?UMAR IBN AL-FARRUKH?N AL-T?ABAR?

(fl. Baghdad, Iraq, 762–812)

astrology, astronomy.

Ab? H?afs? ‘Umar was the son of a native of Tabarist?n, the Iranian province just south of the Caspian Sea, who bore the ancient Persian name Farrukh?n:he was thus one of those Persian scholars who made the early Abbasid court a center forthe translation of Pahlavi scientific texts into Arabic. He first appears on the scene as one of the group of astrologers, including Nawbakht, M?sh?’all?h, and al-Faz?r?, whom al-Mans?r asked to select an auspicious time for the foundation of Baghdad: they chose 30 July 762¹. The latest date that we have for him is Shaww?l of A. H. 196–that is, 15 June-13 July of A.D. 812– when he finished his version of Ptolemy’s K it?b al-arba’a (Tetrabiblos). These dates makes it evident that Ab? Ma’shar was wrong in stating, as reported by his pupil Sh?dh?n in his Mudh?kar?l² and repeated by S?‘id al-Andalus?³ and Ibn Qift?,⁴, that ‘Umar was called to Baghdad by the waz?r al-Fadl ibn Sahl (d. 818), and introduced to al-Ma‘m?n. Ab? Mashar’s other statment⁵ that he was devoted to Yahy? ibn Kh?lid ibn Barmak (d. 807) may well be true.

Of ‘Umar’s personal life nothing else is known save that he had a son. Ab? Bakr Muhammad, who also wrote extensively on astrology and astronomy. Unfortunately, Ibn al-Nad?m⁶ has often confused the father and son in his lists of their works. The following titles of ‘Umar’s works, therefore, belong primarily to those texts known to us from more reliable sources.

1. A tafs?r or paraphrase of Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos finished between 15 June and 13 July of 812. This is preserved in Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotheket MS Arab. 203. According to the introduction. ‘Umar himself translated the text, presumably from a Pahlavi version; Ibn al-Nad? states that he used the translation of Ab? Yahy? al-Batr?q, presumably from the original Greek. The truth may be that he wrote his paraphrase. based on the Pahlvi, at the request of al-Bat?r?q.

2. A tafs?r of the astrological work of Dorotheus of Sidon, based on a Pahlavi recension of the early fifth century. This is preserved in two manuscripts: Yeni Cami 784 and Berlin or. oct. 2603. The present author is preparing an edition of this text.

3. Mukhtasar mas?’il al-Qaysar?n? (“Abridgment of the Caesarean (?) Interrogations”) in 138 chapters. This work has been preserved in many manuscripts: I have examined Berlin Ar. 5878 and 5879,Escorial Ar. 938, and Beirut, Univ. St. Joseph Ar. 215. Though the name Qaysar?n? remains obscure, it certainly has nothing to do with the j?mi‘ al-kit?b of Ab? Y?suf Ya’qub ibn ‘Al? al-Qasr?n?who flourished at the courts of Jurj?n and Astar?b?d in the late ninth century. The Mukhtasar may be identical with the Kit?b al-ikhtiy?r?r(“Book of Elections) at Alexandria, MS H?ur? 12.

4. Kit?b fi’l-maw?l?d (“Book About Nativities”), a short treatise on genethlialogy preserved in Arabic in only one manuscript (Nuru Osmaniye 2951, ff. 162v–172). This is probably identical with the Latin De nativitatibus secundum Omar in three books, translated by Iohannes Hispalensis (and a second time by Salomon with the help of the son of Abaumet the Jew in 1217?); see F. J. Carmody, Arabic Astronomical and Astrological Sciences in Latin Translation (Berkeley-Los Angeies, 1956), 38–39 (Carmody’s De iudiciis astrorum is obviously al-Fargh?n?’s, and Laurentius Beham de ascensione termini Haomar does not necessarily have any connection with ‘Umar ibn al-Farrukh?n). I have counsulted the edition by Nicolaus Prückner, Iulii Firmici Materni . . . Libri VIII (Basel, 1551), pt. 2, pp. 118–141. ‘Umar’s sources are Ptolemy, Dorothus, and M?sh?’all?, as might have been expected.

5. Kit?b al-‘ilal. This work is known to us only through a citation by al-B?r?n? in his treatise on the solar equation (Ras?‘n? al-B?r?n? [Hyderabad, 1948], pt. I, p. 132), in which he gives approximate methods by which the sine of the solar equation corresponding to ? is made to vary with sin ? (?). and by which the solar equation corresponding to ? is made to vary with the declination of ? (?). These methods are described by E. S. Kennedy and A. Muruwwa, “B?r?n? on the Solar Equation,” in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 17 (1958), 112–121, esp. 118–119. Al-B?r? seems to have devoted a treatise to exposing the ineptitude of ‘Umar’s astronomy, as he lists in his bibliography (D. J. Boilot, “L’oeuvre d’al-Beruni: essai bibliographique,” in Mélanges de l’Institut Dominicain d’Etudes Orientales, 2 [1995], 161–256) as no. 62 a Fi’l–fahs ‘an naw? ab? Hafs ‘Umar ibn al-Farrukh?n(“On Inquiring About the Rarities of Ab? Hafs ‘Umar ibn al-Farrukh?n”), which, he claims, covers 240 folios.

NOTES

1. D. Pingree, “The Fragments of the Works of al-Faz?r?,” in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29 (1970), 103–123, esp. 104.

2. I have not succeeded in locating this story in the imperfect manuscripts of the Mudh?kar?t available to me.

3.Kit?b tubay?t al-umam, R. Blachère, trans. (Paris, 1935), 1 1 1. s?‘ also elsewhere (p. 117) reports that ‘Umar wrote for al-Ma ‘m?n.

4.Ta‘r?kh al-hukam?’. J. Lippert. ed. (Leipzig,1903), 242.

5.Ibid. , the Greek translation is published by F. Cumont in Catalogus codicum astrologorum graecorum, V.pt. 1 (Brussels. 1904), 150–151.

6.Fihrist, G. Flügel, ed. , 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1871–1872), I , p. 273; copied by Ibn al–Qif?i. p.242.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

There are short articles on ‘Umar in H. Suter, Die Mathematiker und Astronomen der Araber und ihre Werke (Leipzig, 1900), 7–8; and in C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, I (Leiden, 1943), 249, and supp. I (Leiden, 1937), 392, where several additional treatises alleged to exist in manuscript are listed.

David Pingree