Ab? Ma?shar Al-Balkh?, Ja?far Ibn Mu?ammad

also known as Albumasar

(b. in or near Balkh in Khurasan, 10 August 787; d. al-W?i?, Iraq, 9 March 886)

astrology.

The ancient city of Balkh, where Ab? Ma?shar grew up, had once been an outpost of Hellenism in central Asia, and then had become a center for the mingling of Indians, Chinese, Scythians, and Greco-Syrians with Iranians during the Sassanian period; when it was conquered by A?naf ibn Qays during the caliphate of ?Uthm?n (644–656), its religious communities included Jews, Nestorians, Manichaeans, Buddhists, and Hindus, as well as Zoroastrians. In the revolution of the middle of the eighth century, the people of Khurasan provided the Abbasids with their army, their general, and many of their intellectuals.

These intellectuals, like those from other frontier areas of the former Sassanian empire, were politically inclined toward pro-Iranism and against their Arab masters, and religiously inclined toward heresy, especially the Sh??a sect. They were called upon, despite these tendencies, to play a large role in the activities of the libraries and translation institutes established at Baghdad by the early Abbasids; and they succeeded in making a generous portion of their Sassanian heritage of syncretic science and philosophy an integral part of the Muslim tradition.

Ab? Ma‘shar was a member of the third generation of this Pahlavi-oriented intellectual elite. he retained a strong commitment to the concept of Iranian intellectual superiority (expressed most vehemently in his Kit?b ikhtil?f al-z?j?t and Kit?b al-ul?f), but he himself relied entirely on translations for his knowledge of Sassanian science. He mingled his already complex cultural inheritance with various intellectual trends current in Baghdad in his time, and became a leading exponent of the theory that all different national systems of thought are ultimately derived from a single revelation (thus, in a sense, paralleling in intellectual history the Neoplatonic doctrine of emanation, which he accepted philosophically in its ?arr?anian guise). This theory could be used to justify the most astonishing and inconsistent eclecticism; it also permitted an advocate to adopt wildly heretical views while maintaining strict adherence to the tenets of Islam. Ab? Ma‘shar’s great reputation and usefulness as the leading astrologer of the Muslim world also helped to preserve him from persecution; there are reports of only one unfortunate incident, a whipping administered because of his practice of astrology, during the caliphate of al-Musta??n (1862–866)

Ab? Ma?shar began his career in Baghdad, probably at the beginning of the Caliphate of al-Ma?m?n (813–833), as an expert in ?ad?th, the sayings traiditonally ascribed to Mu?ammad and his companions. It was undoubtedly in studying this subject that he developed his proficiency in such subjects as the pre-Islamic Arabic calendar and the chronology of the early caliphs. But, in his forty-seventh year (832–833) according to the biographical traditional, but actually in about 825, an event occurred that completely changed his scholarly career. He became involved in a bitter quarrel with the Arabs’ first “philosopher,” Ab? Y?suf Ya?q?b ibn Is??q al-Kind? (ca. 796–873), who was interested at once in Plato, in Aristotle and his commentators, in various Neoplatonists, in the works that the “Sabaeans” of ?arr?n attributed to Hermes and Agathodemon, and, in general, in “mathematics” (arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy, and astrology). It was his urging that made Ab? Ma?shar realize the necessity of studying “mathematics” in order to understand philosophical arguments. He henceforth devoted his energies to expounding the philosophical and historical justifications of astrology, and to discoursing on and exemplifying the practical efficacy of this science. In this effort he drew upon elements of all the diverse intellectual traditions to which he was almost uniquely heir: upon the Pahlavi Greco-Indo-Iranian tradition in astrology, astronomy, and theurgy as preserved in Buzurjmihr, Andarzghar, Zaradusht, the Z?j al-Sh?h, Dorotheus, and Valens; upon a Sanskrit Greco-Indian tradition in astrology and astronomy from var?hamihira, Kanaka, the Sindhind, the Z?j al-Arkand, and ?ryabha?a; upon the Greek tr and and dition in philosophy, astrology, and astronomy through Aristole, Ptolemy, and Theon; upon the Syriac Neoplatonizing philosophy of astral influences and theurgy from al-Kind? and the books of the ?arr?nians; and upon the earlier, less complete attempts at such vast syntheses among Persian scholars writing in Arabic as repersented by those of masha’-all?h Ab? Sahl al-Fa?l ibn Nawbakht, ?Umar ibn al-Farrukh?n al-?abar?, and Ab? Y?suf Ya??b al-Qa?r?n?

Ab? Ma?shar’s renown as an astrologer was immense, both among his contemporaries and in later times. He cast the horoscope of an Indian (R???rak??a?) prince who was born 11 January 826; he advised several rebels against the authority of the caliph; and he accompanined al-Muwaffaq on his expedition against the Zanj in Basra in 880–883. To Ibn al-Qif??, as to most students of Islamic astrology, he was “the teacher of the people of Islam concerning the influences of the stars.”

