The Canon of Medicine (1522) - Page 23

he calls the mel roris honey of dew/manna. Avicenna, however, says in another place that zucharum sugar is a species of haoscer a type of manna. Nor does it oppose this that honey is produced almost everywhere and is the work of bees, whereas manna is found in few places and is a gift of nature. Since, if this argument were valid to prove that manna ought not to be reduced under the heading of honey, it would also be proven regarding sugar. Sugar, which in the time of Dioscorides was found in India and in Happy Arabia in reeds, is counted among the species of honey not only by Dioscorides but also by Galen, both of which authors wrote in the same chapter concerning both. Wherefore, Avicenna seems to have distinguished sale indo Indian salt (concerning which Dioscorides writes) not only from honey but also from sugar.

¶ The Ninth Erratum: Concerning sugar candy and Indian salt.

In the fourth book of the Canon, Avicenna notes zuccarum tabarzeth sugar candy/hard sugar and sale indo Indian salt as remedies that act upon the roughness of the tongue. However, he assigns zuccarum tabarzeth to roughness which proceeds from viscosity, but sale indo to that which proceeds from dryness, to such a degree that it appears Avicenna considers sale indo to be something other than zuccarum tabarzeth. Yet the expositors of Avicenna, such as Gentilis and Herculanus, understand sale indo as sugar candy. But truly, their exposition is repugnant to the words of Avicenna, who says in the fourth book of the Canon regarding the roughness of the tongues of those suffering from fever: "The salt which is brought from India is in the color of salt and the sweetness of honey." Avicenna understands this, just as Paulus from whom Avicenna took this remedy in almost the same words, as white salt which is mixed into food as a condiment. Zuccarum candi sugar candy, however, is not entirely white in color, but rather somewhat yellowish. Furthermore, it could be asked of Avicenna and his expositors: Why does zuccarum tabarzeth have efficacy against roughness which proceeds from viscosity, yet zuccarum candi, according to the same Avicenna in the fifteenth book of the Canon, has the power of softening against the other kind of roughness which occurs from dryness, with zuccarum tabarzeth? This is established by no authority or reason regarding zuccarum candi unless we understand it as red sugar candy, because according to Avicenna, red sugar is more potent in its softening power. However, zuccarum candi is distinguished from red sugar even among younger physicians; nevertheless, zuccarum candi is a manufactured thing, of which the matter is white sugar. That which is more worthy of investigation is whether zuccarum candi ought to be exhibited to those suffering from fever to soothe their thirst by being held in the mouth, as many do. For there is no hope that sugar is suitable for extinguishing thirst, unless perhaps zuccarum haoscer, which is a certain species of manna, based on the authority of Avicenna who writes these words in the second book of the Canon concerning zuccarum haoscer: "It indeed causes thirst just as the other species of sugar, because its sweetness is small, and it is good for the stomach and the liver." From which words we can gather two things: zuccarum haoscer, which is the manna falling upon the aluser an herb/plant, is a thing like a grain of salt, and it is also sugar, and yet it is also noted as manna. Furthermore, the remaining species of sugar cause thirst by their excessive sweetness, except for that which is named zuccarum haoscer. Wherefore, since zuccarum candi is a

form of sugar different from zuccarum haoscer, it does not seem to have the efficacy to extinguish thirst. And if we wish to confess the truth, Montagniana cites Avicenna poorly in the fourth chapter of his work on the cure of thirst in fevers. For in that chapter there are no words from which we could gather anything concerning zuccarum candi as being nominated by Avicenna among other remedies for the extinguishing of thirst.

¶ The Tenth Erratum: Concerning the chameleon, ixia, and mezereon.

In the fourth book of the Canon, Avicenna attributes to mezereon spurge-olive (that is, chamelea chamelea plant) the accidents and remedies which are assigned by Paulus to the root of the poisonous black chameleon. And this is what we intend to prove above all: that Avicenna erred in the same way with ixia mistletoe, by counting it among poisons in the fourth book, just as in the same book he accepted the mezereon for the black chameleon, having been deceived by the similarity of the names. But just as Avicenna is inconsistent with himself while writing about mezereon in several places—sometimes making the white and black chameleon to be species of mezereon and dealing with them together with chamelea in the same chapter, and sometimes treating the white and black chameleon separately—so he refers ixia the poison to different chapters in the fourth book. One he refers to as mistletoe, the other as thephisia a plant/gum, which he interprets as the gum of mountain rue. Here he involves himself in many errors. The first error is of false exposition, which is also found in the second book of the Canon in the chapter on Thephi, where thephisia is likewise exposed as the gum of wild rue, an error which Montagniana followed in part in a certain commentary in which he advises that a remedy made from a black snake be applied to a leprous man, with which he orders to combine thephisia humida fresh thephisia. Montagniana, however, explaining thephisia, says that it is wild rue, and if it is lacking, he orders that cultivated or domestic rue be applied in its place. Had Montagniana compared the chapter on thephisia in the second book with the chapter on tapsia in Dioscorides, he would have undoubtedly understood that this name thephisia was corrupted in Avicenna and that thephisia was written instead of tapsia, whence the false exposition had its origin from an error in the text. Another error exists in Avicenna, since he attributes to thephisia (that is, the gum of wild rue) those effects which Dioscorides and Paulus attribute to the poisonous iria a plant. The third error, which is indeed far graver than the others, is that Avicenna contradicts himself regarding thephisia: for in the second book of the Canon, in the chapter on thephisia, he writes that its root is a purgative, but in the fourth book, concerning the same thephisia, he says it binds the bowels, which are contrary effects.

¶ The end of the books on the Errors and

corrections of Avicenna by Lord

Symphorianus Camperius, knight.