-
sicians d iffe r among themselves to a fa r sm aller
decree than is g en e n illy th o u g h t.
In c id e n ta lly , the a n c ie n t Greeks reastmed moro
e x a c tly in th is m a tte r, fo r they h a rd ly a t a ll
distinguish ed the nature o f the d iffe re n t types
o f c re a tiv ity . They m ay have overstepped the li*

180
 niiLs when thoy claim ed th a t a m usician needed
professional tra in in g in philo so p h y and iiia the-
m atics. B u t th is exaggeration grew up on a ba-
sis th a t was sounder than th a t o f the opposite
view.
T n ie , i t must \hh noted th a t a sharp dem arka-
tio n between tho exact sciences and the a rts can-
n o t u n c o n d itio n a lly be considered tho stand o f
our centur>f. I t is s im p ly a ve ry com m on view ,
one hold m o stly by those who have no contacts
w ith any area o f c re a tiv ity .
Q u it« n a tu ra lly , to e x p la in to such people the
nature o f the cre a tive process is an e xtre m ely
d iffic u lt task, the d iffic u lty progressively in cre a-
sing w ith the o ffic ia l s ta n d in g o f the person
w ith whom you are a rg u in g . I t is ju s t as hard
as to e x p la in to a lo ve r o f b a lle t th a t a m agnifî-
cent fo o tb a lle r is no less w o rth y o f «idm iration
th a n a b r illia n t p rim a b a le rin a . And i f one adds
th a t, e sse n tia lly, the a r tis tr y o f o u r centre for-
ward and o f tho p rim a is o f a s im ila r nature,
u n ita ry in its very essence, in its objectives and
results, the in te lle c tu a l b a llo t lo ve r w ill mo.^t
lik e ly w a lk o u t of the conversation. Ia cid e n ta U
I y t conversing w ith a fo o tb a ll fan, you would
get the answer: ‫ ״‬F o o tb a ll is not b a lle t‫ ״‬, plus
some u n p rin ta b le v a ria tio n s on y o u r m ental sta-
tus_
A ll tho more reason fo r w ip in g o u t th is dism al,
settled narrow-m indedness—i t is very w ide-
spread.
L e t us re tu rn to geom etry. One o f the ch ie f
c rite ria o f any type o f a rt is , as we w e ll know,
beauty. The search for boauty permeated tho
whole life sto ry o f the Fifth postulate, from Eu•

181
d i d to Lobachevsky. The ugliness o f E u c lid ,s
postulate predeterm ined the fu tile tw o-thousaud-
year a tte m p ts to prove it .
A n d the elegance o f the constructions o f non-
E uclidean geom etry won the heart o f L am bert,
alm ost convinced Gauss and com pelled B o ly a i
and Lobachevsky to declare: th is is so b e a u tifu l
th a t i t has as m uch r ig h t to liv e as the geom etry
o f E u c lid .
B y rig h ts , B o ly a i occupies firs t place when i t
comes to fa ith and enthusiasm . H is w o rk e n tit-
lod m odestly ‫״‬A p p e n d ix c o n ta in in g the science
o f space th a t is a bso lu te ly true and independent
o f the tr u th or fa ls ity o f the X l t h axiom o f E u -
c lid t w h ich , a p r io ri, can never l>e p ro v e d ...‫ ״‬is
most u n c o n d itio n a l.
A curious tr a in o f events follow ed th is flo ria*
ted tit le .
The w o rk was published as an appendix to a
te xtb o o k o f geom etry w ritte n by his fa th e r, F ar-
kas B o ly a i. As was n a tu ra l in those days, the
book was w ritte n in classical L a tin , the language
o f scholars and philosophers. O f the long title ,
o n ly the w ord ‫ ״‬A p p e n d ix ‫ ״‬rem ains when the
w o rk is quoted. T h a t is now the t it le we know
i t by.
I t is curious and sym b o lica l th a t a t the cradle
o f non-E u clid e an geom etry there clashed three
hum an and s c h o la rly tem peram ents, and three
s c ie n tific modes o f th o u g h t.
Opposite stands were taken by Gauss and B o-
ly a i.
C arl F rie d ric h Gauss. Gauss the cautious rea-
lis t. H e was u n d ou b te d ly the most lo g ica l o f the
three. The most academ ic. To h im the problem
had n o t been solved to the end, and ho could
n o t a llo w h im s e lf the lu x u ry o f fo llo w in g his
in tu itio n , to have fa ith w ith o u t proof; th a t he
could not do. He had a clear conception o f the
m atter and, given the desire, he w ould p ro b a b ly
surpass B o ly a i and Lobachevsky. He knew i t but
he d id n o t believe in i t euough. A n d he lo s t o ut.
I t m atters lit t le w h a t h isto ria n s w ill w rite la -
1er. I t m atters h a rd ly a t a ll th a t in a ll h is le t-
ters he in s is te n tly repeated ‫ ״‬I have know n th is
fo r fo rty years a lre a d y ‫ ״‬. A lone, by h im se lf, Ga-
uss a d m itte d th a t he had been le ft behind. W h a t
is more, he was honest enough and severely
s tric t in his a ttitu d e tow ards h im s e lf to a d m it
th is u n c o n d itio n a lly . He had lo s t the game.
Janos B o lya i. B o ly a i was a ro m a n tic is t, s tru c k
by beauty and elegance, ca rrie d aw ay b y his
own ta le n t, o n th u sia stic beyond measure. *T h is
was done by Janos B o ly a i‫ ״‬, H is fa ith was ro-
warded. I t was the p rim e m over o f h is life . In
h is Grst w ork he grasped the problem more pro-
fo u n d ly than anyone h ith e rto . In c id e n ta lly , he
never made any more headway. P ossibly becau-
se fo r h im e v e ry th in g was solved. Subconscious-
ly , perhaps, b u t solved.
He achieved h is goal, he was a genius. T h a t
m uch he had proved.
N ik o la i Iv a n o v ic h Lobachevsky. In o u r story
he is close to the id e a l scholar. Com bine in equal
measure the s c ie n tific enthusiasm o f B o ly a i and
the ske p tica l cautiousness o f Gauss, and to th is
add a persistence bordering on stubbornuess, an
alm ost in s tin c tiv e in n e r c o n v ic tio n o f the irre -
proachahlo tr u th o f his ideas.... A lso make the
demand th a t th is s c ie n tific in te g rity n o t waver

183
d u rin g tw e n ty years o f a com plete la c k o f m i-
derstandin ^ by h is colleagues, a la c k o f com -
prehension th a t at tim es to o k the form o f open
m ockery, and you w ill have an a pproxim ate p ic -
ture o f Lobachevsky c re a tin g the founda tions o f
non-E uclidean geom etry.
He believed and he verifie d his beliefs.
I t is q u ite fa ir th a t the non-E uclidean geo-
m etry o f w h ich we are speaking is always called
Lobach evsky's geom etry.
W© shall re tu rn to Gauss and Lobachevsky,
b u t firs t le t us take up B o ly a i.
I have already said th a t as a person B o ly a i
was n o t very pleasant. T h a t rem ains m y feeling.
B u t, in brackets，we m ig h t add a t r iv ia l fact:
he was a b r illia n t ly g ifte d m a th e m a ticia n . T h is
he m a g n ific e n tly dem onstrated and there is no
maybe about i t . B u t a p p a re n tly B o ly a i the man
was a d iffic u lt case.
He was o f the species o f “ geniuses” • E ve ry
school has tw o or three “ N ew tons‫ — ״‬talented
youngsters, sh a rp -w itte d , fa r advanced, tow ering
over a ll the other c h ild re n , and w ith s p a rklin g
lig h tn in g -fa s t m inds. A ll too often, recognition
o f th is in te lle c tu a l s u p e rio rity spoils them and
brings them to a k in d o f Niet^scheanism . They
are tem peram ental, in to le ra n t, e g o tis tic a l, tru s t
o n ly themselves, and regard a ll others as the
gray mass, the rabble whose jo b i t is to hoist
th e ir hero onto a pedestal.
W ith o u t a d o u bt, thore are tim es when they
are k in d , responsivo and ch a rm in g , b u t subcon-
sciously (and, la te r, even consciously) th e ir p h i-
losuphy is th a t o f “ leadors” and “ masses” • t h i s
kin d o f dovolopm ent o f g iftv d c h ild re n is sad•

184
d cnin^, b u t i t is n a tu ra l perhaps bccan.se the
education o f an in n e r c u ltu re is a m uch more
le n g th y, com plicated and subtle process than
even the flow ering o f a ta le n t. A nd the c o n flic t
between a ta le n t and the c u ltu re is the more
ncuto and la c k in g in com prom ise, the sooner the
s u p e rio rity o f the c h ild becomes e vid e n t. I f I
may p e rm it mys<ţlf some p h ilo so p h izin g , one is
in c lin e d to th in k th a t most o f (ho trib u la tio n s
o f m ankind are associated w ith com placency,
self-satisfa ctio n , w h ich , alas, is a p ra c tic a lly in a -
lienable feature in most people. A nd i f a man is
g ifte d and also a m b itio u s, life becomes arduous
e ith e r to h im se lf or to those about h im , or to
both.
B olyai^s destiny was o f a th ird k in d . H is ta -
le n t appeared e a rly and in a d iversified fashion,
l ie was an extrem e representative o f the k in d of
tem peram ent th a t is u s u a lly described as ua rtis*
t i c ‫״‬, ‫ ״‬p o e tic a l‫ ״‬. E legant, im p u ls iv e , s c in tilla •
tin t
The supreme proof o f h is m a th e m a tica l ta le n t
and in tu itio n is th a t by the age o f 21 to 23 he
had already mastered the fundam entals o f non-
E uclidean geom etry and, w h a t is most im p o rta n t,
was a p p a re n tly fu lly convinced o f the tr u th of
his ideas. When Farcas, his father and a pro-
m inent H u n g a ria n m athem atician» and, in cid e n -
( a lly , a school-day friend o f Gauss, leaniod that his
eight«en-year-oId son was ca p tiva te d by the the-
o ry o f p a ra lle l lines, he w rote in desperation to
his son, p a th e tic a lly im p lo rin g h im to give up
th a t mad venture.
The le tte r is w rifio n in such h ig h -flo w in g s ty -
le as to ir r ita te tin* modern reader and cause Inm

185
to d oubt the s in c e rity o f the w rite r. O f p a rtic u la r
in te re st, in m y o p in io n , is th a t i t gives an excel-
le n t p ic tu re o f tho re la tio n s th a t obtained in iho
B o ly a i fa m ily .
“ Î im p lo re you n o t to a tte m p t to surm ount
the theory o f p a ra lle l lines; you w ill waste a ll
yo u r tim e on i t and s t i l l n o t prove the proposi-
tio n . Do not tr y to overcome the theory o f pa-
ra lle l lines e ith e r by the method you speak o f or
by any other m ethod. I have studied a ll avenues
to th e ir ends and have not encountered a single
idea th a t I have n o t developed. I have passed
through the whole hopeless darkness o f th a t n ig h t
and have buried in i t every beacon, every pleas-
uro o f life . For G od's sake, I im p lo re you* leave
th is m a tte r alone, fear i t no less than sensual
passions, for i t is capable o f d e p riv in g you of
a ll y o u r tim e , yo u r h e a lth , peace o f m in d, the
e n tire happiness o f y o u r life . T h is hopeless d a rk-
ness ... w ill never bo c la rifie d here on earth and
the m iserable hum an race w ill never w ie ld any-
th in g perfect even in jfco m ctry. T h is is a great
and eternal wound in m y s o u l..‫״ ״‬
In c id e n ta lly , Farkas—in his y o u th —d id stu-
dy the theory o f pa ra lle ls and even sent Gauss
some proofs o f the & fth postulate . There can l>e
no d o u b t th a t the fa th e r was sincerely up»et about
Janos. Strange to say, s ta rtin g from in co rre ct
premises ho c o rre c tly foresaw the fin a l result:
the theory o f p a ra lle ls was indeed destined to be
the curse o f Janos B o ly a i's life , though fo r q u ite
d iffe re n t reasons tha n h is fa th e r supposed.
W hen there is a d e v ilis h obsession, so there
must be aa e v il s p ir it. Gauss was the e v il geni-
us for Janos B o ly a i from e a rly childhoo d a l­

186
most to the end o f his days; th o u g h —su b je c ti-
v e ly — Gauss was h a rd ly to blam e in any respect.
I t a ll started when Iho father began to harbour
the <im bitious dream o f sending his talented son
to G ijt t in ^ n to com pleto his m athem atical cdu-
cation under the guidance o f Gauss. Farkas wrote
to bis k in d old friend asking h im to receivo
h is son. lie was n a tu ra lly prepared to pay a ll
the expenses.
The answer was silence.
Gauss m ay have had a v a rie ty o f reasons, some
very w e ig h ty , to refuse, and he caa o n ly be
reproached fo r a la c k o f ta c t w ith regard to
Farkas. A d m itte d ly i t is very d iffic u lt to ju d -
ge. F a rka s1 le tte r was somewhat im p e rtin e n t.
Some o f the questions were reasonable oaough, b u t
one can easily understand Gauss too. “ Is your
w ife an exception to the wholo female sox? ...
Does her mood change lik e a weather-vane?‫״‬
The p o in t was th a t Janos w ould have to liv e
Ihere in her house, and so Farkas wanted to
know how Janos w ould gût along. Q u ila n a tu ra l-
l y ţ Gauss must have w inced a t such sweet inge-
nuousness.
H ow ever, I am n o t interested here e ith e r in
Gauss or in Farkas B o ly a i. As fa r as one can
gather, Gauss w ould n o t have taken an unknow n
boy even i f the le tte r had been w ritte n w ith the
d ip lo m a tic elegance o f a T a le yra n d . T h a t is his
rig h t. A ll th is gossip is o f in te re st o n ly in th a t
i t once a^a in dem oastrales how l i t t l e and how
p o o rly a d u lts undorstand c h ild re n . B o th grow n‫־‬
ups in th is sto ry are to blame.
Im agine a h ig h -stru n g fourteen-year-old boy
in whom his efTusive father had u n dou btedly in *

187
 s lille d prcat hopes. The boy did not know m ucii
about the re la tio n s h ip between his fa th e r and
Gauss. He had no idea o f w h a t could offend
Gauss and w h y. The o n ly th in g he know —and
you can be sure the father spoke o f i t several
tim es a d a y— was th a t as students, tho fa th er
and the great Causs had been the best o f friends
and th a t they had even solem nly sworn to c tc r-
nal friendship.
So, n a tu ra lly , the fa th e r is convinced th a t C arl
w ill answer the very next day. Fourteen-year-
olds bolieve th e ir fathers. E sp e c ia lly i f yo u r
fath e r is also y o u r teacher and is a talented,
ve rs a tile in te re s tin g person. One m ust add th a t
Farkas was a p ro fo u n d ly g iftm l m a th e m a ticia n .
In h is te xtb o o k o f geom etry, he c le a rly fo rm u la -
ted fo r the firs t tim e the demand th a t axiom s
ho independent, lie d o ubtle ssly deserves f u ll cre-
d it for Janos' deep understanding o f problem s
of a xio m a tics at tho age o f tw e n ty .
The boy could not help respecting his faih o r.
Ho was confident and he w a ite d .
H e —a boy from a backwoods province o f E u -
rope—already saw h im s e lf a student o f the great
Gauss, and perhaps, la te r, his associate in scien-
ce. For m onths on end ho w aited e xp e cta n tly
fo r the postm an checking the days, adding on
when too m any w ent b y, w a itin g for Gauss*
answer, th in k in g up fresh reasons fo r delays,
a^ain w a itin g and hoping; s t ill h o p in g when his
fathe r took h im to V ienna to a m ilita r y engi‫־‬
neering academy, fo r i t had become clear th a t
Gaus5 w ould not re p ly . Gauss s im p ly d id not
w ant to. Y e t there lingered the hop© th a t, p rr-
haps, an unknown messenger w ould come r i ‫־‬

188
iliiig at th o ir hoels w ith the long overdue le tte r.
\i> le U rr ever came.
i must say th a t though i have absolute ly no
facts to go b y and I do n o t know how a ll th is
affccUïd Janos, i can e a sily soe how a m onth
or tw o o f w a itin g lik e th a t could to ta lly derange
the nervous system o f a hig h -stru n g fourteen-
year-oid bay. P a rtic u la rly i f the boy was g ifte d ,
excita b le , deeply sensitive.
B u t le t us not be o v e rs tric t ia ju d g in g Gauss.
H e m ig h t easily have been offended. A nd to
w o rry about the nerves o f some unknow n youag-
ster, as wo so fre q u e n tly do to d a y .... L o t us not
ask for too m uch.
The years as a stu d e n t and esp e cia lly, the
years o f m ilita r y service in o u tly in g garrisons of
H ungary wei‫־‬e years o f d ism a l aloneaess fo r Ja-
nos B o ly a i. T rue, he had a couple o f friends at
the academy, brought tojfether b y th e ir lovo for
m athem atics. N o th in g more. A fte rw a rd s, there
was no one.
I do n o t th in k th a t p ro v in c ia l officers offered
h im app ropria te com pany. A p p a re n tly , he not
o n ly fa ile d to conceal his hau g h ty d isd a in for
the whole crow d, he w ent to lengths to stress
i t . The re su lt was constant q u a rre llin g and du-
ols. H e saved h im s e lf by his s k ill a t sw ordplay.
He most lik e ly was r ig h t in his a ttitu d e to his
‫ ״‬colleagues‫ ״‬. Y e t d u rin g a ll those years he could
have found a few decent follow s, even though
somewhat la c k in g in education and in te llig e n -
ce. (M th a t there can no ilo u b t• Ho o b vio usly
presumed th a t they w ould be of no use to h im .
He was m istaken. B u t ho was not m istaken when
i t came to the theory o f p a ra lle ls. Before his re-

189
signation (aiţain iho rosnlt n f some kin d o f scan-
dal) he had w ritte n up his in ve stig a tio n s in the
form o f the celobraled ‫״‬A p p e n d ix ‫ ״‬.
Tht• w ork is w ritte n în o xtro m o ly compact
form and makes d iffic u lt reading•
T h a t in general was the poor lu c k o f non-
E uclidean geom etry. Lobachevsky*« papers are
w ritte n h a z ily , and i f one judges from the stand-
!»oint o f a s c ie n tific e d ito r, they arc s im p ly no
jçood• Numerous esse n tia lly sim ple m atters are
tangled up beyond measure. For such things
m athem aticians have the aphorism : ‫ ״‬the repu-
ta tio n o f a m a ih c m a tic ia n is determ ined by tho
num ber o f u n w ie ld y proofs th a t he has concoc-
to d ‫ ״‬.
The p o in t eems to be th a t path-m akers, as a
ru le , do not find the sim plest and most elegant
pathw ay. They slash through the trees c u ttin g
a road because they have to advance. T h 〇 9〇who
come la te r b rin g elegance, beauty and polish.
There are exceptions, b u t they are tr u ly excep-
tio n a l.
Be a ll th a t as i t m ay, Farkas B o ly a i d id not
understand the w ork o f h is srm a t a ll• Since i t

190
was th o u g h t Lo 16‫ י‬published as an ap|>^ndix to
the ^aomviry U‘x t l “ M.k w hich Farkas had writ-
ten, the co n fiicr reached it» apex.
l l is lw、
iv ， ïifU.r fifUMMi yvarfs tl»al Farkas a^flin
wrote to Gauss asking h im tu act as judge.
(T his was in 1832)• “ M y son respects y o u r o p i•
nion niorp than th a t o f tho whole o f E urope‫ ״‬,
ho wrote.
T h is tim e Gauss re p lie d . T ru e , a m onth la t« r.
B u t he read Janos，paper c a re fu lly and fa vo iira b -
ly • W lia t ever else m ay be said o f h im , he va-
lued ta le n t. A nd in others too. A lm o s t the next
day he w rote to a friend o f his: “ A few days ago
I received from H u n g a ry a sm a ll paper on non-
E uclidea n geom etry; in i t I found a ll m y own
results carried o u t w ith marked elegance.‫״‬
W ell? Such were the facts. A lm o s t the actual
facts. We have no rig h t to blame h im , alm ost
no rig h t.
Then the father and son received h is reply*
The usual in tro d u c to ry rem arks and gcjncralitics ，
and then:
MN ow a b it about the w o rk o f y o u r son. I f
I begin by saying th a t I ought n o t to praise
his w o rk , yo u w ill o f course be amazed fo r a
m om ent, b u t I cannot do otherw ise, for to pra-
ise i t w ould mean to praise m yself. The e ntire
contents o f the com position, the path th a t your
son has taken, and the results th a t he has ob-
tained alm ost co m p le te ly coincide w ith m y own
a tta in m e n ts, w hich in p a rt arc already 35 years
o ld . I am indeed e xtre m e ly amazed. M y in te n -
tio n , regarding m y own w o rk , w h ich in c id e n ta l-
ly lias b u t s lig h tly been p u t to paper up to the
present tim e , has been n o t to p u b lish a n y th in g

191
d u rin g my life tim e . M ost people do n o l take the
proper view o f lia» prohlem s discussed here. I
have found o n ly a few people th a t evince spe>
c ia l in te re st in wh«it 1 had to te ll them on th is
subject. In order to be in a state to master th is ,
one lias to feel w ith j^reat v it a lit y th a t w hich
is, p ro p e rly speaking, la c k in g here. N ow th is is
n o t clear a t a ll to most people. However, ray
in te n tio n has been to w rite a ll th is down, in
good tim e , and iu such form th a t these ideas
should not perish w ith mo. Thus, I am excae-
d ia g ly s u rp rin d th a t th is jo b has been taken
from me, and I am pleased in the extrem e th a t
i t is precisely the son of n iy old frie n d who has
a n ticip a te d me in th is rem arkable fashion. ‫״‬
To say th a t Janos B o lya i wa3 distressed is
to say n o th in g . He was enraged, o b lite ra te d ,
crushed. He was convinced th a t Gauss' wholo
le tte r was one lie from the firs t word to the
la st. A lie , the sole purpose o f w hich was to
arrogate Janos’ b r illia n t idea.
T h is second blo w from Gausa was heavier
th a n the firs t. Ho, Jânos B o ly a i, had reached
w hat he had sought. He had become a m athe-
m a tic ia n . li e had grasped w h a t huudreds o!
the greatest geometors had failed to understand
over the past tw o thousand and more years.
He alone in the whole universe knows the ans-
wer (b u t he d id n o t know th a t somewhere on
the boundary lin e between Europe and Asia a
ce rta in Lobachevsky had already published a
paper)* A nd th is arrogant old man w anted, so
he th o u g h t, to snatch up the w ork o f h is whole
life , h is g lo ry , and to b u ry his genius♦
Y et ono should n o t reproach Gauss o v e rstri­

192
c tly . He w rote the tr u th . A lm o s t the tru th .
He dissembled o n ly when he trie d to e xp la in
w hy he had refrained from w r itin g up h is re-
suits and p u b lis h in g them . Too, there can be
no doubt th a t Gauss sinned both before m athe-
m atics and before B o ly a i, and also before h im -
self in th a t he d id n o t express any o p in io n
in p rin tin g concerning the w o rk o f Janos, fo r
in th is ho w ould not ris k h is good name« he
risked n o th in g . T h is , e ith e r consciously or sub-
consciously, was the lo g ic o f a m b itio n . Though
Janos* rage was u n ju s tifie d in m any w ays，he
keenly perceived th a t Gauss was m anoeuvring
in some w ay, th a t there was an unpleasant,
false note in a ll his reasoning.
We have some notes th a t convey Janos* re-
a ction to th is event, and we can agree uncondi-
tio n a lly to the whole te x t. The words about
science and the ethics o f the scie n tis t are good
and proper. Here, his accusations levelled aga-
in s t Gauss are fa ir in f u ll measure.
“ In m y o p in io n and ，I 'm convinced, in the
o p inion o f any unprejudiced person, a ll tho ar-
guments given by Gauss to e x p la in w hy d u rin g
his life tim e he does n o t w a n t to p u b lis h any of
his own w orks on the subject a t band are com -
p le te ly im p o te n t and t r iv ia l, fo r in science, as
in everyday life , the problem is precisely th a t
o f illu m in a tin g s u ffic ie n tly necessary and gene-
r a lly useful things, p a rtic u la rly those w h ic h are
n o t q u ite clear ye t, and of aw akening in every
possible w ay the s t ill d e ficie n t or even slum be-
rin g awareness o f the t r u t h . , T o tho general
d e trim e n t and m isfortune o f a ll, an understan-
d in g of m athem atics is u n fo rtu n a te ly the lo t of

13-1M7 193
o n ly a few; and on those grounds and for those
reasons, Gauss could have kept to h im se lf a
s t ill more su b sta n tia l p o rtio n o f his splendid
studies.,.. A n e xtre m e ly unpleasant im pression
is created by the fa ct th a t Gauss, instead of
expressing, re la tiv e to the “ A p p e n d ix ” and the
whole ‫״‬Tenta men " , a d ire c t and honest ack-
nowlegm ent o f th e ir h ig h value ... so as to th in k
of means to open the w ay w ide fo r a good under*
ta k in g — in place o f a ll th is , Gauss strives to
avoid the d ire ct p athw ay and hastens to pour
fo rth pious wishes and regret concerning the in -
su fficie n t education o f people. T h a t, o f course,
is n o t w h a t life is •••”
B u t alone by h im se lf, B o ly a i d id n o t reason
so b ro a d ly. H e suffered, a sp irin g to fame and
recog n itio n . R ecognitio n is w h a t he w anted. He
wanted the whole w o rld to see th a t ho, Janos
B o ly a i, was a ‫ ״‬geometer o f genius o f the firs t
ra n k ‫( ״‬th a t was how Gauss described h im in
one o f his le tte rs, b u t not in a le tte r to B o ly a i
and not on the pages o f a jo u rn a l).
W h a t Gauss’ le tte r resulted in was a nervous
breakdown for Janos B o ly a i, He even suspected
his own fa th e r o f b o tra ya l,
i can*t say th a t I am p a rtic u la rly delighted
w ith the reaction o f Janos. One can o f course
understand h im , b u t one finds i t hard to agree
w ith and ju s tify h im . I f he had p aid heed
to his own words a bout science, his conduct
and fu tu re life w ould have been d iffe re n t. Bo-
ly a i was then no longer a boy, he was t h ir t y
years old and he could have taken a ll these
things lik e a m an. He could have. B u t, too,
le t us not judge B o ly a i h a rsh ly. He was not

194
y e t crushed. He continued w o rk in g on the samt
problem th a t, a few thousand kilom eters away
from h im , Lobachevsky was engaged in • He
was co n stru ctin g the whole o f geom etry on a
new foundaticm.
B u t the intcrnsity o f his w o rk had dropped.
He s t ill took a liv e ly in te re st in a great v a rie ty
o f problem s. Together w ith his father he drea-
med o f co n stru ctin g a universal language; he
trie d h is hand in other d iv is io a s o f m athem atics;
he trie d other th in g s too, b u t none o f these
was re a lly norm al serious w o rk —o n ly a m or-
b id desire to do som ethiug o u t o f the o rd in a ry ,
to prove to the w o rld th a t he was indeed a ge-
nius.
M eanw hilo his re la tio n s w ith liis father had
become extre m e ly bad. O b vio u sly, B o ly a i the
son was n o t capable o f being a co-author. True,
B o ly a i the fa th e r was fa r from a paragon of
wisdom and good w ill. M u tu a l s c ie n tific jea-
lousy and an assortment o f m uddled affairs c u l-
m inatod most u n u su a lly. On one fino day, the
reverent son challenged his father to a duel.
L a te r s t i l l ，Janos became a nerve-patie nt in the
f u ll c lin ic a l senso o f the word.
Tho decisive b lo w was dealt b y th a t (once
again) accursod Gauss.
In i8 4 1 , on Gauss* suggestion, Farkas B o ly a i
ordered a booklet by Lobachevsky published in
German and e n title d Geometric Investigations in
the Theory of Parallels, R e c a llin g Janos in con-
aection w ith Lobachevsky ,s w o rk, Gauss wad
possibly m aking amends fo r his long disregard
and, undou btedly, was guided by the very best
o f in te n tio n s.

195
 B u t Janos1 m orbid m ind viewed a ll th is as
a M a ch ia ve llia n in trig u e on the p a rt o f GaiLSs.
He was convinced th a t th is m y th ic a l Russian
pseudonym s im p ly concealed one o f Gauss1 m yr-
m idons, i f not Gauss h i myself.
Janos B o ly a i subjected to analysis every com-
ma o f th is tin y piece o f w ritin g ; he d id i t th o r-
o u gh ly, p u n c tilio u s ly ; w ith an i l l w ill he sub-
jected i t to a thorough c a v illin g c ritic is m .
H e was scie n tis t enough to appreciate the
w o rk, b u t he was glad o f every fa u lt and regar-
dod tho auth o r as h is personal enemy.
He was then th irty -n in e . In h is prim e.
He was destined to liv e another tw e n ty years.
B u t he was already broken and crushed. H is
illness was a form o f nervous disease. He was
hauntod by the theo ry o f p a ra lle ls. Those tw e n ty
years were a w fu l years b o th fo r h im and those
close to h im . The ru p tu re w ith h is father was
com plete. T h e ir o n ly correspondence was on scien-
tific topics. They corresponded, though they l i -
ved in tho same tow n . A nd i t was m athem atics
th a t fin a lly sot them a t loggerheads. For the
la s t tim e , the re tire d ca p ta in , Janos B o ly a i,
came to life in 1848 d u rin g the H u ngarian re-
v o lu tio n w ith w hich Janos sym pathised com ple-
te ly . B u t he was i l l . T h a t was one th in g . The
other was th a t ho d id not wish to be a raak-and-
file p a rtic ip a n t—o n ly a leader. B y the w ay,
one can believe th a t he could have been a splcn-
d id m ilita r y leader. B u t he was unknow n. A nd
so he remained a t homo. The defeat o f the re-
v o lu tio n was ye t another blo w . H is illnesses
to rtu re d h im , and he no longer w orked.
D u rin g the re m ain in g years o f his life he did

196
p ra c tic a lly n o th in g , o n ly busying h im s e lf w ith
u to p ia n ideas. W h a t a rem arkable th in g th a t
the b rillia n c e o f his ta le n t continued to shine
even in th is p ro d u ctio n o f his affected b ra in.
One of tho last o f B o ly a i's passions was the
constructio n o f an ideal m athem atical theory of
the stato and h is hope, in th is w ay, o f leading
h u m a n ity to universal good. O f course, he was
unable to do a n y th in g o f real value here, b u t
the idea its e lf was very close to modern concep-
tio n s o f cyberneticians.
The end was close.
He was morose, suspecting, and though ho
loved h u m a n ity a t large, he could h a rd ly get
along w ith h is closest friends* He le ft h is w ife;
his ch ild re n ceased to in te re st h im . Once morev
for the la s t tim e , ho quarrelled w ith his old
and d y in g father. B u t now , a t 54 he h im se lf
was an o ld man.
He w ould have boon h a ppie r i f he had died
e a rlie r.
He was a b r illia n t m a th e m a ticia n , no ques-
tio n o f i t . B u t w hat ho valued above a ll else
was n o t science, b u t h im s e lf in science. And
cruel though i t m ay sound, I am a fra id th a t
he him se lf was the m aker o f h is fate.
 Chapter 8

NIKOLAI IVANOVICH
LOBACHEVSKY

B y the s ta rt o f th is c e n tu ry , N ik o la i Loba-
chevsky had already bo^n canonized. He was
the prid e o f Russian scionce. He was tho grea-
tost ta le n t in the h is to ry o f m athem atics, des-
pised b y his com pa trio ts who did not under-
stand h im . He was the v ic tim o f a bigoted,
hoaurocratic academic cliq u e . He suffered the
whole o f his life and died in p o ve rty, an unre-
cognized genius•
Such, in b rie f, were the brotid o u tlin e s o f the
cheap m elodrama th a t so often comes to life
on the pages o f p o p u la r jo u rn a ls and books.
The most rem arkable th in g about a ll th is is
th a t i t is essentially tru e , though exaggerated.
One th in g is unque stionably tru e ，and th a t
is th a t Lobachevsky is indeed tho prid e o f Rus-
sian science. The reader w «u】 d do w e ll to read
V . F. K ag a n 's m a rve llo u sly detailed and pro-
found biograph y o f Lobachevsky. I h ig h ly recom-
mend it • For our purpose here, a fow h ig h lig h ts
o f h is life w ill suffice.
In the year 1856 and the m onth o f F e b ru a ry ，
after a p rotracted illn e ss, m athem atician N ik o -
la i Iv a n o vich Lobachevsky died. S h o rtly before,
due to i l l h e a lth , he had lo ft his post o f trustco
o f the Kazan School D is tric t. For m any years
he had been R ector o f tho Im p e ria l U n iv e rs ity ,
honoured professor o f pure m athem atics, Corres^■

198
ponding M em ber o f the G ottin g e n R o ya l So-
c ie ty t honorary member o f the Im p e ria l u n iv e r-
sities o f Moscow and Kazan, and also o f m any
scie n tific societies, occupying the h ig h post of
C o u n cillo r o f S tate; he was bearer o f the orders
o f S t. S ta n isla v, T h ird and F irs t Degrees, S t. A n -
ne, Second Degree, S t. Anne, F irs t Degree ador-
ned w ith the E m p e ro r^ Crown, and the Order
of Prince V la d im ir, F o u rth Degree and T h ird
Degree, repeatedly noted fo r o u ts ta n d in g ly zea-
lous service and especial efforts by the Supreme
Grace o f the M onarch.
Such was h e re d ita ry noblem an N ik o la i Iv a -
novich Lobachevsky.