Ab? Ma?shar’s philosophical proof of the validity of astrology was probably most elaborately presented in his lost Kit?b ithb?t ?ilm al-nuj?m (“Book of the Establishment of Astrology”), but it is also discussed at length in the first maq?la of his Kit?b al-madkhal al-Kab?r (“Great Introduction”), which was written in 849/850. The argument, as has been Pointed out by Lemay, is largely Aristotelian, with some Neoplatonic elements; but Lemay, working only with the Latin translations, failed to realize that the immediate sources of Ab? Ma?shar’s Aristotelianism were not the Arabic translations of the De caelo, the Physica, and the De generatione et corruptione, but the purported writings of the ?arr?nian prophets, Hermes and Agathodemon. That the “Sabaeans” of Harr?n depended on Aristotle’s Physical, De Caelo, De generatione et corruptione, and Meteorologica for their theories regarding the material universe is clearly stated by A?mad ibn al-?ayyib al-Saraks? (ca. 835–899), another student of al-kind? (fr. 1 B1 in F. Rosenthal). Since the ?arr?nians were interested in the laws of perceptible nature precisely because they saw the same relationships between the ethereal spheres and the sublunar world of change that Ab? Ma’shar seeks to prove (as well as a further relationship between the ethereal spheres and the One which Ab? Ma’shar only hints at), it is an easy step to the conclusion that this justification of astrology is, in its main outline, taken by Ab? Ma?shar from the books of the ?arr?nians, and is thus only a part of a much more elaborate universal philosophy of emanation

That philosophy, closely similar to doctrines common to number of religious movements of the first half-millennium of the Christian era (they are found, for example, in the Corpus Hemeticum, in the Chaldaean Oracles, and in the writings of various Neoplatonists), and not unlike the philosophical background J?birian alchemy, posits three levels of being analogous to three concentric spheres: the divine (the sphere of light), the ethereal (the eight celestial spheres), and the hylic (the sublunar core, in which matter is involved in constant process of change due to the motions of the four Empedoclean elements).

This view of the universe gains religious content when there is added to it the idea that man’s soul has decended from the sphere of light to the hylic sphere and now must strive to return to union with the divine But, according to “Sabaean” doctrine in cannot leap over the ethereal sphere and attain this union without the assistance of intermediaries, which are the celestial spheres; therefore man’s religion—his liturgy and his ritual—must be addressed to the deities of the planets and of the constellations rather than to the one. The form of this worship is determined by the attributes, qualities, and conditions of the intermediaries; these are known by the study of astrology and astronomy.

The religious view of the ?arr?anians, then, assumes an Aristotelian physical universe in which the four Empedoclean elements are confined to the sublunar world, and the celestial spheres consist of a fifth element. The normal astrological view is concerned to some extent with schematic correlations between celestial figures and (a) the four Empedoclean elements and (b) the various Pythagorean contrasting principles. Primarily, however, it works with somewhat arbitrary associations of planets, zodiacal signs, decans, and so on; with the psychological factors governing man’s behavoier; with the attributes and characteristics apparent in material objects; and with various selected species of plants, animals, stones, fish, and so on. The ?arr?anians, followed by Ab? Ma‘shar, attempted to validate the scientific basis of these arbitrary associations between the celestial and sublunar worlds in astrology by casting over the whole system a peculiar interpretation of Aristotelian physics. According to this interpretation, the nature of the influence of the superior spheres on the inferior is not restricted to the transmission of motion alone; terrestrial bodies each possess the potentiality of being moved by particular celestial bodies, and the celestial bodies similarly each posses the possibility of influencing particular terrestrial bodies. The precise details of the mode of this influence need not detain us here; suffice it to say that the practical effect of this elaborate development of theory in the Kit?b al-madkhal al-kab?r was the reassertion of the truth of the astrological doctrines already long current.

For the ?arr?anians the Kit?b al-madkhal al-kab?r also provided the justification for the elaboration of a theory of talismans and planetary theurgy which made them the recognized masters of these esoteric practices (although they had, of course, been popular for centuries in the Roman and Sassanian empires). Ab? Ma’shar is among those who helped, in his Kit?b al-ul?f and Kit?b fi buy?t, al-?ib?d?t, to establish their reputation. From time to time he refers to talismans (see especially his Kit?b ?uwar al-daraj), but in general he is interested more in predicting the future than in manipulating it.

For Ab? Ma?shar, however, the validity of astrology is determined not only by the Neoplatonizing Aristotelianism of the ?arr?anians; it also rests on an elaborate world history of the transmission of science which permits one to trace back the fragments of truth about nature scattered among the peoples of the earth to a pristine divine source: it is a sort of prophetology of science.

Man’s knowledge of the relationship between the three spheres comes not from his own powers of reasoning, but from revelation. For the ?rr?nians, the prophet of revelation was Hermes Trismegistus. Ab? Ma?shar, however, desired to universalize the personality of the prophet and to demonstrate the essential unity of human thought, and identifies a first Hermes with the Iranian H?shank and the Semitic Enoch-Idr?s; following this composite figure are a succession of pupils of various nations (including two more named Hermes) who spread the revealed truth among the nations of the oecumene. Ab? Ma?shar’s cultural background helps to explain this universalism, although it must be noted that in certain details his elaborate history of science had been anticipated by Persian scholars of the preceding generation. It was his theory of an original “Sabaeanism” followed by all of mankind, however, which became the basis of much of Muslim historiography of philosophy and religion.

In conformity with this theory as expounded in his Kir?b al-ul?f, and on the alleged basis of a manuscript said to have been buried at Isfahan before the Flood, Ab? Ma?shar produced his Z?j al-haz?r?t, which was to restore to mankind the true astronomy of the prophetic age. The mean motions of the planets are computed in this z?j by the Indian method of the yuga and by using Indian parameters; in this section Ab? Ma?shar depended largely on the Zij al-Sindhind of al-Faz?r? and the Z?j al-Arkand (both of Indian origin), although his yuga of 360,000 years, while Indian, was also used by the Ism???l?s. His prime meridian and the parameters for his planetary equations were taken from the Persian Z?j al-Sh?h, which is greatly indebted to Indian sources. His planetary model, however, was evidently Ptolemaic. Thus this “antediluvian” Z?j proves by its mixture of Indian, Persian, and Greek elements that the theory of the original unity of the intellectual traditions of mankind is a true one; each has preserved a bit of the revelation.

