The Arabic Origin of

Summa perfectionis magisterii

And the other Geber Latin Works

Ahmad Y. al-Hassan

I

Jabir’s Surviving Works

Research into the Arabic origin of Geber’s Latin works is a vast undertaking which may

not be in the power of one individual to carry it out alone. Yet in the absence of an

organized and sponsored team work individual efforts are crucial and should not stop. The

author has been working on this question for several years and he found it now worthwhile

to publish his findings gradually as they transpire. This will benefit the academic

community because this research project will take more years to reach its definitive end.

 

The results will be given without a consecutive order. We may present a result from one

location and then present another from a different location. We shall move between the

four Geber Latin works according to the emergence of results. We shall also choose to

discuss as we go along the different assumptions upon which the advocates of a Latin

pseudo-Geber had based their conjectures. As the jigsaw puzzle is about to be completed

the final picture will, hopefully, be made clear.

 Previous work in this project

We have already published on this web site the following articles and Brief Notes that are

part of this research. These are:

- The Arabic Origin of Jabir's Latin Works- A New Light on the Geber Question

- Potassium Nitrate in Arabic and Latin Sources

- The Origin of Liber Fornacum

-  Sal Nitri and Sal Petrae in Geber’s Latin Works

 

The following article is also of importance in the general research into Arabic alchemy in

the Latin West:

  “The Arabic Origin of Liber de compositione alchimiae”[1]

Geber editions used in this research

In discussing the Summa and the three other Geber Latin works we shall use mainly the

English translation of Richard Russell, The Alchemical Works of Geber, Samuel Weiser,

York Beach, Maine, 1994. We shall utilize also the German and French translations

where necessary, and the Latin texts will be consulted sometimes.

Arabic texts used

Discussion of Geber’s texts will be based on our readings into the various Arabic texts in

Alchemy.  In the absence of Arabic texts that corresponds completely with the Summa

and the other three Latin texts our method of approach is find the equivalent to what is

written in the four Latin works from different Arabic texts. We shall compare theories,

materials, laboratory equipment, processes, styles, words and sentences and every detail

that is worth of consideration.

Surviving Arabic MSS of Jabir ibn Hayyan

One of the key postulations for a Latin Pseudo-Geber is the absence of the Arabic

originals of the Latin Geber works. For this purpose we have undertaken a survey of all

the dated extant Arabic manuscripts ascribed to Jabir ibn Hayyan. We based our study on

the exhaustive list given by Sezgin in volume IV of Geschichte des Arabischen

Schrifftums [2], which included the findings of Paul Kraus, and the Arabic translation of

this volume which incorporated some new additions. We took notice of all the copying

dates of the dated manuscripts. The results were as follows:

Century Number

of dated

MSS

% of

extant

MSS

6/12 6 2

7/13 4 1.4

8/14 18 6.2

9/15 17 6

10/16 104 36

11.17 80 27.5

12/18 13 4.5

13/19 36 12.4

14/20 12 4

Total 290 100

This survey revealed the following facts:

1.     The oldest extant MSS of Jabir (only 2 %) do not go earlier than the 6/12

century. If we consider that Jabir lived in the 2/8 - 3/9 period then the oldest

extant MSS are between 3 to 4 centuries later than Jabir.

2.     Most of the extant MSS (63 % of them) were copied in the 10/16 and 11/17

centuries or about 8-9 centuries after the time of Jabir.

We conclude

1-     That all of Jabir’s MSS that preceded the 6/12 century had perished.

2-     Among the perished MSS were naturally unique copies that have not

been copied again and were lost for ever.

3-     The extant MSS that were copied in later centuries represent a fraction

only of Jabir’s works.

4-     The translations of the Arabic alchemical treatises into Latin took place

in the 12th and 13th centuries. And our survey denotes that 97 % of Jabir’s

Arabic MSS dating from that period had perished. In other words this

entails that the Arabic originals that were used by the translators had

perished and there are not other copies of the lost ones.

5-     We conclude that the contention opposed to an Arabic origin of Geber’s

Latin works is flawed and is a feeble line of reasoning that should be

discounted.

It is pertinent to mention here that not only the Arabic originals of the Latin Geber works

are still missing, also the originals of many other Arabic works in Latin are still missing

and their translators are unknown. These Arabic works are known to us from their Latin

texts only. This includes several works in alchemy, mathematics, astronomy, astrology,

physics, medicine, materia medica and other subjects. 

Even with the great loss of Arabic manuscripts many works that were thought to be

missing were found in the past decades. It is not inconceivable that some of the Arabic

originals of Geber Latin works may appear. But we need not wait until this happens. The

content of the Latin works are to be found in the available Arabic alchemical works as

will be made clear in the present research,

 What caused the disappearance of Jabir Manuscripts

There were various reasons why Jabir’s Arabic MSS preceding the 12th century had

perished. Wars and invasions are cited as main causes. The devastation and sacking of

Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258 resulted in the destruction of many libraries containing

innumerable priceless manuscripts.[3]

Following the Christian conquest of Granada in 1492 many valuable Arabic manuscripts,

documents and books were burnt, as they were housed in public squares all over Granada,

and it is thought that as many as 1,000,000 MSS were destroyed in this way.

We must enquire also into the other factors that caused the vanishing of huge numbers of

Arabic MSS. These MSS were written on paper after paper was introduced in Arabic

lands in the 8th century. Paper is not durable over centuries. Latin MSS in Europe

continued to be written on the more durable vellum or parchment until the 15th century

when printing was invented, and even with vellum we find that the surviving scientific

MSS dating before the 13th century are rare.

Other factors causing the vanishing of MSS include the aging and uncontrollable decay of

paper, and the wear and tear from repeated use and poor handling and carelessness. The main

adversary of paper is bad storage conditions with exposure to heat, humidity, sunlight and

pollutants in the atmosphere. Storage conditions of Arabic MSS throughout the centuries were

mostly unacceptable.

A report about one surviving monastery library in Egypt noted that “conditions fluctuate

wildly, with inside temperatures ranging from 5 to 35 degrees Celsius and relative humidity

from 30% to 80%. Paper has become brittle and is suffering from discoloration and

mechanical damage. Iron and copper based inks used in writing have degraded, and there are

many instances of ink suffering from flaking and lifting. Exposure to moisture has resulted in

corrosion and caused very serious perforations to paper. Mice and other pests have caused

further damage." [4]

An important factor is ignorance of the value of MSS especially during the last centuries of

ignorance and decline. This is especially true for private family libraries. With the passage of

time a family that inherited a collection of valuable MSS did not appreciate its significance

through lack of knowledge on the part of the descendents. They were sold every so often to

bookbinders who used their paper extensively in bookbinding without giving attention to the

value of the written paper that they were using.

In many cases manuscripts were sold to grocers to be used for packaging and wrapping. They

were used also as fuel or for starting fires, and for many other deprived commercial and

domestic uses. 

[1] Al-Hassan, Ahmad Y. The Arabic Original of Liber de compositione alchimiae, Arabic Science and Philosophy, vol. 14, (2004), Cambridge University Press, pp. 213-231. See also www.gabarin.com/ayh.

[2] Sezgin, Vol. IV, pp. 231-269, and the Arabic edition pp. 306-395

[3] The libraries and the invaluable MSS of Baghdad were sacked and devastated again in

the 21st century.

 [4] Martin Bailey.  Ancient Manuscripts Found In Egyptian Monastery,

II

 Materials for Making the Stone of Philosophers

  

There is a particular style of Jabir is presenting things. He usually gives the

opinions of various sects or ta`ifa طائفة . In the following discussion about

materials suitable for making the stone of philosophers both Geber and Jabir

are giving the various opinions sects or ta’fa.  Here the style of the Summa

resembles that of Jabir.  The text of the Summa is given below (Russell p. 44):

 

“But returning to Our Purpose, We say,That those who posite this Art in

Spirits are manifoldly divers.[i] Some affirm, That the Stone of Philosophers

must necessarily be made of Argentvive; others of Sulphur and of Arsnick in

affinity to it, others of Marchasite; some of Tutia and Magnesia, and not a

few of Salarmoniac. And of those who say it is in Bodies, some will have it in

Lead, others in every of the other Bodies: so likewise some in Glass, some in

Gems; others in the Diversities of Salts, Allomes, Nitres, and Boraces; and

some in every kind of Vegetahles”

 

Jabir in the Book of Seventy in Kitab al-Hiba, الهبة pp. 174-175 gives a  كتاب

similar discussion. We reproduce it here:

 

We find here that Jabir’s list includes mercury, sulphur, arsenic, marcasite,

magnesia, bodies (metals), glass, and various kinds of gems like ،دهنج الزورد،

عقيق ، روسختج ، .The two lists (of Geber and Jabir) are nearly identical .شاذنة

Jabir did not mention here tutia and vegetable matter but he has mentioned these

quite often in his other numerous texts. In Jabir’s texts Marcasite, tutia and

magnesia are often listed together, (see for example the Book of Seventy, Kitab

al-Layla, الليلة .p. 197). This is shown below  كتاب

 

III

Arabic Expressions in the Summa and the Investigation

 

It was observed by Holmyard that the Summa contained some Arabic

expressions.[1] Recently Newman alluded slightly to these calling them

touches, [2]  and furnished a curious explanation. He says that the Pseudo-

Geber (in his case Paul of Taranto) purposely inserted these Islamic

expressions to give the Summa an Islamic aspect so that the forgery can look

authentic!  We need not discuss here this strange explanation. The results of

the present research reports will shred enough light to dissipate such

conjectures.[3]  On the other hand, we have adequately shown earlier [4] that

Jabir ibn Hayyan was not yet sufficiently known and was not yet a famous

person in the 13th century in the Latin West. Even the Book of Seventy that

was translated by Gerard of Cremona in the twelfth century under the Latin

title Liber de septuaginta was considered by many medieval alchemists such

as Petrus Bonus to be a work of Al-Razi (Rhazes) [5]. Therefore it was

unimaginable why any Latin writer in the thirteenth century would think of

using the name of the hitherto unknown Jabir as the author of a work that was

composed by that Latin writer.[6] We shall have the opportunity to revert to

this question in more detail in these research reports.

 

We have surveyed several alchemical treatises written by Latin authors and

other treatises translated from Arabic during the twelfth and later centuries.

We looked into the word “God” and the other words signifying God and the

descriptions attached to them and we found that the qualities attributed to God

by Muslim alchemists are not used by the Latin writers. In other words we

can distinguish a Latin author from an Islamic one by observing in what

manner the word “God” occurs.

 

Latin translators used to purge the Arabic texts from conspicuous Muslim

expressions involving the name of the Prophet and other explicit Islamic

religious language. But there are Islamic expressions that can be applied to

any religious belief especially those that praise or glorify God.  These

expressions escaped the intense Christian editorial censorship and were

translated along with the main texts. The Summa retained several of these

Islamic expressions that glorify God.

The following Islamic phrases referring to God occur throughout the Summa.

(Page numbers refer to Russell’s translation):

p. 24: through God

p. 31: divine will of God

P.40:  the most High and Glorious God

 P.60: through the most High GOD,

p.63: through God

p.135: praised be the glorious and blessed Most High God

p.178: let the High GOD of Nature, blessed and glorious, be praised,

p. 179: most excellent Gift of God

p. 179: this Gift of God is absolutely, by the judgment of Divine Providence

hid from you.

p. 196: as is agreeable to the will of the Most High, Blessed, Sublime, and

Glorious God.

p 196: by the Grace of his divine Goodness, who gives it to, and withholds it

from, whom he will.

197: the Gift of the Most High God

 

The Arabic equivalents to some of the cited attributes of God are: The Most

High  ألعلي  and the Glorious Most High وجل عز الله العظيم، Bالعلي .

Blessed Most High is وتعالى .All these are Qur’anic expressions .  تبارك

 

 The phrase “who gives it to, and withholds it from, whom he will” is an

Islamic expression that has been inspired by the verses of the Qur’an. تؤتي

تشاء من وتذل تشاء من وتعز تشاء عمن الملك وتنزع تشاء من ] 7 [الملك

 In addition to these Islamic expressions and beside the Arabic chemical texts

(or formulaic passages) that will be revealed and reported in this series, there

are also well known Arabic sayings and expressions that are authentic only

for an Arab author and could not have been written by a Latin one. These will

be revealed as we continue our study of the Summa and the other three Geber

texts.

 In the Investigation (Russell p.4) the author says:  Contraries set near each

other, are the more manifest. This is a well known Arabic saying and its

Arabic form is: األشياء تتميز . وبضدها

 

On page 17 we read: Festination (haste) is from the Devil’s part. This is a also

a famous Arabic saying. In Arabic it is: الشيطان من العجلة

 

The Islamic style of Geber was noticed and was known to Latin alchemists.

Thomas Vaughan in his treatise Aula lucis, or, The House of Light written in

the year 1651[8] expresses his opinion about the Islamic style of Geber who

was known to be a non-Christian. He says: “I have ever admired the royal

Geber, whose religion - if you question - I can produce it in these few words:

"The sublime, blessed and glorious God of natures." This is the title and the

style he always bestows upon God and it is enough to prove him no atheist”.

 

Like the Summa, some other alchemical treatises translated from Arabic into

Latin retain the same Islamic expressions. In the Liber de compositione

alchimiae in which we find the dialogue between Khalid ibn Yazid and the

hermit Morienus (Maryanus) we find several Islamic expressions retained in

the Latin text. These are examples[9]:

p. 3:  “In the name of the Lord, holy and compassionate”: This is the Muslim

famous Qur’anic verse which is used at the start of every book or treatise. The

Christian translator used the word Lord instead of God. In Arabic it is thus:

الرحيم الرحمن الله . بسم

p. 9: God willing الله شاء ان

p. 9: God enrich you الله أصلحك

p,9: May the Creator be praised المحمود والله

p.9: There is no strength save in great God most high بالله إال قوة وال حول ال

العظيم ألعلي

p.11: Almighty God تعالى الله

p. 33: great God most high العظيم ألعلي

p 35 God be ever praised:

p. 37: great Creator most high

p.37: great God most high

p. 45: praise the great Creator most high

 

The original translator into Latin, Robert of Chester, made a faithful

translation from the Arabic original. [10]  The Arabic versions given above

are taken from the original Arabic text. We notice that the attributes of God

are the same as those used by Geber.

The Secret Book of Artephius [11] is a well known alchemical treatise in Latin

alchemy. It is recognized to be of Arabic origin, but we know nothing about

the translator and little about the author. Nevertheless the English translation

still retains some Islamic impressions. Here are examples:

-                            God Almighty

-                            Through the goodness of God Almighty.

-                            Praises be given to the most high God.

-                            Wherefore praises be given to the most high God

-                            my son, put up thy supplications (prayers) to God almighty

-                            [Therefore] render praises and thanksgiving to the most great and good

God, who gives wisdom and riches to whomsoever He pleases, and takes

them away according to the wickedness of a person. To Him, I say, the most

wise and almighty God, be glory for ages and ages.

Here again the Islamic expressions are similar to those of Geber.

Having seen the style of the Latin translations of Arabic alchemical works

with their residual distinct Islamic expressions let us look now into some

alchemical works that were written by Latin authors  to see how these authors

referred to God.

 

Arnoldus de Nova Villa in a Chymicall treatise [12] mentions the word God

without adopting the Islamic attributes. Instead, he uses alternative names for

God especially the Holy Ghost.  In his short treatise the Holy Ghost is

repeated several times, more than the word God.  God is defined by this

phrase: I say that the Father Son and Holy Ghost are one, and yet three,

 

We read also this phrase: “the Word was a Spirit, and that word the Spirit was

with God, that is with himselfe, and God was that word, he himself was the

Spirit”.  This is based on the text in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word

and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

 

In this short treatise of Arnoldus we find a real Christian tone totally different

from that of Geber, Khalid-Morienus and Artephius.

 

In the Book of Quintessence of John de Rupescissa (d. 1365),[13] the author

starts his essay “in the name of the Holy Trinity” as opposed the Islamic

Qur’anic verse with which the dialogue of Khalid and Morienus was started.

God is designated several times as “our Lord God”.  The phrase “Jesus

Christ” was used, and the word God was applied by itself without the

attributes applied by the Muslim authors.

 

In the New Pearl of Great Price written by Peter Bonus[14] and edited by

Janus Lacinius we find the same Christian style of the Latin authors. In the

Discourse between Bonus and Lacinius the word God occurs without the

Islamic attributes. In addition to God the words “Christ” and “Jesus Christ the

Son of God” are used.

 

In the New Pearl itself the word God is not numerous in relation to the size of

the book. We find here also the typical Christian alternative names of God

such as “our Saviour Jesus Christ” and “our Lord Jesus Christ”. We find also

phrases like “Trinity in Unity”, and “God’s miraculous dealings in

Scriptures”.

 

We summarize as follows:

1.                 The style of the Summa and the Investigation is Arabic-Islamic. The

Summa contains a multitude of Islamic expressions glorifying God that stem

from the Qur’an.

2.                 The Islamic style of Geber was well known and his descriptions of God

were referred to in several medieval and Renaissance alchemical works.

3.                 Jabir (Geber) was not sufficiently known in the thirteenth century and it

was improbable that a Latin Christian Friar would ascribe a work of his own

composition to an unknown Muslim author.

4.                 It is also a strange idea to assume that such a supposed Latin writer would

go to the extreme in inserting Islamic expressions in his text to give it an

Islamic appearance. Such a person would have to be very familiar with the

Arabic language and with Islam.

5.                  Other Latin alchemical texts of Arabic origin use the same Islamic style

in God’s names as Geber.

6.                 Alchemical works Written by Latin authors bear a distinct Christian style

when referring to God.

 

 

 

 

[1] Holmyard, E. J., “The Present Position of the Geber Problem”, Science Progress, Jan. 1925, XIX, No. 16, p. 418.

[2] Newman, William R. The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber, Brill, 1991, p.88

[3] Newman found complete texts in the Latin translation of the Book of Seventy that resemble comparable texts in the Summa, He gave this similarity in texts the same curious explanation. We shall discuss these texts later in this series of research notes.

[4] See “The Arabic Origin of Jabir’s Latin Works” on this web site.

[5] Newman, p. 107, note 56.

[6] Paul of Taranto, who was chosen by Newman to be the author of the Summa, was an unidentified Franciscan Friar who, according to Newman, lectured in the monastery of the Friars Minor in Assisi in the second half of the thirteenth century. St. Francis died in 1226 and the building of the Franciscan monastery and church in Assisi began after his canonization in 1228 and was completed in 1253. In the records of the Franciscans of their learned men who were teachers and lecturers in this period there is no mention of a person called Paul of Taranto, nor is he mentioned in any of the modern histories of science, alchemy and chemistry for the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. As a matter of fact the first writer to mention him was Newman and we are not overstating if we say that Paul of Taranto as an alchemist of any status is the creation of Newman.

[7] Sura 3, Al `Umran, verse 16.

[8] http://www.levity.com/alchemy/aula_lucis.html

[9] See The Arabic Origin of Liber de compositione alchimiae on this web site. See also: Lee Stavenhagen, A Testamen of Alchemy, The University Press of New England, 1974.   Page numbers refer to the English translation of Stavenhagen.

[10]  The English translation of Stavenhagen from Latin corresponded very well with the original Arabic text.

[11] http://www.levity.com/alchemy/artephiu.html

[12] http://www.levity.com/alchemy/arnaldus_treatise.html

[13] John de Rupescissa, The Book of Quintessence, Glasgow, 2002

[14] Peter Bonus of Ferrara, The New Pearl of Great Price, Reprint by Kessinger  Publishing Company, n.d.

IV

 

Jabir’s Latin Names

 

In our present investigation about Geber’s Latin works any information about

Jabir in Latin literature will be useful. We shall discuss here the different

forms of Jabir’s name in Latin. Our survey is not exhaustive and if more Latin

variants of the name are revealed in future they will be indicated in the

coming articles.

 

Latin translators did not follow any system of transliteration for Arabic names

or words. There were inconsistencies in transliteration to a rather high

proportion. Thus Ibn Sina is Avicenna in Latin and Ibn Rushd is Averroes.

Fortunately the name of Jabir is simpler and it was not deformed to a high

degree. We shall try to make sense in discussing the various Latin forms of

this name

 

GEBER

The word “Geber” became the standard Latin name for Jabir. In Latin the ‘G”

followed by “E” is pronounced as a soft “G” as in the English word “GEM’.

Therefore the Latin translators used “GEBER” with a soft “G” to denote

Jabir. If they wrote it as “GABIR” it will be a hard “G”.   “J” is not used in

Latin.

 

GIABER

We meet the word “GIABER” in Latin to denote Jabir.[1] Here the “G” is soft

because it is followed by “I” and it is the nearest form to Jabir.

 

JEBER

In English the word “GEBER” is pronounced with a hard “G” unlike its

pronunciation in Latin. Nevertheless the word “GEBER” was adopted in

English literature.  Since “J” is pronounced in English one would expect to

see the word “JEBER”[2], and actually we find this word in one Cambridge

MS:

 

Cambridge, Trinity College MS. O.7.35, Vellum, 15th Century

23. f137v Jeber libro 15.

 

YEBER

There is no “J” in Latin and “I” is used instead. As a consonant “I” was

probably pronounced as “Y” rather than “J”.[3] So Jeber becomes “YEBER”.

We find this word in one of the important early manuscripts of the Summa in

the B. N.  of Paris:

 

MS. Lat. 6514. 13th - 14th Centuries A.D., Parchment.

7. f61-83v Incipit liber Yeber de summa colectionis complementi oculte

secretorum nature. Prohemium perfectionis in arte.

 

IEBER

As mentioned above “I” is used instead of”J”. Therefore we should expect to

find “IEBER” being used instead of “JEBER”.. “I” as a consonant is

pronounced as a “y” in “year”, and it is therefore pronounced as “YEBER”

We find this form in a Florence MS.

 

Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale MS. Magl. XVI 37. 14th and 16th Centuries.

37 folios. Parchment.

1. f1-27 Ieber [Geber] perfecti magisterii hec dicta sufficiant... Explicit liber

Ieber perfectionis in arte.

 2. f27 Incipiunt excepta libri Ieber quem fecit ad filium et dicitur liber regni

quia regum spondet... Explicit liber regis Ieber quem abreviavit ad filium

suum solum.

 

Geber ebn Haen

A complete name occurs sometimes such as Geber ebn Haen [4] Now ebn

Haen is clearly a crude transliteration of the Arabic ibn Hayyan,

 

Gebir filius hegen ezahufy

In a thirteenth century MS at Florence (Codex Riccardiana 933) Darmstaedter

had found a Latin translation of Kitab al-Rahma, entitled Liber

Misericordiae. It begins "Dixit qui compilavit  librum istum. Ista est

reformatio libri gebir filii hegen ezahuphi. Et est nominatus liber

misericordie. Dixit gebir filius hegen ezahufy. Postquam vidi," etc[5]

 

This is clearly the name of Jabir ibn Hayyan al-Sufi. الصوفي حيان ابن جابر

 

Geber Abinhaen

This form of the name Jabir ibn Hayyan occurred in Liber de Anima in arte

alchimiae attributed to Avicenna. [6]

 

In modern times the word Geber is used almost exclusively to denote the

Pseudo-Geber to distinguish it from Jabir. In modern English Jabir is written

also as Djabir. In French it is often Djàber and in German it is written as

Dschabir. Ruska who was well known by his habit of casting doubts about the

authorship of Arabic Latin works and by attributing some of them to pseudo

Latin authors, distinguished in his writings between the Arab Dschabir and

the Latin Pseudo-Geber.[7]

 

We conclude that all these variations in Latin refer to one person: he is Jabir

ibn Hayyan. Usually in the Latin translations of Arabic works one word only

is used to indicate the author. Thus in the case of Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn

Zakariyya al-Razi the word Rhazes was used and for Jabir ibn Hayyan the

word Geber was adopted.

 

 

[1] Ruska, J., „Pseudo-Geber“, Das Buch der Grossen Chemiker, Band I, Berlin,1931, p. 69. See also  ,  http://perso.club-internet.fr/hdelboy/idee_alchimique_3.html

[2] Darmstaedter, Ernst, Die Alchemie Des Geber, Reprint, Berlin, 1978,  p. 134

[3] Cassell’s Latin Dictionary, New York, 1968, “J:”,  p. 332

[4] Holmyard, E. J. , « The Present Position of the Geber Problem », Science Progress, Jan. 1925, XIX, No. 75, pp. 414-426,

[5] Darmstaedter, E, :“ Liber Misericordiae Geber. Eine lateinische Übersetzung des grösseren Kitâb alrahma.“, Sudhoff’s  Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin, Bd. xvii, Heft 4, 1925

[6] Multhauf, Robert, The Origins of Chemistry, London, 1966, p. 161

[7] Ruska, op. cit. pages  18 and 60.. Ruska attributed the authorship of the Khalid-Morienus dialogue Liber de compositione alchimiae to a pseudo-Latin author despite the many indications that were at his disposal pointing to the contrary. See the article on the Origin of Liber de compositione alchimiae at this web site.

V

“Our Volumes” of Geber

An Evident Proof to the Arabic Origin of the Latin Works

 

 

In every one of the four Latin tracts Geber speaks of his other “volumes”. We

provide below twelve citations in which Geber refers to his other “volumes”

or “books”.

 

Geber says that the Summa is the sum of what he had written in his other

“volumes.” Obviously those other “volumes” or “books” cannot be the three

small tracts that are associated traditionally with the Summa. There are

several reasons for this:

1.     The Summa is a larger work, and a large book cannot be the sum of

three much smaller discourses. To give an idea of the comparative sizes

of the four tracts, here is the approximate number of words in Russell’s

translation:

Summa:                  48194 words

De investigatione     4028 words

De inventione           6092 words

Liber fornacum         5823 words

2.     Most of the theories and basic principles of the Art of alchemy that are

expounded in the Summa do not occur in the three other short tracts.

Therefore the Summa as a sum of Geber’s other “volumes” should be

referring to a larger number of earlier books that have been written by

him.[1]

3.     The Summa does not contain the same information that is given in the

other three short tracts. The latter are practical treatises describing

processes and giving formulae and recipes of chemical preparations. 

They mention materials that are not pointed out in the Summa.  In other

words the Summa is not a sum of the other three tracts. Hence “our

volumes” to which the Summa refers are definitely other earlier works

of Geber.

4.     Even if we allow for the improbable possibility that “our volumes”

refer to the three shorter tracts, it follows that the Summa should be of a

later date than these.  However, “the De investigatione, De inventione

and Liber fornacum all cite the Summa, and in ways which make it

seem a prior work”[2]  Therefore “our volumes” as mentioned in the

Summa refer to different earlier works and not to the three smaller

tracts.

