The Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms: Introduction

In: Oriens
View More View Less
  • 1 The University of Manchester
  • 2 The University of Manchester

This special issue focuses on the ‘Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms’. During a 5-year ERC-funded project, a team of researchers led by Peter E. Pormann has produced a 1.5m-word corpus of preliminary editions, and analysed it in multi-faceted ways. The team shared their digital editions with scholars from outside Manchester, and invited them to engage with the new material; these editions are now freely available to all under a Creative Commons license. In April 2015, they organised an international conference at which team members and other scholars discussed this rich commentary tradition from various vantage points. This special issue contains a selection of papers read at the conference. In this contribution, we introduce our project and its collaborators; list the texts in our corpus of preliminary editions and reflect on the scholarly analysis to which it has hitherto been subjected, ranging from Graeco-Arabic studies, textual criticism, medieval exegetical methods, medical theory and practice, and questions about the social history of medicine. We conclude with an outlook on the most pressing needs for future research, and close with acknowledgments for the manifold support that we have received.

Abstract

This special issue focuses on the ‘Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms’. During a 5-year ERC-funded project, a team of researchers led by Peter E. Pormann has produced a 1.5m-word corpus of preliminary editions, and analysed it in multi-faceted ways. The team shared their digital editions with scholars from outside Manchester, and invited them to engage with the new material; these editions are now freely available to all under a Creative Commons license. In April 2015, they organised an international conference at which team members and other scholars discussed this rich commentary tradition from various vantage points. This special issue contains a selection of papers read at the conference. In this contribution, we introduce our project and its collaborators; list the texts in our corpus of preliminary editions and reflect on the scholarly analysis to which it has hitherto been subjected, ranging from Graeco-Arabic studies, textual criticism, medieval exegetical methods, medical theory and practice, and questions about the social history of medicine. We conclude with an outlook on the most pressing needs for future research, and close with acknowledgments for the manifold support that we have received.

The Hippocratic Aphorisms have exerted a singular influence over generations of physicians both in the East and in the West. Galen (129–216) produced an extensive commentary on this text, as did other medical authors writing in Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew. The Arabic tradition is particularly rich, with more than a dozen commentaries extant in over a hundred manuscripts. These Arabic commentaries did not merely contain scholastic debates, but constituted venues for innovation and change. They also impacted on medical practice, as the Aphorisms were so popular that both doctors and their patients knew them by heart. Despite their importance for medical theory and practice, previous scholarship on them has barely scratched the surface.

It is for this reason that one of the editors of this special issue, Peter E. Pormann (henceforth PEP), set up a project to conduct an in-depth study of this tradition through a highly innovative methodology, namely by approaching the available evidence as an electronically constituted corpus to be analysed in an interdisciplinary way. This project, the “Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms” aimed at surveying the manuscript tradition of the Arabic commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms, beginning with Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq’s (d. 873) Arabic translation of Galen’s commentary. PEP and his team conducted a philological survey and employed a new approach to stemmatics. This, in turn, allowed them to produce provisional electronic editions of the commentaries that are TEI P5 compliant. The resulting corpus of these editions turned out to be far larger than originally thought: it now comprises nearly 1.5 million words (rather than the 0.6 m, as originally thought in 2011, when PEP applied to the ERC). The team has begun to investigate this corpus through the latest IT tools to address a set of interdisciplinary problems: textual criticism of the Greek sources; Graeco-Arabic translation technique; methods of quotation; hermeneutic procedures; development of medical theory; medical practice; and social history of medicine.

Using a corpus-based approach for confronting these challenges has yielded impressive results, as the articles included in this volume amply illustrate. The articles by van Dalen and Mimura make significant contributions to Graeco-Arabic studies; those by Fancy, Carpentieri and Karimullah to the history of Arabo-Islamic medicine in all its diverse manifestations. Yet, the project has also generated a host of new research questions. As more Arabic commentaries authored after 1200 were analysed and edited by the team, it became evident that Avicenna’s (d. 1037) Canon of Medicine (al-Qānūn fī l-ṭibb) influenced medical commentary in the Arabo-Islamic tradition in a manner that is more diverse and complex than has been hitherto appreciated.1 Even a cursory reading of this introduction and the contributions in this special issue puts in sharp relief the need for an ambitious study of the “Eastern” reception of Avicenna’s Canon, one that combines methods from philology, codicology, intellectual history and the digital humanities. The following remarks provide an overview of the Arabic Aphorisms commentary project as well as offer suggestions about promising lines of inquiry for the future.

Background

Few secular texts had such an impact on subsequent generations as the Hippocratic Aphorisms. They influenced not only medical theory and practice, but also affected popular culture. In the Arabic tradition, we have more than a dozen commentaries from the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries, in addition to the Arabic version of Galen’s commentary produced by Ḥunayn. No other originally Greek text has been more commented upon in Arabic than the Aphorisms. And yet, to date, this rich tradition of commentaries has barely been studied; most of these commentaries as well as Ḥunayn’s translation have until now not even been edited.

Commentaries have long been recognised as important testimonies to the intellectual debates that took place in the pre-modern world. For the philosophy of Late Antiquity, for instance, Richard Sorabji continues to show how the Greek commentators on Aristotle offer many new and interesting insights and interpretations.2 In the area of medicine, the many commentaries by Galen on Hippocratic works have attracted scholarly attention.3 They testify to Galen’s endeavour to interpret Hippocratic writings in view of his own medical opinions. But they also illustrate the intense competition that existed not only in the area of exegesis but also in that of practical medicine. In Late Antiquity, Hippocratic commentaries also enjoyed great popularity. Palladius—whose commentary on the Aphorisms only survives in a few Arabic fragments4—Stephen of Alexandria, and John of Alexandria wrote such works, and their interrelationship has been debated.5 These later commentaries reflect the medical teaching conducted in the classrooms and lecture theatres in sixth- and seventh-century Alexandria. Division (dihaíresis) appears as a guiding principle in many instances, as does a general tendency to apply Aristotelian categories to medical material.6 And we see similar tendencies in the Syriac commentary on the Hippocratic On Nutriment by Sergius of Rēš ʿAynā (d. 536), which only survives in Arabic.7

In the pre-modern Arabo-Islamic world, commentaries occupy an even more crucial place in intellectual debates. For the field of philosophy, Robert Wisnovsky argued that commentaries written between 1100–1900 deserve to be studied, since they offer crucial evidence for the development of philosophy in the so-called post-classical age.8 Medical commentaries also display innovative thinking. The most famous case concerns the discovery of the pulmonary transit:9 in his commentary on the Canon of Medicine, Ibn an-Nafīs (d. 1288) challenged Galen’s anatomy, saying that the septum in the heart does not have a hole through which the blood passes from the right to the left ventricle of the heart; rather, it has to come through the lungs.10

The translations of Galen’s Hippocratic commentaries that Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq and his circle produced served as a basis for subsequent developments. For instance, Ḥunayn, himself, wrote a Syriac abridgment in question-and-answer format called Questions on the Epidemics (Masāʾil al-Ibīḏīmīyā).11 With this text, he pursued pedagogical aims: to enable the student to memorise the main points of the Epidemics in order to diagnose diseases and treat them.12 Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyāʾ al-Rāzī (d. ca. 925) often quoted from the Arabic version of the Epidemics and the Questions on the Epidemics. He insisted on their great usefulness in clinical medicine; and he was stirred to clinical research in order to test (and refute) some of the claims that Galen had made in his commentary.13

Therefore, Arabic commentaries in general, and Hippocratic commentaries in particular, clearly offer crucial evidence for the history of the medieval Arab0-Islamic world. And yet, compared to the available material, they have attracted only limited scholarly attention. This statement can best be illustrated by the example of the Hippocratic Aphorisms. The Aphorisms were for centuries the most popular and widely read text within the Hippocratic Corpus,14 as they were—according to an anonymous antique author—“appropriate not only to medicine, but in general to the whole of life.”15 Not surprisingly, therefore, they also attracted significant scholarly attention from classicists and medical historians of the Greek and Latin traditions. Although Galen’s Greek text of his commentary on the Aphorisms has not yet been critically edited, a project to produce a critical edition is now underway in Berlin.

If we look at the Arabic tradition, until recently, one could find few scholars who have worked on this topic; or, to speak with Manfred Ullmann: “Despite its great importance, this text [sc., the Arabic version of the Aphorisms] has hardly attracted any attention in modern scholarship (Trotz seiner großen Bedeutung hat dieser Text in der modernen Forschung kaum Beachtung gefunden).”16 Franz Rosenthal published a seminal article on the first and most famous aphorism “Life is short, the art is long …” in the Arabic tradition.17 Before him, Bar-Sela and Hoff had briefly discussed the same aphorism in the commentary by Maimonides (d. 1204).18 The first aphorism certainly occupies a special, even an extraordinary position: Galen and Stephen of Alexandria, for instance, already devoted much more attention to this than to any other aphorism. Therefore Rosenthal was justified in choosing it to offer a first overview of the Arabic commentary tradition. And yet, when Ursula Weisser surveyed this field some thirty years ago, she had little more to say about the Arabic commentaries on the Aphorisms.19 Abou Aly offered “A Few Notes on Ḥunayn’s Translation and Ibn al-Nafīs’ Commentary on the First book of the Aphorisms.”20 Other scholars, such as Gotthard Strohmaier and Oliver Overwien, have largely investigated these commentaries as a means to reconstruct lost Hippocratic and Galenic texts and to improve the readings of extant ones.21

The ERC Project

The project “Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms” began in February 2012, when PEP moved to the University of Manchester, which had offered him a chair. Emily Selove (now at the University of Exeter) and Taro Mimura (now at the University of Hiroshima) joined the project in the autumn of that year as the first two postdocs. The next autumn, he appointed two further postdocs, Kamran Karimullah (now a lecturer at the University of Manchester) and Nicola Carpentieri (now at the University of Barcelona and shortly moving to an assistant professorship at the University of Connecticut). Moreover, two other postdocs, Aileen Das (now assistant professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) and Hammood Obaid joined at later stages. Last, but not least, Mr Sherif Masry, of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, provided unstinting support and contributed transcriptions and collations. Rosalind Batten, Samuel Barry and Elaine van Dalen enrolled as Ph.D. students on the project in 2012–2013. The team was supported by a string of administrators, first Steven Spiegl (2012–2015), then Sarah Wood (2015), Michelle Magin (2015–2017) and Melissa Markauskas (2017). The postdocs produced the electronic editions in the corpus. Taro Mimura focused on the Galen and Pseudo-Palladius, but also contributed to other authors. Aileen Das focused on Ibn Riḍwān. In most cases, one postdoc produced a first transcription, based on one manuscript, and then another postdoc would collate this transcription against the other manuscripts that we selected (more about this below).

We had a number of academic visitors over the course of the project. Gerrit Bos shared his expertise on the Hebrew tradition with us, as well as his work-in-progress on Maimonides’ commentary. Hinrich Biesterfeldt talked to us about his ongoing edition of Pseudo-Palladius, whereas Fabian Käs presented new research on Ibn al-Minfāḫ. Robert Alessi, Maxim Romanov and Usama Gad introduced us to new analytical IT tools in the area of Graeco-Arabic studies and large Arabic corpora. Yasmin Faghihi and Huw Jones taught us the intricacies of TEI P5 cataloguing. Finally, two Egyptian colleagues, the above-mentioned Sherif Masry and Safaa Mohammed of al-Azhar University, visited, the latter staying for three months.

As part of the project, we also organised a number of workshops, panels, and conferences. On 18–19 May 2012, we held an international workshop on the “Syriac Galen Palimpsest” at Manchester. This led to renewed interest in this manuscript and the collective study of its content; a £ 1 m AHRC-funded project to edit, translate and study it is currently underway.22 PEP and Peter Adamson organised an international conference on “Philosophy and Medicine in the Islamic World” at the Warburg Institute in March 2013, and the proceedings are forthcoming.23 In July of that year, we organised a double panel on “The Transmission of Medical Knowledge in the Islamic World” at the 24th International Congress of History of Science, Technology and Medicine, which took place in Manchester. Moreover, as part of his visiting professorship at the Univeristy of Paris Diderot, PEP hosted a workshop on “l’ histoire de l’ Hippocratisme dans le monde arabe médiéval: la transmission des Aphorismes du grec en arabe” together with Mehrnaz Kartouzian-Safadi in May 2014. The international conference “Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms,” which resulted in the present publication, took place in April 2015; in the autumn of the same year, we also hosted the 15th Colloque Hippocratique, focussing on Hippocratic commentaries.24 Another offshoot of the Aphorisms project is the Cambridge Companion to Hippocrates, edited by PEP as well.25 Finally, PEP edited a special issue of the journal Intellectual History of the Islamicate World with Leigh Chipman and Miri Shefer-Mossensohn; it contains a number of contributions directly related to the Aphorisms project.26

In this way, the interest in the Hippocratic Aphorisms and the Arabic commentary tradition has been greatly increased, and is not just limited to members of the Aphorisms team. To give a flavour of the range of subjects, Oliver Overwien, Taro Mimura and Samuel Barry have researched the Syriac tradition.27 Emily Selove and Rosalind Batten have used the corpus to conduct research on gender and sexuality in premodern Arabic medical discourse.28 Nahyan Fancy and Glen Cooper have published a number of studies on the history of medical theory in the post-classical period.29 Elaine van Dalen has conducted pioneering research in Graeco-Arabic stylistics.30 Nicola Carpentieri has undertaken important work that tackles philosophical questions about how Arabic commentators understood the mind-body relation in light of Avicenna, Galen and Aristotle.31 Finally, Kamran Karimullah has examined how classical and post-classical medical and philosophical debates influenced each other, generating new syntheses of Galen, Aristotle and Avicenna as a result.32 Karimullah has also used the Arabic Aphorisms corpus to reassess Avicenna’s and Galen’s influence on post-classical medicine.33 Finally, he has drawn attention to the importance of Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1210) on post-classical Arabic Aphorisms commentators, and how Faḫr al-Dīn’s commentary on Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine serves as a crucial juncture in the reception history Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine after 1200.34

The Corpus

The Hippocratic Aphorisms are divided into seven sections (Greek tmḗmata, Arabic maqālāt), containing between 25 (section one) to 87 aphorisms (section seven); however, the textual transmission of the last two sections is particularly fluid. Galen followed this division into sections in his commentary, and we also find it in the Arabic version of his commentary. The subsequent lemmatic commentaries on the Aphorisms (fuṣūl, sg. faṣl) in Arabic can be divided into two groups: 1) commentaries that are likewise divided into seven books (Arabic maqālāt, sg. maqāla); and 2) commentaries that follow a thematic arrangement.

Take the example of Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s commentary: the majority of manuscripts follow Galen’s arrangement, yet a few are thematically ordered into 20 “chapters (abwāb; sg. bāb).”35 Here, Ibn Abī Ṣādiq is conscious about the fact that he is imposing his own order on the text, perhaps in a way responding to Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā al-Rāzī’s criticism that the Hippocratic Aphorisms was badly arranged and ordered, as it were, randomly.36 It is also crucial to see how Ibn Abī Ṣādiq rearranges the Hippocratic Aphorisms so that the book as a whole roughly resembles the structure of a medical encyclopaedia such as al-Maǧūsī’s (fl. ca. 983) Royal Book of Medicine (al-Kitāb al-malakī fī l-ṭibb).37 On the other hand, its similarity to Avicenna’s Canon is negligible, supplying yet another reason to doubt the report that Ibn Abī Ṣādiq was Avicenna’s student.38 The thematic arrangement in Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s commentary is as follows:

  1. Chapter 1:includes the first aphorism and universal judgments (al-aḥkām al-kullīya)
  2. Chapter 2:Diets and regimens for healthy people
  3. Chapter 3:Types of purging
  4. Chapter 4:Diseases that affect people according to their age
  5. Chapter 5:Chronic illnesses, winds and rains
  6. Chapter 6:Diseases from head to toe
  7. Chapter 7:Diseases affecting women
  8. Chapter 8:Ulcers, swellings, burns, amputated limbs, and fractures
  9. Chapter 9:Wounds
  10. Chapter 10:Fevers
  11. Chapter 11:Sweats
  12. Chapter 12:Urine
  13. Chapter 13:Sleep
  14. Chapter 14:Crisis, critical days, purging that occurs during them and the illnesses that accompany them
  15. Chapter 15:Regimen and diet for sick patients
  16. Chapter 16:Convalescing patients
  17. Chapter 17:Milk
  18. Chapter 18:Wine
  19. Chapter 19:Water, snow and ice
  20. Chapter 20:Diseases that terminate when another disease occurs and kinds of purging39

By way of comparison, Ullmann records the following section (maqāla) structure in al-Maǧūsī’s Royal Book, Book Two:40

  1. Section 1:Hygienics, Sex, Dietetics, Therapy, Cosmetics
  2. Section 2:Treatment using particular remedies
  3. Section 3:Fever and swelling
  4. Section 4:Skin diseases, burns, bites, poisons
  5. Section 5:Treating diseases affecting the head, eyes, ears, nose and mouth
  6. Section 6:Therapy for diseases affecting the respiratory system
  7. Section 7:Treating diseases affecting the parts of the body for digestion
  8. Section 8:Treating diseases affecting the genitals and joints
  9. Section 9:Surgery, bloodletting, cauterisation, couching, tooth extraction, kidney stones, castration, fractures, dislocations, orthopaedics
  10. Section 10:Compounds drugs

Pormann and Joosse updated Rosenthal and provided a first comprehensive survey of the manuscript tradition.41 Throughout the project, we have acquired copies of 85 manuscripts from 30 libraries around the world and described them in some detail; these descriptions will appear in our institutional repository at the University of Manchester as well as the FIHRIST, an emerging union catalogue of Islamic manuscripts.42 In the following, we shall describe how we selected the manuscripts that served as the bases for the editions in the corpus. For brevity’s sake, we shall avoid repeating information that is available in Pormann and Joosse.

Where there are multiple copies of an Arabic Aphorisms commentary, surveying the manuscript tradition has allowed us to identify two or three representative manuscripts for each commentary. It is these manuscripts that serve as the basis for the editions that make up the commentary corpus. Maas has stated that “the business of textual criticism is to produce a text as close as possible to the original.”43 In this project, we have found the expectation that there is, in fact, a single archetype unnecessarily restrictive, and, at any rate, naive in relation to the complexity of textual transmission of medieval Arabic texts. In some cases, examining errors in the various manuscripts allowed us to exclude later copies directly descending from an original in our possession. In other cases, we were able to identify groups of manuscripts sharing common errors, which must have gone back to the same (lost) exemplar.

In this way we have been able to eliminate later copies (apographa) from our editions in some cases, but not all. For example, the edition of Ibn Qāsim al-Kilānī’s (fl. ca. 135044) thematically arranged Aphorisms commentary is based on a manuscript from the British Library (siglum L6) and one from Marāgheh, Iran (siglum: Ma). Hammood Obaid has collected evidence that makes it virtually certain that Ma was copied from L6 without any intermediary. Yet, it has been necessary to consult Ma, because the last folios of L6 were damaged after Ma’s copyist used L6 as the exemplar from which to copy his text.

For al-Kilānī, we only had one manuscript and a later copy; in other cases, we were faced with an overabundance of material, as is the case with Ibn Abī Ṣādiq. The history of his commentary’s transmission is extremely complex and, being one of the most innovative, deserves a book-length study on its own. In addition to there being a thematically arranged version of his commentary (likely compiled by the author himself), as we have already mentioned, there is evidence that he may have also modified his commentary on various occasions: some of the manuscripts preserve alternative commentaries on individual aphorisms. Not only is it not clear when these modified commentaries appeared in the tradition, the fact that both traditions circulated simultaneously and that scribes had copies of each and collated them has introduced a significant amount of contamination into the stemma for his commentary. Thus, contamination has been a major source of difficulty in preparing these editions.

Keeping in mind that in the transmission of medieval Arabic manuscripts, contamination tends to be the rule rather than the exception, our aim has been to identify a group of manuscripts that give us picture of the text based on the independent branches in the stemma. In a related field, the edition of medieval Latin sermons, David D’Avray has considered how best to apply the methods of Maas and West to his sources in less than ideal conditions.45 Following a suggestion by West,46 he concludes that even where one cannot establish a stemma in a reliable fashion, it is still possible to identify groups of manuscripts that preserve independent readings. In this way, one can therefore benefit from the methods of “stemmatics without a stemma.” Our editions are not, then, reconstructions of a single archetype that possibly never existed, as in, for example, the case of Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s commentary. Rather, the text accompanied by the critical apparatus provides the reader with a text that is based on the major, independent branches of the stemma of the text.

All texts in the corpus are in unicode, using the XML standard developed by the Text Encoding Initiave (or TEI; see tei-c.org/). They are available for download in UTF-8 unicode under a Creative Commons License BY on the University of Manchester’s Institution Research Portal.47

Galen48

Unlike the other editions in the corpus, Taro Mimura’s edition of Galen’s commentary relies on seven manuscripts. Mimura was also able to rectify Pormann and Joosse’s initial survey.49 On closer inspection, he found that the London, Wellcome Library, MS Or. 64 is not a copy of Galen’s Aphorisms commentary, nor is Tehran, Maǧlis-i Šūrā, MS 6272. He also located an additional manuscript, not mentioned by Pormann and Joosse, namely number 6 in the list below.

  1. 1.Madrid, Escurial, MS árabe 789 (E5)50
  2. 2.Madrid, Escurial, MS árabe 790 (E6)51
  3. 3.Madrid, Escurial, MS árabe 791 (E7)52
  4. 4.Paris, BnF MS 2837 (fonds arabe) (P1)53
  5. 5.Rome, Vatican Library MS ebr. 426 (Judaeo-Arabic) (R1)54
  6. 6.Yale, Arabic MSS suppl. 87 (YA)55
  7. 7.Madrid, Escurial, MS árabe 818 (E11)56

Based on Ḥunayn’s comments about his translation in the Epistle to ʿAlī ibn Yaḥyā,57 the journey that Galen’s commentary took from Greek into Arabic was a long and arduous one. Finding Job of Edessa’s (d. ca. 835) translation of Galen’s commentary into Syriac wanting, and that Ǧibrīl ibn Buḫtīšūʿ’s (d. 828) attempts at correcting the translation only made matters worse, Ḥunayn decided to undertake a fresh translation of the entire text into Syriac. In addition to translating Galen’s commentary into Syriac anew, Ḥunayn says that he translated the lemmas of Hippocrates’ original text (faṣṣ) into Syriac as well, not relying on Job’s Syriac translation of the Hippocratic lemmas either. At some later date, an ʿAbbāsid administrator named Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad then commissioned Ḥunayn to translate a portion of Galen’s commentary into Arabic, after which Abū Ǧaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Mūsā commissioned Ḥunayn’s Arabic translation of the rest of the commentary.

Galen’s commentary exerted an enormous influence on how Arabic commentators understood Hippocrates’ Aphorisms. Ibn Bāǧǧa (d. 1139) remarks that the Aphorisms was hardly available to readers without Galen’s commentary accompanying it. ʿAlī ibn Riḍwān’s “commentary” is, in fact, notes extracted from Galen’s commentary; al-Nīlī’s “commentary” is explicitly advertised as glosses on Galen’s commentary; Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s commentary relies heavily on Galen and addresses Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā al-Rāzī’s criticisms of Galen in Doubts on Galen. Finally, Ibn al-Quff’s commentary takes Galen’s commentary as a starting point, although his commentary goes much beyond Galen’s in length, scope and complexity. Later commentators, however, seem to rely more on Ibn Abī Ṣādiq and Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine to understand the Hippocratic lemmas.58 Indeed, Nahyan Fancy’s contribution to this issue argues that Ibn al-Nafīs is keen to distinguish Galen’s interpretation of Hippocrates from Hippocrates’ text. Ibn al-Nafīs does this in order to use Hippocrates’ authority to lend weight to his own medical doctrines against those propounded by Galen and Avicenna.

Pseudo-Palladius59

The Late Antique commentary on the Aphorisms by Palladius, a Greek iatrosophist of late antique Alexandria, was thought to be partially extant in an Arabic translation preserved in an incomplete manuscript held in the Sami Haddad Memorial Library, formerly in Phoenix, Arizona, and now in Los Angeles, California.60 Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt has prepared a preliminary edition of the commentary contained in this manuscript and kindly shared it with us, and we would like to record our gratitude to him; his critical edition of the text is forthcoming. His generosity allowed us carefully to go through the whole text in our reading group during the academic year 2015–2016, and to improve the preliminary edition in a number of ways; we notably discovered an error and a lacuna in the sequence of the folios.61 Our most startling discovery, however, was that this commentary cannot have been authored by Palladius, but must have been an Arabic work. Subsequently, we have collected the fragments of Palladius’ commentary on the Aphorisms preserved in Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā al-Rāzī’s (d. ca. 925) Comprehensive Book (al-Ḥāwī fī l-ṭibb) and in other Arabic commentaries on the Aphorisms, and presented our arguments, based on painstaking philology, for considering the commentary preserved in the Ḥaddād manuscript as apocryphal; we now call its author ‘Pseudo-Palladius’.62 The text of Pseudo-Palladius’ commentary is incomplete, preserving Book One, and Book Two up to aphorism 19.

Pseudo-Palladius’ commentary is based on an older translation of the Hippocratic Aphorisms, thought to have been produced by al-Biṭrīq, a translator from the second half of the eighth century AD. They appear in the commentary as lemmas (or quotations). The same translation is also preserved in quotations from Yaʿqūbī’s History.63 This discovery in turn has led us to rethink the early history of the Arabic lemmas of the Aphorisms, on which more below.

Abū Sahl Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Nīlī (d. 1029)64

The edition of this text is based on the unique manuscript, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Huntington 359 (Ox1).65 This is the earliest Arabic commentary on the Aphorisms that uses Ḥunayn’s translation of the lemmas. Kamran Karimullah has analysed the exegetical techniques in this commentary.66 He concludes that Nīlī’s and Ibn al-Riḍwān’s exegetical methods share features with Late Antique Alexandrian models. Nīlī’s commentary method focuses on aetiology; relies entirely on Galen’s commentary to understand Hippocrates; shows no interest in questions of philology; eschews polemic; and summarises passages in Galen’s commentary so that complex concepts and language are glossed over.

ʿAlī ibn Riḍwān (d. 1068)67

The edition is based on a unique Cambridge manuscript: Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, MS 1386 Dd. 12.1 (CM).68 Ibn Riḍwān is no stranger to Graeco-Arabists or historians of medicine.69 In spite of the fact that he died some 30 years after Avicenna, in many ways his writings belong to an earlier generation.70 Albert Iskander has used his Useful Book on the Medical Art (al-Kitāb al-Nāfiʿ) to provide a tentative reconstruction of the late Alexandrian medical curriculum.71 If the opening header of his Aphorisms commentary is authentic, before it was published for wider use the text appears to have begun its life as a collection of Ibn Riḍwān’s notes on the Aphorisms based on Galen’s commentary: “my, ʿAlī Ibn Riḍwān’s, notes for lessons in the Book of the Aphorisms by Hippocrates with the commentary by Galen (taʿālīqī anā ʿAlī ibn Riḍwān li-fawāʾida fī Kitābi l-Fuṣūli bi-tafsīri Ǧālīnūsa).”72 On the basis of the exegetical techniques prominent in this text, Karimullah has argued that this text, too, displays features of medical commentary and abridgement that were prominent features in Late Antique Alexandrian medical education.73 And most recently, Aileen Das has reassessed Ibn Riḍwān’s Hippocratism.74

Ibn Abī Ṣādiq (d. after 1068)75

The edition of this commentary is based on two manuscripts:

  1. 1.Dublin, Chester Beatty, MS Ar. 3802 (CB1)76
  2. 2.Istanbul, Beyazid Devlet Kütüphanesi, MS Veliyeddin Efendi 2508 (V1).77

The latter manuscript was copied in 460/1067, purportedly based on the copy written by Ibn Abī Ṣādiq himself. Through sample collations of all the manuscripts in our possession we ascertained that these two manuscripts preserve the most important transmitted variants in the transmission of the text. Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s commentary exerted the most influence on the Arabic Aphorisms commentary tradition after Galen’s commentary. Karimullah has discussed how Ibrāhīm al-Kīšī (fl. ca. 1300) uses Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s commentary rather than Galen’s to produce his epitome of the Aphorisms.78 Whilst Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿa suggested that Ibn Abī Ṣādiq was Avicenna’s student, there is no evidence to support this claim.79 In fact, employing the text re-use toolkit KITAB developed by a team led by Sarah Savant, we have established that Ibn Abī Ṣādiq never quotes Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine in his commentary. Nevertheless, Karimullah has suggested that Ibn Abī Ṣādiq may have adapted Avicenna’s broad outlook on the hierarchy of the philosophical sciences, but argued, against Avicenna, that medicine should be included in their ranks.80

Al-Sinǧārī (fl. 12th cent.?)81

Our edition is based on the following manuscripts:

  1. 1.Aleppo, Fondation Salem, MS Ar. 1037 (G)82
  2. 2.London, Wellcome Library, MS Or. 43 (W).83

These two manuscripts transmit the text in its lemmatic ordering, essentially that used by Galen and most of the Arabic commentators. The manuscript Istanbul, Beyazid Devlet Kütüphanesi, Veliyeddin Efendi MS 2474 transmits the same text but thematically ordered. Interestingly, this is nearly the same order as in the thematically ordered version of Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s commentary; both are divided into 20 chapters, bearing the same titles and contents. The introduction to Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s thematically arranged commentary does not offer enough information to ascertain whether the text ordered along thematic lines should be attributed to the author himself or to a later scribe. Likewise, the preface suggests that al-Sinǧārī communicated this ordering to a student orally, and the student, speaking in the first person plural, undertook the task of recopying Sinǧārī’s commentary along the lines dictated by al-Sinǧārī:84

‮فإنّ أبا الحسن طاهر ابن إبراهيم السنجري الطبيب—نوّر اللّه مضجعه—قد بوّب فصول أبقراط الحكيم أحسن تبويب ورتّبها أجمل ترتيب. فنقلنا ما وصف على وجهه، ولم نغيّره عن سننه إذا كان مورده أعذب ومناله أقرب.‬‎

The physician Abū al-Ḥasan Ṭāhir ibn Ibrāhīm al-Sinǧārī–may God illumine his resting place—organised the Aphorisms by Hippocrates, the physician, into chapters (bawwaba) in an excellent way, and ordered them well. We, then, applied what he prescribed accordingly, nor have we altered it85 from his method if what it says comes easily and what it gives to understand is close to hand.

This recension of al-Sinǧārī’s text speaks volumes about the lasting impression that Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s commentary had on later authors.

Ibn Bāǧǧa (Avempace, fl. 12th cent.)86

This text, which is a commentary on just the first aphorism introduced by brief prefatory remarks, is based on a unique manuscript: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, MS Wetzstein I 87, which is now kept in the Jagiellonian Library (Biblioteka Jagiellońska) in Krakow, Poland. Miquel Forcada has published an edition of this text and studies.87 The edition in this corpus will be prepared by Sherif Masry.

Mūsā ibn ʿUbayd Allāh al-Qurṭubī (Maimonides, d. 1204)88

This edition is based on one prepared by Carsten Schliwski,89 which relied on the following Arabic manuscripts:90

  1. 1.Cambridge, University Library, MS T-S Ar. 39.72
  2. 2.Cambridge, University Library, MS T-S Ar. 43.328
  3. 3.New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, MS ENA 2379
  4. 4.Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Huntington 427
  5. 5.Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS hebr. 1202
  6. 6.St. Petersburg, Russian National Library, MS Evr. Arab. I 2170

Schliwski’s edition also makes use of several Hebrew translations.91 In addition, Schliwski’s text has been improved by a collation against Tehran, Maǧlis-i Šūrā, MS 6505 (T4). Professor Gerrit Bos is currently preparing a new critical edition of this commentary.

ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Baġdādī (d. 1231)92

The edition of this commentary draws heavily on Sherif Masry’s Master thesis; the following four manuscripts were used:

  1. 1.Dublin, Chester Beatty, MS Ar. 5458 (CB2)93
  2. 2.Istanbul, MS Köprülü-Fazıl Ahmet Paşa 885 (K1)94
  3. 3.Qom, Grand Ayatollah Marʿaši Naǧafī Public Library, MS 6617 (Q1)95
  4. 4.Tehran, University of Tehran, MS 834 (T)

Al-Baġdādī prefaces his commentary with a long introduction, discussing commentary practice, the Aphorisms and their place in the medical curriculum; he also bemoans the declining condition of medical education in his day. These are popular motifs in al-Baġdādī’s writing to which he returns frequently.96 Unlike Galen and the other Arabic Aphorisms commentators, al-Baġdādī goes through the eight “headings (ruʾūs, κεφάλαια)” that a commentator normally discusses before he begins writing.97 He also mentions an earlier translation of the Aphorisms, which Pormann et al. claim is a reference to al-Biṭrīq’s translation.98 According to Karimullah, when al-Baġdādī decries the poor quality of medical education in his day, he is probably referring to the paradigm of medicine that was initiated by Avicenna in the Canon of Medicine and embraced by Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī in his commentary on the Canon.99 In al-Baġdādī’s view, Avicenna and his medical followers place far too much emphasis on medical theory, losing sight of medicine’s practical aim of bringing well-being to the ill.

Naǧm al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn al-Minfāḫ (d. ca. 1258)100

This edition was prepared on the basis of the following two manuscripts:

  1. 1.Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Hekimoğlu ʿAlī Paşa MS 574, fols. 125b–55b (S3)101
  2. 2.Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS arabe 2841, fols. 1b–40a. (P8)102

This text seems to belong to the aporetic commentary genre arising in medical circles after 1200, which Ayman Shihadeh has recently described.103 Although the text vaguely recalls Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā al-Rāzī’s introduction to his Doubts on Galen, Ibn al-Minfāḫ’s language contains stylistic features, word play and exegetical motifs that appear in the introduction to Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Canon commentary and his other philosophical works as well. Yet, in scope and the unsystematic way of approaching the text, it is akin to Šaraf al-Dīn al-Masʿūdī’s commentary on Avicenna’s Pointers and Reminders (Išārāt wa-tanbīhāt).104 Ibn al-Minfāḫ’s sardonic opening remarks brim with sarcasm.105

‮فإنّي كنت أمليت على بعض من قرأ علي كتاب الفصول البقراطية نكتاً على بعض الفصول تجري مجرى الاعتراضات وإنّما هي شكوك اعترضتني عند البحث عن معاني هذا الكتاب ولم تخطر لي الأجوبة عنها في ذلك الوقت ولا فحصتُ عنها ظنًّا أن ستقدح أجوبتها من زنادها الأفكار الذكية وتبرز من خدور الخواطر إنكار هذه السبية نخوة للإجابة عنها وعصبية لهذه الفصول التي معظم الاستفادة في هذه الصناعة منها. وإذ الزمان قد خلا من الطالب والمتطبّبون شغلتهم المكاسب عن المطالب فلذلك لائحة هذه الصناعة الشريفة قد انكشفت شموسها واندرست بذوي الجهالة دروسها. فلمّا اشتهرت هذه الاعتراضات وأخذت منّي، خشيت أن تعتقد صحّة ما أوردته على هذه الفصول أو يتيقّن صواب قدحه في هذه الأصول فينطمس بذلك محاسن هذا الكتاب ويندرس بسببها ما فيه من النكت العجاب. فحينئذ تحرّكت نعمتي للإجابة عن مشكلاتها المهمل أمرها واستخراج مكنون درّها واستحلاب درّها قاصداً بذلك فتح طريق يسلكه المتعلّم إلى التدقيق ومنهج يترقّى منه إلى معارج الحقائق الطبّية بالتحقيق. واللّه يعضدنا بتوفيقه وهدينا إلى الحقّ من أقوم طريق.‬‎

I dictated notes on some of the aphorisms in the form of objections to someone who was reading the Hippocratic Aphorisms [with me]. They are doubts that came to me when I undertook to investigate the meanings of this book. Yet, at that time, responses to them have eluded me, nor have I inquired into them [any further] suspecting that the response to them will be sparked by clever deliberations, and that censure for these calumnies will emerge from behind the veils of thoughts, having been provoked to respond to them, and out of partisan fervour for these aphorisms, with which much of the learning (istifāda) in this art originates. For, the time is bereft of medical students, and physicians are busy pursuing money and wealth. For this reason, the light afforded by the suns of this noble art has been eclipsed, and studying it has been extinguished by ignoramuses. Yet, when these objections became well-known and were acquired from me, I feared lest what I recorded about these aphorisms should be believed to be true, and that there should be certainty that the criticism regarding its [the aphorisms’] principles is correct, and consequently the excellent things in this book should be wiped out, and the astonishing insights in it should be effaced. Thus, pleasure in responding to the difficulties in them [the aphorism, sc. fuṣūl] whose status had hitherto been overlooked, in extracting the pearls (durr) that lie within them and drawing the milk (darr) from them was awakened in me. I seek to open up a path to meticulous research (al-tadqīq) which the medical student may tread, and a method by which he may climb the paths leading to the medical realities by means of verification (al-taḥqīq).

Ibn al-Minfāḫ’s text thus deserves further study in the history of the rise and spread of the exegetical techniques of verification (taḥqīq) after 1200.106

MS Pococke 294; Ibn al-Nafīs(?) (d. 1288)107

This commentary is preserved in a unique manuscript, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Pococke 294 (Ox2), and attributed there to Ibn al-Nafīs.108 It differs substantially from Ibn al-Nafīs’ commentary on the Aphorisms discussed below, which exists in numerous copies around the world. The substantial differences between them suggest that Ibn al-Nafīs’ authorship should be questioned. To this end, PEP and his team have enlisted the help of Andrea Nini to establish whether Ibn al-Nafīs is the author of this commentary; they use not just methods of traditional philology and historical criticism, but also those of modern computational stylistics and forensic linguistics. The edition has been prepared by Sherif Masry.

