A Post-Ghazalian Critic of Avicenna - Ibn Ghaylan Al-Balkhi On The Canon of Medicine
A Post-Ghazalian Critic of Avicenna - Ibn Ghaylan Al-Balkhi On The Canon of Medicine
A Post-Ghazalian Critic of Avicenna - Ibn Ghaylan Al-Balkhi On The Canon of Medicine
135174
doi:10.1093/jis/ett017
AY M A N S H I H A D E H *
SOAS, University of London
136
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
137
138
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
139
12
Al-R:z;, Mun:Car:t, 59; id., MuAaBBal afk:r al-mutaqaddim;n wa-l-muta8akhkhir;n mina l-Aukam:8 wa-l-mutakallim;n (ed. Huseyin Atay; Cairo:
Maktabat D:r al-Tur:th, 1991), 228; cah;r al-D;n 6Al; ibn Zayd al-Bayhaq;,
Tatimmat 4iw:n al-Aikma [published as T:r;kh Aukam:8 al-Isl:m] (ed.
MuAammad Kurd 6Al;; Damascus: al-Majma6 al-6Ilm; al-6Arab;, 1946), 157;
MuAammad 6Awf;, Matn-i k:mil-i Lub:b al-alb:b (ed. Edward G. Browne;
London and Leiden: Luzac & Co. and Brill, 1903) ii. 167.
13
Ibn Ghayl:n, Eud<th al-6:lam, 1011.
14
This is suggested in passages cited in: MuAammad T. D:nishpazh<h,
G<sha8i az t:r;kh-i man3iq dar Ir:n: radd-i Ghayl:n; bar-shakk-i Rash;d Va3v:3
dar qiy:s-i khulf, Nashriyya-yi d:nishkada-yi adabiyy:t-i Tabr;z 13 (1961):
289310, at 2923. On al-Il:q;, see Il:qi, Sayyed Saraf-al-Zam:n, EIr.
15
MS Tehran, Kit:bkh:na-yi Majlis-i Sh<r:-yi Isl:m;, 599 (6), fol. 174a.
See n. 26 below.
16
Ibid, fol. 171b.
Af@al al-D;n 6Umar ibn 6Al; ibn Ghayl:n al-Balkh;, also known as
al-Far;d al-Ghayl:n; or occasionally al-Im:m al-Far;d (the unique
im:m),12 originates from Balkh in the north-east of Khur:s:n. His
birth and death dates are unknown. He tells us that he began his studies,
including the study of mathematics, in his native Balkh before joining the
NiC:miyya school in Marw to study fiqh in Shaww:l 523 (September
October 1129).13 Having become interested in the study of logic at the
NiC:miyya, he then moved in Shaww:l 524 (SeptemberOctober 1130)
to Nishapur where he completed his studies in the subject. At some
point, he appears to have studied with MuAammad ibn Y<suf al-Il:q; (d.
536/1141), an Avicennan philosopher, logician and medical scholar.14
These dates suggest that he was born ca. 505/111112.
The next dateable point in Ibn Ghayl:ns life can be gleaned from a
manuscript copy of a short and untitled gloss on a text by MuAammad
ibn 6Abd al-B:q;, more on which below. Dated, in the copyists colophon,
Saturday 18 Jum:d: II 576 (9 November 1180),15 and transcribed from
the authors original copy, this manuscript copy is introduced as follows:
Our venerated master Af@al al-Dawla wa-l-D;n, may God preserve his
high status in honour and rank, says. . ..16 The copy, thus, was made in
140
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
17
In the Mun:Car:t (32), al-R:z; writes that while he was staying in Bukh:r:,
he met Sharaf al-D;n al-Mas6<d; and his colleague al-Ra@; al-Nays:b<r; in 582/
1186. Later in the text (Mun:Car:t, 54), he writes that he travelled from Bukhara
to Samarqand, where he stayed for several years (sin;n, though I wonder
whether it might be two years, sanatayn) before returning to Bukhara and
meeting with al-Nays:b<r; again.
18
al-R:z;, Mun:Car:t, 59. Al-R:z;s goodwill, however, gave way to indignation as he was offended when the host kept his guests waiting before he came
and greeted them. It is, of course, impossible to tell whether Ibn Ghayl:ns
perceived discourtesy was unintentional or meant to assert his senior scholarly
status.