5.     We have pointed out in one of our Brief Notes [3] that the name of the

translator of the Liber fornacum is mentioned in some Latin versions of

this treatise. Thus the Liber fornacum should be removed from the list

of the works of a Pseudo Latin author leaving, for now, only De

investigatione and De inventione, which give further proof that these

two tracts cannot be the “volumes” to which Geber refers.

6.     Although we dispute the assumptions of the advocates of a Latin

Pseudo- Geber since they are based on speculation or feeble evidence,

yet we must mention that Berthelot reached a conclusion that the three

short tracts were written after the Summa because they contain more

advanced information.[4] For different reasoning Newman thinks that

each of the three tracts was written by a different author who is not the

same as the author of the Summa.[5]  Both of these assumptions

confirm that “our volumes” in the Summa cannot refer to the short

tracts.

 

All this leads us to believe that the phrase “our volumes” that is repeated in

every one of the four Latin works indicate an author who did actually write

numerous works on alchemy. Such an author cannot obviously be the Pseudo-

Geber. The only writer who composed scores of treatises and books on

alchemy and who repeatedly refers to his other books or volumes in most of his

works is Jabir ibn Hayyan. It is his unmistakable style.

 

We do not give an assumption here, we are rather trying to draw the attention

of historians of science to basic and simple facts that are so close to our eyes

but of which we are oblivious.

 

We can give many Arabic citations from Jabir’s Arabic works in which he

refers to his “our books” كتبنا .  It suffices to give one item only.  This is taken

from Kitab al-manfa`a [6] المنفعة .or the Book of Benefit كتاب

Jabir says here:

“Understand that we have compiled in this art many books in numerous topics

and arranged them in several ways. Some were interrelated to others and

some were comprehensive. It is obvious for men of intelligence that the

comprehensive are more valuable than those that are related to others. Each

book that is comprehensive is made in this manner so that it will be adequate

on its own.

 

As to those books that are interrelated, each one needs the other, and no

person can work by using them unless he gets hold of a complete collection

(and) read them all and learn their purposes.”

 

We shall give now twelve citations from the Latin works in which Geber

refers to “our volumes” or “books”:

 

De investigatione p.18   [7] :

Therefore from the above premised, the Things are manifest in which the

Verity of the Work is nigh; and we have considered Things perfecting this

Work, by our true Investigation, with certain Experience, whereby we of are

assured, That all the Words are true, which are now (by us only) written in

our Volumes, according as we found by Experiment and Reason, related in

the same: But those Things which by our Experience we have operated, seen

with our Eyes, and handled with our Hands, we have writ in the Sum of the

Perfection of Our Magistery. Therefore, let the Sapient Artificer studiously

peruse Our Books, collecting Our dispersed Intention, which we have

described in diverse places, that we might not expose it to Malignant and

Ignorant Men; and let him prove his Collection even unto Knowledge,

Studying and Experimenting with the Instance of Ingenious Lahour, till he

come to an intire Understanding of the whole.

 

De investigatione p. 19

By which Consideration we came to the perfect and compleat end to of this

Science, which we have perfectly described in Our Books. Therefore be

Studious in them, and you will find Our whole Science out, which we have

abbreviated out of the Books of the Ancients.

 

Summa p.23

Our whole Science of Cbymistry, which, with a divers Compilation, out of

the Books of the Ancients, We have abbreviated in our Volumes; we here

reduce into one Sum.

 

Summa p. 24

Wherefore labour studiously in Our Volumes, and endeavour to ponder

them very often in your Mind, that you may acquire the true Intention of Our

Words; because in them you may find whereon to establish your own Mind,

and by them know how to escape Errors, and in what you may be able to

imitate Nature in the Artifice of your Work.

 

De inventione p. 201

We have in our Volumes considered, not only by the Secret Properties of

Natural Principles, but also by proper Experience, and the truly certain

Investigation -of our Invention, that those Things, from which our Medicine is

extracted, have in themselves these Properties of Qualities, in transmuting

Bodies.

 

De inventione p. 214

We will set down all Waters dissolutive of Spirits and Bodies, in the End of

this Book; and every One of these according to its own kind: and wonder

not, that We have dispersed the special Things pertinent to this Praxis, in

diverse Volumes, seeing We endeavour to hide the Art from evil Men.[8]

 

De inventione   p.221

But do you direct your Hands according to our Sayings, otherwise you Study

in vain; and in your Heart receive our Intention (expressed in our Volumes)

for so doing you will discern, that we have made a true search. [9]

 

Liber fornacum p. 227

WE have considered with a Consideration not phantastick. That in our

Volumes We have amply treated of the whole Art.

 

Liber fornacum p. 229

Calcination is the Treasure of a Thing; be not you weary of Calcination; but

study what We have said in Our Volumes.

 

Liber fornacum p. 240

By this Furnace, and by this Way the Ancient Philosophers attained to the

Work of the Magistery; which, Men truly Philosophizing, is known to be

sufficiently demonstrated in Our Books; and by those especially, who are

true Searchers of V erity.

 

Liber fornacum p.253

For if you well Study in Our Volumes, you will find by Our Consideration,

upon what Subjects, the true Searcher ought to ground his Action.

 

Liber fornacum p. 254

Therefore keep this Book, even from thy own Son; because it expounds

all Things, which We have Written in divers Books.

 

We summarize as follows:

1.     Every one of the four Latin works of Geber refers the reader to Geber’s

earlier “volumes” or “books,  The phrase “our volumes” is repeated.

We have given above twelve such citations.

2.     The Summa cannot be the sum of the three short treatises of the De

investigatione, De inventione or the Liber fornacum.

3.     As given in the Latin texts of Geber the phrase “Our volumes” imply a

reference to many earlier books written by Geber.

4.     Of all authors on alchemy until the end of the thirteenth century both in

the Arabic and the Latin worlds the only author with such voluminous

writings was the Arab Geber or Jabir ibn Hayyan, who usually refers

the reader to his earlier books in most of his works.

5.     It follows that Geber of the four Latin works is none but Jabir ibn

Hayyan.

 

 

[1] Robert Multhauf raised the question as to what “our books” in the Summa may refer.

on page 171 of The Origins of Chemistry , London, 1966.

[2] Multhauf,  p. 174

[3] See The Origin of Liber Fornacum in the Brief Notes on this web site.

[4] Berthelot, M. La Chimie au Moyen Age, Tome I, Paris, 1893, p. 343

[5] Newman, W., The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber, Brill, 1991, pp. 81-82

االعظم [6] االكسير تدبير حيان –كتاب بن لجابر الكيمياء في رسالة عشرة بيير –اربعة حققها- –لوري 1988دمشق

L’élaboration de l’élixir suprème , Jabir ibn Hayyan, ed. Pierre Lory, Damas, 1988

[7] Page numbers are those of Russell’s English translation:

The Alchemical Works of Geber, translated by Richard Russell, reprinted by Weiser, 1994.