Ibn al-Nafīs (d. 1288)109

Zaydān first edited the text in 1988.110 After comparing Zaydān’s version with the manuscripts at our disposal and finding his edition wanting in several respects, Sherif Masry has reedited the text with a new collation based on the following manuscripts:

  1. 1.Cairo, Dar al-Kutub, MS 565 ṭibb (C5)111
  2. 2.London, British Library, MS Or. 6419 (L4)112
  3. 3.Gotha, Landesbibliothek, MS 1898 (Th2)113

It has been observed that Ibn al-Nafīs’ Aphorisms commentary is noteworthy for being brief, even terse. In his contribution to this special issue, Nahyan Fancy is, nevertheless, able to use Ibn al-Nafīs’ Aphorisms commentary to speak about the novel theory of generation that this commentary presents. Similarities between this commentary and Ibn al-Nafīs’ commentary on the anatomy of the Canon leave little doubt about Ibn al-Nafīs’ authorship of this text. On the other hand, the fact that this commentary differs so much in length, style and content from the commentary attributed to Ibn al-Nafīs contained in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Pococke 294, highlights the need for further investigations into the authorship of the latter commentary.

Ibn al-Quff (1233–1286)114

Our edition of Ibn al-Quff’s commentary is based on two manuscripts, which to our mind represent the major independent branches of the stemma.

  1. 1.Istanbul, Yeni Camii, MS 919 (Y)115
  2. 2.London, British Library, MS Or. 1348 Suppl (L5)116

Unfortunately, most of Ibn al-Quff’s commentary on Book Four is missing from the Istanbul manuscript. Thus, in place of this manuscript we have used Gotha, Landesbibliothek, MS 1895 to complete the collation. Preliminary collations of all the manuscripts at our disposal indicate, however, that the Gotha and London manuscripts belong to the same branch of the stemma.

Weighing in at 285,753 words, Ibn al-Quff’s commentary is the longest commentary on the Aphorisms preserved in Arabic, and possibly also in any other language. He refers to a huge number of medical authorities: to the works of well-known Greek medical authors such as Galen, Hippocrates, and Erasistratus, as well as well-known Arabic authors such as Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā al-Rāzī, Ibn Abī Ṣādiq and al-Maǧūsī. Yet, it is clear that philosophers such as Aristotle and, above all, Avicenna, influenced how Ibn al-Quff understood individual aphorisms. And although Ibn al-Quff only refers to Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on the Canon of Medicine twice in his own Aphorisms commentary, Karimullah is preparing an article in which he argues that Faḫr al-Dīn’s exegetical method heavily influences Ibn al-Quff’s commentary style.

ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Mūsā al-Sīwāsī (early 14th c.)117

The manuscripts used in this edition are:

  1. 1.Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Şehid ʿAlī Paşa MS 2045 (S4)118
  2. 2.Istanbul, Beyazid Devlet Kütüphanesi, MS Veliyeddin Efendi 2509 (V4).119

Emilie Savage-Smith has shown that al-Sīwāsī’s commentary is heavily indebted to that by Ibn Abī Ṣādiq. In his Discovery of Opinions (Kašf al-ẓunūn), Kātip Çelebi (Ḥāǧǧī Ḫalīfa, d. 1657) copied an extract from al-Sīwāsī’s introduction to his commentary, where al-Sīwāsī talks about Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s commentary. Savage-Smith did not have other manuscripts at her disposal to confirm her suspicions. In fact, the introduction to al-Sīwāsī’s commentary in the manuscript tradition matches the extract recorded by Kātip Çelebi, with a few omissions and some paraphrasing; Kātip Çelebi also omitted al-Sīwāsī’s patron’s name, as the following collation of the two makes clear.120

‮فلما كان كتاب الفصول لمقدم الأطباء بقراط‭121‬ من غوامض الكتب الطبية ومع كثرة شروحها لم يبلغ أحد في إيضاحها وحل‭122‬ مشكلاتها مبلغ الإمام ابن أبي صادق النيسابوري‭123‬ ، فإنّه تعمق في المباحث الدقيقة وكشف عن المشكلات العميقة إلّا أنّه لم يخل عن تكرار وتطويل ممل‭124‬ ، أردت إيجازه وإيراد‭125‬ الملخص‭126‬ مع حذف الأقاويل والتكرر منه‭127‬ خدمة لخزانة مولانا وسيّدنا ولي الإنعام والتفضيل والإحسان الصدر الكبير الإمام العلامة فريد الحقّ والدين جلال الإسلام والمسلمين ملك الحكماء والصدور في العالمين صلاح العالم أب الملوك والسلاطين، جالينوس الزمان محمد بن محمد الطبيب الخراساني، أدام الله أيامه، ومدّ علينا إنعامه، الذي شمل إحسانه الأنام، وعم إنعامه الخاص والعام، وخصوصاً هذا الضعيف من جملتهم، فإنّه بلغ إلطافه وإحسانه إليه إلى حيث تعجز الأفهام عن فهمه وتكل الألسنة عن ذكره، جزاه الله عنا بالخير والمرجو من فضلائه الصفح عن الزلات وإصلاح الفاسد وتصحيح الباطل مما يحتاج من ذلك إلى الإصلاح والتصحيح‭128‬ ، وسميت هذا المختصر بعمدة‭129‬ الفحول في شرح الفصول ومن الله استمددت حسن التوفيق ولطفه.‭130‬‬‎

Since the Book of the Aphorisms by Hippocrates, the most eminent of physicians, is among the most obscure medical books, and since no one has clarified them or solved the puzzles that they contain to the same degree as Ibn Abī Ṣādiq al-Nīsābūrī—for he has delved deeply into detailed investigations and has unveiled profound puzzles—though it [the book] is, nevertheless, not free of repetition and wordiness that makes it dull, I aimed to shorten it and explain it whilst omitting the [extraneous] discussion and repetition that is in it. I seek thereby to be in the service of the library of … Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ṭabīb al-Ḫurāsānī …. I name this abridgement The Paragon of the Orators on the Commentary on the Aphorisms, and from God I seek success that is excellent as well as His kindness.

This text bears eloquent witness to the fact that al-Sīwāsī’s commentary and, more importantly, the commentary tradition on the Aphorisms, was known to non-specialist intellectuals such as Kātip Çelebi in Ottoman lands until at least the end of the seventeenth century.

Ibn Qāsim al-Kilānī (fl. 1340–1356)131

This is a thematically arranged commentary on the Aphorisms. Our edition is based on two manuscripts:

  1. 1.London, British Library, MS Or. 5939 (L6)132
  2. 2.Marāġeh, Marāġeh Public Library MS 37 (Ma)133

Typical of later Aphorisms commentators, this author’s medical thought is heavily influenced by Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine. Al-Kilānī frequently adopts distinctions from the Canon and even copies whole phrases without acknowledging their source. Hammood Obaid will soon publish a codicological study on the transmission history of this text. Based on “indicative errors” shared by the manuscripts, Obaid shows that Ma’s scribe copied from L6 directly.

Ibrāhīm al-Kīšī and ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-Ṭabīb134

Our edition was prepared on the basis of two manuscripts

  1. 1.Leiden, Universitetsbibliotheek Or. 58 (D2)135
  2. 2.Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Ayasofya 3670 (S5).136

It is ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-Ṭabīb’s (d. between 1383 and 1387) commentary on Ibrāhīm al-Kīšī’s (fl. ca. 1300) paraphrase of the Aphorisms. Al-Kīšī’s text normally offers a condensed and simplified version of Ḥunayn’s translation of the Hippocratic lemmas. Al-Kīšī justifies composing this text in the following preface to his epitome.137

‮فإنّي لمّا رأيت جماعة من المختلفة إليّ الأعزة عليّ من طالبي صناعة الطبّ مكبّين على حفظ فصول بقراط ووجدت ذلك الكتاب مع احتوائه على فوائد جميلة وعوائد جليلة يملّ على الطالبين بطول عباراته وألفاظه وإن عجّبهم بلمحات معناه، اختصرت ألفاظه اختصارا لطيفا بحيث عاد إلى النصف بل أقلّ، ولا فات منها معنى ولا اختلّ مع إشماله على إزالة الإبهام من كلامه واحتوائه على توضيح مقتصده ومرامه. وسمّيته وسائل الوصول إلى مسائل الفصول.‬‎

Having observed that a group of the medical students keeping my company who are dear to me were dedicating themselves to memorising Hippocrates’ Aphorisms, and appreciating that this book contains excellent lessons and many benefits, but that it vexes students because its words and expressions are long-winded, even if it [the book] impresses them by its flashes of meaning, I have, thus, abridged it slightly so that it is half its former size or less in such a way that not a single meaning it contains is lost or distorted whilst also inserting what clarifies its abstruse language and including what makes evident what he [Hippocrates] intended in it as well as his aim. I have named it Means to Arrive at the Topics in the Aphorism.

In fact, it seems that Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s interpretation of the Aphorisms was important to how al-Kīšī paraphrased individual aphorisms. For example, in his commentary on Aphorisms ii.30, Ibn Abī Ṣādiq says that of the four types of symptoms (aʿlām), the ones that Hippocrates is speaking about in this aphorism are the symptoms that make up the disease’s essential traits (al-aʿlāmu l-muqawwimatu li-nawʿi l-maraḍi) because they are the symptoms that are present throughout the illness.138 The following is al-Kīšī’s paraphrase of Aphorisms ii.30 transmitted in al-Ṭabīb’s commentary:139

‮قال أبقراط: مقوّم المرض أضعف أوّلًا وأخيرًا وأقوى انتهاءً.‬‎

Hippocrates said: what constitutes the disease’s being is weakest in the beginning and at the end and strongest the climax.

The impact of Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s interpretation on the later tradition is well evidenced in this and other examples, to the extent that by the fourteenth century, Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s interpretation appears to have rivalled Galen’s interpretation of the Aphorisms in many quarters.

Al-Manāwī (d. 1488)140

Our edition is based on a single manuscript, namely Madrid, Escurial MS árabe 878 (E10).141 Rather than quoting the entire Hippocratic lemma, the author breaks up the lemma into pieces and comments on each word or phrase in turn. This procedure is reminiscent of Koran commentaries and commentaries on legal textbooks. This author is the last to write in this tradition. As he goes through the different medical authorities whom he has consulted in his commentary,142 al-Manāwī mentions Galen along with many of the other authors in our corpus, such as Ibn al-Nafīs, Ibn Abī Ṣādiq and Ibn al-Quff.

Vignettes of Analysis of This Corpus

The corpus of electronic texts thus constituted served as the basis of our analysis, ranging from philological and linguistic questions, to methods of quotation and exegesis, and problems of medical history, be they theoretical, practical or social. In the following, we shall highlight a number of vignettes to illustrate the kind of analysis that we have undertaken.

Lemmas

The textual transmission of the Arabic commentaries on Hippocratic works is particularly complicated. This difficulty stems from the fact that many authors, starting with Galen, organise their commentaries in lemmatic format. They quote a passage from the Hippocratic text ranging from a few words to a whole paragraph (the lemma) and then discuss it. Therefore, these lemmatic commentaries attest to the text of the Arabic translation of the Hippocratic Aphorisms. We also know that commentaries played an important role in the transmission of the Arabic text of the Hippocratic Aphorisms. Klamroth already noted that there must have been two different Arabic renderings of the Hippocratic Aphorisms.143 Further scholarship has shown that one went back to the Arabic version of Galen’s commentary; in other words, it consists of quotations of the Hippocratic lemmas extracted from the commentary. The other Arabic version, by contrast, was an older one. Previously, scholars had argued that the older Arabic version was extracted from Palladius’ commentary, but this is not the case as we have already seen.

Textual Criticism of the Greek Sources

It is a well established fact that Arabic translations of Greek texts can often contribute to understanding the transmission of Greek texts, thus offering significant variant readings to the critical edition.144 This is also the case for Galen’s Commentary on Hippocrates’ ‘Aphorisms’. At present, we do not have a critical edition of the Greek text; scholars still have to consult Kühn’s unreliable printing.145 Philip J. van der Eijk and the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum (Berlin) are currently preparing a new and critical edition. For the Greek Hippocratic text, Magdelaine produced a critical edition in her doctoral thesis; in it, she only tentatively exploited the Arabic versions of the Aphorisms in Tytler’s printing for the establishment of the Greek text.146

Throughout our project, we have collaborated closely with van der Eijk and his team, notably Cristina Savino (for book 6), and Maria Börno (for book 7), to work out the textual relationship between the Greek and the Arabic versions. We made our draft edition of the Arabic translation available to them; and they provided us with their draft critical editions and highlighted passages of particular difficulty or interest. Our preliminary results for Aphorisms, Book Six, were presented at joint meetings in Manchester and Berlin. Members of the Aphorisms team presented on the Syriac and Arabic texts of Aphorisms v. 55, vi. 11, and vii. 18. A good deal of the discussion following focused on the confusion between the Greek words φρενετικοῖσιν (“people suffering from phrenitis,” phrenitis being a sort of brain fever sometimes akin to modern meningitis) and νεφριτικοῖσιν (“people suffering from kidney diseases”) in the Greek manuscript tradition and in the Arabic translations of Aphorisms vi. 11. In this case, we found that the Syriac and Arabic agreed against the extant Greek manuscript tradition, thus showing that a significant variant reading is attested in the Syriaco-Arabic tradition. In other words, the reading φρενετικοῖσιν is indirectly attested in Arabic and Syriac, and this did not result from human error.

This example illustrate how using Arabic and Syriac sources has the potential to take Greek textual criticism beyond the current state of scholarship. During subsequent meetings in Berlin and Manchester, we compared significant variants in the Greek text against the Arabic tradition. Our preliminary findings, the publication of which still lies in the future, suggest that the Arabic tradition sides with different branches of the Greek stemma. This can best be explained through contamination, and through the fact that the Arabic version goes back to a much earlier time than the copying of the earliest Greek manuscripts. In this way, the Arabic Aphorisms project has enabled classicists and historians of ancient medicine to make strides towards incorporating Arabic and Syriac texts into the criticism of the Greek stemma, although much work remains in this area.

Graeco-Syriaco-Arabic Translation Technique

To date, Graeco-Arabic scholarship has firmly remained in a twentieth-century paradigm: individual scholars investigated how specific Greek texts were rendered into Arabic during the Middle Ages. In doing so, they relied largely on analysis done by hand, in the sense that they compiled glossaries by hand, and identified certain syntactical patterns in the source and target texts. Let us take the Hippocratic Aphorisms as an example: on the basis of traditional philological work, Ullmann argued that the translation of the Aphorisms was indeed produced by Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq.147 This is rather unsurprising, given that Ḥunayn himself said that he rendered not only the Hippocratic lemmas contained in Galen’s commentary, but also the commentary itself into Arabic. Moreover, the Arabic translation of the Aphorisms—transmitted in the lemmas of Pseudo-Palladius’ Commentary on the Aphorisms and in the ninth-century geographer and historian Yaʿqūbī—belongs to an earlier time and probably goes back to al-Biṭrīq, working in the late eighth century.

One of the Ph.D. students on the project, Elaine van Dalen, dealt with the topic of language use within our corpus from the perspective of translation stylistics and the rhetorical elements in Ḥunayn’s translation of Galen’s Aphorisms commentary.148 In her thesis, she compared Ḥunayn’s translation of Galen’s commentary with six later medieval Arabic commentaries (c. 1000–1500). She focused in particular on rhetorical strategies such as the use of first person forms, the direct addressing of the reader, and modal expressions. By employing a quantitative approach to the stylistic features of Ḥunayn’s translation and other Arabic commentators, van Dalen offered insights into the characteristics of the medieval Arabic medical commentary. She showed, for instance, that the Arabic authors tend to be more “present” in the text, frequently employing first person forms and regularly addressing their readers with second person forms. In this respect, Ḥunayn’s “Arabic Galen” is much more present in the commentary text than the original “Greek Galen.”

Moreover, the Arabic Aphorisms project has also made it possible to gain a new perspective on Syriac translations, translation technique and questions of authorship. The Hippocratic Aphorisms are preserved in a Syriac translation extant in a unique bi-lingual manuscript, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS 6734 (fonds arabe). This manuscript was purchased and edited by the French scholar and diplomat Henri Pognon (1853–1921).149 It contains the Arabic translation of the Hippocratic Epidemics, Book One; a complete, parallel Arabic-Syriac translation of the Aphorisms; and a truncated, parallel Arabic-Syriac translation of the Hippocratic Prognostics. By comparing the Arabic Aphorisms with the parallel Syriac Aphorisms, Pognon concluded that the Syriac translation was not by Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq but rather by Sergius of Rēš ʿAynā.

Agreeing with Rainer Degen, Sebastian Brock and Caroline Magdelaine,150 Oliver Overwien has recently attempted to show that the Syriac translation of the Aphorisms preserved in this manuscript is by Ḥunyan rather than Sergius.151 Recognising, however, that the edition of Ḥunayn’s translation of Galen’s commentary on the Aphorisms sheds new light on the authorship of the Syriac Aphorisms, in this issue Taro Mimura argues convincingly that Ḥunayn cannot be the author of the Syriac Aphorisms preserved in the Paris manuscript. Rather than focusing on similarities between the Syriac and Arabic translations and their relation to Galen’s commentary, Mimura examines the textual mechanisms that the scribe Bahnām ibn Ḥaddād used to construct the bi-lingual manuscript, as well as the “indicative errors” in the Arabic and Syriac Aphorisms that shed light on the Greek exemplars on which the translations were based. Mimura concludes that a number of Syriac lemmas are incompatible with Galen’s commentary, that the Greek exemplars used by Ḥunayn and the Syriac translator are different and that Ḥunayn did not know about this Syriac translation or its exemplar. Mimura also highlights the fact that Ḥunayn’s translation has defects that the Syriac translation of the Aphorisms does not have.

Arguing in a similar vein, Samuel Barry has used Bar Baḥlūl’s Syriac Lexicon systematically to compare the Syriac and Arabic translations of the Aphorisms. Based on differences between Ḥunayn’s prescriptions about how to translate Greek words into Syriac preserved in Bar Baḥlūl and those found in the Syriac Aphorisms, Barry, too, comes to the conclusion that Ḥunayn cannot be the author the Syriac Aphorisms.152 A different Syriac translation, probably produced by Sergius of Rēš ʿAynā (d. 536), also survives in quotations in the so-called Syriac Epidemics.153 Therefore, the Hippocratic Aphorisms offer a unique opportunity to compare an older (Sergius) and a newer (Paris) Syriac version with an older (al-Biṭrīq?) and a newer (Ḥunayn) Arabic version.154

Finally, using Mimura’s edition of Galen’s commentary on the Aphorisms, Kamran Karimullah has argued that there is strong evidence showing that the truncated Syriac Prognostics preserved in the Paris manuscript is not by Ḥunayn either.155 Karimullah points to differences in translation styles on display in the Arabic Prognostics and Syriac Prognostics. There errors in the Arabic translation that are absent from the Syriac translation, and, at times, the translators interpret the Greek text differently. It is unlikely, therefore, that Ḥunayn is the author of the Syriac Prognostics preserved in the Paris bilingual manuscript.156 In this way, the Arabic Aphorisms project has afforded a rare opportunity to study the relationship between the Syriac and the Arabic versions of the same text in different versions, and to broach the subject of how Graeco-Syriac and Graeco-Arabic translation technique developed diachronically.