19
See also: Shihadeh, From al-Ghaz:l; to al-R:z;, 151 n. 35; 162 n. 83.
20
cah;r al-D;n al-Bayhaq;, Tatimmat 4iw:n al-Aikma, 157; Max Meyerhof,
6Al; al-Bayhaq;s Tatimmat 4iw:n al-Eikma: A Biographical Work on Learned
Men of the Islam [sic], Osiris 8 (1948): 122217, at 193. On the Qar:kh:nids
see Ilekns or qKara nids, EI2.
Ibn Ghayl:ns lifetime. This is despite the fact that the text continues as
follows: 6Umar ibn 6Al; ibn Ghayl:n, may God encompass him in His
forgiveness (taghammada-hu All:hu bi-l-ghufr:n), says . . .. Rather than
being a requiescat, this supplication, which rhymes with the authors
name, appears to have been included by the author himself.
Shortly after 582/1186,17 Ibn Ghayl:ns younger contemporary Fakhr
al-D;n al-R:z; met him as soon as the latter entered Samarqand in the
course of his travels in Transoxania. Al-R:z; writes that Ibn Ghayl:n
enjoyed a great reputation; so he wasted no time and hurried to visit
him at his home.18 It is unclear when al-R:z; wrote his collection of
controversies; this may have been many years after the event. By that
time, Ibn Ghayl:n had died, as al-R:z; appends his name with the
requiescat may God have mercy on him.19 A very rough estimate of his
date of death would be ca. 590/1194.
That the contemporaneous copyist of Ibn Ghayl:ns gloss on Ibn 6Abd
al-B:q;s text refers to the author with a dawla-and-d;n title suggests that
he may have been closely connected to the Qarakh:nid rulers of
Samarqand, assuming he was already based in that city in 576/1180.
This appears to be confirmed in the only known, and indeed very short,
biographical entry for Ibn Ghayl:n, included by his contemporary cah;r
al-D;n al-Bayhaq; (d. 565/1170) in his Tatimmat 4iw:n al-Aikma, where
he notes that he is the most excellent of the philosophers of the [court]
circle (al-Aa@ra).20
As mentioned already, Ibn Ghayl:ns intellectual career concentrated
largely on the criticism of Avicennan philosophy, the theme that
underlies most of his known writings. He appears to have written at
least two or three substantial works. In his only major work known to be
141
21
142
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
26
MS Tehran, Kit:bkh:na-yi Majlis-i Sh<r:-yi Isl:m;, 599 (6), fols. 171b
174a; I6tiB:m;, Fihrist-i Kit:bkh:na-yi Majlis, 357. On Q:@; al-M:rist:n, see
Heinrich Schutzinger, Der Q:@i l-M:rist:n, Die Welt des Islam 18 (1977): 101
15 (where an extensive list of biographical references is provided in n. 1, 101).
On Q:@; al-M:rist:ns text, see Hubertus Busard, A Latin Translation of an
Arabic Commentary on Book X of Euclids Elements, Mediaeval Studies, 59
(1997): 19110.
27
MS Tehran, Kit:bkh:na-yi Majlis-i Sh<r:-yi Isl:m;, 599 (8); I6tiB:m;,
Fihrist-i Kit:bkh:na-yi Majlis, 357. An edition has been published by
D:nishpazh<h (G<sha8i az t:r;kh-i man3iq, 294310). The text is the first
part of a collection of epistles entitled 6Uy<n al-ras:8il min fun<n al-mas:8il, the
rest of which has not survived. On Wa3w:3, better known for his literary and
philological work in Persian and Arabic, see Rash;d al-D;n MuAammad b.
MuAammad b. 6Abd Djal;l al-6Umar;, known as Wa3w:3, EI2; Wa3w:3,
Rasid-al-Din, EIr.
28
Cited in D:nishpazh<h, G<sha8i az t:r;kh-i man3iq, 293.
29
Ibn Ghayl:n, Eud<th al-6:lam, 10.
143
30
On this see Michot, La pandemie avicennienne; Shihadeh, From alGhaz:l; to al-R:z;, 14851.
31
Ibn Ghayl:n, Eud<th al-6:lam, 13.