Accompanying this astronomical work and history of science was an elaborate astrological interpretation of history expounded in the Kit?b al-qir?n?t, which, being originally of Sassanian (Zoroastrian) origin, reached Ab? Ma?shar through the works of M?sh??all?h, ?Umar ibn al-Farrukh?n al-?abar?, and al-Kind?. This theory, based on periods of varying length under the influence of the several planets and zodiacal signs, on the recurring conjunctions at regular intervals of Saturn and Jupiter and of Saturn and Mars, on the horoscopes of year transfers, and on transits, postulated the inherent impermanence of all human institutions–including the religion of Islam and the rule of the Arab caliphate. It was particularly popular among the Iranian intellectuals of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, who delighted in predicting the imminent downfall of the Abbasids and restoration of the royal house of Iran to the throne of world empire. And it is one other element in Ab? Ma?shar’s system that links him with the Ism???l?s.

Parallel to these methods of universal astrological history, Sassanian scientists had developed similar techniques of progressive individual genethlialogy based on periods, the horoscopes of birthdays, and transits. Their sources had been Hellenistic, the primary one being the fourth book of Dorotheus. Ab? Ma?shar, like many other Muslim astrologers, has elaborately dealt with this type of astrology (in his Kit?b ta??w?l sin? al-maw?l?d). He also composed a number of other works on nativities, some mere compilations of the sayings of the wise men of India, Persia, Greece, Egypt, and Islam, intended to demonstrate again their fundamental unity (the Kit?b al-jamhara and the Kit?b a?l al-u??l), and some more orthodox compositions modeled on the Hellenistic textbooks that had been translated into Arabic (the two versions of the Kit?b a?k?m al-maw?l?d).

In these writings, as in his other works listed in the critical bibliography (see below), Ab? Ma?shar did not display any startling powers of innovation. They are practical manuals intended for the instruction and training of astrologers. As such, they exercised a profound influence on Muslim intellectual and social history and, through translations, on the intellectual and social history of western Europe and of Byzantium. Ab? Ma?shar’s folly as a scientist has been justly pointed out by al-B?r?n? (Chronology, ed. C. E. Sachu, repr. Leipzig, 1923, pp. 25–26; trans. idem, London, 1879, pp. 29–31). One gains the strong impression from his pupil Sh?dh?n’s Mudh?kar?t that even as an astrologer he was not intellectually rigorous or honest (no matter what the situation may be now, it certainly was possible to be an intellectually honest astrologer in the ninth century). He is an interesting and instructive phenomenon, but is not to be ranked among the great scientists of Islam

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Original Works. There are two old lists of Ab? Ma?shar’s works. The first and most complete is that in the Fihrist of Ibn al-Nad?m, who wrote ca. 987. G. Flügel, ed. (Leipzig, 1871–1872), p. 277; this I call N. The second is a shorter catalog preserved in the Ta?rikh al-?ukam?? of Ibn al-Qif??, who wrote before 1248, J. Lippert, ed. (Leipzig, 1903), p. 153; this I call Q I. Ibn al-Qif?? (p. 154) adds a list of those works found in Ibn al-Nad?m’s list which he could not identify in Q I; this I call Q II. There are some repetitions of titles in Q I and Q II where Ibn al-Qif?? has been led by differences in wording to believe in the existence of separate works. Note that Ibn al-Nad?m (p. 275; copied by Ibn al-Qif??, p. 154) claims, on the authority of Ibn al-Jahm (is this Mu?ammad ibn al-Jahm al-Barmaki? See Fihrist, p. 277) that Ab? Ma?shar plagiarized nos 1, 4, 8, and 16 from Sanad ibn “Al?, who flourished under al-Ma?m?n; but this seems to be a mistaken allegation (cf. Ibn Y?nis, Z?j al-??kim?, Caussin de Perceval, ed., in Notices et extraits des manuscrits, VII [Paris, 1803], 58).

In this catalog, I refer in general only to manuscripts which I have personally examined, and not to all of these. The reader should realize that this list is as exhaustive as it can be made at present, and he should be particularly aware that all of the genuine works listed by Brockelmann Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, I²-II² [Leiden, 1943–1949]; and Supplementum I-III [Leiden, 1937–1942], henceforth referred to as GAL) are included.

(1) Kit?b al-madkhal al-kab?r ?al? ?ilm a?k?m al-nuj?m (“Great Introduction to the Science of Astrology”). N 1; Q I, 3; ??jj? Khal?fa (Kashf al-?un?n, ed. G. Flügel [London, 1835–1858], henceforth referred to as ??jj? Khal?fa). V. 475. I have examined Leiden Or. 47 and NO 2806. This is a work in eight mag?l?t covering the following: (1) the philosophical and historical justifications of astrology; (2) the numbers and characteristics of the fixed stars and the zodiacal signs; (3) the influence of the seven planets, and particularly of the two luminaries, on the sublunar world; (4) the astrological natures of the planets; (5) the lordships of the planets over the zodiacal signs and their parts; (6) the zodiacal signs in relation to each other and to man; (7) the strengths of the planets, their relations to each other, and their chronocratories; and (8) astrological lots. It was written in 849/850 or shortly thereafter. Only one chapter (6,1—on the decans) has been published of the original Arabic version: see K. Dyroff, in F. Boll, Sphaera (Leipzig, 1903), pp. 490–539; cf. D. Pingree, “The Indian Iconography of the Decans and Hor?s,” in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 26 (1963), 223–254.