Methods of Quotation

Maimonides reports that even school children knew some of the Aphorisms and were fond of quoting them. This illustrates that the Aphorisms had a significant impact not only on later medical texts, but also on Arabic culture more generally. Traditionally, scholars have investigated quotations from Greek authors in Arabic texts by looking at individual texts (e.g., al-Rāzī’s Comprehensive Book), identifying quoted passages, and matching them to published Greek texts, either through their own familiarity of the work in question, or through the use of indices.157 But no one has yet attempted to study how particular Greek texts were quoted in medieval Arabic writings more generally. Here, the corpus approach can offer significant new insights.

Going beyond medieval reports about how the Aphorisms were used, the Arabic Aphorisms project has collaborated with Sarah Savant, who has led the development of an Arabic text-reuse toolbox called KITAB.158 This allowed us to explore the ways in which the Aphorisms were used outside of the specialist medical community. And two pilot studies by Hammood Obaid have given new insights into textual reuse in medieval Islamic medical scholarship.

Adopting a corpus-based methodology, Obaid employed the KITAB toolbox to examine how the Aphorisms as well as Galen’s commentary were quoted in Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā al-Rāzī’s Comprehensive Book. Earlier scholarship by Ullmann identified 15 verbatim or near-verbatim citations of the Aphorisms in the Comprehensive Book and a single citation of Galen’s commentary.159 Yet, KITAB allowed him to identify verbatim as well as paraphrased slices of reused text from the Hippocratic Aphorisms—82 instances, where Ullmann found 15—and from Galen’s commentary—an astonishing 178 instances, where Ullmann found one. These results take us well beyond the earlier findings and demonstrate the promise of wedding traditional philology to the digital humanities.

Obaid has also shown how the the famous Ḥanbalite jurist and ḥadīṯ scholar and specialist in Prophetic medicine Ibn Qayyim al-Ǧawzīya (d. 1350) used the Aphorisms in his book on paediatrics and gyneacology entitled The Beloved’s Gift on How to Treat New-Borns (Tuḥf̣at al-mawdūd bi-aḥḳām al-mawlūd).160 Ibn Qayyim al-Ǧawzīya cites the Aphorisms in the manner that one would cite a Prophetic tradition. Whilst Ibn Qayyim Ǧawzīya must have been aware of Galen’s commentary on the Aphorisms as well as the many commentaries on this text that had been authored by the fourteenth century, his interpretation takes no notice of Galen’s interpretation of the Aphorisms nor of the Arabic commentators. Taking advantage of Hippocrates’ universally accepted medical authority, Ibn Qayyim al-Ǧawzīya deliberately cites just the first half of an aphorism on weaning to buttress his claim that it is best to wean children gradually rather than all at once. Yet, the second half of the aphorism, Galen’s commentary and commentaries by the Arabic commentators make it clear that Hippocrates’ intended meaning was probably not what Ibn Qayyim al-Ǧawzīya takes the aphorism to mean. This example offers concrete evidence of how the Aphorisms were used and the nature of scientific authority outside specialist medical circles.

Exegetical Procedures

The interpretation of text constitutes a fundamental technique in many human cultures. In the “Western” medical tradition, exegesis played an important role in the construction of medical theory and authority.161 Already in Hellenistic times, a corpus of Hippocratic works was constituted that later became canonical. Various authors wrote commentaries on these works in which they endeavoured to explain Hippocrates’ often obscure meaning, but also to interpret him in the light of their own medical doctrines. Most of these Greek commentaries from the time before Late Antiquity are unfortunately lost, and we mainly know of the earlier ones through Galen’s work which did come down to us. Galen himself drew on various exegetical traditions when writing his commentary, not least Homeric philology and Greek lexicography,162 and thereby helped shape an exegetical culture.163

In the Arabic tradition, Galen’s understanding of the Hippocratic text was crucial but was challenged almost immediately. Of course, Galen’s interpretation of the Hippocratic lemmas loomed large in Ḥunayn’s mind as he carefully translated Galen’s commentary and he often renders the Hippocratic lemmas according to Galen’s interpretation.

Yet, as early as Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā al-Rāzī in his famous Doubts on Galen, Galen’s interpretation of Hippocrates’ words came under attack. Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā devotes an entire section of this book to a systematic critique of many of Galen’s interpretations of Hippocrates’ Aphorisms. He also wrote a commentary on the Aphorisms, which, unfortunately, is largely lost, although fragments exist in forms of quotations in later Arabic commentators. What is more, arguably the most influential commentary by Ibn Abī Ṣādiq recognises that Ḥunayn’s rendering posed problems. When discussing Aphorisms vi.11, Ibn Abī Ṣādiq confronted the same text-critical problem that modern editors struggle with and that we have mentioned above, namely the variant readings φρενετικοῖσιν and νεφριτικοῖσιν. Ibn Abī Ṣādiq does not fault Ḥunayn’s translation explicitly. Yet, it is clear that Ibn Abī Ṣādiq was prompted to consult the earlier Arabic translation of the Aphorisms because he was uncomfortable with the appearance of the word “phrenitis (birsām or sirsām)” in the Hippocratic lemma. What is more, he seems to prefer al-Bitrīq’s “kidney pain (waǧaʿ al-kulya)” to Ḥunyan’s “phrenitis.”

Karimullah’s publications have highlighted the historical evolution of exegetical procedures from the early to the later Arabic Aphorisms commentators. He has argued that early commentators such al al-Nīlī (d. 1029) and ʿAlī ibn Riḍwān (d. 1068) adopted exegetical procedures that are primarily concerned with providing explanation of the Hippocratic text that is based exclusively on Galen’s commentary.164 Whilst Ibn Abī Ṣādiq never criticised Galen outright in his Aphorisms commentary, his approach led to a much more creative interaction with the Hippocratic text. By the fourteenth century, Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine has come to dominate ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-Ṭabīb’s understanding of the Hippocratic text.

Indeed, the Arabic Aphorisms project has shed new light on Avicenna’s medical and philosophical legacy. That Avicenna’s Canon was influential East and West is nothing new.165 Nahyan Fancy has shown how Avicenna’s Canon wielded a tremendous influence on medieval Islamic medicine after the thirteenth century because of the commentary activity that it attracted,166 both in the form of direct commentaries as well as epitomes of Book One, or the Generalities (al-Kullīyāt), such as the Epitome of Medicine (al-Mūǧaz fī l-ṭibb) attributed to Ibn al-Nafīs.167 In other words, more than any intrinsic virtue that Avicenna’s book possessed, it was the attention given to it by commentators that made this text as influential as it was. The Canon of Medicine attracted so many commentators and gained so much popularity because of Avicenna’s philosophical legacy.168 This legacy may be seen in Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s introduction to his Aphorisms commentary and, in a negative way, in the introduction to ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Baġdādī’s Aphorisms commentary. It also motivated Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1210) to compose an (incomplete) commentary on the Canon, Book One, quite early in his career, possibly in 1182 or 1183, or even earlier.169 In the introduction to his Canon commentary, Faḫr al-Dīn makes it clear that he treats the Generalities as a book that expounds elements of Avicenna’s philosophy in the same deliberately aloof way that Avicenna presents his philosophical system in Pointers and Reminder (Išārāt wa-tanbīhāt).

Finally, recent publications by Wisnovsky and Ayman Shihadeh on verification (taḥqīq) as a set of exegetical strategies that gradually crystallise after 1100 mainly in commentaries on Avicenna’s philosophical works allow us to place the exegetical practices used in Ibn al-Quff’s massive commentary on the Aphorisms in their proper context.170 Enlisting the aid of bio-bibliographical, codicological and prosopographical evidence gathered in part by Albert Iskander,171 Gerhard Endress identified Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī as the individual who, by force of his own commentaries and the labour of his students, is most responsible for introducing, spreading and perpetuating an exegetical tradition on the Canon of Medicine, Book One, between the Nile and the Oxus.172 Combining Endress’ results with the work by Wisnovsky and Shihadeh, Karimullah is gathering evidence to show that Faḫr al-Dīn’s Canon commentary was the main vehicle for introducing the toolbox of verification (taḥqīq) methods into medieval Islamic medical discourse.

Development of Medical Theory

Although largely built up from principles received from the Greek medical tradition, research conducted by a number of scholars who have used the Arabic Aphorisms commentary corpus has shown how theory developed in many interesting ways in the Arabic tradition. Using several authors in the corpus, Glen Cooper has examined how Arabic commentaries on the Aphorisms introduce new interpretations of the Hippocratic-Galenic doctrines regarding critical days.173 Although Ḥunayn’s translation of the Greek word for crisis (krísis) is buḥrān, we have discovered that the early Arabic commentary on the Aphorisms by Pseudo-Palladius normally used faraǧ or tafrīǧ to speak about critical days. It is clear, however, from Glen Cooper’s work on critical days, that Ḥunayn’s translation won the day, as it was used to speak about critical days in the Arabic tradition almost exclusively.174 Drawing in part on the texts from the Arabic Aphorisms corpus, Cooper shows how authors such as Ibn al-Nafīs, al-Sinǧārī and Ibn al-Quff go into greater detail about the exact nature and calculation of critical days. Interestingly, new legal and natural metaphors emerged that dictated how these commentators thought about critical days. These metaphors may have played a part in gaining wide acceptance for physicians using critical days and lunar phases to predict the outcomes of diseases. Moreover, Arabic Aphorisms commentators seem not to have paid much heed to Avicenna’s philosophical critique of using astronomical phenomena to predict particular events in the sublunar realm.175

Several of the publications in this issue deal with developments in medical theory, which we shall describe briefly here. From the perspective of anatomy, Nahyan Fancy has used the Aphorisms to shed light on the how Ibn al-Nafīs develops a theory of generation and sex differentiation that is distinct from how Galen and Avicenna understood this process in their works. What is more, Fancy examines how Ibn al-Nafīs uses the medical authority of Hippocrates to navigate between the authority of Avicenna and Galen as he propounds his novel theories.

In his contribution to this issue, Kamran Karimullah highlights the different functions that Arabic Aphorisms commentators assigned to medical experience (taǧriba, empeiría). Philip van der Eijk observed that Galen assigned medical experience a special function in his pharmacological and dietetic works, which Galen calls “qualified experience (dihōrisménē peîra).”176 Peter E. Pormann and other historians have found this notion in Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā al-Rāzī’s discussions about critical days and Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine.177 Karimullah argues that similar ideas about medical experience are at play in the Aphorisms commentators, but they go substantially beyond Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā and Galen in complexity.178

Finally, Nicola Carpentieri and Taro Mimura discuss the evolution of mental illness in Arabic Aphorisms commentaries. Surveying debates about the aetiology of phrenitis from Galen in second century to Ibn al-Quff at the end of the thirteenth century, they show that Aphorisms vi.11 became a locus of intense exegetical scrutiny. Ibn Abī Ṣādiq’s commentary on Aphorisms vi.11 initiated a shift in how Islamic physicians understood the causes behind phrenitis and melancholy as well as suitable therapies for them. These shifts in the understanding of mental illness were mirrored by shifts in the terminology that later commentators such as Ibn al-Quff used to distinguish between different types of mental pathologies.

Medical Practice

We also had some negative results: we thought that the commentaries would contain information about actual medical practice. Historians of medicine in the medieval Islamic world have rightly asked the question how the theoretical literature, represented by medical encyclopaedias and other learned works, related to the medical practice of their authors.179 We know that certain procedures described in this theoretical literature were probably never, or hardly ever, attempted. Likewise, the therapeutical arsenal that physicians actually used appears to have been much more limited than the vast pharmacopoeias in these encyclopaedias would let one believe. In the shortest commentary on the Aphorisms that has come down to us, Maimonides stated in the preface that he mostly followed Galen’s aims and objectives, “except for some aphorisms where I am going to mention with attribution to myself what happened to me (mā waqaʿa lī)”180 Such observations suggested that we would find a lot of precious evidence for actual practice. Yet, in the corpus as a whole, practical observations are extremely rare.

Social History of Medicine

One of the Ph.D. students on the project, Rosalind Batten, focused on a specific topic of women’s diseases, which is discussed mostly in Aphorisms v. 28–62. She offers vignettes on the development of gynaecological theory as it appears in the commentators.181 Yet, although gynaecology is in principle a topic which could provide interesting insights into social practice, she did not find any significant such instances.

Moreover, the commentators came from different religious backgrounds: Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. Ibn al-Quff, a Christian, studied with Ibn al-Nafīs, who was, in addition to his medical interests, also a prominent Muslim legal scholar; another commentator, Maimonides, is arguably the greatest scholar of Jewish law, which he codified in his monumental Repetition of the Law (Mishneh Torah). Despite these different religious affiliations, we have found no evidence that their creed influenced their medical views as expressed in the Arabic commentaries. Generally speaking, the medieval Islamic medical tradition afforded physicians of various creeds the opportunity to partake in the same scientific discourse, based on the framework of Greek medical theory, and this appears to be the case here, even if we also know of occasional tension between the communities.182

Similarly, the commentators come from different parts of the Islamic world: Ibn Abī Ṣādiq, for instance, hails from the Persian-speaking East (Nīšāpūr), whereas others were active in Syria (e.g., Ibn an-Nafīs, Ibn al-Quff), Egypt (e.g., Maimonides, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf), or Turkey (e.g., as-Sīwāsī). Likewise, in temporal terms the commentaries range from the mid-eleventh to the early sixteenth century. Future research will need to determine if and how these differences in terms of time and location influenced the Arabic commentators.

Conclusions

The project’s overall aim was to provide access to the rich tradition of Arabic commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms, to survey this tradition, and to analyse and study it in novel and innovative ways. We venture to say that we have achieved this aim. And yet, the words of Ecclesiasticus 18:7 ring in our head: “When a man hath done, then he beginneth; and when he leaveth off, then he shall be doubtful” (Ὅταν συντελέσῃ ἄνθρωπος, τότε ἄρχεται, καὶ ὅταν παύσηται, τότε ἀπορηθήσεται/ ‮إنّ الإنسان إذا ما هو فرغ فيما يظنّ فحينئذ يبدأ، وإذا ما هو انتهى فاستقرّ حينئذ يغيب عن الذي يطلب، فلا يدركه‬‎).183 When we initially embarked on our task, we thought that we would transcribe a bit more than half a million words of Arabic from various medieval manuscripts, and then offer a comprehensive analysis of this tradition. In the end, we produced preliminary editions for three times as much text, as we discovered new commentaries and realised that the ones we knew about were longer than we estimated—not least that by the thorough, nay pedantic Ibn al-Quff. In terms of analytical tools, a lot has happened as well since 2010 when the project was originally conceived. The field of digital humanities, to which this project firmly belongs, is in constant flux and development.184 Initially we did not envision using Sketch Engine or KITAB; yet, this is part of research: one cannot predict all the twists and turns on the road into the unknown.

By way of conclusions, then, we would like to sketch three areas in dire need of further exploration. The first is the interplay between philology and codicology, both digitally conceived. We have largely used the 85 manuscripts that we collected as witnesses to a textual tradition: they contain the various commentaries on the Aphorisms that we included in our corpus. Yet, they also offer precious information about how they were read, studied, interpreted, and circulated. Here, so-called paratextual information—owners’ and readers’ marks, marginal notes and so on—plays a prominent role. Others are working on the materiality of textual transmission: one could mention the Islamic Scientific Manuscripts Initiative at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin185 and the very promising project led by Frédéric Bauden “Ex(-)libris ex oriente.”186 Large commentary traditions such as that of the Aphorisms ought to be investigated in this way.

Second, there is the place of Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine in the Aphorisms commentary tradition and the medical and (to a lesser extant) philosophical traditions more generally. The Canon undoubtedly represented a watershed and this is reflected in later commentators on the Aphorisms quoting from it, engaging with it, and using it as a point of reference and debate. There are numerous Arabic commentaries and abridgments, and commentaries on these commentaries and abridgments, with book One, the Generalies (al-Kullīyāt), being a particular favourite. This rich Canon tradition deserves a thorough study in it own right, and it is surprising that we do not even have a critical edition nor a scholarly English translation of the Canon itself, arguably one of the most influential medical works of all times.

Third, there is the availability of high-quality electronic corpora of Arabic works in general and medieval medical Arabic in particular. For us, the corpus approach yielded a number of results that we could never have achieved through analysis by hand. And yet, the absence of reference corpora, especially of any representative corpus of medieval Arabic or even just medieval medical Arabic hampered our ability to conduct diachronic analysis. KITAB, the Islamicate Texts Initiative187 and our own Genealogies of Knowledge project with Mona Baker as principal investigator188 attempt to fill this gap and develop new analytical and visualisation tools. PEP naively claimed more than ten years ago that “[b]y collecting different relevant texts and compiling them into one database, it is probably relatively easy to produce a Thesaurus Linguae Arabicae (TLA), similar to the TLG.”189 Even if it has not proven easy to produce such an Arabic reference corpus, this is undoubtedly the way forward for innovative new research on large groups of Arabic texts, including the vast Canon tradition.

Therefore, we live in interesting and exciting times. We have hardly scratched the surface of the rich medical heritage that Arabic manuscripts contain. And therefore, again with Ecclesiasticus, we hope that this ending will only be a beginning—for us and for present and future researchers whom we invite to engage with our corpus and the Arabic medical legacy more broadly defined.

Acknowledgments

A project of this magnitude is, by necessity, a collaborative effort. PEP conceived the idea of working on the “Arabic commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms” in the summer of 2010 and delivered a paper with this title at the “Epidemics in Context” conference, jointly organised by Charles Burnett, Simon Swain and himself in the autumn of that year. For the initial survey of the tradition, he joined forces with his then colleagues at Warwick, N. Peter Joosse and Uwe Vagelpohl. At the project’s home, the University of Manchester, PEP received assistance from many quarters, including his Head of School, Jeremy Gregory; his Heads of Department, Tim Parkin, Alison Sharrock, and David Langslow; and colleagues within the Department, the School, and the John Rylands Research Institute, notably Philip Alexander, John Healey, Grigory Kessel, Nil Palabıyık, Zahia Salhi, and Stefania Silvestri. He is also profoundly indebted to his team.

Both editors would like to record their thanks to the scholars from outside Manchester who engaged with our corpus as it developed; they include the authors in this volume and the academic visitors (listed above) who came to Manchester to discuss how their own research intersected with ours. Furthermore, we are profoundly grateful to the scholars who have allowed us to incorporate their previous editions into our corpus, namely Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt, Sherif Masry, and Carsten Schliwsky. From the digital humanities perspective, we are grateful to Sarah Savant, Robert Haines, Jonathan Boyle, Nicola Gruel and, above all, Maxim Romanov. We are also especially grateful to the Huw Jones and Yasmin Faghihi for their unstinting support and great patience, as we uploaded our manuscript descriptions onto FIHRIST. We would like to thank the editors of Oriens, Cornelia Schöck, Asad Ahmed and Robert G. Morrison, for their help putting this special issue together, and to Kathy van Vliet at Brill for her unstinting support: she kindly attended the conference and suggested Oriens as a possible place of publication. Therefore, without her, this special issue would not have seen the light.

