Giber Ben Hayyan
who this man?..................
History of science is a actual conduct as its name signifies, and as such it is sometimes black by historians’ biases. There are analytical issues that defied attempts to ability the accuracy about them such as the aboriginal analysis of nitric acid, the analysis of alcohol, the aboriginal conception of atomic gunpowder, the aboriginal cannon, how the ambit accomplished Europe, and the catechism of whether the columnist of the Latin works of Giber was Giber Ban Hayyan or a Latin author.
Even a specific Latin columnist is afresh appropriate to alter the pseudo-Giber.
History of science cannot be accounting on the base of assumptions and conjectures. This cardboard will abridge the after-effects of a contempo analysis into this problem. It is hoped that it will active historians of science into alarmingly re-examining this accomplished catechism again.
Transmission of Arabic abracadabra into the Latin West – an abrupt review
Transmission of Arabic abracadabra into the Latin West – an abrupt review
The works attributed to Jabir bin Hayyan are actual ample in number. Giber’s works awning about every acreage of acquirements abnormally alchemy. There are about several treatises on applied abracadabra attributed to Giber that became accepted alone in the accomplished few decades.
Some of Giber’s works abide alone in Latin and their Arabic originals in the libraries of the West were absent and cannot be located. This is what had happened to the majority of added aboriginal Arabic works that were translated into Latin.
The doubts aloft by Paul Kraus on the antecedent of the Giberian bulk and the agitation that ensued accept no address on our analysis into the agent of Geber’s Latin works. It does not bulk whether Giber himself was the columnist or a after pseudo-Giber. Similarly the religious behavior of Geber does not affect his scholarship and has no appulse on our investigation.
Before the adaptation of the Arabic works into Latin, abracadabra was alien in the Latin West. Robert of Chester accomplished in the year 1144 the aboriginal adaptation from Arabic of a book on alchemy, Libber de blended one abracadabra “The Book of the Composition of Abracadabra ”, which is the argument of a chat amid the abbot Maryanus (Morienus) and Prince Khalid bin Yazid. Until recently, doubts were casting on the captivation of Khalid ibn Yazid in abracadabra and on his appointment with Maryanus. Even the adaptation by Robert of Chester was questioned, and a historian of science like Julius Ruska attributed the Libber de blended one alchemies to an Italian of abundant after date. But these doubts were expelled afresh with the analysis of the Arabic aboriginal of the Latin work.
Between the aboriginal adaptation of Robert of Chester in 1144, and 1300 some added important Arabic actinic works were translated into Latin including, the Turba Philosophorum, The Secret of Creation of Apollonius of Tyana, the Tabula Smaragdina, De Perfecto Magisterio attributed to Aristotle, De anima in arte alchemies attributed to Bin Sina, De Aluminibus et Salibus and the Book of Secrets, both of al-Razi, and genitalia of the Book of Seventy of Geber. And several added work.
One actinic work, the Libber claritatis, ascribed to Geber, appeared in Latin in the aftermost third of the thirteenth century. During this aeon the Libber misericordiae (considered to be a adaptation of Kitab al-rahma) had appeared Additionally about the year 1300, the Summa Perfectionism absolute (Sum of Perfection) address the name of Geber, emerged. This book is usually accompanied by three or four added treatises which backpack the name of Geber: De investigate one perfectionism (The Analysis of Perfection), De ad-lib one veritatis (The Invention of Verity), Libber fornacum (The Book of Furnaces), and sometimes the Testamentum (The Testament). The name of Geber became accepted as a aftereffect of these treatises. The Summa, in particular, was so acknowledged that it became the capital actinic argument book of medieval Europe. This book and the treatises associated with it were decidedly notable for their accuracy and abandon from mysticism and allegory. Naturally they appealed to applied alchemists and they exerted a abundant access on Western chemists until the acceleration of avant-garde chemistry. The name of Geber in its Latin anatomy "Geber" became aback a best acclaimed one.
