The Rhetorical Strategies In The Arabic Commentaries On The
Hippocratic Aphorisms
An Exploration Of Metadiscourse In Medieval Medical Arabic
A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the Faculty of Humanities
2016
Elaine van Dalen
School of Arts, Languages and Cultures
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
2
List of Manuscripts
7
Abstract
8
Declaration
9
Copyright Statement
10
Notes on Transliteration, Dates, and Translations
11
Acknowledgment
12
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
13
1.1
Thesis Statement
13
1.2
Research Setting
14
1.3
Research Background: The Corpus
14
1.4
Research Questions
16
1.5
Theoretical Background: Style, Register, and Genre
17
1.6
Literature Review
20
1.7
Chapter Outline
23
CHAPTER II SUBJECTIVITY
2.1
25
Introduction
25
2.1.1 Theoretical Framework
27
2.1.2 Scope
32
2.2
Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIshāq versus Galen
34
2.3
Subjectivity in Ḥunayn’s Translation
40
2.3.1 Endophoric markers: Category B
42
2.3.2 Frame markers: Category C
44
2.3.3 Stance: Category A
46
2.3.4 Verbs of Personal Experience: Category D
48
2.3.5 Impersonal Verbs: Category E
50
2.3.6 Conclusion
52
2.4
Subjectivity in the Corpus
53
2.4.1 Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
56
2.4.2 Ibn al-Quff
59
2.4.3 Al-Manāwī
64
2.4.4 As-Siwāsī
68
&2
2.4.5 As-Sinǧārī
70
2.4.6 Al-Baġdādī
75
2.4.7 An-Nīlī
79
2.5
Discussion
80
CHAPTER III THE READER
3.1
84
Introduction
84
3.1.1 Literature Review
84
3.1.2 Scope of Chapter
86
3.1.3 Method
86
3.2
Identifying the Reader
88
3.2.1 Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq
89
3.2.2 Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
92
3.2.3 As-Sinǧārī
93
3.2.4 Al-Baġdādī
94
3.2.5 Ibn al-Quff
95
3.2.6 An-Nīlī
96
3.3
The Form and Function of ‘You-forms’ in the Corpus
97
3.3.1 Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq
98
3.3.2 Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
104
3.3.3 Al-Manāwī
106
3.3.4 Al-Baġdādī
107
3.3.5 Ibn al-Quff
109
3.3.6 As-Sinǧārī
110
3.3.7 As-Siwāsī
112
3.4
Conclusion
114
CHAPTER IV EPISTEMIC MODALITY AND HEDGES: EXPRESSIONS OF
CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY
4.1
Introduction
117
117
4.1.1 Literature Review
117
4.1.2 Epistemic Modality
118
4.1.3 Method
119
4.2
Epistemic Markers in the Corpus
119
4.3
Uncertainty Markers
122
4.3.1 {fa-yumkinu + ʾan}
123
&3
4.3.2 {yaǧūzu + ʾan}
126
4.3.3 {fa-ḫalīq + ʾan}
128
4.3.4 {wa-yušbihu + ʾan}
129
4.3.5 laʿalla
131
4.3.6 {wa-yuḥtamalu + ʾan}
133
4.4
Certainty Markers
134
4.4.1 wa-lā šakk
135
4.4.2 {wa-min + al-bayyini}
137
4.4.3 {wa-min + al-maʿlūm + ʾan}
141
4.4.4 {yaẓhuru + ʾan}
141
4.4.5 {ẓāhirun + ʾan}
142
4.4.6 {wa-ẓāhiru + l-ḥāl + ʾan}
143
4.4.7 {al-ẓāhiru + ʾan}
143
4.4.8 {wa-ẓāhiru + l-ʾamru + ʾan}
144
4.5
Conclusion
144
CHAPTER V COHESION PART I: DISCOURSE MARKERS
5.1
Introduction
146
146
5.1.1 Theoretical Background
147
5.1.2 Arabic Connectives
150
5.2
The Conjunctions wa- and fa-
155
5.3
Conjunction in Ḥunayn’s Translation
158
5.3.1 Additive Markers
160
5.3.2 Elaborative Markers in Ḥunayn’s Translation
164
5.3.3 Causal Markers in Ḥunayn’s Translation
170
5.3.4 Comparative Markers in Ḥunayn’s Translation
172
5.3.5 Contrastive Markers in Ḥunayn’s Translation
177
5.4
Conjunction in the Corpus
179
5.4.1 Additive Markers in the Corpus
180
5.4.2 Causal Markers in the Corpus
183
5.4.3 Elaborative Markers in the Corpus
187
5.4.4 Contrastive Markers in the Corpus
193
5.4.5 Comparative Markers in the Corpus
194
5.5
Conclusion
197
&4
CHAPTER VI COHESION PART II: FRAME MARKERS AND ENDOPHORIC
REFERENCE
6.1
Introduction
199
6.1.1 Theoretical Framework
6.2
199
200
Introductions within the Corpus
201
6.2.1 Introductions by Author
201
6.2.2 The Eight ‘Headings’
205
6.2.3 Comparison
207
6.3
Frame Markers
209
6.3.1 Openings of Comment Sections
209
6.3.2 Macro-level Text Structuring within Comments
210
6.3.3 Endings of Comments, Chapters, and Commentaries
215
6.4
Endophoric References
219
6.4.1 Searching for Endophoric References
220
6.4.2 Endophoric References in Ḥunayn’s Translation
225
6.4.3 Endophoric References in the Corpus
227
6.5
Conclusion
230
CHAPTER VII CONDITIONALS AND TEMPORALS
7.1
Introduction
232
232
7.1.1 Theoretical Background: Conditionals and Temporals
233
7.1.2 Classical Arabic Conditionals
235
7.2
Conditionals in Galen’s Commentary
236
7.2.1 Simple Present and Past Conditional Sentences
237
7.2.2 General Truth Statements
238
7.2.3 Unreal Conditions
240
7.2.4 More vivid future
243
7.2.5 Emotive Future
244
7.2.6 Less Vivid Future
245
7.2.7 Summary Conditionals
246
7.3
Temporals
249
7.3.1 Ὅταν
249
7.3.2 Ἐπεί
250
7.3.3 Ἐπήν
251
7.3.4 Ἐπειδή
252
&5
7.3.5 Ἐπειδάν
252
7.3.6 Ὅκου
253
7.3.7 Ἡνίκα
254
7.4
Other Conditionals Sentences in Ḥunayn’s Translation
254
7.4.1 ʾiḏā
255
7.4.2 matā
258
7.4.3 ʾin
260
7.4.4 law
260
7.4.5 kullamā
262
7.5
Conditional Sentences in the Corpus
263
7.5.1 ʾiḏā
263
7.5.2 ʾin
264
7.5.3 matā
265
7.5.4 law
266
7.6
Conclusion
268
CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION
271
8.1
Ḥunayn’s Translation Technique
271
8.2
Genre
273
8.3
Individual Styles
275
8.4
Future Research and Recommendations
276
Cited Works
277
Word Count: 79,937
&6
List of Manuscripts
E5
Madrid, Escorial, MS árabe 789
E7
Madrid, Escorial, MS árabe 791
E10
Madrid, Escorial, MS árabe 878
J1
Beirut, Saint-Joseph, MS 280
K1
Istanbul, Köprülü-Fazil Ahmet Paşa, MS Köprülü-Fazil Ahmet Paşa 885/1
L5
London, British Library, MS Or. 1348 Suppl.
Ox1
Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Huntingdon 359, folios 1b-30a
P1
Paris, Bibliothèque National de France, BnF MS 2837
S4
Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Şehid Alī Paşa MS 2045/1
Y
Istanbul, Yeni Camii, MS Yeni Camii 919
&7
Abstract
This thesis offers an analysis of the Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms
(9th-15th centuries AD) on three levels, (i) translation, (ii) individual styles and (iii) genre. It
particularly examines meta-discursive features such as cohesion, subjectivity, hedges, the
addressing of readership, and the formulation of truth statements. The analysis of these
features reveals rhetorical conventions in the corpus that indicate a discursive unity of the
genre of the medieval medical commentary. Yet, this study also shows considerable stylistic
variation between the individual commentators which, besides its intrinsic value, is crucial for
the identification of these authors’ texts.
Moreover, this research examines how the rhetorical features of the later commentaries
have developed after the fashion of Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq’s 9th-century translation of Galen’s
2nd-century Greek commentary. This study highlights significant differences between
Ḥunayn’s rhetorical strategies and those in the later Arabic commentaries. Thus, this work
demonstrates discontinuities between Greek and Arabic medical discourses, despite the huge
influence of Ḥunayn’s translation.
This thesis uses an innovative quantitative methodology combining both close reading and
distant reading techniques to study Ḥunayn’s translation technique, and compare Ḥunayn’s
style with that of the later commentators. Furthermore, this study advances the understanding
of the ways of writing in scientific medieval Arabic. Finally, the separate studies in this thesis
contribute knowledge regarding grammatical phenomena such as modals, conjunctions, and
conditionals in Classical Arabic.
&8
Declaration
No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in
support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any
other university or other institute of learning.
&9
Copyright Statement
i.
The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns
certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The
University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for
administrative purposes.
ii.
Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy,
may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as
amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with
licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form
part of any such copies made.
iii.
The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other intellectual
property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the
thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this
thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such
Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use
without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property
and/or Reproductions.
iv.
Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or
Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy
(see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant
Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University
Library’s regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and
in The University’s policy on Presentation of Theses
&10
Notes on Transliteration, Dates, and Translations
Consonants Transliteration
Vowels
Transliteration
‫ء‬
ʾ
‫ض‬
ḍ
َ-
a
‫ب‬
b
‫ط‬
ṭ
ُ-
u
‫ت‬
t
‫ظ‬
ẓ
ِ-
i
‫ث‬
ṯ
‫ع‬
‫َا‬
ā
‫ج‬
ǧ
‫غ‬
ġ
‫ُو‬
ū
‫ح‬
ḥ
‫ف‬
f
‫ِي‬
ī
‫خ‬
ḫ
‫ق‬
q
‫ة‬
a/at
‫د‬
d
‫ك‬
k
‫َو‬
aw
‫ذ‬
ḏ
‫ل‬
l
‫َي‬
ay
‫ر‬
r
‫م‬
m
‫ز‬
z
‫ن‬
n
‫س‬
s
‫هـ‬
h
‫ش‬
š
‫و‬
w
‫ص‬
ṣ
‫ي‬
y
ʿ
Dates follow the Christian calendar unless indicated otherwise. English translations of Greek
and Arabic passages are my own. In these translations, words in brackets are my explicatory
remarks.
&11
Acknowledgment
I thank my supervisor Professor Dr. Peter E. Pormann, for the many research opportunities he
has given me during my PhD. His Arabic ‘translation technique’ has been a great example to
me. I am also grateful to my supervisor Professor Dr. David Langslow for his continuous and
careful reading of my work. I moreover thank Dr. Maeve Olohan for her valuable theoretical
advice, especially on metadiscourse.
Furthermore, I am grateful to Dr. Kamran Karimullah for his insightful advice and invaluable
comments on Chapter IV and previous versions of chapter II. I am indebted to my friend Dr.
Marten Noorduin for proofreading some of my work. I am also thankful to the anonymous
reviewer of my Oriens article, whose suggestions I have been able to use for the revision of
chapter II.
I wish to thank my friends Oscar Seip and Elke van Veen for their amazing support, delicious
cake, and great sense of humour during the last months of my PhD. I am, above all, thankful
to my parents, Dr. J. van Dalen and H. van Dalen-Hijkoop, for being there for me, wherever I
go, and, of course, my father’s useful statistical advice. Finally, I want to mention my
grandfather, J. van Dalen Sr., who, many years ago, expressed his wish for his granddaughters
to complete their PhD’s. I did it.
All remaining errors and typos are my responsibility only.
I also thank the European Research Council for financing my PhD research.
&12
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1
Thesis Statement
This thesis provides a rhetorical analysis of the Arabic commentaries on the Hippocratic
Aphorisms. I question whether the external, material unity of this genre corresponds with an
internal, abstract unity of discourse. I use a quantitative methodology combining both close
reading and innovative distant reading techniques. My analysis focuses in particular on the
expression of subjectivity and epistemic modality, as well as the use of cohesive strategies,
the addressing of readerships, and the formulation of truth statements. Insight into these
features is invaluable to the characterisation of the genre of the medieval medical
commentary. Knowledge about the style of the individual authors will moreover prove
valuable for the identification of their texts. Furthermore, this study adds to our understanding
of the ways of writing in scientific medieval Arabic.
The comparison between Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq’s 9th-century translation of Galen’s Greek
commentary and the later Arabic commentaries forms a significant part of my analysis. The
first Arabic commentary does not contain original but translated language. This expands my
question in the following way. Not only do I examine the rhetorical features of the later
commentaries, but I want to know how these features have developed after the fashion of the
first translated text. This will contribute insight into questions about the continuity or
discontinuity between Greek and Arabic medical discourse. This thesis is unique in that it
both studies Ḥunayn’s translation technique, and compares his style with that of the later
commentators.
&13
1.2
Research Setting
This research fits into scholarship on the Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement of the
8th-10th centuries, in which numerous scientific and philosophical Greek works were
translated into Arabic. These translations had a huge impact on medieval Islamic science,
which in turn influenced late medieval and early modern European science. The Christian
scholar Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq (d.873) was an important translator in this movement. GraecoArabic studies began in Germany with the work of Gustav Flügel (1841), and Johann Wenrich
(1842). This work has since been continued by the historical, cultural, and philological works
of scholars such as Moritz Steinschneider ([1889-96] 1960), Manfred Ullmann (1970), Franz
Rosenthal (1965), Dimitri Gutas (1997), Peter Pormann (2004), Uwe Vagelpohl (2004),
Hinrich Biesterfeldt (2007), Gerhard Endress (2012), and Oliver Overwien (2012).
More generally, my research pertains to historical pragmatics and genre analysis, of
which I shall give a literature review below. In particular, this thesis also contributes to Peter
E. Pormann’s Hippocratic Aphorisms Project (2012-2017) at the University of Manchester.
This project has collected and digitised most Arabic commentaries on the Hippocratic
Aphorisms.
1.3
Research Background: The Corpus
Throughout the history of medicine different genres have evolved (Wilce 2009), from
independent treatises up to the journal article and the case report. The medical commentary
was a popular medical genre from the Greeks until Western European medicine in the
nineteenth century. Galen’s commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms as well as other
Hippocratic writings are among the oldest and best known examples.
