Abstract
This chapter examines Shīrāzī’s three works on hay’a: Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk (“The Limits of Attainment in the Understanding of the Heavens”), al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya fī ‘ilm al-hay’a (“The Royal Offering Regarding the Knowledge of the Configuration of the Heavens”), and Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī. The finding regarding these works can be divided into two categories, the first has to do with the nature of the Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Shīrāzī’s Persian hay’a text. It is apparent that, in terms of year of publication and – more importantly – of content, this work is a close companion of Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk. The second category of findings are in regard to Shīrāzī’s planetary models for the superior planets. Composing these three works in the span of less than 4 years, Shīrāzī leaves a tantalizing trail of revisions and corrections that ultimately result in a rejection of his original model for the superior planetary in favor of the model proposed by Mu’ayyid al-Dīn al-ʻUrḍī (d. 1266 C.E.) in Kitāb al-hay’a. In addition, the study highlights how Shīrāzī’s original model for the Moon, though present in the earliest of his hay’a works, i.e., Nihāyat al-idrāk, has so far been overlooked by modern scholarship.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 148r. This colophon indicates that the manuscript was completed in the madrasa founded by Juwaynī in Sīvās. This madrasa is in all likelihood the Çifte Minare Medresesi (see Sect. 3.6).
- 2.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 195r.
- 3.
Shīrāzī, al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya, BN Arabe MS 2516, 118r.
- 4.
Saliba, G. “Persian scientists in the Islamic world.” In The Persian Presence in the Islamic World, Richard G. Havannisian and Georges Sabagh, Ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 138.
- 5.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 195r., Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 148v.
- 6.
I gratefully acknowledge Dr. Gamini’s generous help, in communicating his crucial find, and providing me with digitized images of the relevant folios of MS Milli Library 31402.
- 7.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 1v.
- 8.
See the discussion in Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir on Astronomy, 37, in regard to the Tadhkira having been written, in part, with the student of astronomy in mind. It is also worth noting here the striking contrast between Ṭūsī’s laconic style in his introduction relative to Shīrāzī’s verbosity.
- 9.
There are references to the following works, emphasized as well at the conclusion of the Nihāya. Not all of these works can be identified. The list of references consists of al-Mughnīya (perhaps the Mu‘īnīya, by Ṭūsī), al-Zubda (perhaps Zubdah-i hay’a or Zubdat al-idrāk fī al-hay’a by the same author), al-Lubāb (?), Ghāyat al-afkār (?), al-‘Umda al-ūlaa (?), al-Mulakhkhaṣ (?), Tarkīb al-aflāk (perhaps Kayfīyyat tarkīb al-aflāk, by Jauzjānī; the author of this book is mentioned unkindly in several of Shīrāzī’s works), al-Tadhkira (by Ṭūsī), al-Muḥaṣṣal (?), Muntahā al-idrāk (perhaps Muntahā al-idrāk fī taqsīm al-aflāk, by Kharaqī, al-Tabṣira (perhaps Kitāb al- Tabṣira fī ‘ilm al-hay’a, also by Kharaqī, another one of the authors mentioned by Shīrāzī in his astronomical works). Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 1v.
- 10.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 2r.
- 11.
Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir on Astronomy, 55.
- 12.
Ṭūsī’s discussion of his implementation of the “Ṭūsī couple” in the configuration of the planetary orbs, which occupies a good portion of Book II, Chapter 11 of the Tadhkira is only referenced, for example, in the briefest fashion, allowing Shīrāzī to champion alternative models instead. For a discussion of the importance of commentaries as a genre see Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir on Astronomy, 59, and Saliba, Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance, 241.
- 13.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 197r.
- 14.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 197r. The quote from the Metaphysics remains unidentified.
- 15.
By exhorting the reader to not judge his models too hastily, Shīrāzī may also have been acknowledging the difficulties in proposing planetary configuration different from what appeared in the authoritative tradition of Ptolemy. However, by invoking Aristotle’s authority immediately prior to his confident claims in regard to his own innovative work in astronomy Shīrāzī appears to be hearkening to an even greater authority on physical theory, i.e., Aristotle, from whom the principles of hay’a and of natural philosophy ultimately derived. See Saliba, “Aristotelian Cosmology and Arabic Astronomy,” 251–268.
- 16.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 197r.
- 17.
Walbridge, “The Philosophy of Qutb al-Din Shirazi,” 23.