Lengthy selections from the “Great Introduction” were translated into Greek ca. 1000; they form the bulk of the third book of the Mysteries of Ab? Ma?shar, of which the present writer is preparing an edition. The whole of the “Great Introduction” was translated into Latin by John of Seville in 1133 and (with some abridgments) by Hermann of Carinthia in 1140; the latter translation was printed by Erhard Ratdolt at Augsburg in 1489 and 1495, and by Jacobus Pentius Leucensis (de Leucho) at Venice in 1506. From the Latin versions were derived a Hebrew version by Yakob ben Elia in the late thirteenth century, which is referred to in M. Steinschneider, Die hebräischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1893), pp. 567–571 (henceforth referred to as Steinschneider), and the Liber Albumazarus, written by Zothorus Zaparus Fendulus in the fourteenth century, as well as German and English translations. The most recent discussion of the Latin translations, in which a strong case has been made for their influence on western European philosophy in the twelfth century, is R. Lemay, Ab? Ma?shar and Latin Aristotelianism in the Twelfth Century (Beirut, 1962); cf. also J. C. Vadet, “Une défense de l’astrologie dans le madhal d’Ab? Ma?šar al Bal ?,” in Annales islamologiques, 5 (1963), 131–180. The Peripatetic and Neoplatonic background of Ab? Ma?shar’s theory of tides is discussed by P. Duhem, Le systéme du monde, II (Paris, 1914), 369–386 (henceforth referred to as Duthem). For the date of the “Great Introduction,” see H. Hermelink, “Datierung des Liber Introductorius von Albumasar (Kit?b al-mudal al-kab?r von Ab? Ma?šar),” in Sudhoffs Archiv, 46 (1962), 264–265.

(2) Kit?b al-madkhal al-?agh?r, also called Kit?b mukhta?ar al-madkhal (“Little Introduction”). N 2; Q II, I. I have consulted British Museum Additional Manuscript 7490, pt. 4 (Yeni Cami 1193, pt. 6, listed by Brockelmann, is the Kit?b al-madkhal f? ?ilm al-a?k?m al-falakiyya, in seventy-three chapters, of Ab?’l-Q?sim ?Al? ibn A?mad al-Balkh?, also known as Ab? Ma?shar, but this has nothing to do with the “Little Introduction”). This work was written after the “Great Introduction,” which it epitomizes at the expense of all philosophical and historical passages. It consists of seven fu?ül: (1) on the natures, conditions, and indications of the zodical signs; (2) on the conditions of the planets alone and with respect to the sun; (3) on the twenty-five conditions of the planets; (4) on the strength and goodness of the planets and their dodecatemoria; (5) on the natures of the planets and their indications; (6) on lots; and (7) on the planetary chronocratories. It was translated into Latin by Adelard of Bath in the early twelfth century.

(3) Z?j al-Haz?r?t (“Tables of the Thousands’). N 3; Q I, 12; Q II, 2; ??jj? Khal?fa, III, 558–559. This work, composed between 840 and 860 in “sixty and some” chapters, is now lost. However, an attempt at recovering its planetary parameters and some of its astronomical theories has been made by the present writer in his The Thousands of Ab? Ma?shar (London, 1968). Note that the pharase et ego Albumasar in tabulis nostris maioribus in fine richene elchebir [Z?jin? al-kab?r] celestium discursus persecutus sum, which is found in Hermann of Carinthia’s translation of the “Great Introduction” (1,1), does not appear in the Arabic manuscripts I have examined.

(4) Kit?b al-maw?l?d al-kab?r (“Great Book of Nativities”). N 4; Q II, 3. According to Ibn al-Nad?m, Ab? Ma?shar never finished this book. Perhaps it is identical with the “Book of the Multitude”; cf. also the “Book of Judgements About Nativities.”

(5) Kit?b hay?at al-falak wa-ikhtil?f ?ul??ihi (“Form of the Sphere and Differences in Rising-times”). N 5; Q 1, 7 (?); Q II, 4. Ibn al-Nad?m informs us that this book, of which no copies have survived, was in five fu??l. Its subject is clear.

(6,7) Kit?b al-kadkhud?h (“Book of the Kadkhud?h”) and Kit?b al-hayal?j (“Book of the Hayl?j”). N 6 and N 7; Q I, 8. Ibn al-Nad?m treats these as two separate books; Ibn al-Qif??, more naturally, as one. The Hayl?j (“Prorogator”) and Kadkhud?h (“Lord of Life”) are frequently discussed in Ab? Ma?shar’s other works (e.g., in the “Book of Judgments About Nativities,” chs. 4 and 5), and were often treated by his predecessors—most notably by Dorotheus in his third book. The Persian terminology, of course, indicates a Sassanian background, and we know that the Arabic version of Dorotheus was translated from Pahlavi ca. 800. It is at least possible that Ab? Ma?shar’s work was the source of the Kit?b al-z??irj?t f? istikhr?j al-hayal?j wa ’l-kadkhud?h, which forms the fourth part of the Al-J?mi? al-Sh?h? of A?mad ibn Mu?ammad ibn ?Abd al-Jal?l al-Sijz?, which was written in the second half of the tenth century (I have used British Museum Or. 1346, Esad Ef. 1998, and Hamidiye 837). The original of al-Sijz?’s work relied on Hermes, Ptolemy, Dorotheus, and “the Moderns.”