The funeral was solemn and Ixsautiful, fo r lm

was loved and revered in the c ity . The speaker
said: ‫ ״‬I I is noble life was a liv in g chronicle of
the u n iv e rs ity , o f its hopes and strivinjţR , its
grow th and de ve lo p m e n t."
The Kazan Gubernia Vedomosti, the local
newspaper, gave a b rie f o b itu a ry in moderately
solemn style as befits such an event.
One •peaks w e ll o f the departm l or one does
not speak a t a ll. A nd a fte r a short enum eration
o f his m erits: ‫ ״‬H is w o rk and a tta in m e n ts in
the field o f science, w hich arc now in the chro-
nicies o f the s c ie n tific w o rld , w ill w ith o u t doubt
find a w o rth y judge. W ef fo r our p a rt, are hap*
p y to be able to adorn in these few lines the
memory o f the deceased in ta k in g leave o f our
eloquent professor.‫״‬
One speaks w e ll or one does not speak a t a ll.
The w rite r o f the o b itu a ry most lik e ly was
sincere in c o n g ra tu la tin g h im s e lf fo r the clever

199
 rh e to ric a l figure th a t saved h im from the grea-
test danger o f a ll. Everyone in Kazan knew th a t
professional people and a u th o rita tiv e c ritic s re-
garded the w orks of Lobachevsky as the prod uct
o f sick m in d . For m any years, the re p ly to an
enthusia stic students query ‫ ״‬Is i t n o t true th a t
our re cto r is the firs t m athem atician o f Rus-
si a?‫ ״‬was professorial silence. A n aw kw ard, sul-
le n ly embarrased silence in the case o f w e ll
wishers, and a sarcastic silence in th a t o f his
opponents.
The late professor was, u n d o u b te d ly, a most
w o rth y c itiz e n o f the c it y o f Kazan. He was
an exce lle n t a d m in is tra to r. He was p a te rn a lly
s tric t w ith the students, frie n d ly w ith his co l-
leagues, a s k ille d d ip lo m a t w ith the m ig h ty o f
the w o rld , a h ig h ly esteemed teacher, an oxtre-
m ely eru d ite m a th e m a ticia n , zealous in his ru n -
n in g o f the u n iv e rs ity , its founder and its pride.
Y e t there was one blem ish. H is rid ic u lo u s
works, the monstrous b e lie f, over so m any years,
in those mad ideas o f his. One could o n ly ta c t-
f u lly rem ain s ile n t.
For those th a t knew , the o b itu a ry n o tice le ft
open a tin y deeply concealed a m b ig u ity 4* ... w ill
w ith o u t d oubt find a w o rth y ju d g e ‫ ״‬.
Was th is n o t a h in t on the p a rt o f the w rite r?
N o t a w e ll-w is h in g h in t e ith e r, fo r su re ly eve‫״‬
ryone knew the tru e w o rth o f the deceased's
w orks, w h ich had been appraised by such o u t-
stan d in g personages as academicians.
U n fo rtu n a te ly , wo m ust a d m it th a t th is un-
pleasant rock s t ill projected above the surface.
N o ith e r was D u lic h t who pronounced the b rie f
funeral o ra tio n , able to circu m ve n t i t , A p ro‫־‬

200
{essor o f p h ilo lo g y , bo v e ry p ro p e rly confined
h im se lf to a single sm ooth phrase, a... I t is
n o t fo r us here to speak o f h is independent
s c ie n tific studies in m athem atics th a t brought
h im renown and g lo r y , . . . ‫״‬
A ll the rest was sa&d c o rd ia lly« s im p ly and
w e ll, and the sincere, w e ll-w is h in g educated spea-
kor concluded in elevated m o vin g words w ith
even a touch o f p o e tica l fe rvo u r.
B u t again a ll th is was eq u ivo ca l, even unplea-
s a n tly ambiguous» fo r h is renown in the w o rld
o f science was o f a jo k in g k in d . God save me
from such g lo ry .
N ik o la i Iv a n o v ic h had indeed stum ped his
friends, fo r they had to say som ething (a fte r
a ll, he was a m a tho m a ticia n , not ju s t some of•
fic ia l), b u t what?
B u iic h was s im p ly u n lu c k y w ith hîs speech.
In some m a rve llo u sly strange w ay, by some
superior sense, tho a rch p rie st perceived a crim e
in the funeral o ra tio n , a crim e against censor-
sh ip , against m o ra lity — atheism to p u t i t simp-
1y.
H ow he perceived i t is not clear. He was
p ro b a b ly in d ig n a n t th a t no w ord was said o f
d iv in e affairs, not a w ord a bout God was m en'
tioned.
A nd so o f course he was d u ly reported to the
a u th o ritie s ia ve ry h ig h spheres. B u iic h w rote
to friends im p lo rin g them fo r help and assuring
them th a t he had not said a n y th in g u n la w fu l
“ except the t r iit h regarding the deceased, ex*
cept respect fo r th in k in g and science th a t are
so n a tu ra l to d a y, and except unavoidable rh eto-
ric a l figures‫ ״‬.

201
 L u c k ily , there were benefactors in S t. Pctors-
burg and the a ffa ir was hushed up.
T h a t was in the w in te r o f 1856, when, as
D u lic h p u t i t , Kazan accompanied th e ir pride,
th o ir great c itiz e n wto the deserted road to eter*
n it y ‫ ״‬.
O n ly a year and some la te r d id one o f Loba•
chevsky's p u p ils , A . F. Popov, w rite an o b i-
iu a ry and solve th is d iffic u lt problem in the
best fashion. A nd again a single sentence to
cover a life -tim e o f w o rk: ‫״‬The lectures Loba-
chevsky delivered for a select audience in w hich
he developed his new foundations of geometry
must in a ll tr u th be termed p ro fo u n d .‫״‬
A c tu a lly n o th in g said, y e t no adverse innnen-
does e ith e r.
One could now cease ta lk in g o f the tra c 'd y
o f Lobach evsky's life . The atmosphere o f his
funeral and the o b itu a rie s th a t follow ed i t ex-
p la in more than does any co lle ctio n o f exclam a*
tio n m arks and tra g ic phrases.
L e t us forget for a m om ent th a t he was a
b r illia n t m a lh e m a ticia n . L e t us appraiso the
in it ia l (and te rm in a l) c o n d itio n s w ith the un-
dem anding ya rd stick o f the p h ilis tin e .
N ik o la i Lobachevsky was born on Novem ber
20, 1792, in a ra th e r im poverished fa m ily o f the
registra r, I . M . Lobachevsky. T h is post, in the
table o f ranks o f flic Russian E m p ire , was equi-
vale n t to th a t o f second lie u te n a n t. W rote one
o f his contem poraries, w ith the modish ro m a n tic
m elancholy o f those tim es, “ P overty and w ant
hovered over the cradle o f Lobach ovsky.‫״‬
There were three boys in tho fa m ily , and
when, in 1797，the breadw inner Iv a n M aksim o,

202
v ich died, the s t ill young tw cn ty-fo u r-ye a r-o ld
h a rd ly lite ra te m other was on the b rin k o f a
catastrophe.
B y w h a t means and ways she was able to
sond a ll three to tho Kazan G ym n a siu m ，and
at governm ent expense to boot, w h a t a ll th is
cost her re a lly , w h a t tears and w h a t devious
dealings, we shall never know.
A ll th a t rem ains is an a p p lic a tio n w ritte n for
her either by a k in d soul or fo r a glass o f s p irits
by some h e a v y -d rin k in g advocate, o f whom there
were m any in s a in tly o ld Russia. The form
was perfect, d icta te d m ost lik e ly by an expe-
rienced hand. I t contained w o rth y w a n t, due
respect, the moderated g rie f o f an unfortu n a te
w idow , and i t concluded w ith the most lo y a l
feelings fo r the sovereign, and the signature o f
Praskovya Lobachevskaya w ritte n in tw o lines,
thus e x h ib itin g extr«‫׳‬i p ro p rie ty and extreme res-
poet. B u t who was th is P raskovya, how and by
w hat means d id she make ends meet? N o one
knows.
So i t was th a t on Novem ber 17, 1802, the
three boys, A le xa n d e r aged 11, N ik o la i 9 and
Aleksei 7— a ll Lobachevskys—were m a tricu la te d
a t the gym nasium a t governm ent expense.
Careers were thus opened to the Lobachevsky
boys. ^
There were not m any in the old Russian E m -
p ire th a t achieved as m uch as N ik o la i Lobachev-
sky d id . O f course there were b r illia n t careers
made in and around the ro y a l fa m ily and occa-
sional skyro cke tin g from peasant to P riv y Co-
u n c iilo r despite genealogy and, lik e under the
E m peror P aul, from v a le t to c o u n t— b u t fo r a
man o f science, the a d m in is tra tiv e career of

203
 Lobachevsky was ou tsta n d in g , though
n o t unprecedented. A n d i f we add th a t he pro*
cceded by u n su llied pathw ays, d id n o t dissem-
ble o r seek, h a rd ly cringed or flattered fo r pro-
m o tio n , he was indeed a ra re ly lu c k y m in io n
o f fortune.
T ru e , he was no angel. H e was a fo rw a rd-
th in k in g person o f the tim es, n o th in g more.
There were th in g s he was ashamed of, and i t
was no easy task to serve and s t ill to be m o ra lly
im m a cu la te in those days. He liv e d a c o m p li-
cated life and earned in f u ll measure w h a t is
a llo tte d to h u m a n kin d in th is w o rld .
F or the most p a rt, an untrouble d carefree
y o u th , y o t there were grievous losses too. The
jo y o f success and tho d e lig h t o f cre a tive w o rk,
y e t dangerous unpleasantness in h is student
years. A ra d ia n t, cerulean— to begin w ith —scien-
tif ic career, y e t v ic io u s , h u m ilia tin g , ta u n tin g
attacks o f his enemies. V aried a d m in is tra tiv e
and social a c tiv itie s , and the in trig u e s o f his
colleagues. E xa lte d praise fo r h is a d m in is tra tiv e
w ork, and p in -p ric k s to h is self-esteem. Reco-
g n itio n b y Gauss h im s e lf and the pleasant v a n ity
o f awards, y e t the bitterness o f offences. B u t
again the love em anating from a happy fa m ily life •
A t the end, destiny delivered old age, tro u b -
les a t w o rk, tho death o f h is beloved son, the
nervous breakdown o f his w ife , illn e ss, b lin d *
ness—y e t, to the very la st days o f h is life , an
incom parable jo y derived from his studies.
C h ro n o lo g ica lly, he spent 1802 to 1804 a t tho
gym nasium w ith o b lig a to ry studies in c lu d in g
Russian gram m ar and lite ra tu re , h is to ry and
geography,

204
 a rith m e tic , algebra, geom etry, trig o n o m e try ,
mechanics, physics, c h e m istry, h y d ra u lics, sur-
veying, c iv il a rch ite ctu re ,
logic, p ra c tic a l philosop hy,
and the foreign languages_ German, French,
Greek, the in e v ita b le L a tin and T a ta r as
w e ll.
Then came m ilita r y studies, w h ic h included
ta ctics, a r tille r y science and fo rtific a tio n .
T h a t was n o t a ll. L a w , follow ed by such
required item s of society life as fencing, draw -
in g , dancing and music.
Such was the course pursued in three years
(n o t e ig h t or te n !). N o t overyone could cope
w ith it . The Lobachevskys d id . A p p a re n tly , they
knew th a t for them there was no other way up.
W h a t is more, i t was easier for them , fo r they
were three brothers together.
N ik o la i was the m ischievous one. He was
good a t his studies. A n o rd in a ry capable c h ild ,
the o n ly difference from o th e r ，softer, easier-
going boys o f the n o b ility being h is harsh ly
p ra ctica l approach to a ll th in g s. I t m ig h t have
been the a d u lt re a liz a tio n o f the necessity to
get ahead.
A m ong th e ir teachers were c u ltu re d , talented
people, some even outstand ing• The m athem atics
teacher, K artashevsky, was e xce lle n t, b r illia n t.
Then came J a n u a ry o f 1807.
A fte r some unpleasantness w ith L a tin , Loba-
chevsky was accepted in to the u n iv e rs ity . He
was 14 years o f age.
The firs t heavy b lo w came in J u ly o f 1807
when his beloved elder b ro th e r A lexande r was
drowned.

205
 The result was a nervous breakdown for N i-
k o la i, h o s p ita liz a tio n , and a firm resolve to
become a doctor. For over tw o years he studied
m edicine. T rue, he was the firs t in m athem atics
a t the u n iv e rs ity , b u t h is firm decision was
th a t m athem atics was not his vocation. The
boy wavered between ‫ ״‬d u ty ‫ ״‬and vocation (ro-
member he was o n ly fifteen), deeply depressed
by the death o f h is b rother. He was obstinate,
hard to get along w ith , though he was q u ite
norm a l, very decent, and rig o ro u sly adhered to
the student code o f honour. He delved in a ll
thin g s th a t students do: fancy balls, the theatre,
fights, and ju s t pranks (fo r instance, the tim e
he rode up to the u n iv e rs ity b u ild in g on the
back o f a cow; th a t is the episode th a t so many
of his biographers c la im indicates a spontaneous
protest against reactio n ).
A c tu a lly , the s itu a tio n d id change for tho
worse a t the u n iv e rs ity d u rin g these years, and
Lobachevsky's personal life was poisoned by a
capable b u t ra th e r unpleasant, u n p rin c ip le d and
am b itio u s K o nd yrev.
B u t Lobachevsky—i t m ust be sa id — was not
above o rd in a ry boyish s tu p id ity e ith e r, the same
k in d so often met w ith in hundreds o f th o u -
sands o f o rd in a ry ir r ita b le , arrogant, q u ick-te m -
pered boys »〇 sure o f themselves, p o sitive th a t
they can get out of any fix .
K o n d yrev n e a rly ru in e d h im . L u c k y th a t the
foreign professors B a rte ls, L ittr o w and Bronner
who had been in v ite d to teach a t the U üive rsity,
were able to rescue the boy.
I say *rescue1 because the issue was one of
sending h im off to the a rm y as a soldior. In the

206
best tra d itio n s o f people o f th a t so rt, K ondyrov
accused Lobachevsky of atheism and almoist sub-
version o f the establishm ent. I t is n o t clear
whether N ik o la i was a c tu a lly an a th e ist, b u t
we do know th a t he never lik e d h yp o crisy and
the clergy.
M ost lik e ly , at th a t tim e and la te r Lobachevsky
was ‫ ״‬m oderately progressive‫ ״‬, w ith la rg e ly hu-
m a n ita ria n views.
To e x tric a te h im s e lf he had to repent. Make
a speech, express lo y a l sentim ent, a d m it his
mistakes and condemn them , and promise th a t
iu future he w ould u o t....
So m uch fo r pranks. B u t i t was d u rin g those
years, th a t Lobachevsky fin a lly made up his
m ind concerning his fu tu re : he w ould become a
m athem atician . He succeeded g re a tly in th is
Reid. He was the firs t m a th e m a ticia n o f Kazan
U n iv e rs ity , and B a rte ls was alw ays glad to
p o in t o u t his a tta in m e n ts and talents•
I f one recalls th a t in those years tho whole
o f Russia had several thousand students, i t is n 't
too much to say th a t Lobachevsky was already
know n th ro u g h o u l the c o u n t r y . 【
t is alm ost lik e
saying to d a y, th a t Lobachevsky is tho most
prom ising young scie n tis t in the S iberian
sion o f the Academ y o f Sciences o f the USSR
(Kazan U n iv e rs ity was thea an im p o rta n t centre
o f le a raiu g o f the Russian E m p ire ).
In A ugust o f the year 1811, a t the a^e of
eighteen Lobachevsky received his m aster's de‫־‬
gre。• l i i s first success and Üie beginning o f a
num ber o f very good years o f inte n sive w ork.
S o c ia lly , too, he was a success, accepted in the
‫ ״‬best s o cie ty‫ ״‬o f Kazan• A young man o f the

207
w o rld , q u ite a man about to w n ‫ י‬always w e ll-
dressed.
The w ar w ith Napoleon h a rd ly touched h im .
H is younger b rothe r, Aleksei v trie d to ru n away
to the a rm y, b u t was returned. T rue, N ik o la i
was w orried sick u n t il they found h im . Loba-
chevskyf i t m ust be said, always had very strong
fa m ily feelings.
H is m oral code was already set— i t was th a t
o f decency, decency in the m oaning o f the no-
tio n s o f th a t tim e .
B artels, a ve ry c u ltu re d teacher b u t a mediocre
m ath e m a ticia n made h im stu d y the classics o f
science. Lobachevsky’s o n ly serious draw back,
i t w ould seem, was his excessive e x c ita b ility
and conceit. He was characterized once as Mex-
cessively self-centred‫ ״‬. On the other hand, L o-
bachevsky c le a rly and solxsrly saw th a t he was
fa r behind the biggest m athem aticians o f h is day.
In M arch, 1814, he was made ju n io r s c ie n tific
assistant (about e q u iv a le n t to associate profes-
s〇r o f today) in the field o f physico-m atho m a ti-
cal sciences.

208
 He b<»gnn d e liv e rin g h is own lectures.
In J u ly 181() he was in s ta lle d as e x tra o rd in a ry
professor. T h is a t the age o f 24. H is career had
begun. M eanw hile the u n iv e rs ity was a beehive
of in trig u e w ith changes occurring co n sta n tly.
For a short tim e , the reactionaries were on top.
Then the ‫ ״‬progressivists" got the upper hand.
Trustees changed. In a w o rd , thon, life a t the
u n iv e rs ity was on Man even ke e l‫ ״‬.
Lobachevsky had enemies in the reactionary
p a rty and he had in flu e n tia l patrons.
T liis was the period when Lobachevsky began
to fţet interested in the problem o f p a ra lle l
lines. Tho beginning was standard. H e a ttem p•
ted to find a proof. In 1815 a t lectures he even
described to his students the proofs he had
found. B u t o b vio u sly he soon found h is m istake.
A ra th e r elem entary one too.
A big change came in 1819. T h is was the
period o f reaction th ro u g h o u t the c o u n try . I t
affected Kazan as w e ll. The new trustee M a g n it-
sky was a clever b u t u n p rin cip le d , cru e l, cold
clim ber-go-getter.
Ho was one o f those people who Hght th e ir
way to the top e lbow ing , c lim b in g , pushing
others o u t of the w ay aud tra m p lin g on those
who have fa lle n . H is one and o n ly aim was to
roach the to p . I f reform s were needed, ho would
ca rry them through; i f extrem e obscurantism
was the w ord, ho w ould be the e x tre m is t. B u t
he was a ra th e r clever man w ith a fla ir fo r ad-
ra in is tra lio a . H e made his firs t appearance as
an inspector sum m ing up the s itu a tio n in these
words: close the Kazan U n iv e rs ity because of
the fre e -lh in k in g and general m oral degradation.

14>1M7 209
 A lexander I t however, deciclod not to doslroy
lu it tu i'e ctify llic s ilu a li( ) " ，aiul he put M ag nit-
sky iu charge.
Tlioso wero <hirk days for (he !in iv e rs ity , hut
M a g n itsky was k in d ly disposed tow ards Loba-
chevsky a t first. H o was possibly th in k in g of
m aking h im one o f his protégea. D u rin g the
years 1819 to 1821 Lobachevsky was on the
upswing, elected dean, head of tho lib ra ry and
member o f the co n stru ctio n com m ittee* Posts
and title s came one after tho other.
In February of 1822 ho was elected professor
in o rd in a ry . Those were years when Lobachev-
sky acted against hi» conscience. T rue, w ith a
person lik e M a g n itsky there d id not seem to
be any other way o u t.
Bear in m in d , too, th a t Lobachevsky was an
in d e p e n d e n t-th in kin g person, q uick-tom pored and,
s im p ly , a hard person to got along w ith . Also
his co n victio n s were fa r removed from those of
M a g n itsky. T h a t is, under the s itu a tio n of that
tim e , because i f suddenly Lobachevsky's views
were approved up above, by those in power,
th e n ... M a g n itsky w ould tu rn o u t very progres-
sive indeed. A l l th is boils down to the fact
th a t in 1822-1823, M a g n itsky was no longer
k in d ly disposed•
In 1823 came the firs t m ajor tro u b le in lino
of d u ty . H is new ly w ritte n te xtb o o k Geometry
was rejected by Academ ician Fuss. I t may be
th a t Fuss was on the whole not rig h t, although
serious investigato rs agroo th a t there were es-
seatial defects in the book and some of Fuss1
remarks were q u ite tru e . Lobachevsky was stung
to the q u ic k and h a u g h tily refused to re p ly to

210
any o f Fuss* reniarks, o r to comţcl. any o f the
fa ults of the bookt or even to take the maaus-
c rip t back. H is arrogance occassionaly made m at-
1er« worse fo r h im . How over, he continued to
w ork inte n se ly, and d u rin g these years he be-
came fu lly convinced o f the im p o s s ib ility of
proving the fifth postulate, and fu lly convinced
o f the equal rig h ts o f a n o n -E u d id e a u system
of
A few pleasaut events occurred in 1825 and
1826. Lobachevsky was p u t in charge of the
constructio n com m ittee o f the u n iv e rs ity , ho
was also elected C hief L ib ra ria n o f the U n ive r-
s ity . I lis salary was raised to fo u r thousand
roubles a year. V e ry good money in those days.
Then, Decem lwr 14, 1825, M a g n itsky was re-
moved. H e had n o t been able to fathom the new
s itu a tio n a fte r the death o f A lexande r l 9 he
had risked e v e ry th iu g on a b ig ju m p up, figu-
rin g th a t th is was the tin ie t b u t fa ile d . He had
placed e v e ry th in g on K o u s la a tin , whereas N i-
ko la i won o u t. A n d thon i t was th a t the old
memorandum came to lig h t whore he had, i t
turned o u t, com plained o f the lib e ra lis m *-n o
less—o f N ik o la i P a v lo v ic h , then Grand Prince.
O n ly in Russia could a paradox lik e th a t take
place.
Q u ite n a tu ra lly , an in v e s tig a tio n was orde-
red. C e rta in sums o f money, i t appeared, had
disappeared. I t w a s n 't as i f the barracks set-up
a t the u n iv e rs ity was a lie n to the s p ir it o f Tsar
N ik o la i; s im p ly M a g n its k y had overplayed his
hand, and w h a t is more im p o rta n t, he had sim ‫־‬
p ly n o t been able to ^uess the events o f Decern-
bor 1825. H e had lo st. F irs t discharged from

211
 a ll posts and then e xiled to Revel w ith an ad-
d itio n a l in v e s tig a tio n assigned in to the money
th a t had vanished.
O f course, the u n iv e rs ity , and Lobachevsky
as w e ll, rejoiced.
T h is is tim e to stop. February 2 3 1820 ‫׳‬.
Up to th is p o in t we have witnessed the career
o f an interOvSting, g ifte d , pleasant p ro v in c ia l
m a th e m a ticia n , though oue n o t devoid o f draw -
backs. We have looked k in d ly on his c lim b .
There has been no e xcite m e n t, and we havo not
been u n d u ly e n thusia stic. A v e ry decent career,
whore the hero was prom oted from rung to ru n g
o f the ladder. Ho was n o t in d iffe re n t to his
advancement and w ith the years his w o rld ly
wisdom grew, and the desperadoes o f h is yo u th ,
rid ic u lo u s w ild p ro te stin g o f the m alcontent, a ll
rem ained ia the past. G ra d u a lly , b it by b it,
the common sense so usual in successful mon
accum ulated. A t the age o f th ir ty - fo u r he was
a moderate man o f fashion, a b it condescending
in manner. F u rth e r advancements were in sig ht.
W ith in a year he w ould be appointed rector
(June 3()t 1827).*.
As o f F ebruary 23, 1826, a ll these had beco-
me mere trifle s o f life , ra th e r essential, b a t not
over m uch so, and o f course not decisively so.
T h a t was the day the great m a th e m atician
gave his ta lk on noa-E nclid ean geom etry to an
in d iffe re n t, bored audience who understood n o th -
in g a t a ll. O f course, i f an angel had appeared
and i f there had been some sign from heaven—
“ T h is is the M a n ” 一 things m ig h t havo boon
diffe re n t. I t m ig h t havo been forgotten even
th a t tw o days e a rlie r an in v e a lig a tio n a t the

212
u n iv e rs ity had begun. B u t a t th is ju n ctu re o f
events, iho very la st th in g th a t could have
aroused his audience was u n d o u h to d ly a dis-
cussion by the very revered N ik o la i Iv a n o vich
on the theory o f p a ra lle l lines.
O n ly Lobachevsky h i m ^ l f realized a t th a t
in s ta n t th a t th is was the m om ent o f triu m p h .
Tho lecture was forw arded to a com m ission
fo r a review to decide on w hether i t should be
published o r n o t. The com m ission d id not un-
derstand a n y th in g and, a p p a re n tly , d id n o t ex‫־‬
press any vie w a t a ll. E ith e r th e y d id n o t w ant
to endanger the w e ll-b e in g o f a colleague, or
there was some other reason. A n y w a y , the w ork
was not published.
Then came 1827.
The new trust«© was the ty ra n t and ignora-
mus M usin -P u sh kin . B u t Lobachevsky had long
been acquainted w ith h im , and, ju d g in g by a ll
th ings, seemed to be ju s t tho person to rohabi-
lita te the u n iv e rs ity th a t had fa lle n so lo w
under M a g n itsky.
On M usin-P ushkin*s suggestion, Lobachevsky
was elected rector, w h ich post he occupied u n til
1846.
He was re-elected s ix tim es, firs t by s lig h t
m a jo ritie s and then by ove rw h e lm in g m a jo ritie s .
T h a t was som ething, i f one recalls the atmos-
phere o f constant in trig u e w ith in the u n iv e rs ity .
There can bo no question th a t ho was a inagni-
fic e n t re cto r, who p u t a great deal o f energy
and love in to his w o rk , and a fo rw a rd -th in k in g
and very s k illfu l a d m in is tra to r. He a c tu a lly
r<Miiidod the u n iv e rs ity . W ith great professional
skill» ho headed Hit* c u n s lru c tio n w o rk, sot up

213
 a lib r a r y , organized the regime o f the students,
and adjusted re la tio n sh ip s between the Russian
and Gorman professors teaching a t the u n ive r-
s ity .
I t is hard to see w lien he found tim e to devote
to science. Y e t a ll his basic scientiGc results
wore obtained d u rin g these very years o f a d m i-
n is tra tio n as rector.
The year 1829. The Kazan Vestnik (Kazan
Herald) published h is m em oir ‫ ״‬On the P rin c i‫־‬
pies o f G eom etry” • T h is was the Erst system atic
description o f non-E uclid oan geom etry.
The year 1830. In th is year Lobachevsky be•
came the hero o f Kazan. Cholera h it the c ity .
T h a t was the te rrib le epidem ic th a t swept across
the whole o f Russia and o f w hich tho poet Push‫־‬
k in t then in B o ld in , w rote The Feast During
the Plague. L a te r, P ushkin a d m itte d th«it he
c o u ld n 't d is tin g u is h between cholera and p la -
gue. The epidem ic was e xtre m e ly severe. In
those days no one knew how to p ro te c t oneself
against the contagio n. The common people set
great store by the wb ite o f throe b a n d its ‫ ״‬.
Lobachevsky arrogated un to h im s e lf the au-
th o r ity o f d ic ta to r. Tho whole staff o f the u n i-
v e rs ity , togother w ith th e ir fa m ilie s , were iso-
lat«d fro m the rest o f the w o rld w ith in the w a lls
o f the u n iv e rs ity b u ild in g . Food was delivered
w ith jarreat care. O u t o f 560 persons, o n ly 12
wore taken i l l and they were im m o d ia te ly iso-
la tcd . The re s u lt was ju s t over 2 per cent who
contracted tho disease. B r illia n t!
Thon came tho year 1832, when ho m arried
a nice young g ir l by the name o f V arya M o i-
seeva. Love was m u tu a l，though on h is p a rt a

214
tin y b it too im ru ffle d and somewhat too ra-
tionaK
O u tw a rd ly , the years 1827-1834 wore very
lu c k y ones fo r Lobachevsky. F ortune was on his
side. He was m ature and e ve ry th in g was ta r-
n in g o u t the w ay he w anted i t .
H is a c tiv itie s d u rin g the epidem ic were m ar-
ked by higher title s and b y the Tsar h im self.
Lobachevsky, though a c iv ilia n , displayed the
e fficiency and courage o f a m ilita r y leader; these
wore th in g s Tsar N ik o la i valued.
He s im p ly m ust be rewarded♦ A n d “ h is ma-
jo s ty ‫ ״‬, his ‫ ״‬Im p e ria l H ighness‫ ״‬rewarded h im
fo r his e ffo rts—w ith the diam ond rin g , the t it le
o f C o u n c illo r o f S ta te ，the O rder o f St• S ta n i-
slav and the personal g ra titu d e o f the sovereign
h im se lf. V o ry good indeed. The personal ena-
meratiOD o f deeds of, now , C o u n c illo r o f State
N . I. Lobachevsky was b r illia n t.
The firs t severe b lo w came in 1832 when
Kazan U n iv e rs ity sent Lobach evsky,s m em oir
“ On the P rin cip le s « f G e o m e try” to tüe Academ y
o f Sciences fo r a review . The o ra l review was

215
 to be ffiven by A cadem ician O strogradsky. IIo
took his tim e about i t , and then stated: MW h at
is true is n o t newf w h a t is new is n o t true. The
m em oir is n o t w o rth y o f the a tte n tio n o f the
Academ y o f Sciences.‫״‬
From th a t tim e onwards, Ostrogradaky became
a sincerely vicio u s and im p la ca b le s c ie n tific ad■
versary o f Lobachevsky. T im e and again he
Kave b lis te rin g reviews o f Lobach evsky's w ork,
because to h im one th in g was clear: th a t Loba-
chevsky was a p ro v in c ia l c h a rla ta n who must
bo d riv e n o u t o f science im m e d ia te ly .
O strogradsky was a good m a th e m a tician in
the f u ll m eaning o f tho w ord, though h is m e rits
have been b lo w n up u n d u ly . He cannot, of
course, be compared w ith such Russian mathema*
iic ia n s o f the 19th ce n tu ry as Chebyshov, M a r-
ko v, to say n o th in g o f Lobachevsky. B u t i f he
re a lly had wanted to , he could have made sense
o u t o f Lobach evsky's m em oir. T ru e , Lobachev-
sky h im s e lf was p a r tly to blam e. The style of
his paper made reading i t an arduous task. N o t
o n ly is i t concise beyond measure, b u t not clear-
cu t in the least. T ru e , O strogradsky should
have been able to grasp the m ain idea. B u t ho
d id n 't, he was enraged and d id not confine
h im s e lf to an o ra l response.
In 1834, a w e ll-kn o w n jo u rn a l p u t o u t by
Faddei B u lg a rin , e n title d The Son of the Fa-
therland carried an a rtic le in w hich b o th Loba-
chevsky as a s c ie n tis t and h is w ork were slashed
to pieces. T oday i t appears to be firm ly estab•
lished th a t th is ‫ ״‬re v ie w ‫ ״‬was inspired b y Ost-
rogradsky. How ever, I believe th a t tho a rtic le
is o f q u ite au independent and e xtrem ely

216
in s tru c tiv e value. I t deservos o u r close stu-
dy•
The a w fu l th in g about i t is th a t fo r the non-
professional and even fo r the professional i t
carries great c o n v ic tio n . I t w ould be hard to
fin d a b etter instance o f the dem oniacal power
o f demagogy, the force o f c o n v ic tio n n o t via
logic or reasoning b u t b y im p lic a tio n , by in to •
n a tio n , so p h istry and dishonest tric k s o f rhe-
to ric .
The crude, understandable, cheap h um our th a t
permeates the a rtic le is so co n vin cin g , acts so
surely on the subconscious th a t i t compels one
to believe th a t th is Lobachevsky is an ig n o ra n t
self-satisfied n o n e n tity . I t is alm ost as m uch
as spelled o u t in f u ll b y the a u th o r, who was
w ith o u t d o u b t a g ifte d w rite r. One finds i t
hard to find a more b r illia n t instance o f the
com plete triu m p h o f self-confident s u p e rfic ia lity
and id le tw addle over genius.
H o w jo u rn a lis tic a lly professional i t sounds,
how keen, how s c in tilla tin g !
‫ ״‬There are people who read a book and say
i t is too sim ple, too o rd in a ry t i t contains noth-
ing to th in k about. To such readers I recom-
mend the Geometry7 o f M r. Lobachevsky. Here
indeed is som ething to th in k about. M any of
our firs t-ra te m athem atician s have read i t ,
th o u g h t about i t and s t ill do not so« the p o in t.
A fte r th a t I h a rd ly need say th a t I, ha vin g
th o u g h t over th is book fo r some tim e , could
th in k o f n o th in g to say; in other words, I hard-
ly understood a idea. I t is even d iffic u lt
lo understand how M r. I.obachev.Hky was ahlo
l 〇c*»nct>ct o u t o f tho sim plest and clearest cli.ip •

217
 te r o f m athem atics th a t we know geom etry to
be—how he could b u ild such an abstruse, m u rky
and im penetrable theory, i f i t were n o t th a t
he h im s e lf helped us by saying th a t h is Geo*
m e try d iiïe rs from the common k in d th a t we a ll
studied and w h ich, most lik e ly , we cannot un-
learn, and is o n ly an imaginary geom etry. Yes,
th a t makes th in g s cle a r indeed.
‫״‬Just t r y to p ic tu re w hat a liv e ly , yet mon-
strous, im a ţrin a tio n can conjure up! W h y, for
instance, not t r y to im agine b la ck to be w h ite f
round to be q uadran gular, the sum o f a ll the
angles in a rig h t tria n g le to be less than two
rig h t angles and one and the same d e fin ite in -
tegral to be equal firs t to r / 4 , then to 〇 〇? V ery
very possible, y e t to norm al reason i t is m eanin-
gless‫ ״‬.
H ow s u b tly jo u rn a lis tic . H o w neat th a t ‫ ״‬li-
voly yet monstrous im a g in a tio n ‫ • ״‬B u t th a t was
o n ly by way o f in tro d u c tio n , the heavy a r tille r y
was to come la te r. A n d the most pow erful wea-
pon o f a ll—q u ite n a tu r a lly —was the rh e to ric a l
question.
‫ ״‬B u t ono asks w hy w rite such rid ic u lo u s phaa*
tasies, w hy have them published? 1 a d m it the
query is hard to answer. The a u th o r d id not
once even h in t a t w hy he was p u b lis h in g his
com position, so we porforco must conjecture on
our ow n. T rue, at one p o in t ho states c le a rly
th a t, as ho cla im s, the drawbacks w hich he had
detected ia the geom etry so fa r in use compelled
him to compose and p u b lis h th is now geom etry;
b u t th is , q u ite o b v io u s ly , is u ntrue, and, in
a ll lik e lih o o d , was said o n ly to conceal better
the true aim o f h is com position.**