The collection of Arabic commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms consists of
commentaries by over 15 different authors, who worked from the 9th until the 15th century
&14
AD. Their location was as varied as their time periods, and both time and spatial difference
will presumably be accountable for possible linguistic variation in the corpus. I here discuss
the seven commentaries that were fully digitised and available, and are thus part of my
corpus, besides Ḥunayn’s translation. Franz Rosenthal (1966) provided a first survey of the
Arabic Aphorisms commentaries, while Peter Pormann and Peter Joosse (2008) give a more
extensive overview of these commentaries.
An-Nīlī’s (d.1029) commentary is the oldest in the present corpus, after Ḥunayn’s
translation. His commentary is a summary (talḫīs) of Galen’s commentary. After his summary,
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq (d. after 1068), “the second Hippocrates”, who was from Nīšāpūr and worked
in Baghdad, wrote one of the oldest original Arabic commentaries. ʾAbū Ḥusayn as-Sinǧārī,
who worked around 1100, wrote one of the shortest commentaries in the corpus, of 40,000
words. In the thirteenth century we find commentaries by the physician and philosopher ʿAbd
al-Laṭīf al-Baġdādī (d. 1231), and Ibn al-Quff (1233-1286), who was a Christian physician
working with Ibn an-Nafīs, and wrote the most extensive commentary (190,000 words). A few
decades a later, in 1341, the physician as-Siwāsī completed another commentary, which is
relatively short (30,000 words). The latest commentary in the corpus is that by al-Manāwī (d.
1495).
For my research, I have relied on the unpublished digital editions prepared by the
project. Therefore, when I quote from these editions, I do not give page numbers but refer to
the particular comment from which each quote derives. For Galen’s commentary, I have used
Kühn’s edition (1829), which is digitally available on the website of the Thesaurus Linguae
Graecae. Additionaly, for the Greek version of the Hippocratic Aphorisms I have relied on
Caroline Magdelaine’s edition (1994) of this text.
&15
1.4
Research Questions
Aristotle wrote that speech-making exists of three elements; the speaker, the subject, and the
person addressed (Rhetoric Book 1, part 3). In this study, I am not so much concerned with
the subject, the “about what” of the corpus, but all the more interested in the speaker and the
way he communicates his subject to his reader. My research questions engage with three
interrelated levels of the corpus; (i) Ḥunayn’s translation, (ii) the authors’ individual styles,
and (iii) the genre of the medieval medical commentary. I first analyse how Ḥunayn translates
Galen’s rhetorical strategies as expressed in a set of lexico-grammatical and rhetorical
features, in order to then examine how Ḥunayn’s translation has influenced the individual
styles of the later Arabic commentators. Finally, comparing the different commentaries allows
me to characterise the rhetorical conventions within the genre of the medieval Arabic medical
commentary.
According to Vijia Bhatia, one of the tasks of genre analysis is to “characterize typical
or conventional textual features of any genre-specific text” (2004, 16). For my analysis, I have
selected a range of such textual features which I consider to be specifically significant for the
characterisation of genre. These features are related to the metadiscourse of the commentaries,
i.e. the non-conceptual features of text that create structure (textual metadiscourse), or
contribute to a writer-reader relationship (interpersonal metadiscourse) (cf. Hyland 1998,
2005; and Vande Kopple 1985). It concerns phrases such as “as you see” (interpersonal), or
“as I will discuss in more detail below” (textual), but also devices such as hedges or voice,
which allow the author to communicate his argument in a certain way, i.e. confidently,
persuasively, or carefully.
I analyse five sets of metadiscursive features, namely (i) the use of first person verb
forms and pronouns, (ii) the use of second person declaratives and directives, (iii) the use of
&16
hedges and emphatics, (iv) the use of discourse and transition markers, and (v) the
formulation of truth statements and hypotheticals. These five studies will possibly reveal
discursive conventions - or individual differences - regarding rhetorical strategies such as the
expression of subjectivity and stance, cohesive practices, and author-reader interaction.
Moreover, a comparison between the occurrence of these features in Ḥunayn’s translation and
the later commentaries will contribute important insights into Ḥunayn’s translation technique
and the influence his style may have had on later authors.
1.5
Theoretical Background: Style, Register, and Genre
For a rhetorical analysis of the commentaries we need to distinguish between three categories
of language: style, register, and genre. First, variety among individual authors will enable us
to differentiate between different styles. According to Zhao and Zobel (2007, 59), “it is on the
notion of style that the task of author-ship attribution (AA) depends: that some element of an
author’s writing can be used as a reliable marker of their work.” David Lee (2001, 45) argues
that “style is essentially to do with an individual’s use of language”. He suggests to “use the
term style to characterise the internal properties of individual texts or the language use by
individual authors” (2001, 45). Different authors have their own style within a genre, which
makes their texts recognisable. I follow Lee’s definition and use style to denote the lexicogrammatic and rhetorical features of the author’s individual texts.
Second, the linguistic features of the commentaries are part of a particular language
register. Halliday’s (2004) Introduction to Functional Grammar, first published in 1985, has
been of great importance for the studies of language register. Register is “[t]he name given to
a variety of a language distinguished according to its use” (Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens
1964, 87). Lee (2001, 46) expands this definition thus: “[r]egister is used when we view a text
&17
as language: as the instantiation of a conventionalised, functional configuration of language
tied to certain broad societal situations, that is, variety according to use.” A register does not
adhere to the boundaries of genre, but crosses them. We can speak of medical genres, such as
the commentary and the autonomous work, but should also recognise medical language
varieties, which may or may not differ according to the text type in which they are used. Not
all characteristics will be useful to delimit the genre of the commentary or individual styles of
the authors. Certain features may describe the texts in the corpus in a positive way, but they
might also be valid for texts outside the corpus. I search for certain characteristics of genre
which define the corpus in a negative and narrow way.
Third, the level of genre is the form of the commentary as defined by its social function.
Irma Taavitsainen (2012, 184) defines genres as texts that are grouped together “on the basis
of a shared function”, and argues that “[t]hey are inherently dynamic cultural schemata, used
by discourse communities to organise their knowledge and experience through language.”
David Lee (2001, 46) writes the following about the influence of culture on genre:
Genres are categories established by consensus within a culture and hence
subject to change as generic conventions are contested/challenged and revised,
perceptibly or imperceptibly, over time.
Similarly, Taavitsainen (2012, 184) argues that genres “display variation and undergo change
in response to their users’ sociocultural needs”.
Because genre is a social-cultural convention, it evolves over time. In Charles
Bazerman’s (1988, 8) words: “Each new text produced within a genre reinforces or remoulds
some aspect of the genre; each reading of a text reshapes the social understanding”. He
continues arguing that “[t]he genre does not exist apart from its history, and that history
continues with each new text invoking the genre” (8). The history of the medieval Arabic
medical commentary is particularly fascinating as it has evolved from the ancient Greek
&18
medical commentary. Comparing Galen’s commentary with Ḥunayn’s translation, and the
latter with the later Arabic commentaries, will allow for insights into how the Arabic
commentary genre has changed vis-à-vis the Greek commentary.
But what are the characterising features of genre by which we can judge this change?
The literature on genre shows disagreement about whether genres can be identified by
external features (Lee 2001) or internal ones (Biber 2006 and Bhatia 2004). Bhatia (2004)
argues that genre-characterising features consist of lexicogrammatical rules and expressions
that constrain the contributions of authors. Yet at the same time David Lee (2001, 38) defines
genre “as a category assigned on the basis of external criteria such as intended audience,
purpose, and activity type, that is, it refers to a conventional, culturally recognised grouping
of texts based on properties other than lexical or grammatical (co-)occurrence features, which
are, instead, the internal (linguistic) criteria forming the basis of text type categories”.
It is tempting to create a middle ground between these two views. I admit to Lee that a
genre must have one shared topic or purpose, yet this is not what ultimately defines it. In
addition to a shared topic, texts within a genre must also share a particular form. This form is
formed by physical shape on the hand, and on the other, possibly but not necessarily, by
certain internal linguistic features, such as rhetorical conventions. Some of the borders of the
medieval medical commentary are discernible even before analysis. It is the form of the text
that defines it, namely the continuous quoting of an authoritative text followed by the author’s
explanation of this text. However, whether the boundaries of this sub-genre correspond with
internal unity of discourse is yet to be seen.
&19
1.6
Literature Review
Genre and scientific discourse analysis has focused mainly on contemporary academic
English (Swales 1990, Bhatia 2004, Biber 2006), often with applied concerns such as teaching
English. Biber (2006) gives a detailed overview of the various types of research that have
been carried out in this field during the past decades. In the field of corpus linguistics, the
focus lies on English as well. Susan Conrad (2002, 76), in her review of the different
approaches to discourse analysis within corpus linguistics, writes that “the majority of corpus
work has been done with English; however, the approaches are equally applicable to other
languages”.
Scholars have engaged in rhetorical analysis of scientific genre and discourses in
languages such as medieval and contemporary English, French and Spanish. The
anthropologist James Wilce (2009) provides a rich review of the scholarly research carried out
with regard to English medical discourse, covering topics such as genre, register and
authorship. A major contributor to the rhetorical study of medical language is Françoise
Salager-Meyer, who has carried out extensive research into both contemporary medical
English (1990, 1992, 1994) as well as French and Spanish (2003, 2003b, 1990b), and modern
French and English medical discourse (1999). Her work covers analysis of genre, for example
through examination of grammatico-rethorical relationships in medical English papers and
medical abstracts (1989, 1992), in which she focuses on verb tense, and voice. She has also
studied the lexis of medical English (1983), hedges in medical English written discourse
(1994), and disagreement and conflict in nineteenth and twentieth century English and French
medical literature (2001).
Dwight Atksinon (1992) has studied the written language and rhetoric of the scientists
of the Royal Society of London from the early 17th century until the late 20th century.
&20
According to him, “rhetorical analysis operates, theoretically speaking, at the level of
genre” (xx). Within this scientific discourse of the Royal Society members he discovered a
shift from “comparatively “involved” and “verbal” discourse to highly “informational” and
“nominal” discourse”, that he finds to correspond with a shift from “author-centered” to
“object-centered” discourse (xxvi). It is exactly such a verbal and involved discourse that we
expect in the medieval Arabic commentaries.
Irma Taavitsainen has engaged in research in the same field on early English medical
writing with a focus on “corpus linguistics, historical discourse analysis, genre and text type
studies and diachronic studies on register variation”. In one of her works, Taavitsainen (2012)
focuses on identification of the genre of the commentary in Middle English. She investigates
how genre features change as a result the transfer between one language to the other (in her
case from Latin to the Middle English vernacular). She asks “whether commentaries in the
vernacular follow the discourse pattern of Latin commentaries as represented in the literature
or deviate from it in significant ways” (2012, 184). This question is strikingly similar to some
of the questions we are concerned with in the case of the shift from Greek to Arab
commentary.
Taavitsainen and Päivi Pahta have compiled a one-genre corpus of early English
medical writing with the purpose of developing a “new approach to corpus-based genre
studies” (1997, 71), using both stylistics and discourse analysis focusing on lexicogrammatical features. They argue that different scientific periods (of scholasticism,
empiricism and rationalism) are connected with different styles of thinking that are reflected
in ways of writing and linguistic features. They show, for example, that “[s]cholastic writing
employs prescriptive phrases, impersonal structures and the passive voice in imitation of
&21
Latin scientific writings, while texts of the Royal Society period are written as first person
narratives with low modality.”
In comparison to the work done for medieval English, Latin and other languages, less
research has been done into similar features of Arabic scientific writing, despite its
importance within the history of science. Most rhetorical analyses focus on individual texts,
such as Peter Pormann’s (2009) philological rhetorical study of the ways of quoting Greek
scholars in al-Kaskārī, or are anecdotal, such as Endress’s (2012) description of Arabic
scientific phraseology. In terms of Ḥunayn’s translation technique a number of studies exist
such as Uwe Vagelpohl’s study (2012) of Ḥunayn’s translation of Galen’s Commentary on the
Epidemics, which among other things also examines Ḥunayn’s translation of particular Greek
conjunctions. Oliver Overwien, moreover, has analysed Ḥunayn’s ‘school’ of translation
(2012), focussing on Ḥunayn’s approach to translation, as attested in a number of his works,
such as explication. Moreover, Endress and Gutas (1997) and Ullmann (2012) have published
dictionaries of the Greek-Arabic translations. This thesis contributes an innovative analysis of
rhetorical strategies using both quantitative and qualitative methods which will further
advance our knowledge of Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq’s translation technique.
Chaim Rabin wrote over half a century ago that “a true diachronic treatment of Arabic
grammar appears to be an impossibility” (1955, 21), because Classical Arabic is conservative
in its unique adherence to a systematic (presumably) unchanging grammar. Rabin writes that
the “the university student of our days is essentially offered the same course in Arabic
grammar as the student of a late Abbasid madrasa” (1955, 19, cf. al-Wer 1997). It is views
such as these uttered by Rabin that form one of the reasons that little scholarly work has been
done in the field of Classical Arabic and its various registers. This study will show that the
&22
Arabic of the commentaries shows much more variation than the image of an unchanging
Classical Arabic grammar would allow for.
1.7
Chapter Outline
In chapter II, I study the presence of the author in his commentary to explore conventions
regarding subjectivity and objectivity in the medieval medical commentary. I first focus on
the use of personal verb forms and pronouns in Galen’s commentary versus those in Ḥunayn.
I show that Ḥunayn’s translation is significantly more personal, yet I argue that it is not
necessarily more subjective. I also draw attention to Ḥunayn’s tendency to activise Galen’s
passive constructions. This first part of the chapter has been accepted for publication in Brill’s
journal Oriens. In the second part of this chapter, I compare Ḥunayn’s use of personal verb
forms with that in the later commentaries, and demonstrate slightly different conventions
regarding subjectivity among the authors.
I further explore the self-expression of the author by looking at the way he addresses his
reader, in chapter III. Here, I analyse the second person verb forms and pronouns in the
commentaries, with regard to their frequency, type and function. I compare the occurrence of
commands versus descriptive form to gauge the extent to which authors express themselves
authoritatively to their readers. In addition, I seek to understand whether the direct addressing
of the reader was one of the rhetorical strategies of the commentators in order to, for instance,
enliven their text and navigate the reader through their commentary. If so, this possible
contributes to the characterisation of the medieval medical commentary genre.