(8) Kit?b al-qir?n?t (“Book of Conjunctions”), also known as the Kit?b al-milal wa ’l-duwal). N 8; Q I, 4; Q I, 5; ??jj? Khal?fa, V, 136. I have used British Museum Or. 7716 and Escorial 937. This work, in eight maq?l?t, as is the “Great Introduction,” was written after 869 or perhaps even after 883 (cf. 1,3, which mentions events in Basra predicted for the fifteen years after the sixtieth year following the conjunction of 809; in 2,7 he refers to the murder of al-Mutawakkil, which occurred in December 861). The subjects of the eight maq?l?t are as follows: (1) the appearance of prophets and their laws; (2) the rise and fall of dynasties and kings; (3) the effects of planetary combinations; (4) the effects of each zodiacal sign’s being in the ascendant; (5) the lordships of the planets; (6) transits; (7) each zodiacal sign as muntah? and as ascendant of the revolution of the year; and (8) the revolutions of the years and the intih???t.

Ibn al-Nad?m claims that this work was dedicated to Ibn al-B?zy?r, a pupil of ?abash al-??sib (fl. 829–864); this statement is perhaps supported by the fact that one manuscript of the “Book of Conjunctions” ascribes it to Ibn al-B?zy?r (GAL Suppl. I, 394; cf. also al-B?r?n?, Chronology, ed. C.E. Sachau, repr. Leipzig, 1923, p. 21; trans. idem, London, 1879, p. 25; and Fihrist, p. 276). It was translated into Latin by John of Seville; this translation was printed by Erhard Ratdolt at Augsburg in 1489, and reprinted by Jacobus Pentius de Leucho at Venice in 1515 (these are the same two printer-scholars to whom we owe the editions of Hermann’s translation of the “Great Introduction”). One chapter of this Latin translation (2,8), which Ab? Ma?shar had plagiarized from al-Kind?, was reprinted by O. Loth in his article “Al-Kind? als Astrolog,” in Morgenländische Forschungen (Leipzig, 1875), pp.261–310. For Ab? Ma?shar’s reference to trepidation in this work, see Duhem, II, 503–504.

(9) Kit?b ta??w?l sin? al-??lam, or Kit?b al-nukat (“Book of Revolutions of the World-years,” or “Book of Subtleties”), N 9; Q I, 10; ??jj? Khal?fa, I, 171. I have used Bodleian Marsh 618, Escorial 938, and Fatih 3426. This is a relatively short work on the nature of a year (or month or day) as determined by the horoscope of its beginning. It was translated into Latin by John of Seville under the title Flores: cf. J. Vernet, “Cuestiones catalográficas referentes a autores orientales: Problemas bibliográficas en torno a Albumasar,” in Biblioteconomia (Barcelona, 1952), 12–17. This is undoubtedly identical with the De revolutionibus annorum mundi seu liber experimentorum, also translated by John of Seville; for this, see F. J. Carmody, Arabic Astronomical and Astrological Sciences in Latin Translation (Berkeley–Los Angeles, 1956) p. 94 (henceforth referred to as Carmody). Flores was published by Erhard Ratdolt at Augsburg in 1488, 1489, and 1495, and by the house of Sessa in Venice in 1488 and 1506.

(10) Kit?b al-ikhtiy?r?t (“Book of Elections”). N 10; Q 11, 5; ??jj? Khal?fa. I, 198. This may be the fifth text in British Museum Additional Manuscript 7490, which is entitled Kit?b al-ikhtiy?r?t and which follows Ab? Ma?shar’s “Little Introduction”; it contains fifty-five chapters quoting from many sources that were favorites of Ab? Ma?shar (e.g., Dorotheus). There is also a Kit?b al-ikhtiy?r?t which is the eighth component of al-Sijz?’s Al-J?mi? al-Sh?h?, but its relation to Ab? Ma?shar remains obcsure. There are also many chapters on elections in the first book of the Byzantine Mysteries of Ab? Ma?shar and, in Latin, an Electiones planetarum and a De mode eligendi (Carmody, p. 96), Cf. also Steinschneider, p. 571.

(11) Kit?b al-ikhtiy?r?t ?al? man?zil al-qamar (“Book of Elections According to the Lunar Mansions”). N 11; Q II, 6. This is perhaps different from the preceding work. There is in Latin a Flores de electionibus which is based on the moon (Carmody, p. 97) and a De electionibus lunae (Carmody, p. 101; cf. Steinschneider, p. 571), both ascribed to Ab? Ma?shar. Compare also the Kit?b mas??il al-quamar in Berlin oct. 1617 (not seen by me).

(12) Kit?b al-ul?f (“Book of the Thousands”). N 12; Q 1, 2; ??jj? Khal?fa, V, 50; cf. I, 22. This, one of Ab? Ma?shar’s most important works, is lost; but we do have summaries of it by al-Sijz? (part 9 of Al-J?mi? al-Sh?h? cf. the Dast?r al-munajjim?n in Paris Bibliothèque Nationale 5968), al-Tan?kh? (in British Museum Or. 3577), and an anonymous author (in Berlin 5900). Unfortunately, the epitome by Ab? Ma?shar’s pupil Ibn al-M?zy?r (Ibn al-B?zy?r?) is lost. All the available material has been assembled and discussed by the present writer in his The Thousands of Ab? Ma?shar. The Kit?b al-ul?f is not to be confused with the Kit?b f? buy?t al-?ib?d?t (“Book of Temples”) mentioned by al-B?r?n? in the Chronology, despite what ??jj? Khal?fa, who had no copy, says of its nature.

