Medical Summaries in Islam
Beyond translation
Starting in the eighth century, mainly Christian translators rendered in the course of the next two hundred years the bulk of the available ancient Greek philosophical, scientific and medical literature into Arabic (Gutas 1998; Endress 1987, 1992). The translator and physician 岣nayn ibn Is岣ツ乹 (d. 873) and his associates created the vast majority of medical translations, an achievement described in the famous Epistle (al-Ris膩lah, Bergstr盲脽er 1925, 1932), a treatise on Arabic and Syriac Galen translations 岣nayn addressed to one of his patrons.
The original Arabic-language medical summaries we shall study were written in large numbers during this same period. Most were the work of leading medical authorities or doctor-philosophers and polymaths such as 岣nayn, al-R膩z墨/Rhazes (d. 925), Ibn Ru拧d/Averroes (d. 1198) and Maimonides (d. 1204). They belong to a culture that was obsessed with writing and reading (Rosenthal 1961; Hirschler 2012; Eche 1967) and operated in a cosmopolitan culture 茅crite with a highly developed infrastructure of stationers, copyists and booksellers (Montgomery 2013, 3).
The summaries defined the medical knowledge regarded as essential for practitioners, facilitated learning and memorising, demonstrated authors鈥� and readers鈥� medical credentials, and often spread new ideas in the highly creative and competitive environment sometimes dubbed the 鈥済olden age鈥� of Islamic science.
Greek works and Arabic summaries
The writings of four Greek authors were summarised in particular: Galen, Hippocrates, Dioscurides (d. ca. 90 CE) and Paul of Aegina (d. ca. 690 CE). Galen accounts for the vast majority of the effort: including some three dozen Greek summaries translated into Arabic, more than 200 Arabic Galen summaries are known.
Some authors composed entire series of summaries: 岣nayn wrote several such sets; 19 of the 43 summaries ascribed to him are extant. Others include 峁乥it ibn Qurrah (d. 901; Rashed 2009, 3–24), a prominent mathematician and astronomer, with 9 extant summaries out of 23 recorded; the philosopher-physician Ibn Zur士ah (d. 1008) wrote 4 surviving summaries; another philosopher-physician, Ibn al-峁琣yyib (d. 1043; Ferrari 2006, 17–31), penned 11 summaries, 10 of which are preserved; the Cairene physician Ibn Ri岣峸膩n (d. 1061; Das 2017) produced 11 surviving summaries of Galen鈥檚 Hippocratic commentaries (e.g. ed. Lyons 1963, 100–122); for the philosopher Ibn Ru拧d (al-士膧law墨 1986, Druart 1994), 7 out of 8 known summaries are extant (ed. Anawati 1987 and V谩zquez de Benito 1984, tr. Anawati and Ghalioungui 1986); the philosopher and physician Maimonides (Davidson 2010) wrote 6 preserved summaries; in the case of the Iraqi physician 士Abd al-La峁玣 al-Ba摹d膩d墨 (d. 1231; Martini Bonadeo 2013, Joosse and Pormann 2010), none of the 9 summaries attributed to him has so far been discovered.
Another set of Arabic Galen summaries goes under the name of John the Grammarian or Ya岣膩 al-Na岣墨. According to the prevailing scholarly consensus, the author was a late Alexandrian medical teacher (Gannag茅 2012, 554–558, 562–563; Garofalo 2000; Overwien 2012) writing in Greek whose summaries were translated into Arabic, which is the only version extant today. These are concise abridgements reflecting the medical syllabus (Pormann 2003, 238, 243). There are, however, indications that they are original Arabic writings, for example the remarkably close relationship some of these summaries bear to the Arabic translations of the Alexandrian Summaries.
As part of the project, the team will edit and translate several such series of summaries and analyse their relationship between the corresponding Galen base texts and Alexandrian Summary, namely those ascribed to Ya岣膩 al-Na岣墨 (Uwe Vagelpohl), 峁乥it ibn Qurrah (Ignacio S谩nchez) and Ibn al-峁琣yyib (Nicholas Aubin).
Geographic and chronological spread
Summaries were written over a wide geographical area, from Islamic Spain to Egypt, Syria and Iraq. The network of scholars and physicians who authored and read these texts covered several linguistic communities, including speakers of Greek, Arabic, Syriac and Persian, and different faiths, including Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sabians.