32
Ibn Ghayl:n, Tanb;h 6al: l-ikhtil:f, p. 173 below.
33
By bodies, kal:m theologians here refer to atoms. Ibn Ghayl:n, however,
does not mention atoms in his account of the argument.
34
See, for instance, al-Juwayn;, al-Sh:mil f; uB<l al-d;n (ed. 6Al; S. al-Nashsh:r
et al.; Alexandria: Munsha8at al-Ma6:rif, 1969), 166 ff. On the argument from
accidents for creation ex nihilo, the main argument for the existence of God in
classical kal:m, see Herbert Davidson, Proofs for Eternity, Creation and the
Existence of God in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Philosophy (New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987). For a brief outline, see: Ayman
Shihadeh, The Existence of God, in T. Winter (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
to Classical Islamic Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008),
197217, at 2058.
144
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
The scholars had sought to prove the generation of the world in time against
everyone, not only the philosophers. So they needed to prove the four principles
against those who denied any of them. Nowadays, however, there is no need to
prove these principles, since nowadays we have no opponents other than the
philosophers, and since they have been a source of corruption in the world, and
since they deny none [of the foregoing four principles]. I have, therefore, directed
my attention, in this topic, to arguing with them using what they cannot deny
and have no means to evade and to reject.37
145
146
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
41
So since I have refuted his doctrine of a beginningless chain of motionevents [hence, a beginningless series of accidents], this has sufficed to
prove the temporal generation of bodies. And, a little later, I have not
undertaken to prove the temporal generation of bodies [e.g. by
establishing the aforementioned four principles]; rather, I have only
undertaken to refute the opinion of Ab< 6Al;.41 For this, Ibn Ghayl:n
was taken to task, quite robustly, by al-R:z;, who accused him of
engaging, not in proper scholarly enquiry (baAth), but in mere disputation (muj:dala) with a particular person on a particular opinion.42
Following this encounter, al-R:z; appears to go on to write some sort of
response to Ibn Ghayl:n, to which two early biographers, al-Qif3; (d.
646/1248) and Ibn al-Sha66:r al-MawBil; (d. 654/1256), refer with the
title Response to [al-Far;d] al-Ghayl:n; (Jaw:b al-Ghayl:n;).43 No
copies of this text are known to be extant.
By taking such a tactical, refutative stance, Ibn Ghayl:n has embodied
the Ghaz:lian kal:m ethos, as opposed to the style of theology practised
by classical Ash6ar;s. Yet in this respect, he is arguably more Ghaz:lian
than al-Ghaz:l; himself. Like al-Ghaz:l;, he views the central function of
kal:m, epitomized in both Tah:fut al-fal:sifa and Eud<th al-6:lam, as
essentially defensive, refutative and therapeutic. The mutakallim should
respond to heresies that form an immediate threat to the beliefs of the
Muslim community and give rise to doubts in the hearts of the believers.
The practice of kal:m, hence, is a collective obligation (far@ kif:ya),
rather than an individual obligation (far@ 6ayn).44 Following al-Ghaz:l;,
Ibn Ghayl:n also considers the uncritical imitation (taql;d) of the chief
philosophers to be the greatest danger that threatens the orthodoxy of
Islam, and hence deserving of the utmost attention of the mutakallim.45
147
Ideas, Images and Methods of Portrayal: Insights into Classical Arabic Literature
and Islam (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005), 27396.
46
al-Ghaz:l;, Tah:fut al-fal:sifa, 13.
47
Ibn Ghayl:n, Eud<th al-6:lam, 9.
48
Ibn Ghayl:n, Tanb;h 6al: l-ikhtil:f, p. 160 below.
Al-Ghaz:l; too writes of those who treat the main authorities of the
philosophical tradition as being effectively immune from error.46 Yet Ibn
Ghayl:n takes a more strident stance towards the philosophers than that
of al-Ghaz:l;, who, we are told, should not have conceded the
philosophers belief in God and the hereafter.47
The text published in the present article, the second anti-Avicennan
text by Ibn Ghayl:n to be unearthed, sheds new light both on his
intellectual activity and on the post-Avicennan and post-Ghaz:lian
milieu. It confirms the Ghaz:lian undercurrent, but furthermore shows
that it was taken to an unprecedented extreme. For though the subject
matter of this curious text is pharmacological, a most peculiar choice for
a theologian, the authors ultimate objective, as he tells us in the preface
and the concluding remarks, is not pharmacological at all, but rather
theological.
148
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
49
On Ism:6;l al-Jurj:n; and his book, see cah;r al-D;n al-Bayhaq;, Tatimmat
4iw:n al-Aikma, 1724; Jorj:ni, Zayn al-Din Esm:6il, EIr; D
_ ak_ ;ra-ye
K
_ v:razms:h;, EIr; B. Thierry de Crussol des Epesse, Discours sur loeil
dEsm:6;l Gorg:n; (Tehran: Institut Francais de Recherche en Iran, 1998),
713; Nancy Gallagher, Arabic Medical Manuscripts at the University of
California, Los Angeles (Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1983), 2 ff.;
Manfred Ullmann, Die Medizin im Islam (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), 161. A
facsimile edition of a manuscript copy located in Tehran was published by
6Al;-Akbar S. S;rj:n; (Tehran: Intish:r:t-i Buny:d-i Farhang-i Ir:n, 1976).
50
Ibn Ghayl:n, Tanb;h 6al: l-ikhtil:f, pp. 160, 161, 171 below.
149
51
150
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
55
151
(taf:wut) is when the same drug is given, in two places, two different
degrees of the same quality, while a case of contradiction (tan:qu@) is
when the same drug is given, in two places, two opposite qualities, i.e.
either warming and cooling, or drying and moistening. In some cases,
Ibn Ghayl:n points out inconsistencies between the natures given in the
Canon and those given in another, much shorter Avicennan work,
al-Adwiya al-qalbiyya (Heart Remedies). Such errors, according to the
author, have resulted from the manner in which Avicenna compiles
multiple earlier inventories of simple drugs into his own pharmacopeia, a
manner, we are told, so careless and undiscerning that he failed either to
notice that different earlier sources referred to the same drugs by
different names or assigned different qualities to the same drug, or to
attempt resolving these inconsistencies.58
Take, for instance, sea onion, which appears in the Canon by two
names. In one entry, under the letter alif, it is called isq;l and
characterized by Avicenna as being warming in the third degree. In
another entry, under the letter 6ayn, it is referred to as 6unBul and
characterized as being warming in the second degree.59 Avicenna, as Ibn
Ghayl:n points out, identifies both as the rat onion (baBal al-fa8r), thus
named because of its poisonous effect on rats. Yet he neither attempts to
resolve the inconsistency nor even displays awareness of it.
Another example of discrepancy is the orach which, again, appears in
the Canon by two names.60 As sarmaq, it is said to be cooling in the
152
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
61
first degree and moistening in the first degree. As qa3af, however, the
same substance is said to be cooling in the second degree and moistening
in the second degree.
Avicenna also writes that pistachio is warming in the upper second
degree, and is more warming than walnut.61 In another place, however,
he writes that walnut is warming in the third degree. So how, Ibn
Ghayl:n exclaims, could something that is warming in the upper second
degree be more warming than what is warming in the third degree!62
A case of contradiction can be found in the primary qualities given for
alkanet (or bugloss), which under the heading ib<jals: is said to be
warming, though the degree is not stated, and under the heading shinj:r
is said to be cooling in the first degree.63 Similarly, biranj:sif (wormwood) is said to be moistening in the first degree, while qayB<m
(southernwood), which Ibn Ghayl:n says is undoubtedly the same plant,
is said to be drying in the third degree.64
One case results ultimately from an error of transcription. Black
poplar is given two separate entries in the Canon, and is referred to in
one entry as Aawar r<m;, which is its correct name, and in the other as
jawz r<m;, clearly a corruption of the former name (with a dot added
under the A:8 and another above the r:8).65 In both cases, the tree is said
to exude a gum known as kahrub:, which is discussed elsewhere in a
devoted entry.66 Whether the corruption of Aawar into jawz was the
result of Avicenna misreading one of his sources or occurred at an earlier
stage in the transmission of pharmacological sources requires further
investigation and goes beyond our current scope. Either way, it explains
the inconsistency among the natures given in the three entries in
question, which Ibn Ghayl:n highlights.