(13)Kit?b al-?ab??i? al-kab?r (“Great Book of Natures”). N 13; Q I, 1; Q II, 7. According to Ibn al-Nad?m, this apparently lost work was divided into five ajz??. According to at a least one manuscript, the “Book of the Foundation of Foundations” was called the Kit?b al-?ab??i?, but this identification is probably to be taken seriously. If it refers to any part of that work, it could not only be to the first section, which precedes the quotations from ancient authorities.

(14) Kit?b al-sahmayn wa-a?m?r al-mul?k wa ’l-duwal (“Book of the Two Lots and the Lives of Kings and Dynasties”) N 14; Q II, 8. The two lots must be the Lot of Fortune and the Lot of the Demon; their relevance to astrological history is not yet clear. The text of this book has not been found.

(15) Kit?b z?? irj?t [wa] al-intih?? ?t wa ’l-mamarr?t (“Book of Tables of the Intih???t and of the Transits”). N 15. This work, too, must have been on astrological history; cf. books 6 and 8 of the “Book of Conjunctions.” No manuscripts of it are known.

(16) Kit?b iqtir?n al-na?sayn f? burj al-Sara??n (“Book of the Conjunction of the Two Malefics in Cancer”). N 16; Q II, 9. The particularly maleficent effects of conjunctions of Saturn and Mars in Cancer are also treated extensively in the “Book of Conjunctions” (2, 8, which is largely copied from al-Kind?). There seem to be no copies of this book extant.

(17, 18) Kit?b al-?uwar wa ’l-?ukm ?alayh? (“Book of the Images and Their Influences”). N 17; Q II, 10. Kit?b [al-] ?uwar [wa] al-daraj wa ’l-?ukm ?alayh? (“Book of the Images of the Degrees, and Their Influences”). N 18. This is most likely one work, as Ibn al-Qif?? assumes, and seems to be on talismans (“Zaradusht’s” work on talismans, which forms the thirteenth part of Al-J?mi? al-Sh?h?, is entitled Kit?b ?uwar daraj?t al-falak). Again, the Arabic is lost; but there is in Latin a De ascensionibus imaginum ascribed to Ab? Ma?shar (Carmody, p. 100). Cf. the first part of the “Small Book of Nativities.”

(19) Kit?b ta??w?l sin? al-maw?l?d (“Book of the Revolutions of the Years of Nativities”). N 19; Q I, 11; ??jj? Khal?fa. VI, 242. I have consulted Escorial 917. This work contains nine maq?l?t rather than just eight, as Ibn al-Nad?m claims: (1) introductory; (2) on the various astrological lords as signifiers; (3) on the direction and the division; (4) on the planetary periods; (5) on the transits of the planets; (6) on various planetary and zodiacal signifiers; (7) on the effects of the planetary motions; (8 on the effects of the planets being in each other’s houses and terms; and (9) on casting monthly and daily horoscopes. Al-Sijz? summarized this work in his Al-J?mi? al-Sh?h? (part five; cf. ??jj? Khal?fa, II, 46); he also translated this summary into Persian, cf. C. Storey, Persian Literature, II, 1 (London, 1958), 39 (henceforth referred to as Storey). The original Arabic was also translated into Greek; the first five books survive (see the present writer’s edition of them [Leipzig, 1968]). These five books were translated from Greek into Latin and were published by H. Wolf at Basel in 1559.

(20) Kit?b al-miz?j?t (“Book of Mixtures”). N 20; Q II, 11, Ibn al;-Nad?m states that this work is rare, and so it is. But perhaps it is identical with the Kit?b miz?j?t al-kaw?kib summarised by al-Sijz? (Al-J?mi? al-Sh?h?, part 6); this deals with combinations of two, three, four, five, six, and seven planets.

(21) Kit?b al-anw?? (“Star-calender”). N 21; Q 11, 12. This work of Ab? Ma?shar I find mentioned nowhere else. The contemporary Kit?b al-anw? of Ibn Qutayba (d. 879) has been edited by Hamidullah and Pellat (Hyderabad- Deccan 1956) a List of twenty of authors of Kutub al-anw?? in the ninth and tenth centuries will be found on p.14 of their introduction.

(22) Kit?b al-mas??il (“Book of Interrogations”). N 22; Q II, 13. Ibn al-Nad?m calls this a compendium; it his Probably, then, identical with the “Perfect Book.” There is a work entitled Abwäb al-mas??il wa-m? ba?daha min al-ikhtiya?r?t in Mingana 922.

(23) Kita?b ithb?t ?illm al-nuj?m (“Book of the Proof of Astrology”). N 23; Q II, 14. This Work, which presumably expounded in detal ?arr?nian theories found in the “Great Introduction,” was perhaps written against ?Al? ibn ??s? al-?arr?ni’s Ris?la f? Ib??l ?in??at a?k?m al-nuj?m, which is mentioned by al-Qab??? (d. 967) in the preface to his Al-madkhal il? ?in??at a?k?m al-nuj?m; ?Al? ibn ??s? participated in the measurement of a terrestrial degree carried out at Sinjar under al-Ma?m?n, and made observations in Baghdad in 843–844.

(24) Kit?b al k?mil of Kit?b al mas??il (“Perfect Book”) or “Book of Interrogations”) N 24; Q II, 15. This unfinished compendium is perhaps identical with the “Book of Interrogations.”

