The Canon of Medicine

so that he rightly arrogated the first place among the expositors to himself, and is alone called by the name of commentator. He stirred up the studies of the Latins and gave the occasion to many to investigate nature more sharply, who are celebrated for that reason today. For the doctrine of Averroes was so full of erudition that it even found followers who, in these present times, still defend his doctrines most fiercely, since they see in them not only a simple narration of Peripatetic doctrine, but also find the knots of all difficulties untied. For where his Greeks and Arabs do not seem to deviate from the straight path of philosophy, he follows them; but where they are convicted of having thought wrongly, he attacks them with many and indeed more powerful reasons. Wherefore, to be Greek, Latin, or Barbarian ought not, nor can it, prejudice clear-sighted men, or detract from their praises. It is established, however, that Avicenna, although he did not possess Greek letters, nevertheless greatly loved those skilled in Greek erudition: and with the help of interpreters, with great diligence and supreme study, he wished to imitate them by reading and meditating, as can be openly gathered from this work, in which we show the places he translated from Greek authors, and often reveals those falsified by the fault of the interpreters. Although he himself slipped at times through the fault of the interpreters, and this only in the names of certain herbs and animals, against which no one could have guarded, since the meanings of words are held by simple cognition and can be discerned only by those skilled in languages: But sentences arising from many words can be easily weighed and argued by those ignorant of the languages, whether they contain truth or falsehood, provided that the one who judges has attained a skill in the subject matter: therefore, we have taken pains to amend these lapses of words as much as we could, as will appear in the second and fourth book of this volume: To these things, I do not consider it the mark of an honorable man to condemn one in the aforementioned cause, just as those charlatans clearly do, crying out that this work should not be read because it abounds with many errors. Nor do they notice that this book, having been transcribed first many times and then printed, has contracted many blemishes: a fault which we clearly know to be common and peculiar to all ancient volumes.

Our oration is confirmed by Andreas Bellunensis Andrea Alpago of Belluno, who, having stayed in Syria for a long time and having mastered the language of the Arabs, sought out many manuscript copies from which he elicited the integrity of the writer, and thus consulted for his own glory and for posterity, from which it is gathered that the depravations which were found in this codex in previous years did not creep in through the fault of the author, but through the negligence of scribes and printers, all of which we have removed, having inserted the annotations of Andreas Bellunensis as if accepted from ancient copies. He demonstrates the places of the Greeks and other Arabs from which this excellent writer took his material, and the diligent reader will see these individual places sought out by us with long and great labor in the margins, and will take great fruit from them, for he will perceive the consensus of different physicians, which seems illustrious, and will apply indubitable faith to this writer, and will more easily understand what is said by whom: and he will know that, with perturbations of the mind removed, this so illustrious and almost unique assertor of medicine is undeservedly accused, neglected, and exploded: especially since he has so diligently unrolled the books of the Greeks: and, that it may be said by me with the peace of others, he has understood most things better than some men of our age who persuade themselves that they can measure the world with their own modules. There are not lacking those who object that all things collected in this volume were stolen from the writings of others, and that they can be read more conveniently in the proper authors for that reason. But if anyone wishes to weigh the matter more diligently, he will surely find that this is a calumny and not a true accusation, since it ought not to be given as a fault if anyone takes something from the writings of others which he adorns, which he explains, which he arranges in order, which, finally, he restores to its own place. This is to be considered the diligence of lesser men rather than to be called either theft or robbery, for it was allowed and will always be allowed to augment, cultivate, and render better the inventions of the ancients: But if this were to be given as a fault, who, I ask, would be held great in this age? Who has not translated many things from ancient authors into his own books? And that we may not seek an example from afar, did not the wonderful and lofty Aristotle receive from the ancients before him a great part of those things which are disseminated by him? Certainly: But if (as God and nature may permit) life remains to me for some years yet, I shall surely show, by comparing individual things with individual things, that almost all the things treated by him in logic, physics, and metaphysics were taken from the Dialogues of Plato. Or if all the books of the physicians who preceded Galen were extant, would we doubt that he enriched himself from the wealth of others? What is there in Hippocrates that is not transcribed by Galen? Now indeed, Dioscorides, Damocrates, Archigenes, Soranus, Asclepiades, and many others are described by him in his own words. Wherefore, what is customary for all, and rightly customary, should not be turned into a fault for Avicenna, if he arranges all things which had been delivered sparsely by Galen into an order and an excellent series, and so much the less, the more books of Galen he excerpted which we do not have now, which would have perished entirely if they had not migrated translated into this work: from these, the malignancy or rather blindness of some can be best perceived, who do not notice that, while they desire to detract from this writer, they are cursing Galen himself, whom they love most of all, for all the things which had been heaped together in Galen, here, replaced in their own places, they consist. Therefore, Avicenna cannot be vituperated while Galen is commended, since the cause of both is so closely joined, as is most connected. What? That many simple and compound remedies are described here not yet perhaps noticed by the Greeks, as can be easily gathered from their books, in which there is no mention of...