We also benefitted from external funding, without which this project could not have come about. Funders include the Wellcome Trust, which granted PEP a University Award; the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust, which funded the Colloque Hippocratic; and, last, not least, the European Research Council, which provided most of the financial support.

PEP

KIK

Manchester, March 2017

Bibliography

Abou Aly, Amal. “A Few Notes on Ḥunayn’s Translation and Ibn al-Nafīs’ Commentary on the First Book of the Aphorisms.” Arabic Sciences and Philosohpy 10 (2000): 139–50.

Afif, Naima, et al. “Continuing Research on the Syriac Galen Palimpsest: Collaborative Implementation within the Framework of Two European Projects.” Semitica et Classica 9 (2016): 261–8.

Adamson, Peter and Peter E. Pormann, eds. Medicine and Philosophy in the Islamic World. London, Turin: The Warburg Institute, Nino Aragno Editore, forthcoming.

Anastassiou, Anargyros and Dieter Irmer. Testimonien zum Corpus Hippocraticum, 3 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997–2012.

Altaş, Eşref. “Fahraddin er-Râzî’nin Eserlerinin Kronolojisi.” In Islâm Düşüncesinin Dönüṣüm Çağinda, edited by Ömer Türker and Osman Demir, 91–164. Istanbul: ISAM, 2011.

Álvarez-Millán, Cristina. “Practice versus Theory: Tenth-Century Case Histories from the Islamic Middle East.” Social History of Medicine 13 (2000): 293–306.

Aristotle. Poetics: Editio Maior of the Greek Text with Historical Introductions and Philological Commentaries. Edited by Leonardo Tarán and Dimitri Gutas. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Avicenna. Refutation de l’ astrologie. Edited by Yahya Michot. Beirut: Les editions Albouraq, 2006.

Barry, Samuel. “The Question of Syriac Influence upon Early Arabic Translations of the Aphorisms of Hippocrtes.” PhD diss., University of Manchester, 2016.

Bar-Sela, Ariel and Hebbel E. Hoff. “Maimonides’ Interpretation of the First Aphorism of Hippocrates.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 37 (1963): 347–54.

Batten, Rosalind and Emily Selove. “Making Men and Women: Arabic Commentaries on the Gynaecological Hippocratic Aphorisms in Context.” Annales islamologiques 48 (2014): 239–62.

Bhayro, Siam et al. “The Syriac Galen Palimpsest: Progress, Prospects and Problems.” Journal of Semetic Studies 58 (2013): 131–48.

Biesterfeldt, Hinrich. “Palladius on the Hippocratic Aphorisms.” In The Libraries of the Neoplatonists, edited by Cristina D’Ancona, 385–97. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Bio, Ieraci. “Dihaireseis relative all’ Ars medica di Galeno nel Neap. Orat. CF 2.11 (olim XXII.I).” Galenos 1(2007): 149–61.

Bos, Gerrit and Tvi Langermann. “The Introduction of Sergius of Reshʿaina to Galen’s Commentary on Hippocrates’ On Nutriment.” Journal of Semitic Studies 54 (2009): 179–204.

Brock, Sebastian. “The Syriac Background to Ḥunayn’s Translation Techniques.” Aram 3 (1991): 139–62.

Carpentieri, Nicola. “On the Meaning of Birsām and Sirsām: A Survey of the Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms.” Mélanges de l’ Institut Dominicain d’ études orientales du Caire 32 (forthcoming).

Cooper, Glen. “Medical Crises and Critical Days in Avicenna and After: Insights from the Commentary Tradition.” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 6.3–7.1 (forthcoming).

Çelebī, Kātip. Kašf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī l-kutub wa-l-funūn. Edited by Gustav Flügel. London: Oriental Translation Fund, 1835.

van Dalen, Elaine. “The Rhetorical Strategies in the Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms: An Exploration of Metadiscourse in Medieval Medical Arabic.” PhD diss., University of Manchester, 2017.

Das, Aileen. “The Hippocratism of ʿAlī ibn Riḍwān: Autodidacticism and the Creation of Medical Isnād.” Journal of Islamic Studies (forthcoming).

D’Avray, David L. Medieval Marriage Sermons: Mass Communication in a Culture without Print. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Debru, Armelle. “Galien commentateur d’ Hippocrate: le canon hippocratique.” In Hippocrate et son héritage: colloque franco-hellénique d’ histoire de la médecine (Fondation Marcel Mérieux, Lyon, 9–12 octobre 1985), 51–6. Lyon: Association corporative des étudiants en médicine de Lyon, 1985.

Degen, Rainer. “Zur syrischen Übersetzung der Aphorismen des Hippokrates.” Oriens Christianus 62 (1978): 36–52.

van der Eijk, Philip. “Galen’s Use of the Concept of ‘Qualified Experience’ in his Dietetic and Pharmacological Works.” In Medicine and Philosophy in Classical Antiquity: Doctors and Philosophers on Nature, Soul, Health and Disease, edited by Philip van der Eijk, 279–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Endress, Gerhard. “Reading Avicenna in the Madrasa: Intellectual Genealogies and Chains of Transmission of Philosophy and the Sciences in the Islamic East.” In Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank, edited by James E. Montgomery, 371–422. Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2006.

Fancy, Nahyan. “Medical Commentaries: A Preliminary Examination of Ibn al-Nafīs’s Shurūḥ, the Mūjaz and Commentaries on the Mūjaz.” Oriens 41 (2013): 525–45.

Fancy, Nahyan. Science and Religion in Mamluk Egypt: Ibn al-Nafīs, Pulmonary Transit, and Bodily Resurrection. London: Routledge, 2013.

Fancy, Nahyan. “Post-Avicennan Physics in the Medical Commentaries of the Mamluk Period.” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 6.3–7.1 (forthcoming).

Flemming, Rebecca. “Commentary.” In The Cambridge Companion to Galen, edited by Richard J. Hankinson, 323–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Forcada, Miquel N. Ética e ideología de la ciencia: el médico-filósofo en al-Andalus, siglos XXII. Almería: Fundación Ibn Tufayl de Estudios Árabes, 2011.

Forcada, Miquel N. “Ibn Bājja on Medicine and Medical Experience.” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 21 (2011): 111–48.

Galen. Galeni Opera Omnia. Edited by Karl G. Kühn. 20 vols. Leipzig: Car. Cnoblochii, 1829–1833.

Galen. “De diebus decretoriis,” from Greek into Arabic: A Critical Edition, with Translation and Commentary, of Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, “Kitāb ayyām al-buḥrān.” Edited by Glen Cooper. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011.

Garofalo, Ivan. “I commenti alle epidemie e la loro traduzione araba.” Galenos 3 (2009): 119–71.

Griffel, Frank. “On Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Life and the Patronage He Received.” Journal of Islamic Studies 18 (2007): 313–44.

Hippocrates. The Aphorisms of Hippocrates, Translated into Arabic by Honain Ben Ishak. Edited by John Tytler. Calcutta: Education Press for Committee of Public Instruction, 1832.

Hippocrates. Une version syriaque des aphorismes d’ Hippocrate. Edited and translated by Henri Pognon. 2 vols. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1903.

Ibn Isḥāq, Ḥunayn. Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq on his Galen Translations. Edited and translated by John Lamoreaux. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2016.

Ibn Qayyim al-Ǧawzīya. Tuḥf̣at al-mawdūd bi-aḥḳām al-mawlūd. Edited by ʿUṯmān ibn Ǧumuʿa al-Ḍumayrīya. Mecca: ʿĀlam al-fawāʾid, 2010.

Iskander, Albert Z., ed. “Al-Muršid aw al-fuṣūl.” Maǧallāt maʿhad al-maḫṭūṭāt al-ʿArabīya 7 Cairo, 1961.

Iskander, Albert Z. A Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts on Medicine and Science in the Wellcome Historial Medical Library. London: The Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1967.

Iskander, Albert Z. “An Attempted Reconstruction of the Late Alexandrian Medical Curriculum.” Medical History 20 (1976): 235–258.

Joosse, N. Peter and Peter E. Pormann. “Decline and Decadence in Iraq and Syria after the Age of Avicenna? ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Baghdādī (1162–1231) between Myth and History.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 84 (2010): 1–29.

Jouanna, Jacques. Pronostic. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2013.

Kapetanaki, Sophia and Robert W. Sharples. Pseudo-Aristoteles (Pseudo-Alexander), Supplementa Problematorum. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006.

Karimullah, Kamran. “Assessing Avicenna’s (d. 428/1037) Medical Influence in Prolegomena to Post-Classical (1100–1900 CE) Medical Commentaries: Ibn Abī Ṣādiq (d. after 460/1067), ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Baġdādī (d. 629/1231), Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210).” Mélanges de l’ Institut Dominicain d’ études orientales du Caire 32 (forthcoming).

Karimullah, Kamran. “On the Authorship of the Syriac Prognostics.” In Hippocrates East and West, edited by Peter E. Pormann. Hippocrates East and West: Proceedings of the Fifteenth “Colloque hippocratique.” Leiden: Brill, forthcoming.

Karimullah, Kamran. “Transformation of Galen’s Textual Legacy from Classical to Post-Classical Islamic Medicine: Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms.” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 5.3 (2017): 311–58 (in press).

Kessel, Grigory. “The Syriac Epidemics and the Problem of Its Identification.” In Epidemics in Context: Greek Commentaries on Hippocrates in the Arabic Tradition. Edited by Peter E. Pormann, 91–123. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012.

Klamroth, Martin. “Ueber die Auszüge aus griechischen Schriftstellern bei al-Jaʿqûbî.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 40 (1886): 189–233.

Maas, Paul. Textual Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952.

Magdelaine, Caroline. “Histoire du texte et édition critique, traduite et commentée, des Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate,” 3 vols. PhD diss., Université Paris-Sorbonne, 1994.

Manetti, Daniela and Amneris Roselli. “Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate.” In Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, II vol. 37, 2. Edited by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini, 1529–1635, 2071–2080. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994.

Mansfeld, Jaap. Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author, or a Text. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

Meyerhof, Max. “Ibn an-Nafīs und seine Theorie des Lungenkreislaufs.” Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften under der Medizin 4 (1933): 37–88.

Meyerhof, Max and Joseph Schacht. The Medico-Philosophical Controversy between Ibn Buṭlān of Baghdad and Ibn Riḍwān of Cairo. Cairo: Egyptian University, 1937.

Muhanna, Elias, ed. The Digital Humanities and Islamic & Middle East Studies. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016.

Nasser, Mona, Aida Tibi and Emilie Savage-Smith. “Ibn Sina’s Canon of Medicine: 11th Century Rules for Assessing the Effects of Drugs.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 102 (2009): 78–80.

Overwien, Oliver. “Einige Beobachtungen zur Überlieferung der Hippokratesschriften in der arabischen und griechischen Tradition.” Sudhoffs Archiv 89 (2005): 196–210.

Overwien, Oliver. “Die parallelen Texte in den hippokratischen Schriften De humoribus und Aphorismen.” In Antike Medizin im Schnittpunkt von Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften, edited by Christian Brockmann, Wolfram Brunschön and Oliver Overwien, 121–39. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009.

Overwien, Oliver. “The Paradigmatic Translator and His Method: Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq’s Translations of the Hippocrati Aphorisms from Greek via Syriac into Arabic.” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 3 (2015): 158–87.

Pormann, Peter E. “Jean le grammarien et le De sectis dans la littérature médicale d’ Alexandrie.” In Galenismo e medicina tardoantica: fonti greche, latine e arabe, edited by Ivan Garofalo and Amneris Roselli, 233–63. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale 2003.

Pormann, Peter E. The Oriental Tradition of Paul of Aegina’s Pragmateia. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Pormann, Peter E. “The Alexandrian Summary (Jawāmiʿ) of Galen’s On the Sects for Beginners: Commentary or Abridgment?” In Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries, eds. Peter Adamson et al., 2:11–33. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement 83. London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2004.

Pormann, Peter E. “The Physician and the Other: Images of the Charlatan in Medieval Islam.” Bulletin of Medical History 79 (2005): 189–227.

Pormann, Peter E. “Case Notes and Clinicians: Galen’s Commentary on the Hippocratic Epidemics in the Arabic Tradition.” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 18 (2008): 247–84.

Pormann, Peter E. “Medical Methodology and Hospital Practice: The Case of Fourth-/Tenth-Century Baghdad.” In The Age of al-Fārābī: Arabic Philosophy in the Fourth/Tenth Century, edited by Peter Adamson, 95–118. London: Warburg Institute, 2008.

Pormann, Peter E. “Medical Education in Late Antiquity: From Alexandria to Montpellier.” In Hippocrates and Medical Education: Selected Papers Read at the XIIth International Hippocrates Colloquium, Universiteit Leiden, 24–26 August 200, edited by Manfred F.J. Horstmanshoff, 419–42. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Pormann, Peter E. “Avicenna on Medical Practice, Epistemology, and the Physiology of the Inner Senses.” In Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays. Edited by Peter Adamson, 91–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Pormann, Peter E. “Al-Tarǧamāt al-Yūnānīya al-Suryānīya al-ʿArabīya li-l-nuṣūṣ al-ṭibbīya fī awāʾil al-ʿaṣr al-ʿAbbāsī.” In Našʾat al-ṭibb al-ʿArabī fī l-qurūn al-wusṭā (La construction de la médecine arabe médiévale), edited by Pauline Koetschet and Peter E. Pormann, 43–59. Beirut: Publications de l’ Institut Français de Damas, 2016.

Pormann, Peter E. “Philosophical Topics in Medieval Arabic Medical Discourse: Problems and Prospects.” In Medicine and Philosophy in the Islamic World, edited by Peter Adamson and Peter E. Pormann. London, Turin: The Warburg Institute, Nino Aragno Editore, forthcoming.

Pormann, Peter E., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Hippocrates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.

Pormann, Peter E., ed. Hippocrates East and West: Proceedings of the Fifteenth “Colloque hippocratique.” Leiden: Brill, forthcoming.

Pormann, Peter E. and N. Peter Joosse, “Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms in the Arabic Tradition: The Example of Melancholy.” In Epidemics in Context: Greek Commentaries on Hippocrates in the Arabic Tradition. Edited by Peter E. Pormann, 211–49. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012.

Pormann, Peter E. and Emilie Savage-Smith. Medieval Islamic Medicine. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007.

Pormann, Peter E. et al. “The Enigma of Arabic and Hebrew Palladius.” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 5.3 (2017): 252–310 (in press).

Ragab, Ahmed. The Medieval Islamic Hospital: Medicine, Religion, Charity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Reisman, David. “Medieval Arabic Medical Autobiography.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 129 (2009): 559–69.

Rosenthal, Franz. “ ‘Life Is Short, the Art Is Long’: Arabic Commentaries on the First Hippocratic Aphorism.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 40 (1966): 226–45.

Rosenthal, Franz. “Die arabische autobiographie.” Studia Arabica 1 (1937): 1–40.

Savage-Smith, Emilie. A New Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford Volume 1: Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Schliwski, Carsten. “Moses Ben Maimon, Šarḥ Fuṣūl Abuqrāṭ. Der Kommentar des Maimonides zu den Aphorismen des Hippokrates. Kritische Edition des arabischen Textes mit Einführung und Übersetzung.” PhD diss., University of Köln, 2007.

Shihadeh, Ayman. “Al-Rāzī’s (d. 1210) Commentary on Avicenna’s Pointers: The Confluence of Exegesis and Aporetics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Philosophy, edited by Khaled El-Rouayheb and Sabine Schmidtke, 296–325. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Shihadeh, Ayman. Doubts on Avicenna: A Study and Edition of Sharaf al-Dīn al-Masʿūdī’s Commentary on the Ishārāt. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

Siraisi, Nancy. Avicenna in Renaissance Italy: The Canon and Medical Teaching in Italian Universities after 1500. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987.

Sorabji, Richard, ed. Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence. London: Ithaca, 1990.

Sorabji, Richard, ed. Aristotle Re-Interpreted. London: Bloomsbury, 2016.

von Staden, Heinrich. “ ‘A woman does not become ambidextrous’: Galen and the Culture of the Scientific Commentary.” In The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, edited by Roy K. Gibson, Christina S. Kraus, 109–39. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Strohmaier, Gotthard. “Galen in den Schulen der Juden und Christen.” Judaica (Beiträge zum Verstehen des Judentums) 62 (2006): 140–56.

Ullmann, Manfred. Die Medizin im Islam. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Ullmann, Manfred. Wörterbuch zu den griechisch-arabischen Übersetzungen des 9. Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002.

Ullmann, Manfred. Wörterbuch zu den griechisch-arabischen Übersetzungen des 9. Jahrhunderts. Supplement Band I: AO. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006.

Weisser, Ursula. “Das Corpus Hippocraticum in der arabischen Medizin.” In Die hippokratischen Epidemien: Theorie–Praxis–Tradition. Verhandlungen des Ve Colloque International Hippocratique (Berlin, 10.–15.9.1984), edited by Gerhard Baader and Rolf Winau, 377–408. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1989.

Weisser, Ursula. “Die Zitate aus Galens de Methodo Medendi im Ḥāwī des Rāzī.” In The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism: Studies on the Transmission of Greek Philosophy and Sciences Dedicated to H.J. Drossaart Lulofs on his Ninetieth Birthday, edited by Remke Kruk and Gerhard Endress, 278–318. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

West, Martin L. Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973.

Wisnovsky, Robert. “The Nature and Scope of Arabic Philosophical Commentary in Post-Classical (ca. 1100–1900 AD) Islamic Intellectual History: Some Preliminary Observations.” Bulletin of the Institute Of Classical Studies 83 (2004): 149–91.

Wisnovsky, Robert. “Avicennism and Exegetical Practice in the Early Commentaries on the Ishārāt.” Oriens 41.3–4 (2013): 349–378.

Wolska-Conus, Wanda. “Les commentaires de Stéphanos d’ Athènes au Prognostikon et aux Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate: de Galien à la pratique scolaire alexandrine.” Revue des Études Byzantines 50 (1992): 5–86.

Wolska-Conus, Wanda. “Stéphanos d’ Athènes (d’ Aléxandrie) et Théophile le Prôtopathaire, commentateurs des Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate, sont-ils independents l’ un de l’ autre?” Revue des Études Byzantines 52 (1994): 5–68.

Wolska-Conus, Wanda. “Sources des commentaires de Stéphanos d’ Athènes et de Théophile le Prôtospathaire aux Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate.” Revue des Études Byzantines 54 (1996): 5–66.

Wolska-Conus, Wanda. “Un “Pseudo-Galien” dans le commentaire de Stéphanos d’ Athènes aux Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate: ὁ νεώτερος ἐξηγητής.” Revue des Études Byzantines 56 (1998): 5–68.