Having listed fifteen such cases that he uncovered in the Book of
Simple Drugs in the Canon, Ibn Ghayl:n mentions one possible defence
of Avicenna, namely that responsibility for these errors lies, not with the
153
67
author, but with careless copyists of the Canon.67 This, in all likelihood,
reflects an actual line of defence taken by contemporary Avicennists, and
is in fact a tactic that has been reproduced numerous times to exonerate
various respected predecessors (most famously, al-Ghaz:l; and Ibn
al-6Arab;) of heterodox views found in their writings. Ibn Ghayl:n,
however, quickly dismisses this defence: even if some of these cases could
be explained thus, it will be implausible to explain them all as due to
mere scribal errors.
The author then provides a complete list of the casestwelve
altogetherof discrepancy and contradiction found between the drug
natures given in the Canon and the natures attributed to drugs with the
same names in Avicennas al-Adwiya al-qalbiyya, which includes a much
shorter inventory of simple drugs. Chicory, for instance, is said to be
moistening in the former book, and drying in the latter.68 Zedoary (wild
ginger) is said to be warming and drying in the third degree in the Canon,
but warming and drying in the second degree in the Adwiya.69
Similar errors are reproduced by Ism:6;l al-Jurj:n;. For instance, sea
onion appears in the Dhakh;ra by two names, isq;l and 6unBul.70 The
former is said to be warming in the third degree, and the latter warming
in the second degree. Yet while Avicenna lists these two drugs under
different alphabetical headings, al-Jurj:n; categorizes one under medicinal foods (aghdhiya daw:8iyya), sometimes defined as substances that
resemble the human body in their constitution and hence provide
nourishment, and the other under pure drugs (adwiya mu3laqa), that is,
substances that do not resemble the human body in their constitution,
and hence do not provide nourishment.71 Given that these two categories
are distinct in essence, it is a contradiction to categorize the same
substance under both. Yet, as Ibn Ghayl:n puts it, this is an additional,
scandalous error that al-Jurj:n; commits out of the imperative to
follow [Avicenna] in another error.
154
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
In this conclusion, Ibn Ghayl:n lays bare his true objective. He is not the
least concerned here with the medicinal properties of the drugs
mentioned in the text, nor does he exhibit much genuine interest or
expertise in medicine, beyond what is expected of a man of learning with
access to medical and lexical sources. Nowhere in this text does he
attempt to engage in a positive pharmacological investigation to
determine which of the conflicting drug natures given by Avicenna are
correct, or indeed whether completely different sets of primary qualities
and degrees should be affirmed. He effectively admits that his choice of
subject-matter and tactic is opportunistic and stems purely from its
72
73
155
74
75
156
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
simple drugs in determining their actions, and used them to calculate the
final natures of compound drugs in a formulaic fashion.76 The presence
of inconsistencies of the sort that Ibn Ghayl:n chooses to concentrate
ona choice that probably has this trend in the backgroundmight
indeed cause serious difficulties in such a system. Yet though Avicenna
consistently provides the natures of the simple substances he lists, he
often reports the divergences of opinion among earlier sources. As one
recent study notes:
Avicennas apathy towards this theory concurs with his view that the
actions of simple drugs can be determined by either deduction or
experiment, and that drug actions that can only be known through
experiment and observation will not be deducible from the drugs
primary qualities.78
Furthermore, the actions of compound drugs frequently do not follow
uniformly and predictably from the primary qualities and actions of their
simple ingredients, but must be ascertained by means of experience and
observation. It is no wonder, therefore, that Avicenna displays a lack of
rigour (for some of his readers, to an unacceptable extent) in the manner
he compiles the natures of simple drugs from his sources.
76
See, for instance, the overview of al-Kind;s method in Peter Adamson,
al-Kind; (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1606; cf. Y. Tzvi
Langermann, Another Andalusian Revolt? Ibn Rushds Critique of al-Kind;s
Pharmacological Computus in J. P. Hogendijk and A. I. Sabra (eds.), The
Enterprise of Science in Islam (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press, 2003), 35172.
77
Danielle Jacquart, Islamic Pharmacology in the Middle Ages: Theories and
Substances, European Review 16/2 (2008): 21927, at 224.
78
Jacquart, Islamic Pharmacology in the Middle Ages, 2234; cf. Avicenna,
Canon, i. 224 ff.