218
 A fte r th a t a r tille ry barrage o f sarcasm, we
are ready fo r the d ire c t assault.
‫ ״‬And to th is a llo w me to add a few words
about the man him se lf. H ow can one th in k th a t
M r. Lobachevsky^ professor o f m athem atics in
o rd in a ry ， w ould w rite a book o f any depth
th a t could h a rd ly be an honour to the lowest
v illa g e school teacher? E v e ry teacher should havo
common sense even i f he does n o t have much
learning. Y e t th is new G eom etry is devoid pro-
cisely o f common sense. T a k in g a ll o f th is to -
gether, I fin d i t h ig h ly lik e ly th a t the tru e aim
o f M r. Lobachevsky in composing and p r in tin g
h is Geom etry was a joke, or b e tte r，a satire on
sch olarly m athem aticians, or perhaps on a ll scho-
la r ly w ritin g s o f the present tim e . Thereby I do
not m erely assume, w ith a h ig h degree o f pro-
b a b iliiy , I am fu lly convinced th a t the insane
passion to w rite in a bizarre and obscure m anner,
w hich is so common o f la te among m any o f
o ur w rite rs, and the im p u d e n t desire o f ce rta in
people to discover som ething new when th e ir
jfifts are h a rd ly enough to p ro p e rly grasp w h at
is o ld , are the tw o defects whicÜ our auth or
wished to d e p ict, and w h ic h he depicted w ith
consummate s k ill. "
N ow th a t is w h a t I c a ll real w ritin g ; in com -
pleto keeping w ith the s ty le and tra d itio n s of
Faddei B u lg a rin , h im s e lf a dashing d a rin g “ gan•
gstor o f the pen‫ ״‬- B u t one should n o t overdo
i t ; i t is tim e to d isp la y some k in d o f s c ie n tific
approach. One should n o t a llo w the reader to
have any doubts a t the decisive tu rn in the
b a ttle . The operatiou begins w ith a somewhat

219
 ris k y adm ission. R u t tlie experienced w a rrio r is
a p p a re n tly q u ite sure o f h im se lf.
"S econdly, the now Geometry^ as I have a l-
ready had occasion to state, is w ritte n so th a t
the reader cannot understand a n y th in g . W ish in g
to got more closely acquainted w ith th is com -
po sitio n , I concentrated a ll m y a tte n tio n , fo-
cussing every e ffo rt on every sentence, every
word, every le tte r even, and fo r a ll th a t I dis-
polled so l i t t l e the m u rk th a t envelopes th is
com position so c om p le te ly th a t I am h a rd ly in
a state to relate to you w hat the m a tte r is
about, to say n o th in g a t a ll about w hat is
s a id .‫ ״‬. ‫״‬
T h is is o n ly an apparent re tre a t, fo r the ques-
ţio n conies n a tu ra lly , “ I f you understood n o th-
ingt then w hy do you undertake to reason and
judge?‫ ״‬No! !Ie d id understand w hat the m a tte r
was, b u t th is was s im p ly a manoeuvre to dem on'
strate to his co-readers how hopeless and mon-
stro u sly disfigured was the c o n stru ctio n o f the
enemy. A nd also to show h is o b je ctive appro-
ach. J u s t lo o k! **Would you lik e to soe lo r yo u r-
self w hat the o rig in a l is lik e ? ‫ ״‬Then follow ed a
lo n g quote from L o b a ch evsky's m em oir. He
knows how e ffe c tiv e ly precise is th is manoeuvre.
A side from the fa c t th a t the m em oir was
w ritte n in a ponderous com plicated s ty le , to
comprehend Lobachevsky ,s ideas required a h ig h
level o f m a th e m atica l c u ltu re and a concentra-
t<?d and unprejudiced e ffo rt on the p a rt o f the
reader. W h a t is more, no isolated q u o ta tio n
perm its one to judge th« m erits o f a scie n tific
w ork. More ye t, a flo r such a p.sych^l〇 |?M'：
tI
lm ild -u p , an excerpt Jiflvd o u t o f c o n to x l can he

220
com plete ly d isarm ing. T h a t was a sure move
to capture v ic lo ry . Ùne last effort•
“ B u t I m ust apologise, I s im p ly cannot copy
every w ord o f i t , fo r I have already said too
much. A nd I cannot relate th is m a tte r in b rie f,
fo r th a t is where the m ost incom prehensible
begins. I t w ould seem th a t a fte r a few d o fin i-
tions, composed w ith the same a rt and the same
precision as the preceding ones, the auth o r says
som ething about tria n g le s, about the depeaden-
ce o f the angles in them upon the sides— there-
in lies the difference between h is geom etry
and ours—he thon proposes a new theory of
parallels, w h ic h — and he a d m its as m uch— no-
body is capable o f p ro v in g w hether i t exists
in nature or n o t; fin a lly , th is is follow ed by a
consideration o f how, in th is im a g in a ry geo-
raotry, one determ ines the m agnitude o f curved
lines, o f areas, o f curved surfaces and volumes
o f solids. A nd a ll o f th is t I m ust repeat once
again, is w ritte n so th a t n o th in g a t a ll can be
un d e rsto o d ,...‫״‬
The am using th in g is th a t though the author
mastered the title s o f Lobachevsky *s theorems,
he was n o t up to grasping the fa c t th a t Loba-
chevsky's geom etry ‫ ״‬differs from ou rs‫ ״‬solely
in the theory of parallel lines. B u t w hy
indeed should one need to understand any-
thing? The enemy is in re tre a t, co m p le te ly ro u t‫״‬
od, a ll th a t is needed is to consolidate the
v ic to ry .
‫ ״‬... M r. Lobachevsky deserves to be praised
fo r ta k in g upon h im s e lf the la b o u r o f e x p la in in g ,
on the one hand, the arrogance and shameless-
ness o f pseudo-inventors, and, on the other hand,

221
 the naive ignorance o f the adm irers o f th o ir
pseudo-inventions. H ow ever, re a liz in g the f u ll
value o f M r. Lobach evsky's com position, I can-
not ro fra in from h ln m in ^ h im s lig h tly ior nol
g iv in g his book a proper t it le ami com pel-
lin g u‘s to cogitate so w a s te fu lly fo r such a lo n i;
tim e . W h y , instead o f the t it le On the Princip-
les of Geometry, could he not have named it ,
say, A S atire Un G eom etry, A C aricature On
Geom etry, or som ething o f th a t nature? Then
anyone w ould im m e d ia te ly see w hat the book
was about an(i the a u th o r w ould have avoided
a host o f unpleasant in te rp re ta tio n s and urgu-
menis. I t is lu c k y th a t I h<ave been able to penr-
tra to to the true purpose o f th is book, or heaven
knows w hat people w ould th in k about i t and
its author• N ow Ï th in k and am even convinced
th a t the w o rth y au th o r w ill f t v l g re a tly obliged
to me fo r h a vin g dcnionstratc(l the tru e p o in t
o f view th a t one m ust take when reading his
c o m p o s itio n ....‫״‬
T h is lam poon is quoted more or less in fu ll
in every b iography o f Lobachevsky. However,
though the biographers aro in d ig n a n t and abuse
the w rite r in every im a g in a b le w ay, they usu-
a lly lose s ig h t o f the most im p o rta n t th in g — the
fa c t th a t i t is a very cogeut piece o f w ritin g .
I am not in the least interested in tho one (or
several) who w o t« i t ；th e o re tic a lly one can as-
sume thaL ho was sincerely fig h tin g fo r tho pu-
r i t y o f science.
B u t, too, one can re a d ily see w hat the reaction
was o f tho readers and also w h a t th is a rtic le
cost Lobachevsky.
A fte r review s o f th a t k in d , people take to

222
th e ir beds, ^ iv e up w ork altogeth er, or oven
co in m il suicide.
On Ihe background o f th is iia m p h le t, (laiiss*
lelUM* to B o ly a i is th a t o f a tender, lo v in g so li-
ci Lous fath e r. T a u rim is —anuther one o f Gaus«'
“ v ic tim s ” 一burned h is paper for the sole rea-
son th a t Gauss, offendcul, dropped the corres^
pondence.
O u tw a rd ly , th is sto ry seemed not to huve
in v o lv e d Lobachevsky a t a ll• I k 、nmcled w ith
an amazing la ck o f s p irit• There were a few
questions, and a year la te r ho published, in the
transactions of the u n iv e rs ity , a very calm and
restrained re p ly . Too, an e xtrem ely cool an.s-
wer was sent to the Son of the Fatherland. Fad-
d c i，of course，licve r puhlishod it • A nd Loha-
chovsky seemed n o t U> care. He never trie d to
in s is t. T h a t wa.s iho end o f th a t.
I t w ould bo wrong to th in k th a t Lobachevsky
was not a maa o f a ctio n . H is w hole life and
his 19-year-long tenure as re cto r demonstrated
q u ite the contrar>‫ ׳‬. A p p a re n tly , in th is p a rti-
cu la r instance he considered i t below h is d ig-
n ity to enter in to a discussion. In general, he
was su rp ris in g ly in d iffe re n t to any p opula riza -
tio n of his ideas. T h is is a psychological rid d le
because in a ll other th in g s he was an e xtrem ely
p ra c tic a l man. W h a t is more, he had i t in his
power to p u t an end to the outpou rin us o f liis
adversaries.
In 1840 ho published one o f his w orks in
German. A nd already in 1842 he was elected—
ou the suggestion o f no other than Gauss tum -
self 一to Corresponding M em bership in the G ot-
tingen R o ya l S ociety.

223
 Gauss read Lobach evsky's paper and was car-
ried away by i t . T ru e , earriod away in his own
p a rtic u la r way. There follow ed o pinion s fu ll o f
a d m ira tio n expressed in le tte rs to his friends;
then very sharp replies w ith respect to a review
o f Lobach evsky's w o rk g iven in a German jo u r-
n a l. E sse n tia lly , th is re vie w was o f the same
nature as the pam p h le t published in tho Son of
the Fatherland^ and Guass' d e scrip tio n o f the
review er was very harsh. F in a lly , in le tte rs to
his Russian correspondents he co n sta n tly in q u i-
red about Lobachevsky and even asked to con-
vey his greets to the Russian m athem atician.
B u t there was not a word in tho press, not a
single le tte r to Lobachevsky h im se lf, w ith the
exception o f the s tr ic tly o ffic ia l correspondence
p e rta in in g to h is e le ctio n . T rue, he had wanted
to w rite and ask fo r re p rin ts o f Lobach evsky's
works. T h a t is, he was on tho verge o f doing
i t , b u t he never w rote.
W e ll, a ll r ig h t, Gauss had his own reasons.
B u t how are we to account fo r Lobach ovsky’s
silence?
A fte r being elected Corresponding M em ber, he
was o f course q u ite p o s itive th a t Gauss had
read h is paper and approved o f it • There can
be no question th a t such re co g n itio n was extre-
m ely im p o rta n t to h im and very heartening.
W h a t w ould be more n a tu ra l than to send Ga-
uss h is papers or a t least to w rite h im a le tte r
asking fo r an appraisal o f h is ideas?
A nd th is is to say n o th in g u f the fa c t th a t i f
Lobachevsky had ever received such a le tte r,
then the professors o f Kazan U n iv e rs ity and the
whole Academ y o f Sciences w ould stra ig h tw a y

224
repudiate a ll e a rlie r attacks and w ould rejoice
in recognizing Lobachevsky as the greatest ina-
th em aticia n o f Russia.
Suppose he was to ta lly in d iffe re n t to the o p i-
nions o f those around h im , though th a t is very
hard to im agine. Even so, he h im s e lf should
surely have been interested in a detailed ap-
praisal o f h is w ork b y Gauss•
He never w rote such a le tte r to Gauss. W hy?
Modesty? Pride? The fear o f appearing to be
im portunate ? I do n o t know .
I t m ay be th a t he was deeply oBended be-
cause o f Gauss1 a ttitu d e , fo r surely the groat
man could have w ritte n a couple o f encouraging
words to a Corresponding M ember o f the G ot-
tingen S ociety. I t may be.•..
I s im p ly cannot find a satisfa cto ry version,
even ever so s lig h tly . The o n ly th in ff to be said
is th a t th is m ysterious ch a in o f events demon-
strates w hat a com plex and uncommon man was
Lobachevsky, for beginning w ith November of
1842 he u n dou btedly realized th a t recognition
as a m ath e m a ticia n in Ru.ssia could come to
h im a t any m om ent th a t he h im s e lf desired.
He d id not w rite . W hen a m a tte r o f his life is
a t stake, he is so chastely restrained! Lobachev-
sky (he m ath e m a ticia n was q u ite a d iffe re n t
man from Lobachevsky the u n iv e rs ity le cto r.
The m a th e m a ticia n was im p ra c tic a l, reserved,
p h ilo s o p h ic a lly p la cid •
A ll these years ho worked in te n s i\^ ly s triv in g
to find a rigorous proof o f noncontraH.ictoriness.
Q u ite separately from th is flowed his duties
at w o rk, his fa m ily life , his ups anil downs in
day-to-day life . H is w ife proved to be o f a se­

15-1067 225
 rio u s tu rn o f m in d , and q u ib b lin g and open
scandals occurred fa ir ly often in th e ir home.
A nd th rough i t a ll he was tho model stoic.
‫ ״‬Oh, m y dear V a rv a ra A le kse e vn a ...‫ ״׳‬w ith a ll
respect—and thon he w ould disappear in to his
fortress, h is s tu d y. O r he w ould s in k in to si-
lence p u ffin g a t h is pipe.
There wore a lo t o f ch ild re n in the fa m ily .
He seemed ra th e r in d iffe re n t to the g irls b u t
he loved the boys w ith a k in d o f jealous, harsh,
ca rp in g love. P a rtic u la rly A leksei, the eldest.
So capable, so m uch lik e h im s e lf in ch ild h o o d.
M eanw hile there was no end o f a d m in is tra tiv e
duties, w h ich ho perform ed in model fashion,
ru n n in g the u n iv e rs ity e ffic ie n tly . A n d do not
forget the d iffic u ltie s o f tho tim es. The govern-
m ent and the Tsar were satisGed.
For zealous service H is Im p e ria l M ajesty had
elovated Lobachevsky to h is excellency the
C o u n c illo r o f State. A nd in the o ffin g lingered
the s t ill h igher post o f P riv y C o u n c illo r.
M oney m atters were n o t alw ays in the best
o f order, b u t he was s t ill f u ll o f energy and not
too old•
There were endless in trig u e s and sm earing and
m u ck-ra kin g among his colleagues. B u t so al-
ways is the case. He to o k them in h is stride,
became severe, re tic e n t, p e d a n tic a lly composed.
B u t such tr a its arc common to ajçing men. He
was o rd in a ry in a ll th in g s and h a b its. H is ex*
cellency was a good host and knew a th in g or
tw o about cooking.
A t the c lu b there was c a rd -p la y in g —he like d
preference. B u t his recreation more often con-
sistod in tra n s la tin g from tho Greek and L a tin .

226
He loved his u n iv e rs ity , and the students loved
h im . H is w o rk occupied h im com p le te ly.
E v e ry th in g was ty p ic a lly Russian, H is b ro th -
cr Aleksei was a heavy d rin k e r. A re la tiv e
of his w ife wa 9 a gam bler who lo s t a large sum
o f Lobach evsky's money. H is sons were grown
up now, students. H is fa v o u rite one gladdened
h is heart, the younger one d id n 't; he was so
o b vio u sly no m a th e m a ticia n .
W h a t was on his m in d a ll these years? W h a t
gave h im the strength to pursue the stu d y o f
h is geom etry so persistently? H o w was i t pos-
sible to ca rry on w ith h is gom uetry th rough a ll
the vicissitudes o f a life tim e and n o t to tu rn
in to Uie niost o rd in a ry o f co u n cillo rs o f state?
Whence the w ill power? W h a t buoyed h im up
a ll these years? W h a t were his thoughts when
he was alone in h is study? W h a t were his
dreams? A n d hopes?
I have no answer, and no one else has e ith er,
T m a fra id . N ik o la i Iv a n o v ic h Lobachevsky ap­

15• 227
pears to me as one o f the most m ysterious men
in the whole h is to ry o f science.
In tho o p in io n o f m any o f the most c u ltu red
people o f th a t period, Lobachovsky wast on the
wh 〇lc f a very respoct«d o ffic ia l. H e was also
Man eccentric p ra c tic a lly o u t o f h is m in d ‫״‬, ‫ ״‬the
mad man fro m K a za n ‫ ״‬.
O f course, his real life began behind the doors
o f liis stu d y. Q u it« n a tu ra lly . B u t w hat m a in-
tained h im , w h a t concentratio n o f w ill-p o w e r,
w h a t d riv in g force? W h a t was ho guided b y —
love, h atred, hope, superciliousness, h a b it tu r-
ned to in s tin c t? I cannot say. I'm a fra id no
one can say. Because a ll the riches o f the a rc h i-
ves add n o th in g about th is second life o f his
w h ich waft the most im p o rta n t o f a ll, the life
th a t began inside h is stu d y when he was alone
w ith h is com putation s. Perhaps there is, after
a ll, ju s t one th in g th a t opens up a crack.
In the year 1853, h is most dea rly loved boy
Aleksei died. W ith in a few m onths N ik o la i L o-
bachevsky was a sick man, broken. He began
to lose his s ig h t, and the illness progressed ra -
p id ly and im p la c a b ly .
II© had three more years to liv o • H is ro u tin e
went on and he s t ill performed his duties, b u t
life was a lready gone.
L e t us re ca ll his efforts to make h is son study
m athem atics; how, though self-co n tro lle d and
calm most o f the tim e , he w ould shout abuse
when the boy was la z y t or w ould rejoice m ajesti-
c a lly when he came to h is room to find the boy
celebrating a successfully passed exam w ith his
friends: ‫ ״‬C ontinue, gentlem en, 1 sh a ll not bo-
th e r y o u •‫ ״‬R e ca llin g a ll these th in g s, one may

228
conclude th a t th is harsh, unsociable man was
kept a liv e b y a single ro m a n tic dream — th a t
of his son c o n tin u in g h is G eom etry.
The death o f A leksei m eant th a t he h im se lf
was dead. M isfortune does n o t come unaccom*
panied. D u rin g the la st three years o f Lobachev-
s k y 's life , one c a la m ity follow ed another,
*Porhflps h© whs now to sow© 6xt©nt innnunc*
fo r the end had already come. There remained
o n ly one th in g , h is G eom etry.
Already blind, with only a few days of life
leR, he dictated the last of his works.
 Chapter 9

NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY.
SOME ILLUSTRATIONS

L e t us lo o k in to the c u rio s ity shop o f non-

E uclidean geom etry. O ur in tu itio n , firm ly ro o t-
ed as i t is in E u clid e a n notions, w ill not a v a il
us fo r long and w ill co n s ta n tly b© i 〇 c o n flic t
w ith the geomotr>r o f Lobachevsky.
To com pel o u r sensations to vote fo r iheore-
tic a l equivalence o f the tw o geometries, one has
to p u t intense and sustained efforts in to the
stu d y o f the geom etry o f Lobachevsky.
O n ly then, that, w h ich a t firs t su p e rficia l glance
appeared absurd, para d o xica l w ill begin to shine
w ith the calm cold beauty of 】 〇0 c and tru th •
Since we speak of beauty, let us recall an
analogy from the arts.
The canvases of the impressionist painters that
pive us such great enjoyment today were derided
w ith guffaws and shouts o f disgust when firs t
displayed in the a rt salons a t the end o f last
ce n tu ry . T h is re actio n was o f the same nature
as th a t o f Lo b a ch evsky’s contem poraries to his
works. G en e ra lly, we m ust note— to o u r great
m isfo rtu n e — the fo llo w in g sim ple idea: i t is s t ill
a re v e la tio n to most people th a t one should
4*try to understand the issue a t hand before
g iv in g an o p in io n ” •
Too often, fragm ents o f d is to rte d , tw isted in -
fo rm a tio n th a t reach na by accident are taken
as s u ffic ie n t grounds fo r a u th o rita tiv e assertions,

230
no m a tte r w hether they are fo r good or fo r bad.
In c id e n ta lly , once again the geom etry o f Loba-
chevsky was luckless In a m ost am using fashion.
Q uite some num ber o f years ago, I came across
the fo llo w in g phrase in the works o f a very
w ell-kno w n w rite r: ‫ ״‬Lobachevsky proved th a t
lines w hich according to E u c lid are p a ra lle l in ‫־‬
tersect a t in f in it y . ‫ ״‬T h is was then follow ed by
a round o f clever, sweeping generalizations.
I d o n 't remember e x a c tly w h a t about. A lm o st
about w h a t I am now w ritin g .
B y the same token o f th a t penchant for su-
p c rfic ia l reasoning th a t I have ju s t noted, I de-
cided th a t the a u th o r had never re a lly heard
of Lobach evsky’s geom etry. B u t th is same
ţ>hrase cropped up so c o n s ta n tly in a rtic le s and
books by other w rite rs th a t I realized, one fa ir
day, th a t the subject was p a ra lle ls in the mea‫־‬
n in g o f L o b ach ev sk y •••• J u s t h a lf a p a ^ e from
now we sh â ll see th a t these lin e s are by no means
E uclidean p a ra lle ls. They are related, ro u g h ly,
lik e the sea p ilo t o f a ship o f the M id d le Ages
and an a ir p ilo t o f a ship o f to d a y. The single
term used to denote tw o d iffe re n t notions crea-
ted confusion in the m inds o f people removed
from m athem atics. Perhaps they do n o t deserve
to be h a rsh ly censured, y e t ne ith e r do they
w a rra n t any encouragement. •
To end the parable, I m ay add th a t w h a t is
ap p a re n tly the p rim a ry source o f the ‫ ״‬lite ra ry
version o f Lobachevsky geometry** has been
found.
The c u lp r it i t tu rn s o u t, Fyodor D ostoy-
evsky, who w rote somo V6ry rem arkable things
indeed• In h is Brothers Karamazov, Iv a n ex­

231
 p la in s his m oral and philo so p h ica l credo to A ly -
osha and, among other th in g s, has th is to say:
‫ ״‬B u t you m ust not« th is: i f God exists and i f
Ho re a lly d id create the w o rld , then, as we a ll
know , He created i t according to the geom etry
o f E u c lid and the hum an m in d w ith (he con-
ception o f o n ly three dim ensions in space. Yet
there have be^n and s t ill arc geom etricians and
philosophers, and even some o f the most dis-
tinguished, who d o u b t w hether the whole u n i-
verse, or to speak more w id e ly the w hole o f
being, was o n ly created in E u c lid 's geom etry;
they even dare to dream th a t tw o p a ra lle l lines*
w hich according to E u c lid can never meet on
ea rth , may me<;t somewhere in in f in it y . I have
come to the conclusion th a t, since I c a n 't un-
derstand even th a t I can’ t expect to under-
stand about God, I ackiiowledf^e h u m b ly th a t
I have no fa c u lty fo r s e ttlin g such questions,
I have a E u c lid ean e a rth ly m in d , and how could
I solvo problem s th a t arc not o f th is w o rld ?‫״‬
I do not th in k o f id e n tify in g Dostoyevsky
b iin s e lf w ith Iv a n K aram azov, and we are not
here dealing w ith the problem o f the existence
o f God. R u t wheo i t conics to geom etry, th is
is the reasoning o f D ostoyevsky Jiiinselï• A nd
the fa ct th a t i t is a maguiGcent piece o f w ritin g
ju s t goes to show how a shallow , superficial
in tu itio n on the p a rt o f a su p e rficia l d ile tta n te
is so u n w ittin g ly elevated to an absolute p rin -
cip le . S tr ic tly speaking, there is n o t a single
correct idea in tho w hole passage. T h is is a ll
the more e x c itin g since tlie m agnificent and
p u re ly a n a ly tic a l m ind o f the a u th o r is also
apparent in every w ord.

232
 Iva n then brings h is in te lle c tu a l e c c e n tric ity
re la tiv e to geom etry to its lo g ic a l c u lm in a tio n
and even extends i t to the realm o f physics:
41Even i f p a ra lle l lines do meet and I see i t
m yself, I shall see i t and say th a t th e y 'v e met,
b u t s t ill I w on*t accept i t . ‫״‬
Q uite n a tu ra lly , I do not in te n d to draw any
far-reaching conclusions {any at a ll!} about Do-
stoyevsky’3 w r itin g from these excprpts. Ivan
Karam azov had no interests in geom etry o f
course. For h im the w hole thinj? was s im p ly an
illu s tra tio n o f his ideas.
B u t fo r us this can serve as an illu s tra tio n
o f a disto rte d conception o f science and o f 】ight-
minded reasoning about uncomprehended things
(and o f course the obvious obscurantism o f Iva n
K aram azov).
One m ig h t, however, ju s tify D ostoyevsky at
least in the sense th a t he d id not perhaps make
any a ctu a l m istake. The names o f the geonut-
ters are not given, and so one m ig h t hope th a t
Ivan was describing elem ents o f R ie m a n n ia ii or
p rojective geom etry-
H ow ever, since on the one hand, the words
‫ ״‬non-E uclidean geom etry‫ ״‬are associated w ith
the name o f Lobachevsky, and, on the other
hand, a ll c u ltu re d w rite rs have u n dou btedly
read Dostoyevsky w ith care, the words o f Iva n
were co n siste n tly extrapolate d to Lobachevsky
h im se lf.
A l l these lite ra ry -p s y c h o lo g ic a l explo ra tio n s
are useful, aside from general ideas o f a did a c-
tic nature, in th a t th e y help us to grasp the
in te lle c tu a l courage o f B o ly a i and Lobachev-
sky.

233
 N ow th a t we have calmed down, lo t us re tu rn
to o u r C u rio s ity Shop.
We w ill n a tu ra lly confine ourselves to o n ly
a few theorems and w i l l n o t a t a ll ta lk about
solid geom etry. T h ro u g h o u t we w ill agree th a t
e v e ry th in g occurs in a single plane.
F irs t, o f course, the p ostulate o f B o ly a i‫־‬L o -
bachevsky— the great antago nist o f E u c lid 's Gfth.
^Through a given point it is possible to draw
to a given straight line (in addition to *Euclid^s
parallel') at least one more straight line that
does not meet the given straight line.n
Whence i t fo llo w s im m e d ia te ly th a t one can
dra w an in f in it y o f 5uch s tra ig h t lines.
Look a t the Gguro. A perpen d icu la r is drop-
ped from p o in t A to the s tra ig h t lin e / . Eue-
lid 's p a ra lle l— lin e is n a tu ra lly perpendi-
c u la r to th is p e rpe n d icu la r.
The dashed lin e (LP) does not intersect / .
B y means o f sym m e try reasoning (bend the
dra w in g along the perpend icular ^4 ^!) i t is clear
th a t there w ill be another s tra ig h t lin e of exact-
ly the same k in d . I t is also dashed. F u rth e r,
i t is clear th a t any o f an in fin itu d e o f s tra ig h t
lines draw n through A inside the angle between

&

234
the s tra ig h t lines EP and LP w ill not intersect
the s tra ig h t lin e I c ith e r. W e thus have: **Through
a 、given point it Is possible to draw an infinity
of straight lines that do not meet a given straight
line."
B u t one can n a tu ra lly also draw an in f in it y
of s tra ig h t lines w h ich do meet the g iven lin e .
They m ay be draw n to any p o in t (o f the s tra ig h t
line) a r b itr a r ily d is ta n t from the base. L e t us
take any p o in t が and jo in i t b y a s tra ig h t
lin e to A . T h is can always be done on the basis
o f a fa m ilia r axio m .
And 9〇wo have a s tra ig h t lin e passing through
both A and B \
H ow ever, due to the c o n tin u ity o f the bundle
o f s tra ig h t lines, there m ust bo a boundary lin e
th a t separates the tw o classes. T h is is e ith e r
the last s tra ig h t lin e ( ‫ ״‬in te rs e c tin g ‫ ) ״‬th a t meets
the s tra ig h t lin e or the firs t ‫ ״‬nonm eeting‫״‬
lin e . I t is re a d ily seen th a t there can be no last
‫ ״‬in te rs e c tin g ‫ ״‬lin e . Indeed, suppose i t exists. Let
i t be AB* in o u r figure‫ ״‬B u t then i f we take
B,r beyond B' and connect i t w ith the p o in t
we get a new s tra ig h t lin e ly in g beyond B f and
m eeting (intersecting) the s tra ig h t lin o / .

235
 Consequently, the boundary s tra ig h t lin e is
the firs t one th a t does not meet the s tra ig h t
lin e I .
There are n a tu ra lly tw o such s tra ig h t lines:
one fo r each d ire c tio n . W ith in the angle formed
by these s tra ig h t line s, we can draw an in fin ity
of s tra ig h t lines th a t do n o t meet the lin e 1;
these w ill also inclu d e E u c lid 's p a ra lle l.
Lobachevsky gave the name p a ra lle l to these
tw o extrem e n o n in tc rs ifcc tin g s tra ig h t lines.
As you see， they do not have any re la tio n
to the p a ra lle l as understood by E u c lid .
S tre tc h in g the p o in t a b it, we m ay say th a t
they, as i t were, in te rse ct tho given s tra ig h t
lin e HB,r at in fin ite ly d is ta n t p o in ts . How ever,
i t is not a t a ll clear w h a t is meant by ^ in fin ite -
ly d is ta n t p o in ts ‫ ״‬, so i t is be tte r n o t to use
th a t phrase a t a ll.
In L ob achevsky's term s, a ll s tra ig h t lines
w ith in the angle “ d ive rg e ” fro m the s tra ig h t
lin e I.
To sum m arize, then, re la tiv e to a given s tra ig h t
lin e there are three types of s tra ig h t lines th a t
m ay be draw n throu g h any p o in t.
1. Converging (in te rse ctin g ); there is an in fin i-
t y o f such lines.
2. Parallel. There are tw o . O f each we say:
p a ra lle l I I is p a ra lle l to the s tra ig h t lin e I in
the d ire c tio n BB*\ p a ra lle l I I I is p a ra lle l to I
in the d ire c tio n B'B. Tho m eaning o f those words
is clear from the figure.
3. Diverging s tra ig h t lin e s. These comprise
the in fin itu d e o f lines w ith in the bundle, one
o f w h ich is the ‫ ״‬E u c lid 's p a ra lle l‫ ״‬.

236
 Those are the term s. N ow le t us lo o k in to the
theorems.
W ith regard to p a ra lle ls, Lobachevsky demon-
strated th a t they apporoach w ith o u t bound a
given s tra ig h t lin e (w ith o u t ever m eeting it )
and recede, w ith o u t bound, on the other side.
So far, th is is n o t such a strange re s u lt.
B u t the next one is lik e a th u n d e rb o lt.
Tw o d ive rg in g s tra ig h t lin e s alw ays have a
common perpend icular w h ic h is the shortest dis-
tanco between them . T hey recede w ith o u t bound
on both sides o f the perpend icular. T h is n a tu ra lly
holds tru e fo r the special case o f ‫ ״‬E u c lid 's pa-
ra lle ls ‫ ״‬as w e ll.
Thus, a perpend icular dropped from any p o in t
o f the s tra ig h t lin e I I onto the s tra ig h t lin e I
is, firs tly , greater th a n the m u tu a l perpendicu-
Ia r AB and, secondly, does not form a rig h t
angle w ith the s tra ig h t lin e I I ,
T h is is indeed strange. B u t the proof is im m a-
culate.
A c c o rd in g ly , the locus o f p o in ts e q u id is ta n t
from the s tra ig h t lin e turn s o u t to be a curved
lin e .
These aro o n ly the firs t steps•

237
 A i th is p o in t, Lobachevsky introduced a now
and ve ry im p o rta n t concept: the parallel
angle.
T h is is the acuto angle between the s tra ig h t
lin o p a ra lle l to / and draw n th ro u g h p o in t >1，
and the p e rpend icular AB dropped from th is po-
in t onto the s tra ig h t lin e 7. Thus, the p a ra lle l
angle is CAB. A c co rd in g to E u c lid i t is
n a tu ra lly alw ays equal to ‫ ץ‬.
I t w ill re a d ily be seen th a t th is angle depends
on the distance between A and the s tra ig h t lin e
I %and d im inishes w ith increasing distance.
Indeed, take a p o in t A* on the prolonged per-
pe n d icu la r A B and draw from th is p o in t a ME uc-
lidean p a ra lle l‫ ״‬to the s tra ig h t lin e AC. It w ill
intersect the p erpend icular AB at the same ang-
le as the s tra ig h t lin o AC.
ICAH
B u t we know th a t from A* i t is also possible
to draw a s tra ig h t lin e ArCf p a ra lle l to AC in
the sense o f Lobachevsky.
The angle C^A'B is also o b vio u sly less than
the angle DA*B^
I t is obvious th a t i f the s tra ig h t lin e A 'C
does n o t intersect AC\ i t w ill d e fin ite ly n o t in -
t c m x t the s tra ig h t lin e / . I t w ill e ith e r diverge
from i t or be p a ra lle l to i t . (F rom here onwards
I w ill no longer say wiu the sens© o f Lohachev-
s k y ‫ ״‬. We w ill adhere to h is geom etry and to
his d e fin itio n s.)
Lobachevsky a c tu a lly proved tho theorem:
M/ / two straight lines are parallel to a third
in one direction, they are parallel to each other
in the same direction**. A nd so the angle C*A*B

238
is the p a ra lle l angle to the s tra ig h t lin o I a t
the p o in t A \
The p a ra lle l angle is a fu n c tio n o f the
distance to the s tra ig h t lin e . Lobachevsky de-
noted th is fu n c tio n as ll( z ) ; x is the distance,
th a t is, the lin e segment AB.
We have already seen th a t th is fu n c tio n d i-
m inishes w ith increasing x. Lobachevsky inves-
tigated its behaviour w ith decreasing distance
x and showed th a t the p a ra lle l angle I I (z)
then tends w ith o u t bound to a r ig h t angle.
S y m b o lic a lly , s c ie n tific a lly , th is looks lik e
l i m n (x) *‫־^־ ־־‬. B u t i f we re c a ll th a t a r ig h t pa-

ra lle l angle corresponds to E u clid e a n geomet-

ry , then i t is clear th a t a t sm a ll distances the
geom etry o f Lobachevsky is p ra c tic a lly in d is-
tin ^u ish a b le from the geom etry o f E u c lid .
Clear so fa r. W h a t is n o t clear, however, is
w hat we mean by “ sm a ll distances， ’•
The words “ s m a ll” or “ la rg e ” have meaning
o n ly i f we know w h a t is being com pared. W ith o u t
th a t knowledge they are devoid o f any content-
There should o b v io u s ly be some k in d of length,
or standard th a t can be used fo r purposes of
com parison.