In chapter IV I examine the use of hedges and certainty modals within the corpus. I
describe the epistemic modals in the corpus and compare how confident or careful the authors
&23
express themselves. I demonstrate significant variation among the authors’ styles in this
respect.
Chapters V and VI explore cohesive strategies in the corpus. Again, my aim is to gain
insight into discursive conventions on the genre level, as well as the individual styles of the
authors. In chapter V, I focus on the sentence level of text and analyse the different semantic
relations which authors explicitly mark with connectives in their commentary, such as
additive, causal, contrastive, and comparative relations. I compare Ḥunayn’s translation with
the later commentaries and demonstrate the prominence of causal markers in the corpus,
which may well be a characteristic of the commentary genre. In chapter VI I proceed to
examine the macro level of text and explore the ways authors structure their commentaries
with introductions, sections and structuring phraseology. Here, I also explore the use of
endophoric markers in more detail.
The description of symptoms of patients and their related consequences or necessary
roads of action is a recurring feature in medical discourse. Such descriptions often take the
form of conditional sentences, which will be the subject of analysis in chapter VII. I first
analyse how Ḥunayn translates the different types of conditional sentences in Galen’s
commentaries. I explore his use of ʾiḏā, law, ʾin, and matā, and compare this to their
occurrence in the later commentaries. The analysis of the formulation of conditionals by the
different authors shows a considerable variety in terms of purpose and frequency.
&24
CHAPTER II SUBJECTIVITY
“Medical statements cannot come from anybody; their value, efficacy, even their
therapeutic powers, and, generally speaking, their existence as medical statements
cannot be dissociated from the statutorily defined person who has the right to
make them, and to claim for them the power to overcome suffering and death.”
Foucault 1972b, p.51.
2.1
Introduction
This chapter studies the use of first person verbs forms within the Arabic commentaries on the
Hippocratic aphorisms in order to analyse corpus conventions regarding the expression of
subjectivity. The first person forms in the commentaries serve five different semantic
functions, with varying degrees of subjectivity, namely (a) the personal expression of stance,
(b) endophoric reference, (c) frame marking, (d) the expression of personal experience, and
(e) the impersonal expression of intersubjectivity. Analysing the forms according to these
functions, I first demonstrate that Ḥunayn’s translation is systematically more personal than
Galen’s commentary. Subsequently, I compare Ḥunayn’s subjectifying translation technique to
the use of personal forms in the later Arabic commentaries. An analysis of the frequency and
function of these forms provides insight into the discursive conventions regarding subjectivity
and objectivity within the corpus, as well as the individual styles of the authors.
Many studies of personal forms in academic texts focus on stance and subjectivity in
modern English (Harwood 2005; Martínez 2005; Hyland 2002; Kuo 1999; Webb 1992),
although some focus on historical texts, such as Douglas Biber’s 2004 study on stance and
development of stance markers in England across time, and Susan Fitzmaurice’s (2003) study
of stance in early eighteenth-century English. Irma Taavitsainen (1994) examined the extent
of personal communication within medieval English medical texts. She engaged in an
analysis of first person pronouns and verbs and their semantic function similar to the present
&25
study, through which she demonstrates that medieval English medical texts were less emotive
than other genres from the same period, although still showed personal features.
Atkinson (1999) describes early 17th century English scientific writing as involved and
author-centered, which according to him was related to what he calls a contemporary genteel
discourse. The gentleman “represented a moral and social ideal” around which British society
revolved, “and from which power flowed” (xxvi). The presence of these authors in their work
gave their statements credibility and authority. However, Foucault has argued that since the
middle ages “the doctor has gradually ceased to be himself the locus of the registering and
interpretation of information, and because, beside him, outside him, there have appeared
masses of documentation, instruments of correlation, and techniques of analysis, which, of
course, he makes use of, but which modify his position as an observing subject in relation to
the patient” (Foucault 1972, 33).
There are considerably fewer studies of Ancient Greek and Classical Arabic texts.
Caroline Petit (2012) has studied Galen’s ‘method of discourse’, arguing that Galen employed
a personal style obtained by the frequent use of first person pronouns and verbs. She writes
that the first person is “massively present” in Galen’s writings (2012, 59). Uwe Vagelpohl
(2014) analysed Ḥunayn’s translation of the Epidemics, and shows that Ḥunayn adds personal
forms to mark Galen’s arguments.
The present study provides a systematic overview of the semantic function of nearly all
personal forms in Galen’s Commentary on the Aphorisms, its Arabic translation, and the
Arabic commentaries. The digital versions of these texts enable both a distant reading using
the TLG and Sketch Engine, as well a close reading of individual instances. This method
allows for a systematic demonstration of Ḥunayn’s method of personalisation, which provides
&26
further insight into his translation techniques. It also enables a comparison between Ḥunayn’s
style and that of the later authors.
2.1.1
Theoretical Framework
This study draws from Benveniste’s view (1971) on subjectivity in language as well as the
pragmatic perspectives of scholars such as Finegan (2005) and Taavitsainen (1994).
According to Benveniste (1974, 224), subjectivity is ‘the capacity of the speaker to posit
himself as a “subject”. Language enables a subject to become a subject by saying ‘I’, since the
subject, the ego, as Benveniste argues, really is ‘he who says “ego”’. Grammatical
subjectivity enables the expression of the self of the author (cf. Wright and Stein 2005, 1).
This subjectivity is primarily ‘brought out’ by personal pronouns. Explicit markers of
subjectivity in Galen’s text are thus expressions of his authorial ego, such as ‘I’, or ‘we’, if
‘we’ is used to refer to the author alone, and in languages such as Greek and Arab where the
pronoun can be omitted, first person verb forms themselves. Benveniste writes that (1974,
226):
“The personal pronouns provide the first step in this bringing out of subjectivity in
language. Other classes of pronouns that share the same status depend in their turn
upon these pronouns. These other classes are indicators of deixis, the
demonstratives, adverbs, and adjectives, which organise the the spatial and
temporal relationships around the “subject” taken as referent: “this, here, now,”
and their numerous correlatives, “that, yesterday, last year, tomorrow,” etc. They
have in common the feature of being defined only with respect to the instances of
discourse in which they occur, that is, in dependence upon the I which is
proclaimed in the discourse.”
The present study primarily focuses on first person pronouns and their related verb forms. A
systematic analysis of deixis, all expressions depending on the subject of the text, goes
beyond the scope of this study. However, I will give some anecdotal examples below which
&27
demonstrate that Ḥunayn recognised subjective experiences in Galen’s text, such as “we call
this”, which he clarified in his translation with “as the Greeks call it”.
Through the use of personal forms and narrative, an author constructs a discursive self
in his discourse. Ivaniç (1998, 16) suggests that “writing makes a particularly tangible
contribution to the ‘reflexive project of the self’, with a three-way interplay between the
writer’s life-experience, their sense of self, and the reality they are constructing through their
writing.” Being subjective, an author conveys several things about himself, and based on this
readers ascribe a certain identity to an author. Discourse and language thus become means to
construct the author, the writing subject. Ivaniç further argues that “[w]riters create an
impression of themselves - a discoursal self - through the discourse choices they make as they
write, which align them with socially available subject positions” (1998, 32). Authors can
create certain images of themselves in their work, such as being authoritative, humble,
religious, being a competent physician or a loyal employee. I will give examples of this in the
commentaries below.
While in Benveniste’s view all first person pronouns are subjective, some personal
forms have a more explicit subjective function than others. Not each use of ‘I’ is as strong a
reflection of the ego, or contributes to the construction of an authorial self. While subjectivity
always first uses the ‘I’ to express itself, the ‘I’ does not always have a subjective function in
written discourse. This ‘subjective function’ has to do with the more narrowly defined sense
of subjectivity which Finegan (2005,1) expresses as the ‘expression of self and the
representation of a speaker’s (…) perspective or point of view in discourse”. Besides the
expression of the personal viewpoint of the author, this definition of subjectivity is also
reflected in, as Taavitsainen (1994,198) formulates it, “the emotive and evidential components
that pertain to the truth-value of the statement”. These components are what scholars define as
stance, the authorial attitude towards an utterance (cf. Biber 2004).
&28
While all personal forms in the text are subjective in Benveniste’s sense of the word,
only some of them are subjective in Finegan’s and Taavitsainen’s sense. Expressions of
stance, personal argument, and experience have a more subjective function than other
expressions, such as endophoric markers, in that they reveal more about the experience and
opinion of the author himself. Surely, stance is also visible in other attitudinal expressions,
such as ‘easily’ and ‘clearly’ (bayyinan). These forms I will discuss in chapter IV, in which I
focus on epistemic modality.
Personal forms that have a cohesive rather than a subjective function are endophoric
markers such as ‘as I have shown’, and ‘we will discuss later’. Fitzmaurice (2004, 428) calls
these “linguistic markers that have less to do with participants’ self-expression and more to do
with speakers’ concern for the actual conduct of interaction”. Similarly, Fox-Tree and Schrock
(2002) write that the personal phrase ‘I mean’ (aʿnī), which Ḥunayn uses regularly, functions
both as a regulator of conversation as well as an expression of “speaker involvement in the
communicative exchange” (quoted in Fitzmaurice 2004, 438). Another instance of a nonsubjective use of personal forms is the intersubjective use of the plural pronoun, for example
Galen’s use of “our body” when referring to the human body in general.
This varying degree of subjectivity which personal verb forms express, calls for an
analysis of the different purposes for which the authors use personal forms in their
commentaries. An analysis of these functions shows how subjective their use of these forms
is, and also allows for a more sensitive understanding of Ḥunayn’s way of translating these
forms in Galen’s commentary. For this analytical end, I divide the personal forms in the
commentary into five types. The first is category A of personal affect and stance, which
includes all verbs that express authorial opinion and attitude towards his utterances. Forms of
this type have a clear subjective function. Taavitsainen (1994, 202) calls this an ‘egocentric
&29
category’ with features that ‘are clearly self-oriented’. Biber and Finegan (1989, 94) define
affect as “the expression of a broad range of attitudes, including emotions, feelings, moods,
and general dispositions”. In the present study, this category includes epistemic modal verbs
expressing uncertainty, such as arā, ‘I believe’, aḥsabu, ‘I assume’, as well as expressions of
certainty such as naʿlamu, ‘we know’. Stance is also expressed by the use of modal adverbs,
such as ‘possibly’, and ‘likely’, which I analyse in chapter IV. Moreover, an affective style is
also visible in the way an author addresses his reader, which I discuss in chapter III.
Category B consists of endophoric markers, such as kamā qultu, ‘as I said before’,
which contribute to the cohesion of the commentary. While these forms are personal, they
primarily have a cohesive function rather than a subjective function. I will further discuss the
use of endophoric markers in the corpus in chapter VI.
Category C consists of frame markers. Ken Hyland defines these as verbs which
‘explicitly refer to discourse acts or text stages’ (1998, 442), such as ‘we aim to’, ‘we argue’,
and ‘we conclude’. In this study, frame markers are mostly performative verbs which
introduce authorial arguments, explanations, and conclusions, as well as nominative pronouns
which mark contrast between the words of the commentator and those of the author whose
work is commented on. The cohesive function of these verbs, as markers of arguments and
sometimes paragraphs, I discuss in chapter VI.
Another subjective category, D, is that of verbs that express personal actions, including
research- and experiment-related actions. Galen and the Arabic authors tend to communicate
these actions in subjective, personal ways. Taavitsainen found the same for medieval English
medical texts. She argues that “[t]he process of doing scientific experiments is explained as a
personal experience, and the author communicates as an individual” (1994, 205). Most
authors in the corpus begin their commentary with singular verbs from this category, to
&30
narrate to the reader how they went about commenting on the Aphorisms. In this category, I
also include non-discourse level speech acts. These are verbs such as ‘I argue’, and ‘I
comment’, that do not occur in the present tense of the commentary. For example, in the
following sentence from Ibn al-Quff’s commentary, an ašraḥa, ‘that I explain’, is not a
discourse act, which is partly reflected in the fact it is not an indicative in Arabic:
‫أشرح‬
‫أن‬
‫سألني‬
ašraḥā
an
saʾalanī
I explain, 1SG PRES SUBJ that
he asked 3SG PERF IND me 1SG PRON SUFFIX
He asked me to explain.
Finally, category E consists of intersubjective verbs and pronouns which refer to shared,
general objects and knowledge, such as the ‘our’ in ‘our body’. These are instances in which
the ‘we’ does not refer to the author himself alone, but to a shared subjectivity between author
and reader (as in ‘as we have seen above’), physicians in general (‘if the patient is weak we
must increase the diet’), or even a shared human experience (in the case of, again, Galen’s
‘our body’). As I show below, Ḥunayn is careful to recognise when Galen uses ‘we’ or ‘our’ in
this way, and translates these instances impersonally for the sake of clarity, or changes ‘we’
into ‘the Greeks’ when he thinks the ‘we’ only applies to the Greek experience.
Obviously, some functions overlap. For example, ‘I assume’, is a discourse act, but also
an epistemic stance marker. Technically, “we call x y”, (in the sense of ‘x is called y’,
generally), is a speech act, but it is also intersubjective. In ‘we argued above that [x]’, ‘we
argued’ is an endophoric marker, yet also a discourse act. Each of these ambiguous cases I
have judged according to their most prominent function in the text, as their categorisation in
the discussion below will demonstrate.
&31
The categorisation of personal forms according to these functions facilitates an
appreciation of the extent to which each author employs a personal style. Verbs of categories
E and D are arguably less personal than the epistemic stance markers of category A or those
verbs that express personal experiences in category D. Moreover, this analysis shows that
Ḥunayn employs different translational techniques depending on what function the first
person forms have in Galen’s text.
Not only the function of first person verbs affects the extent of the degree of
‘personality’ of these forms. Taavitsainen (1994) has questioned how personal first forms in
medieval texts were in a period in which it was conventional to use such forms in writing. She
suggests that these forms may not have been experienced the same way as we do today, and
argues that “[i]t may be that subjectifying features were not reflections of private states as we
understand them in the modern world, but shared cultural artefacts”, and that “sometimes
personal expressions do not reflect subjective feelings but genre conventions” (Taavitsainen
1994, 206-7). However, this is not necessarily the case in the corpus, as many first person
verb forms here indeed reflect personal experiences and opinions.
