Liber II.

Annotations of Lord Symphorien Champier upon Avicenna, Third Book, On Nil, Chapter 1.

Avicenna, who was more studious in narrating the powers and properties of plants than in indicating their appearances: since he himself also writes of isatis woad in three places under the name nil indigo, he rightly brings about a suspicion that he also wavered and was uncertain as to what isatis was. For in the letter N, he writes the same things about nil that Dioscorides writes about isatis, since he divides it in the same way into cultivated and wild, and attributes to the herb nil almost the same powers and properties that Dioscorides attributes to isatis. But again, the same Avicenna in the letter G writes thus: guasmein a transliterated term for a plant part is the leaf of nil; and he adds certain other things that he had declared in the letter N regarding the same leaf. He adds only one thing: that it dyes the hair. Yet, in these matters, he appears to differ neither from himself nor from Dioscorides and the truth itself. Concerning the grain emnil, he writes thus: The grain nil is Indian carthamus safflower. Then he adds many properties that pertain in no way to isatis, for which Avicenna had referred to nil or nigel in the letter N. Mesue also, noting this error, where he writes of carthamus, says that some have falsely thought carthamus to be the grain nil. There is no less confusion among Matthaeus Silvaticus in his aforementioned books regarding these same things and names. Wherefore, you shall read him if you are permitted to do so with your own eyes.

Avicenna, Fen 16 of the third book, in the chapter on the excoriation of ulcers, makes mention of a certain herb which he names the dyer's herb and citrina citron-colored/yellow, whose juice is drunk and, when administered as a clyster enema, he writes that it is beneficial for intestinal ulcers. I do not think he refers to any other herb than lysimachia loosestrife, whose juice of the leaves—whether drunk or injected via clyster—Dioscorides says is beneficial for those suffering from dysentery. Gentilis, the interpreter of Avicenna, is more studious in cutting Avicenna's words into parts; he does best there where he declares the third sense of them, which would be more useful to physicians. He treats neither this dyer's herb, citrina, nor the other which Avicenna immediately thereafter adds as having the same effect, but he says it is called alacohen by some. He himself thinks it is pes corvi crow’s foot, of which others before him, as he himself testifies, had said that Hippocrates understood the leaves of the fig tree by alacohen. Wherefore Gentilis passed over these herbs without explanation, as if bringing little notice of their utility.

A certain new expositor of Avicenna says that the dyer's herb is memite, with whose juice dyers are accustomed to work. Concerning this memite, he says the Prince Avicenna testifies that it is cold and dry in the first degree, and that it has much astringency. He explains in the synonyms of Avicenna that it is chelidonia celandine, but this is not true, as Simon of Genoa testifies. Does this expositor not show us an unknown thing through a thing more unknown, or at least equally unknown? When he says the dyer's herb is memite, he has taught us not what memite is, but rather what it is not. For I know the true memite, which Dioscorides calls glaucium horned poppy, and to

the ailments of the eyes it is praised, but it is ignored by almost all the physicians of our age, who instead use another herb, similar indeed but not possessing the same property, which the Latins call papaver cornutum horned poppy. But let us assume it is the true memite or glaucium. Yet, it is not the case that either the Arabic authors concerning memite or the Greeks concerning glaucium have reported that this herb is what is used by the infected physicians. Nor is the fact that Avicenna writes that memite is cold and dry in the first degree a sufficiently effective argument to prove that memite is the dyer's herb, of which Avicenna makes mention in Fen 16 of the third book, in the chapter on the excoriation of the intestines. For there are many such herbs possessing these qualities, which, however, we do not for that reason say are the same; nor do we think that the dyer's herb and the citrina named by Avicenna possess the same use in medicine.

Concerning the herb called by Avicenna pes alacohen, the expositor of Avicenna writes that he thinks it is the herb called by physicians pes corvi crow's foot, of which he says concerning pes corvinus that the root of this herb, when cooked, helps with ancient solutio loosening/diarrhea/flux. But the root of this herb, which our apothecaries call pes corvi, is caustic and ulcerating. The Prince does not speak of that here; rather, he says precipitously that some have said that Hippocrates understood the leaves of the fig by alacohen, which are of no use in the present case, because they sting and excoriate through a milkiness hidden within them. The new expositor of Avicenna relates almost all these things word for word, not declaring this herb, or even the previous one, any better to us through his exposition. Perhaps, however, he should be less ashamed of having ignored this second one—namely, the pes corvini of which Avicenna speaks—since Avicenna himself, such a great physician otherwise, either doubted or did not even know what it was. As he plainly confesses his own ignorance in many other herbs, so too in the second book of the Canon, he speaks not only ambiguously but even contradictorily concerning this very herb, which is called pes corvini. These are the words of Avicenna there concerning pes corvini: "Pes corvinus is a member-expulsive. The root of this herb helps with an ancient solutio. And Paul said that some... especially colica colic, and it performs the operations of hermodactyli colchicum/meadow saffron without harm." I, however, do not know how the root of pes corvini can help with an ancient solutio and perform the operation of hermodactyli, which are sufficiently powerful in purging, unless perhaps Avicenna elsewhere instructed that a solutio should not be done on [a patient]... but here he treats a solutio with a solutio. Those, however, who said Paul and others [spoke of it] say that it helps with colic and performs the operation. But in Fen 22 of the third book, in the chapter on the solutio of podagra gout, Avicenna testifies, based on the authority of the same Paul, that it is useful not for colic but for gout. They said, Paul and others, that it helps with colic and performs the operation of them without harm. Then he adds: "The root of pes corvini, which we have here, applied externally, gnaws; and I have frequently done this upon the foot of him who was ailing, who had an epidemic bochium swelling in the groin, upon which an ampulla blister was rising, which, when broken, let out poisonous venom; whence the other was healed, but I did not dare to give this..." The text ends mid-sentence.