239
 H o w doos such a standard enter here? I t is
w e ll w o rth !% calling Legendre a t th is p o in t. He
too discovered th a t the p a ra lle l angle de-
pends upon the distance. A c tu a lly , a ll th a t needs
be done (as we have a lready m eutioncd) is to
analyse his proof w ith regard to tile sum o f tlie
angles o f a tria n g le . The ve ry fa ct th a t a re la tion•
ship lik e th is appears seemed to Legendre so absurd
th a t a t one tim e he declared i t the desired ab-
surdum th a t proved the G fth postulate. Legend-
re ’s reasoning was ingenious. He argued more
lik o a p h ysicist th a n a m ath e m a ticia n .
A c tu a lly , he em ployed a very strong method
o f q u a lita tiv e analysis o f physical problem s cal-
led the dim ensiona l m ethod. B ro u g h t up to
date, h is reasoning m ig h t lo o k lik e th is.
We see th a t the p a ra lle l angle is a fu n ctio n
o f o n ly one line-segm ent, the distance from the
s tra ig h t lin e . No o th e r lin e a r dim ensions enter
in to the problem . W e w rite
N ow le t us see w h a t we have w ritte n . A n y
angle ,f is a dim ensionless q u a n tity . (In radian
measure, an angle is the ra tio o f the arc o f a
u n it c irc le to the ra d iu s.)

240
 On the le ft we have a dimensionless q u a n tity .
I t rem ains the same, no m a tte r w h a t u n its of
measurement are used, whether centim etres, met-
res, inches or w h a t have you.
On the rig h t, how ever，the fu n c tio n is th a t
o f a dim ensional argum ent. I t makes no diffe-
rence w hat form i t has. The im p o rta n t tilin g
is th a t no m a tte r w hat i t is, its num e rica l va-
lues w ill v a ry w ith the u n it of measurement. I f
say, n(x) = then fo r x = 1 metre, II(x ) ‫ =־‬lm 2‫־־‬.
B u t i f the u n it is 1 cm t then

丨
1 ( X) = lOQt'cm* ^ 10'* Cm *
T h is is o b v io u s ly nonsense. The re la tio n we
have suggested is im possible. Consequently, the
fifth postulate is proved.
Tho chain o f reasoning is absolute ly correct,
b u t tho conclusion is n o t. The conclusion has
to be d iffe re n t. From the same argum ents of
d im e n s io n a lity i t is clear th a t in our form ula
there should be a nondim ensional q u a n tity on the
rig h t iu the argum ent o f the fu n c tio n . T h is is
w hat the equatio n should lo o k lik e :

• f = " ( ‫־‬f )
where A：is some segment w h ic h we s t ill do not
know, Tho question is where do we find the
.segment k l Tho p o in t is th a t the whole o f our
analysis shows th a t the p a ra lle l angle ‫׳‬f de-
ponds sole ly on one distance, the distance of
the p o in t from the s tra ig h t lin e .
There is o n ly one way o u t. We have to as-
sume th a t in the new geom etry there is a specific,

16-1087 241
nature-given constant u n it. A k in d o f constant
length ih a l determ ines a ll other lengths.
T h is is strange b u t n o t e n tire ly absurd♦ For
instance, the tw o-dim ensional E uclideau geomet*
r y o f a sphere has such an isolated le n g th . I t
is the radius of a spherical surface. A nd .so when
em p lo yin g the form ulas o f o rd in a ry E uclidean
spherical geom etry fo r a geodetic m apping of
M ars we w ill have to bear in m in d th a t some
o f the ‫ ״‬constants‫ ״‬o f our te rre s tria l tables w ill
undergo appreciable change.
Lobachevsky was not embarrassed by the ap-
parent paradox and in tro d u ce d a constant seg-
m eat k and found the e quatio n fo r the parai-
le i angle. I t is so sim ple th a t we give i t
here:

cot ^= e
where e is the base o f n a tu ra l lo g a rith m s.
From th is e quatio n we im m e d ia te ly see th a t
when j 0 <‫־־־‬，then c o t + ‫׳‬f 夺《。
= 1 ，or 如 々 ‫ ־^־‬and

W hen ^ ~ d 0 \ we have E u c lid fs geom etry

to a high degree of accuracy.
B u t •ţ■ is close to zero when x 《k.
N ow w hat we said ju s t a m oment ago about
sm a ll segments has taken on precise m eaning.
I f the distance from the j>oint th ro u g h w h ich we
draw a p a ra lle l to a g ive n s tra ig h t lin e is much
less than the constant segment k t then the geo-
m etry o f E u c lid is fu K ille d in a pproxim ate fash-
ion .

242
 In the lim itin g case when Ar^oo, E u c lid 's geo-
m etry is alw ays fu lfille d and w ith absolute pre-
cision.
The firs t question th a t n a tu ra lly confronted
Lobachevsky was how to find the segment k•
A nd here i t turned o u t th a t his geom etry was
in a ce rta in sense ‫ ״‬b e tte r‫ ״‬than R nclid*s. No
theoretical argum ents help to define k. I t is w h at
physicists c u ll a ‫ ״‬constant o f the th e o ry ‫ ״‬. I t
cau o n ly bo found e x p e rim e n ta lly , by means of
concrete p h ysica l measurements.
I t is o f course im possible to measure the par-
a lle l angle d ire c tly , b u t i t is for instance possible
to measure the sura o f angles o f a tria n g le • The
‫ ״‬defect of the sum ‫ ״‬in a g ive n tria n g le depends
on the value o f A,
Y ou remember th a t both Lobachevsky and
Gauss urged such measurements b u t n o th in g
came o f them .
G enerally speaking, Lobachevsky never said
th a t i t was precisely his geom etry th a t descri-

t«•
243
 bes the w o rld . Q u ite the co n tra ry, he in clin e d
tow ards the view th a t in tliis w o rld , i t ia Eue-
lid 's jfoom etry th a t is accom plished.
Bnt- th a t is n o t so im p o rta n t. The rem arkable
th in g is th a t from the ve ry firs t steps the new
geom etry was closely tie d in w ith physics and
th a t i t was inconceivable to disassociate i t from
e xperim ent.
T h is n a tu ra lly p u t fo rth tho » a lie n i problem
o f the re la tio n s h ip o f geom etry in general to
the real w o rld , the p o s s ib ility o f d iffe re n t geo-
m etries in the real w o rld .
As we have already said before, th is was sug-
gested e a rlie r b u t fo r tw o and à h a lf thousand
years m athem atician s to o k a d im view o f U,
regarding the whole m a tte r as fu tile and absurd.
W illy - n illy non-E uclid ean geom etry generated
the problem o f e xp e rim e n ta tio n . A re we indeed
so sure th a t God made the earth in accord w ith
the laws o f E u clid e a n geom etry, as Iv a n K ara•
mazov w ould have us believe?
There is alw ays beauty in abstract form ulas
engineering to ta lly unexpected ideas, w h ich even
the discoverer never suspected when ho derived
his form ulas.
A l l these couc4usious are so c h a rm in g ly ele-
gant th a t one can understand B o ly a i and Loba-
chevsky who had fa ith in tho lo g ic a l rig o u r o f
th e ir system.
N ote also th a t we have discussed here o n ly
one o f the conclusions o f Lobachevsky ,s very
firs t w o rk, h is paper o f 1826.
Ho im m e d ia te ly developed th is scheme in depth
and the o th e r results were no less b e a u tifu l* B u t
in m athem atics, fa ith is n o t a decisive factor.

244
There were no guarantees th a t a lo g ic a l contra-
d ic tio n m ig h t n o t pop up in the fu tu re .
Lobachevsky spent the rest o f h is life in per-
sistent a tte m p ts to find th is proof. He strive d
to dem onstrate w ith com plete rig o u r th a t his
system was flawless. On the w ay he worked out
a great d iv e rs ity o f the most unexpected con-
sequences o f his geom etry, p enetratin g ever dee-
per.
In th is respect, he is w ith o u t a d oubt head
and shoulders above his contem poraries, fo r nei-
ther B o ly a i nor Gauss covered the ground th a t
he d id .
He d id not find the proof, though he was ra^
th e r close to the basic idea.
Lobachevsky the mau, h is persistent, never
sw erving struggle tow ards a single goal is w o rth y
o f m ir a d m ira tio n .
 C hapter 10

NEW IDEAS. RIEMANN.

NONCONTRADICTORINESS

No, th is w ill not be a chapter about th in g s of

s ta rtlin g beauty. I w ill be honest w ith the reader.
A t least the firs t h a lf w ill be ra th e r d ry m atbe-
m atics.
F irs t about the theory o f surfaces. The pro-
g e n ito r was again the sume old Gauss.
Let us im agine th a t on some k in d o f w him si^
c a lly bent surface there reside in te llig e n t beings
o f tw o dim ensions (n o t three). W h a t w ill th e ir
geom etry be like? Secondly, how w ill th e y be
able to sec th a t th e ir surface is curved?
A t firs t glance, the second question m ay ap-
pear q u ite naive. The reador m ay be re ca llin g
p ro o f o f the s p h e ric ity o f the earth given in
grade-school geography books. D o n ‫״‬t h u rry , re-
member th a t wo are three-dim ensional beings l i -
v in g on a tw o-dim ension al surface.
To rid ourselves o f the illu s io n th a t th is is
sim ple, th in k over the question: H o w can one
&nd o u t th a t our three-dim ensional w o rld is cur-
ved, and w h a t in general does th is so fre q u e n tly
em ployed phrase mean a fte r all?
The three- and four-d im o n sio n a l w orld w ill bo
looked in to la te r on, fo r the present le t us ro‫־‬
tu rn to surfaces.
Gauss began by in troducing « ‫ ר‬marvellous quan-
lit y tha t dernics \hv jfeoTTietry of a surface. I t
is ciillcd (■aussian curvature. ‫׳‬J'hc fundanienlal

246
p ro p e rty o f Gaussian c u rva tu re is: i t rem ains
constant under any bending o f the surface so
long as no s tre tc h in g occurs. I t is in t u it iv e ly
clear w hat th is moans, h u t a rigorous fo rm u la -
tio n is bette r: i f in the bending o f a surface there
is no stre tch in g , then, firs t o f a ll, the lengths
o f a ll curves draw n on the surface rem ain unchan-
jjed; secondly, the angles between them rem ain
the same too.
T h is can be stated somewhat d iffe re n tly . Take
a sheet o f paper. Bend i t . Then measure the
Gaussian c u rva tu re a t some p o in t. N ow you can
do w hatever you w a n t to th is sheet (except
stretchin g or te a rin g i t ) , lik e tw is tin g i t in to
the most bizarre form s, and the valu© o f the
Gaussian cu rvature a t th a t p o in t w ill n o t change.
The Gaussian c u rva tu re is so im p o rta n t a con-
copt th a t wo w ill deGne i t in more rigorous fa-
shion. T o do th is , we w ill have firs t to find o u t
what arc ra d ii o f c u rva tu re a t a given p o in t o f
a surface.
We consider some p o in t o f a surface and draw
a line norm al to i t . W h a t is a norm al? T o ex-

247
 p la in we w ill need one more co n ccjit, th a t o f a
tangent plane. We g ive an alm ost rigorous de&ui-
tio n . We consider a ll possible curved lines lo•
cated on the surface aad passing through a po-
in t P.
I t tu n is o u t th a t the tangents to a ll these
curves lio in one plane. T h is is not e v id e n t at
firs t glance, b u t i t can be proved rig o ro u sly. I t
is the e n tire c o llt'c tio n o f tangent lines th a t forms
a tangent plane.
For the case shown at tlie botlom o f page 250,
the lo c a tio n of the tangent plane is ra ther ob-
vious. B u t sometimes the t a n ^ n t plane is lo -
cated more in tric a te ly re la tiv e to the surface (see
the figure on page 247).
N o w le t us define precisely the n o tio n o f a
n o rm a l. The norm a l is a s tra ig h t lin e perpendi-
c iila r to the tangent plane. V\re can now define
the concept o f p rin c ip a l ra d ii o f c u rv a tu re ‫ ״‬Pass a
plane through the n o rm a l. There are c le a rly an
in fin itu d e o f such planes. We take any one to
begin w ith . A plane curve is formed by the in -
tcrsection o f the plane and the surface. One can
alw ays choose a c irc le th a t is contiguous to th is
curve near the p o in t P. I shall n o t e x p la in the
exact m eaning of these words in the hope th a t
y o u r in tu itio n w ill suffice to create the proper
image.
The radius o f th is contiguous (ta n g e n tia l) c irc -
lo H is called the ra d iu s o f c u rva tu re o f the
plane curve. Since an in f in it y o f planes can be
parsed through the norm a l, we get an in fin ite ly
lar^o numbiM* o f ra d ii o f c u rva tu re , ainong w hich
(here is îi g re a ^ s t and a sm allost ‫ י<חס‬in ahHoluto
value. 11 can be proved th a t plane curves to

248
w hich the least and greatest ra d ii correspond
are m u tu a lly perpendicular at the p o in t P. These
tw o radii» and arc called the p rin c ip a l
ra d ii o f curva tu re o f our surface a t the p o in t
Likew ise we can prove th a t the centres o f the
circles are alw ays located on the norm a l.
I f the centres of c u rva tu re lie on one side
of the surface, the p o in t P is called e llip tic a l.
I f they lie on d iffe re n t sides, then i t is called
h yp e rb o lic a l. In th is case, one o f the p rin c ip a l
ra d ii m ust be considered negative.
F in a lly , there are p a ra b o lica l points. They arc
points, wkere one o f the p rin c ip a l ra d ii o f cur-
vature is equal to in fin ity • The Gaussian cu rva‫־‬
ture a t any p o in t of a surface is defiued ast

?49
 N ow wo can set our findings o u t in a ta b le ;

In the ellip tica l point K >〇

In the hyporbolical point K <〇
In the parabolical pi»int A‫ = ״‬〇

N ow le t us see w h a t properties the surface

as a whole can have. Im agine some surface and
t r y to cover i t w ith a piece o f closoly adhering
c lo th . Tho rules o f the game are: th a t the c lo th
cannot be c u t o r stretched, and has to cover
the surface w ith o u t any folds.
I f a la d y confronted a ta ilo r w ith such demands,
she w ould be dismissed w ith o u t fu rth e r ado, and
he w ould be r ig h t in d o in ^ so.
The reader w ould do w e ll a t th is p o in t to
stop reading and tr y to p ictu re the properties

250
th a t the figure o f our h y p o th e tic a l la d y o f fash-
io n should possess. A fte r w h a t we have found o u t
about the properties o f Gaussian cu rva tu re , the
answer is sim ple. The piece was plane a t firs t.
W h ich means the c u rva tu re was zero a t every
p o in t. Bending w ith o u t s tre tch in g does n o t chan*
ge the cu rva tu re . T h is means th a t a plane piece
of c lo th may be bent o n ly in to a surface whose
curvature a t every p o in t is s tr ic tly equal to
zero.
A c y lin d e r is one instance. I t is easy to see
th a t the Gaussian c u rva tu re is s t r ic tly ie ro on
the la te ra l surface o f the c y lin d e r, O rt in other
words, every p o in t o f the surface is p a ra b o lica l.
I f you have mastered the concept o f curva tu re ,
then i t w ill re a d ily be seen th a t the second exam p-
le of a su ita b le surface is the cone.
Now we cannot bend the plane onto a sphere
as required. The c u rva tu re o f a sphere is cons‫־‬
ta n t and po sitive • I t is precisely th is circum stan-
ce th a t causes cartographers so m uch tro u b le .
 Wo m ust observe, ra th e r ta r d ily , th a t a ll along
we have had in v ie w o n ly ‫ ״‬good‫ ״‬surfaces. To
p u t i t cru d e ly , “ şjood” surfaces are those th a t
have no sharp p o in ts or edges. The vertex o f a
cone, fo r exam ple, is a “ bad” p o in t.
A lso , when we speak o f bending one surface
onto another, we have in vie w , s tr ic tly speaking,
the bending of a s u ffic ie n tly large piece, but
n o t tho whole surface. To take an example, the
e n tire la te ra l surface of a cone can be developed
onto a plane o n ly i f we make a cu t alonf? the
g e n e ra trix. The la s t term we have to e xp la in
is a (geodetic lin e . A geodetic is a curved lin e
draw n on a surface between tw o p o in ts so th a t
any other curve is longer. T h is d e fin itio n is one
o f those ‫ ״‬alm ost rig o ro u s ‫ ״‬ones, b u t I have 1i 〇 | hks
th a t o n ly non-m athem aticians w i l l read th is
chapter and so there w ill be no one to c ritic iz e me.
H y p o th e tic a l beings o f tw o dim ensions who
liv e on such a surface w ill say th a t the geodetic
lin e is the shortest distance between tw o p oints.
In c id e n ta lly , three-dim ensional beings (lik e we
are) w ould say tho same thinj? i f wc impose the
c o n d itio n th a t thoy should n o t leave tho surface.
To us e a rth dw ellers liv in g on a sphere, the
shortest distance between tw o p o in ts on the earth
is an arc o f a great c irc le . I t is precisely along
the arc o f a great c irc le th a t navigators sa il
th e ir ships in m a kin g the briefest voyages. Now
le t us lo o k in to a very curious problem . We
said th a t a plane m ay be bent onto a surface
whose c u rva tu re is constant and equal to zero.
O r— w hat is the same th in g — th a t such a surface
m ay be developed onto a plane. A n y figui*e drawn
on the plane w ill tu rn in to a s im ila r figure on

252
our surface. The angles lictwoen lines do not
change d u rin g the tHMidin^ process. T lie shortest
lines on the p ia n o —s tra ig h t lin e s— w ill pass in to
*geodetic lines on the surface. Therefore, fo r a
c y lin d ric a l tria n g le , for instance (its sides are
n a tu ra lly formed by curved lines), the sum of
the anxios rem ains the same as in the plane
tria n g le . We can go on reasoning in Hie same
vein. T o every geom etric concept on the plane
we can correlate a corresponding image on the
surface.
I t is ra th e r easy to sec th a t a ll the theorems
th a t hold for the piane can be carried over w ith o u t
change to the surface. The o n ly th in g th a t we m ust
boar in m in d is th a t these theorems now hold
true for “ im ages” . I f E u clid e a n geom etry is ac-
com plishcd on the piano, then i t w ill be accomp-
lished on a c y lin d e r fo r the 4'im ages‫ ״‬as w e ll.
VVe have now touched on one o f the most
rem arkable and b e a u tifu l aspects o f a ll m athe-
m aiics. So long as we are n o t interested in any
p ra ctica l a p p lica tio n s, i t is a ll the same to us
w hat our theorems speak about. We o n ly w ant
them to sa tis fy the demands o f logic. W h a t is
more, we do not even kn o w w h a t we are ta lk in g
about. I t is o n ly the p h ys ic is t th a t has to know
w hat is ‫ ״‬a c tu a lly ‫ ״‬ta k in g place, w h a t his w orld
is re a lly lik e .
For the p h ysicist, a s tra ig h t lin e is a ra y of
lig h t. For the m a th e m a ticia n , i t is one o f the
basic undefined concepts. There is no w ay of
d istin g u is h in g between the s tra ig h t lin e s on a
E uclidean plane and the geodetic lines on the
surface o f a c y lin d e r i f th e y are compared solely
from the p o in t o f v ie w o f axiom atics.

253
 Li»t us conjure up a fantastic picture. Tw o
two-diuken±iiuual w orld». Une plane, the other
on the surface o f a c y lin d e r. In te llig e n t beings
liv e in both w orlds. Suppose they have set up
some k in d o f com m u n ica tio n . The tw o-dim ensio-
na l *4plane‫ ״‬m ath e m a ticia n and the tw o-diraen-
»ioual ‫ ״‬c y lin d r ic a l‫ ״‬m athem atician w ould assert
w ith great sa tisfactio n th a t th e ir geometries are
tho same.
I f the system o f axiom s were c o n tra d icto ry
on the E uclidean plane, we w ould know im m e-
d ia te ly th a t i t was c o n tra d ic to ry on the c y lin d e r
as w e ll.
One could e x p la in to tho other the theorems
he has developed, and the la tte r could accept
them w ith o u t m a kin g any m o d ifica tio n s. They
could w ork together w ith o u t the slig h te st fric -
tio n . N ow the physicists in the tw o w orlds would
be in c o n flic t from the very s ta rt. They would
c la im , each in h is own w o rld , th a t the laws of
nature are d iffe re n t in the other w o rld .
In c id e n ta lly , even i f a ray o f lig h t in the
c y lin d ric a l w o rld follow ed a geodetic lin e , they
w ould not bo able im m e d ia te ly to detect any
difference.
The reader has b y th is tim e guessed th a t we
are ra th e r close to the problem o f noncontra-
dictoriness in non~Euclidean geom etry. I f we were
able to fin d , in o rd in a ry E uclidean space, sur-
faces on w h ich Lobach evsky's geom etry is ac-
co in p lisb e d ... i f these surfaces could be made
so th a t the whole o f ü Lobachevskian surface
could be mapped o n to them , then the problem
w ould be solved.
The firs t ‫ ״‬i f ‫ ״‬is satisfied. Such surfaces (cal-

254
led pseiKlosphtws) e xis t. These are surfaces w ith
a cou^tanl negative cu rva tu re . B u t the swoml
co n d itio n has us slumped■ The e u tire surface o f a
pseudosphere corresponds to o n ly a piece o f a
Lubachevskian surface.
L e t us forgot noncontradictoriness for a moment
and say a few words about R iem ann• In the
year 1854 th is m o rb id ly shy y o u tli opened up
fresh vistas in inathom aiics.
A nd now le t us h u rry back to the Gaussian
cu rvature , th is tim o invested ia a p u re ly ma-
th em atica l language• We consider tw o a rb itra ry
fa m ilie s o f curves on a surface. We repeat, the
fa m ilie s can bo q u ite a rb itra ry * Together the two
fa m ilie s form a coordinate g rid . N ow suppose
we w ant to find the distance between tw o very
closo (otherw ise, com p le te ly a rb itra ry ) p o in ts
and x s.
Gauss considered the fo llo w in g expression:
^12 = g u ( ^ z ) ^ i + 2 g l2( z ixt) à z i ^ x t +

I t is called the basic metric form. F or the non-

m athem atician th is fo rm u la is ra th e r lo rm id a b lo

255
in appearance. No need to fear, wc w ill not
use it . O n ly tw o rem arks.
1. The ‫ ״‬p h y s ic a l‫ ״‬m eaning o f th is expression
is very sim ple. I t is the square of the distance
between the p o in ts x x and
2. j?j2( ^ i^ 2) and n a tu ra lly
vary from one p o in t o f the surface to another.
We p u t a： ! and x2 in brackets so as to show
th a t a ll the expressions g u and gti depend
on the p o s itio n on the surface.
The im p o rta n t th in ^ here is a re su lt th a t
Gauss obtained. H e demonstrated th a t the cur-
vaturo of a surface is com pletoly defined by the
n u m b e r g ti {xxx t)9 ( ïja ：
2) t ( x jx t ). T h is
is not a ll. He proved th a t no m a tte r w hat syst-
cm of coordinates is chosen, the curva tu re does
not change. T h is is not self-evident in the least.
Indeed, a ll the numbers gxl, g l2, g 21, speaking
generally, change when we sw itch to a new coord-
inate g rid . B u t the Gaussian c u rva tu re is b u ilt
up o u t of these numbers in such fashion as to
rem ain unchanged. In other words, the Gaussian
cu rvature is c o m ple te ly independent o f the man-
ner o f description.
I t is an in n e r pro p e rty o f the surface. A nd so
fo r plane surfaces the e n tire geom etry is determ -
ined solely by th is re la tio n s h ip or the basic
m e tric fo rm . T h is form depended on tw o va-
riables. K n o w in g the coefficients, we could com-
puto the Gaussian curvature o f the surface at
any p o in t.
R ie m a n n ^ idea can be conveyed in ju s t tw o
words. In a p u re ly form al fashion le t us examine
s im ila r expressions for three, fo u r and n v a ria ‫־‬
bles. We w ill say th a t these m e tric forms define a

256
goom olry o f a throe-, fo u r-, and «-dim ensional
w orld. F o rm a lly , we can co m p u i^ Hie Gaussian
curvature fo r such w orlds. W e w ill be able to
say e xa ctly w hat geometry w ill be accomplished
in each one.
I f the c u rva tu re is d ifferent from zero, we say
th a t the w orld is curved. A nd we w ould notice
th a t w ith o u t even le a vin g a sin^lü p o in t. A ll
we have to know is the c u rva tu re a t th a t p o in t.
The geom etry o f a *'w o rld ‫ ״‬can Iw o f any k in d .
A t th is jim c lu ro , i t dotis not even m a tte r very
much w hat gi*ometry is used. R ie m a n n ^ theory
provides for a ll conceivable cases.
T h a t ，ro u g h ly speaking ，is a ll.
I t is s im p iy a K cn e m liza liim u f the Gaussian
theory o f surfaces to the ci»sc of many variables.
A t Ihe beginning o f th is tw e n tie th c e n tu ry , i t
turned o u t th a t i t is precisely R ie m a n n 's geom-
e try w hich we need to describe the a ctu a l w orld
we liv e in . And not fo r Ih m * h u t for fo u r dim en-
sions, ihe fo u rth dimonMon being tim e .
W c leave R iem ann.
M y task uuw is to !*efrain from sh o u tin g h u r-
rah.
T hrougho ut the whole o f m athem atics there
are h a rd ly a dozen ideas equal in sheer beauty
to the proof o f the non-contradictoriness of
Lobachevskian geom etry.
The whole stru ctu re rests ou the fa c t th a t the
m athem atician cares not a w h it about w hat lies
behind his Basic Concepts— so long as the a x i‫־‬
oms are satisfied.
Up to a p o in t, geom etry is h a rd ly more than
a game in lo g ic. The s tra ig h t lin e , the p o in tt
the plane, m otion are s im p ly pieces used in the

257
game. The o n ly th in g the m athem atician knows
about them is h is axiom s, the rules o f the game
in v o lv in g the pieces.
A t th is stage, geom etry is ju s t as useless to
the p h y s ic is t as chess or dominoes. I t is o n ly
when the p h y s ic is t finds o u t e x p e rim e n ta lly
th a t his real s tra ig h t lines, p o in ts and so fo rth
can Ikî very precisely described by m athem atical
abstraction.s, o n ly when he sees th a t the axiom s
o f m athem atics do indeed describe tho behaviour
o f q u ite real lines, p o in ts, planes, e tc., o n ly
then does geom etry become one o f the chapters
o f physics, the science w h ich studies the w orld
about us. U p to th a t p o in t, geom etry is a game
o f lo g ic.
B u t i t is ju s t th is unexpected s itu a tio n th a t
enables one to prove the n o n co n tra d icto ry nature
o f the tfeunietry o f Lobachevsky*
Here is the problem .
There arc tw o games: E u c lid ’s geom etry and
Lobach evsky's geom etry.
L e t us a tte m p t to dem onstrate th a t i f in the
rules o f one o f them there is a b idden in te rn a l
co n tra d ic tio n , then i t w ill in e v ita b ly occur in
the rules o f the other one.
The rules of the game— I repeat—are the a x i-
oms.
Y ou w ill see th a t we have som ewhat changed
the statem ent of the problem . We realize th a t
i t is a hopeless u n d e rta kin g to a tte m p t to prove
rig o ro u sly tho problem o f noncon tra dictorincss.
No m a tte r how m any m illio n s of theorems
we prove, there w ill never be com plete confidence
th a t the next theorem w ill not c o n ta in a con-
tra d ic tio n .

258
 We sh a ll now prove th a t i f the geom etry o l
Lobachevsky is c o n tra d ic to ry , then the geom-
e try o f E u c lid is u n a v o id a b ly c o n tra d ic to ry as
w e ll.
A t Drst glance there is no d e a r w ay out hero
either.
The rules o f the game (the axiom s) are d iffe r-
ent. T rue, they d iîîe r o n ly in ono a x io m ，th a t
o f p a ra lle l lines, b u t fu n d a m e n ta lly the s itu a tio n
remains the same. The games are d iffe re nt,
and i t is not clear at a ll how one can bridge the
g u lf between them . S t ill and a ll, there is a
way.
I am a fraid th a t the v a rie ty o f analogies bro-
ught in to illu m in a te the problem w ill o n ly
obscure i t the more, and so I w ill s ta rt on the
proof d ire c tly * The man who gave us th is proof
was ono o f the greatest m athem atician s o f the
19th ce n tu ry, F e lix K le in . He was an in te re stin g
man, of great c o m p le x ity , b u t u n fo rtu n a te ly
we cannot go too fa r in to h is to ry . I w ish to
recall o n ly one s trik in g fa c t.
K le in liv e d a long life . I f we take o n ly the
papers he w rote a fte r the ago o f 30-35, ho w ould
be a m agnificent versatile scie n tis t by any stand-
ard. A n a c tiv e ，subtle, fe rtile m athem atician,
and a b r illia n t expert in the h is to ry of his sub-
ject; he was one of the best teachers in the whole
h is to ry o f m athem atics.
He made a harsh, categorical statem ent once.
He said th a t after the age o f t h ir t y , because of
a nervous breakdown b ro u g h t on b y the in v e s ti-
gatiun o f a ce rta in m a th e m a tica l problem , ho
was never again capable o f creative a c tiv ity .
T his was not coquetry, e ith e r, i t was e x a c tly
i” 259
、 vhat he thought. 1 lik e such people• U is qiiUo
a different question as l〇w holher th a t makes
th e ir live s easier for them or not.
So here is the proof.
F irs t we p la y E u c lid e a n geom etry. Consider
an o rd in a ry c irc le . D ra w a chord. Take a p o in t
n o t ly in g on th a t chord• I t is e vid e n t th a t one
can draw through the p o in t any n ‫ ״‬mber (an
in fin ity ) o f other chords th a t w ill not intersect
our chord. They w ill make up a ll the chords
th a t lie between the tw o chords th a t intersect
ours a t tho end-points (where i t cuts tho
circ le ).
Clear so fa r. B u t w h a t has th is c irc le to do
w ith the geom etry o f Lobachevsky?
Here is the m iracle.
K le in 's idea was to convert the t r iv ia l circle
in to a model of a Lobachevskian piano. Tho
p o in t is —we repeat— th a t the m athem atician is
q u ite in d iffo ro n t to w hat his Basic Concepts re-
fer. The u ltim a te th in g is th a t his axiom s be
sat is Red. Now we can s ta rt p la y in g the double
^ame. We define a circle as a Lobachcvskian
plane, any chord in the c irc le as a Lobachev-
«kiau s tra ig h t lin o , and a p o in t as a Lobachev-
skiaa p o in t.
Q u ito n a tu ra lly wc have to add some fn>»h
notions lik o ‫ ״‬re la tio n 44 ,‫ ״‬to lie between ‫״‬, ‫ ״‬to
belong‫ ״‬and ‫ ״‬m o tio n ‫ ״‬. W ith these now concepts
a t our disposal we can p la y ‫ ״‬Lobachevskiaa
geom etry” using tho elements o f E uclidean
geom etry.
T o be able to do th is , we have to check through
our lis t o f axiom s and see w hether o u r eleni-
ents sa tisfy the axiom s o f L o b a c h e v s k y ^ geom­

260
e try . I t is c o m p a ra tive ly easy to see th a t ©very‫־‬
th in g is in order w ith m ost o f the axiom s. E ve n 一
m arvello u sly so, in fa c t— w ith the p a ra lle l axiom ,
w hich is the o n ly one th a t distinguishes Loba-
chevsky's geom etry from E u c lid ,s. MOno can
draw through a given p o in t to a given *straight
line* aa in f in it y o f *s tra ig h t lin e s 1 th a t do
not intersect i t . ‫״‬
I give s tra ig h t lin o in quotes, b u t a ll we have
to do is prove th a t for our concepts a ll the a x i-
oms o f Lobach evsky,s geom etry anţ fu in ile d and
the q u o ta tio n m arks can bo renioved.
Do jio t f o r ^ t th a t we are ])la yin g a doable
ţramo. A ll the tim e we have to translate
from the o f E u clid e a n geom etry in lo
th a t o f Lobachevskiau goom clry. A nd vice
versa.
E v e ry th in g is w e ll w ith the notions o f Mto
belong‫ ״‬and Mto lie between‫ ״‬. They rem ain
the same in both languages. The d iffic u ltie s
l>egia when we go over to m o tio n . The concept
“ m o tio n ” has to sa tisfy the e n tire group of
axiom s o f m otion.