About 65 summaries can be placed in the ninth century, more than a dozen in the tenth, almost 30 in the eleventh, more than a dozen in the twelfth and 9 in the thirteenth. Thereafter production slowed down considerably. The noticeable decline after the eleventh century reflects a fundamental shift in Islamic medicine: with the publication of the major medical writings of the Persian physician and philosopher Ibn S墨n膩/Avicenna (d. 1037), Islamic medicine had matured its synthesis of Galenism. Medical scholars now turned to Ibn S墨n膩 first, and a majority of them summarised his works as compulsively as they had summarised Galen before (Pormann and Savage-Smith 2007, 71).
Galen summarised
Which Galen texts were summarised? About half of the around 120 Galen writings known and available in Arabic translation were summarised. Some works were summarised once or twice, others again and again for several centuries. Overall, Arabic physicians followed the lead of the late Greek curriculum: of the eighteen Galen writings that attracted most summaries, fourteen were part of the Sixteen Books.
Arabic authors were well aware of the gaps in this syllabus and extended the range of summarised works to include medical fields absent from the Alexandrian curriculum such as pharmacology and dietetics. The philosopher Ibn al-岣猘mm膩r (d. 1020) notes:
鈥淚 believe [the Alexandrians] were remiss in their choice of material, because they did not discuss nutrition, drugs or climate 鈥� and they were also at fault in the sequence of subjects they followed, for Galen had started with anatomy, then proceeded to faculties and functions and only then to the elements.鈥� (Tibi 2010, 41, slightly modified)
Summaries and medical teaching
At the time the summaries were written medical teaching largely consisted of a practical component, an apprenticeship to a physician (from the tenth century onwards, in a hospital), and a theoretical component. Medical theory was taught in lecture circles where students read texts with a teacher who explained difficult passages and took questions (Pormann and Savage-Smith 2007, 82–83; B眉rgel 2016, 107–108). The medical historian Ibn Ab墨 U峁ybi士ah (d. 1270) collected reports about many such circles. One of his sources attended that of an older contemporary of 岣nayn, Y奴岣nna ibn M膩sawayh (d. 857) who himself wrote a Summary of Medicine (铅膩mi士 al-峁璱bb):
鈥淭he teaching of Y奴岣nn膩 ibn M膩sawayh attracted the largest audience of any I have seen in the city of Baghdad ... for every type of educated person assembled there. Y奴岣nn膩 was endowed with a great capacity for being funny, which was the reason why the gatherings were so large. ... His teaching was especially enjoyable ... when he examined phials of urine.鈥� (M眉ller 1884, 175–176)
The use of summaries in medical education is well attested. Summaries in general (and the 鈥楢lexandrian Summaries鈥� in particular) were frequently remarked on by medical authorities, including the ninth-century physician al-Ruh膩w墨 (Gutas 1998, 92–93), al-R膩z墨 (Iskandar 1976, 241–242; al-R膩z墨 1955–1971, XVI: 189), Ibn al-岣猘mm膩r (Tibi 2010, 41–42), his student, Ibn Hind奴 (d. 1029; Tibi 2010, 41–42), Ibn Ri岣峸膩n (Iskandar 1976, 241–242), his Cairene colleague Ibn 铅umay士 (d. 1198; F盲hndrich 1983, 25, 27–29/Ar.), and 士Abd al-La峁玣 al-Ba摹d膩d墨 (Joosse and Pormann 2010, 21–23).
While most recognised the value of summaries, if sometimes grudgingly, some blamed them for distorting Galen鈥檚 science. They alleged they promoted laziness among students and allowed quacks to pass themselves off as physicians. This ambiguous role led some authorities to commend summaries as valuable tools while others saw them as illegitimate shortcuts and symptoms of decline. Ibn Ri岣峸膩n鈥檚 verdict is especially harsh:
鈥淚 believe that summaries, and the commentaries I have mentioned before, are the main reason why the best qualities of medicine have become extinct: students waste many years of their lives studying them but do not understand the art properly. On the contrary, these books fill their souls with errors and mistakes.鈥� (Ibn Ri岣峸膩n, The Nobility of Medicine, ms. Istanbul, S眉leymaniye, Hekimo臒lu Ali Pa艧a 691, fol. 120r7–9)
Summaries in everyday use
Other audiences appreciated additional practical advantages. The Egyptian historian al-Qif峁� (d. 1248) reports that summaries were both easier to memorise than the originals and easier to carry (Gutas 1999, 170), which suggests that doctors used them as 补颈诲别蝉-尘茅尘辞颈谤别 when visiting patients. When he compiled the notes and excerpts that became his Comprehensive Book (al-Kit膩b al-岣ツ亀墨), al-R膩z墨 used summaries instead of originals and explicitly praised their usefulness (al-R膩z墨 1955–1971, XVI: 189,4–8). Members of the general public probably used summaries to acquire a basic knowledge of Galen, which was regarded as an essential part of a well-rounded education.