The fact that Avicenna systematically mentions this kind of divergence, most of
the time without indicating his own preference, strongly suggests a reluctance to
take seriously the theory of medicinal degrees, and this reluctance is borne out in
other parts of the Canon. [. . .] This reluctance is confirmed by the content of
Book V, devoted to compounds. The introductory chapter, which expounds the
reasons for using compounds, does not mention medicinal degrees at all.77
157
158
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
79
159
160
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
MS
MS
3
MS
158.)
4
MS
2
161
VI. TRANSLATION
[DRAWING ATTENTION TO THE
INCONSISTENCY, DISCREPANCY AND
CONTRADICTION IN THE BOOK OF SIMPLE
DRUGS IN AVICENNAS CANON OF
MEDICINE]
5
Henceforth, Avicenna and al-Jurj:n; are referred to as Ab< 6Al; and alSayyid, respectively.
The eminent shaykh and im:m Af@al al-D;n 6Umar ibn 6Al; ibn Ghayl:n
al-Balkh; wrote:
I have gone through the Book of Simple Drugs in the Canon of
Medicine by Ab< 6Al; ibn S;n:, and have found enough inconsistency,
discrepancy and contradiction therein to indicate that the bulk of its
contents are compiled from different earlier books with neither
deliberation in the compilation process nor careful investigation. So it
is my desire here to bring this to the attention of my fellow scholars, thus
saving them the effort of research and the trouble of enquiry. Of the
totality of [the errors that I identified,] it will suffice here to record those
that pertain to the natures of drugs. For, except in a minority of cases,
whenever a drug has two names starting with two different letters, and is
thus listed under two alphabetical headings, he will give its nature in one
place differently from what he gives in the other place. Similarly, the
natures he assigns to many of the drugs he lists in his book entitled Heart
Remedies are different from those found in the Canon.
What is astonishing is that in most cases al-Sayyid al-Im:m Ism:6;l alJurj:n; (may God have mercy on his soul) reproduced the contents of the
Canon in his own book titled Translation of the Khw:razmsh:h;
Treasure, without modifying or changing what Ab< 6Al; had written.5
This is despite him having devoted his long lifetime to the writing and
study of medical books, copying things from one book to another,
expanding some texts and abridging others. Yet he fails to recognize
these errors. Or, he might not have even noticed them, which is more
unlikely.
I have, hence, excerpted here the inconsistent statements verbatim,
[thereby making them available] until it become possible, with the
assistance of God exalted, to distinguish what is true from what is false.
Verily, it is He who guides to [truth] and grants immunity from error.
162
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
6
7
8
Canon
In other sources, this also appears as ib<Aals: and ib<khals:.
Page 400.
163
[1] One such case is isq;l (sea onion) and 6unBul (sea onion). He includes
these under the letters alif and 6ayn, and writes that the essence of each is rat
onion, [thus named] because it kills rats. On the nature of isq;l, he writes that
it is warming in the third degree and drying in approximately the second
degree, whereas on the nature of 6unBul, he states that it is warming and
drying in the second degree [C. 246, 396].
Al-Sayyid al-Im:m divides simple drugs into three divisions: first, medicinal
foods; second, animal drugs; and third, pure drugs. So he considers one and
the same thing, namely isq;l, as both a medicinal food and a pure drug,
although the two are different in their definition and essence. He refers to it in
these two places by two synonymous names, and for each name assigns what
Ab< 6Al; had specified. He has thus committed a scandalous error out of the
imperative to follow Ab< 6Al; in another error.
[2] Another case is abhal (juniper), on which he states that it is the fruit of
6ar6ar (juniper) and that, according to some, it is warming and drying in the
third degree [C. 2489]. He then lists 6ar6ar under the letter 6ayn and writes
that its berry is warming in the first degree and drying in the second [C. 395].
[3] Another case is that in the entry on iB3urak (storax) he states that it is a
type of may6a (storax), that it is sometimes identified with olive gum, and
that it is warming in the third degree and drying in the first [C. 251]. But in
the entry on lubn: (storax), he states that it is may6a, that its sap is called
6asal al-lubn: (storax honey) and iB3urak, and that it is warming in the first
degree and drying in the second [C. 350].