261
 We have stated th a t o u r c irc le is tho Loba-
chevskian plane. W e ll and good• We can de-
fine m o tio n in the Lobachevskiaa plane. Such
m o tio n m ust s a tis fy a ll the required axioms.
(Glance through them . T h e y are a t the end of
C hapter 3.)
T h is fits too. B u t one th in g is n o t clear: is i t
possible to fo rm u la te the concept o f m o tio n of
a n 〇n‫־‬E uclidean plane in the language of Eue-
lidean geometry?
In our case, the non-E uclidean plane is a c irc le
in E uclidean language. M o tio n , i t w ill be re-
called, is a one-to-one m apping (tra n sfo rm a tio n )
of a piano in to its e lf. T h is means th a t in E u c li-
dean languaRo we m ust find some k in d o f trans-
fo rm a tio n o f the c irc le in to its e lf.
One class o f such tran sfo rm a tio n s in s is te n tly
cla im s our a tte n tio n . These are sim ple ro ta tio n s
o f tho c irc lo about its centre. H ow ever, i t is
easy to see th a t these tran sfo rm a tio n s cannot
be used as candidates fo r Mnon-E uclid oan mo-
tio n ” _
In ro ta tio n s , i t is not possible to transfer any
given p o in t o f the c irc lo to any other preassigned
p o in t. For exam ple, the centre o f the c irc le .
In such tra n sform a tio n s, i t is alw ays a fixed
p o in t, passing in to its e lf. N ow tho axiom s de~
Cning m o tio n require th a t, in the process of
m o tio n , any g iven p o in t can be transferred to
a d iffe re n t p o in t. So ro ta tio n s cannot sa tisfy
us.
Y e t tho tra n sform a tio n s o f tho c irc le th a t we
need exist* T h a t is the ce n tra l and most ra d ia n t
p a rt o f the K le in scheme. H e pointed o u t an
inG n ite Dumber of such tran sfo rm a tio n s o f the

262
circle (th e y are called p ro je ctive transform a-
tions) w hich transfer a c irc le in to a precisely
id e n tic a l new circ le , any in te rn a l p o in t o f the
old circle passing in to an in te rn a l p o in t o f the
now c irc le . A n y p o in t o f the circum ference of
the old circle rem ains on the circum ference of
the new circle . A n d the chords o f the old circle
pass in to chords o f the new circle .
These transform ations o f the c irc le (p ro je ctive
transform ations, in E u clid e a n language) sat-
is fy , in non-E uclidean language, a ll the axiom s
o f m otion.
For instance, in non-E uclidean languaf^c the
tra n sfo rm a tio n o f chords signifies th a t s tra ig h t
lines pass in to s tra ig h t lin o s, etc. N ow comes
the last and decisive step. W o refer to these
transform ations as ‫ ״‬m otions o f a Lobachevskian
plane” •
Wo can summarize the foregoing in the form
o f the K le in model.

la the language of E uclid's la the lan^uade of

geometry Lobachevsky's goomotry

Circle E n tire plane

Chord Straight line
P oint Point
‫״‬To belong" *‫״‬To belong‫״‬
**To lie between‫״‬ ‫ ״‬To lie betweou"
**Projective transformation ‫ ״‬M otion‫*־‬
of a circle in to itself**

A ll the properties o f p ro je c tiv o transform ations

are o f course know n, b u t wo do n o t need to
know thorn• A l l we have to do is accept the fact
th a t such tra n sfo rm a tio n s e x is t.

263
 A nd so— th is is the m in u te we have boen w a itin g
fo r— i f i t is possible to decKire the circle a L o -
bachevskian plane (th is we have proved), then
the problem is solved,
Indood, suppose in p ro v in g some k in d o f theor‫־‬
era in the geom etry o f Lobachevsky, we a rrive
a t a c o n tra d ic tio n . B u t every theorem o f Lo-
bachevsky*» geom etry is now also some theorem
o f the geom etry o f E u c lid .
Each theorem m ay be stated in tw o languages.
I f we have a c o n tra d ic tio n in Lobach evsky’s geo,
m e try , wo also, a t the same tim e , get one in
E uclidean geom etry.
O f course, in E u clid e a n language the contra-
d ic tio n w ill lo o k d iffe re n tly and ynll open up
in some other theorem , b u t th a t is q u ite im m a*
te ria l. Tho im p o rta n t th in g is th a t i f in one of
tho geometries there is a lo g ica l c o n tra d ic tio n ,
i t w ill be in the o th e r geom etry as w e ll.
The geometries arc e q u iv a le n t.

264
 T h is then proves the independence o f the fifth
postulate o f a ll the re m a in in g axiom s o f E u c lid 's
geom etry.
T h a t is a ll!
B u t in science, lik e in tho A ra b ia n N ig h ts , the
end o f one sto ry is b u t the b i'g in n in g o f the n ext.
P roof o f the noncontradictoriness o f the geom-
e try o f Lobachevsky signified fo r m athem aticians
the s ta rt o f a colossal cycle o f studies in a xio -
m atics, the creation o f a h ig h ly in tric a te , id e a lly
rigorous and ab so lu te ly abstract apparatus of
m athem atical lo ^ ic , an apparatus th a t was in -
fin ite ly removed from the slig h te st p ra c tic a l ap-
p lic a tio n —u n til i t was found th a t electronic
co m p u tin g m achines.‫ ״‬. B y the w ay, th is is ju s t
the tim e to conclude our discussion.
Let us re tu rn to the K le in model to note a
very am using p o in t. Take tw o p o in ts w ith in
our c irc le . D raw a chord through tluMn. In the
language o f E u c lid , the distance between these
points is equal to the length o f the segment of
the chord. W h a t is the s itu a tio n in the language
o f non-E u clid e a n geometry?
In tu itiv e ly , we can see th a t a t any rate i t
cannot be equal to the length o f the segment.
Indeed, distances between tw o p o in ts on the
in fin ite Lobachevskian |)lano can be a r b itr a r ily
great, w h ile Iho ‫ ״‬E uclidean distances‫ ״‬between
points o f our c irc le are restricted by its d iam -
eter. I t is clear th a t we have to deHne a “ non-
E uclidean d istance‫ ״‬in some other w ay. B u t
how? V e ry s im p ly i f we re ca ll how the concept
o ! le n g th is intro du ce d in to goom etry.
R o u g h ly t i t is done as fo llo w s. Take a scale
u n it—some segment— and by moans o f tra ns­

265
fo rm a tio n o f m o tio n make i t coincide w ith the
segment being measured. Its len g th is detorm -
ined b y the num ber o f tim es the scale u n it fits
in to i t . W e w ill n o t go any fu rth e r. The im p o r-
ta n t th in g to note is th a t the d e fin itio n o f equal-
i t y o f lin e segments (and consequently of length)
as also, in c id e n ta lly , the congruence o f any gea-
m e tric a l figures, is determ ined b y means o f the
concept o f m o tio n .
T h a t is the s itu a tio n both in the geom etry o f
E u c lid and in the geom otry o f Lobachevsky. B u t
in our m odel, m o tio n in the Lobachevskian plane
is ? in E uclidean language, a p ro je c tiv e tra n sfo r-
m a tio n o f a c irc le . Therefore, i t comes o u t th a t
in the language o f Lobachevskian geom etry, tw o
lin o segments are equal i f ono passes in to the
other in a p ro je c tiv e tra n s fo rm a tio n . R e ca llin g
th a t tho length should n o t change d u rin g trans-
fo rm a tio n o f m o tio n , we realize th a t the **non-
E u clid e a n le n g th ‫ ״‬m ust rem ain the same in a
p ro je ctive tra n s fo rm a tio n . I t m ust, as m athe-
m aticia n s sayf be in v a ria n t to a tra n sfo rm a tio n .
T h is q u a n tity — tho in v a r ia n t—is n a tu ra lly
know n fo r p ro je c tiv e transform ations o f a c irc le .
I f we also take in to account th a t the length
o f the sum o f tw o lin e segments m ust be equal
to tho sum o f tho lengths o f these segments, i t
tu rn s o u t th a t the Mnon‫־‬E u c lid e a n distance‫ ״‬is
determ ined u n iq u e ly . And o f course such a d is t-
anco behaves n o rm a lly (th a t is, i t becomes in -
fin ito ) when one o f the p o in ts lies on tho c ircu m -
forenco o f the c irc le .
The circum ference o f a c irc le corresponds to
in fin ite ly d is ta n t p o in ts o f the Lobachevskian
plane.

266
 O f course, the somewhat e xtravagan t character
of ‫ ״‬non‫־‬E u clid e a n m o tio n ‫ ״‬in the K le in model
is also e vid e n t in the fa ct th a t the size o f a ‫ ״‬non-
E uclidean angle‫ ״‬between tw o s tra ig h t lines is
q u ite d iiïe ro n t fro m the distance between two
chords in the E uclidean language. B u t these arc
o n ly de ta ils. They are im p o rta n t b u t trifle s ne-
vertheless. A ll the essentials have already been
stated.
A nd now the la st p o in t.
To prove the n o n co n tra d icto ry character of
the solid geom etry o f Lobachevsky, i t sufGces
to convert the K le in c irc le in to a sphere.
A few years after K le in , the French m athom at-
ic ia n Poincaré proposed anolhtT model o f Lo-
hachevskian geom etry. A lso on a sphere. I t is
perhaps even moro rem arkable, Poincaré even
conjectured a m arvellous w o rld o f physical

267
beings, w h ic h , from the E u clid o tin v ie w p o in t,
w ould liv e in the re stricte d c irc le o f Poincaré,
b u t from th e ir vantage p o in t w ould c la im th a t
they were liv in g in the in fin ite plane o f Lo-
bachevsky.
In th is w o rld , the s tra ig h t linos o f Lobachev-
sky are, in E uclid e a n language, arcs o f circles
perpend icular to tho surface of the sphere. The
accom panying d ra w in g w ill give the reader some
idea o f P oincare's m odel. There are a lo t o f
a ttra c tiv e features in tho ‫ ״‬Poincaro sphere‫ ״‬b u t
we w ill have to c a ll a h a ll a t th is p o in t, fo r o ilie r
th in g s c la im our a tte n tio n .
 Chapter JJ

AN UNEXPECTED FINALE.
THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

We have now come to a tu rn in g o f the ways.

U p to th is p o in t, we had been ta lk in g the lan-
^uage o f elem entary school. We were able to
some e xte n t to convey the essence of p ro o f o f
noncontradictoriness o f the geom etry o f Loba-
chevsky and to im p a rt to the reader some ideas
of R iem ann. T hings havo now become co m p lic-
ated. To get some feeling o f the content o f the
general th e o ry o f r e la tiv ity , one has to in v e s ti-
gale the special th e o ry. B u t the a u th o r can
h a rd ly expect the reader to have the deep know-
ledge th a t th is requires and so cannot afford to
d w ell in d e ta il on the special th e o ry.
The m ost n a tu ra l th in g w ould be to say noth-
ing. Tho te m p ta tio n is great. B u t th a t w ould
moan ta k in g the whole sym phony o f the fifth
pustulate and th ro w in g away the triu m p h a n t,
pu re ly Beethoven finale•
O b vio u s ly , we cannot do th a t. A l l 1 can do
is warn you th a t w h a t fo llo w s is o n ly a bare
otiLline, e xtre m e ly su p e rficia l.
The general th e o ry o f r e la tiv ity is based d i-
re c tly on the idea o f the an o a -E u c lid ic iiy w of
space. T h a t is w h a t interests us most. A n d so
le t us tr y to dispense co m p le te ly w ith the special
theory o f r e la tiv ity * W e w ill confine ourselves
to o n ly a w ord or tw o.

269
 Geometry after the year 1905• The special theory
of r e la tiv ity has already s u b s ta n tia lly altered
o u r view s concerning geom etry. T o begin w ith ,
le t us t r y to grasp the conneclion between goom-
e try and physics in general and also to see w hat
has changed ia geom etry as a re s u lt o f tho spe-
c ia l theory o f r e la tiv ity .
Before E in s te in , tho universal and firm cou-
v ic tio n was th a t E u clid e a n geom etry reigns su-
preme in the real universe in w h ich we liv e .
There were no reasons to th in k otherw ise. The
th e o re tica l p o s s ib ility th a t our w o rld is des-
crib a b le b y some k in d o f n o n -E u d id e a n georn-
o try rem ained a p u re ly th e o re tic a l one, w h ile
Lobach evsky's and R ie m a n n ^ suspicions on th is
score were no moro th a n sp e ciila tio iis• The s itu a -
tio n was as i f someone said: “ The supposition
th a t so-and-so, M r .X , is a M a rtia n d w e lle r does
not in the least c o n tra d ic t the laws o f fo rm a l
lo g ic .‫״‬
4T h a t m ay b e ,‫ ״‬w ould bo the response, ‫ ״‬b u t
a ll observations and experim ents p o in t to so-
and-so imng an in h a b ita n t o f the e a rth .‫״‬
N ow a fle r tho advent o f the special theory,
there appeared real doubts about the problem
of the o rig in o f M r.X being so crysta l c 】 csir.
We m ust now look in to tho cam p o f physic-
ists. L e t us see w hat geom etry means io m athern-
a tic ia n s and p h ysicists.
To the m a th e m a tic ia n , geom etry, as we have
said tim e and again, is esse n tia lly a fo rm a l game
w ith the Basic Concepts and axiom s chosen fo r
them . I t is necessary t lia t tho game obey tho
rules o f form al lo g ic, and a t th is stage he does
n o t care w hether h is geom etry can aspire to

270
any re la tio n s h ip w ith the actual w o rld in w hich
wo liv e .
T rue, every person was u n e q u iv o c a lly conv-
inccd th a t E u c lid e a n geom etry reflected the p ro-
perties o f o u r universe. B u t th a t was s im p ly
iaken fo r granted. A so rt o f n a tu ra l p ro p e rty
of the human m in d . The fa c t th a t geom etry
has an e xperim enta l fo u n d a tio n was somehow
forgotten . W h a t is more, p rio r to Lohuchevsky
for tw o thousand years geom etry was c a re fu lly
guarded against the d e filin g effects of e xp e rim -
ont; i t was ke p t away from any k in d o f Mem-
p iric a l basis‫ ״‬.
E in ste in ra th e r m a lic io u s ly b u t precisely rc-
marked th a t w hat happened to the axiom s and
Basic Concepts was s im ila r to the process of
co n ve rtin g the heroes o f a n tiq u ity in to gods.
In place o f a re a lis tic basis, there arose the um y th
of geom etry‫ ״‬, a ra th e r hazy conception o f a x i-
oms as som ething ‫ ״‬in trin s ic to the hum au m in d ,
to in tu itio n , and to the s p ir it ‫ ״‬. I t is hard to
grasp the m eaning o f the la s t words, possibly
because there is n 't any. H ow ever, i t must- bo
said th a t the hypnosis o f ab stra ctio n was so
great th a t i t held the greatest m iuds spellbound,
P hysicists were among them . One can even
m ention some o u tsta n d in g names, peoplo not
w ith o u t ta le n t— Isaac N ew ton, to take one in -
stance.
H is Basic Concepts th a t are given in the open-
in g chapter o f the Principia are fu n d a m e n ta lly
unobservable and unknow able. N e w to n ’ s “ ab-
solute space** and “ absolute tim e ” are some-
th in g “ in trin s ic to the hum an (and perhaps also
d ivin e ) consciousness‫ ״‬. There is no iro n y here»

271
none in the least. I t precisely conveys the sub-
stance o f the notions “ absolute space” and “ ab•
solute tim e ‫ ״‬.
So p hysicists too were en^a^ed in 44tu rn in g
heroes in to gods‫ ״‬. I f we continue the d iv in e
analogy, i t w ill be seen th a t becHuso of th e ir
scatter-brained ness, physicists, though theoret-
ic a lly recognizing and preaching the re lig io n of
the absolute, a c tu a lly paid no a tte n lio n to i t ,
and d id n o t draw auy real conclusions therefrom .
The firs t exam ple was sot by N ew ton him self.
Ho form ulated a ll the laws o f h is mechanics
fo r "absolutes‫ ״‬, b u t s tra ig h tw a y em ployed them
in the s o lu tio n of q u ito concrete problem s. Since,
e s se n lia lly, the a xio m a tics d id n o t in te rfe re in
any way, no a tttM ilio n was paid to it .
In tliis souse, m athem atician s turned o u t to
be more consistent in th e ir a ttitu d e . T hey had
already fu lly analysed the problem o f a xio m a t-
ics when p hysicists were ju s t beginn ing to take
a serious in te re st in the founda tions o f th e ir
science, the basis o f th o ir conceptions concern-
ia g space and tim e .

272
 On the other hand, though, they advanced
much fa rth e r and a t one step. Here alm ost a ll
the c re d it goes to one m an— E in s te in .
I t was about th is tim e th a t the a ttitu d e of
p hysicists to geom etry became cle a r-cu t. In -
tu itiv e ly , subconsciously they alw ays believed
th a t the e n tire problem o f in te rre la tio n s h ip s be-
tween geom etry and physics was ra th e r a r tific ia l.
Now the s itu a tio n was substantiated w ith com‫־‬
pleto rig o u r. The p o in t was th is . The Basic Con-
cepts of geom etry are abstractions o f our concep-
lio n s o f a ctu a l p h ysica l objects. For exam ple,
E in ste in says th a t rig id bodies w ith m arkings
on them , realize (given due c a u tio n ) the geom-
e tric concept o f a lin e segment, and rays of
lig h t realize s tra ig h t lin e s. H o then goes on to
say th a t i f one does n o t adhere to th is v ie w p o in t
in practice, i t is im possible to approach the
theory o f r e la tiv ity .
B u t i f th a t is the case, then geom etry is sim -
p ly a chapter o f physics! Its firs t chapter!
P ra c tic a lly speaking, w h a t we have ju s t said
does n o t change m atters m uch. We have de-
throned the axiom s and Basic Concepts, we have
reduced geom etry to a generaliza tion o f physical
experim ents and now see th a t the tr u th or fals-
it y o f geom etry is a question of experim ent, b u t
a ll the specific assertions have rem ained un-
changed.
W c reca ll th a t, esse n tia lly, Gauss and Loba-
chcvsky and R iem ann a ll th o u g h t s im ila rly .
They defended the positions of the p ra c tic a l
p h ysicist.
H owever, i f we co n siste n tly develop our views,
i t w ill be seen th a t we have already proved a

U -1 M 7
273
few things. T h ings th a t are now and im p o rta n t.
W hat i s 『 w e , oar views suddenly lead us to
ce rta in doubts as to the actual re a liz a b ility o f
geom etry. Here the a tta c k is from fresh jm si-
lions.
One o f the p rin c ip a l chapters o f any ^ o m e tr y
is th a t o f the geom etric theory o f measurement.
In order to develop geom etry, we have to define
the conce]>t u f le n g th w ith fu ll m athem atical
rig o u r. T h is was n a tu ra lly done by geometers.
T h e ir d 〇n n it i 〇n of length is based on tw o ‫ ״‬q u ite
d iffe re n t whales‫ ״‬.
Wc nwd ：
1. A lin e segment whoso len^U i is taken to be
u n ity .
2. A procedure fo r moasuring, w hich in geom-
e try am ounts, ro u g h ly speaking, to la y in g off
the scale u n it on the segment being measured
and co u n tin g the num ber o f tim es i t takes. The
re s u ltin g fra c tio n a l num ber o f tim es ( i t m ay
a c c id e n ta lly be an in te g ra l num ber o f tim es) is
the le n g th o f the lin e sogment.
In th a t w ay, one can, say, me«isure the length
o f a side o f a trian g le • In doing so, wc ta c itly
assume th a t if the triangle is at rest relative
to the **scale unit" or is in motion the result
will be the same. N ow since we said th a t a ll
geom etrical objects are an id e a liz a tio n of a ctual
physical bodies, then the words given above
cease to appear so clear.
I f the tria n g le being measured is in m otion
re la tiv e to the scale u n it, our procedure fo r meas-
u rin g is no good a t a ll. I f we staud on the p la t-
form o f a ra ilw a y s ta tio n and w ish to measure
the le n g th o f the doors o f a ra ilw a y coach o f a

274
tra in passing by a t h ig h speed, we cannot a p p ly
the scale u n it. T o do th a t, wo w ould have to he
m oving along in the same d ire c tio n and a t the
same speed as the tra in (w ith the scale u n it in
our hand). B u t then both 4* u n it‫ ״‬and ‫ ״‬object
being measured‫ ״‬w ould 1h? a t rest re la tiv e to
one another, and wo re tu rn lo o u r o rig in a l case.
Obviously «Mime kind of new procedure i s need-
ed for measuring moving bodies. But if our j»ro-
cedure is new (it matters little what kind, so
long as it is new), Uumi we are not positive in
any way that our now ‫ ״‬length‫ ״‬will coincide
with the earlier one.
A c tu a lly , we have introduced a to ta lly new
concept. From the sta n d p o in t o f fo rm a l logic
there are no grounds to exjiect th a t i t w ill coinc‫״‬
ido w ith the e a rlie r one. O n ly e xperim ent can
resolve the m atter.
L o t us slop for a m om ent.
A lit t le th in k in g w ill make i t clear th a t these
arc very unpleasant words for the axiom s of
geometry.

275
 We a?v«'rt th a t o u r geom etrical concepts, g‫׳‬en-
o ra lly sjieakin^, can cluingo i f the actual solids
whose geom etric properties are under s tu d y are
m o vin g re la tiv e to us.
We say, ‫ ״‬som ething can change in the proc‫־‬
ess‫ ״״‬We thus demand th a t the geom etric system
o f axiom s be supplem ented hy fresh axiom s o f
a p u re ly p h ysica l nature.
C onsiste n tly developing our views, we become
convinced th a t there should be a ra ther large
num ber o f such axiom s. Indeed, a ll our segments
(in c lu d in g o f course the scale u n it) aro abstrac-
tio n s o f a ctu a l solids. B u t, as we know , solids
expand when heated, th e ir length changes. Meas-
urem ents w ith cold and h o t scale u n its w ill
change the results we o b ta in .
C onsequently, i f we w a n t to be absolute ly prcc*
ise (and th a t is our a im ), we m ust in tro d u ce in to
geom etry a “ constant tem perature o f the scale
u n it ” .
H ow ever, tem perature is n o t the o n ly th in g
th a t affects p h ysica l properties. Hence, we w ill
have to specify a ll the physical co n d itio n s. I t
then works o u t th a t o n ly i f a ll manner o f pre-
cautions are taken can we hope th a t tho axiom s
o f “ pui*e geom etry” w ill describe o u r universe
co rre ctly.
T h a t is the o n ly th in g th a t now w orries us.
G enerally speaking： , th is w o rk has not yet been
done in a ll its d e ta ils . P ro b a b ly i t is n o t very
much needed, though possibly i t is very much
needed. A t least tw ic e i t has turned o u t th a t
redefining the physical c o n d itio n s iu w h ich the
geom etry o f the w o rld was constructed has com-
p le te ly overhauled o u r conceptions o f nature.

276
 The firs t tim e th is occurred was when the spe-
c ia l theory o f r e la tiv ity was in tro d u ce d . I t was
found th a t the le n g th o f a m o vin g segment differs
from th a t o f a segment a t rest.
We w ill n o t go in to how a ll th a t camo about
and w ill confine ourselves to a fow general rem arks.
Wo are n o t abashed by the fact th a t the
length of a m oving segment comes o u t d iffe re n t
from th a t o f a segment a t rest. We realize th a t
d e te rm in in g the len g th o f a m o vin g body in -
volves a new procedure o f measurement, and
hence, s t r ic tly speaking, i t is a new n o tio n . I t
need n o t coincide w ith the o ld n o tio n .
We also realize th a t the new n o tio n m ust in
some way or other bo in tro d u ce d , fo r we are no
longer p la y in g a gumo o f lo g ic b u t are creating
a to o l w ith w h ich to s tu d y the actual w o rld .
O ur concepts m ust be able to describe th is w orld
fu lly and w e ll. T h a t is the o n ly reason for th o ir
existence.
They appear as a re s u lt o f the stu d y o f tho
real physical w o rld . B u t there aro m oving bo-
dies in the w o rld . One has to be able to describe
them too.
2. I t turned o u t th a t w ith o u t e m p lo yin g tho
concept o f tim e i t is im possible to determ ine,
lo g ic a lly and w e ll, the 44le n g th o f a m oving
b〇 dy‫ ״‬.
Wo become suspicious a t th is p o in t.
T h is is a ll the more disconcerting th a t a new
and h ig h ly im p o rta n t concept — tim e —enters in to
our geom etry. U p to now geom etry had been
associated solely w ith Space.
B u t— we continue to reason—e v e ry th in g w ill
w ork o u t fine and n o th in g w ill change i f the

277
len g th of the m oving segment‫ ׳‬c«incide.s e x a c tly
w ith the len g th o f the segment a t rest. Then the
n o tio n o f T im e w ill in no way be associated
w ith th a t o f Space*
N ow i f experim e n t shows th a t the leng th of
a m oving segment is d iffe re n t, and i f i t turns
out th a t th is depends on the v e lo c ity o f the
scale u n it, fo r exam ple i f i t dim inishes in ac-

cordance w ith the la w 1

V is the v e lo c ity o f th© m oving segment and c is

the v e lo c ity o f lig h t• ., i f the v e lo c ity and, v ia
the v e lo c ity , the tim e too enter g e o m e try,.‫״‬
then we w ill have to say: time and space are
interrelated. Then in geom etry i t w ill he im pos-
sihle to stu d y space in depe ndently o f tim e .
T h a t is e x a c tly w hat E in ste in dem onstrated.
The length o f a m o vin g body is indeed depend•
ent on the v e lo c ity : time enters geometry^ the
properties of time turn out dependent upon the
properties of space, and a ll o u r e a rlie r views
concerning the universe and jçeometry prove to

278
lw o n ly a ra ther naiv© a p p ro x im a tio n . I t is o n ly
when we confine oiirselves to s tu d y in g cases wlion
the re la tiv e velocities o f objects are sm all th a t
our old conceptions fu n c tio n p ro p e rly an<l wo
can regard space as being independent o f tim e ,
and tim e as indopondent o f space.
In th is case, the o ld and tru e geom etry o f
E u c lid is a fine in s tru m e n t fo r s tu d y in g space.
Then we can take i t th a t the properties o f space
do not depend on tim e .
Such were the ideas th a t arose in ih o year
1905 as a result o f tho special theory o f r e la tiv ity .
The in n e r lo g ic and elegance o f E in s te in 's
theory were so s trik in g th a t w ith in threo or
fo u r years a ll tho loading theoretical physicist«
were enthusiastic adherents. In 1909 Max P lanck
exclaim ed: wI t need h a rd ly bo said th a t the
new— E in s te in ia n — approach to tho n o tio n of
tim e demands of the p h y s ic is t an u ltim a te ca-
p a b ility o f ab stra ctio n and an enormous c a p a city
fo r im a g in a tio n .
‫ ״‬In its a u d a c ity , th is theory surpasses every-
th in g achieved up to th is tim e —
‫ ״‬N on-E uclidean geometry» b y com parison, is
c h ild 's p la y . Y e t, in co n tra st to non-E uclidoan
geometry, whose a p p lic a tio n can seriously be
considered o n ly in pure m athem atics, the p rin c -
ip lo o f r e la tiv ity has every rig h t to pretend to
a real physical significance.
MIn its depth and consequences, the upheaval
w rought by tho r e la tiv ity p rin c ip le ... may be
compared o n ly w ith th a t effected by C operni-
eus.‫״‬
Planck was rijç lit b u t he did not know th a t
th a t was o u ly the beginning.

279
 To sum m arize, then, together w ith the special
theory of r e la tiv ity a new concept o f fo u r-dim eu-
sional space-time entered physics. B u t, as be-
fore, three-dim ensional space is described by
the geom etry o f E u c lid . T rue, in th a t same year
o f 1909 a ve ry curious fa c t came to lig h t. I t was
found th a t the la w o f com position o f speeds in
the special theory o f r e la tiv ity coincides e x a c tly
w ith the la w of com position o f vectors in the
space o f Lobachevsky.
In other words, the fo rm a l space o f r e la tiv is tic
velocities is Lobachevskian space. B u t th is ap-
peared to be a p u re ly fo rm a l coincidence. N ei-
th e r a t th a t tim e nor la te r was an y profound
ph ysica l m eaning found in th is analogy.
S t ill more sensational and s ta rtlin g news fo l-
low ed.
Physics and geometry (after 1916). P lanck was
not to blam e, because i f ono needs an instance
o f the most unexpected discovery in the h is to ry
o f science, then th is is the general theory o f
re la tiv ity .
For three hundred years the foundations of
the theory o f g ra v ita tio n were in a state o f ab-
solute rest. N ew ton had given the la w . And
th a t was a ll. A c tu a lly , there was ju s t one fun-
dam ental fo rm u la th a t la y a t the core o f cal•
d ila tio n s o f the m o tio n o f celestial bodies in a ll
the numberless volum es o fs u b tle , elegant and ma-
g n ific e n t in ve stig a tio n s in to celestial mechanics:
F= ‫ך‬

T h is slates th a t tho force o f a ttra c tio n o f any

tw o bodies in tlio universe is p ro p o rtio n a l lo

280
the p ro d u ct o f th o ir masses and inversely pro-
p o rtio n a l to the square o f the distance between
them .
The q u a n tity ţ is a constant w ith the dim en-
sions 6.66-10 8 dynes cm2 g- 2 .
The la w o f universal g ra v ita tio n is tr u ly mag-
n ific e n t! One could go on sin g in g the praises
o f the ‫ ״‬s im p lic ity ‫ ״‬o f N ewton*s ideas, b u t th a t
is a waste o f good tim e . The s im p lic ity lies o nly
in the a n a ly tic a l form o f the la w . T h is ‫ ״‬n a iv e ‫״‬
fo rm u la sum m arizes several not-so-obvious, sub-
tie and— w h a t is more— a t firs t glance strange
p h ysica l assum ptions. I t required a N ewton to
produce i t . Over one hundred years passed be-
lore the law o f g ra v ita tio n was u n c o n d itio n a lly
accepted. Note too th a t the protests came not
from ig n o ra n t people or obscurantist scholars,
b u t from the greatest and most talented scient-
ists o f the day. A nd so the ta lk o f s im p lic ity
can refer o n ly to the m agnificent harm ony of
nature, to the beauty and elegance o f her basic
laws.
N ew ton to ld us how g ra v ita tio n operates. B u t
no word was said about why i t fu n ctio n s in prec-
isely the way i t doos.
B y the beginning of the tw e n tie th ce n tu ry,
jioople had alm ost reconciled themselves to th is
s itu a tio n . I t was as i f lo o k in g a t the sm oothly
polished surface o f y o u r fu rn itu re you find i t
d iffic u lt to im agine the rough unwurked wood
th a t lies underneath.
In c id e n ta lly , a ttem pts were made from tim e to
tim e to offer some nuH； iia n is in fo r the law o l g ra v i-
ta tio n , b u t they a ll in v a ria b ly and ra p id ly came
to nought. W hen science flourished, physicists

281
had th e ir hands fu ll o f specific urgent problem s,
and d u rin g periods o f decline and quiescence
there was ne ith er the enthusiasm nor the m oral
energy to ris k in v e s tig a tin g such a c a rd in a l and
most c e rta in ly hopeless problem .
I f fo r the beginning a Nowton was necessary,
(hen for the c o u tin u a tio n an in te lle c t o f perhaps
a s t ill greater scale was needed.
M ost lik e ly , one m ust agree w ith E in ste in
th a t w ith o u t h im the th e o ry o f g ra v ita tio n m ig h t
not have boon created to th is day.
In science (in the a rts too, by the way) the
role o f a genius is perhaps greater th a n in other
fields. One maa is capablo o f a ccom plishing more
than hundreds o f hu(f〇research teams. The de-
cisive fa c to r is n o t q u a n tity b u t q u a lity .
So between the years o f 1905 and 1916 E in -
stein studied the problem o f g ra v ita tio n . In 1916
the w ork was com pleted. D u rin g th is same pe-
riod he was engaged in m any other th in g s and,
iu passing iis i t were, he obtained fundam entai
results in solid-stat« th e o ry. R ut a ll the tim e
uppermost in his m ind was tho general theory

282
o f re la tiv ity . I t continued to occupy Uns central
place to the end o f his dây.s.
O f course, before going to the heart o f the m at-
te r wo w ill, as we have been doing a ll along,
s ta rt o u t w ith a few p u e r a i ideas and a story
or tw o. W hen one is d e a lin g w ith E in s te in and
his works th is is a ll the more necessary‫ ״‬..
Once, reading a h u n te r's jo u rn a l 一 I c a n 't even
im agine how th a t ever got in to m y hands— I
came upon an a rtic le a bout snakes. The auth or,
who had capturt>d about 1,500 snakos, reported,
among other things, th a t not one of the snakes
had ever attacked h im ürst.
T h is was amaKing. I read to the end. The
a rtic le was < ‫ ד‬serious one w ritte n by a profes-
sional snake-catcher. He analysed a v a rie ty o f
specialized problem s, stressed the value o f ve-
nom, c ritic iz e d tho stituatiou iu the c o u n try in
th a t respect, and, w hat was p a rtic u la rly in te r-
esting, one fe lt th a t he lik e d a ll poisonous
snakes and considered them very useful.
The problem o f boosting the venom o u tp u t
o f a C entral A sian cobra was discussed as i f one
were ta lk in g a bout K h o lm o g o ry cows. There
comes to m ind a d e scrip tio n o f a rem arkable ilin d u
m athem a ticia n , the jçreat n um ber-theo rist R a‫־‬
m anujan, o f whom i t was said th a t ‫ ״‬evory pos-
itiv o integer was one o f his personal frie n d » ‫• ״‬
I hope the p a ra lle l is n o t extended to fra ctio ns
and tho re p tile s.
The a rtic le be^an w ith the statem ent th a t
sensational stories about snakes do more harm
than good. A nd he liste d a few o f the mistakes
th a t jo u rn a lis ts îuake. I gathered th a t he was
tr u ly upset and th a t he ve ry much wanted

283
 people to get a clear p ictu re o f th is com plicated
and ra th e r tedious profession o f snake-catcher,
in place o f a ll sorts o f “ ro m a n tic hor-
ro rs ” .
I recalled th is s to ry not because I wanted to
amuse m y readers b u t because I am convinced
th a t people get far-fetchedt h ig h ly d istorted con-
ceptions about thin g s w ith w h ich they do not
personally come in to contact.
U n fo rtu n a te ly , the p e c u lia ritie s o f the pro-
fession o f a scie n tis t (especially th a t o f the phys-
ic is t) is regarded on the same level as the w o rk
o f a snake-catcher.
More than a n y th in g else, the theory o f re ia t-
iv it y (and o f course E in s te in him st*lf) suffered
from sensation stories.
I t was his lu c k he could dism iss w ith calm
and in d iffe re n t iro n y the endless uproar around
his name th a t continue d from 1919 onwards.
One can perhaps o n ly offer prayers o f g ra titu d e
th a t a ll the p u b lic ity had p ra c tic a lly no effect
on his good nature.
B u t so m uch nonsense was w hipped up around
the theory o f r e la tiv ity , both general and spe-
c ia l, th a t one feels embarrassed. T rue, physic-
ists themselves are somewhat to blam e too. For
m any years, even in professional circ le s ，i t was
believed (and s t ill is perhaps) th a t the ideas o f
r e la tiv ity theory are ve ry com plicated. P a rtie -
u la r ly i f one is dealing w ith tho general theory.
T h is was q u ite n a tu ra l d u rin g the firs t years
a fte r E in s te in 's w ork appeared. I t is alw ays the
case. From w h a t you have seen in th is book,
I hope i t is clear th a t such an elem entary ( if
judged w ith o u t prejudice) idea as th a t o f L o ­

284
bachevsky was grasped o n ly w ith exceptional,
unbelievable d iffic u lty .
B u t fo rty odd years have pasted sinco the
creation o f the general th e o ry and somo s ix ty
years since th a t o f the special theory o f re la tiv -
it y . W e should have lo n g since p u t e ve ry th in g
in its place and realized th a t the fundam entals
o f N ew to n 's mechanics are, a t any rate, hazier
and, possibly, more in v o lv o d than the p rin c ip -
les o f the theory of r e la tiv ity .
Even from the most general reasoning i t is
clear th a t i t could n o t be otherw ise. l a both
cases we deal w ith the same th in g s — the fun-
dam ental ideas o f spaco and tim e • A n d the fa rth e r
wo penetrate in to the essence o f the m atter,
the clearer, sim p le r and more harm onious do
our conceptions become.
In b u ild in g h is general th e o ry, E in s te in pro-
ceeded, as he h im se lf said, fro m a c h ild is h , naive
question th a t had engaged h im ever since his

‫ ״‬W h a t happens in a fa llin g li f t ? ‫״‬

A noth e r eleven years o f in te n sive w o rk, sev-
eral dozen fa u lty versions th a t had promised sue-
cess, and a num ber o f p ro b in g in ve stig a tio n s were
needed before the problem was resolved ia 1916.
However, no exhaustive re s u lt th a t resolved
the problem , lik e New ton*s la w , was ye t ob-
tained. The w ork was fa r from c o m p le tio n , b u t
the fou n d a tio n had been d e fin ite ly la id .
C rudely speaking, th a t was how things stood.
A n excerpt from C h a p lin 's autobio graphy gives
us a p ic tu re o f how a ll ih is appeared in the nnnas
o f tw o people who cannot be suspected o f the
slightest desire to tw is t the tru th .