2.1.2
Scope
In the following analysis, I focus on the question how many first person verb forms authors
use and for what purpose they use these forms. The commentary is a text type in which
authors give their personal interpretation of other authors’ texts, an activity which may create
a need to mark contrast with a higher use of personal forms than other text types.Indeed,
Taavitsainen (1994, 205) has shown that in medieval English commentaries “[p]assive and
impersonal forms dominate the expository parts that lay down the theoretical foundations”,
but that “first person plural pronouns are used in authorial comments”. A high number of
&32
personal forms in the commentaries would thus pose an interesting hypothesis regarding the
nature of commentaries as a more personal text type, one that requires further study of other
medieval genres, for example of textbook-like works such as Ibn Sīnā’s Canon.
Finally, I compare whether the later the style of the Arabic commentators is more or less
subjective than Ḥunayn’s. If Ḥunayn’s style proves to be more subjective, then this supports
the hypothesis that Ḥunayn’s use of personal forms is part of his translation strategy.
I analysed the first books of all authors, together with a control sample consisting of a
collection of later books. The high word count of Ibn al-Quff’s first book makes such a
sample in his case unnecessary. In the case of Ḥunayn’s translation, I examined the whole
commentary to facilitate a comprehensive comparison with Galen’s commentary, which I
fully analysed as well. Table 2.1 shows the total amount of words analysed per author.
Table 2.1 Books Analysed
Author
Books
Words
Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq
I-VII
123,127
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
I, III, V, VI, VII
42,015
Ibn al-Quff
I
45,001
Al-Manāwī
I, II, III
21,317
An-Nīlī
I, II, III, VI, VI
9,789
As-Siwāsī
I, II, III, VI
15,387
As-Sinǧārī
I, II, III
16,143
Al-Baġdādī
0, I
15,490
The digital versions of both Galen’s Greek commentary and the Arabic commentaries enable a
distant reading of the corpus using the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae and Sketch Engine.
However, to solely rely on distant reading is problematic for two reasons. One, the Arabic
forms are ambiguous as they are not vocalised. For example, second and first person singular
perfect forms look the same in an unvocalised text (‫ ﻓﻌﻠﺖ‬can be faʿaltu, ‘I did’, or faʿalta/i,
&33
‘you did’). Also, Sketch Engine does not distinguish between first person pronominal suffixes
and first person plural forms, so a search for ʿalimnā, ‘we learned’, in the unvocalised form of
‫ﻋﻠﻤﻨﺎ‬, also yields ʿallamanā, ‘he taught us’, and ʿilmunā, ‘our knowledge’. Therefore, these
forms must be carefully close read before analysis. Second, a first person form, such as ‘we
purge’ can have different functions, in this case that of describing a personal experience, and
that of expressing a general medical action. These functions must be judged based on context.
Yet, a combined method of distant and close reading allows for a systematic demonstration of
the functions of first person forms in the corpus.
In what follows, I first give a short overview of the general findings, including the
amount of singular and plural verb forms used by the different authors and the most popular
verbs used in first person. Then, I discuss Ḥunayn’s translation technique and his tendency to
personalise Galen’s Greek writing. Finally, I treat the Arabic commentators individually by
giving an overview of the personal verb forms they use and their functions. I draw attention to
the personal style of the introductions with which the authors commence their commentaries
as well. I will discuss the structure of these introductions in more detail in chapter VI.
2.2
Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIshāq versus Galen
In his commentary on the Aphorisms, Galen arguably uses a personal writing style, as attested
by a high number of personal pronouns, (89 singular and 182 plural, in the different cases),
and over 200 first person verb forms. Table 2.2 shows the different cases in which the
pronouns occur and their frequency. Unlike English, Greek can leave out pronouns when they
are subject of a verb, and when added they place a certain emphasis on the subject.
Table 2.2 Personal Pronouns Galen
Plural
Singular
Nominative
ἐγώ
16
ἡμεῖς
&34
41
Genitive
Dative
Accusative
Total
ἐμου
2
ἡμῶν
43
μοι
67
ἡμῖν
56
(ε)με
4
ἡμᾶς
42
89
182
An analysis of the purpose for which Galen uses these forms shows that he uses the
nominative pronouns ἐγώ, ‘I,’ and ἡµεῖς, ‘we’, mostly with verbs that introduce his arguments
and emphasise his own opinion versus that of Hippocrates (i.e. verbs from category C), and
also verbs that express his experience as a physician (category D). For example, in the
following sentence from book I, Galen contrasts himself to Hippocrates by saying that he has
explained the latter’s passage more elaborately than he has, thus placing an emphasis on his
own addition to knowledge and capability as a commentator.
ὁ τοίνυν Ἱπποκράτης ἐπειδὴ προὔκειτο κατὰ τόδε τὸ βιβλίον αὐτῷ
σύντομόν τε καὶ ἀφοριστικὴν ποιεῖσθαι τὴν διδασκαλίαν, οὐχ οὕτως
διῆλθεν τὸν λόγον ὡς ἐγὼ νῦν, (Kühn 17b.412).
Hippocrates then, since he has set forth to make the teaching in his book brief
and aphoristic, has not explained the passage thus as I [have] now[.]
In this case, the Arabic translator renders the pronoun ‘I’ as explicitly to create the same
contrast between the author and Hippocrates:
‫فلمّا كان غرض ابقراط في هذا الكتاب أن يستعمل في تعليمه الإليجاز ومذهب‬
،‫ لم يشرح قوله في هذا الكتاب كما شرحته أنا في هذا املوضع‬،‫الفصول‬
And since Hippocrates’ goal in this book was to use conciseness and the style
of aphorisms in his teaching, he has not explained his saying in this book as I
have explained it in this place[.]
Galen never explicitly uses the pronoun “I” as part of a reference to previous or succeeding
parts in the text. The plural pronoun ‘we’ does sometimes occur as part of an endophoric
marker, but is mostly used to signify Galen’s personal arguments. The genitive singular
&35
pronoun occurs twice, as an agent to passive constructions, such as ‘the books written by me’.
The plural genitive pronoun occurs more frequently in such constructions, for example in the
phrase γεγραµµένον ὑφ’ ἡµῶν, ‘what is written by us’. It is also used as part of genitive
absolutes, such as γινωσκόντων ἡµῶν, ‘since we know’. Moreover, Galen tends to refer to
‘the body’ with the personal phrase ‘our body’, which, as I show below, Ḥunayn tends to
translate impersonally with “the body”.
Galen also regularly uses the pronoun ‘us’ in phrases such as ‘Hippocrates has taught
us’. The dative pronouns ‘by me’ and ‘by us’ occur as agents to passive perfect verbs, as
shown in Table 2.3. It is a construction Galen uses especially frequently in the epistemic
stance marker µοι δοκεῖ ‘it seems to me’ (used 42 times), which marks a certain degree of
reservation towards a truth statement.
Table 2.3 Dative Pronoun Constructions Galen
Singular
Plural
μοι δοκεῖ
it seems to me
42
it has been shown by us
5
μοι νόει
it means to me
3
Εἴρηται ἡμῖν
it has been said by us
5
( προ)
εἴρηταί μοι
it has been said
by me
5
ἡμῖν
παραλαμβάνεται
it has been undertaken
by us
1
μοι
γέγραπται
it has been
written by me
2
λέλεκται ἡμῖν
it has been said by us
1
ἀρκέσει μοι
it suffices for me
1
διώρισται ἡμῖν
it has been defined by
us
1
μοι φαίνεται
it appears to me
1
τετήρηται ἡμῖν
it has been watched by
us
1
λελέχθω μοι
let it have been
said by me
1
ἡμῖν ἀρκέσει
it suffices for us
1
λέλεκταί μοι
it has been said
by me
3
it has been
discovered by
me
1
let it have been
said by me
1
μοι
ἐξεύρηται
εἰρήσθω μοι
ἡμῖν (ἐπι)δέδεικται
&36
διώρισταί
μοι
it has been
defined by me
1
Besides these pronouns, we can obtain a more comprehensive insight in Galen’s use of first
person forms by examining the first person verb forms themselves. Table 2.4 shows the most
prominent first person verb forms (occurring four times or more) in Galen’s commentary.
Galen uses over 185 active first person verb forms, with a preference for plural forms. His
most frequent verbs are verbs of saying (λέγω and φηµί) and knowing (οἶδα).
Table 2.4 First Person Verb Forms in Galen
Singular
ἔφην
I said
εἶπον
I said
λέγω
I say/mean
οἶδα
I know
ἐθεασάμην
ἔχω
Plural cont.
Plural
I have
contemplated
I can/have
17 ἴσμεν
we know
13
εἴπομεν
we said 6
9 λέγομεν
we say
11
ἐδείξαμεν
we showed 5
8 ἐροῦμεν
we will say
11
ἔχομεν
we have/can 5
8 φαμεν
we say
9
ἐθεασάμην
we have seen 5
6 ἐξηγησάμεθα
we will
explain
9
εἴδομεν
we have seen 4
we must
give
8
ἐδιδάξαμεν
we taught 4
we said
7
4 δώσομεν
ἔφαμεν
Despite the similar semantic meaning of most of these verbs, a closer look demonstrates that
they have different functions within the commentary. The most frequent singular form is
ἔφην, ‘I said’, which occurs 15 times as part of Galen’s regular endophoric formula ‘ὡς ἔφην’,
‘as I said’. In contrast, Galen uses the present tense form λέγω, ‘I mean’, or ‘I am saying’, as a
frame marker to introduce arguments and explanations (8 times). For example, Galen uses I
mean as a discourse act in the following argument from his comment on aphorism ii.23:
λέγω δ’ ἀνωµάλους ἐχόντων τὰς κινήσεις, ὅσαι τισὶν ἡµέραις σφοδρωθέντα
µετὰ ταῦτα ἀσήµως ἐῤῥᾳστώνησαν, εἶτ' αὖθις ἐξαυξηθέντα τὴν συνέχειαν
ἔλαβεν. (Kühn 17b.509.13)
&37
I mean by diseases with irregular movements, those that become calmer after
having been more intense during some days, without order, then, having
increased again, they adopt coherence.
In addition to µοι δοκεῖ, Galen uses verbs of knowing, such as οἶδα and γινώσκω, to mark
epistemic stance. For instance, to express the fact that he does not know something, Galen
typically uses the phrase οὐκ οἶδα, ‘I do not know’, for example in this sentence from his
comment on aphorism vii.40:
διὰ τί δὲ ἐξαίφνης γινόµενα ταῦτα µελαγχολικὰ ὑπάρχειν φησὶν οὐκ οἶδα.
(Kühn 18a.142.18)
Why he [Hippocrates] says that these [symptoms] when they happen suddenly
are the beginning of melancholy, I do not know.
Galen uses the most prominent we-form in his commentary, ἴσµεν, ‘we know’, to refer to
knowledge he presumes is shared between him and the reader. However, even with this
intersubjective function, ἴσµεν is still an epistemic stance marker, as it signals Galen᾽s stance
towards his prepositions. The subjective function of some of Galen’s other first person plural
verb forms is more debatable. For instance, the form λέγοµεν, ‘we say’, or ‘we call’, Galen
uses twice to introduce his own argument or explanation. However, he more often uses it
intersubjectively (category E), where the ‘we’ refers to a larger community sharing the same
experience, with the sense of ‘it is called’. Such forms Ḥunayn translates with passive
constructions, to clarify that they are not merely an expression of Galen’s opinion, but more
objective statements. Consider for example the following sentence from Galen’s comment on
aphorism iv.2, in which Galen uses the form λέγοµεν:
Αὐτόµατα κενοῦσθαι λέγοµεν ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος ὅσα χωρὶς τοῦ πρᾶξαί τι τὸν
ἰατρὸν ἐκκρίνεται (Kühn 17b.655.10)
We call purging ‘automatic’ when it happens without any form of action by a
doctor.
Ḥunayn translates this sentence with a passive construction:
&38
‫يقال إنّ الشيء يستفرغ من تلقاء نفسه من البدن إذا كان استفراغه يكون من غير أن‬
.ً‫يكون الطبيب فعل شيئا‬
It is said that something is purged automatically from the body if its purging
happens without the doctor doing anything.
Galen tends to use singular verb forms to express personal experiences (category D). The
following paragraph from book VI illustrates this1 :
τὸ µὲν γὰρ ὅτι πάντως εἰσί τινες τῶν ὀδυνωµένων ὀφθαλµοὺς, οἱ µὲν
ἀκρητοποσίαις, οἱ δὲ λουτροῖς ὠνηνάµενοι, πιστεύων Ἱπποκράτει ἐπεπείσµην.
οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἔγραψεν αὐτὸ µὴ θεασάµενος, οὐ µὴν ὑπό γε τῶν διδασκάλων τινὸς
ἐθεασάµην ποτὲ τοιοῦτον βοήθηµα προσενεχθὲν κάµνοντι. ζητήσας οὖν πάσας
τὰς διαθέσεις, ἐφ' αἷς ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν, οὐ κατὰ τὸν ὀφθαλµὸν µόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ
κατ’ ἄλλα µόρια γίνεσθαι τὰς ὀδύνας, εἶτ' ἐµαυτὸν πείσας εὑρηκέναι.
τοὐντεῦθεν ἐσκεψάµην αὐτῶν τὰ γνωρίσµατα, κἀπειδὴ καὶ περὶ τούτων
ἐπείσθην, ἐτόλµησα προσαγαγεῖν τὰ βοηθήµατα τοῖς ὀδυνωµένοις· (Kühn 18a.
45.17-46.13)
Ḥunayn translates this passage as follows:
‫وذلك أنّي صدقت أبقراط فعلمت أنّ بعض من به وجع العني ال محالة ينتفع بشرب النبيذ‬
‫ وذلك أنّي علمت أنّ أبقراط لم يكن ليكتب هذا لو ال‬.‫الصرف وبعضهم ينتفع باحلمام‬
‫ ولكني لم أكن رأيت قطّ أحداً من معلّمي استعمل فيمن به وجع العني شيئاً من‬،‫أنه رأه‬
‫هذا العالج ونحوه فبحثت عن جميع احلاالت التي يجب أن يكون عنها الوجع ال في‬
‫ فلمّا علمت أنّي قد وجدتها ووقفت عليها طلبت‬،‫العني فقط لكن في سائر األعضاء‬
‫ فلمّا علمت أنّي قد عرفتها أيضاً أقدمت على استعمال هذه األصناف من‬.‫دالئلها‬
.‫العالج في أصحاب أوجاع العني‬
For I believed Hippocrates, and learned that some of those with pain in the eye
absolutely benefit from drinking pure wine, and some of them benefit from
bathing. For I knew hat Hippocrates would not write this if he had not seen it,
even though I have not seen any of my teachers use a similar treatment for
those who have eye pain. Therefore, I searched for all the cases in which it is
1
My English translation here covers both the Greek and the Arabic.