The Englih of Russell is given unchanged.

VI

The Translator of Liber fornacum

Additional Significant Information

 

Since my previous Brief Note on the Arabic Origin of Liber fornacum was

published,[1] I came across additional information that confirms the fact that

the Liber fornacum was without doubt translated from Arabic. We know now

the name of the translator, the location where the translation took place and the

date of the translation.

 

In 1922, Ernst Darmstaedter published his now classic German translation of

Geber’s Latin works including the Testamentum.[2] In his edition he gave a

list of the MSS that were known to him at the time of his publication.  In June

1924 Darmstaedter published a short report ((Mitteilung) [3] in which he

announced the existence of a manuscript at Bologna University in Italy

containing the Summa, the Testamentum and the Liber fornacum.This is MS

Cod. Lat. 448 (756) of Bologna.

 

The exciting thing for Darmstaedter for which he devoted most of his

Mitteilung is a note (Vermerk) written by the scribe. He edited carefully this

note and it reads as follows:

 “Explicit liber fornacum Jeberis translatus in Caliax (Cahax?) al(ias?)

Vaheito(?), anno arabum (1) 720, per Rodogerum Hyspalensem (?).”

 

Darmstaedter professed here that according to this note the Liber fornacum

was translated by Rodogerum Hyspalensem in Spain in the Arabic year 720 of

Hijra which is equivalent to 1320 AD.

 

The use of the Arabic (Hijra) calendar is in itself significant. We have

examples where Christian writers in Spain were using sometimes the Arabic

calendar during the centuries when there was still Arabic rule in parts of Spain.

 

We must note here that Darmstaedter had translated the Latin works using the

Nuremberg compendia of 1541 in which the name of the translator was given

(Fig 1). But he edited that text by eliminating the name of the translator from

his 1922 translation.  Apparently, however, this was a bewildering discovery

for him. In that period in the history of science the debate was acute between

the advocates for a Latin-Pseudo-Geber and those who believed that the Latin

works were translations from Arabic, Holmyard was a lone fighter against an

enormous torrent of support for the Latin pseudo author. Renowned historians

of chemistry like Von Lippmann and Ruska supported the Latin Pseudo-Geber

theory and they used their immense authority to give it weight. Even within

that prevailing atmosphere Darmstaedter he was obliged to declare that:

 

“Immerhin erscheint. es nicht unmöglich. daß der Liber Fornacum eine

Übersetzung aus dem Arabischen ist, die in Spanien entstanden ist.“

which reads:  “Nevertheless it appears that it is not unlikely that the Liber

Fornacum is a translation from Arabic which was completed in Spain.”

 

Darmstaedter exposed further that two printed editions of the Latin works gave

the name of the translator of the Liber fornacum and these were the Nürnberg

edition of 1541 and of <Bern> 1545.

Darmstaedter says:

[Der Vermerk ist in jedem Falle von Bedeutung. auch deshalb. weil der Name

der Rodogerus Hyspalensis als übersetzer auch in dem Drucke des Liber

Fornacum, Nürnberg 1541 und <Bern> 1945 genannt wird. Der Titel lautet

dort: „Gebri Arabis Philosophi Solertissimi ..Liber Fornacum. Interprete [4]

Rodogero Hispalensi "]

This reads: [The note <at the end of the MS> is in any case of importance

because the name of Rodogerus Hyspalensis  as translator of the Liber

fornacum appears also in the printed texts in the Nuernberg editions of 1541

and 45.[1] The title reads there: "Gebri Arabis Philosophi Solertissimi..Liber

Fornacum. Interprete Rodogero Hispalensi"]

 

Darmstaedter then remarked that those publishers of the sixteenth century were

not producing works of fantasy. They were publishing serious works and when

they refer to translators in their published editions they rely on old and reliable

sources.

 

It is of importance to learn that prior to Darmstaedter, Hermann Kopp noticed

in 1875 that the Basil printed edition of 1572 [2] gave the name of the

translator of the  Liber fornacum, namely Interprete Rodogero Hispalensi. .

Kopp remarked that he could not know who that translator was.[5]

 

Both, Kopp’s information and Darmstaedter’s report or Mitteilung went

unnoticed from the time when they were published in 1875 and 1924. No

historian of science or chemistry ever since had referred to them. No one was

willing to disturb the calm waters or to contest the established beliefs; on the

contrary most historians of science were looking for further implausible

assumptions to boost the fictitious theory of the Latin Pseudo-Geber.

 

To become conscious of the fact that there is at the present concrete evidence

for an Arabic origin for Liber fornacum the historian of science needs to look

thoughtfully now at the whole question of the Geber Problem.

 

Up to the present time the following MSS mention the name of the translator

of Liber fornacum:

 

- Bologna University MS Cod. Lat. 448 (756), anno 1420

Geberi Arabis Summa perfectionis Magisterii cum Testamenta ac Libro

Fornacum. translatus in Caliax (Cahax?) al(ias?) Vaheito(?), anno arabum

(1)720, per Rodogerum Hyspalensem (?).

 

- Venice, Biblioteca Marciana MS. Lat. VI. 215. [3519.], anno 1475

Geber. Liber de inventione perfectionis. Liber Fornacum translatum. per

Rodericum Yspanensem.

 

- Ferguson MS. 232., 17th Century.

f72v-76 Geberi Arabis Philosophi sollertissimi rerumque naturalium

peritissimi, liber fornacum ad exerienda [...] pertinentium interprete Rodogero

Hispalensi.

 

- British Library MS. Sloane 1068. 17th Century

6. Ejusdem 'liber fornacum, ad exercendam chemiam pertinentium; interprete

Rodogero Hispalensi'. f.369. [Printed Basiliae, 1561, p.193].

 

The name of the translator of Liber fornacum occurs also in the following

printed Latin works:

 

Nürnberg 1541[6] (Fig 1)

Bern 1545[7] (Fig 2)

Basiliae (Basel) 1561[8] (Fig 3)

 

We summerize:

1.                                                Four Latin manuscripts of Liber fornacum and three printed

editions mention the name of its translator from Arabic

2.                                                According to Darmstaedter, the manuscript of Bologna, Italy,

indicates the place of the translation in Spain and its date in the Arabic

calendar (the Hijra).

3.                                                With this important information the theory of a Latin Pseudo-

Geber is severely challenged.

Figure  SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1 Title Page of Liber Fornacum from the Norimbergae,Compendia of  1541 showing the name of the translator

 

Figure  SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 2 Title page of Liber Fornacum in the Bern  ed. 1545 with the name of the translator

 

 

 

Figure  SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 3 Title Page of Liber Fornacum in Basel Edition 1561  showing the name of the translator.

  

[1] The 1545 edition is that of Bern.

[2] We found it in the 1561 edition  (Fig 3)

 

 [1] See Brief Notes at this web site.

[2] Darmstaedter, Ernst, Die Alchemie des Geber, , Berlin, 1922. Reprinted in  Natural Sciences  in Islam, Vol. 71, Jabir ibn Hayyan, III,  edited by Fuat Sezgin, Frankfurt, 2002, pp. 69-298.

[3]  Darmstaedter, Ernst,“ Geber Handschriften“, (Vorläufige Mitteilüng), Chemiker – Zeitung, (Cöthen) 48, 1924, pp 441-442    Reprinted in  Natural Sciences  in Islam, Vol. 71, Jabir ibn Hayyan, III,  edited by Fuat Sezgin, Frankfurt, 2002, pp. 299-300.

[4] Interprete means translator

[5] Kopp, Hermann, Der Geschichte der Chemie, Drittes Stück, Braunschweig, 1875, p. 84.. Reprinted in Natural Sciences  in Islam, Vol. 69, Jabir ibn Hayyan, I,  edited by Fuat Sezgin, Frankfurt, 2002, pp. 36..

[6] De alchemia. a compendia volumePetreus, Nurnberg. 1541. [8] + 373 + [5] pages.

 

[7] Alchemiae libri,

Bernæ: Mathias Apiarius, Ioannes Petreius excude faciebat 1545

 

[8] Verae alchemiae artisque metallicae, citra aenigmata, doctrina, certusque modus, ...Investigatione, Summa, Inventione, Liber Fornacum , Bâle : Heinrich Petri et Pietro Perna 1561

VII

The Sulphur Mercury Theory andthe Occult and the Manifest Principle

Comparison of Geber Latin Texts with Jabir’s Arabic 

One of the main arguments of Berthelot against Jabir’s authorship of Geber’s

Latin works was that the sulphur mercury theory of metals which occurs in

the Latin works has no trace in Jabir’s Arabic works. Berthelot says [1]:

 

«Au contraire, aucune allusion n'est faite dans les textes arabes précédents à la

théorie de la génération des métaux par le soufre et le mercure- théorie que l'on

attribue en générαl à Géber, lequel aurait ajouté l'arsenic à ces deux éléments;

mais les oeuvres arabes de Djaber n'offrent aucune trace ni de l'une ni de l'autre

doctrine. »

 

“On the contrary, no allusion is made in the

preceding Arabic texts to the theory of the generation

of metals by sulphur and mercury - theory which one

allots in general to Geber, which would have added

arsenic to these two elements; but the Arabic works

of Djaber do not offer any trace neither of this nor of

other doctrines.”

 

This statement of Berthelot is of course not true [2].  He had access only to a

limited number of Jabir’s Arabic works, and he based all his conclusions on

that limited number which does not exemplify the true picture of the

chemistry and alchemy of Jabir.[3]

 

This article gives Geber’s Latin texts (in English translation) as well as some

of Jabir’s Arabic ones.(with English translation also).

 

Jabir’s Sulphur-Mercury Theory

The sulphur – mercury theory was the basis upon which the alchemy of Geber

was based. The whole corpus of the Summa and the other Latin treatises that

carry the name of Geber evolve around this theory.

 Jabir believed that, under the influence of the planets, metals were formed in the

earth by the union of sulphur (which would provide the hot and dry `natures')

and mercury (providing the cold and moist). This theory, which appears to have

been unknοwn to the ancients, represents one of Jabir's principal contributions to

alchemical thought. [4]

 The reasons for the existence of different kinds of metal are that the sulphur and

mercury are not always pure, and that they do not always unite in the same

proportion. If they are perfectly pure, and if also they combine in the most

complete natural equilibrium, then the product is the most perfect of metals,

namely gold. Defects in purity and, particularly, proportion result in the

formation of silver, lead, tin, iron, or copper; but since these inferior metals are

essentially composed of the same constituents as gold, the accidents of

combination may be rectified by suitable treatment. Such treatment, according to

Jabir, is to be carried out by means of elixirs.

 This concept that the metals are composed of mercury and sulphur was generally

accepted by later generations of alchemists and chemists and remained a part of

alchemy and chemistry even into the eighteenth century. The idea of the

presence of an inflammable principle -sulphur- in metals and indeed in almost

all bodies is the ancestor of the notion of phlogiston.  

 The Occult (Internal) and the Manifest (External)

Though Jābir thought metals to be made from mercury and sulphur, he also

supposed them to be composed ultimately of the four elements, earth, water,

air, and fire, and to have the qualities of these elements— dryness, cold,

moisture, and heat— in varying proportions. A metal vas supposed to have one

pair of qualities externally and another pair internally. Thus we have:

Outer Qualιties (Manifest)          Inner Qualities (Occult)

GOLD               Hot—moist                         Cold—dry

SILVER             Cold-dry                            Hot—moist

To turn silver to gold it was necessary to turn its nature inside-out.[5]

 The following quotations from Geber’s Latin works and from Jabir’s Arabic

ones provide a further proof of the Arabic origin of Geber’s Latin texts.

The Sulphur – Mercury Theory in Geber’s     Investigation , Russell [6] ,   p. 4

The Thing which perfects in minerals is the substance of Argentvive and

Sulphur proportionably commixt, by long and temperate decoction in the

Bowels of clean, inspissate, and fixed Earth (with conservation of its Radical

Humidity not corrupting) and brought to a solid fusible Substance, with due

Ignition and rendered Malleable

 The Occult and Manifest Principle in Geber’s Investigation , Russell, p. 5

 And because these Imperfect Bodies are not reducible to Sanity and Perfection, unless the contrary be operated in them; that is, the manifest be made Occult, and the Occult be made manifest: which operation, or Contrariation, is made by preparation, therefore they must be prepared,

 The Sulphur - Mercury Theory and the Occult and Manifest Priciple in Geber’s Summa , Russell, p. 56

The natural principles of the work of nature, are a stinking spirit, that is Sulphur, and quick water, which we also grant to be named dry water. But we

have divided the stinking spirit, for it is white in secret (hidden) and both red and black in the magistery of this work, but in manifest both of them tend to be red.  These We grant, and thus define the Fetent Spirit. It is white in Occulto[7]  , and Red and Black of either side, in the Magistery of this Work; but, in Manifesto[8]  , of either side, tending to Redness. 

Newman’s translation of the above [9]

We intimate to you, therefore, that the natural principles in the work of nature,

according to the opinion of some who were from a sect of t h o s e

i m i t a t i n g our a r t , are a fetid spirit and living water,[10] which we grant to be

also called dry water. And we have divided the fetid spirit,, for each is white, red, and

black, in <its> hidden <part>, in the mαgistery of this work, but each in <its>

manifest <part> tends toward redness.

 The Occult and Manifest Principle in   Geber’s   Summa, Russell, p. 71-72  

The Consideration of those Things, by which We come to the Compleatment

of the Work, is the Consideration of the Substance manifest, and of manifest

Colours, and of the Weight in every of those Bodies to be changed, and of

those Bodies that are not changed from the Radix of their Nature, without that

Artifice; and the Consideration of those likewise, in the Radix of their Nature,

with the Artifice; and the Consideration of the Principles of Bodies, according

to their Profound, Occult, and Manifest; and according to their Nature

without Artifice, and likewise with Artifice.

 The Occult and Manifest Principle,in Geber’s Verity , Russell p. 217

According to the Order of the premises, We will (in this our fourth Particle)

again practically speak of the Way of Investigation, compounding every

Medicine, viz. White and Red, according to the Nature and Property of the

Body to be transmuted, or of Mercury it self, with all its pertinencies occult

and manifest.

The Sulphur- Mercury Theory in Jabir, Kitab al-Idah , Holmyard, p. 54 [11]

 Translation of the Arabic text

      And we shall say also that all metallic bodies (ajsad) in their essences are

mercury that was set (coagulated) by means of the sulphur of the mine that has

risen to it with the vapours of the earth. And they (i.e. the bodies) have differed

because of the differences in their properties; and their properties differed

because of the differences in their sulphurs; The differences in their sulphurs

are caused by the differences in their earths and in their positions in relation to

the heat that reaches them from the sun as it oscillates in its orbit. And the

finest of those sulphurs, the purest and the most temperate was the golden

sulphur and for this reason the mercury was coagulated with it firmly and

temperately; and because of this temperance it resisted fire and it stood firm

and fire was not able to burn it in the same way as it burns other bodies.

 

The Occult and the Manifest Principle in Jabir’s   The Book of Seventy , ( Kitab

al-sab’in ), article 32, Kraus p. 466 [12]

Translation of the Arabic text:

And these qualities or natures in all beings and things are either manifest and

perfect or occult and perfect; .and every being or thing should have two

manifest qualities or natures, active and reactive; and two occult qualities or

natures, active and reactive.  The meaning of perfect or imperfect is that silver

according to them has an imperfect manifest nature and a perfect occult

nature whereas gold has the opposite natures; and therefore it was easy for

them  to revert metallic bodies to their origin in the shortest time by reversing

the natures of metallic bodies and making the occult manifest and the

manifest occult.

                                                        

       Summary and Conclusions

1-     Berthelot’s statement that Jabir’s Arabic works do not mention the

sulphur-mercury theory was false.

2-     Berthelot based all his conclusions regarding the authorship of Geber’s

Latin works on a very limited number of Arabic manuscripts that were

available to him in the B.N. of Paris and in Leiden. Those Arabic MSS do

not portray the complete chemistry and alchemy of Jabir.

3-     Therefore all Berthelot’s conclusions are not reliable because they were

based on a very weak and a defective foundation.

4-     Consequently the whole question of the Geber Problem should be

reviewed again and all the subsequent assumptions and conjectures that

came after Berthelot down to our time cannot be considered reliable any

more.

 

 

[1] Berthelot; M:; La Chimie Au Moyen Age; Tome I, Paris, 1893,  pp: 340-341

[2] Similarly we can see in this series of articles that all of Berthelot’s other arguments were mistaken also

[3] The limited number of Jabir’s Arabic texts were published by Berthelot in Tome III of his book :; La Chimie Au Moyen Age and were translated into French by Houdas. The Arabic texts were selected from among the Arabic manuscripts at both the B.N. of Paris and at Le den.  See also Holmyard, E. J., “The Present Position of the Geber Problem”, ScienceهProgress in the Twentieth Century, (London), 19, 1924 -1925,, pp. 415-426, 

[4] Holmyard, E. J. , Alchemy, Dover, New York, 1990, pp 74-75

[5] Sherwood Taylor, E., The Alchemists , Founders of Modern Chemistry, Reprinted by Kessinger, 1997, p. 81

 [6] The Alchemical Works of Geber, Translated by Richard Russell, Introduction by E. J. Holmyard, Reproduced by Samuel Weiser,  1994.

الباطن  [7]

,manifest. W. Newman comments  in The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber: A Critical Edition الظاهر   [8]Translation, and Study , Brill, 1997,, p. 663 note 42 , that the: the  terms "occultum" and "manifestum," "hidden" and "manifest," derive from the batin and zahir of the Arabic alchemists. The works of Jatbir ibn Hayyan  especially helped to popularize the theory that minerals contain an inner nature opposed to their exterior one. Jabir often claims that each metal contains its opposite hidden within (cf. Kraus, op. cit., II, p. 2.). Since these two terms were taken up by the earlier Latin authors upon whose works the Summa has drawn, e.g. the pseudo-Aristotle of the De perfecto magisterio, we cannot be sure of the precise source of this locus.

( our comment on Newman: Geber is Jabir this is the only explanation.)

[9] Newman, W. Ph.D Thesis, Harvard University, 1986, Volume 4. pp. 42-43

[10] Newman’s footnote 33 on p.42 of his Ph.D thesis runs as follows:” i.e. sulfur and mercury. I do not know the precise source of this statement”

[11] Holmyard, E. J., The Arabic Works of Jabir ibn Hayyan, edited with translations into English and critical notes, Volume one, part one, (Arabic texts), Paris, 1928, Reproduced by Fuat Sezgin, Natural Sciences in Islam, Volume 69,  Jabir Ibn Hayyan, Texts and Studies I, Frankfurt, 2001.,

[12] Mukhtar Rasa’il Jabir ibn Hayyan, edied and published by P. Kraus, Cairo, 1935

  

 

Sulphur-Mercury Theory in Kitab al-Idah االيضاح كتاب

 The Occult and Manifest Principle in Kitab al-Sab’in السبعين كتاب

VIII

Calcinations by Fire Only or By the Acuity of Salt

a short note We continue our search for similarities between the texts of Geber’s Summa and the other Geber Latin works and between the Arabic works of Jabir ibn Hayyan. This is another important process that is described in similar terms in both the Latin and the Arabic texts.  Geber, Summa , Russell’s translation, p. 103 [1]  For soft Bodies have one General way, according  to the Intention of Calcination, viz. that both may be calcined  by Fire only; and by the Acuity of Salt prepared or not  prepared, both likewise. Jabir, The Book of Seventy , Kitab al-manfa’a , Sezgin p. 361, Lory p. 159 [2]  Then its calcination …in preparation is done in two ways and two paths, one by burning in fire and the other by corroding with acute and salty corrosive materials. 

في ... تكليسها ان واالخر  ثم بالنار باالحراق احدهما وسبيلين جهتين على التدبير. االكالة والمالحة الحادة باالشياء بالتصدئة