The actualization of the Geber problem
The doubts aloft by Paul Kraus on the antecedent of the Giberian bulk and the agitation that ensued accept no address on our analysis into the agent of Geber’s Latin works. It does not bulk whether Giber himself was the columnist or a after pseudo-Giber. Similarly the religious behavior of Geber does not affect his scholarship and has no appulse on our investigation.
Before the adaptation of the Arabic works into Latin, abracadabra was alien in the Latin West. Robert of Chester accomplished in the year 1144 the aboriginal adaptation from Arabic of a book on alchemy, Libber de blended one abracadabra “The Book of the Composition of Abracadabra ”, which is the argument of a chat amid the abbot Maryanus (Morienus) and Prince Khalid bin Yazid. Until recently, doubts were casting on the captivation of Khalid ibn Yazid in abracadabra and on his appointment with Maryanus. Even the adaptation by Robert of Chester was questioned, and a historian of science like Julius Ruska attributed the Libber de blended one alchemies to an Italian of abundant after date. But these doubts were expelled afresh with the analysis of the Arabic aboriginal of the Latin work.
Between the aboriginal adaptation of Robert of Chester in 1144, and 1300 some added important Arabic actinic works were translated into Latin including, the Turba Philosophorum, The Secret of Creation of Apollonius of Tyana, the Tabula Smaragdina, De Perfecto Magisterio attributed to Aristotle, De anima in arte alchemies attributed to Bin Sina, De Aluminibus et Salibus and the Book of Secrets, both of al-Razi, and genitalia of the Book of Seventy of Geber. And several added work.
One actinic work, the Libber claritatis, ascribed to Geber, appeared in Latin in the aftermost third of the thirteenth century. During this aeon the Libber misericordiae (considered to be a adaptation of Kitab al-rahma) had appeared Additionally about the year 1300, the Summa Perfectionism absolute (Sum of Perfection) address the name of Geber, emerged. This book is usually accompanied by three or four added treatises which backpack the name of Geber: De investigate one perfectionism (The Analysis of Perfection), De ad-lib one veritatis (The Invention of Verity), Libber fornacum (The Book of Furnaces), and sometimes the Testamentum (The Testament). The name of Geber became accepted as a aftereffect of these treatises. The Summa, in particular, was so acknowledged that it became the capital actinic argument book of medieval Europe. This book and the treatises associated with it were decidedly notable for their accuracy and abandon from mysticism and allegory. Naturally they appealed to applied alchemists and they exerted a abundant access on Western chemists until the acceleration of avant-garde chemistry. The name of Geber in its Latin anatomy "Geber" became aback a best acclaimed one.
The actualization of the Geber problem
Towards the end of the nineteenth aeon Berthelot came out with a antecedent that the Latin works of Geber were accounting by a European alchemist who acclimated the name of Geber to accord accent to his work... These angle were proclaimed in Bertha lot’s massive assignment of three volumes (La Chimie au moyen age, Paris, 1893). Bertha lot was the best affecting historian of allure in France, and he enjoyed abundant ascendancy and authority. Holmyard, as we shall anon see, had arise several accessories arduous the assumptions of Bertha lot. Others additionally like Stapleton and departing ton aloft doubts as well... The capital assumptions of Berthalot
The assumptions of Berthalot are broadcast in the assorted capacity of his three volumes, abnormally in volumes I and III, but Chapter X of aggregate I, (pages 336-50), actualize his capital hypotheses. Several writers had abbreviated these assumptions and with the access of time they were adapted by his supporters after abnormal from his band of thinking.
This analysis will advice us in discussing anniversary acceptance independently.
- First Assumption
There are no Arabic Originals
- Second Assumption
The Latin Works were attributed to Geber because of his aerial acceptability amid the Latins.
Under this acceptance we shall altercate accession annual of Berthalot: that no absolute citation of Geber is fabricated by Albertus Magnus or Vincent de Beauvais, (the pre-sumption actuality that the Latin works of Geber were accordingly not accepted to these two alchemists.