- 18.
Shīrāzī, al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya, BN Arabe MS 2516, 1v.
- 19.
Shīrāzī, al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya, BN Arabe MS 2516, 1v.
- 20.
Shīrāzī, al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya, BN Arabe MS 2516, 1v.
- 21.
Shīrāzī, al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya, BN Arabe MS 2516, 1v.
- 22.
That these would have been included in the Nihāya as a more comprehensive reference work for the astronomer is understandable.
- 23.
Shīrāzī, al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya, BN Arabe MS 2516, 119r.
- 24.
Both of these works, then, stand in contrast to the Nihāya, the title of which does not allude to the patron’s name.
- 25.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 1v. It is worth noting here that this lyrical invocation of the heavens and their effects on the creatures of the world, does not bear a resemblance to the manner in which Shīrāzī reflects on the relationship of clientage with his courtly patron in the opening of the Tuḥfa; again suggesting Shīrāzī’s preoccupation in the cultivation of new relationships of patronage as part of his project for the Tuḥfa.
- 26.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 2r.
- 27.
By referring to the reversal of the motions of the orbs relative to the Almagest, Shīrāzī is likely referring to al-ʻUrḍī and his model for the Moon. See Saliba, “Arabic Planetary Theories after the 11th Century AD,” 93.
- 28.
Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan Ibn al-Haytham, Shukūk ʻalá Baṭlamyūs (al-Qāhirah: Maṭbaʻat Dār al-Kutub, 1971), 5; George Saliba, Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance, 94–117.
- 29.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 2r.
- 30.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 2r.; Ṭūsī, Ḥall-i mushkilāt-i muʻīnīyah, 2.
- 31.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 275r.
- 32.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 275r.
- 33.
Recall that in the introduction to the Nihāya Shīrāzī claims to have compiled the best of the works of the ancients and the moderns in his book.
- 34.
Yet, despite his claims to the contrary Shīrāzī appears to propose a number of different models for Mercury in the Tuḥfa (Prof. Saliba, personal communication).
- 35.
Indeed, while reading the Nihāya and Shīrāzī’s other two works listed in the study one can hear echoes of Ibn al-Haytham’s purpose for the composition of his Maqāla, namely, the transmission of “that which we understand of these sciences in order to instruct him who wishes to arrive at its comprehension without investigating.” Abū Ibn al-Haytham, Ibn al-Haytham’s On the Configuration of the World, 55. It should be noted as with Ṭūsī’s Tadhkira, the reader of Shīrāzī’s works is generally referred to the Almagest for the mathematical proofs of the topic under discussion. The notable exceptions are discussions involving novel formulations such as the Ṭūsī couple. See Prof. Ragep's discussion in Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 36.
- 36.
J. Livingston, “Nasir al-Din al-Tusi’s al-Tadhkirah,” Centaurus 17 (1973): 260–275.
- 37.
Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 56.
- 38.
Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 56. Ragep also notes the fact that structurally the Tadkhkira is based on the hay’a works of Kharaqī. Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 36.
- 39.
Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, x–xiii.
- 40.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 98r., and Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 83r. “And the true [account] in the resolution of the problem of Mercury rests upon the visualizing of its orbs in the manner preferred by us. We will thus describe first the orbs of the other planets in the manner in which these [are commonly accepted], indicating that which is preferred by us within it, we will then follow this at the end with the solution of Mercury and some of what remains from what we have promised to cover, then concluding the chapter which is in truth the main part of the book, by mentioning the configuration of the orbs of Venus and Mercury in our chosen method.”
- 41.
Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 416.
- 42.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 72r.
- 43.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 58v.
- 44.
Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 130.
- 45.
Hence the appeal of “model,” to denote both a mathematical formulation as well as a physical device. See Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 23; Swerdlow, Mathematical Astronomy in Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus, 40.
- 46.
Ptolemy, The Almagest, 141.
- 47.
Morrison, “Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi’s Hypotheses for Celestial Motions.”
- 48.
Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 195.
- 49.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 41r-51r.; See also Morrison, “Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi’s Hypotheses for Celestial Motions.”
- 50.
Morrison, “Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi’s Hypotheses for Celestial Motions,” 40.
- 51.
Here, in addition to its desired effect of moving the center of the epicycle along a desired path, the motion of the dirigent (or encompasser) orb has resulted in a rotation of the enclosed epicycle. Shīrāzī relies on another hypothesis consisting of a single orb (i.e., the maintainer) to counter this undesired rotation.
- 52.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 67v.
- 53.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 36v.; al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya, BN Arabe MS 2516, 29r.
- 54.
It should be noted that Ikhtīyārāt exhibits a notable preoccupation with the “Conjectural Hypothesis”, the “Deductive Hypothesis,” and the “Innovative Hypothesis,” or the ḥadsī, istinbāṭī, and ibdā‘ī . These adjectives are all based on Arabic verbal nouns that have been transformed into adjectives in a practice that is common in the Persian-speaking world. In our discussion on the chapter on the superior planets we will be able to shed light on the meaning of the first two. An explication of the ibdā‘ī awaits future studies.
- 55.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 44v. See Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 150.
- 56.
See Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 160. The Moon’s elongation is marked as η.
- 57.
Saliba, “Arabic Planetary Theories after the 11th Century AD,” 97. Indeed the language of the two works bears a close affinity – again underscoring the debt of Shīrāzī’s work to Ṭūsī. See Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 149–150. This model ultimately derives from the Almagest. See also Saliba, “Arabic Planetary Theories after the 11th Century AD,” 93.
- 58.
Saliba, “Arabic Planetary Theories after the 11th Century AD,” 97.
- 59.
Saliba, “Arabic Planetary Theories after the 11th Century AD,” 91.
- 60.
Saliba, “Arabic Planetary Theories after the 11th Century AD,” 98.
- 61.
Saliba, “Arabic Planetary Theories after the 11th Century AD,” 98–100.
- 62.
Saliba, “Arabic Planetary Theories after the 11th Century AD,” 98–100.
- 63.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 84r.
- 64.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 84r.
- 65.
The encompasser is the additional epicycle that Shīrāzī relies upon to implement ‘Urḍī’s Lemma. He describes the maintainer orb as being with concentric with the lunar epicycle. This orb is used to rotate the lunar epicycle about its center (thus affecting the alignment of the orb). It is, therefore, not relevant as far as the motion of the center of the lunar epicycle is concerned, and is not necessary for the implementation of ‘Urḍī’s Lemma. Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 84r.
- 66.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 59v.
- 67.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 77r.
- 68.
The location of this section is vaguely reminiscent of Ṭūsī’s placement of the “Ṭūsī Couple” in the Tadhkira. Ṭūsī, however, discusses the “Ṭūsī Couple” couple, in a new section, as we saw. It is in this section that Ṭūsī proposes a new model of the Moon relying on his new mathematical formulation.
- 69.
The lunar model in the Tuḥfa is similar to the other two. The primary difference is that Shīrāzī’s thinking with respect to the question of alignments had apparently changed and he no longer saw a need for a “maintainer orb.”
- 70.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 197r. See note 13.
- 71.
It is worth noting that in the Nihāya chapter on the upper planets the planet Venus is treated together with the upper planets Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars. In this Shīrāzī is following Ṭūsī’s who in turn is following Ptolemy. This grouping obliges Shīrāzī to insert numerous comments pertaining specifically to Venus in his chapter on the superior planets. In the Tuḥfa and the Ikhtīyārāt however Venus is treated in the same chapter as Mercury. On Venus’s similarities to the upper planets Ptolemy writes in the Almagest X.6: “Such, then, were the methods which we successfully used for these two planets Mercury and Venus, to establish the hypotheses and demonstrate [the sizes of] the anomalies. For the other three, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, the hypothesis which we find for their motion is the same [for all] and like that established for the planet Venus, namely one in which the eccentre on which the epicycle center is always carried is described on a center which is the point bisecting the line joining the center of the ecliptic and the point about which the epicycle has its uniform motion.” Ptolemy, The Almagest, 480.
- 72.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 44v.
- 73.
Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 181.
- 74.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 106r.
- 75.
Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 208 and 218. Part of Shīrāzī’s concern is clearly the treatment of the prosneusis point for the Moon; again signaling his rejection of Ṭūsī’s approach. See Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 220.
- 76.
Rather than following the scheme in the Nihāya, Shīrāzī follows ‘Urḍī’s scheme by placing Venus’s convex adjacent to the concave of Mars, as he does indeed for the Tuḥfa, when he describes the order of the nested orbs. See note 71.
- 77.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 106r.
- 78.