(25) Kit?b al jamhara (Book of the Multitude). N 25; Q I, 9; Q II, 16. Ibn al Nad?m informs us that this was a collection of sayings of earlier astrologers concerning nativities. It was, then, perhaps the original form of the second part of the “Book of the foundation of Foundations.”

(26) Kit?b a?l al-u??l (“Book of the Foundation of Foundations”). N 26; Q II, 17; ??jj? Khal?fa, I, 282–283 (?). As Ibn al-Nad?m states, this compendium of sayings about genethlialogy is also attributed to Ab?’l-?Anbas al-?aymar? (828–888/889). Most manuscripts (e.g. Hamidive 829 and British Museum Or. 3540) ascribe the work to al-?aymar? (apparently correctly), but its title in work to al-?aymar? (apparently correctly), but its title in Hamidiye 824 is Al-a?l f? ?ilm al-nujüm and Sirr al-asr?r by Ab? Ma?shar, which is the Kit?b al-?ab??i? (cf. also Migana 921); this confusion of three titles does not inspire confidence in the manuscript’s accuracy. The “Book of the Foundation of Foundations” is an extremely valuable work, especially its second part, which contains extensive excerpts from such authorities and Antiochus, Teucer, Dorotheus, Valens, Democritus, zeno, Jina (?) the Indian R?s?i? (?) the Indian, Buzurjmihr, and Zaradusht.

(27) Kit?b tafs?r al-man?m?t min al-nuj?m (“Book of the Explanation of Dreams From the Stars”). N 27; Q II, 18. This work, whose purpose was probably to predict dreams from astrological indications rather than to expound oneiromancy is not metntiond in the inventory of oneirocritical treatises drawn up by T. Fahd, La divination arabe (Leiden, 1966). pp. 329–93. The attribution on Ab? Ma?shar of Mu?ammad ibn S?r?n’s Tafs?r al-man?m?t by J. Leunclavius in his Latin translation of the greek version (Frankfurt, 1577) is, of course, false.

(28) Kit?b al-qaw??i? ?ala ’l-hayl?j?t (“Book of Severances [of Life] According to the Hayl?a?t”). N 28; Q I, 6 (?); Q II, 19. This book on what The Greeks call the ??????´??? is lost.

(29) Kit?b al-maw?l?d al-?agh?r (“Small Book of Nativities”). N 29; Q II, 20. According to Ibn al-Nad?m this work consists of maq?l?t and thirteen fu??l. It is not, then, identical with the “Book of Judgments About Nativities,” but it does coincide with the state of the so-called “Book of the Meticulous Investigator, the Greek Philosopther Known an Ab? Ma?sharal al-Falak?” (Kit?b al-mu?aqqiq al-Mudaqqiq al-Y?n?n? al-faylas?f al-Shah?r bi-Ab? Ma?shar al-Falak?). This curious work has several times been published in Cairo, and J.-M. Faddegon has given a brief description of it in “Notice sur un petit traité d’astrologie attribué à Albumasa (Ab?-Ma?šar),” in Journa asiatique, 213 (1928), 150–158. The First four fu??l are no magic and astrology related to various times; the next five fu??l are on the science of prediction from the numerical equivalents of proper names which classical antiquity commonly ascribed to Pythagoras or Petosiris; and the last four fu??l are concerned with nativities. Fa?l 12 is a zodiologion for men, and fa?l 13 a zodiologion for women; this last is introduced with a basmala, and therefore represents the second maq?la mentioned by Ibn al-Nad?m.

(30) Kit?b z?j al-qir?n?t wa ’l-ikthir?q?t (“Tables of Conjuctions and Tansists”). N 30; Q I, 13; Q II, 21. Ibn al-Qif??, who also calls this work Kit?b Z?j al-?agh?r (“Small Tables”), asserts that it gives the mean longitudes of the planets at the times of the (mean) conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter since the epoch of the Flood (17 February 3102 b.c.). The Work, then, is closely related to the “Tables of the Thousands,” the “Book of the Conjunctions,” and the “Book of the Thousands,” The editions’ i?tir?f?t I take to be a scribal error for ikhtir?q?t. This was a z?j in the normal sense of the term.

(31, 32) Kit?b al-awq?t (“Book of Times”). N 31. Kit?b al-awq?t ?al? ithn? ?ashariyyat al-kaw?kib (“Book of Times According to the Dedecatemoria of the Plantets”). N 32; Q II, 22. This is clearly one work, as Ibn al-Qif?? perceived, and was presumably concerned with the proper times for commencing vaious activities as determined from the ascendant dececatemorion (a well-known Greek technique of ???????ì). This may be the Kit?b al-mas?ala [?al?] al-ithn? ?asharivva in Aya Sofya 2672 (not seen by me).

(33) Kit?b al-sih?m (“Book of Lot”). N 33; Q II, 23. This work covers the special lots governing the material objects utilized by man : it must, then, to a large extent duplicate the contents of the eight maq?la of the “Great Introduction.” It is possible that at least the first tract in the Latin De partibus et eorum causis (Carmody, p. 98) is translated from this work. The work entiled Liber Albumazar de duodecim domibus astrorum (Carmody, pp. 98–99) also seems to be a translation of the “Book of Lots,” and much of this sort of material is found in the first book of the Byzantine Mysteries. See also al-B?r?n?, Book of Instructions in the Elements of he Art of Astrology, ed. R. R. Wright (London, 1934), pp. 282–289

(34) Kit?b al-am??r wa ’l-riy?? wa-taghayyur al-ahwiya (“Book of Rains and Winds and of Changes in the Weather”). N 34; Q II, 25; ??jj? Khal?fa I, 147, and V, 94. This probaly the Kit?b al-sirr (“Book of the Secret”) which is found in Escorial 938 (ff. Iv-28) and in Bodleian Marsh 618 (ff. 162v-173v and 198v et seq.); its first part deals with meteorological astrology, its second with the astrology of prices. This work includes a horoscope cast by Ab? Ma?shar in N?sh?p?r on 5 March 832.