&39
necessary that pains occur, not only in the eye but also in other organs. When I
learned that I found and discovered them, I searched for their symptoms, and
when I was sure that I knew those as well, I proceeded to use this type of
treatment in patients with eye pain.
Galen regularly (about 80 times) uses first person forms to mark epistemic stance, especially
the phrase µοι δοκεῖ and the personal forms of οἶδα. Roughly an equal amount of times he
uses endophoric markers, which arguably have a less subjective function. Frame markers
(around 60), verbs of personal experience (around 40), and intersubjective we-forms (less
than 40) are each less frequent.
2.3
Subjectivity in Ḥunayn’s Translation
Ḥunayn uses personal forms nearly three times more frequently than Galen. His translation
contains over 730 of these forms, while Galen’s use of them lies around 200. Unlike Galen,
Ḥunayn prefers singular forms over plural forms. While in Arabic, as in Greek, the
nominative pronoun is usually omitted, Ḥunayn still uses the pronoun considerably more than
Galen, using ʾanā, ‘I’, 52 times, and the plural naḥnu, ‘we’, 35 times, besides his use of
pronominal suffixes. Compared to the later Arabic medical commentators on the Aphorisms,
Ḥunayn’s use of first person verb forms is not unique. However, Ḥunayn uses more first
person verb forms than most other commentators; only al-Baġdādī and Ibn al-Quff equal the
number of personal verbs in Ḥunayn’s translation.
Ḥunayn’s personal style is arguably part of a translation strategy which aims to render
the Greek text as correctly and clearly as possible. A closer examination of the functions of
the personal verb forms in Ḥunayn’s translation will explain in detail why Ḥunayn uses these
forms with such regularity. I will show that by his frequent use of personal forms, Ḥunayn
does not necessarily make Galen’s text more subjective. Rather, he carefully emphasises the
&40
fact that Galen’s text is subjective. Table 2.5 shows all first person verb forms which occur
four times or more in Ḥunayn’s translation.
Table 2.5 First Person Verb Forms in Ḥunayn
Singular
aʿnī
Plural
Plural
naǧidu
we mean
4
52 nuḥaḏḏiru
we warn
4
116
ʾaqūlu
I say
59
bayyannā
qultu
Ι said
49
qulnā
we said
43
waṣaftu
I described
45
narā
we see
36
raʾaytu
I have seen
33
naqūlu
we say
18
bayyantu
I explained
24
raʾaynā
we have seen
18
I see
24
ʿalimna
we know
15
I describe
22
ḏakarnā
we mentioned
14
waǧadtu
I found
18
waǧadnā
we found
13
ʾaḥsabu
I assume
16
naʿalamu
we know
12
ḏakartu
I mentioned
11
waṣafnā
we described
10
I know
10
šaraḥnā
we explained
9
wāṣifun
I describe
9
nanẓuru
we look at
9
fassartu
I explained
7
qaṣadnā
mean
8
ʾafradtu
I treated
individually
5
taqaddam
nā
we mentioned
previously
8
ʾaǧʿalu
I do/make
4
ʿarafnā
we learned
5
ʾašraḥu
I explained
we will mention
4
ʾarā
ʾaṣifu
ʾadrī
4 sa-naḏkuru
we find
62 naqṣudu
I mean
we explained
The form ʾaʿnī, ‘I mean’, accounts for a high number of Ḥunayn’s personal forms. Besides
this form, Ḥunayn uses epistemic stance markes such as ʾarā, ‘I believe’, endophoric markers,
such as waṣafnā, ‘we have described’, and verbs of personal experience such as waǧadnā, ‘we
found’. Finally, he also uses a personal verb form with an intersubjective meaning; naǧidu,
‘we find’. I shall now discuss each of these semantic functions, starting with Ḥunayn’s most
frequent category; that of endophoric markers.
&41
2.3.1
Endophoric markers: Category B
Most of Ḥunayn’s first person verbs (about 286) are endophoric markers, and not stance
markers as in Galen’s commentary. Most of Galen’s first person endophoric markers Ḥunayn
preserves in Arabic. For example, Galen’s most frequent endophoric phrase ὡς ἔφην, ‘as I
said’, Ḥunayn consistently translates with kamā qultu. When it does not translate any of these
forms, five times it translates an impersonal, passive verb form, as in book I, where kamā
qultu qablu, ‘as I said before’, translates ὡς προείρηται (Kühn 17b.786.13), ‘as has been
previously said’. I will give more examples below of Ḥunayn’s tendency to both activise and
personalise Galen’s impersonal passive constructions. The plural, kamā qulnā ‘as we have
said’, Ḥunayn adds to the text five times in book I alone, for example in his comment on
aphorism i.2:
.‫فقوله هذا إمنّا هو كما قلنا في كيفية ما يستفرغ‬
He says this, like we said, about the quality of what is being purged.
ὁ μὲν δὴ λόγος αὐτῷ νῦν ἐστι περὶ ποιότητος τῶν κενουμένων. (Kühn
17b, 358.9)
His statement is about the quality of what is being purged.
Galen’s other endophoric markers, such as εἴποµεν, ‘we said’, and ἐδείξαµεν, ‘we have
shown’, Ḥunayn translates with first person verb forms such as waṣafnā, and bayyanna. In the
following translation from book I, Ḥunayn’s first person plural verb forms correspond to
grammatically similar forms in Galen:
ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν ποιότητος τὰς διαγνώσεις ἔμπροσθεν εἴπομεν, ἡνίκα τὸν
ἀφορισμὸν ἐξηγούμεθα. (Kühn 17b.443)
But the symptoms of the quality [of the purging] we have mentioned before,
when we explained the aphorism[.]
.‫وقد وصفنا العالمات التي يستدلّ بها على كيفية االستفراغ قبل في تفسيرنا للفصل‬
We have already described the symptoms by which the quality of the purging is
judged before in our explanation of the aphorism.
&42
However, the translation of Galen’s personal endophoric markers does not fully account for
the high number of these verbs in Ḥunayn’s translation. Where do these other forms come
from? The answer lies in Ḥunayn’s consistent activisation of Galen’s passive constructions.
Ḥunayn makes passive constructions with a first person agent, such as ἡµῖν δέδεικται ‘it is
shown by us’, and εἴρηται ἡµῖν ‘it is said by us’, active. He typically translates the former
with bayyanna, ‘we have shown’ and the latter with qulnā, ‘we have said’. More importantly,
Ḥunayn tends to translate passive verb forms that occur without a personal agent, such as
δέδεικται, ‘it has been shown’, with personal active forms as well. For example, kamā sanubayyinu fī tafsīrinā li-ḏālika l-kitābi, ‘as we will clarify in our commentary on this book’
translates the passive Greek construction ὡς ἐν τῇ κατ' ἐκεῖνο τὸ βιβλίον ἐξηγήσει δείκνυται
(Kühn 350.14), ‘as is shown in the commentary to this book’. The form waṣafnā, ‘we
described’, translates a Greek first person verb form in only five of the 14 times it occurs in
book I. It translates a passive impersonal Greek construction in the nine remaining instances.
Ḥunayn also activises passive participles, for example in this phrase from book I:
.‫وليس يعسر أن تت ّبني صّحة كلّ واحد من هذه األشياء التي ذكرناها بايجاز واختصار‬
It is not difficult for the truth of these things that we have mentioned to be
shown briefly and concisely.
ὅτι δ' ἀληθές ἐστιν ἕκαστον τῶν εἰρημένων, οὐ χαλεπὸν ἐπιδεῖξαι διὰ
βραχέων (Kühn XVII, 353).
That each of the things that have been mentioned (τῶν εἰρηµένων) are the
truth, is not difficult to be shown in short statements.
Ḥunayn’s active, personalised endophoric markers do not necessarily make his translation
more subjective. By using these forms he does not, for instance, add authorial stance or
personal experiences. These personal forms rather assign the referential acts in the
commentary more obviously to the author, Galen. Thus, besides their cohesive function of
&43
connecting text segments, their function in Ḥunayn’s translation is also to stress the
subjectivity of the text and to clarify the role of the author in these sentences.
2.3.2
Frame markers: Category C
Ḥunayn uses frame markers in more than 200 cases, roughly as much as the total number of
first person verb forms in Galen’s text. Many of these markers in Ḥunayn’s text do not have a
Greek equivalent. For example, Ḥunayn’s most prominent first person singular form aʿnī does
translate Galen’s frame marker λέγω, ‘I mean’, ‘argue’. However, this form occurs only eight
times in Galen’s commentary while Ḥunayn uses its equivalent 116 times. In most of the
remaining cases there is either no equivalent in the Greek at all, or Ḥunayn uses aʿnī to
translate the impersonal Greek τουτέστι (‘that is’). Ḥunayn thus uses it to transform
impersonal Greek phrases to personal Arabic sentences, as for instance in this sentence from
book I:
σκοπὸς δὲ τοῦ ποσοῦ τῆς κενώσεως οὐ τὸ πλεονάζον μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ
φύσις ἂν εἴη, τουτέστιν ἡ δύναμις τοῦ κενουμένου ἀνθρώπου. (Kühn 17b.
364.15)
The quantity of the purging should not only be measured according to how
much is superfluous, but also according to the nature, that is the strength of the
man who is purged.
‫ دون‬،‫وليس ينبغي أن يكون الغرض في تقدير ما يستفرغ مقدار كثرة الشيء الغالب فقط‬
.‫ أعني بالطبيعة قوّة بدن االنسان الذي يستفرغ‬،‫طبيعة البدن‬
And the quantity of what is purged should not only be measured according to
the quantity of what is superfluous, irrespective of the nature of the body. By
‘nature’ I mean [here] the strength of the body of the person who is being
purged.
However, while Ḥunayn makes this sentence personal, his ‘I mean’ here does not add
authorial stance to the text, but merely functions to introduce the reformulation of the word
‘nature’. In fact, Ḥunayn’s ‘I mean’ only introduces a subjective argument when Galen also
&44
does so in the Greek, by using a form such as λέγω. It does not, therefore, always have a
subjective function, rather it tends to stress that impersonally expressed explanations in the
Greek are actually subjective explanations by Galen himself.
In the case of other verbs which Galen uses to express authorial discourse acts, such as
‘I explain’, and ‘I comment’, Ḥunayn stays grammatically close to the Greek. In the following
example from his comment on aphorism i.15, Galen argues that Hippocrates has not been
clear enough about what he means by ‘spring’, and that he himself will define it more clearly.
Galen’s explicit use of the pronoun ἐγὼ, as well as the verb form διοριοῦμαι, ‘I specify’,
creates a contrast between the author and Hippocrates. Ḥunayn literally translates both the
pronoun and the verb form:
διὸ καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἦρος, ἀδιοριστότερον εἰπόντος Ἱπποκράτους ἐγὼ
διοριοῦμαι, πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅμοιόν ἐστι μᾶλλον κράσει
χειμῶνος ἢ θέρους, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς τελευτῆς ἔμπαλιν. εἶθ' ὅτι πολλάκις μὲν
οἷον χειμῶνος γίνεται ψυχρὸν εἶθ' ὅτι δὲ οἷόν περ θέρος θερμόν. 424.
Because Hippocrates has spoken very vaguely about the spring, I define it
clearly, first then that at the beginning it is more similar in its weather to winter
than summer, and towards the end the opposite. And that either often it
becomes cold like winter, or that it is warm like summer.
‫ولذلك إذ كان أبقراط لم يحدّد قوله ”في الربيع“ التحديد الذي ينبغي فإنّي أنا أحدّه‬
‫ ث ّم‬،‫فأقول أوّ ًال إنّ الربيع في أوّله أشبه في مزاجه بالشتاء منه بالصيف وفي آخره بالعكس‬
.‫ ور ّمبا كان حاراً يشبه الصيف‬،‫أقول إنّ الربيع ر ّمبا كان أيضاً باجلملة بارداً يشبه الشتاء‬
And because of this, since Hippocrates did not specify “in spring” the way he
should have, I specify it, and I say first that the beginning of spring is more like
winter than summer, in terms of its weather, and its end the opposite.
Consequently I say that spring might be completely cold, similar to winter, and
it might be warm like summer.
This example also shows two instances in which Ḥunayn adds ‘I say’. He uses this frame
marker to emphasise that the definitions are Galen’s, and also, as Uwe Vagelpohl (2014, 55)
argues in his study of the translation of the Epidemics, to ‘clarify the flow of Galen’s
argument’. The form ʾaqūlu occurs 59 times in Ḥunayn’s translation with a similar function.
&45
Although it mostly does not have a Greek equivalent, it explicitly marks arguments that are
already marked as Galen’s in the Greek text. Therefore, Ḥunayn’s use of ʾaqūlu also does not
make his translation more subjective, but stresses that Galen’s commentary is in fact
subjective.
Ḥunayn sometimes changes the grammatical number of Galen’s verb forms. For
instance, he translates the plural ἐροῦμεν, ‘we will argue’, with the singular ʾaṣifu, ‘I
describe’, in the following sentence from Galen’s comment on aphorism vi.46:
νῦν δ’ ἡμεῖς ἐροῦμεν ὅσα χρήσιμά εἰσιν εἰς τὸν προκείμενον ἀφορισμόν.
(Kühn 18a.75.5)
We will now say what is necessary about the present aphorism.
.‫وأمّا في هذا املوضع فإنّي أصف ما يحتاج إليه منه في تفسير هذا الفصل‬
As to this passage, I [here] describe what is necessary for the explanation of
this aphorism.
2.3.3
Stance: Category A
The most frequent way Galen marks personal stance is, as already discussed above, the
construction µοι δοκεῖ ‘it seems to me’. Ḥunayn mostly translates this with the verb form
ʾarā, ‘I see’. He occasionally also translates it with fa-ʾaqūlu, ‘I say’, or ʾaẓunnu, ‘I think’, and
sometimes with the prepositional construction ʿindī, ‘in my opinion’. An example of the latter
is found in Galen’s comment on aphorism ii.21, where Hippocrates says that drinking ‘cures’
hunger, and Galen carefully explains how one should understand the word ‘hunger’:
ὅσοι δ’ ἡγοῦνται τὸν καλούµενον βούλιµον εἰρῆσθαι λιµὸν νῦν ὑφ’
Ἱπποκράτους, ἀλογώτερόν µοι δοκοῦσιν ἀκούειν τοῦ λόγου[.] (Kühn 17b.501)
They who believe that what is now said by Hippocrates about hunger refers to
what is called ‘boulimos’, seem to me to understand his argument very
irrationally.
&46
‫فأمّا من ظنّ أنّ أبقراط إمنّا عنى في هذا املوضع باجلوع العلّة التي يسمّيها اليونانيني‬
.‫بوليموس فقد بعد جدّاً عندي عن فهم ما أراد أبقراط‬
Who thinks that Hippocrates meant here by ‘hunger’ the disease which the
Greek call ‘būlīmūs’, is very far, in my opinion, from understanding what
Hippocrates meant.
It is also worth noting the translation of deixis in this sentence; Ḥunayn translates Galen’s τὸν
καλούµενον, ‘what is called’, with ‘the disease which the Greeks call’.
Ḥunayn renders other instances of stance in Galen’s text equally accurately. For
example, the Greek stance marker ἴσµεν, ‘we know’, Ḥunayn translates with either a perfect
or imperfect tense of ‘to know’ (naʿlamu/ʿalimnā), and the same for the singular οἶδα, which
he either translates with ʾaʿlam or ʾadrī (both mean ‘I know’). Moreover, when Galen adds an
implicit stance marker, as he does in his comment on aphorism i.1, Ḥunayn translates this
explicitly. In this comment, Galen writes that it is “among the difficult things” to know
Hippocrates’ intention with the first aphorism. Ḥunayn emphasises this qualification by
adding the phrase (yaʿsuru) ʾan naʿlama ‘(it is difficult) for us to know’:
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὗτος ὁ λόγος, εἴθ' εἷς ἀφορισμός ἐστιν εἴτε δύο, προοίμιον
ὑπάρχει τοῦ παντὸς συγγράμματος ὡμολόγηται σχεδὸν ἅπασι τοῖς
ἐξηγησαμένοις αὐτόν. τί δὲ βουλόμενος ὁ Ἱπποκράτης ἐχρήσατο
τοιούτῳ προοιμίῳ τῶν ἀπορωτάτων ἐστί. τάχα δ' ἂν εὕροιμεν αὐτὸ, τὰ
κατὰ μέρος ἅπαντα τοῦ λόγου προδιασκεψάμενοι. (Kühn 17b. 346.5)
That this passage, whether it is one aphorism or two, serves as an introduction
to this whole book, is agreed upon by nearly all those who have interpreted it.
What Hippocrates meant when he used this introduction is something very
difficult. However, we may find it, when we examine all of this saying part by
part.
‫ قد اتّفق جلّ من فسّر هذا الكتاب على أنّ هذا القول فصالً واحداً كان أو‬:‫قال جالينوس‬
‫ لكنّه يعسر أن نعلم ما الذي أراده أبقراط باستعماله‬،‫فصلني فهو صدر لهذا الكتاب ك ّله‬
‫ ولعّلنا نقف على ذلك إن نحن تقدّمنا فعلمنا فبحثنا عن جميع ما في هذا‬.‫هذا الصدر‬
.ً‫القول شيئاً شيئا‬
&47
Galen said: Most commentators on this book agreed that this passage, whether
one takes it as one aphorism or two, introduces the whole book. However, it is
difficult for us to know what Hippocrates meant by using this introduction.
Perhaps we will discover this, once we first learn and inquire into everything in
this passage one by one.
In three instances, Ḥunayn leaves Galen’s expressions of stance untranslated. In the following
example from book I, Ḥunayn does not translate Galen’s phrase εἰς ὅσον δύναµαι, ‘as much
as I can’, with a similar first person form in Arabic, which he may have conceived as an
unnecessary emphasis on the author’s limitations.
ἐγὼ δ' εἰς μόρια τέμνων ἐξηγοῦμαι εἰς ὅσον δύναμαι σαφηνείας ἕνεκα
(Kühn 17b.378).
I then, having divided it into parts, explain as much as I can for the sake of
clearness.
.‫وأمّا أنا فإنّي إمنّا جزّئته وفسّرته جزئاً جزئاً ليكون بنيّ وأوضح‬
And as far as I am concerned, I have divided it and explained it part by part, so
that it would be clear and explicit.
This may also be due to the fact it was perhaps not present in the source text from which
Ḥunayn made his translation.
Finally, Ḥunayn regularly (16 times) uses the verb form aḥsabu, ‘I assume’, especially
in paragraphs in which he adds his own ideas to the translation.
2.3.4
Verbs of Personal Experience: Category D
At several places in his commentary, Galen relates of his own experiences and actions as a
physician. For these descriptions he usually uses first person verb forms, such as ‘we have
seen this among patients’. Ḥunayn preserves these personal forms, as he does in the following
sentence, in which Ḥunayn translates the Greek plural πεπειράµεθα, ‘we have tried’, with ‫ﺟﺮّﺑﻨﺎ‬
(same):
καὶ ἡμεῖς πάνυ πολλάκις πεπειράμεθα τῶν τοιούτων κενώσεων ἰσχυρῶς
ὠφελουσῶν. (Kühn 17b.445]
&48
And we have tried these ways of purging many times [and found that they] are
extremely useful.
.‫وقد خرّبنا هذا االستفراغ مراراً كثيرة ال حتصى فوجدناه ينفع منفعة قوية‬
And we have tried this [type of] purging innumerable times and we found it to
be extremely useful.
Galen uses plural and singular forms with this function intermittently. In the following
example, he uses the singular εὗρόν, ‘I have discovered’, which only occurs once in the
commentary. Ḥunayn translates it with waǧadtu, ‘I have found’, a form that occurs about 18
times in his commentary:
εὗρόν γε µὴν ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων καὶ ταύτην γεγραµµένην. (Kühn 17b.645)
I have discovered this passage [about melancholy] also in one of the previous
writings.
‫وقد وجدت في نسخة من النسخ في عداد أمراض أصحاب هذا السنّ الوسواس‬
.‫السوداوي‬
I have found melancholy [mentioned] in one of the manuscripts about the
diseases of people of this age.
The most prominent verb expressing personal experience in Ḥunayn’s translation is the verb
‘to see’, which he uses in both plural (raʾaynā, 18 times) and singular (raʾaytu, 33 times) to
translate the personal Greek forms ἐθεασάµην, ‘I have seen’ (5 times), τεθέαµαι, ‘I have
seen’ (3 times), εἴδοµεν, ‘we have seen’ (4 times), ἑωράκαµέν, ‘we have seen’ (3 times), and
τεθεάµεθα, ‘we have seen’ (once). In the following sentence from Galen’s comment on
aphorism iv.72, Ḥunayn translates ἐθεασάµην with raʾaytu:
ἐθεασάµην γοῦν ἐγὼ σπανιάκις τὸ τοιοῦτον σηµεῖον ἐν ἄλλαις ἡµέραις παρὰ
τὴν τετάρτην. (Kühn 17b.759]
I have several times seen this symptom [occur] on other days than the fourth.
.‫وقد رأيت مراراً ليست بالكثيرة هذه العالمة قد ظهرت في أيّام أخر غير الرابع‬
I have not often seen this symptom appear during days other than the fourth.
&49
Ḥunayn uses ‘we have seen’ also when Galen does not, for example when he intends to clarify
that Galen is the one who has witnessed a particular phenomenon, when the latter uses an
impersonal passive construction. An example of this is found in Galen’s comment on
aphorism v.13, where Ḥunayn translates the passive form ὦπται, ‘it has been seen’, with the
active raʾaynā ‘we have seen’:
πολλάκις γὰρ ὦπται πτύσις αἵµατος ἀφρώδους ἄνευ πλήθους γεγενηµένη.
(Kühn 17b.798.1)
For many times a spitting of a small amount of frothy blood has been seen.
.‫وذلك انّا قد رأينا مراراً كثيرة من قذف من رئته دماً زبدياً ليس بالكثير‬
For we have often seen someone spit a small amount of frothy blood from his
lungs.
Ḥunayn furthermore uses ‘we have seen’ to translate impersonal forms such as φαίνεταί, ‘it
appears’, and frequently also as an addition to the text.
The verb form naǧidu, ‘we find’, is Ḥunayn’s most prominent first person plural form
(62 times). Ḥunayn sometimes uses this form to narrate his personal experience, especially in
those parts of his translation where he adds paragraphs with his own thoughts (which he
introduces with qāla Ḥunayn, ‘Ḥunayn says’). He does so for instance in his comment on
aphorism vi.32, which is about lisps. In this comment Ḥunayn uses naǧidu up to six times to
relate of the types of lisps he has encountered, and once in the phrase “we find the Greeks did
not know”. However, as we will see below, Ḥunayn also frequently uses this form to
personalise Greek passive constructions.
2.3.5
Impersonal Verbs: Category E
One category of first person forms Ḥunayn impersonalises rather than personalises. These are
forms which Galen uses to express intersubjective, shared experiences, such as ‘our body’.
&50
Ḥunayn generally translates this particular phrase impersonally, as he does in the following
sentence from book I:
εὐµετάβλητον γὰρ ἡµῶν τὸ σῶµα καὶ ῥᾳδίως ἀλλοιούµενον. (Kühn 17b.
346.17)
For our body is easily changed and readily altered.
.‫وذلك ألنّ البدن سريع االستحالة سهل التغيّر من نفسه‬
For the body changes quickly and easily transforms.
Ḥunayn does the same with the phrase οὐδεὶς ἡµῶν, ‘none of us’, which he translates with
laysa aḥadun min an-nāsi, ‘none of the people’, as in the following example from book I:
οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἡµῶν ἱκανός ἐστι συστήσασθαί τε ἅµα καὶ τελειῶσαι τὴν τέχνην[.]
(Kühn 17b.352.5)
For none of use is competent to at the same time acquire and fulfil this art[.]
‫وذلك أنّه ليس أحد من الناس يقوى على أن يستخرج هذه الصناعة ويستتمّها عن‬
.‫آخرها‬
For none of the people is able to acquire this art and fulfil it completely.
Verbs related to medical actions, which Galen expresses in first person but intends to apply to
all physicians, such as δώσοµεν [τροφὴν], ‘we should give [food]’, Hunayn often translates
with the third person singular passive form yuʿṭā. This could however be a scribe’s alteration,
as this form could begin with a ‫ ن‬of the first person as well, if one places a dot above the line,
instead of two underneath.
Two more translations involving personal forms deserve attention. Ḥunayn translates a
first person plural verb in Greek with a second person singular in Arabic. In this case, in book
I, he possibly understands Galen’s ‘we’ as intersubjective, as a shared experience between
reader and author.
&51
Εἰ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένων αὐτῷ περὶ διαίτης ἀναμνησθείημεν,
ἐναργεστέρα ἡμῖν ἡ χρεία φανεῖται νῦν τῶν λεγομένων. (Kühn 18b.
381.10.)
If we remember the things that were said before by him about diets, the clear
need of these words now becomes clear to us.
‫إن كنت ذاكراً ملا تقدّم قول أبقراط في تدبير الغذاء فإنّ احلاجة إلى ما قاله في هذا الفصل‬
.‫يكون عندك أبني‬
If you remember what preceded Hippocrates’ passage about diets, then the
need for what he says in this aphorism should be clear for you.
Ḥunayn clarifies here that who really needs to remember Hippocrates’ words is the reader, and
not Galen himself.
In the case of (at least) one other verb Ḥunayn does the opposite, personalising an
objective, impersonal Greek phrase with a first person form that has no subjective function.
This is the case with the form naǧidu, “we find”, which I already discussed in relation to its
personal meaning. When Galen, for instance, refers to something written in another book, he
sometimes uses a passive construction, such as ταυτὶ γέγραπται, ‘this is written’. Ḥunayn
structurally translates this with naǧidu, as in fa-naǧidu hāḏā l-qawla maktūban, ‘we find this
statement written’, in book VI. In these translations, the personal form naǧidu does not have a
subjective function.
2.3.6
Conclusion
The systematic study of the personal forms in Galen’s commentary and Ḥunayn’s translation
demonstrates that the Arabic text is considerably more personal, even when taking into
account the fact that Ḥunayn impersonalises some of the personal forms in Galen. Galen uses
these forms to create a contrast between himself and Hippocrates, emphasise his own opinion,
and to refer to other places in the text. He also uses these forms to express his own
experiences, and in a general, intersubjective way (such as ‘our body’). Ḥunayn follows
Galen’s use of personal forms with these functions, except those in category E, which he tends
&52
to impersonalise. An analysis of these functions shows that the majority in Galen’s text
consists of stance markers, while in Ḥunayn’s translation endophoric markers are most
prominent. For all semantic groups, except category E of ‘objective’ personal forms, Ḥunayn
adds a considerable amount of personal forms to otherwise impersonal sentences in the source
text. He especially transforms impersonal passives, or other impersonal constructions, into
active personal constructions, which account for a considerable amount of his personal forms.
I have argued that Ḥunayn’s main reason for this is to emphasise the subjectivity of
Galen’s text, and to stress all instances when opinions or actions are actually Galen’s (at least
according to his interpretation), even when Galen uses a passive or impersonal expression in
Greek.
Ḥunayn also adds many “I mean”-phrases, possibly out of habit, but perhaps also to
enliven the text by expressing authorial involvement. The Greek scholarly communities in the
2nd century perhaps were used to impersonal, passive expressions, whereas Arabic audiences
in the 9th century seemed to have appreciated active sentences. The fact that Ḥunayn’s
translation is more personal does not mean that his text is more subjective. In his translation,
Ḥunayn tends to emphasise the subjectivity of Galen’s text and clarify whenever statements or
actions belong to him. Besides the instances where Ḥunayn adds his own opinion to particular
comments, his personal forms highlight rather than create a subjective voice in Galen’s
commentary.
2.4
Subjectivity in the Corpus
The average of first person verb forms in the corpus is around 33 per 10,000 words. Ibn alQuff and al-Baġdādī are by far the most prominent users of personal forms, with 62 and 59
first person verb forms per 10,000 words. They are the only authors to equal Ḥunayn’s 60
personal forms per 10,000 words. Table 2.6 shows the different categories and their
&53
prominence per author, with the absolute numbers on the left, and the respective relative
numbers per 10,000 words on the right.
