Arabic manuscripts in the libraries of McGill University: Union Catalogue

bark". Dietrich provides eleven notes to Ibn al-Baitar's commentary and, as he does in all entries, attempts to identify the plant in modern nomenclature. In this instance, however, Dietrich says, "The plant's identification is very doubtful, perhaps impossible to know". And, he references his discussion of the plant in his Dioscurides triumphans. The reverse happens as well. As an illustration, the plant, liiqganta (Greek: lenkakantha, III. 19, p. 158), Ibn al-Baitar glossed, "A thorny plant that I do not know." In his note, Dietrich says that it is "vielleicht" Cirsium tuberosum L. and may be other related species of the Composite family. At times, Dietrich is more precise than the evidence should allow. For example, he says that qinamumun or cinnamon (I. 14, p. 43) is Cinnamomum ceylanicum Nees, but neither he nor Ibn al-Baitar could have known the exact species. Various cinnamon species were routinely interchanged and, besides, the plants were not known as a whole. Its bark, often ground, was an import item. Although botany was the focus of Ibn al-Baitir's research, occasionally he related data on therapeutics. The reason is apparently because the plant usage could help with identification. For example, the white peony (III. 135, p. 208) is the kind employed against epilepsy. The chaste tree (aknus, I. 104, p. 75) causes one to sleep, thereby interrupting sexual desire. On this Ibn al-Baitar may have been a greater linguist than pharmacist because he knew that agnos in Greek meant "fruitless". He may have surmised that it repressed sexual desire whereas its effect was as an anti-fertility agent, not a soporific. The question arises as to why the commentary deals only with Books 1-4 of Dioscorides' De materia medica. Is the manuscript incomplete or did Ibn al-Baitar intentionally omit Book Five? Dietrich believes the latter because the book contained medicines with wine. Ibn al-Baitar's Islamic scruples caused the omission. This reviewer doubts the hypothesis, because his larger work, Kitab al-dami, contained mineral drugs that are discussed in Dioscorides' Book Five (and more prominently than wine-based drugs). Second, there are compelling medical reasons not to exclude alcohol-based medicines. Some plants have their active ingredients soluble only in alcohol, a fact that some physicians of the time knew empirically. Third, Ibn al-Baitar is called a botanist in the prefatory prayer to his work. Dietrich may be correct about the intentional exclusion of a commentary on Book Five, but his …