(35) Kit?b ?ab??i? al-buld?n wa-tawallud al-riy?? (“Book of the Natures of Places and the Generation of Winds”). N 35; Q 11, 24. This title brings to mind those of two older books: Hippocrates’ Airs, Waters and Places, and the Book of the Laws of the Regions of Bardesanes’ pupil Philip. But Ab? Ma?shar’s work was probably a technical astrological discussion of why the same celestial influences simultaneously cause different meteorological phenomena in the various regions of the world.

(36) Kit?b al-mayl f? ta?w?l sin? al-maw?l?d (“Book of the Obliquity [of the Ecliptic] in the Revolution of the Years of Nativities”). N 36. In this lost work Ab? Ma?shar must have tried to explain the differences between the lives of several individuals born at the same time as due in part to the effect of different terrestrial latitudes on the interpretation of the revolutions of their birth anniversaries.

(37) Kit?b f? buy?t al-?ib?d?t (“Book of Temples”). This work, which is mentioned by al-B?r?n? (Chronology, C. E. Sachau, ed. [Leipzig, 1923], p. 205; trans. idem [London, 1879], p. 187), described the curious planetary temples of the “Sabaeans”; cf. the “Book of Conjunctions,” 1,4. One wonders about the extent to which al-Dimashg? has relied on Ab? Ma?shar’s work in his description of the temples of ?arr?n. The “Book of Temples,” it should be noted, is different from the “Book of Thousands.”

(38) Kit?b ikhtil?f al-z?j?t (“Book of the Differences Between Tables”). The fragments of this work have been discussed in the present writer’s The Thousands of Ab? Ma?shar.

(39, 40) Kit?b a?k?m al-maw?l?d (“Book of Judgments About Nativities”). Two versions of this work were written by Ab? Ma?shar. The first is found on the last twenty-four ff. of Hamidiye 856, and consists of thirty-one abw?b; the second is preserved on ff. 1–64v of Bodleian Huntington 546, and originally contained eighteen maq?l?t (only 1–15 and the beginning of 16 survive). Both works are traditionally Hellenistic; the second is based on the opinions of Dorotheus, Ptolemy, and Valens, and gives as examples a nativity of 128 of the era of Diocletian (a.d. 412) and the nativity of Paulus of Alexandria in 145 of the same era (a.d. 429). This second work is summarized by al-Sijz? as the third part of Al-J?mi? al-Sh?h?. The first work has apparently been translated into Persian (Storey, p. 39).

(41) Kit?b qir?n?t al-kaw?kib f? ’l-bur?j al-ithn? ?ashara (“Book of Conjunctions of the Planets in the Twelve Signs”). ??jj? Khal?fa, V, 136. I have used Bodleian Hyde 32. This work—differing from the “Book of Conjunctions”—discusses the effects of combinations of the planets in each of the zodiacal signs. This work has evidently been translated into Persian (Storey, p. 40). It is also apparently the work included in the first book of the Byzantine translation of the Introduction to Astrology of A?mad the Persian, and published in Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum, II (Brussels, 1900), 123–130.

(42) Mudh?kar?t Ab? Ma?shar f? asr?r ?ilm al-nuj?m (“Sayings of Ab? Ma?shar on the Secrets of Astrology”). I have used Bodleian Huntington 546 and Cambridge University Gg. 3, 19. (I have not yet seen the manuscript in Ankara.) The Mudh?kar?t was not written by Ab? Ma?shar himself, but by his pupil Ab? Sa??d Sh?dh?n. It contains much valuable information on the practice of astrology in ninth-century Baghdad, and therefore is frequently cited by Muslim historians of the period. It was translated into Greek (it constitutes most of the second book of the Mysteries) and into Latin (see L. Thorndike, “Albumasar in Sadan,” in Isis, 45 [1954], 22–32, which is very inadequate). The present author is preparing an edition of the Arabic to accompany his edition of the Byzantine Mysteries.

II. Secondary Literature. Besides the evidence of his own writings and the rich anecdotes of his pupil Sh?dh?n, neither of which has yet been adequately explored, biographical information about Ab? Ma?shar comes from two Muslim sources. The most important of these is the Fihrist of lbn al-Nad?m (G. Flügel, ed. [Leipzig, 1871-1872], p. 277). Much of this was copied by Ibn al-Qif?? (Ta’r?kh al-?ukama?. J. Lippert, ed. [Leipzig, 1903], pp. 152–154), but with some important additions taken from Shadhan and other sources, including the allegations that he was a drunkard and an epileptic. Ibn al-Qif??’s biography was partially copied by Ab?’l-Faraj in Ta?r?kh mukhta?ar al-duwal (Beirut, 1958), p. 149.

Modern discussions of Ab? Ma?shar are generally unreliable compilations based on secondary sources. The most authoritative of these is that by H. Suter, “Die Mathematiker und Astronomen der Araber und ihre Werke,” in Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der mathematischen Wissenschaften (Leipzig), 10 (1900), 28–30. His list of Ab? Ma?shar’s works, however, is extremely unreliable. Most recent is a brief article by J. M. Millás in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, I (Leiden, 1960), 139–140.

David Pingree