285
 44As Mrs E in ste in had requesU'd i t should be
a sm all a ffa ir, I in v ilo d o n ly tw o other friends.
A t dinner she la id me tho sto ry o f tlie m orning
he conceived tlu、 theory o f r d a t iv ily .
444The U octor came down in h is d re .^in ^ gown
as «suai for breakfast b u t ho h a rd ly toiiched
a th in ff. I tlio u g tit som ething was wrong, so I
a.sjœd w hat was tro u b lin g him • “ D a rlin g ” ，he
said, MI havo a w onderful id e a .‫ ״‬A nd after d rin k -
in ff his coffoc, lie w ont to the piano and started
p la y in g . N ow and Hfirain he w o iild stop, m aking
a few notes then rej»eat: 4* I'v o got a w onderful
idea, a m arvellous idea.*‫״‬
‫ ״‬i I said: *4Then for goodness' sake te ll me
w hat i t is, don*t keop mo in suspense*‫* ״‬
atHe »aid: ‫ ״‬I t 's d iffic u lt, I s t ill have to w ork
i t o u t•” ‫״‬
“ Sho to ld nie l u， pl ayi ng the piano
and m a kin g notes fo r about h a lf an hour, then
went upstairs to h is stu d y, to llin g her th a t he

286
did not wish to be d is tu rb e d , and remained
there for two w w ks. 4Each day I sent h im up
his m e a ls / she »aid, *and in llie evening he would
w alk a lit t le for exercise, then return to his
w ork a g a in .'
4‫ ״‬E v e n tu a lly ,* she said, *he came down from
Iiis s ttid y lo o k in g ve ry pale. ‫ ״‬T h a t's i t , ‫ ״‬he
to ld me, w e a rily p u ltiiiK Iwo shecLs o f paper on
the tab le . A nd that was his theory o f re la tiv -

M ost lik e ly so in e lliin g very much lik e w hat is

described here a c tu a lly took place. I t m ig h t be
lite r a lly tru e . M r. C h a p lin o f course wrote tho
way he saw Ih iiig s. B u t th is changes n o th in g
at a ll. I f th a t is the tru th , then i t is o n ly a m in-
ule p a rtic le of the tru th .
N ow I am about to undertake w hat I m yself
have su harshly c ritic iz e d : a very su p e rficia l ami
therefore u n a vo id a b ly d isto rte d description of
the Rcneral theory o f r e la tiv ity and il» in te r-
relationship s w ith geom etry•
E in s te in had tw o g u id in g ideas. One d id not
seem, a t firs t glance, to have any re la tio n w hat-
soever to geom etry. T h a t was the l i f t . O r, to
p u t i t otherw ise, the question o f the e q u a lity
o f an in e rt mass and a g ra v ita tio n a l mass. T h a t
was the oae aud o n ly experim enta l fa c t upon
w hich the e n tire theory was constructed.
There is n o th in g more am azing in the whole
h is to ry o f science.
L e t us tr y to figure o u t w hat the in e rt mass
and g ra v ita tio n a l mass mean. E veryone should
know N ew to a 's second la w . How ever, I suspect
th a t most readers do n o t have a f u ll grasp of
e ith e r th a t la w or o f the other laws andt in gen-

287
e ra i, o f the fundam entals o f classical mechan•
ics. U n fo rtu n a te ly school physics o n ly performs
a few fo rm a l m an ip u la tio n s w ith N ew to n 's laws
and does not demand much understanding on
the p a rt o f the student.
Y e t_ and I am prepared to repeat th is w ith -
o u t end— to grasp th o ro u g h ly the fundam ent-
als o f classical physics is ta n ta m o u n t to fu lly
prepa rin g oneself fo r an understanding o f the
theory o f r e la tiv ity , because as soon as the no-
tio n s o f space, tim e , force and mass cease to
e x is t as nebulous and p u re ly in tu itiv e ly perceiv-
ed e n iitio s Y as soon as th e ir exact meanings have
been elucidate d, then any physical theory w ill
appear as a consequence o f a d e fin ite system of
axiom s. N ow any choice o f axiom s is determ in-
ed b y experim ent.
I a d m it th a t th is is m y sore spot, and since
we h a v e n 't space enough to give a clear analysis
o f the basic notions o f physics, m y suggestion
is th a t the reader consult a book or tw o on the
subject.
For the present, suppose th a t the reader is
fa m ilia r w ith N o w to n ’s second la w and even
has fu lly mastered i t .
The p ro p o rtio n a lity constant between a force
and the acceleration o f a mass m determ ines the
inertness o f the given body. We sha ll c a ll i t
the in e rt mass
NewU>a*s la w o f uaiversal g ra v ita lio n refers
to the g ra v ita tio n a l in te ra c tio n o f bodies.
A p rio ri, there aro ab so lu te ly no grounds to
believe, n o t the slig h te st h in t, th a t the form ula
w h ich determ ines tho force o f in te ra c tio n must
somehow be dependent on the in e rt mass. For

288
classical physics, th is is a s t ill more unexpected
and in e x p lic a b le fa c t than, say, the depend-
ence o f the num ber o f weddings in V la d iv o s to k
on the weather in the A n ta rc tic . In the la tte r
case, we a t least have a lo g ic a l lin k -u p in th a t
the S oviet w h a lin g fleet is based a t V la d iv o s to k.
Now in the case o f the g ra v ita tio n a l and the
in e rt masses there was no c la r ity up to the tim e
o f E in s te in .
There was a rem arkable exp e rim e n ta l fa c t, and
everyone, N ew tou firs t, made note o f the m ar•
vellous coincidence. M any experim ents were car-
ried o u t over the years up to the beginning of
the tw e n tie th c e n tu ry . The la s t experim ents—
those o f R oland E o tv o s —were am azingly accar-
ate. The idea behind a ll the experim ents was
e xtrem ely sim ple and we s h a ll now exam ine it .
F irs t we w ill w riU j down the la w o f g ra v ita tio n .
We w ill w rite the masses as mh^avyy for we
do not know w hether these masses are the same
as minert. We want to find an experim ent th a t
yd\l dem onstrate th is. So wo liave
/ ‫׳‬，
= ‫ז‬ r*

L e t us exam ine the coacreto case o f a fre e ly-

fa llin g body. The force c o m p e llin g i t to fa ll
(the force o f g ra v ita tio n a l in te ra c tio n ) is the
forco o f g ra v ity .
On the other ha n d ，i f we know the accelera-
tio a and the in e rt mass o f the fa llin g body, say
a sm all b a ll, we can Gad the force by means of
N ew ton's second la w . We thus have tw o equations:

19-1M 7
289
 is the g ra v ita tio n a l mass o f the e arth,
and r 3 is the distance from our b a ll to the centre
o f the e arth. N ew ton established th a t a massive
sphere a ttra c ts w ith a force such as i f its e n tire
mass were concentrated in the centre. T h a t was
a p u re ly m a them atical problem .
( 2) f = r n ine<lg
where g is the acceleration o f free fa ll.
C om bining the tw o equations wo get
heùvv

mhtaty
N ow i f minert^=nthfavy fo r a ll conceivable bo-
dies; i f they are equal in the case o f steel, wood,
gases, liq u id s and ra d io a c tiv e elements and po-
lym e rs and so on and on, then 客=了 あ
In other words, the acceleration o f the e a rth s
g ra v ity is the same fo r a ll bodies.
T h is was firs t established by G a lile o . The
e q u a lity o f the in e rt and g ra v ita tio n a l masses,

290
 as we have already noted, had been firm ly establ-
ished in dozens o f experim ents.
W ith the advent o f the special th e o ry, when
i t became clear th a t every k in d o f energy pos-
sesses an in e rt mass, experim ents were perform -
cd w ith ra d io a c tiv e substances.
I t turned o u t th a t in th e ir case too the in e rt
and g ra v ita tio n a l masses were e q u iv a le n t. T h a t
is to $ayv energy possesses heavy mass as w e ll,
w hich is the same as the in e rt mass. In short,
precise experim ents dem onstrated the id e n tic a l
equivalence o f the in e rt mass and the heavy
mass. H ow ever i t was one th in g to know and
q u ite another to understand. E in s te in set o u t
to prove w hy they are equal.
I t may n o t ye t be clear w hat a ll th is has to
do w ith geom etry, b u t nevertheless th is sole ox-
perim ental fa c t plus the s jw cia l theory o f re ia t-
iv it y , plu s one more re q u ire m e n t of a p u re ly
th eoretical character was enough for E in s te in
to b rin g about a com plete change in our concept-
ions o f the geom etry o f the universe— the gen-
cral theory.
N ow about the th e o re tic a l requirem ent. We
can even fo rm u la te i t in s t r ic tly tech n ica l la n -
^uage: uthe laws o f uature m ust be generally
c o v a ria tit‫ ״‬, or, more s im p ly , “ a ll systems of
reference m ust be e q u iv a le n t‫ ״‬.
I fu lly realize th a t th is is not m uch o f âa ex-
p la n a tio n , I gave the statem ents more fo r m y
own consolation. We s im p ly do n o t have the
necessary tim e to go in to the o rig in o f the gen-
eral theory o f r e la tiv ity . I do n o t w ish to ^ivo
o n ly a semblance o f an e xp la n a tio n , though th a t
would be f a ir ly easy to do. The o n ly th in g I

291
ask you to take on tru s t is th a t the ‫״‬equivalence
o f reference systems‫ ״‬is a demand w hich largely
stems from aesthetics. The inn e r loj^ic and the
beauty o f a physical theory were to E in ste in one
o f the most decisive factors.
I t m ay be th a t he occasiona lly overestim ated
the re la tiv e significance o f such arguments, b u t
ho believed th a t the laws o f the universe should
in p rin c ip le be v e ry n a tu ra l and lo g ic a l, imd
th a t theoreticians often d is to rt them porceiv-
in g things in a crooked m irro r. One can, of
course, find fa u lt w ith such reasoning—no things
ex is t th a t do not have weak spots— b u t the fa ct
th a t th is mode of reasoning was good is proved
by the results he achieved.
‫״‬The theory o f g ra v ita tio n a l fields construct•
ed on the basis o f the theory o f r e la tiv ity bears
the name o f the general th e o ry o f r e la tiv ity . I t
was created b y E in s te in (and form ulated in fin a l
form b y h im in 1916) and is perhaps the most
b e a u tifu l o f e x is tin g theories. The rem arkable
th in g is th a t i t was constructed by E in ste in
in a p u re ly deductive fashion and o n ly subse-
q u o n tly corroborated v ia astronom ical obser-
v a tio n s .‫ ״‬Thus w rote Landau and L ifs h its in
th e ir fundam ental course o f th e o re tica l physics
w hich is considered to be the w orld ,s best in
th a t field. I t is the o a ly place in a ll th e ir six
volum es where the authors d isp la y any em otion.
T h a i fa c t alone speaks volum es.
B u t le t us get back to apocrypha.
In re p ly to the query o f his nine-year-old son,
“ Papa，w h a t is i t th a t makes you so famous?”
E in s te in is reported to have said q u ite seriously
th a t when a b lin d bug craw ls over the surface

292
o f a b a ll, i t does n o t n o tice th a t the path tra v -
ersed is curved. Said E in s te in , wI t on the con-
tra ry , had the good fortu n e to notice t h a t.‫״‬
T h is passage is often quoted, b u t donU th in k
th a t i t exhausts the co n te n t o f the general thoory.
I t is obvious th a t E in s te in h im s e lf believed
th a t the basic re su lt o f his w o rk was a fu n d a m o n t'
al change in our conceptions o f the geometry
o f the universe.
We have already said th a t the special theory
k ille d the idea o f tho geom etric properties o f
space being independent o f tim o .
T im e had become a p a rt o f geom etry.
B a t the properties o f tim e o n ly affected the
geom etry o f m oving bodies. For bodies a t rest,
the geom etry o f E u c lid held tru e .
A now physical fa c to r appeared in the ^ n e r a l
theory o f r e la tiv ity th a t detorm ined the geom^
etry•
The o ld re s u lt— tho m u tu a l dependence o f tho
properties o f space and tim e — was n a tu ra lly re-
tained. B u t th is was n o t a ll. I t turned o u t th a t
the geom etrical properties o f the w orld a t a

293
 given p o in t a t a given in s ta n t o f tim e are deter-
mined by the g ra v ita tio n a l field a t th a t p o in t.
T h is la st phrase p ro b a b ly does n o t mean very
m uch to the reader, and so we sh a ll give a few
precise statem ents aud then a crude analogy th a t
should dom onstrate c e rta in things.
In the {general th e o ry o f r e la tiv ity , the w orld
is described by the geom etry o f R iem ann. Here,
when speaking o f the w o rld and its geom etry,
we a ll the tim e have in v ie w the four-dim onsion-
al w o rld . T im e is in e x tric a b ly woven in to the
geom etrical properties o f space.
As you re c a ll, both Gauss and R iem ann reg>
arded the c u rvature o f space a t a given p o in t
as the d e te rm in in g ch a ra cte ristic• A lso decis-
ive was the ‫ ״‬in trin s ic ch a ra cte ristic o f space‫— ״‬
the properties o f the shortest lin e s (geodesies).
These lin e s are p h y s ic a lly determ ined by the
trajectories traversed b y m a te ria l p a rticle s free
o f the a c tio n o f forces.
A cco rd in g to E in s te in , both the c u rva tu re at
a given p o in t and the properties o f ^o d e s ic s
are determ ined by tho g ra v ita tio n a l held. In
the general theory o f r e la tiv ity , g ra v ita tio n oc-
cupies an exception al place o f honour* R o u g hly
speaking, i t is tho most im p o rta n t o f a ll in te r•
actions.
I t determ ines the geom etry o f the universe.
We can p u t i t d iffe re n tly : g ra v ita tio n is detorm -
ined by the geom etry. B u t no m a tte r how wo
word i t , the re s u lt is th a t the geometrical pro-
perties of the world are determined by the distri-
button of gravitating masses.
We repeat ag ain ：whenever we speak o f goom-
e tric a l properties, wo have in vie w a fo u r-d im ­

294
ensional w o rld , so th a t in o rd in a ry parlance one
ought to say:
The geometrical properties and the properties
of time are completely determined by the distri-
button of masses in the universe.
A nd ju s t lik e the geom etry o f the plane is
a p p ro xim a te ly fu lfille d fo r sm a ll areas o f a tw o -
dim ensional curved surface, so sm a ll regions o f
the four-dim ension al w o rld m ay be a p p ro xim -
a te ly regarded as regions in w h ich the curva tu re
is zero.
P h y s ic a lly , th ifl means th a t in sm all spatio-
tem poral regions one can exclude the g ra v ita -
tio n a l field and pass over to the special theory
o f r e la tiv ity .
A ccord in g to E in s te in , geom etrical properties
appear in space and tim e o n ly when there are
m ateria l bodies in tho universe.

295
 T h a t, very ro u g h ly speaking, is the g ist o f the
ideas o f the general theory o f r e la tiv ity .
T w o rem arkable circum stances stand o u t in
the sto ry o f the developm ent o f th is theory.
1. A t firs t E in s te in was n o t even acquainted
w ith R ie m a n n ‫״‬s ideas. He had wanted to ex-
p la in the e q u a lity o f the in e rt and heavy masses
and found in his search th a t R ic m a n n ’s geom-
e try was the necessary m athem atical form fo r
a descrip tio n o f his p u re ly physical reasoning.
2. The general the o ry is p ro b a b ly the o n ly
instance o f a physical theory created in a p u re ly
deductive m anner. There was o n ly one exporim -
e n ta i fa c t u n d e rly in g the whole theory.
Today* the general theory has been corrobor-
ated e x p e rim e n ta lly a num ber o f tim es and was
ju s t ro ce n tly verified under la b o ra to ry con d itio n s.
N ow the analogy w h ic h I prom ised.
Im agine a piece o f c lo th stretched ta u t. T h is
is a plane. The geodesics on i t are s tra ig h t lines.
The curva tu re is zoro. A free m a te ria l p a rtic le
on such a surface w ill move in a s tra ig h t lin e .
T h is is an analogue o f the space-tim e o f the spec-
ia l theory o f r e la tiv ity . N ow th ro w a stone in to
tho m id d le . Tho c lo th sinks in the v ic in ity of
im p a c t. The shape w ill be distorted* The geod-
osics w ill no longer bo s tra ig h t lines. A p a rtic le
in m o tio n on such a surface, even in the absence
o f forces, w ill be deflected from a s tra ig h t-lin o
p a th .
The fa rth e r away from the stone, the less tho
cun^aturo, and a t in f in it y , the c lo th is again
fla t. The p o rtio n o f curved c lo th is a rough model
o f space-tim e in the presence o f g ra v ita tin g mas-
SCS.

296
 A nd now tho la s t question. W h a t is the actual
geometry o f the w o rld we liv e in?
E xp e rim e n t has shown th a t a t least in our
p a rt o f the universe tho cu rva tu re o f spaco-time
is p o sitiv e ; c ru d e ly speaking, th a t is, because
the question o f the true geom etry o f the u n i-
verse is a very to u ch y one. P hysicists have
to use th e ir im a g in a tio n . T h is is a realm where
hypotheses abound.
F o rm a lly speaking, the whole problem cons‫־‬
ists solely in d e te rm in in g the coefficients in the
form ula th a t defines the square o f tho distance
in a four-dim ension al w o rld : space plus tim e.
T h a t is a ll!
As o f today we have a num ber o f models of
the w o rld . Several h y p o th e tic a l universes. B u t
we s t ill do n o t know fo r sure w h ic h one fits tho
w orld in w hich we liv e . The p o rtio n o f the u n i-
verse accessible to the most p ow erful telescopes
(o n ly a p a ltr y ten thousand m illio n lig lit years)
is fa r too sm a ll.
O f course the local geom etry o f space-tim o va-
ries from p o in t to p o in t and changes v e ry fane-
if u lly near g ra v ita tio n a l masses.
Let*s tr y another analogy. Compare o u r s itu a -
tio n w ith a d w e lle r o f a m ountainous region
of the earth a tte m p tin g ，w ith tlie a id o f geodetic
observations, to establish th a t the e a rth is a
sphere. H is region o f observations is o f course
very restricte d • O n ly a few kilom etres. Q u ite
o bviously such a p h y s ic is t is in no easy posi-
tio n .
Even i f he is able— using bis measurements—
to find th a t the mean rad iu s o f c u rva tu re of
bis p o rtio n o f the surface is 6»400 kilo m e tres

297
(the approxim ate ra d iu s o f the earth), he w ill
n o t bo one hundred per cent confident th a t the
surfaco o f the p la n e t has the same curva tu re in
regions outside his vie w . A n d then ho w ill in e v -
ita b ly have to do w hat Isaac N ew ton so d islike d .
He w ill have to frame hypotheses.
T h a t is tho a ctu a l s itu a tio n o f dow n-to‫־‬€ a rth
physicists when th e y are asked about the geom-
e try o f the w o rld in the large.
L e t s stop fo r a Tnoment a t th is e x c itin g p o in t.
I t is tim e wo d id some sum m ing up.
There are tw o m ain points to be sum m arized;
both are a d iro c t consequence o f non-E uclidean
geom etry.
The firs t is the creation o f a xio m a tics and,
subsequently, o f m a them atical lo g ic. T h is was
accom plished by H ilb e rt. We have already had
occasion to m ention h im , b u t our sto ry was very
crude and approxim ate . P a rtic u la rly as regards
the problem o f the completeness o f the axioms.
I could have done a better jo b , b u t o n ly a t thi^

298
expense o f d raw ing o u t our s to ry. A n y w a y , when
I sat down to w rite th is book I had no idea of
how to te ll the sto ry o f a xio m a tics precisely,
concisely and com prehensibly. Too li t t l e has
been said o f axiom atica, and most o f th a t was
not very accurate. The o n ly consolation is th a t
I can now add a b it o f advertisem ent.
The w hole range o f problem s in v o lv in g a xio-
m atics is am azingly elegant. Even the state-
ments o f m any o f the problem s are to ta lly unex-
pected. T h is is p a rtic u la rly tru e o f the problem
o f completeness. One re s u lt w ill suffice as an
illu s tra tio n . A lre a d y in the 19^0*s the fo llo w •
in g theorem had been proved.
Suppose you have a c e rta in lo g ica l system•
Ils founda tion consists o f the Basic Concepts
and the axiom s. Say, E u clid e a n gcoinetry. I f
th is lo g ic a l system is Us u f0 c io n tly p o w e rfu l"
(the meaning o f th is is o f course over our heads),
then i t w ill alw ays be possible to fo rm u la te
theorems w h ic h , w ith in the fram ew ork o f the
system, cannot be proved or disproved.
A t firs t glance i t w ould seem th a t the tro u b le
lies in a la c k o f axiom s. T h a t is not so. No m a t-
te r how m any axiom s aro taken, no m a tte r how
we supplem ent our system, there w ill always
rem ain ce rta in assertions about w h ich n o th ing
d e finite can be said.
A fte r th is m arvellous theorem was proved,
tho whole problem o f n oncon tm d ictoriaess to o k
on a d iffe re n t aspect.
W e were s ile n t on th is p o in t, ju s t as d id
n o t so m uch as touch on the to ta lly unexpected
a p p lic a tio n o f m a th e m a tica l lo g ic in compute
in g machines.

299
 We spoke in somewhat more d e ta il about the
second lin e o f developm ent th a t passes through
R iem annian geom etry to the general theory
o f r e la tiv ity .
One more th in g . The whole h is to ry o f the dev-
elopm ent o f n o n -E u clid ca n geom etry appears as
ono o f the most b r illia n t instances o f unexpected
turns in the h is to ry o f science.
W h a t appeared to be the u ltim a te in abstract
speculative and th e o re tica l m editations o f matho-
m aticians was in some m arvellous w ay trans-
muted in to things o f extrem e im po rta n ce to
p ra c tic a l p hysicists and even engineers.
 C hapter 12

EINSTEIN

The essence and nature o f any e x tra o rd in a ry

ta le n t are m ysterious. T h a t is a tr ite statem ent.
B u t the b itte r tr u th is th a t the mechanism, even
the rough ope ra tin g scheme, o f th a t rem arkable
com p u tin g device th a t is o u r b ra in rem ains a
m ystery to science. W e cannot make o u t how,
in the b r illia n t scheme o f e v o lu tio n , nature fash-
ioned some 14 to 17 thousand n ü llio n elem ent-
a ry u n its called neurons in to w h a t is know n as
the hum an b rain.
We do n o t even have a su ita b le aaswer to the
question: ‫ ״‬In w hat w ay does the hum an b ra in
d iffe r from th a t o f some o th e r a n im a l? ‫ ״‬We e ith er
confine ourselves to the general phenomenolog-
ic a l reasonings o f the b io lo g is t or to the s c in t-
illa tin g ly clever b u t, alas, t r iv ia l paradoxes o f
the w rite r.
There is even less to be said about how the
b ra in o f a genius differs fro m th a t o f a common-
place earth dw eller• M ore，we do n o t even have
any grounds to c la im th a t there are some k in d
of organic differences o f th a t nature.
I t m ay ve ry lik e ly bo th a t in every person
some e xce p tio n a l ta le n t wastes aw ay unbeknown
to the w o rld . I t is a v e ry e n tic in g and consoling
idea, and was developed a t one tim e w ith the
greatest pleasure b y M a rk T w a in .

301
 Tliero is of course som ething very suspicious
about i t a ll. B u t there are no objective facts in -
d ic a tin g any a b s u rd ity . I t w ould perhaps be
hard to Bad a l>etler illu s tra tio n o f the level of
our knowledge about the mechanism and bio-
lo g y o f th in k in g . We h a rd ly know a n y th in g and
can o n ly take note o f the pure ly external charac‫־‬
tc ris tic s o f ta lo n t.
Tho oft-repealed phrase th a t *4ta le n t is w o rk ‫״‬
do fuies one such c h a ra cte ristic. Theso words are
com m only misunderstood to a c tu a lly mean sumo-
th in g ; th is is done a ll the more eagerly since
the g ifte d , o u t of ostentatious modesty and w ith
due respect fo r tra d itio n , though a t tim es q u ite
sincerely underestim a ting themselves, p o in t to
w o rk as the m ain source of th e ir exceptional a t-
taiam entâ.
Statem ents of th is k in d are inaay, b u t o n ly a
p o rtio n (and a sm a ll one a t th a t!) is the tru th .
P aganini claim ed h is w izard p la y in g came
from a suprem ely exhausting la b o u r th a t e n '
abled h im to master the p o te n tia litie s o f his in -
stru m e n t.
He was wrong o f course.
The w rite r Lev T o ls to i lik e d to say th a t his
g ift as a w rite r was n o t a t a ll so great or sig n i-
fica n t, the tr u ly im p o rta n t and va luable things
being the m oral ideas he preached th a t wore so
n a tu ra l and sim ple.
I do n o t th in k th a t T o ls to i said w hat he
though t.
E in ste in , speaking o f his gouiuâ, said a roraar‫־‬
kable th in g , and w ô sh a ll come back to i t agaia.
B u t I th in k ho had in m ind som ething q u ite
d iffe re n t and s im p ly was com pelled by c irc u n i-

302
stances (euergetic newsmen) to th ro w a bone to
the p u b lic .
So m y idea is th a t wo should not believe ge-
niuses on th is p o in t. The etern a l, m o u rn fu l in -
d ig n a tio u o f P u s h k in ^ S a lie ri (a talented person,
by the way) presents a b etter and more accurate
p icture o f w h a t a genius re a lly is.
I t is som ething iucom prebensible.
W hen dealing w ith a n o rm a lly endowed per-
son, we can analyse and decipher a few things.
We can then p ic k o u t, more or loss c le a rly , tech‫־‬
niques, experience, taste— a ll th a t comes as the
reward o f arduous, exhausting labour.
For exam ple, one can alm ost alw ays understand
w hat is good and w h a t is bad in Balxac*s books.
B u t when you are im p e rc e p tib ly charmed by
the endless, ra ther clum sy and a t tim es (hor-
rib le d ic tu !) s im p ly g ra m m a tic a lly in co rre ct phra-
ses of T o ls to i; when you cease to w atch the style,
the techniques, the images and o n ly fo llo w the
story o f the piebald horse H olstom cr, learning
how hu liv e d and died, and how m any horses
there were in the herd o i h is la s t ovrner‫ ••••־‬W hen
you can find dozens o f more or less su ita b le ex-
planations o f w hy such and such a paragraph
was w ritte n and w h a t re la tiv e lite ra ry m erits i t
has e tc ., b u t ca n n o t grasp how i t could have
come to T o ls to i's m in d to wTite th a t way and
w hy you are le ft w ith th a t in e x p lic a b le convie-
tio n th a t th a t was precisely the way i t should
have been w ritte n ....
Then we say th a t th is is an anom aly w hich
can be recorded as such b u t canuot be accounted
for.
The cu rio u s th in g is th a t q u ite often a person

303
 who is a genius in one field is by no means a
harm oniou sly endowed personality.
There are paradoxica l instances galore. Per-
haps the best one is T o ls to i. T o lsto i the philoso•
pher was a narrow -m inded, biased and capricious
p ersonality.
We can b rin g th is discussion o f genius to a
close by adding th a t the very conception o f ge-
nius is e xtrem ely hazy and subjective, p a rtic u -
la r ly when one deals w ith a rt, where objective
c rite ria are s t ill more nebulous.
In science too, u ltim a te ly , the deciding fac-
tors (or, to be more exact, th e ir absence) are the
same as in a rt, and th a t is w hy very often a
first-m agnitude sta r o f to d a y becomes noticeah-
ly fa in t tom orrow .
Some cases, in c id e n ta lly , are unquestionable.
One is th a t o f A lb e rt E in s te in .
As fa r as we can judge from reminiscences, the
childhood years o f E in s te in did not in the least
suggest th a t he w ould be an E in s te in .
He was a q u ie t, re tic e n t c h ild . U su a lly c h il-
dren are fu ll o f life and energy, noisy, in a hur-
ry , in a h u rry to t e ll the w orld w hat they are.
B u t in every dozen there are one or tw o of
the q u ie t k in d . They do n o t take p a rt in games
and keep to thomselves. They seoni to be occu•
pied more by th e ir in n e r w orld than by tlio
w orld around them . I t m ay he th a t som ething
has stirre d up m is tru s t in th e ir m inds and they
s im p ly c a u tio u s ly avoid people, in s tin c tiv e ly be-
lie v in g th a t i t is safer th a t w ay. C h ildren of
th is k in d are n o t lik e d in the ra th e r merciless
kingdom o f childh o o d . They are c o n tin u a lly be-
in g teased.