Table 2.6
IAS
Quff
Manāwī
Sinǧārī
Siwāsī
Baġdādī
Nīlī
1
1
1
2
1
0 0
14
9
0
0
1
103 23
11
5
1
1
3 2
10
6
6
6
9
2
120 27
27 13
13
8
9 6
19 12
1
1
D
15
4
12
3
16
8
26 16
2 2
27 17
3
3
E
9
2
41
9
6
3
1
12 8
23 15
8
8
44 27
26 18
93 59
A
29
7
B
6
C
sum
68 16
4
280 62
2
61 30
19 19
The Arabic commentators are divided regarding the use of personal forms. All authors
regularly use ‘I’ and ‘we’-forms, but there is no convention regarding the function these forms
have in the text. An-Nīlī, who wrote a brief commentary, and Siwāsī, one of the later authors,
mostly use personal verb forms from Category E without intending a subjective meaning. In
contrast, both al-Baġdādī and as-Sinǧārī use personal verb forms especially to narrate
personal experiences (category D). Interestingly, only Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses personal verb
forms most frequently to express stance. The use of personal verb forms to express arguments
is most common in Ibn al-Quff and al-Mānāwī. Ḥunayn’s frequent use of personal endophoric
markers is not reflected broadly in the corpus. Ibn al-Quff is the sole author to regularly use
personal endophoric markers, 23 times per 10,000 words.
As Table 2.7 shows, five out of the eight authors (including Ḥunayn) use more first
person plural than singular forms. Especially Ḥunayn, Ibn al-Quff and al-Baġdādī strongly
prefer ‘we-forms’. Al-Manāwī, as-Siwāsī, and as-Sinǧārī each prefer ‘I-forms’.
&54
Table 2.7
Singular tokens
Plural tokens
Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq
25
59
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
10
7
Ibn al-Quff
8
56
Al-Manāwī
15
13
An-Nilī
4
13
As-Siwāsī
2
16
As-Sinǧārī
20
7
Al-Baġdādī
6
57
Table 2.8 shows the type/token ratio. A high ratio reflects a high diversity of verbs used.
Table 2.8
Singular verbs ratio
Plural verbs ratio
Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq
28%
17%
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
29%
71%
Ibn al-Quff
25%
12%
Al-Manāwi
23%
46%
An-Nilī
100%
50%
As-Siwāsī
100%
50%
As-Sinǧārī
88%
57%
Al-Baġdādī
50%
61%
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq has a high ratio of plural first person verbs, which reflects a lexically richer
style. Ibn al-Quff on the other hand, who uses first person verbs quite regularly, only uses a
small number of different verbs in first person plural, with a rather standardised use of ‘we
have mentioned’, and ‘we say’, which points at a less diverse style in this respect. As-Sinǧārī
and al-Baġdādī both have a relatively high ratio of singular verbs because of the personal
&55
introductions at the beginning of their commentaries, where they use a high variety of first
person verbs.
2.4.1
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s use of personal forms is unique within the corpus for two reasons. First, he
only uses 17 first person verb forms per 10,000 words, which is the lowest number in the
corpus. In comparison, Ibn al-Quff uses 62 personal forms per 10,000 words and al-Baġdādī
59. Second, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq is the only author to primarily use first person forms to express
stance. Verbs of category A, such as ʾaḥsabu, ‘I assume’, occur 7 times per 10,000 words in
his commentary. Table 2.9 shows all the verbs Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses in the books I analysed,
with their frequency. Plural forms are more frequent than singular forms in his commentary
(43 versus 30).
Table 2.9
Singular
ʾaḥsabu
fihimtu
ʾaʿnī
ʾaqūlu
ʾarā
Plural
Plural
I assume
13 ḏakarnā
we
mentioned
4 naġḏu
we feed
1
we read
1
6 qulnā
we said
2 qaraʾnā
5 sa-naqūlu
we say
1 takallamnā
we spoke
1
I say/argue
5 waǧada
we find
3 naqaḍnā
we
criticized
1
I think/
believe
1 waṯaqa
we trust
2 nuwakkilu
we
surrender
1
we learned
1
we purge
1
I understood
I mean
ʾafhamu
I understand
raʾaytu
I have seen
7 nastaṯmiru
we utilise
1 ʿalimnā
1 nuḍīf
we add
1
nastafriġu
hamamtu
I intended
1 istafadnā
we
learned
1 naẓunnu
we think
1
ʾurattibu
I organize
1 naḥtāǧu
we need
1 raʾaynā
we saw
3
I collect
1 nuṭawwil
we
lengthen
1
I make
1 nastaʿmil
we use
1
ʾuǧammiʿu
ʾaǧʿa1
&56
I shortened
iqtaṣartu
1 nuʾayyidu
we
support
1
These verb forms can be categorised as follows:
Category A:
ḥasaba (13), fahama (13), raʾaynā 2, naẓunnu (1).
Category B:
ḏakarnā (4), qulnā (1), naqūlu (1).
Category C:
ʾaʿnī (5), qulnā (1), nuʾayyidu (1), naqaḍnā (1), ʾurattibu (1).
Category D:
naṯiqu (2), nastaṯmiru (1), nuḍīfu (1), istafadnā (1), naḥtāǧu (1),
nuṭawwilu (1), qaraʾnā (1), takallamnā (1), raʾaynā (2), hamamtu (1),
ugammiʿu (1), ʾaǧʿalu (1), iqtaṣartu (1).
Category E:
waǧada (3), nastaʿmil (1), naġḏū (1), nuwakkilu (1), ʿalimnā (1),
nastafriġu (1), raʾaynā (1).
Table 2.10 shows how frequently verbs of each semantic category occur in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s
commentary, with every second column showing the relative amount per 10,000 words.
Table 2.10
A
29
B
7
6
C
1
9
D
2
15
E
4
9
total
2
68
16
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq begins his commentary with an introduction, in which he uses first person
singular verb forms. The following example from the beginning of book I illustrates how the
author sets out his method of commenting using a personal style:
‫وقد كنت هممت أن أرتّب فصول هذا الكتاب فأجمع بني الفصول التي تنتظم معنىً واحد ًا‬
‫وهي متقاربة املعاني وأجعلها في سبع مقاالت أخر ثمّ رأيت أن ترتيب فصول كلّ مقالة على‬
.‫االنفراد أوّالً ثمّ اقتصرت على ترتيب فصول هذه املقالة الواحدة‬
I planned to order the aphorisms of this book and bring together the aphorisms
that are ordered based on one meaning and those that are close to each other in
meanings, and to make them into seven separate articles. Then I saw to the
ordering of the aphorisms of each book separately first, then I made the ordering
of the aphorisms of this book short.
&57
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s most frequent personal form is ʾaḥasabu, ‘I assume’. He uses it for example
to begin his comment on aphorism vi.3:
‫وأحسب أن بقراط عنى بقوله االمتناع من الطعام في اختالف املزمن رديء النوع األوّل وبقوله‬
.‫وهو مع احلمى أردأ النوع األخير‬
And I assume that Hippocrates meant I “the loss of appetite during chronic
dysentery” the first kind [i.e. loss of appetite because of the intestines], and by “it
is worse if it happens with fever” the latter kind [loss of appetite because of the
liver].
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq quite readily expresses his uncertainty. In the following example from book
VI, he uses the personal pronoun, ʾanā, ‘I’, with ʾaḥsabu, to emphasise his own opinion:
‫وأمّا أنا فأحسب أن أبقراط عنى بقوله ”ينبغي أن يتفقد من األوجاع العارضة في سائر‬
‫ فإن جميع ذلك‬.‫مواضع البدن عظم اختالفها“ ما يكون من االوجاع من ضروب االختالف‬
.‫مما ينتفع به في الوجوه التي ذكرناها‬
And as far as I am concerned, I believe that Hippocrates meant by his saying “one
should examine the biggest difference among the acute pains in the other places of
the body” what different sorts of pain exist. And all of it benefits from it in terms
of the aspects that we mentioned.
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq scarcely uses personal verb forms as endophoric markers. In roughly 45,000
words, he only uses the form ḏakarnā, ‘we mentioned’, four times, and qulnā, ‘we said’,
once. In the following comment on aphorism v.48, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses ‘we mentioned’ to
refer to his other work about ar-Rāzi’s Šukūk:
‫وأمّا أنّ الذكور أسخن من األناث وما اعترض به الرازي قائالً بأنّه لو كان كذلك ملا وجد امرأة‬
.‫أحرّ مزاجاً من رجل فقد ذكرنا ذكراً كافياً في حلّ شكوكه على جالينوس‬
And as to the fact that the masculine is hotter than the feminine, and what ar-Rāzī
has critiqued regarding this saying that if this was the case he would not have
found a woman with a warmer mixture than a man, we have mentioned this
sufficiently in the book about his Doubts on Galen.
&58
Category C-verbs are relatively infrequent in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s text. He does not regularly
introduce arguments with first person verb forms. He does, however, sometimes use ʾaʿnī, ‘I
mean’, to clarify his opinion.
Verbs of personal experience are not frequent in his commentary either. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
twice expresses conditions he witnessed with the plural form raʾaynā, ‘we have seen’. He
does so for example in his comment on v.21:
‫ فلمّا أخرج‬.‫فقد رأينا مفلوجاً من أصحاب السلطان عوقب في مطالبة املال فدفن في الثلج‬
.‫ كان قد برأ من استرخائه وعاد إلى متام صحّته بعد معاجلة يسيرة‬،‫منه‬
We have seen one of the friends of the sultan semi-paralysed [after] he was
punished for asking money and buried in ice. When he was taken out of it, he was
cured from his limpness and he became fully healthy again after the right
treatment.
The final category of verbs, E, those we-forms that refer to a general, shared subjective
experience rather than to the personal subjectivity of the author, is not common in his
commentary either. He uses such forms twice per 10,000 words. For example, he uses
nastafriġu, ‘we purge’, once to express the need for all physicians to purge a patient’s body in
certain situations.
2.4.2
Ibn al-Quff
At the beginning of his first book, Ibn al-Quff writes a short introduction to his commentary
in which he explains why he has set out to comment on the aphorisms. In this introductory
paragraph, he uses a variety of first person singular verb forms:
‫فـقـد سـألنـي بـعـض مـن يـشـتـغـل عـلـى أن أشـرح لـه كـتـاب الـفـصـول لـإلمـام أبـقـراط‬
‫ وإن أذكـر لـه مـع ذلـك اإلرادات الـتـي لـلـرازي وغـيـره وأجـيـب عـنـهـا‬،‫قـدس الـلـه روحـه‬
&59
‫ فـأجـبـتـه إلـى ذلـك‬.ً‫وأرتـب لـه عـلـى كـل كـلـمـة مـن كـلـمـات فـصـولـه بـحـثـاً خـاصـا‬
.‫مـسـتـعـيـنـاً بـالـلـه تـعـالـي ووسمته بكتاب األصول في شرح الفصول‬
A student asked me to explain for him the book of aphorisms by the master
Hippocrates, may God bless is soul, and to mention for him with that the
decrees by ar-Rāzī and others, and to react to it and to organise for him a
special examination of each word of the words of his aphorisms. And I reacted
to this while seeking support from God, exalted be He, and I called it the book
of the Foundations in the Commentary of the Aphorisms.
But even after his introduction, Ibn al-Quff continues to use personal forms, even though he
switches to plural forms. In fact, he uses the highest number of first person verb forms among
all authors in the corpus (62/10,000 words), roughly as much as Ḥunayn in his translation. He
has a clear preference for first person plural forms. His first chapter (45,001 words),
comprises about 254 first person plural verbs, compared to 38 first person singular verbs.
Table 2.11 shows all singular and plural forms in Ibn al-Quff Book I.
Table 2.11
Singular
ʾaqūlu
ʾaʿnī
Plural
Plural
I say
I mean
24 ḏakarna
we mentioned
89 naǧʿalu
we make
2
we made lighter
2
4 qulnā
we said
30 ḫufnā
2 naqūlu
we say
52 naḥtāǧu
we need
1
2 narā
we see
15 nuʿallilu
we explain
1
we seaw
4 ʿallalnā
we explained
1
ʾuǧību
I answer
ʿariftu
I knew
ʾašraḥ
I explain
1 raʾayna
ʾaḏkuru
I mention
1 nastaʿmilu
we use
6 fihimnā
we understood
1
ʾurattibu
I organise
1 istaʿmalnā
we used
6 faʿalnā
we did
1
1 ʾawḍaḥnā
we explained
7 taqaddamnā
we preceded
1
4 nubādiru ʾilā
we respond to
1
ʾarā
I see
ʾaẓunnu
I believe
1 iḥtaǧnā
we needed
wasamtu
I called
1 laṭṭafnā
we softened
4 ʾaṣalnā
we place
1
nubayyinu
we explain
4 ʾaḫadnā
we took
1
faraḍnā
we suppose
3 ʾabṭalnā
we invalidated
1
we begin
1
naǧidu
we find
&60
3 nišraʿ
we thickened
2 iʿtabarnā
we expressed
1
nušāhidu
we see
2 iqtaṣarnā
we lessened
1
ʾawradnā
we presented
2 ʾaradnā
we wanted
1
ʾašarnā
we indicated
2 nuǧarribu
we try
1
ġalaẓnā
These can be categorised as follows:
Category A:
ʿariftu (2), ʾaẓunnu (1), ʾarā (1).
Category B:
ḏakarnā (89), ʾawḍaḥnā (7), awraḍnā (2), ʾašarnā (2), nubayyinu (3)
Category C:
ʾaqūlu (24), ʾuǧību (1), qulnā (30), naqūlu (52), faraḍnā (3), nuʿallilu
(1), ʿallalnā (1), ʾaḏkuru (1), ʾašhraḥu (1), ʾurattibu (1), fihimnā (1),
nubayyinu (1), ʾaṣalnā (1), ʾabṭalnā (1), iʿtabarnā (1).
Category D:
raʾaynā (1), faʿalnā (1), taqaddamnā (1), nubādiru (1), iqtaṣarnā (1),
ʾaradnā (1), nuǧarribu (1), ʾuǧību (1), ʾašraḥu (1), wasamtu (1),
ʾurattibu (1), ʾaḏkuru (1).