- Third Assumption
a -In the Arabic treatises of Geber the accent is ambiguous and allegoric.
b -One does not appointment in the Arab works of Geber absolute formulae for the alertness of metals, or salts, or some added substances.
- Fourth Assumption
The appearance of the Summa recalls that of the schoolmen.
- Fifth Assumption
The Summa does not accommodate any Muslim expressions while they are absurd in Geber’s Arabic texts.
- Sixth Assumption
The Summa contains an annual of the arguments of those who denied the achievability of transmutation. Of this one finds no trace of it in the Arabic treatises of Geber.
- Seventh Assumption
a- (All the Summa) "is of a compactness of anticipation and expression, alien to the above authors, in accurate the Arab Geber.”
b- No absolute doctrines or facts are stated, no appearance is quoted.
c- While the Arabic texts acknowledgment the apparent and the abstruse commodity yet accession allotment of these doctrines misses absolutely and appropriately appears to accord to a added avant-garde period. There is no allusion in the Arabic texts to the sulphur and mercury approach of the bearing of metals.
d- In the assessment of the columnist (of the Latin works), there abide three accustomed attempt of metals: sulphur, arsenic and mercury. This is, actually, a fresh approach consecutive to the theories of Avicenna. .
- Eighth Assumption
The beneath opuscula of Investigate one perfectionism, Invention veritatis and Libber fornacum are alone extracts and summaries of the Summa. They carbon the aforementioned affairs and operations with the accession of added avant-garde abstracts and facts such as the names of (1) saltpeter, (2) alkali of tartar, (3) bedrock alum, (4) calamus alum; and (5) the mineral acids (dissolving waters) abnormally nitric acid. Also, the Arabic treatises which buck the name of Geber bin Hayyan do not acknowledgment these abstracts or the alertness of nitric acid. These discoveries abide alone in the Latin works of Geber, and they arise to be adopted to the Arabic works and subsequent. Refutations of Bertha lot’s assumptions
Since Berthalot came out with his assumptions in 1893, there appeared several criticisms to that acceptance by some eminent historians of allure and abracadabra that were added abreast in Arabic allure and abracadabra than Bertha lot himself.
One of the ancient criticisms was accounting in 1905 by Henry E. Stapleton who was a acclaimed historian of Arabic allure and who contributed significantly, through his abundant papers, to the advance of our ability of the subject. We shall accept the befalling to altercate Stapleton’s cardboard in our present study.
But the greatest bulk of criticism and acknowledgment was launched by Eric John Holm backyard who was additionally a acclaimed historian of allure with a complete ability of Arabic. In a alternation of affidavit that appeared amid 1922 and 1928 Holm backyard dealt thoroughly with anniversary of Berthalot’s assumptions proving their invalidity. Our assignment actuality can be advised as an addendum of Holmyard’s assignment admitting the access of about 80 years in between. We are advertisement actuality the after-effects of fresh allegation based mainly on the analysis of fresh Arabic works of Geber, while apropos to Holmyard and others whenever necessary.
R. Departing ton. Ernst Darmstaedter in an commodity that followed the advertisement of the German adaptation of Geber Latin texts in 1922, wondered why the Libber fornacum cannot be a adaptation from Arabic? In added accessories he alluded to some works attributed to Geber as re-workings by the translators in one commodity he accepted that some genitalia of the Summa appear, to be from Arabic origin, apparently al-Razi[. At that time (1923), Geber’s works on applied abracadabra were not yet known.
After the agitation of the twenties had abated, some historians of allure such as Robert Multhauf were not abundant assertive by the antecedent of the Latin columnist and they declared in their monographs that the Geber works represent Arabic abracadabra and chemistry. Some others took a aloof position by advertisement the Latin works back discussing Geber and advertisement at the aforementioned time the assumptions of Berthalot. Continuous..........
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment