Tārīkh-i pizishkī i.e., Medical History

Abstract

The authors of the article “Al-Qanun al-Saghir fi al-Tibb and its author” have provided evidence to deny the attribution of this book to Ibn Sina and have referred to some sources. In this regard, additional sources and evidence are presented:   1- The book “Al-Kifayyah fi al-Tibb” was revised based on the two versions mentioned in the text of the article by the distinguished Dr. Muhammad Ali Lisani Fasharaki and published in the year 1400 AH. It is mentioned on its cover that this book is also known as “Al-Qanun al-Saghir” and “Al-Kafi fi al-Tibb” (1). This book was also published in 2022 in Jordan by Dar Ward al-Jordaniya for Publishing and Distribution.   2- In addition to the printing of the "Al-Qanun al-Saghir" corrected by Ahmad Farid al-Muzidi (2), who did not properly introduce the two copies he used (it is enough to know that both manuscripts are photocopies of the Cairo Manuscripts Collection (2), but we do not know which library and which number they originally belonged to), a translated copy of the Vali Effendi manuscript, number 2529, was also printed in Berlin in 2020 by Dr. Kadircan Kashkinburah with an introduction about the content of the book (3). It is worth noting that this copy is not among the five manuscripts mentioned in the Ramadan Shashan catalog.   3- The fact that the name "Al-Qanun al-Saghir" appears under Ibn Sina and not Ibn Mandaviya in the catalog of Turkish medical manuscripts does not necessarily mean that Ibn Sina's name was included in all copies, since the cataloger may have taken the famous attribution as the original. In the meantime, reference was made to the Fatih Library manuscript numbered 3695, which states that the author’s name is “Abu Ali ibn Sina al-Bukhari” on the title page, and the text and its transcription (dated 983 AH) do not contain the author’s name (4). In the Rais al-Kitab Library manuscript numbered 4/103, which was transcribed in Maragheh in 670, the book is also named “Al-Qanun al-Aghir” and is attributed to Sheikh Rais Abu Ali ibn Sina (5). The text and the conclusion do not contain the author’s name, and the first page of the manuscript is written in a different script from the script of the transcriber: “Al-Qanun al-Saghir ll-Shaikh al-Rais Abi Ali ibn Sina” (5). The Vali Effendi Library manuscript also states that the book is titled “Al-Qanun al-Saghir fi al-Tibb” and that the author is “Al-Rais Abi Ali al-Hasan (kaza) ibn Sina al-Bukhari.” (3) Two manuscripts of the Al-Qanun al-Saghir are also kept in the Escorial Library in Spain. In manuscript number 868, the book begins with the phrase “The noble and venerable Abu Ali ibn Sina, may God have mercy on him, said.” In manuscript number 873, the exact same phrase appears (6-7); other manuscripts should be examined separately.   4- Like Ibn Sina, Ibn Mandawiyah’s nickname was “Abu Ali” (8). In some copies of Al-Kafi fi al-Tibb, or Ibn Mandawiyah’s Minor Canon, the beginning of the manuscript reads: “Abu Ali Ahmad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Mandawiyah said” (1). This similarity in nickname may also have contributed to the mistake in mentioning the main author.   5- The literary style of the Minor Canon differs significantly from Ibn Sina’s scientific and medical writings.   6- One of Ibn Sina’s most important characteristics is the systematic structuring of medical knowledge in the Canon. He has somehow classified ancient medical topics with a logical approach, which is perhaps what has made his book so popular in medical schools in the East and the West (9-10), while the book Al-Qanun al-Saghir does not benefit from this precise structuring and classification of topics in the book Al-Qanun.   7- Avicenna’s philosophical views are clearly different from the content of this work. In this regard, Dr. Raphaela Veit wrote an article that was first presented at a conference in Warburg in 2013 and then published in the book “Philosophy and Medicine in the Constructive Islamic Age” in 2018 (10). The general idea of ​​the article is that the author of Al-Qanun al-Saghir is very dependent on Galen’s ideas, while Avicenna is a critic of Galen’s ideas, especially in positions related to natural philosophy. In the following, a detailed comparison of Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb, Al-Qanun al-Saghir, and Al-Qanuncheh shows the difference between the Aristotelian philosophical foundations of Al-Qanun al-Bu‘Ali and the content of the other two books (10).   8- The difference in views between the author of the Minor Canon and those of Avicenna is obvious. For example:   - While there was a well-known debate among philosophers about the heart-centeredness and the brain-centeredness between the two traditions of Aristotle and Galen, and Avicenna also went into it in detail in his works and presented a specific theory (11-12), the author of the Minor Canon, where he deals with the heart, is content with this phrase: “and it is the first organ to be created, according to Aristotle and Galen” (1).   - In the section describing the brain, the author of the Minor Canon considers three ventricles for the brain: the anterior one is the cause of imagination, the middle one is the thought in the essences of things, and the posterior one is the preservation and recollection of things (1). This is while Avicenna criticizes this tripartite view in the section on the esoteric perceptual powers of the book Al-Qanun and also in the books Al-Shifa, Al-Ishaarat, Al-Tanbihat and Al-Najāt, and tries to explain their position by presenting an alternative view based on the existence of five esoteric perceptual powers (13-14).   - In Al-Qanun, Avicenna has a specific interpretation of the two scientific and practical parts of medicine and insists on his interpretation with some phrases (8), while the author of Al-Qanun al-Saghir, without paying attention to the meticulousness of Sina’s logical views, has limited himself to introducing medical knowledge by simply stating that medicine is divided into science and practice (1).   - As a logician, Avicenna attaches special importance to “definition”, and the writing of a special book on his definitions is evidence of this claim (15). This is why Avicenna’s definition of medical knowledge has always been criticized and examined by medical thinkers and theorists until the following centuries (16). In contrast, the author of the Minor Law gives this definition of medicine: "Knowing the things that preserve and promote health."