Al-Sayyid discusses abhal, 6ar6ar, iB3urak and lubn: in the Translation
of the Treasure with the same aforementioned discrepancies and other
problems.
[4] Another case is that he writes that ib<jals: (alkanet) is identical to
khass al-Aim:r (alkanet), shinq:r (alkanet) and shinj:r (alkanet). In the entry
on ib<jals: he states that it is warming and drying [C. 260].9 Then, under the
letter sh;n, he includes shinj:r and states that it is khass al-Aim:r and is
cooling in the first degree and drying in the second [C. 435]. Al-Sayyid writes
on ib<jals: and shinj:r the same as what is in the Canon, and refers to shinj:r
in his entry on khass al-Aim:r, thereby falling into the same contradiction.
[5] Another case is that he writes that pistachio is more warming than
walnut, and that it is warming in the upper second degree [C. 412]. In the
entry on walnut, he states that it is warming in the third degree [C. 280]. But
how could something that is warming in the upper second degree be more
warming than what is warming in the third degree! He also indicates that
walnut is drying in the lower second degree, and that its drying power is
weaker than its warming power. He has thus committed a grave error. AlSayyid reproduces the same statements in both places.
11
13
12
14
15
16
18
17
20
19
MS
MS
Canon
MS
Canon
Canon
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
10
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
164
165
It is of three types, black, white and red, all of which are acrid and astringent.
Out of one of these types, something known as ladanum is produced. Cistus
originally is ladanum or other than that; both are closely comparable in their
characteristics. It tends to be warming in nature, though some of its types can
be cooling. Ladanum itself is warming in the upper second degree.
On the properties of cistus, he then writes: As to the type known as ladanum, it
is such and such. So, in one place he considers ladanum warming in the first
degree, and elsewhere warming in the upper second degree. Furthermore, his
explanation of what ladanum is became confused when he discussed cistus,
suggesting that it is a type or part of cistus having already considered it a viscous
constituent of cistus.
[8] Another case is that he writes in the entry on sarmaq (orach) that it is the
same as qa3af (orach), and is cooling and moistening in the first degree [C. 389].
However, in the entry on qa3af, he states that it is the same as sarmaq, and is
cooling up to the second degree, and moistening in the same degree [C. 424].
[9] Another case is that he discusses jawz r<m; in three places.21 He first
includes it under the letter j;m, and states that it is also called ak;r<s (black
poplar), and is extremely warming in the third degree and drying in the
first, and that its gum is extremely warming and its flowers even more warming
[C. 284].22 He then includes it under the letter A:8, referring to it with exactly
the same expression [C. 323].23 There he states that the gum of the r<m;
type (black poplar24) of this tree is known as kahrub:, which he will discuss in a
21
[6] Another case is jawz al-3arf:8 (tamarisk). He writes that it is the same as
kazm:zak (tamarisk), and he avers that its warming nature is almost neutral or in
the lower first degree, and that its drying nature is in the upper first degree or
higher. He then states that, according to some people, it is cooling in the first
degree and drying in the second [C. 284]. Undoubtedly, what is implied in the
former point is that in his view it is warming; and [what is implied] in the latter
point, where he attributes the foregoing view to someone else, is that it is cooling.
This is a contradiction, which ought to be brought to attention.
[7] Another case is that he defines ladanum as a viscous substance that adheres
to the hair and beards of grazing goats when they browse on a plant known as
cistus, and he goes on to explain the manner in which that viscous substance is
produced and adheres [to the goats hair]. He then states that it is warming in the
upper first degree and drying in the second degree [C. 350]. In the entry on cistus
(q;s<s) under the letter q:f [C. 4223], he writes:
166
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
25
167
31
32
168
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
34
35
36
37
38
39
MS
MS
MS
Canon
Adwiya
Adwiya
33
169
40
[14] Another case is that in the entry on euphorbias he writes that sun
spurge latex is a euphorbia, and that it is warming and drying in the
fourth degree, whereas other [euphorbias] are [warming and drying] in
the second or third degrees [C. 334, 336]. However, at the same [fourth
degree in both respects] we also find [two other euphorbias, namely]
mezereon and euphorbia pithyusa [C. 438, 361].
