مجله تاریخ علم
سال سیزدهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 19، پاییز و زمستان 1394)

Aydimīr ibn ʿAlī Jildakī's Kitāb al-Burhān fī Asrār ‘Ilm al-Mīzān is a commentary on Jābir ibn Ḥayyān's Kitāb al-Ḥadīd (“The Book of Iron”) in which Jābir talks about the nature of Iron and its reactions, ʿIlm al-Iksīr (the science of Elixir) and ʿIlm al-Mīzān (the science of the Balance), It also contains important descriptions of the production of Iron and Steel. Jildakī underlines that he follows the Jaberian literature in his work but he believes that the exposition of Jābir is non-argumentative and tries to rectify this defect. He mentions other alchemists: Ibn Umail, ʿIrāqī, Apollonius of Tyana (Balinas) and Ibn Arfaʿ and argues about Razi’s opinions. Jildakī notes Jābir’s method for measuring magnetic force of magnetic stones by the natural Balance. In addition, he presents a detailed description of the structure of the Compass and explains the magic properties of minerals and herbs and Talisman.

The story of Archimedes and the crown is narrated by Vitruvius but he doesn’t explain how Archimedes succeeded to solve the problem. Menelaus speaks about Archimedes’ balance that’s an instrument for solving the problem. Later scholars were conscious of the difficulties of making such an instrument and doing exact experiments by it and so they tried to find another method. Menelaus found some mathematical methods for solving this problem. For solving the problem by these methods, we need some input data concerning the weights of three equi-volume pieces of pure metals and their alloy, but the scholars were aware of difficulties of casting such pieces. Aḥmad ibn Faḍl invented a casting method for making equi-volume pieces but Bīrūnī says that this method isn’t sufficiently precise. Bīrūnī’s efforts for finding the weights of equi-volume pieces result in inventing an instrument that he calls the “conic-shaped instrument”. After gathering the data, Bīrūnī decided to use this instrument for knowing gems. His method and the results of his experiments are reported in his treatise Fī al-Nisab allatī Bayn al-Filizzāt wa al-Jawāhir fī al-Ḥajm. In this article the efforts of Bīrūnī for improving Bukhārī’s method and the effect of these efforts on Bīrūnī’s mineralogy are explained.

In Islamic era several remarkable works have been written about perfumes and their properties. Among them, the similarities between the structure and content of Kitab al-Ṭīb Attributed to al-Khāzin, Mukhtaṣar fī al-Ṭīb Attributed to Ibn Kaysān and Risāla fī Uṣūl al-Ṭīb Attributed to Ibn Mandawayh are so evident that they can be considered as three versions of a single work. Usually perfumery works that have been written by physicians mention the medicinal properties of the parfumes, but the author of this work is less concerned with such properties. This fact can indicate that the author was not a physician while we know that Ibn Mandawayh and Ibn Kaysān were both physicians. Moreover, according to the introduction to the treatise, the author’s purpose is to prepare a work that would be useful for kings’ treasuries. This presumes that al-Khāzin who according to his title was a treasurer, could be the right author. In addition, comparison of scribal variants of these three versions of the treatise shows that they have a common origin. Based on some codicological evidence, all the three versions are copied from a manuscript that was written by al-Khāzin; if so, the attribution of the treatise to the others has wrongly been done by scribes.

Pedanius Dioscorides is a famous Greek physician, pharmacologist, botanist who lived in the first century AD, and is considered as one of the most influential authorities on Islamic pharmacology. He was the author of De Materia Medica (usually known as al-Ḥashāʾish in Islamic period), a five-volume Greek encyclopedia about herbal medicine and related medicinal substances, in the third volume, he studies the plants in a more systematic manner. He uses not only a qualitative classification, but also a biological one. He mentions close to each other plants with similar medicinal properties and biological forms. For example, he lists consecutively the members of Mentha (mint) genus and families such as Papilionaceae (bean family), Umbelliferae (celery family), Compositae (daisy family) and Solanacese (nightshades). These divisions correspond partly to biological classification in recent centuries.

On the Origin of Species,the most influential among Charles Darwin’s works, was published in 1859 and became wellknown and was translated into 11 languages in a short time. Nevertheless the book was not translated into Persian until 1939/1318. This paper tries to make a comparative study on the Persian translations to explain the encounter between “us” and “them”. This paper claims that in the absence of the complete precise translation of the book, “we” always misunderstand Darwin’s Theory. In this article, Persian and Arabic translations of the book are reviewed and their similarities and differences with the English editions, especially the first and the 6th editions, studied.

In studying botany in the Islamic civilization three groups of texts are worthy of mention: plant books (Kutub al-Nabāt), agriculture books (Kutub al-Falāḥa), and pharmacopoeia (Kutub al-Adwīya). The last group consists of some medical books containing a major part on medicinal plants. In each group of these texts the content has been presented by specific methods and arrangements. Even if the authors remain silent about their methods of classification of the plants, one can have some idea, by scrutinizing these methods and arrangements, of the way these texts think about diverse species and genera of plants. However, in another level of analysis, if we focus on the way these texts describe the general features of the palnts, we can show that some concepts which play a role in the constitution of these classifications, and are taken as evident or as given, are in need of a better scrutiny. Based on some examples, this article tries to show that in order to achieve a more accurate analysis it is necessary to take into account both levels. For this purpose the canon of botany till 14th century will be studied.