Wolska-Conus, Wanda. “Palladios—‘Le Pseudo-Galien’ (ὁ νεώτερος ἐξηγητής)—dans le commentaire de Stéphanus d’ Athènes aux Aphorisms d’ Hippocrate.” Revue des Études Byzantines 58 (2000): 5–68.

Yaʿqūbī. Ibn Wādhih qui dicitur al-Jaʿqūbī, Historiae. Edited by Martjin T. Houtsma. Leiden: Brill, 1883.

Zaydān, Yūsuf et al., ed. Šarḥ fuṣūl Abuqrāṭ. Beirut: Dār al-ʿulūm al-ʿArabīya, 1988.

*

Peter E. Pormann, corresponding author.

**

Kamran I. Karimullah, author.

1

A notable exception, of course, being Nahyan Fancy; see below.

2

Richard Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence (London: Ithaca, 1990); and now, with substantial contributions from Arabic sources, Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Re-Interpreted (London: Bloomsbury, 2016).

3

For example, Armelle Debru, “Galien commentateur d’ Hippocrate: le canon hippocratique,” in Hippocrate et son héritage: colloque franco-hellénique d’ histoire de la médecine (Fondation Marcel Mérieux, Lyon, 9–12 octobre 1985) (Lyon: Association corporative des étudiants en médicine de Lyon, 1985), 51–6; Daniela Manetti and Amneris Roselli, “Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, II vol. 37, 2, eds. Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994), 1529–1635 and 2071–2080; Heinrich von Staden “ ‘A woman does not become ambidextrous’: Galen and the Culture of the Scientific Commentary,” in The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, eds. Roy K. Gibson, Christina S. Kraus (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 109–40; Rebecca Flemming, “Commentary,” in The Cambridge Companion to Galen, ed. Richard J. Hankinson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 323–54.

4

Peter E. Pormann et al., “The Enigma of Arabic and Hebrew Palladius,” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 5.3 (2017): 252–310 (in press), pace Hinrich Biesterfeldt, “Palladius on the Hippocratic Aphorisms,” in The Libraries of the Neoplatonists, ed. Cristina D’Ancona (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 385–97.

5

Wanda Wolska-Conus, “Les commentaires de Stéphanos d’ Athènes au Prognostikon et aux Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate: de Galien à la pratique scolaire alexandrine,” Revue des Études Byzantines 50 (1992): 5–86; Wolska-Conus, “Stéphanos d’ Athènes (d’ Aléxandrie) et Théophile le Prôtopathaire, commentateurs des Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate, sont-ils independents l’ un de l’ autre?” Revue des Études Byzantines 52 (1994): 5–68; Wolska-Conus, “Sources des commentaires de Stéphanos d’ Athènes et de Théophile le Prôtospathaire aux Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate,” Revue des Études Byzantines 54 (1996): 5–66; Wolska-Conus, “Un “Pseudo-Galien” dans le commentaire de Stéphanos d’ Athènes aux Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate: ὁ νεώτερος ἐξηγητής,” Revue des Études Byzantines 56 (1998): 5–68; Wolska-Conus, “Palladios—‘Le Pseudo-Galien’ (ὁ νεώτερος ἐξηγητής)—dans le commentaire de Stéphanus d’ Athènes aux Aphorisms d’ Hippocrate,” Revue des Études Byzantines 58 (2000): 5–68; Peter E. Pormann, “Jean le grammarien et le De sectis dans la littérature médicale d’ Alexandrie,” in Galenismo e medicina tardoantica: fonti greche, latine e arabe, eds. Ivan Garofalo and Amneris Roselli (Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale 2003), 233–63; Pormann, “The Alexandrian Summary (Jawāmiʿ) of Galen’s On the Sects for Beginners: Commentary or Abridgment?” in Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries, eds. Peter Adamson et al., Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement 83 (London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2004): 2:11–33.

6

Ieraci Bio, “Dihaireseis relative all’ Ars medica di Galeno nel Neap. Orat. CF 2.11 (olim XXII.I),” Galenos 1(2007): 149–61.

7

Gerrit Bos and Tvi Langermann, “The Introduction of Sergius of Reshʿaina to Galen’s Commentary on Hippocrates’ On Nutriment,” Journal of Semitic Studies 54 (2009): 179–204.

8

Robert Wisnovsky, “The Nature and Scope of Arabic Philosophical Commentary in Post-Classical (ca. 1100–1900 AD) Islamic Intellectual History: Some Preliminary Observations,” Bulletin of the Institute Of Classical Studies 83 (2004): 149–91; see http://islamsci.mcgill.ca/RASI/pipdi.html.

9

Max Meyerhof, “Ibn an-Nafīs und seine Theorie des Lungenkreislaufs,” Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften under der Medizin 4 (1933): 37–88.

10

Nahyan Fancy, Science and Religion in Mamluk Egypt: Ibn al-Nafīs, Pulmonary Transit, and Bodily Rescurrection (London: Routledge, 2013).

11

Peter E. Pormann, “Case Notes and Clinicians: Galen’s Commentary on the Hippocratic Epidemics in the Arabic Tradition,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 18 (2008): 247–84.

12

Peter E. Pormann, “Medical Education in Late Antiquity: From Alexandria to Montpellier,” in Hippocrates and Medical Education: Selected Papers Read at the XIIth International Hippocrates Colloquium, Universiteit Leiden, 24–26 August 2005, ed. Manfred F.J. Horstmanshoff (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 419–42.

13

Peter E. Pormann, “Medical Methodology and Hospital Practice: The Case of Fourth-/Tenth-Century Baghdad,” in The Age of al-Fārābī: Arabic Philosophy in the Fourth/Tenth Century, ed. Peter Adamson (London: Warburg Institute, 2008), 95–118.

14

Anargyros Anastassiou and Dieter Irmer, Testimonien zum Corpus Hippocraticum, 3 vols., (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997–2012).

15

Sophia Kapetanaki and Robert W. Sharples, Pseudo-Aristoteles (Pseudo-Alexander), Supplementa Problematorum (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 88.

16

Manfred Ullmann, Wörterbuch zu den griechisch-arabischen Übersetzungen des 9. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 52.

17

Franz Rosenthal, “ ‘Life Is Short, the Art Is Long’: Arabic Commentaries on the First Hippocratic Aphorism,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 40 (1966): 226–45.

18

Ariel Bar-Sela and Hebbel E. Hoff, “Maimonides’ Interpretation of the First Aphorism of Hippocrates,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 37 (1963): 347–54.

19

Ursula Weisser, “Das Corpus Hippocraticum in der arabischen Medizin,” in Die hippokratischen Epidemien: Theorie–Praxis–Tradition. Verhandlungen des Ve Colloque International Hippocratique (Berlin, 10.–15.9.1984), eds. Gerhard Baader and Rolf Winau (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1989), 377–408.

20

Amal Abou Aly, “A Few Notes on Ḥunayn’s Translation and Ibn al-Nafīs’ Commentary on the First Book of the Aphorisms,” Arabic Sciences and Philosohpy 10 (2000): 139–50.

21

Gotthard Strohmaier, “Galen in den Schulen der Juden und Christen,” Judaica (Beiträge zum Verstehen des Judentums) 62 (2006): 140–56. Oliver Overwien, “Einige Beobachtungen zur Überlieferung der Hippokratesschriften in der arabischen und griechischen Tradition,” Sudhoffs Archiv 89 (2005): 196–210; Overwien, “Die parallelen Texte in den hippokratischen Schriften De humoribus und Aphorismen,” in Antike Medizin im Schnittpunkt von Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften, eds. Christian Brockmann, Wolfram Brunschön and Oliver Overwien (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009), 121–39.

22

Siam Bhayro et al., “The Syriac Galen Palimpsest: Progress, Prospects and Problems,” Journal of Semetic Studies 58 (2013): 131–48. Naima Afif, et al., “Continuing Research on the Syriac Galen Palimpsest: Collaborative Implementation within the Framework of Two European Projects,” Semitica et Classica 9 (2016): 261–8.

23

Peter Adamson and Peter E. Pormann eds., Medicine and Philosophy in the Islamic World, Warburg Institute Colloquia (London, Turin: The Warburg Institute, Nino Aragno Editore, forthcoming).

24

Peter E. Pormann, ed., Hippocrates East and West: Proceedings of the Fifteenth “Colloque hippocratique” (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).

25

Peter E. Pormann, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Hippocrates (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).

26

See Peter E. Pormann et al., “The Enigma of Arabic and Hebrew Palladius”; Kamran Karimullah, “Transformation of Galen’s Textual Legacy from Classical to Post-Classical Islamic Medicine: Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms,” both in the special double issue on “Medicine” of the journal Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 5.3 & 6.1 (2017–2018).

27

Oliver Overwien, “The Paradigmatic Translator and His Method: Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq’s Translations of the Hippocrati Aphorisms from Greek via Syriac into Arabic,” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 3 (2015): 158–87. See Taro Mimura’s article in this issue. Samuel Barry, “The Question of Syriac Influence upon Early Arabic Translations of the Aphorisms of Hippocrates” (PhD diss., University of Manchester, 2016); a revised version is forthcoming Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement. Kamran Karimullah, “On the Authorship of the Syriac Prognostics,” in Hippocrates East and West.

28

Rosalind Batten and Emily Selove, “Making Men and Women: Arabic Commentaries on the Gynaecological Hippocratic Aphorisms in Context,” Annales islamologiques 48 (2014): 239–62.

29

See Nahyan Fancy’s contribution to this issueand also Fancy, Science and Religion in Mamluk Egypt; Fancy, “Medical Commentaries: A Preliminary Examination of Ibn al-Nafīs’s Shurūḥ, the Mūjaz and Commentaries on the Mūjaz,” Oriens 41 (2013): 525–45; Fancy, “Post-Avicennan Physics in the Medical Commentaries of the Mamluk Period,” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 6.3–7.1 (forthcoming); Glen Cooper, “Medical Crises and Critical Days in Avicenna and After: Insights from the Commentary Tradition,” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 6.3–7.1 (forthcoming).

30

See Elaine van Dalen’s contribution to this special issue; Elaine van Dalen, “The Rhetorical Strategies in the Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms: An Exploration of Metadiscourse in Medieval Medical Arabic” (PhD diss., University of Manchester, 2017).

31

See Carpentieri and Mimura’s contribution to this issue; Nicola Carpentieri, “On the Meaning of Birsām and Sirsām: A Survey of the Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms,” Mélanges de l’ Institut dominicain d’ études orientales du Caire 32 (forthcoming).

32

See Kamran Karimullah’s contribution to this issue.

33

Karimullah, “Transformation of Galen’s Textual Legacy.”

34

Kamran Karimullah, “Assessing Avicenna’s (d. 428/1037) Medical Influence in Prolegomena to Post-Classical (1100–1900 CE) Medical Commentaries: Ibn Abī Ṣādiq (d. after 460/1067), ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Baġdādī (d. 629/1231), Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210),” Mélanges de l’ Institut dominicain d’ études orientales du Caire 32 (forthcoming).

35

This chapter structure is preserved in the Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, MS Ahlwardt 6223 [Petermann II 233], fols. 2b, l. 4–3a, l. 3.

36

Albert Z. Iskander, ed., “Al-Muršid aw al-fuṣūl,” Maǧallāt maʿhad al-maḫṭūṭāt al-ʿArabīya 7 (1961): 3–214, 17.

37

See Manfred Ullmann, Die Medizin im Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 145–6 for a summary of the structure of al-Maǧūsī’s book.

38

See Chapter Five of Ahmed Ragab, The Medieval Islamic Hospital: Medicine, Religion, Charity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015); however, this book is to be used with some caution, especially where it ventures beyond the Manṣūrī hospital. See Nahyan Fancy’s essay review of this book, which has just come out in Nazariyat: Journal for the History of Islamic Philosophy and Sciences 3.1 (2016): 137–146; and the review by Winston Black in The Medieval Review, which appeared on 17 January 2017 [https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/tmr/article/view/23157/29030; accessed 7 February 2017].

39

This chapter structure is preserved in the Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, MS Ahlwardt 6223 [Petermann II 233], fols. 2b, l. 4–3a, l. 3.

40

Ullmann, Medizin, 145–6.

41

Peter E. Pormann, N. Peter Joosse, “Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms in the Arabic Tradition: The Example of Melancholy,” in Epidemics in Context: Greek Commentaries on Hippocrates in the Arabic Tradition, ed. Peter E. Pormann (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 211–49.

42

http://research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/; http://fihrist.org.uk.

43

Paul Maas, Textual Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 1.

44

Pormann and Joosse, “Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms,” 242.

45

David L. D’Avray, Medieval Marriage Sermons: Mass Communication in a Culture without Print (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 36–40.

46

Martin L. West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 38–9.

47

http://research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/.

48

Commentary, Book One: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51689293; Commentary, Book Two: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51689327; Commentary, Book Three: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51689446; Commentary, Book Four: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51931732; Commentary, Book Five: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51931800; Commentary, Book Six: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51931843; Commentary, Book Seven: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51931881. The sigla appearing in this and the other lists of manuscripts correspond to those used in the electronic editions.

49

Pormann and Joosse, “Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms,” 217–8.

50

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/3b256872-85a0-4615-a65b-54b8ccd0971e.

51

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/0bbc8c9d-f26e-43d9-97eb-766cc4c3f9d2.

52

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/7918ec40-9ce8-4e09-8447-352faf945d22.

53

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/f12860be-4fe3-497e-97e6-c6c29a111bbb.

54

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/4c23a432-0736-45e0-89d5-a354b7c923f2.

55

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/67e1d9b5-5d1c-4a67-a55c-c486ddb5deed.

56

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/e5e868a2-a37e-4b2b-a3f6-8e5f30c9d4ed.

57

Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq on his Galen Translations, ed. and trans. John Lamoreaux (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2016), 94–7.

58

Karimullah, “Transformation of Galen’s Textual Legacy.”

59

Commentary, Books One and Two (to Aphorisms ii. 19): http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52131856.

60

Biesterfeldt, “Palladius on the Hippocratic Aphorisms.”

61

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/43e7b2b5-997e-4a9a-9f83-d527f13e3384.

62

Pormann et al., “The Enigma of Arabic and Hebrew Palladius.”

63

Ullmann, Medizin, 28; Yaʿqūbī, Ibn Wādhih qui dicitur al-Jaʿqūbī, Historiae, ed. Martjin T. Houtsma (Leiden: Brill, 1883) 1:107–19.

64

Commentary, Book One: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52131329; Commentary, Book Two: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52131378; Commentary, Book Three: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52131464; Commentary, Book Four: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52131515; Commentary, Book Five: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52131553; Commentary, Book Six: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52131672; Commentary, Book Seven: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52131764.

65

See Emilie Savage-Smith, A New Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford Volume 1: Medicine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 6–8 [Entry 2]. See http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/69732329-abce-468a-80ca-5a1fb66e0bec, which is by Oxford libraries.

66

Karimullah, “Transformation of Galen’s Textual Legacy.”

67

Commentary on Books One to Seven: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52065977.

68

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/78be5aa5-cbd9-4f73-8fd0-46f92f85e10e.

69

Max Meyerhof and Joseph Schacht, The Medico-Philosophical Controversy between Ibn Buṭlān of Baghdad and Ibn Riḍwān of Cairo (Cairo: Egyptian University, 1937).

70

David Reisman, “Medieval Arabic medical autobiography,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 129 (2009): 559–569; Franz Rosenthal, “Die arabische Autobiographie,” Studia Arabica (1937): 1–40.

71

Albert Z. Iskander, “An Attempted Reconstruction of the Late Alexandrian Medical Curriculum,” Medical History 20 (1976): 235–258.

72

Ibn Riḍwān, Kitāb al-Fawāʾid (ed. ARABCOMMAPH, The University of Manchester, 2012–2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52065977.

73

Karimullah, “Transformation of Galen’s Textual Legacy.”

74

Aileen Das, “The Hippocratism of ʿAlī ibn Riḍwān: Autodidacticism and the Creation of Medical Isnād,” Journal of Islamic Studies (forthcoming).

75

Commentary, Book One: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52066009; Commentary, Book Two: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52066045; Commentary, Book Three: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52066121; Commentary, Book Four: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097533; Commentary, Book Five: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097618; Commentary, Book Six: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097690; Commentary, Book Seven: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097722.

76

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/a787e4fd-cfa4-4da1-849c-4b49ab7b7995.

77

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/d31f291f-1514-494d-a665-50e5be59ce43.

78

Karimullah, “Transformation of Galen’s Textual Legacy.”

79

Ragab, Medieval Islamic Hosptital, 154–5.

80

Karimullah, “Assessing Avicenna’s (d. 428/1037) Medical Influence.”

81

Commentary, Book One: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132317; Commentary, Book Two: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132350; Commentary, Book Three: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132424; Commentary, Book Four: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132455; Commentary, Book Five: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132496; Commentary, Book Six: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132532; Commentary, Book Seven: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132613.

82

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/6d783477-f7f4-4c31-9c9b-2ed7a62d8f88.

83

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/5062438c-b50d-4443-a0d7-6de19e0e32cc.

84

Istanbul, Beyazid Devlet Kütüphanesi, Veliyeddin Efendi MS 2474, fol. 1b, ll. 4–9.

85

Reading nuġayyiruhū for tuġayyruhū.

86

Sherif Masry is preparing a new edition of this text. It will soon appear with the other texts of the corpus on the University of Manchester Research Portal: https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/.

87

Miquel N. Forcada, Ética e ideología de la ciencia: el médico-filósofo en al-Andalus, siglos XXII (Almería: Fundación Ibn Tufayl de Estudios Árabes, 2011). Forcada, “Ibn Bājja on Medicine and Medical Experience,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 21 (2011): 111–48.

88

The updated edition of this will soon appear with the other texts of the corpus on the University of Manchester Research Portal: https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/.

89

Carsten Schliwski, “Moses Ben Maimon, Šarḥ Fuṣūl Abuqrāṭ. Der Kommentar des Maimonides zu den Aphorismen des Hippokrates. Kritische Edition des arabischen Textes mit Einführung und Übersetzung” (PhD diss., University of Köln, 2007).

90

We would like to extend our profound gratitude to Dr Schliwski for allowing us to use his edition.

91

Schliwski, “Moses Ben Maimon,” vol. 1, xlii–xliii.

92

Commentary, Book One: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51688866; Commentary, Book Two: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51688912; Commentary, Book Three: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51688949; Commentary, Book Four: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51689018; Commentary, Book Five: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51689114; Commentary, Book Six: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51689233; Commentary, Book Seven: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52778343.

93

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/6ae7bb25-213d-47e1-b3ec-4d9101a3fea5.

94

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/068765d4-358e-4396-a11d-e19d88b608e8.

95

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/88a52510-e242-4922-a312-88f1d8820f01.

96

Pormann and Joosse, “Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms”; N. Peter Joosse and Peter E. Pormann, “Decline and Decadence in Iraq and Syria after the Age of Avicenna? ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Baghdādī (1162–1231) between Myth and History,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 84 (2010): 1–29.

97

See Chapter One of Jaap Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author, or a Text (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 10–57; Biesterfeldt, “Palladius on the Hippocratic Aphorisms.”