[15] Another case is that he states that biranj:sif (wormwood) is
warming and moistening in the first degree, and qayB<m (southernwood)
warming in the first degree and drying in the third [C. 267, 424].
However, qayB<m is undoubtedly the same as biranj:sif, as indeed is
stated in some copies of the Canon.40
These are the cases of discrepancy and contradiction pertaining to the
natures of drugs that I found in the [Book of Simple] Drugs in the Canon.
Even though some might try to explain some of these inconsistencies in
terms of scribal errors in different copies, not all can be explained thus.
This being the case, had the compiler been scrupulous enough to fix up
what he was compiling, he would have refrained from detailing all the
characteristics of a drug that is known by two names in one place, and
then referring to [the former place] when he discusses [the drug] under its
other name.41
As to the inconsistency between [the natures of drugs] given in the
Canon and those given in Heart Remedies:
[16] One such case is what he says concerning the peel and seed of
citron. In the Canon, he states that its peel is warming in the first degree
and drying in the upper second, and its seed warming in the first degree
and drying in the second [C. 257]. However, in Heart Remedies, he states
that its peel is warming and drying in the third degree, and its seed
cooling and drying in the second, and he indicates that the cause of its
efficacy in strengthening the heart is that it fortifies the pneuma by virtue
of being cooling and drying in the second degree [H. 2645].
Al-Sayyid treats citron in exactly the same way he treats sea onion. He
considers it a medicinal food and hence includes it in the first part [of the
Book of Simple Drugs in the Treasure] devoted to [medicinal foods], and
then considers it a pure drug and hence includes it in the part devoted to
[pure drugs]. In the former part he writes on its peel and seed the same as
what is in the Canon, while in the latter part he writes the same as what
is in Heart Remedies.
170
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
In other sources, this also appears as 3arAashq<n, 3alAashq<q or 3arshaq<q.
Page 402.
171
49
[17] Another case is that in the Canon he considers behen warming and
drying in the second degree, while in Heart Remedies it is said to be warming
in the second degree and drying in the first [C. 2667; H. 268].
[18] Another case is cassia, which in the Canon he considers warming and
drying in the third degree, and in Heart Remedies warming in the upper
second degree and drying in the third [C. 289; H. 269]. Although the
discrepancy between the [upper] divisions within the second degree and the
third degree is only slight, it is still a discrepancy and deserves to be pointed
out. For this reason, I count this as a discrepancy.
[19] Similarly, in the Canon he considers basil warming in the first to
second degrees and drying in the lower first, whereas in Heart Remedies it is
said to be warming and drying in the first degree without qualification [C.
274; H. 267]. There is some discrepancy here.
[20] Likewise, he considers zedoary warming and drying in the third
degree in the Canon, and warming and drying in the second degree in Heart
Remedies [C. 303; H. 271].
[21] Also, he considers mint warming in the upper first degree and drying
in the lower second degree in Heart Remedies, and considers it [warming and
drying] in the second degree in the Canon [C. 375; H. 277].
[22] A similar case is that in Heart Remedies he considers cardamom
(q:qulla), cinnamon (qirfat al-3;b) and Malabar bark drying in the upper
second degree. However, in the Canon he considers cardamom warming and
drying in the third degree, and cinnamon (qirfat al-qaranful) warming and
drying in the same degree [C. 417; H. 279].49
[23] One case of discrepancy that results in contradiction is that he states
that chicory is moistening in the Canon, but drying in Heart Remedies [C.
326; H. 272].50
[24] A further, not insignificant case is that in the Canon he considers
musk warming and drying in the second degree, but [warming and drying] in
the third degree in Heart Remedies [C. 360; H. 276].
[25] Another case is that in the Canon he considers ambergris drying in the
first degree, but [drying] in the second degree in Heart Remedies [C. 398; H.
278].
[26] Another case is that in the Canon he considers [. . .51] drying in the
third degree, but [drying] in the second degree in Heart Remedies.
172
MS
MS
54
MS
55
MS
56
D:nishpazh<h (G<sha8i az t:r;kh-i man3iq, 291) provides a transcription
of this concluding paragraph from the manuscript copy of the Parvant:
collection. However, it does not assist in improving this sentence.
57
MS
53
52
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
173
58
a ym a n sh i ha d e h
174