304
 “ Sissy” ， “ m am m a’s b o y ‫״‬， “ w e a k lin g ” are
some o f the in te rn a tio n a l term s th a t often cauM
more anguish tha n , in la te r life , a ra k in g down
by one's superior. A t any rate, the m ark they
leave in the person's life is deeper.
E in ste in was o f the tim id k in d .
H is re la tive s re ca ll th a t he was called “ mam-
ma*s boy** fo r his m orbid love o f the tru th and
fa ir play.
A nother th in g . Ho d id not lik e soldiers. N e i‫־‬
th er the real ones m a rching along in b rig h t new
uniform s and helm ets stam ping in unison down
the quiet streets of the towns o f his F atherland ,
nor the p re tty t in soldiers th a t come in nice
boxes. He d id n o t lik e soldiers.
True, honesty and fa ir p la y are not so rare in
c h ild re n . The question, ra th e r, lies in the age
at w hich i t o rd in a rily disappears.
Now as to th is in s tin c tiv e d is lik e of soldiers—
th at is indeed strange.
There are n o t m any c h ild re n lik o th a t, and
one m ig h t suspect som ething o u t o f the o rd in a ry
in such a c h ild . B u t no, there does not seom to be
the sligh te st in d ic a tio n th a t th is ‫ ״‬som ething‫״‬
w ill, in fifteen years, flower in to the theory of
r e la tiv ity .
There were other things th a t w orried E in ste in
a t th is age.
I do n o t know w hethor the people around
h im noticed th a t a t the age o f t«n or eleven th is
boy of w ell-to-do parents was going th ro u g h a
c ru c ia l in te rn a l dram a，w h ich i i i m any ways de-
term ined the whole o f h is fu tu re life .
A t least E in s te in h im se lf remembered; a t the
ago of Ü7 he wrote:
2 0 -1967 305
 ‫ ״‬Even when 1 was a fa ir ly precocious young
man the nothingness o f the hopes and s triv in g s
w hich chases most men restlessly through life
came to m y consciousness w ith considerable v ita -
lit y . Moreover, I soon discovered the c ru e lty of
th a t chase，w hich in those years was m uch
more c a re fu lly covered up by h yp o crisy and g lit-
ta rin g words than is the case today. B y the mere
existence of his stomach everyone was condem-
ned to p a rtic ip a te in th a t chase. Moreover, i t
was possible to sa tisfy the stom ach by such par-
tic ip a tio n , b u t not man in so fa r as he is a th in k in g
and feeling being. As the fu s t w ay o u t there was
re lig io n , w hich is im p la n te d in to every c h ild by
way o f the tra d itio n a l education-m achine. Thus
I came—despite the fa ct th a t I was the son of
e n tire ly irre lig io u s (Jew ish} parents— to a deep
re lig io s ity , w h ic h ，however, found an abru p t end•
in g a t the age of 12. T hrough the reading of
popula r s c ie n tific books I soon reached the con-
v ic tio n th a t m uch in the stories o f the B ib le
could n o t be tru e . The consequence was a p o sitive-

306
 ly fanatic fro o th in kin g coupled w ith the im p ivs-
sioii U lu i youth is iu te u tio u a lly iRnng deceived
by the state through lies; i t was a crushing im -
liiession. Suspicion against every k in d of autho-
r it y grew o u t o f th i» experience, a skeptical a tti-
tude tow ards the convictio n s w hich were a live
in any specific st»cial e n viro n m e n t—an a ttitu d e
w hich has never a^ain le ft me, evon though la te r
on ，because of a b id le r in s ig h t in to the causal
connections, i t lo s t some of its o rig in a l poig-
n a ncy.‫״‬
T h is somewhat heavy passage demands more
than a hasty reading, i t is w o rth a most de-
ta ile d aualysis.
Note, fir s lly , th a t E in ste in w roto his a u lo b io -
praphy as a scie n tist s triv in g to e x tra c t from his
inner life w ith com plete honesty o n ly w h a t de-
serves a tte n tio n . He o f course realized th a t th is
was no easy task a t alm o st 70 years o f age• He
was even academ ically cautious in the tit le :
**Autobiographical N otes‫ ״‬. M o s tly he w rote about
w hat he considered to bo the o n ly in te re stin g
th in g in h is lif e —the fo rm a tio n o f his s c ie n tific
o utlook. H is w ork.
There is no place fo r a n y th in g else in th is self-
o b itu a ry . There is no a tte m p t to appear better,
no ostentatious d isp la y o f any k in d . A c tu a lly i t
is a scientiG c paper. In every lin e one feels the
desire to be as tr u th fu l and o b je ctive as possible
in describing how he, E in s te in , reasoned.
Such was the life o f tan-year-old E ia ste in .
Ho d id n o t lik e school. He recalled school,
p ic tu rin g his teachers as a rm y sergeauts ；and tho
gym nasium where the in s tru c to rs weref to h im ,
lioutonantâ.

307
 Here wo have the first rid d le . One fa ir ly often
meets people who, irrespective o f th e ir cu ltu re
and education, never reach the idea th a t a per‫״‬
son needs som ething more than sim ple well-be-
in g . Some a rrive a t th a t conclusion at a m ature
age, or even a t the end o f th e ir lives.
To one degree or another, th is s triv in g to -
wards the m ysterious ‫ ״‬som ething else‫ ״‬is found
in a ll c h ild re n , b u t m o stly in a very in tu itiv e
way o f w hich they arc n o t aware.
E in s te in , on the c o n tra ry , reasoned w ith rig o -
rous logic. As a re s u lt he arrived a t re lig io n ,
w h ich was q u ite understandable, ta k in g in to ac-
co u n t the c o n d ition s under w hich he liv e d .
So fa r there is n o th in g m uch o u t o f the o rd i-
nary.
The am azing th in g is th a t a fte r reading a num -
ber o f popular-science books the hoy q u ite in -
dejjcnde ntly carried o u t a p u re ly lo g ic a l a n a ly-
sis and took a sharp tu rn away from re lig io n ,
as a doctrine th a t is u n sa tisfa cto ry. He even
goes fa rth e r, a rriv in g a t a cloar-cut conclusion of
great social im p o rt: ‫ ״‬...y o u th is in te n tio n a lly
being deceived by the state through lie s ...‫״‬
T h a t was a t the ag© of tw e lve .
A nd th a t was the conception th a t he carried
w ith h im thro u gho u t his life . I f th a t is so, then
wherein lies his, A lb e rt E in s te in ’ s ， “ some^
th in g ‫? ״‬
V ery very ca u tio u s ly , fe a rfu l o f d is to rtin g tho
tru th , he w rite s th a t p a rtly consciously and p a rt-
ly subconsciously he came to the conclusion th a t
for h im life w ould be happy i f he devoted h im -
self to science. ‫״‬The road to th is paradise was
not as com fortable and a llu rin g as tho road to

308
the religious paradise; b u t i t has proved its e lf
as tru s tw o rth y , and I have never regretted ha‫״‬
v in g chosen i t . ‫״‬
You can beliovo h im , he was indeed one of
the happiest people o f our ago. Perhaps ho would
have been ju s t as happy even i f we im agine th a t
h is w ork was not understood, not recognized and
i f he had to die an unknow n eccentric engineer
o f the Swiss P atent Bureau a t Berne, where, as
a tw e n ty-five -ye a r-o ld y o u th he created the theo-
ry o f r e la tiv ity . In c id e n ta lly , a t the end o f his
life ho experienced som ething of th is k in d once
again, in a sense.
N o t in the sense o f being famous, o f course.
He was the most recognized and most popular
scie n tist in the w o rld . He was alm ost as w ell
known as M a rily n Monroe or the fo o tb a lle r D i
Stofano. H is name had become a sym bol of tho
hum an in te lle c t.
B u t physicists d id not t<ike m uch interest in
the works w ritte n tow ards the end of h is life .
Y et i t was o n ly th e ir o p in io n th a t carried any
w eight w ith E in ste in .

ToVJLrufUL,

309
 A c tu a lly , not too m uch w eight, because the
decisive fa cto r was alw ays the o p in io n o f A lb e rt
E in ste in .
W h y d id he choose science?
Perhaps i f a c erta in m edical student had not
suggested th a t he read popular-science lito ra tu re
he w ould have been a good m usician instead of
a b r illia n t p h ysicist. E in s te in played the v io lin
from the age o f six and was seriously and sin-
cerely in love w ith music th ro u g h o u t his life .
Then again he m i^ h t have gone in to in v e n tin g -*
another one o f his passions. B u t such musings
are id le .
E in ste in h im se lf, in la te r life , alw ays said th a t
i f a person was born to be a p h ysicist, i f i t was
in h is blood, then he w ould be a p h ysicist no
m a tte r how h is lifo turned out.
It*s hard to say, he most lik e ly was ju d g in g
by him se lf. T rue, on one occasion, re c a llin g his
yo u th , he expressed the opposite view .
Be a ll th is as i t m ay, the existence o f a ll the
popular-science lite ra tu re o f the tim e w ould be
ju s tifie d by the single fa ct th a t i t had some in -
fluonce on the deeply th in k in g youngster of
tw elve who roamed the picturesque o u ts k irts of
the p ro v in c ia l Sw abian tow n o f U lm in 1891.
S oldiers' feet resounded on the streets o f U lm .
They were the heirs o f the v ic to rio u s w a rrio rs
of M o ltke who tw e n ty years before had routed
Franco.
The m ilita r y tra d itio n s o f U lm , i t seems,
w ent deeper s t ill. In 1805—U lm was then a firs t-
class fortress—a w o n d e rfu lly equipped A u s tria n
arm y su rrendem l to Napoleon in a most scanda-
luus rushion, v ir tu a lly w ith o u t O ghtin^.

310
 R u t, first o f a ll, the a rm y was Austrian» w hich
means, fo rm a lly speaking, not Germ an, and th is
consequently im p lie s ‫ ״‬n o t a t a ll G erm an‫ ״‬.
Secondly, the soldiers d id n o t remember the
defeats, fo r th e ir heads wore fille d w ith v ic to -
rios.
Defeats were s im p ly regrettable accidents,
th a t’s a ll.
So th e y marched.
T h a t was prob a b ly when to the c h ild E in s te in
came hate. A restrained, ca lm , somewhat cold
and ra tio n a l hatred. A hatred th a t in v a ria b ly
stayed w ith h im his whole life . He could not
stand m ilita ris m , w ar and slaughter. He viewod
i t a ll as the supremo concentratio n o f hum an stu -
p id ity .
T h is became clear to h im in his e a rly years,
and his vie w never changed.

The year was 1891. Fascism was a long way

off. The crem atorium s o f Oswiecim and M aida-
nek were not ye t b u ilt. T hey came la t« r.
Germ any was s t ill to face the S chlieiïen plan.
The F irs t W o rld W ar. M a rch in g armies. E xa lte d
weeping women th ro w in g flowers to th e ir m enfolk.
T rainload s o f soldiers. Ersatz food products. And
the same women weeping, d iffe re n tly , over the
endless stream o f ca su a lty telegrams from tho
Eastern and W estern fro n ts. The fin a l ro u t, the
overthrow o f the K aiser, the T re a ty o f Versailles,
in fla tio n , ru in , hunger, and the epidem ic o f flu
would a ll como la te r to tho Germans. A ll these
things w ould come boforo the Führer came.
1'nie, there wore a few things. For exam ple,
tho b rig h t u niform s and tho Prussian general

311
 sla ff, a n tis iïn iitis in , and p a trio tic m ilita r y m ar-
ches, and fra te rn itie s , and— p ro b a b ly most im -
p o rta n t of a l l —an unquestioning reverence of
title s .
C iv ilia n or m ilita r y , i t makes no difference.
“ [le r r P riv y C o u n c illo r! Oh! In d e e d !...”
Tho great O ly m p ia n h im se lf, Goethe (and a
volum e o f Goethe could o f course be found in
every respectable fa m ily ), even Goethe, ladies and
gentlem en, was ju s t as proud o f h is m in is te ria l
post in the m iserable W e im a r p r in c ip a lity as,
perhaps, ho was o f h is poetry.
A nd Hegel? The great ‫ ״‬P riv y C o u n c illo r‫ ״‬He-
gel, remember? A nd h is do ctrin o o f the Prussian
monarchy?
In short, the German state was consistent in
its s triv in g s to wipe o u t the very c a p a b ility
of independent (henco, c ritic a l) th o u g h t th a t is
p a rt and parcel o f every norm al hum an being,
and to p u t in its place ready-made slogans,
rules and tra d itio n s .
A nd they d id a good jo b , one must a d m it.
The system was polished to perfection by true
craftsm en in the a rt.
The ‫ ״‬W acht am R h e in ‫ ״‬, the sentim ental *4L ie -
(1er’，o f blue‫«־‬yed g ir ls ，and W agner's operas,
and gym nastics a t school, the tales o f ancient
N o rd ic heroes a t the h is to ry lesson, and tra d i-
tio n a l off-colour hum our in cheap e d itio n s, and
pedantic neatness in s tille d from e a rly child h o o d,
and absolute obedience to the head o f the sm al-
lest u n it o f the state — the fa m ily .
A n d , fin a lly , the endless m u ltip lic ity and d i-
v e rs ity o f o ffic ia l, s ^iiii'O ffîc ia l and non-o(Gcial
h ie ra rch y o f title s and ranks.

312
 The h ie ra rc h y in the fa m ily , in the hcauro-
cracy, in ih o m ilita r y service; the h e ira rch y of
numberless V creins, fra te rn itie s , unions in sports,
a t the fa c to ry , in m usic, the arts, the sciences,
in lite ra tu re and re lig io n ； unions o f lovers o!
h u n tin g , lovers o f song birds, unions o f bee-
keepers ，yachtsm en, and so on and on.
A ll th is created and cherished a co n ve n ţio n a li-
ty th a t was both self-satisfied and hum ble; i t
created people th a t fo rg o t th a t they were capab-
Io o f th in k in g , people for whom a d ic ta to rs h ip
appeared to be the m ost n a tu ra l form o f power
im aginable fo r the reason th a t each in him self
was a d ic ta to r on a m icroscale.
The rem arkable th in ^ about the in fin ite ly p oi-
fkmous character o f U iis whole dem oniacal ma-
chine was th a t i t fed on ve ry decent feelings and
a spirations— p a trio tis m , respect fo r one's el-
ders, sports....
B u t w hat o f the people themselves?
Tho samo. W hether a t the beginning o f the
fifteenth ce n tu ry or the beginn ing o f the twen-
tie th , or evon d u rin g the years o f fascism, they
d id not d iffe r in any w ay from any other people.
There can be no question th a t a hundred thou-
sand scoundrels can be found in any large coun-
tr y . The h is to ric a l s itu a tio n in G erm any a t the
end of the 1920*s was such th a t precisely th is group
cam© to power. Possibly, accidental circum stan-
ces played an appreciable role here.
T rue, the prerequisites for th is accident
were already prepared, in c id m ita lly , I w ould not
l>e saying a n y th in g o rig in a l or new i f I added
th a t ro u g h ly th« samo p ro rrq u isite s were a va l-
ia b le iu any of Uu) laigo im p e ria lis t states.

313
T h is had been made clear m any tim es in the
books o f such w rite rs as S in c la ir Lew is and H . G.
W ells, where the p o s s ib ility o f fascism develop-
in g in the U n ite d States or in E ngland was des-
c ri bed in science fic tio n . Perhaps tho greatest
danger o f tho demagogy o f fascism lies in the
fa ct th a t i t is not new or exce p tio n a l in any way.
I f fascism is a disease o f the human race, i t
is an ancient a fflic tio n . States o f the fascist type
existed in a ll ages. E g y p t, Sparta, K o m e ^ a ll
these a ncient regimes preached ju s t about the
samo ideology as the Nazis. So H itle r did not
have to concoct a n y th in g p a rtic u la rly new. T m e,
ho added a goodly p o rtio n o f social demagogy,
w h ich Ejçypt got along w ith o u t b u t w h ich an-
cie n t Rome found i t necessary to include•
A nd o f course one o f the basic axiom s o f the
system was n a tio n a lism .
N o th in g very o rig in a l abo»t th a t e ith e r. From
tim e im m e m o ria l, fla tte ry ，oven o f tho crudest
k in d , has always been exce lle n t b a it to lure the
hearts o f members o f the hum an race. I t is al*
ways nice to hear th a t yo u are b e tte r than the
n e x t man. A ll the more so, when yo u yourself
are n o t so sure o f the fa ct.
N ow i f the fla tte ry is kept up in s is te n tly
enough, one begins to believe.
E very e m p ire -b u ild in g state since tho pharaohs
o f E g jfp t has b rough t n a tio u a lism in to p la y as a
means of a ttra c tin g and u n itin g the people.
Tho idea is sim ple and naive, a tru is m .
The emperors o f Rome» Genghis K h a n , Napo-
Icon, H itle r have a ll em ployed the satno tech-
nique, ju s t as trie d and tested as co m p lim e n tin g
" ie woman ono wants to seduce• Towards the

314
end o f h is life , E in s te in g lo o m ily remarked th a t
people learn b u t lit t le from the lessons o f his-
to ry because each now act o f s tu p id ity appears
to them in a fresh lig h t.
T h a t th is system produces results even in our
“ oulighte ned” ai^e was, u n fo rtu n a te ly ，dem onstra•
tod in the Second W o rld W a r. B u t we must re-
peat: the fa ct th a t most o f the German people
accepted fascism in one form or another does
not, of course, im p ly th a t tho Germans as such
are less responsive to tho generally accepted mo‫*־‬
ra l norms than the Russians or the Fronch.
Now i f the question o f tho re s p o n s ib ility of
tho German people as a w hole fo r the rise of
fascism comes up, then w ith ju s t as m uch ju s ti-
fica tio n the question could bo addressed to a ll
the c a p ita lis t states o f o u r p la n e t, w h ich w ith
com parative calm watched H itle r advance from
tho Beer H a ll putsch in B a v a ria to the furnaces
o f the concentratio n camps and the mass shoot-
ings in Russia, P oland, Y u g o sla via ‫ ״‬..
The lo g ic of nonintorferenco was ju s t the
same....
Today, tw e n ty odd years a ll^ r the end of the
w ar, tod a y when i t is possible to judge w ith re-
la tiv e o b je c tiv ity , one should h a rd ly th ro w a ll
tho h o rrib le blame onto the German people.
A ll tho more so since th a t n a tio n too paid a
s u ffic ie n tly dear price• A m ong llie v ic tim s o f the
Nazis were also those B e rlin youngsters who du-
rin g the la s t A p r il days o f 1945, c ry in g from
sheer fright» went a t Russian ta n ks w ith Faust-
Fatronen sincerely b e lio v in g th a t they wore Bgh-
tin g ami d y in g for Ih i'ir Fatherland.
These argum cnls are prob a b ly ju s t as true as

315
the fa ct th a t the a c tiv e SS men and the Mcrea-
tiv e n and in it ia t iv e H itle rite s o f the p u n itiv e
e xpeditio ns and death camps should be judged
and exterm inated to d a y, too, tw e n ty and more
years a fte r the w a r's end; they should be shot
c a lm ly and w ith a clear conscience, ‫ ״‬w ith o u t an-
ger and b ia s‫ ״‬, on the basis o f tho very same rea-
soning th a t professional murderers and re cid i-
vists are wiped o u t.
Wo m ay recall th a t once upon a tim e one o f
them got the idea o f w r itin g ‫ ״‬Jcdem das seine‫״‬
on the gates to tho Buchenw ald concentration
cam p— to each his due.

W h y do I writ© th is here? Because th a t was

a p p ro x im a te ly the w ay E in s te in th o u g h t. He ha•
ted fascism h is whole life .
Hum anism and the a ll-p e rm e a tin g kindness
th a t was E in s te in 's does n o t appear to lin k up
w ith sentim ental all-forgivingne ss, w h ich , as a
ru le , stems from indiiïerence and gets along vo-
ry w e ll w ith stone-cold egotism .
T h is is n ic e ly and precisely described by Leo‫־‬
pold In fo ld in h is recollectioas.
U n fo rtu n a te ly , in recollections and biographies,
E in s te in ve ry often appears a k in d o f eccen-
trie em anating an endI 〇 5%s stream o f f^ntleness
and fa r removed from any th o u g h t th a t there
can bo meanness, deceit and wickedness in tho
o rd in a ry d ay-to-day w o rld . Such w ritin g s arc
m ostly ir r ita tin g , fo r, w hether in te n tio n a lly or
not, the authors mako G instoin o n t to bo u n a ri-
g in a lly s tu p id .

316
 We w ill do better to quote In fe ld :
“ 1 learned m uch fro m E iiiâ te in in the realm
o f physics. B u i w hat I value most is w h a t I was
ta ught by m y c o n ta ct w ith h im in the hum an
rather than the s c ie n tific dom ain. E in s te in is the
kindest, most understanding and h e lp fu l man in
the w o rld . B u t again th is somewhat common-
place statem ent m ust n o t be taken lite r a lly .
‫״‬The feeling o f p ity is one o f the sources of
human kindnoss. P ity fo r the fate o f our fe llo w -
men, fo r the m isery around us, fo r the suffering
of hum an beings, s tirs our em otions by the re-
sonance o f sym p a th y. O ur own attachm ents to
life and people, the ties w h ich bind us to the out*
side w o rld , awaken our em o tio n a l response to
the struggle and suffering outside ourselves. B u t
there is also another e n tire ly d iffe re n t source of
hum an kindness. I t is the detached feeling of
d u ty based on aloof, clear reasoning. Good,
clear th in k in g leads to kindness and lo y a lty be-
cause th is is w h a t makes life sim p le r, fu lle r,
rich e r, dim inishes fric tio n and unhappiness in
ou r enviro n m e n t and therefore also in our
liv e s. A sound social a ttitu d e , helpfulness, frie a d -
liness, kindness, m ay come from both these d if-
ferent sources; to express i t a n a to m ic a lly , from
heart and b ra in . As the years passed I learned
to value more and more tho second k in d o f de-
cency th a t arises from clear th in k in g . Too often
I have seen how em otions unsupported by clear
th ough t are useless i f n o t d e s tru c tiv e .‫״‬
I am o n ly sorry th a t 1 d id n o t w rite th is pas-
sage m yself. W ith o u t s e n tim e n ta lity and pas-
sio n， w ith o u t m elodram a and tragedy and a
soul-dive siin g self-analysis, w ith tho calm lo g ic of

317
 the physicist. Infold has hero form ulatod tlio best
tow ards w hich every ! ， ü rs o u s trives.
B u t, as we know , the road to h e ll is paved
w itli good in lo n lio n s . To strivo does not mean to
accom plish.
T h a t is not a ll. In fe ld w rites fu rth e r.
‫ ״‬Here again, as I see i t , E in ste in represonts
a lim itin g case. I had never encountered so much
kindness th a t was so com pletely detachcnl.
Though o n ly s c ie n tific ideas and physics re a lly
m a tte r to E in s te in , he has never refused to help
when he fe lt th a t his help was needed and could
be effective. Ho w ro le thousands o f le tte rs of
recom m endation, gave advice to hundreds. For
hours ho ta lke d w ith a crank because the fa m ily
had w ritte n th a t E in s te in was tho o n ly one who
could cure h im . E in s te in is k in d , s m ilin g ,
understanding, ta lk a tiv e w ith people whom
he meets, w a itin g p a tie n tly for the m om ent
when he w ill be lo ft alone to re tu rn to his
w o rk•”
I t is hard to believe th a t E in s te in found any
pleasure in ta lk in g to th is p sych ica lly u nbal-
anced man. I t w ould be ju s t as naive to th in k th a t
E in s te in hoped，through such an encounter, to
heal the man. B u t he prob a b ly believed, a fte r
w eighing and analysing the case, th a t ho m ig h t
b riu g about a s lig h t and tem porary im provem ent
in tho state o f the p a tie n t, and thus a lle via te
the life o f the fa m ily , i t was w ith th is pure ly
h y p o th e tic a l p o s s ib ility in m ind th a t he con^i-
dered i t necessary to tear h im s e lf away from his
w o rk — his o n ly god.
A nd when E in s te in a rriv e d , in w a rd ly , a t some
conclusion, ho d id not leave i t as some specula-

318
liv e for h im , th o u g h t sig n ifie d , above
a ll, action coordinated w ith thought.

Here 1 am w ritin g som ething in the nature of

a biograph y, yet a ll the tim e I hear E in s te in 's
own calm rem ark in h is ‫ ״‬A u to b io g ra p h ic a l
Notes*’ th a t he hi could not hopfl to convey
e x a c tly h is own thoughts aud his im u 、 r w o rld .
Q u ite n a tu ra lly , a biographer w ould succeed
even less.
Even when one is dealing w ith a ra th e r com -
mon personage, th is is an in surm ounta ble pro-
blem . I t becomes a b so lu te ly unresolvable when
one atte m p ts to w rite about a man the stature
o f E in ste in .
Note too th a t E in s te in 's own w ritin g s on th is
m atter are n a tu ra lly very often c o n tra d ic to ry,
w h ilo a biograph er's w ritin g s are u navoid ably
subjective.
Y e t in the case of E in s te in , i t appears, para-
d o x ic a lly , th a t some th in g s are s im p le r th a n even
in the biographies o f some of the long since for-
gotten ‫ ״‬im m o rta ls ‫ ״‬o f the French Academ y of
Sciences.
T h is may be due, again, to the fa ct th a t in
his em otional life too he follow ed w ith p u re ly
German pedantism the clear-cut lo g ica l c rite ria
o f a consistent and re a lis tic h um anist th a t he
had worked out for h im s e lf in h is ch ild h o o d and
e arly yo u th .
I t was more d iffic u lt to shake h is co n victio n s
here tha n in his general theory o f r e la tiv ity ,
though he h im s c lfJ id n o t in the least overestimat«
h is virtu e s .

319
 The calm and saddening skepticism o f a m ild ,
clever and k in d scholar made com pletely and
u n c o n d itio n a lly im possible any s o rt— so com-
mon in people o f th a t character—o f n a rro w -in in -
ded self satisfaction o f the righteous man who
has learned the tr u th and is c o m m u n ic a lia ^ i t
to the lo st w o rld .
S h o rtly before his death he w rote to Max Born
th a t w hat every man has to do is be a model of
p u r ity and have the courage gra ve ly to m a in ta in
e th ic co n victio n s in a society o f cynics. He add-
ed th a t he had s trive d fo r a long tim e to a ct
in th is manner and had succeeded— to some ©x-
te n t.
These sad and wearied words were spoken by
a man who was—cveryono s a id —alw ays charged
w ith a n a tu ra l in n e r and in v in c ib le cheerfulness.
They in d ica te th a t E in s te in p e rp e tu a lly fe lt a
heavy in n e r awkwardness th ro u g h o u t his cons-
cious life . Ho was c o n s ta n tly w orried o f being
too speculative and too passive in the struggle
against baseness and a b s u rd ity th a t stood oat
so conspicuously in the surroundin g w o rld . Above
a ll, he was oppressed b y the obvious a b su rd ity
o f w h a t was happening in the w o rld .
H ow i t was and w hy E ia s te ia decided th a t
social w o rk was not h is business, I do n o t know .
Perhaps he d id n o t see aay real ways o u t. I t
m ay be th a t em otions and feelings were decisive.
To some e xte n t unconsciously, obeying the ox-
h o rta tio n s o f his h e a rt, he found his id e n tity in
physics.
Perhaps some role was played by the inne r re-
ticence and in d iv id u a lity of his th in k in g . And
a fte r the choice was made, a ll else was pushed

320
 aside and in to the background by the cb ie f pas-
.sion of his life .
B u t the surroundin g w orld was never fo r a mo-
ment switched oat o f his m in d . In a ctu a l life
he was co n sta n tly encountering p o litic a l in t r i-
gués» m alice and hum an passions— he could not
stand aside from these things, fo r he c le a rly and
Tirmly realized th a t a hum an being has no r i^ h t
to do so.
T h is idea is s im p ly a re p e titio n o f w h a t was
said e a rlie r; there also I w ro lc some sharp words
about the ‫״‬German p e d a n try ‫ ״‬o f E in s te in . The
p o in t here is nut uno o f a d e fin itio n o f pedan try,
i t need h a rd ly be said th a t by pedantry here
was meant a k in d of in te g rity and u ltim a te lo g i-
c a lity o f character. Since these features are com-
n io n ly though t to be in trin s ic to the n a tio n a l
character o f (Germans, I used the adjective **(ier-
m an” .
However» I do not inte n d tu ju s tify m y defi-
iiit io ii because—‫־‬and 1 believe i t is w d i w orth
saying— A lb e rt E in s te in , though bora a Jew, had
an Am erican passport, and was a consistent and
u iic o u d ilio n a l in to rn u lio n a lis t in his c o u v ic li-
ons, an in te rn a tio n u li^ t in both m ind und heart,
was alw ays, a ll his lifo , a German, a German in

2 1 -IW 7 321
 lan^iHigo, in c u ltu re , in customs and in the hard•
ly perceivable habits, e cce n tricitie s and m in u liu o
th a t, u ltim a te ly , go to make up a n a tio n , p a trio -
tis in , and love o f one’s m otherland.
He was a (ierm an in his rathor heavy (pa rticu-
la r ly in his youth) academ ically d ry hum ou r. In
la te r j rears, the ponderousness retreated and his
pronouncements became polished and aphoris-
tic , though again th is was the h um our o f Heine
ra th e r than th a t o f M a rk T w a in or the Russian
Shchedrin.
He was also a (German in his somewhat con-
tc m p la tiv e love o f q u ie t nature and w a lk in g in
tho countryside, in his h o u ^ h o ld h a b its, in his
passion fo r M ozart, his penchant fu r analysing
philo so p h ica l problem s, and hi.s love o f his mo-
Ih cr tongue.
The last words ho pronounced were in tho Ian-
guage o f h is childh o o d , German, and they wore
not understood by the nurse who was tho o n ly
one w ith h im when he passed away.
A fte r tw e n ty years o f life in A m e rica — i t is
hard to im agine a n y th in g more p a ra d o xica l—he
was ju s t reaching the p o in t (said one h isto ria n
o f physics) where he could handle the E nglish
language s a tis fa c to rily .
B u t oven during the latUjr years of his life he
[)referred to speak German if his companion
S|Kikc that language.
He was hom esick ju s t lik e any o rd in a ry burg-
Iwr who m ig h t have come to the U n ite d States
on business and st*ttled down for the rest o f his
life . F or—and th is in c id e n ta lly was the credo
of E in ste in h im s e lf— there are things and coucepts
common to a ll people irrespective 〇{ th e ir ia te l-

322
lect and c u ltu re ‫ ״‬Now in m atter? of ethics, in
the aspect o f norms o f hum an conduct, E instein
was a ft illy convicted d oiiuicrat who rec^ïgnized
both in word and in dtH'd the com pie Le a p rio ri
e q u a lity o f human b^injç».
I feel I miijst stra y again and relate a sto ry,
w hich, though i t alm ost sounds lik e a joke,
0 ves a very accurate p ic tu re « f E in s te in 's stand
and style in his dealings w ith people.
There seemod to be a vacancy open a t a certain
in s titu tio n , and four d iffe re n t a p p lica n ts came
to h im one a fte r the other fo r lette rs o f recommcn-
datiou. E in ste in gave lette rs to a ll four.
To the surprised questions of his friends ho
rej>lied c a lm ly th a t he saw n o th in g strange or
extravagant in w hat he had done, fo r in each
case he gave d ifferent reasons for his choice of
candidate and i t was, he said, up to the em ployer
to do the choosing.
Let us re tu rn to 1891, to the tow n of U lm and
to the tw elve-year-old boy who was experiencing
a wonder. I t was contained in a book on E u c h ，
dean plane geom etry. E u c lid was a re ve la tion
to E in ste in , and i t rem ained so to the ead o f his
life . S h o rtly before h is death he said words to
the effect th a t i f E u c lid 's w ork could not firo
onefs enthusiasm in y o u th , then th a t person was
not born to be a theoretician .
E instein*s reco lle ctio n o f th is wonder on the
fo u rth or fifth page o f h is ‫ ״‬A u to b io g ra p h ic a l
N otes‫ ״‬is ju s t about the last p u re ly autobiogra-
phical recollection.
A few words fo llo w about h is education at
tho P olyte ch n ic In s titu te o f Z ü ric h , thon ju s t
in passing a rem ark or tw o ahmU the system of

323
in s triic tio n and ro u g h ly fifty pages of lîin -
ste in 's ideas concerning modes of th in k in g , opis-
tcm o lo ^y and» o f course», phy.sics，as always.
B u t one should not i^vi tlu> idea (h a t th is way
of co n stru ctin g an autobio graphy is another one
of those cute absurd absent-m inded ways o f tho
aschetic monk. D o n 't over tr y to represent A l-
InTt E in ste in as a k in d « f Jacques Faganel of
pliy.sics.
入 few pages la te r he gives a clear-cut and
calm e x p la n a tio n o f his somewhat extravagant
manner o f presenting things.
‫ ״‬And th is is an o b itu a ry ? ‫ ״‬asks the puzzled
reader. I feel lik e answering: u\V hy yes, o f cour-
se.‫ ״‬Because the most im p o rta n t th in g in the
life o f a man of m y inake-up is w hat he think.s
and how he th in k s and not w hat he does or exţw-
riences.‫״‬
Th a t is w hy E in ste in recalls tho wonder of
geom etry and does not even m ention his Nobel
Prize.
T h is id e a o f a “ w o n d e r” as o f s o m e th in g th a t
th e h u m a n in in d e n c o u n te rs t h a t c o n tr a d ic ts a ll
e s ta b lis h e d n o tio n s , is v e r y p e r s is te n tly re p e a te d
b y E in s te in th r o u g h o u t h is l i f t 1.
In re p ly to a re p o rte r's queslion as to how it
happened th a t E in s te in and n o t somebody else
discovered the special theory o f r e la tiv ity , E in •
stein remarked th a t ho was ra th e r la te in deve-
lo p in g m e n ta lly and th a t for th is reason he s t ill
retained the j>ercej)ii〇n o f a c h ild a t the age of
20-25. A nd so when, unencumbered, he m ed ita-
ted on the s itu a tio n o f things in physics, he na-
tu r a lly was surprised lik e any no rm a l c h ild
w ould be, but since ho was at th a t tim e tw e n ty

324
years of a^e, his in le lle c l was more developed
{th is he a d m itte d } tlm n th a t o f a norm al teu-
y<*«r‫־‬old hoy and so lie was able to o b ta in re-
suits th a t comprised the special theory o f rola-
t iv it y .
Penetratinfif to the kernel o f m atters hero, we
find th a t there is an im p o rta n t and vt»ry os^iMitial
idea t>ehind i t a ll, th a t the scie n tist should con-
s ta n tly exporienco a fe t'lin ^ o f w undennont and
regard a ll Ihe phenomena o f nature in an unpre‫׳‬
judiced manner; hi; should reject a ll dogmas and
a u th o ritie s .... In short, ho should th in k and not
quote. T rue, th is was not an o rig in a l th o u g h t,
!,la to had already p u t the idea n e a tly when \w.
said: ‫ ״‬W onder is the m other o f science.‫״‬
Today th is is such a tru ism th a t no solf-res-
p e ctin^ w rite r risks repeating i t , yet there is no
Si^cond E in s te in . O b vio u sly, there must he some-
th in g more. B a t, sad as i t is to a d m it, wc are
rather in the position o f a eum ich \m n^ to ld the
meaning o f love.
So young Ein.st«iu experienced one wonder af-
ter another. Between the ages o f tw elve and six•
teen he iJiscovered m athem atics, and the ])urely
em otional impression th a t th is new w o rld , the
w orld o f preciso logic .*ind u n b rid le d im a g in a tio n
made on h im , was exception al.
A t about th is tim e E in ste in experienced yet
another wonder, p u re ly psychological,
4<Tho fact th a t I neglected m athem atics to a
c ertain e xte n t had its cause not merely in my
stronger interest in the n a tu ra l sciences than iu
m athem atics b u t also in the fo llo w in g siran^o
experience. I saw th a t m athem atics was s p lit up
in to numerous specialities, each o f w hich could