98

Pormann et al., “The Enigma of Arabic and Hebrew Palladius.”

99

Karimullah, “Assessing Avicenna’s (d. 428/1037) Medical Influence.”

100

Commentary on Books One to Seven: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52065149.

101

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/work/78f60b67-2f8e-4975-aad8-fcbf1fc2b8b8.

102

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/8c791288-ecce-4470-8ac8-6c8213970b05.

103

Ayman Shihadeh, “Al-Rāzī’s (d. 1210) Commentary on Avicenna’s Pointers: The Confluence of Exegesis and Aporetics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Philosophy, eds. Khaled El-Rouayheb and Sabine Schmidtke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 296–325.

104

Ayman Shihadeh, Doubts on Avicenna: A Study and Edition of Sharaf al-Dīn al-Masʿūdī’s Commentary on the Ishārāt (Leiden: Brill, 2016).

105

Ibn al-Minfāḫ, [Commentary on the Hippocratic Aphorisms] (ed. ARABCOMMAPH, The University of Manchester, 2012–2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52065149. The title given in the manuscript Istanbul, Hekimoğlu Camii, MS 574 (fols. 124b–155b) is Epistle Refuting the Objections against the Book of Aphorisms (Risāla fī radd al-iʿtirāḍāt ʿalā kitāb al-fuṣūl). This title sits uneasily with Ibn al-Minfāḫ’s stated objectives in his preface. It is likely, therefore, that the title recorded in the Istanbul manuscript was added by a later scribe. See Pormann and Joosse, “Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms in the Arabic Tradition,” 247.

106

Robert Wisnovsky, “Avicennism and Exegetical Practice in the Early Commentaries on the Ishārāt,” Oriens 41.3–4 (2013): 349–378; Ayman Shihadeh, “Al-Rāzī’s (d. 1210) Commentary on Avicenna’s Pointers.”

107

Commentary, Books One to Four (to Aphorisms iv. 35): http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52844770.

108

Savage-Smith, A New Catalogue, 18–21 [Entry 6a].

109

Commentary, Book One: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52065228; Commentary, Book Two: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52065333; Commentary, Book Three: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52065474; Commentary, Book Four: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52065708; Commentary, Book Five: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52065780; Commentary, Book Six: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52065834; Commentary, Book Seven: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52065931.

110

Yūsuf Zaydān et al., Šarḥ fuṣūl Abuqrāṭ (Beirut: Dār al-ʿulūm al-ʿArabīya, 1988).

111

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/77b05860-1ab7-4967-ac82-14164d1f938f.

112

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/229d690f-a216-4275-9933-e4777a7d0d4b.

113

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/7ee8b90d-fe43-476b-bc1e-9cde92bb173e.

114

Commentary, Book One: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52131919; Commentary, Book Two: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52131995; Commentary, Book Three: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132051; Commentary, Book Four: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132103; Commentary, Book Five: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132158; Commentary, Book Six: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132236; Commentary, Book Seven: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132279.

115

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/70322b1a-2151-469a-bb1c-826b0b4e7277.

116

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/d27275a0-ffe6-4cbe-a713-bda51544bc45.

117

Commentary, Book One: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132655; Commentary, Book Two: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132693; Commentary, Book Three: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132791; Commentary, Book Four: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132854; Commentary, Book Five: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132886; Commentary, Book Six: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132921; Commentary, Book Seven: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52136029.

118

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/9fbaec40-85c5-4be6-8116-0a5ef2bb4d56.

119

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/7688c3e1-9c4d-4c20-bdf6-56af9ed8ec42.

120

Kātip Çelebī, Kašf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī l-kutub wa-l-funūn, ed. Gustav Flügel (London: Oriental Translation Fund, 1835): 6:437. Al-Sīwāsī, ʿUmdat al-fuḥūl fī šarȟ al-fuṣūl (ed. ARABCOMMAPH, The University of Manchester, 2012–2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52132655.

121

لمقدم الأطباء بقراط] ed.: لبقراط Flügel.

122

إيضاحها وحل] ed.: حل Flügel.

123

النيسابوري] ed.: om. Flügel.

124

ممل] ed.: مخل Flügel.

125

وإيراد] ed.: واراد Flügel.

126

الملخص] add. منه Flügel.

127

الأقاويل والتكرر منه] ed.: المكررات Flügel.

128

‮خدمة لخزانة مولانا … إلى الإصلاح والتصحيح‬‎] ed.: om. Flügel.

129

وسميت هذا المختصر بعمدة] ed.: وسميته عمدة Flügel.

130

ومن الله استمددت حسن التوفيق ولطفه] ed.: om. Flügel.

131

Commentary on Books One to Seven (thematic): http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51688739.

132

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/b749da76-5bfa-46e7-b218-b57367aa2497.

133

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/2b096965-ead1-48d6-bdd0-33ba881ac3b8.

134

Commentary, Book One: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52066009; Commentary, Book Two: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52066045; Commentary, Book Three: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52066121; Commentary, Book Four: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097533; Commentary, Book Five: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097618; Commentary, Book Six: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097690; Commentary, Book Seven: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097722.

135

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/0d7b1e31-deb2-4f33-bce8-f93b08daaf78.

136

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/7967f233-e249-4555-89d6-0531508bcedd.

137

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS Codex Vindobonensis Palatinus. Mxt. 1408, fol. 57b, ll. 7–14.

138

Ibn Abī Ṣādiq, Šarḥ fuṣūl Abuqrāṭ (ed. ARABCOMMAPH, The University of Manchester, 2012–2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51931994.

139

ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-Ṭabīb, Wasāʾil al-wuṣūl ʾilā masāʾil al-Fuṣūl (ed. ARABCOMMAPH, The University of Manchester, 2012–2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52066045.

140

Commentary, Book One: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097758; Commentary, Book Two: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097828; Commentary, Book Three: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097867; Commentary, Book Four: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097965; Commentary, Book Five: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52098020; Commentary, Book Six: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52098156; Commentary, Book Seven: http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52098451.

141

http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/28e1df83-a7f7-4aab-85af-ef10bb80c3f9.

142

Al-Manāwī, Taḥqīq al-wuṣūl ʾilā šarḥ al-Fuṣūl (ed. ARABCOMMAPH, The University of Manchester, 2012–2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/52097758.

143

Martin Klamroth, “Ueber die Auszüge aus griechischen Schriftstellern bei al-Jaʿqûbî,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 40 (1886): 189–233.

144

Ivan Garofalo, “I commenti alle epidemie e la loro traduzione araba,” Galenos 3 (2009): 119–71.

145

Galen, Galeni Opera Omnia, Karl G. Kühn (Leipzig: Car. Cnoblochii, 1829), 17b:345–887; 18a:1–195.

146

Caroline Magdelaine, “Histoire du texte et édition critique, traduite et commentée, des Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate,” 3 vols. (PhD diss., Université Paris-Sorbonne, 1994). Hippocrates, The Aphorisms of Hippocrates, Translated into Arabic by Honain Ben Ishak, ed. John Tytler (Calcutta: Education Press for Committee of Public Instruction, 1832).

147

Ullmann, Wörterbuch, 52–5.

148

van Dalen, “The Rhetorical Strategies in the Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms.”

149

Hippocrates, Une version syriaque des aphorismes d’ Hippocrate, ed. and trans. Henri Pognon, 2 vols. (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1903).

150

Sebastian Brock, “The Syriac Background to Ḥunayn’s Translation Techniques,” Aram 3 (1991): 139–62; Rainer Degen, “Zur syrischen Übersetzung der Aphorismen des Hippokrates,” Oriens Christianus 62 (1978): 36–52; Magdelaine, “Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate,” 1:323.

151

Overwien, “The Paradigmatic Translator and His Method.”

152

Barry, “The Question of Syriac Influence.”

153

Grigory Kessel, “The Syriac Epidemics and the Problem of Its Identification,” in Epidemics in Context: Greek Commentaries on Hippocrates in the Arabic Tradition, ed. Peter E. Pormann (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 118–19.

154

Peter E. Pormann, “Al-Tarǧamāt al-Yūnānīya al-Suryānīya al-ʿArabīya li-l-nuṣūṣ al-ṭibbīya fī awāʾil al-ʿaṣr al-ʿAbbāsī,” in Našʾat al-Ṭibb al-ʿArabī fī l-qurūn al-wusṭā (La construction de la médecine arabe médiévale), eds. Peter E. Pormann and Pauline Koetschet (Beirut, Damascus, Cairo: Press de l’institut français du Proche-Orient), 43–59.

155

Karimullah, “On the Authorship of the Syriac Prognostic.”

156

See, however, Jacques Jouanna, Pronostic, 2013), clxiv.

157

Ursula Weisser, “Die Zitate aus Galens de Methodo Medendi im Ḥāwī des Rāzī,” in The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism: Studies on the Transmission of Greek Philosophy and Sciences Dedicated to H.J. Drossaart Lulofs on his Ninetieth Birthday, eds. Remke Kruk and Gerhard Endress (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 278–318; Peter E. Pormann, The Oriental Tradition of Paul of Aegina’s Pragmateia (Leiden: Brill, 2004).

158

http://kitab-project.org/kitab/index.jsp, PI Sarah Savant.

159

Ullmann, Medizin, 28 (Hippocrates’ Aphorisms), 50 (Galen’s Aphorisms commentary).

160

Ibn Qayyim al-Ǧawzīya, Tuḥf̣at al-mawdūd bi-aḥḳām al-mawlūd, ed. ʿUṯmān ibn Ǧumuʿa al-Ḍumayrīya (Mecca: ʿĀlam al-fawāʾid, 2010).

161

Mansfeld, Prolegomena.

162

Manetti and Roselli, “Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate.”

163

von Staden, “ ‘A Woman Does Not Become Ambidextrous.’ ”

164

Karimullah, “Transformation of Galen’s Textual Legacy.”

165

Nancy Siraisi, Avicenna in Renaissance Italy: The Canon and Medical Teaching in Italian Universities after 1500 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987); Peter E. Pormann and Emilie Savage-Smith, Medieval Islamic Medicine (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 70–1.

166

For example, Fancy, “Medical Commentaries: A Preliminary Examination of Ibn al-Nafīs’s Shurūḥ, the Mūjaz and Commentaries on the Mūjaz”; Fancy, “Post-Avicennan Physics in the Medical Commentaries of the Mamluk Period.”

167

Fancy, “Medical Commentaries.”

168

Karimullah, “Assessing Avicenna’s (d. 428/1037) Medical Influence.”

169

See Frank Griffel, “On Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Life and the Patronage He Received,” Journal of Islamic Studies 18 (2007): 313–44. Eşref Altaş, “Fahraddin er-Râzî’nin Eserlerinin Kronolojisi,” Islâm Düşüncesinin Dönüṣüm Çağinda, eds. Ömer Türker and Osman Demir (Istanbul: ISAM, 2011), 103 dates this work to 573–574/1177–1178.

170

Shihadeh, “Fakhr al-Din al-Razi’s (d. 1210) Commentary on Avicenna’s Pointers”; Robert Wisnovsky, “Avicennism.”

171

Albert Z. Iskander, A Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts on Medicine and Science in the Wellcome Historial Medical Library (London: The Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1967), 33–64.

172

Gerhard Endress, “Reading Avicenna in the Madrasa: Intellectual Genealogies and Chains of Transmission of Philosophy and the Sciences in the Islamic East,” in Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank, ed. James E. Montgomery (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2006), 371–422.

173

Cooper, “Medical Crises and Critical Days.”

174

Galen, “De diebus decretoriis,” from Greek into Arabic: A Critical Edition, with Translation and Commentary, of Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq, “Kitāb ayyām al-buḥrān,” ed. Glen Cooper (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011).

175

Avicenna, Refutation de l’ astrologie, ed. Yahya Michot (Beirut: Les editions Albouraq, 2006).

176

Philip van der Eijk, “Galen’s Use of the Concept of ‘Qualified Experience’ in his Dietetic and Pharmacological Works,” in Medicine and Philosophy in Classical Antiquity: Doctors and Philosophers on Nature, Soul, Health and Disease, ed. Philip van der Eijk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 279–98.

177

Pormann, “Medical Methodology and Hospital Practice”; Pormann, “Avicenna on Medical Practice, Epistemology, and the Physiology of the Inner Senses,” in Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays, ed. Peter Adamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 91–108. See also Mona Nasser, Aida Tibi and Emilie Savage-Smith, “Ibn Sina’s Canon of Medicine: 11th Century Rules for Assessing the Effects of Drugs,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 102 (2009): 78–80.

178

See also Peter E. Pormann, “Philosophical Topics in Medieval Arabic Medical Discourse: Problems and Prospects,” in Medicine and Philosophy in the Islamic World, eds. Peter Adamson and Peter E. Pormann (London, Turin: The Warburg Institute, Nino Aragno Editore, forthcoming).

179

Cristina Álvarez-Millán, “Practice versus Theory: Tenth-century Case Histories from the Islamic Middle East,” Social History of Medicine 13 (2000): 293–306.

180

Schliwski, “Moses Ben Maimon,” 2:7, l. 5.

181

For some preliminary results, see Batten and Selove, “Making Men and Women.”

182

Peter E. Pormann, “The Physician and the Other: Images of the Charlatan in Medieval Islam,” Bulletin of Medical History 79 (2005): 189–227.

183

Quoted in Manfred Ullmann, Wörterbuch zu den griechisch-arabischen Übersetzungen des 9. Jahrhunderts. Supplement Band I: AO (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 11.

184

For a recent survey regarding Islamic studies, see Elias Muhanna, The Digital Humanities and Islamic & Middle East Studies (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016).

185

https://ismi.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/drupal-ismi/.

186

http://web.philo.ulg.ac.be/islamo/portfolio-item/ex-libris-ex-oriente/.

187

http://iti-corpus.github.io/.

188

http://genealogiesofknowledge.net.

189

Pormann, Oriental Tradition, 287.

  • 3

    For example, Armelle Debru, “Galien commentateur d’ Hippocrate: le canon hippocratique,” in Hippocrate et son héritage: colloque franco-hellénique d’ histoire de la médecine (Fondation Marcel Mérieux, Lyon, 9–12 octobre 1985) (Lyon: Association corporative des étudiants en médicine de Lyon, 1985), 51–6; Daniela Manetti and Amneris Roselli, “Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, II vol. 37, 2, eds. Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994), 1529–1635 and 2071–2080; Heinrich von Staden “ ‘A woman does not become ambidextrous’: Galen and the Culture of the Scientific Commentary,” in The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, eds. Roy K. Gibson, Christina S. Kraus (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 109–40; Rebecca Flemming, “Commentary,” in The Cambridge Companion to Galen, ed. Richard J. Hankinson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 323–54.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Peter E. Pormann et al., “The Enigma of Arabic and Hebrew Palladius,” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 5.3 (2017): 252–310 (in press), pace Hinrich Biesterfeldt, “Palladius on the Hippocratic Aphorisms,” in The Libraries of the Neoplatonists, ed. Cristina D’Ancona (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 385–97.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Wanda Wolska-Conus, “Les commentaires de Stéphanos d’ Athènes au Prognostikon et aux Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate: de Galien à la pratique scolaire alexandrine,” Revue des Études Byzantines 50 (1992): 5–86; Wolska-Conus, “Stéphanos d’ Athènes (d’ Aléxandrie) et Théophile le Prôtopathaire, commentateurs des Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate, sont-ils independents l’ un de l’ autre?” Revue des Études Byzantines 52 (1994): 5–68; Wolska-Conus, “Sources des commentaires de Stéphanos d’ Athènes et de Théophile le Prôtospathaire aux Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate,” Revue des Études Byzantines 54 (1996): 5–66; Wolska-Conus, “Un “Pseudo-Galien” dans le commentaire de Stéphanos d’ Athènes aux Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate: ὁ νεώτερος ἐξηγητής,” Revue des Études Byzantines 56 (1998): 5–68; Wolska-Conus, “Palladios—‘Le Pseudo-Galien’ (ὁ νεώτερος ἐξηγητής)—dans le commentaire de Stéphanus d’ Athènes aux Aphorisms d’ Hippocrate,” Revue des Études Byzantines 58 (2000): 5–68; Peter E. Pormann, “Jean le grammarien et le De sectis dans la littérature médicale d’ Alexandrie,” in Galenismo e medicina tardoantica: fonti greche, latine e arabe, eds. Ivan Garofalo and Amneris Roselli (Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale 2003), 233–63; Pormann, “The Alexandrian Summary (Jawāmiʿ) of Galen’s On the Sects for Beginners: Commentary or Abridgment?” in Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries, eds. Peter Adamson et al., Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement 83 (London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2004): 2:11–33.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Max Meyerhof, “Ibn an-Nafīs und seine Theorie des Lungenkreislaufs,” Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften under der Medizin 4 (1933): 37–88.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Nahyan Fancy, Science and Religion in Mamluk Egypt: Ibn al-Nafīs, Pulmonary Transit, and Bodily Rescurrection (London: Routledge, 2013).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Peter E. Pormann, “Medical Methodology and Hospital Practice: The Case of Fourth-/Tenth-Century Baghdad,” in The Age of al-Fārābī: Arabic Philosophy in the Fourth/Tenth Century, ed. Peter Adamson (London: Warburg Institute, 2008), 95–118.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Manfred Ullmann, Wörterbuch zu den griechisch-arabischen Übersetzungen des 9. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 52.

  • 17

    Franz Rosenthal, “ ‘Life Is Short, the Art Is Long’: Arabic Commentaries on the First Hippocratic Aphorism,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 40 (1966): 226–45.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Ariel Bar-Sela and Hebbel E. Hoff, “Maimonides’ Interpretation of the First Aphorism of Hippocrates,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 37 (1963): 347–54.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Ursula Weisser, “Das Corpus Hippocraticum in der arabischen Medizin,” in Die hippokratischen Epidemien: Theorie–Praxis–Tradition. Verhandlungen des Ve Colloque International Hippocratique (Berlin, 10.–15.9.1984), eds. Gerhard Baader and Rolf Winau (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1989), 377–408.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Gotthard Strohmaier, “Galen in den Schulen der Juden und Christen,” Judaica (Beiträge zum Verstehen des Judentums) 62 (2006): 140–56. Oliver Overwien, “Einige Beobachtungen zur Überlieferung der Hippokratesschriften in der arabischen und griechischen Tradition,” Sudhoffs Archiv 89 (2005): 196–210; Overwien, “Die parallelen Texte in den hippokratischen Schriften De humoribus und Aphorismen,” in Antike Medizin im Schnittpunkt von Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften, eds. Christian Brockmann, Wolfram Brunschön and Oliver Overwien (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009), 121–39.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Siam Bhayro et al., “The Syriac Galen Palimpsest: Progress, Prospects and Problems,” Journal of Semetic Studies 58 (2013): 131–48. Naima Afif, et al., “Continuing Research on the Syriac Galen Palimpsest: Collaborative Implementation within the Framework of Two European Projects,” Semitica et Classica 9 (2016): 261–8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Rosalind Batten and Emily Selove, “Making Men and Women: Arabic Commentaries on the Gynaecological Hippocratic Aphorisms in Context,” Annales islamologiques 48 (2014): 239–62.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Albert Z. Iskander, ed., “Al-Muršid aw al-fuṣūl,” Maǧallāt maʿhad al-maḫṭūṭāt al-ʿArabīya 7 (1961): 3–214, 17.

