The Arabic Origin of Summa Perfectionis Magisterii

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

6/12 7/13 8/14

Number of

% of

dated MSS

extant

6 4 18

MSS 2 1.4 6.2

9/15 10/16 11.17 12/18 13/19 14/20 Total

17 104 80 13 36 12 290

6 36 27.5 4.5 12.4 4 100

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, ‫ كتاب الهبة‬pp. 174-175 gives a 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،‫لوزورد‬ ‫ عقيق‬، ‫ روسختج‬، ‫شاذنة‬. The two lists (of Geber and Jabir) are nearly identical. 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, ‫ كتاب الليلة‬p. 197). This is shown below.

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 PseudoGeber (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 ‫ ألعلي‬and the Glorious Most High ‫ ال عز وجل‬،‫ي العظيم‬ ّ ‫ العل‬. Blessed Most High is ‫ تبارك وتعالى‬. All these are Qur’anic expressions. 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 الملك‬ 7]‫]من تشاء وتنزع الملك عمن تشاء وتعز من تشاء وتذل من تشاء‬ 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: ‫ وبضدها تتميز الشياء‬. 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: ‫العجلة من الشيطان‬

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: ‫ بسم ال الرحمن الرحيم‬. p. 9: God willing ‫ان شاء ال‬ p. 9: God enrich you ‫أصلحك ال‬ p,9: May the Creator be praised ‫وال المحمود‬ p.9: There is no strength save in great God most high ‫ل حول ول قوة إل بال ألعلي‬ ‫العظيم‬ p.11: Almighty God ‫ال تعالى‬ p. 33: great God most high ‫ألعلي العظيم‬ 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. The English translation of Stavenhagen from Latin corresponded very well with the original Arabic text. [10]

[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. ‫جابر ابن حيان الصوفي‬ 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, [3] Cassell’s

Ernst, Die Alchemie Des Geber, Reprint, Berlin, 1978, p. 134

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 PseudoGeber. 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] ‫ كتاب المنفعة‬or the Book of Benefit.

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

[6]

1988 -‫كتاب تدبير الكسير العظم – اربعة عشرة رسالة في الكيمياء لجابر بن حيان – حققها بيير لوري – دمشق‬

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 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 1945 genannt wird. Der Titel lautet dort: „Gebri Arabis Philosophi Solertissimi ..Liber Fornacum. Interprete [4] Rodogero Hispalensi "] This reads: [The note 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 PseudoGeber 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.

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. [2]

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. [3]

[4]

Interprete means translator

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.. [5]

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

[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 and the 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 s o m e 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 hidden , in the mαgistery of this work, but each in manifest 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

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

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 ‫ه‬den. See also Holmyard, E. J., “The Present Position of the Geber Problem”, Science Progress in the Twentieth Century, (London), 19, 1924 -1925,, pp. 415-426, [3]

[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

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

‫الباطن‬

[7]

[8] ‫ الظاهر‬manifest. W. Newman comments in The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber: A Critical Edition, 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 pseudoAristotle 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”

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., [11]

[12]

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

Sulphur-Mercury Theory in Kitab al-Idah ‫كتاب الضيضاح‬

The Occult and Manifest Principle in Kitab al-Sab’in ‫كتاب السبعين‬ 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 التدبير على جهتين وسبيلين احدهما بالحراق بالنار والرخر بالتصدئة بالشياء‬... ‫ثم ان تكليسها‬ .‫الحادة والمالحة الكالة‬