325
easily absorb the short life tim e granted to us...
m y in tu itio n was not strong enough in the field
o f m athernaiics in order to d iffe re n tia te c lo a rly
the h in d a in e n la lly im p o rta n t, th a t w h ich is real-
ly basic, from the rvsi o f the more or less dispen-
sable e ru d itio n . Beyond th is, however, my in -
U'rest in the knowledge o f nature was also unqua-
lifio d ly stronger; and i t was not clear to me as
a sttid e n t th a t the apj>roach to a more profound
knowledg•、o f the b«sic p rin cip le s o f physics is
tied up w ith the most in tric a te m athem atical
methods. T h is dawned upon me o n ly g ra d u a lly
a ft^ r years of inHojMMident s c ie n tific w ork. True
enough, physics also was d ivid e d in to separate
Holds, each of w h ich was capable o f devouring
a short life tim e o f w ork w ith o u t h a vin g satis-
n〇 d the hunger fo r deeper knowledge. The mass
of in s u ffic ie n tly connected experim enta l data was
overw helm ing here also• In tiiis fie ld ，however，I
soon learned to scent o u t th a t w h ich was able
to lead to fundam entals and to tu rn aside from
e ve ryth in g else, from the m u ltitu d e o f things
w hich c lu tte r up the m ind and d iv e rt i t from
the essential.”
T h is is amazing. I t is not so im p o rta n t whether
F： in ste in , a t the age o f sixteen to tw e n ty had for-
im ilâ te d to h im se lf these things or whether the
decisicm was to some e xte n t not t'onscim w ly fd t.
in his own m ind.
The am azing th in g is the m a tu rity o f such a
choice. Such lu c id c ritic a l th in k in g in general is
very rare, and is som ething })ra d ic a lly unheard
of a t tho ajţe of sixteen to eighteen years.
Indeed, take a look a t what we have. Here is
a young b(»y o f sixteen carried away by m athe-

326
 iiiatics• The inU>j^ral，the fuiidam ontals of ana-
ly tic gi'o m etry are a great source o f pleasure, of
such jo y th a t n o th in g olso can compare. He of
course realizes th a t he is g ifte d and th a t his ta-
lent stands o u t on the general background.
He had every p o s s ib ility of a frev choice (and
this is most e ^ n t i a l ) f no circum slances o f life
compelled h im . Even mow?, i f one takes in to ac-
count the pure ly external influences, then there
were moro p o in ts in fa vo u r o f m athem atics. The
P olytechnic In s titu te o f Z tiric h had a num ber of
b r illia n t m athem aticians such as M in ko w ski.
There were no outsta n d in g p hysicists though.
E instein h im se lf said la te r th a t up to the age of
th ir ty he had never seen a real theoretical phy-
sicist. '
G iven s ta rtin g co n d itio u s lik e these, i t is hard-
ly possible to conceive « f a young man g iv in g up
niHthematics for the connate subject o f th e o reti-
cal physics.
A change over to poetry or, say, music would
have been, p sych o lo g ica lly speaking, more un•
derstandable.
I feel th a t the problem was resolved by an
amazing feature o f E in s te in 's character, w hich,
ob vio u sly, was already f u lly m ature in those
years, and th a t is a to ta l a h ^ n c e o f in te lle c tu a l
conceit th a t is so n a tu ra l among g ifte d young
people.
He alw ays appraised both liis p o te n tia litie s
and his results soberly and c a lm ly . He never
played a t ostentatious modesty and ho knew —he
said i t openly— th a t his works ivpresent the giva-
test result o f tw e n tie th -c e n tu ry science.
A t the same tim e he knew (or he th o u g h t hü

327
 knew) th a t he w ould not become an ou tsla n d iug
m athem atician.
A nd so ho gave up m athem atics.
T h rougho ut his life tim e , E in s te in 's re la tio n -
ships w ith m athem atics were ra th e r com plica-
ted. On the one band, in la lr r life , he tim e and
a^ain regretl<?d his y o u th fu l » 1If-confident con-
elusion th a t physics required o n ly the fiindam en-
ta ls o f m athem atics and th a t tbe more so p h isti-
catod m atters could be lo ft to professional ma-
them aiiciati5. He became convinced o f th is error
when he began w orkin g on the general theory
o f r e la tiv ity . D u rin g the fir^ t he liad to
ask tlio help of his frieud Marcel Ctrossmunn in
the m athem atical p o rtio n .
In la te r years, K in ^ te iirs views changed. H is
m ain w orks— at least o u tw a rd ly — aro works of
a m atbiM iiatician.
Nevertlieless, he alw ays remained a physicist
in mode of though t and in his approach to pro-
blems.
1 shall not ris k g e ttin g in to a discussion about
tho s im ila ritie s and diHereaces of the tlie o re ti-
cal physicist and the pure in a th e m a ticia n . Suf-
lice i t to say that, there is a difference. A nd a
ratiuu‫ ׳‬essential one, as witness the fo llo w in g
am using exchango o f w it hotweon E in ste in and
iiilh e r t .
In 1915, H ilb e r t took a lik in g to the theory of
r e la tiv ity and decided to tr y his hand a t physics
tx^lie vin^ th a t su b sta n tia l p ro ^ re ^ w ould not be
müde w ith o u t m a th o n ia iicia n s.
As hu ra lh c i‫ ־‬c le ve rly p u t i t w ith o u t excessive
modesty, ‫ ״‬physics is a c tu a lly too d iffic u lt for
the p h y s ic is t‫ ״‬. H is w ork was n a tu ra lly a t the

328
 u ltim a te m athem atical level b u t somewhat
la c k in g in physical content.
In a le tte r to Ehrenfcst, E in ste in ra th e r spi-
te fu lly replied for the physicists when he descri-
bed H ilb e rt fs w ork as the tric k s o f a superman.
Towards the end o f his lif e t E in s te in remarked
to the effect th a t m athem atics is the o n ly per-
feet way o f leading yourself around b y the nose.
We w ill n o t a tte m p t to draw any m oral here,
but w ill s im p ly repeat th a t no m a tte r how ma-
th e m a tica l E in s te in 's w orks were, he always re-
mained a p h ysicist.
I t is now tim e fo r us to note one im p o rta n t
factor. Though E in s te in repeatedly said th a t the
response o f th« c o m m u n ity — re co g n itio n on the
p a rt o f his colleagues— was e xtre m e ly im p o rta n t
to h im , and th is was o f course true, his own ap-
praisal o f his w o rk was the decisive fa cto r.
To the very end o f his days he could n o t re-
concile h im se lf to the basic ideas o f quantum
mechanics (w hich he relegated to the class of
ephemeral physics) and though he remained
alone he never changed tiis o p in io n .
In the same w ay, he was the o n ly p h y s ic is t in
the w orld who, w ith o u t any e xte rn a l prerequisi-
tes and a fte r h a vin g earned fame and recogni-
tio n , worked fo r ten years (between 1905 and
1916) on the problem o f the g ra v ita tio n a l field.
S tanding q u ite outside the range o f interests
of the physics o f th a t period, he created the ge-
neral theory of r e la tiv ity .
Perhaps due to a v a rie ty of accid e n ta l circu m -
stauces he became the most famous scie n tis t in
the w o rld . C a lm ly and somewhat sardonically
he w ithstood a v ir tu a l avalanche of honorary

329
 awards，medals and d is tin c tio n s (in c lu d in g the
tit le and « ‫״‬it t ir e o f honorary ch ie f o f an In d ia n
trib e ). A nd then fo r another 35 years ho worked
intensely on the general theory o f r e la tiv ity , re-
m a ia in g p ra c tic a lly alone, a c tu a lly w ith o u t any
recognition or m oral support and appearing ：in
the eyes o f the new generation o f q u ite self-
confident theoretician s o f the 1930*5 to 1950's
som ething in the nature o f an a ^ in ^ m onuuient.
In c id e n ta lly , he once m entioned to h is wife
th a t the results he obtained in the 4 0 ,s were the
biggest c o n trib u tio n th a t lie had ever made.
W ho knows w hether he was rig h t, as he alm ost
alw ays was when the subject m a tte r was physics?
Tho o n ly th in g to be said is th a t there has been
an ever increasing interest in the general theory
of r e la tiv ity a n d t in p a rtic u la r, in the in v e s ti-
gâtions o f E in s te in carried out d u rin g the last
years u f his life .
B u t perhaps th a t too is ju s t a fad w hich phy-
?icists are prone to fo llo w lik e women do fashi-
ons. O r i t m ay s im p ly be an expression o f a cer-
ta in disa p p o in tm ent, a crisis in modern theore-
tic a l physics.
Y o t perhaps the founda tions o l the physics of
the fu tu re are indeed to be sought in E in s te iu 's
works on the u n ifie d field th e o ry. A t any rate,
the s c ie n tific career o f E in s te iu ，beginn ing from
his general theory o f r e la tiv ity , is an u u p a ral-
loied anom aly in the h is to ry of science.
A nd i f one speaks o f the p u re ly personal as-
pect of the m a tte r, the w hole sto ry is a m iracle
th a t causes more respect than the p u re ly malhe-
in a tic a l giftedness o f E in s te in , w hich u ltim a te ly
seerns beyond the scope o f hum an kin d •

330
 In passing Jet us add th a t oa the side (even i f
we cou n t from 1920 onwards), E in s te in carried
out a range o f researches to ta lly unconnected
w ith r e la tiv ity theory‫ ׳‬, b u t o f themselves q u ite
sufficie n t to s p lit up among a num ber o f workers
and f ill five or six vacancies at an election to the
Academ y o f Sciences.
We m ay again add th a t his results in the theo-
ry o f B ro w n ia n m o tio n and the photoelectric effect
(th is was in 1905) were in themselves su ffic ie n t
to have ensured the auth o r an exception al place
in the h is to ry o f physics.
We m ig h t also re c a ll th a t the most fashionable
and prom ising trend to d a y in q uantu m s ta tis tic s
has as its source the th e o ry o f the th e rm a l ca-
p a c ity o f crystals, w h ich ju s t by the w ay was
proposed b y E in s te in iu 1908.
F in a lly , E in s te in 's re je ctio n o f quantum me-
chanics, his paradoxes, yielded so m uch mate-
ria l fo r an e lu c id a tio n o f the fundam entals o f
th a t field th a t in themselves th e y can be consi*
dered first-m a g n itu d e w orks of scionce. Then, too,
he obtained a num ber o f very im p o rta n t results
after 1910 in vario u s parts o f the quantu m the-
ory.
B u t for h im a ll o f these wore o n ly a m ental
game and a pleasant recreation from the m ain
th in g — the un ifie d fie ld theory.
So we have E in s te in a t the Z ü ric h P o lyte chnic
Iu s titu te m a jo rin g in physics and neglecting ma-
them atics* He even skipped lectures— n o t to spend
his tim e id ly b u t the b e tte r to u tiliz e i t . Before
a rriv in g a t Z u ric h together w ith his fa m ily , he
had already v is ite d M ila n and had experienced a
uum ber of sm all unpleasantnesses, such as being

331
to ld to leave the gym uasium a t M u n ich fo r un-
h e a lth y skepticism . A lso he failed once in an
exa m in a tio n in zoology and b otany at the Pa-
ly te c h n ic In s titu te .
B u t these events, w h ic h fo r another person
m ig h t have played a decisive role, were fo r E in -
s le ia m erely unpleasant tr iv ia .
The die was cast, and h is n a tu ra l b u b b lin g -
over cheerfulness and c le a r-th in k in g head dism is-
s<?d a ll these and other bum ps and scrapes th a t
came h is w ay. H e w rote th a t he was never in a
gloom y mood unless he had a stom achache.‫ ״‬.
Ju d g in g by h is le tte rs and the recollections of
re la tive s, E in s te in at 20-25 years o f age was a
strong life -lo v ia g young xnan w ith a passion for
m usic, p a in tin g , lite ra tu re , h ik in g , w ith a g ift
fo r the joke, though, h o n e stly speaking, his hu-
m our was not alw ays up to the m a rk. He was a
b it extra va g a n t, a t r if lo fo rg e tfu l (lik e forg e l-
tin g the keys to his fla t a fte r h is wedding or
using a d o ily fo r a scarf). B u t th is was a ll n a tu ra l,
fo r i t stemniod from a s triv in g tow ards greater
in n e r freedom, though — and th is is im p o rta n t—

332
there was never any h ia t o f th is constant urge
fo r in n e r independence ever b u ild in g up in to ego-
tism and a disregard fo r those about him * T h is
was precluded b y an in b o rn c u ltu re and a con-
sciously developed mildness.
In a w ord, he was a nice well-m annered young
man, broad-m inded, w ith o u t a trace o f conceit
o r m orbid reflections. One could re a d ily foresee
his fu tu re as a school p rin c ip a l or a top-class
expert in the patent bureau, where at th a t tim e
he was o n ly rated th ird -c la s s . One could see
h im a great lo ve r o f m usic and lite ra tu re , le a d in g
Sophocles, R acine, Servantes, discussing the trea-
tises o f Spinoza and H um e, w h ic h be was then
reading w ith a group o f friends. One could p ic -
ture E in s te in on a m o u n ta in h ike a n im a te ly dis-
cussing M ozart, A lexande r o f M acedonia, Aeschy-
lus» Beethoven, K a n t, Archim edes, C leopatra,
N ew tou ，C uvier, C oafucius，A natole F ra n ce •"•
L a te r, we m ig h t see h im the author o f progres ，
sive article s on the h is to ry o f science, or music
or pedag og‫ ״ ׳‬..
In short, his le tte rs and tho recollections o f
people who knew h im draw a p ic tu re o f a very
nice young man d is tu rb in g ly o rd in a ry .
One finds i t hard to believe, then, th a t th is
was E in ste in and not ju s t some pleasant, educa*
ted w ell-m annered, clever young man.
Perhaps there is one th in g , E is te in 's a b ility
to dispense w ith a ll e xternals when the discus-
sion tu rn s to p hilosop hy or physics. B u t no, th is
was uot a very e xce p tio n a l feature among the
young people of those days.
A c tu a lly * however, an explosion was in the
m aking.

333
 A nd i t came in 1905.
I must repeat th a t any one o f three works of
E in s te in th a t appeared in th a t year— the theory
o f B ro w n ia n m o tio n , the theory o f the photo-
e le c tric effect, and the theory o f r e la t iv ity —
w ould elevate the auth o r to the ra n k o f extra-class
theoretician .
I t rem ains a psychological m ystery whether
E in s te in h im se lf f iilly realized w h a t he had ac-
com plished.
I f ho d id — and e ve ry th in g about E in ste in and
his la te r pronouncements on th is score su^jçest
th a t th a t was the case— then we m ust a d m it th a t
in te lle c tu a lly he m ust have been ve ry much
alone, and the pleasant people about h im d id not
even notice a n y th in g out o f the o rd in a ry , w hile
E in s te in h im s e lf，ta c tfu lly re tic e n t, trie d not 货〇
suppress his friends whom he lik e d in a ve ry hum an
w ay. Otherwise how arc w© to e x p la in his le tte r
to H a b ic h t, one o f his friends o f the Bern period?
T h is unique epistle begins “ Dear Ila b ic h t ，the
silence between us is sacred and tho fa ct th a t I
am in t^ r n ip tin g i t w ith mere tw addle m ay seem
a p ro fa n a tio n .‫ ״‬A nd so on in E in s te in 's o ld -
fashioned ponderous p la y fu l style , c a llin g H a-
b ic h t a ‫ ״‬frozen w hale‫ ״‬and fa n c ifu lly u p b ra id in g
h im fo r not sending h is dissertation, w hich E in -
stein was eager to get and read Mw ith pleasure
and in te re s t‫ ״‬.
B u t the best joke o f a ll, one q u ito w o rth y of
H e in ric h H eiue, is hidden a t the ve ry begin-
n in g o f the le tte r, because w hat is being offered
as mere tw addle is the fo llo w in g :
‫ ״‬ln re tu rn (for H a b ic h t's d is s e rta tio n .—*Smi/‫־‬
ga) I promise you four papers, the firs t o f w hich
334
I w ill send soon because I am expecting the au-
th o r's copies.
“ I t is devoted to ra d ia tio n and lig h t energy
and is very re v o lu tio n a ry , as yo u yourself w ill
see, i f you first send me y o u r w ork.
‫״‬The second paper contains a de te rm in a tio n
o f the true sizo o f atoms by means o f stu d yin g
d iffusio n and in te rn a l fr ic tio n in liq u id solutions.
“ The th ird demonstrates th a t in accordance
w ith the m olecular theory o f h e a tt p a rticle s of
tho order o f 10‫־‬s mm suspended in a liq u id ex-
perience apparent ch a o tic m o tio n due to the ther-
m al m otion of the m olecules. B io lo g is ts have a l-
ready observed such m otions o f suspended par-
tid e s ; th e ir term is B ro w n ia n m olecular m otion.
4*The fo u rth paper is based on tho clectrodyna-
mics o f m oving bodies and m odifies the concep-
tio n o f space and tim e : you w ill be interested
in the p u re ly k in e m a tic p a rt o f the w o r k ....‫״‬
TIabicht c e rta in ly d id not lose out in th is ex-
change. I wonder how m uch is inbred m odesty—
E in s te in 's appeal to a scientists o f equal stan-
d in g — and how m uch is m erely tra d itio n a l cour-
tesy. I t is hard to take seriously the ra ther t i-
m id hope th a t in a paper where, in passing as
i t were, our conceptions o f tim e and space art?
overthrow n, there m ig h t be som ething o f in te -
rest to H a b ic h t. Here we get a p ic tu re of E in stein
verging on th a t o f the v illa g e sim pleton.
Y e t on the other h a n d — and th is is evident
from a ll fu tu re le tte rs, from E in s te in 's whole
life — there is the sincere awareness ，confidence,
co n v ic tio n (w hat have you) th a t H a b ic h t is a
man, a p e rso n a lity and has tho same value as
he, A lb e rt E in s te in , and is not d iffe re n t before

335
any law . Above a ll, before the in n e r law th a t
E in ste in obeyed in his y o u th , in m a tu rity and
in old age.
M ost lik e ly the im pression o f a c e rta in ordin a -
riness in the person o f E in ste in (I speak purposely
of his y o u th when his associates and companions
could n o t y e t know th a t he was the greatest p h y-
sicist in the w o rld ) was la rg e ly due to E in s te in 's
o ve rrid in g fco lin g o f dem ocracy, and an e ^& lita •
rianism ju s t as n a tu ra l to h im as h is desire to
study th e o re tica l physics.
I have already spoken o f th is , b u t I w ant to
repeat because to people o f the tw e n tie th cen-
tu ry th is t r a it of an o u tsta n d in g person is p ro ‫־‬
bably the most cherished; one is especially a t-
tra d e d to a man who, when placed in an exccp-
tio n a l s itu a tio n e ither due to his own m erits or
to a more or less accid e n ta l set of circum stances,
rem ains dem ocratic and h u m a n istic n o t o n ly in
form b u t in essence too.
A nd note th a t fo r a s c ie n tis t o f E in s te in 's
stature, there were not less but j>erhaps more
grounds and c o n d ition s to become, a t least in the
c o m m u n ity o f his associates and p u p ils, a more
unbridled and cruel d ic ta to r in the sphere o f the
in te lle c t than any a ctu a l d ic ta to r has in the
sphere o f p o litic a l life .
Self-confidence, w h ic h expands in to ca p ricio -
uâoess, intolerance, and c o n ce it, u n fo rtiin a le ly
often attends o u tsta n d in g (and mediocre) scien-
tists, who in th is respect o n ly fa ll short o f poets
and prim a donnas.
Such things are not u su a lly w ritte n in books
yet th a t is the case.
T ru e , I can judge E in s te in o n ly on the basis

336
of biographical m a te ria l, b u t th is case appears
to be a bsolute ly clear. E in s te in d id not have a
single one o f these tra its to even the s lig h te st
decree.
T h a t is yet another psychological enigma as-
sociated w ith the name o f A lb e rt E in s te in , and
by far not the last in significance.
E in ste in stood the test o f fame in ju s t as easy-
going a fashion—h a rd ly n o tic in g i t —as he d id
his ia iiu re a t the exams a t the P o lyte ch n ic In -
s titu te o f Z u rich .
T h a t, a p p ro x im a te ly , is the p ic tu re I have o f
E in ste in .
One th in g rem ains. I t is very im p o rta n t.
I t is the a ttitu d e o f E in s te in to violence and
war•
W illy - n illy , from about the 1920,s onwards,
when he had become w orld-fam ous, and the na-
tio n a lis tic , a n tis e m itic fascist scum o f Germ any
bad begun v ic tim iz in g h im aud h is w orks， to
the end o f his life he was closely associated w ith
p o litic a l affairs a t large.
One cannot say th a t he trie d to evade b u r-
ning p o litic a l issues o f the day. He c le a rly rea-
lized th a t, firs tly , such a th in g was s im p ly im -
possible (whether ho lik e d i t or uot is a d iffe re n t
question), and secondly, he fe lt th a t he s im p ly
had to interfere wherever he believed th a t
some good could re s u lt.
B u t here he found h im s e lf in a sphere where,
from his p o in t o f vie w , ve ry m any th in g s were
unpredicta ble, u n c o n tro lla k lo , and u n e xp la in -
able.
Because E in s te in was e xtre m e ly perceptive, he
could prob a b ly p ic tu re to h im se lf and account

337
for the psychology o f officers o f the Prussian
general staff, b u t to conceive o f a human being
reasoning and a c tin g lik e the com m andants o f
e x te rm in a tio n camps, lik e the men in p u n itiv e
e xp e d itio n s and the hundreds and hundreds o f
thousands o f SS men, o r to understand how i t
came about th a t the leaders of q u ite a fow coun-
trie s could be m o ra lly and in te lle c tu a lly about
on a level w ith those very same SS men was
som ething beyond the c a p a c ity o f E in ste in . T h is
was because he u n w ittin g ly overostimalcH the
hum an in te lle c t.
In the l9 3 〇*s he who was a convinced and
consistent p a cifist had to .say 4*now is n o t the
tim e fo r p a c ifis t ideas‫ ״‬, fo r (th is was a n a tu ra l,
im m ediate conclusion) the o n ly way to h a lt the
spread o f fascism is by use o f m ilita r y force.
In what follow ed ho was witness to an in v o l-
vedt s iïip id and d ir t y p o litic a l game. He saw
p o litic ia n s of the tw e n tie th c e n tu ry adhering to
the old-fashioned, naive c rite ria o f h u m a n ita ria -
nism to alm ost the same degree as Genghis
K han. He witnesst^d the Second W o rld W ar, and
he saw events a fte r the w ar b u ild up in to a
fresh th re a t o f yet another war. He was to some
e xte n t responsible fo r the m aking o f the atom ic
bomb, for he had w ritte n his famous le tte r to
Roosevelt.
In reminiscences o f Einstein» w rite rs often
speak o f the so-called ‫ ״‬E in s te in ia n tragedy of
the ato m ic bom b‫ ״‬.
To m y m in d , i t was n o t the bomb.
F ro m th e s ta n d p o in t o f re a s o n a n d lo g ic (a n d
these fa c to rs w e re a lw a y s d e c is iv e fo r E in s te in )
he w as irre p ro a c h a b le .

338
 He w rot‫׳‬e the le tte r in August, 1939, when
there was a d ire c t and im m ediate danger o f H itle r
m aking the bomb «and when the o n ly reasonable
so lution was to get i t bc^foro fascism d id .
He fu lly realized th a t ho had had n o th in g to
do w ith the cold-blooded senseless m urder of
of thousands o f Japanese in Iliro s h im a and
Nagasaki, a ll the more so since in 1945 he wrote
Roosevelt asking h im n o t to a llo w the m ilita r y
use o f the bomb.
To E in s te in , the atom ic borabardrneut o f these
c itie s was in the w ay o f the last a ct o f human
barbarism ，fin a l proof o f the hopeless p o sitio n
o f the scientist, the a b s u rd ity o f the social stru c-
ture, the u n co n d itio n a l a b n o rm a lity o f hum an
beings in seats o f governm ent.
O f course, th is gloom y conclusion was aggrava-
tod b y the p u re ly em o tio n a l re a liz a tio n th a t he,
A lb e rt E in ste in , was connected w ith the exp lo-
sion, however in d ire c tly . B u t th is was o n ly an
in c id e n ta l factor. More depressing s t ill was the
fa ct th a t d u rin g those years he a t tim es lost
fa ith in the p o s s ib ility o f any social and m oral
progress, yet th is ran counter to e v e ry th in g E in -
stein stood fo r. How ever, here too he rem ained
true to him self, to his manner o f o u tw a rd ly dis-
passionate, calm analysis•
He learned o f the explosion by ra d io . E in s te in 's
firs t reaction was one o f g rie f and despondency.
Y e t he re a liz e d U ih I the tragedy had n o th in g
to do w ith the discovery o f the c h a in reaction.
H is v ie w th a t the discovery o f the fission of
uranium does not represent a th re a t to c iv iliz a -
tio n any more than the discovery o f matches
does, th a t the fu tu re development of h u m a n ity

339
depends on its m oral code and n o t on the level
o f technology, was repeated m any tim es.
He wrote th a t the w o rld was on the verge o f a
crisis, the whole significance o f w hich was n o t
ţ>erceived by those who have the power to de-
cide between good and e v il, th a t the now ly re-
leased ato m ic energy had changed e ve ryth in g ,
leaving unchanged o n ly o u r mode o f th in k in g .
4*The s o lu tio n o f th is problem lies in the
hearts o f the people .‫״‬
B u t the fa c t th a t he saw a ll th is so c le a rly
did not make th in g s easier. Tow ards the end o f
his life h is s u p p ly o f n a tu ra l cheer was ru n n in g
o u t, and his depressed state o f m in d o n ly aggra-
vated the m ercilessly c r itic a l v ie w he took in
appraising h im s e lf and h is w ork.
‫ ״‬There is n o t a single idea w h ich I am c o n v in -
ced w ill stand the test o f tim e . A t tim es I am
iu d oubt about the correctness o f the p a th I have
taken. M y contem poraries see in me a t once
a rebel and a re a c tio n a ry who, to p u t i t figura^
tiv e ly , has o u tliv e d h im s e lf. T h a t is o f course
a passing fad caused b y nearsightedness. The fee•
lin g o f d issa tisfactio n comes, however, from
w ith in . ”
E in s te in 's seventieth anniversary was being
celebrated when ho w rote th is le tte r to an old
frie n d . H onours never moved h im , and now
s t ill less. He sa dly concluded: MThe best th a t life
has g ive n me is a few re a l friends, b rig h t and cordi-
a l, who understand one another lik e yo u and m e.}>
One year before h is death, when he declined
the in v ita tio n to be present a t the fiftie th anni*
versary o f the cre a tio n o f the special theory o f
r e la tiv ity , he w rote in tlie same s p ir it:

340
 “ Old age and illness do not p e rm it me to take
p a rt in such ceremonie?. A n d I m ust a d m it th a t
in p a rt I am gra te fu l to fate, for e ve ry th in g th a t
is in the least associated w ith the c u lt o f the per-
s o n a lity has always been a to rtu re to m e.... In
tny long life I have come to understand th a t we
are a great deal fa rth e r away from a real under-
standing o f the processes o f nature th a n most
people today re a liz e .‫״‬
There m ay have been more o p tim is tic notes
at other moments, but in general the last o f his
years were sad. Nevertheless he continued to
w ork. H is cheer a t tim es le ft h im , b u t never his
clear a n a ly tic a l m in d , w h ich functioned flawless-
iy to the end. He never changed his views or
co n victio n s in the least. They m erely to o k on
more sombre to n e s .
As before he was alw ays ready to respond to
a le tte r or to define h is ideals, though more of-
ten one w ould hear h im say, ‫ ״‬people have gone
m ad” ，“ the w orld is on the b rin k o f a catastro-
phe‫ ״‬. D u rin g these years o f the ‫ ״‬cold w a rn the
s itu a tio n in the U n ite d States was grave. A t
such tim es extrem ists alw ays come to the surface.
The notorious A n ti-A m e ric a n A c tiv itie s Com-
m ittee was a ctive . The slig h te st d e v ia tio n from
o ffic ia l p o litic a l views was dangerous. N a tu ra l-
l y v the in te lle c tu a ls — the most wide-awake por‫־‬
tio n of the n a tio n — were ürst to come under sus-
picion.
In E in s te in 's le tte rs and speeches o f th is pe‫־‬
rio d t one sees more and moro a b itte r y e t coara-
geous stoicism . N o t a drop of s e n tim e n ta lity .
As before he was ve ry fa r away from any kin d
o f com placent all-forgivingness.

341
 In re p ly to an A m erican teacher, he w rote:
“ F ra n k ly ， I can o n ly see the re v o lu tio n a ry
way o f noncooperation in the sense o f G an d h i's.
E ve ry in te lle c tu a l... must be prepared fo r ja il
and economic ru in , in short, fo r tho sacrifice of
his personal w elfare in the interest o f tho cu l-
tu ra l welfare o f his c o u n try.
‫ ״‬I f enough people are ready to take th is grave
step they w ill be successful. I f not, then the in -
to lle ctu a ls o f th is c o u n try doserve n o th in g bet-
tor than the slavery w h ich is intended fo r th e m .‫״‬
Is not th is the same as saying l<Ye«, the people
o f a c o u n try deserve the governm ent th a t they
have ” ？
He continued to receive letters and no m a tter
what he th o u g h t, w h a t his mood was, ho consi-
dered i t h is d u ty to help by w r itin g to those
who fe lt they needed his a id . H is w ork suffored
o f course, b u t w h a t was there to do.
As he p u t i t w ith a b it o f iro n y ju s t a year be*
fore his death, ‫ ״‬the tim e I need fo r m e d ita tio n
and w ork I have to steal lik e a professional
th ie f‫ ״״‬A nd y e t fo r a ll th a t, he continued to
w ork to the end, w hether he was disappointed
in h u m a n ity or in the level o f hum an knowledge.
N ow 1 can see how poo rly I have succeeded in
w ritin g about E in s te in . To say n o th in g of other
things, 1 realize th a t E in ste in appears here un*
real, unbelievable, too good.
B u t th a t was w h a t he was.
l*erhaps his greatest weakness was a somewhat
cruel iro n y• He a c u te ly saw the weak sides of
people and a t tim es ho overindulged iu bis hu^
inour. O f course he was no s a in t and w ould gt't
irrita te d over p u re ly personal m atters. A nd pro­

342
 bably a t tim es unnecessarily so. P a rtic u la rly in
his youth .
He was not ashamed o f w ritin g very bad poe-
tr y , even lik e d to , and he w ould send h is verses
to his friends. He gave concerts eagerly though
his v io lin p la y in g was fa r from b r illia n t.
F in a lly ,— true, th is is o n ly a suspicion I have,
based on c irc u m s ta n tia l evidence— I th in k he
was in clin e d to c o u rtin g ladies in a rather o ld -
fashioned sort of w ay. T h a t w ould seem to com-
plete the lis t o f his sins.
H is most salient tr a it was th a t in his p riv a te
life he s tr ic tly adhered to those b e a u tifu l p rin -
ciples th a t he espoused p u b lic ly . People o f th is
kin d are rare and the more so the higher th o ir
standing. N a tu ra lly , a man is best tested in the
face of death.
From 1948 onwards E in ste in knew th a t at any
moment h is life n ii^ h t end suddenly because of
a stroke‫ ״‬He had said a num ber o f tim es th a t he
was not a fra id o f death, th a t the expectation of
death w ould not change a n y th in g in his life ,
and now he proved i t .
I t did not, except perhaps his d ie t w h ich be
trie d to observe. Just as t h ir t y years e a rlie r,
ho \va» c a lm ly sarcastic when speaking about
his possible departure to a better w orld and when
in A p r il 1955 his tim e came, he rem ained the
'vay he had alw ays been.
È iasteiu suffered g re a tly , and he knew th a t
he would die. B u t whenever there was any im -
provem ent he reverted to his beloved iro n y and
s to ic a lly aw aited events. He died in his sleep.
E in ste in was p ro b a b ly one o f the most lik e a b le
persons in the h is to ry o f h u m a n kin d .

343
 TO THE READER

M ir Publishers would be gratoful fo r your comments on the

content, the translation and tho design of th is book. W e would
also be pleased to receive any other suggestions you may wish
to make.
Our address is: M ir Publishers, 2, Porvy Rizhsky Pereulok,
Moscow, U.S.S.R,

P rinted in the U nlcn o f Soviet Socialist Republics

 B. CMHJir A

B noroH« s â K p a c o ïo A

P«A«KTOp H . A A € K C a tW tt 〇
XyAoiKHHK K ). C o o irrtp
Xyjiox«eT»fNRMft pejiairrop fi. 3 o t o m
rexHH«iccKNli peAaKTop / A ju o a u h q
Kopţ>«KropM T JlftneH K O . P . A a o u u h o
Cjumo b npoMSBOActK) 22^X11 r
Flojiaiacaiio r ne^aTM 2&\r 1970 r.
b y itar» Mi I 70X90^9*6^38 6yu.
12.56 yen, nen. n. Yn.-uSA. a . I3»47. H m ■ .Mi 175904
Uewa M K〇f). 3 t r IW7.
Tnpaw 10.000.
TeMrutÉH 1970 r. M3A-m «MHP» nop. M 2*2(1.

» S A A T E ^ b C T B O «M HP*
M ockb4. !•A pHmcKMft nep,, 2
M uckobcks * THn〇 rpa4»Hfi Pk 7 rjiaw K M M rpa^npou^
KoMM Trra n o htmath n p » C o t e r e Mmhnctpob C C C P
ncp Akcsko ■ «, 13