  • 37

    See Manfred Ullmann, Die Medizin im Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 145–6 for a summary of the structure of al-Maǧūsī’s book.

  • 38

    See Chapter Five of Ahmed Ragab, The Medieval Islamic Hospital: Medicine, Religion, Charity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015); however, this book is to be used with some caution, especially where it ventures beyond the Manṣūrī hospital. See Nahyan Fancy’s essay review of this book, which has just come out in Nazariyat: Journal for the History of Islamic Philosophy and Sciences 3.1 (2016): 137–146; and the review by Winston Black in The Medieval Review, which appeared on 17 January 2017 [https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/tmr/article/view/23157/29030; accessed 7 February 2017].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Ullmann, Medizin, 145–6.

  • 43

    Paul Maas, Textual Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 1.

  • 45

    David L. D’Avray, Medieval Marriage Sermons: Mass Communication in a Culture without Print (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 36–40.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    Martin L. West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 38–9.

  • 63

    Ullmann, Medizin, 28; Yaʿqūbī, Ibn Wādhih qui dicitur al-Jaʿqūbī, Historiae, ed. Martjin T. Houtsma (Leiden: Brill, 1883) 1:107–19.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 65

    See Emilie Savage-Smith, A New Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford Volume 1: Medicine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 6–8 [Entry 2]. See http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/69732329-abce-468a-80ca-5a1fb66e0bec, which is by Oxford libraries.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 69

    Max Meyerhof and Joseph Schacht, The Medico-Philosophical Controversy between Ibn Buṭlān of Baghdad and Ibn Riḍwān of Cairo (Cairo: Egyptian University, 1937).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 70

    David Reisman, “Medieval Arabic medical autobiography,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 129 (2009): 559–569; Franz Rosenthal, “Die arabische Autobiographie,” Studia Arabica (1937): 1–40.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 71

    Albert Z. Iskander, “An Attempted Reconstruction of the Late Alexandrian Medical Curriculum,” Medical History 20 (1976): 235–258.

  • 79

    Ragab, Medieval Islamic Hosptital, 154–5.

  • 97

    See Chapter One of Jaap Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author, or a Text (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 10–57; Biesterfeldt, “Palladius on the Hippocratic Aphorisms.”

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 106

    Robert Wisnovsky, “Avicennism and Exegetical Practice in the Early Commentaries on the Ishārāt,” Oriens 41.3–4 (2013): 349–378; Ayman Shihadeh, “Al-Rāzī’s (d. 1210) Commentary on Avicenna’s Pointers.”

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 110

    Yūsuf Zaydān et al., Šarḥ fuṣūl Abuqrāṭ (Beirut: Dār al-ʿulūm al-ʿArabīya, 1988).

  • 143

    Martin Klamroth, “Ueber die Auszüge aus griechischen Schriftstellern bei al-Jaʿqûbî,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 40 (1886): 189–233.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 144

    Ivan Garofalo, “I commenti alle epidemie e la loro traduzione araba,” Galenos 3 (2009): 119–71.

  • 147

    Ullmann, Wörterbuch, 52–5.

  • 150

    Sebastian Brock, “The Syriac Background to Ḥunayn’s Translation Techniques,” Aram 3 (1991): 139–62; Rainer Degen, “Zur syrischen Übersetzung der Aphorismen des Hippokrates,” Oriens Christianus 62 (1978): 36–52; Magdelaine, “Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate,” 1:323.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 154

    Peter E. Pormann, “Al-Tarǧamāt al-Yūnānīya al-Suryānīya al-ʿArabīya li-l-nuṣūṣ al-ṭibbīya fī awāʾil al-ʿaṣr al-ʿAbbāsī,” in Našʾat al-Ṭibb al-ʿArabī fī l-qurūn al-wusṭā (La construction de la médecine arabe médiévale), eds. Peter E. Pormann and Pauline Koetschet (Beirut, Damascus, Cairo: Press de l’institut français du Proche-Orient), 43–59.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 157

    Ursula Weisser, “Die Zitate aus Galens de Methodo Medendi im Ḥāwī des Rāzī,” in The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism: Studies on the Transmission of Greek Philosophy and Sciences Dedicated to H.J. Drossaart Lulofs on his Ninetieth Birthday, eds. Remke Kruk and Gerhard Endress (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 278–318; Peter E. Pormann, The Oriental Tradition of Paul of Aegina’s Pragmateia (Leiden: Brill, 2004).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 169

    See Frank Griffel, “On Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Life and the Patronage He Received,” Journal of Islamic Studies 18 (2007): 313–44. Eşref Altaş, “Fahraddin er-Râzî’nin Eserlerinin Kronolojisi,” Islâm Düşüncesinin Dönüṣüm Çağinda, eds. Ömer Türker and Osman Demir (Istanbul: ISAM, 2011), 103 dates this work to 573–574/1177–1178.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 171

    Albert Z. Iskander, A Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts on Medicine and Science in the Wellcome Historial Medical Library (London: The Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1967), 33–64.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 172

    Gerhard Endress, “Reading Avicenna in the Madrasa: Intellectual Genealogies and Chains of Transmission of Philosophy and the Sciences in the Islamic East,” in Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank, ed. James E. Montgomery (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2006), 371–422.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 176

    Philip van der Eijk, “Galen’s Use of the Concept of ‘Qualified Experience’ in his Dietetic and Pharmacological Works,” in Medicine and Philosophy in Classical Antiquity: Doctors and Philosophers on Nature, Soul, Health and Disease, ed. Philip van der Eijk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 279–98.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 177

    Pormann, “Medical Methodology and Hospital Practice”; Pormann, “Avicenna on Medical Practice, Epistemology, and the Physiology of the Inner Senses,” in Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays, ed. Peter Adamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 91–108. See also Mona Nasser, Aida Tibi and Emilie Savage-Smith, “Ibn Sina’s Canon of Medicine: 11th Century Rules for Assessing the Effects of Drugs,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 102 (2009): 78–80.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 178

    See also Peter E. Pormann, “Philosophical Topics in Medieval Arabic Medical Discourse: Problems and Prospects,” in Medicine and Philosophy in the Islamic World, eds. Peter Adamson and Peter E. Pormann (London, Turin: The Warburg Institute, Nino Aragno Editore, forthcoming).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 179

    Cristina Álvarez-Millán, “Practice versus Theory: Tenth-century Case Histories from the Islamic Middle East,” Social History of Medicine 13 (2000): 293–306.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 182

    Peter E. Pormann, “The Physician and the Other: Images of the Charlatan in Medieval Islam,” Bulletin of Medical History 79 (2005): 189–227.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 189

    Pormann, Oriental Tradition, 287.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 3

    For example, Armelle Debru, “Galien commentateur d’ Hippocrate: le canon hippocratique,” in Hippocrate et son héritage: colloque franco-hellénique d’ histoire de la médecine (Fondation Marcel Mérieux, Lyon, 9–12 octobre 1985) (Lyon: Association corporative des étudiants en médicine de Lyon, 1985), 51–6; Daniela Manetti and Amneris Roselli, “Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, II vol. 37, 2, eds. Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994), 1529–1635 and 2071–2080; Heinrich von Staden “ ‘A woman does not become ambidextrous’: Galen and the Culture of the Scientific Commentary,” in The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, eds. Roy K. Gibson, Christina S. Kraus (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 109–40; Rebecca Flemming, “Commentary,” in The Cambridge Companion to Galen, ed. Richard J. Hankinson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 323–54.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Peter E. Pormann et al., “The Enigma of Arabic and Hebrew Palladius,” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 5.3 (2017): 252–310 (in press), pace Hinrich Biesterfeldt, “Palladius on the Hippocratic Aphorisms,” in The Libraries of the Neoplatonists, ed. Cristina D’Ancona (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 385–97.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Wanda Wolska-Conus, “Les commentaires de Stéphanos d’ Athènes au Prognostikon et aux Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate: de Galien à la pratique scolaire alexandrine,” Revue des Études Byzantines 50 (1992): 5–86; Wolska-Conus, “Stéphanos d’ Athènes (d’ Aléxandrie) et Théophile le Prôtopathaire, commentateurs des Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate, sont-ils independents l’ un de l’ autre?” Revue des Études Byzantines 52 (1994): 5–68; Wolska-Conus, “Sources des commentaires de Stéphanos d’ Athènes et de Théophile le Prôtospathaire aux Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate,” Revue des Études Byzantines 54 (1996): 5–66; Wolska-Conus, “Un “Pseudo-Galien” dans le commentaire de Stéphanos d’ Athènes aux Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate: ὁ νεώτερος ἐξηγητής,” Revue des Études Byzantines 56 (1998): 5–68; Wolska-Conus, “Palladios—‘Le Pseudo-Galien’ (ὁ νεώτερος ἐξηγητής)—dans le commentaire de Stéphanus d’ Athènes aux Aphorisms d’ Hippocrate,” Revue des Études Byzantines 58 (2000): 5–68; Peter E. Pormann, “Jean le grammarien et le De sectis dans la littérature médicale d’ Alexandrie,” in Galenismo e medicina tardoantica: fonti greche, latine e arabe, eds. Ivan Garofalo and Amneris Roselli (Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale 2003), 233–63; Pormann, “The Alexandrian Summary (Jawāmiʿ) of Galen’s On the Sects for Beginners: Commentary or Abridgment?” in Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries, eds. Peter Adamson et al., Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement 83 (London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2004): 2:11–33.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Max Meyerhof, “Ibn an-Nafīs und seine Theorie des Lungenkreislaufs,” Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften under der Medizin 4 (1933): 37–88.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Nahyan Fancy, Science and Religion in Mamluk Egypt: Ibn al-Nafīs, Pulmonary Transit, and Bodily Rescurrection (London: Routledge, 2013).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Peter E. Pormann, “Medical Methodology and Hospital Practice: The Case of Fourth-/Tenth-Century Baghdad,” in The Age of al-Fārābī: Arabic Philosophy in the Fourth/Tenth Century, ed. Peter Adamson (London: Warburg Institute, 2008), 95–118.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Manfred Ullmann, Wörterbuch zu den griechisch-arabischen Übersetzungen des 9. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 52.

  • 17

    Franz Rosenthal, “ ‘Life Is Short, the Art Is Long’: Arabic Commentaries on the First Hippocratic Aphorism,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 40 (1966): 226–45.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Ariel Bar-Sela and Hebbel E. Hoff, “Maimonides’ Interpretation of the First Aphorism of Hippocrates,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 37 (1963): 347–54.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Ursula Weisser, “Das Corpus Hippocraticum in der arabischen Medizin,” in Die hippokratischen Epidemien: Theorie–Praxis–Tradition. Verhandlungen des Ve Colloque International Hippocratique (Berlin, 10.–15.9.1984), eds. Gerhard Baader and Rolf Winau (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1989), 377–408.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Gotthard Strohmaier, “Galen in den Schulen der Juden und Christen,” Judaica (Beiträge zum Verstehen des Judentums) 62 (2006): 140–56. Oliver Overwien, “Einige Beobachtungen zur Überlieferung der Hippokratesschriften in der arabischen und griechischen Tradition,” Sudhoffs Archiv 89 (2005): 196–210; Overwien, “Die parallelen Texte in den hippokratischen Schriften De humoribus und Aphorismen,” in Antike Medizin im Schnittpunkt von Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften, eds. Christian Brockmann, Wolfram Brunschön and Oliver Overwien (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009), 121–39.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Siam Bhayro et al., “The Syriac Galen Palimpsest: Progress, Prospects and Problems,” Journal of Semetic Studies 58 (2013): 131–48. Naima Afif, et al., “Continuing Research on the Syriac Galen Palimpsest: Collaborative Implementation within the Framework of Two European Projects,” Semitica et Classica 9 (2016): 261–8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Rosalind Batten and Emily Selove, “Making Men and Women: Arabic Commentaries on the Gynaecological Hippocratic Aphorisms in Context,” Annales islamologiques 48 (2014): 239–62.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Albert Z. Iskander, ed., “Al-Muršid aw al-fuṣūl,” Maǧallāt maʿhad al-maḫṭūṭāt al-ʿArabīya 7 (1961): 3–214, 17.

  • 37

    See Manfred Ullmann, Die Medizin im Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 145–6 for a summary of the structure of al-Maǧūsī’s book.

  • 38

    See Chapter Five of Ahmed Ragab, The Medieval Islamic Hospital: Medicine, Religion, Charity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015); however, this book is to be used with some caution, especially where it ventures beyond the Manṣūrī hospital. See Nahyan Fancy’s essay review of this book, which has just come out in Nazariyat: Journal for the History of Islamic Philosophy and Sciences 3.1 (2016): 137–146; and the review by Winston Black in The Medieval Review, which appeared on 17 January 2017 [https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/tmr/article/view/23157/29030; accessed 7 February 2017].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Ullmann, Medizin, 145–6.

  • 43

    Paul Maas, Textual Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 1.

  • 45

    David L. D’Avray, Medieval Marriage Sermons: Mass Communication in a Culture without Print (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 36–40.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    Martin L. West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 38–9.

  • 63

    Ullmann, Medizin, 28; Yaʿqūbī, Ibn Wādhih qui dicitur al-Jaʿqūbī, Historiae, ed. Martjin T. Houtsma (Leiden: Brill, 1883) 1:107–19.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 65

    See Emilie Savage-Smith, A New Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford Volume 1: Medicine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 6–8 [Entry 2]. See http://www.fihrist.org.uk/profile/manuscript/69732329-abce-468a-80ca-5a1fb66e0bec, which is by Oxford libraries.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 69

    Max Meyerhof and Joseph Schacht, The Medico-Philosophical Controversy between Ibn Buṭlān of Baghdad and Ibn Riḍwān of Cairo (Cairo: Egyptian University, 1937).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 70

    David Reisman, “Medieval Arabic medical autobiography,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 129 (2009): 559–569; Franz Rosenthal, “Die arabische Autobiographie,” Studia Arabica (1937): 1–40.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 71

    Albert Z. Iskander, “An Attempted Reconstruction of the Late Alexandrian Medical Curriculum,” Medical History 20 (1976): 235–258.

  • 79

    Ragab, Medieval Islamic Hosptital, 154–5.

  • 97

    See Chapter One of Jaap Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author, or a Text (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 10–57; Biesterfeldt, “Palladius on the Hippocratic Aphorisms.”

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 106

    Robert Wisnovsky, “Avicennism and Exegetical Practice in the Early Commentaries on the Ishārāt,” Oriens 41.3–4 (2013): 349–378; Ayman Shihadeh, “Al-Rāzī’s (d. 1210) Commentary on Avicenna’s Pointers.”

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 110

    Yūsuf Zaydān et al., Šarḥ fuṣūl Abuqrāṭ (Beirut: Dār al-ʿulūm al-ʿArabīya, 1988).

  • 143

    Martin Klamroth, “Ueber die Auszüge aus griechischen Schriftstellern bei al-Jaʿqûbî,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 40 (1886): 189–233.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 144

    Ivan Garofalo, “I commenti alle epidemie e la loro traduzione araba,” Galenos 3 (2009): 119–71.

  • 147

    Ullmann, Wörterbuch, 52–5.

  • 150

    Sebastian Brock, “The Syriac Background to Ḥunayn’s Translation Techniques,” Aram 3 (1991): 139–62; Rainer Degen, “Zur syrischen Übersetzung der Aphorismen des Hippokrates,” Oriens Christianus 62 (1978): 36–52; Magdelaine, “Aphorismes d’ Hippocrate,” 1:323.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 154

    Peter E. Pormann, “Al-Tarǧamāt al-Yūnānīya al-Suryānīya al-ʿArabīya li-l-nuṣūṣ al-ṭibbīya fī awāʾil al-ʿaṣr al-ʿAbbāsī,” in Našʾat al-Ṭibb al-ʿArabī fī l-qurūn al-wusṭā (La construction de la médecine arabe médiévale), eds. Peter E. Pormann and Pauline Koetschet (Beirut, Damascus, Cairo: Press de l’institut français du Proche-Orient), 43–59.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 157

    Ursula Weisser, “Die Zitate aus Galens de Methodo Medendi im Ḥāwī des Rāzī,” in The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism: Studies on the Transmission of Greek Philosophy and Sciences Dedicated to H.J. Drossaart Lulofs on his Ninetieth Birthday, eds. Remke Kruk and Gerhard Endress (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 278–318; Peter E. Pormann, The Oriental Tradition of Paul of Aegina’s Pragmateia (Leiden: Brill, 2004).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 169

    See Frank Griffel, “On Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Life and the Patronage He Received,” Journal of Islamic Studies 18 (2007): 313–44. Eşref Altaş, “Fahraddin er-Râzî’nin Eserlerinin Kronolojisi,” Islâm Düşüncesinin Dönüṣüm Çağinda, eds. Ömer Türker and Osman Demir (Istanbul: ISAM, 2011), 103 dates this work to 573–574/1177–1178.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 171

    Albert Z. Iskander, A Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts on Medicine and Science in the Wellcome Historial Medical Library (London: The Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1967), 33–64.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 172

    Gerhard Endress, “Reading Avicenna in the Madrasa: Intellectual Genealogies and Chains of Transmission of Philosophy and the Sciences in the Islamic East,” in Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank, ed. James E. Montgomery (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2006), 371–422.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 176

    Philip van der Eijk, “Galen’s Use of the Concept of ‘Qualified Experience’ in his Dietetic and Pharmacological Works,” in Medicine and Philosophy in Classical Antiquity: Doctors and Philosophers on Nature, Soul, Health and Disease, ed. Philip van der Eijk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 279–98.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 177

    Pormann, “Medical Methodology and Hospital Practice”; Pormann, “Avicenna on Medical Practice, Epistemology, and the Physiology of the Inner Senses,” in Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays, ed. Peter Adamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 91–108. See also Mona Nasser, Aida Tibi and Emilie Savage-Smith, “Ibn Sina’s Canon of Medicine: 11th Century Rules for Assessing the Effects of Drugs,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 102 (2009): 78–80.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 178

    See also Peter E. Pormann, “Philosophical Topics in Medieval Arabic Medical Discourse: Problems and Prospects,” in Medicine and Philosophy in the Islamic World, eds. Peter Adamson and Peter E. Pormann (London, Turin: The Warburg Institute, Nino Aragno Editore, forthcoming).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 179

    Cristina Álvarez-Millán, “Practice versus Theory: Tenth-century Case Histories from the Islamic Middle East,” Social History of Medicine 13 (2000): 293–306.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 182

    Peter E. Pormann, “The Physician and the Other: Images of the Charlatan in Medieval Islam,” Bulletin of Medical History 79 (2005): 189–227.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 189

    Pormann, Oriental Tradition, 287.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 202 19 0
Full Text Views 345 161 32
PDF Downloads 93 55 10