Saliba, “Arabic Planetary Theories after the 11th Century AD,” 104–108.
- 79.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 108v.
- 80.
For a schematic of Apollonius’s Theorem, see Figure 4.5. Shīrāzī refers to this as the Conjectural-Superior in the Ikhtīyārāt.
- 81.
Amir Mohammad Gamini, “The Planetary Models of Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī in the Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī,” Tarīkh-i ʻilm, no. 8 (1388): 39–54. This finding was originally published by Mr. Gamini at the International Congress of History of Science, Budapest, 2009.
- 82.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 102v.
- 83.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 114r.
- 84.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 114v.
- 85.
As we will see Shīrāzī uses as well the term Deductive Hypothesis for ‘Urḍī’s Lemma. When referring to ‘Urḍī’s Lemma in the configuration of the superior planets in his two earlier books he uses the term Dirigent to refer to a concentric orb encased by the Encompasser, with an axis of rotation that is tilted relative to that of the Encompasser. In this configuration the Dirigent merely appears to help Shīrāzī’ with his bookkeeping of the latitude. He uses the label encompasser for the orb encasing the epicycle of the Moon in the ‘Urḍī picture.
- 86.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 114v.
- 87.
Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir, 446.
- 88.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 114v.
- 89.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 77r. See also, Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 115r.
- 90.
Shīrāzī, Ikhtīyārāt-i Muẓaffarī, Ayasofya MS 2575, 115r.
- 91.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 55v.
- 92.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 77v.
- 93.
What is different in this section of the Nihāya relative to the Ikhtīyārāt, is the orientation of the orbs. This is likely due to Shīrāzī’s treatment of the involved problem of planetary latitudes. In the model for the superior planets as it appears in the Ikhtīyārāt the deferent and the dirigent were assumed to oriented such as to share the plane of their equators, turning on parallel axes; while the equators for the encompasser, maintainer, and the epicycle shared the same plane. In the Nihāya the encompasser is aligned with the deferent whereas the equator for the dirigent, maintainer, and epicycle all lie in the same plane.
- 94.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 956, 114v.
- 95.
Chapter 2.8 of the Nihāya (on the superior planets) is also one of the sections of the book that show similar evidence of revision.
- 96.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 98r.
- 97.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 98r.
- 98.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 98r.
- 99.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 98r.
- 100.
Shīrāzī, Nihāyat al-idrāk fī dirāyat al-aflāk, Köprülü MS 957, 98r.
- 101.
Shīrāzī, al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya, BN Arabe MS 2516, 45v. “And so they established five orbs and five simple motions. The first orb the parecliptic …. The second the eccentric deferent in the thickness of the parecliptic such that the distance of its center from the center of the world is equal to one-half the distance between the center of the imagined deferent and the center of the world.... The third the encompasser in the thickness of the eccentric …. The fourth the incliner (mumayyila) orb enclosed within the encompasser … with the distance of its center from the center of the encompasser equal to the distance between the centers of the eccentric and the imagined deferent for the planet as you have learned in the Third Hypothesis. Fifth the epicycle of the planet [centered] upon the center of the inclined orb.”
- 102.
Shīrāzī, al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya, BN Arabe MS 2516, 46r.
- 103.
Shīrāzī, al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya, BN Arabe MS 2516, 46r.; Morrison, “Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi’s Hypotheses for Celestial Motions,” 50.
- 104.
Shīrāzī, al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya, BN Arabe MS 2516, 25v; Morrison, “Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi’s Hypotheses for Celestial Motions,” 50.
- 105.
Shīrāzī, al-Tuḥfa al-shāhīya, BN Arabe MS 2516, 25v.; Morrison, “Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi’s Hypotheses for Celestial Motions,” 50.
- 106.
Morrison, “Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi’s Hypotheses for Celestial Motions,” 144–145.
- 107.
Morrison, “Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi’s Hypotheses for Celestial Motions,” 144–145.
- 108.
Saliba, “Persian scientists in the Islamic world,” 141.
- 109.
Saliba, “Persian scientists in the Islamic world,” 141 and 139.
- 110.
Saliba, “Arabic Planetary Theories after the 11th Century AD,” 98–100.
- 111.
See note 79.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Niazi, K. (2014). The Principal Astronomical Sources. In: Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī and the Configuration of the Heavens. Archimedes, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6999-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6999-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6998-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6999-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)