Category E:
raʾaynā (2), iḥtaǧnā (4), naḥtāǧu (1), nušāhidu (2), naǧidu (3),
ʾaḫadna (1), naǧʿalu (2), našraʿu (1), narā (15), istaʿmalnā (6),
nastaʿmilu (6), laṭṭafnā (4), ġalaẓnā (2), ḫifnā (2).
The total amount of instances per category is presented in Table 2.12.
Table 2.12
A
B
4
1
103
C
23
120
D
27
12
E
3
41
total
9
280
62
Like al-Manāwī, Ibn al-Quff mostly uses first person verb forms of category C (27/10,000
words). He regularly expresses his arguments and explanations with an authorial ‘we’-form.
Although he also frequently (5/10,000) uses the form ʾaqūlu, ‘I say’, to introduce his
&61
arguments and to clarify contrast to other authors he quotes, such as in the following sentence
from his comment on aphorism i.2, where he, politely, critiques Galen’s explanation:
‫أقول إنّ هذا التأويل الذي تأوّله الفاضل جالينوس إمنّا يصحّ لو كان املستفرغ لزيادة الكمّية‬
.‫طوعاً غير نافع وليس في كالم اإلمام أبقراط ما يدلّ عليه‬
I say that this interpretation by the eminent Galen is only correct if the purging
because of the surplus of the quantity, automatically, is not useful, and there is
nothing in Hippocrates’ words that points at this[.]
In this example Ibn al-Quff utters a strong evaluation of one of Galen’s explanations of
Hippocrates, posing his opinion next to Galen, with whom he disagrees.
More frequently than the singular, Ibn al-Quff uses the plural naqūlu, ‘we say’, with the
same function. In the following critique in his comment on aphorism i.1, Ibn al-Quff uses the
phrase wa-l-ǧawāba ʿan hāḏā naqūlu, ‘and we say in answer to this’ to introduce his
counterargument:
‫فـإن كـان األول فـلـم تـحـتـج إلـى عـلـم الـطـب ألن الـصـحـة بـاقـيـة فـي الـبـدن الـمـذكـور بـدون‬
‫ والـجـواب عـن هـذا نـقـول‬.‫ وإن كـان الـثـانـي لـم يفـد اسـتـعـمـال الـطـب‬،‫اسـتـعـمـال قـوانـيـنـه‬
ً‫كـمـا أن الـلـه تـعـالـي قـدر وجـود الـصـحـة جـعـل اسـتـعـمـالـه لـهـا عـلـى مـا يـنـبـغـي سـبـبـا‬
.‫لـلـصـحـة‬
And if the first was the case you would not need the science of medicine
because health would remain in the mentioned body without using its laws, and
if the second was the case then the use of medicine would not be useful. And
we say in answer to this, as God Most High enabled the existence of health,
thus he made its correct use [of medicine] a facilitator of health.
In his comment on i.16, the author uses personal forms to introduce his critique of Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq.
‫ قال ابن‬:‫البحث الرابع في بيان زيادة نفع هذه األغذية للصبيان وملن هو معتاد الستعمالها‬
‫ والذي نقوله نحن إنّ في التدابير‬،‫أبي صادق وذلك ألنّها تشاكل أمزجتهم األصلية‬
.‫املرضية ال يلتفت إلى مشاكلة التدبير للمزاج األصلي وال إلى عدم مشاكلته‬
&62
The fourth inquiry into the explanation of the extra benefit of this nutrition for
boys and for whom is used to using it: Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq said: “and this is because
it resembles their original temperaments”. And what we say is that with regard
to the diets of diseases he does not take into account the similarity of the diet to
the original temperament, nor its dissimilarity.
Further on in the same passage, the author switches from plural to singular, writing wa-lḥaqqu ʿindī fī hāḏā mā ʾaqūluhu, “and I am right about what I say”.
Ibn al-Quff’s most prominent first person verb form is ḏakarnā, ‘we have mentioned’,
which occurs 89 times in book I. His regular use of this verb makes endophoric reference the
second most important category of personal verb forms in his commentary. He is the only
author among the later Arabic commentators to use personal endophoric markers, and he
resembles Ḥunayn’s style in this respect. Ibn al-Quff also uses personal forms to refer the
reader to places outside the commentary. In the following example from his comment on i.2,
he mentions two of his other works, to which he refers with the plural possessive pronominal
suffix /-nā/; ‘our book’ and ‘our commentary’:
.‫وقد ذكرناها في كتابنا املعروف بالشافي وفي شرحنا لكلّيات القانون‬
And we have already mentioned it in our book known by The Healing and in our
Commentary on The General Principles of The Law.
Quff regularly (9/10,000 words) uses first person plural verbs denoting an intersubjective ‘we’
rather than the ‘we’ of the author. In Ibn al-Quff’s comment on aphorism i.9, for instance, the
forms laṭṭafnā ‘we soften’, and istaʿmalnā, ‘we use’, describe general medical actions, not just
Ibn al-Quff’s own:
‫ألنّ القوّة متى كانت قوية وفيها احتمال ملقاومة املرض لطفنا التدبير سواء كان املرض حادًّا‬
ً‫أيضاً أو مزمناً ومتى كانت ضعيقة استعملنا خالفه سواء كان حادًّا أو مزمنا‬
Because when the strength is great and has the ability to resist the disease, then
we soften the treatment, be the disease acute or chronic, and if it [the strength]
is weak, then we use the opposite, be the disease acute or chronic.
&63
Similary, Ibn al-Quff’s use of narā, ‘we see’, is typically non-personal, as Ibn al-Quff uses it
to describe general observations rather than just his own.
Finally, Ibn al-Quff expresses his personal opinion rarely, twice he uses ʿariftu ‘I knew’,
once ʾarā ‘I believe’, and once ʾaẓunnu, ‘I think’. His expressions of personal experiences are
equally rare.
2.4.3
Al-Manāwī
Al-Manāwī uses 29 first person plural verb forms, distributed over 12 different verbs, in
books I, II and III, (21,317 words). He mostly uses these forms as discourse acts and
endophoric markers. As Table 2.13 shows, al-Manāwī uses more singular forms (32) than
plural forms (29).
Table 2.13
32 Plural
Singular
ʾaʿnī
I mean
ʾaqūlu
I say
ʾuǧību
I answer
ʾaʿlamu
29
18 naḏkuru
we mention
we see
1
we say
3 ǧarrabnā
we tried
1
1 nanẓuru
we look at
3 waǧadnā
we found
1
I know
1 ḍabaṭnā
we determined
we suppose
1
samaytu
I named
1 naẓarnā
we looked at
we verify
1
intahaytu
I reached
1 ḥakamnā
we judged
1 ḏakarnā
we mentioned
1
I was
1 naḥkumu
we judge
1 naḍbuṭu
we determine
1
kuntu
4 naqūlu
10 narā
šaraʿtu
I began
qarartu
I decided
1
radadtu
I replied
1
ʾašraḥu
I explain
1
I add
1
ʾuḍimmu
1 nisʾal
we ask
These can be categorised as follows:
Category A:
ʾaʿlamu (1)
&64
2 faraḍnā
1 nataḥaqqaqu
1
Category B:
naḏkuru (10), ḏakarnā (1)
Category C:
ʾaʿnī (18), ʾaqūlu (4), naqūlu (3), ʾuǧību (1), nataḥaqqaqu (1)
Category D:
ḍabaṭnā (2), ḥakamnā (1), naḥkumu (1), naḍbuṭu (1), samaytu (1),
intahaytu (1), kuntu (1), šaraʿtu (1), qarartu (1), radadtu (1), ʾašraḥu
(1), ʾuḍimmu (1), nisʾalu (1), ǧarrabnā (1), waǧadnā (1),
Category E:
naẓarnā (1), nanẓuru (3), narā (1), faraḍnā (1)
Table 2.14 shows the frequency of each category.
Table 2.14
B
A
1
1
11
C
5
27
E
D
13
16
8
6
total
3
61
30
Al-Manāwī, just as Ibn al-Quff, mostly uses personal verb forms to express discourse acts,
such as ‘I argue’ and aʿnī, ‘I mean’ (8/10,000 words). For example, he uses it in his comment
on aphorism ii.34:
.‫وذلك ألن األول أعني املناسب يكون سببه ضعفها‬
And this is because the first [type of disease], I mean the one that is related [to
the patient’s constitution], is caused by its [i.e. “the constitution’s”] weakness.
Manāwī also tends to use personal, yet plural, verbs to express his experiences as a physician.
He is the author to most frequently express personal experiences after al-Baġdādī and asSiwāsī. In his comment on aphorism i. 23, al-Manāwī contradicts Galen’s assertion by relating
of his own experience using the plural ǧarrabnā, ‘we tried’:
،‫ عبارة جالينوس صريحة في أنّ حصول الغشي حدّ لنهاية االستفراغ وهذه عبارته‬:‫مهمّة‬
.‫وقد جرّبنا هذا االستفراغ مراراً كثيرة ال حتصى فوجدناه ينفع منفعة قوية‬
&65
Important: Galen honestly said that fainting intensifies at the end of the
purging, and this is what he said. However, we have tried this type of purging
innumerable times and found it is very beneficial.
Al-Manāwī also uses a considerable number of category D-verbs in the introductory
paragraph at the beginning of his commentary, mostly singular:
‫وقد اشتمل الكتاب املوسوم بالفصول لإلمام األوحد أبقراط املوصل لألصول على جمل‬
‫ فشرعت في شرح له ممزوج‬،‫منه وأحكام محكمات مستندة للقياس واألمور اجملربات‬
‫باألصل مستوفياً للفائدة في كل فصل فصل وقررت في الغالب على وجه يدفع اعتراضات‬
‫أوردت عليه وقد أصرح باالعتراض وأضم جوابه إليه مقتبساً من شرحه لإلمام العالم‬
‫العالّمة الشيخ عالء الدين بن نفيس ومن شرحه للشيخ اإلمام ابن أبي صادق ومن شرحه‬
‫لفيلسوف الزمان اآلتي بالعجائب في هذا الشأن جالينوس ومن شرحه للفيلسوف ابن‬
‫ وسميته‬.‫ فضل اهلل تعالي منيل اخليرات‬،‫القف مضيفاً لذلك ما تيسّر لي من األبحاث‬
.‫بتحقيق الوصول إلى شرح الفصول ونسأل اهلل العظيم أن يجعله خالصاً لوجهه‬
The book, characterised by the aphorisms of the only master Hippocrates, the
connecter to the origins, includes principles from it, and accurate dictates,
relying on reason as well as tried matters. And I began to comment on it,
combining it with the original, in order to present the benefit of each and every
aphorism. In most cases, I decided to defend the objections that had arisen
against it, and to clarify it with a counterargument and add its answer to it,
drawing on the commentary on [the same text] by the erudite, very learned
master, the Sheikh ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn Ibn Nafīs, and from the commentary on it by
the Sheikh, the Master Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, and from the commentary of the
philosopher of the time, the bringer of miracles in this matter, Galen, and from
the commentary by the philosopher Ibn al-Quff, adding to this what was
possible for me from inquiries, by the bounty of God, exalted be He, the
bestower of benefits, and I called it “The Realisation of the Achievement of the
Commentary on the Aphorisms”, and we ask the great God to make it clear for
his countenance.
&66
Endophoric markers, although not the primary reason for which he uses personal verb forms,
occur regularly in al-Manāwī (5/10,000 words). He uses the phrase: wa-l-lāḏī naḏkuruhū
alʾāna, “and what we will mention now” before each new aphorism. For these references he
tends to use a first person plural verb form. He does so for example at the end of his comment
on aphorism i.18:
‫واعـلـم أنّ الـمـصـنّـف مـن عـادتـه إذا أراد أن يـنـتـقـل مـن حـكـم إلـى حـكـم غـيـره ذكـره‬
‫ فإنّه‬،‫فـصـالً مـشـتـمـالً عـلـى كـلّ مـنـهـمـا كـمـا فـعـل فـي هـذا الـفـصـل الذي نذكره اآلن‬
.‫يشتمل على شيء من حكم التغذية وشيء من حكم االستفراغ‬
Know that the author was used to, when he wanted to move from one wisdom
to another one, to mention it in a aphorism covering both of them as he did in
this aphorism which we mention now, as it covers part of the wisdom of food
and part of the wisdom of purging.
However, some of these forms are ambiguous, and could also be read as third person forms.
In fact, in books III and VI, the scribe of manuscript E10 repeatedly expresses the same
phrase with a passive construction, using a third person singular verb, for example:
.‫والفصل الذي يذكر اآلن يدلّ على ذلك‬
The aphorism mentioned now indicates this.
It is difficult to judge whether the dots of the ‫| ي‬yā| and the ‫| ن‬nūn| are written at the discretion
of the scribe, or intended by al-Manāwī. However, those forms with an objective pronominal
suffix -hū, ‘it’, as in naḏkuruhū, are first person plural without doubt.
Al-Manāwī very rarely expresses stance. He once uses the singular ʾaʿlimu, ‘I know’,
but in a quote from Ḥunayn’s translation of Galen’s commentary.
&67
2.4.4
As-Siwāsī
As-Siwāsī uses the smallest number of personal verb forms after Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, 18/10,000
words. Most of these forms belong to category E and are not subjective. In books I, II, III and
VI, he uses just two first person singular verbs, both in the following sentence from his
introduction:
‫ شرح الفصول ومن اهلل استمررت حسن التوفيق‬،‫وسميت هذا اخملتصر بعمدة الفحول‬
.‫ولطفه‬
And I have named this brief exposition The Source of the Masters, The
commentary on the Aphorisms, and I have continuously sought from God the
goodness of success and his kindness.
As-Siwāsī has a slightly more regular use of first person plural verbs (16/10,000 words). Table
2.15 shows the plural verb forms that occur in books I,II, II and VI of as-Siwāsī’s
commentary, with their frequency.
Table 2.15
Plural
bayyannā
we explained
naqūlu
we say
ʿarifnā
we knew
ḏakarnā
istaʿmalnā
we mentioned
we use
5 qulnā
we have said
1 ġaḏawnā
3 naqqaṣnā
we decreased
1 ašġalnā
3 ablaġnā
we intensified
1 taʾaḫḫarnā
3 natawassilu
we reach
1 manaʿnā
2
These can be categorised as follows:
Category A: Category B:
ḏakarnā (3)
Category C:
bayyannā (5), naqūlu (3), qulnā (1)
Category D: -
&68
we fed
1
we employed
1
we delayed
1
we prevented
1
Category E:
ġaḏawnā (1), naqqaṣnā (1), ʾablaġnā (1), ʾašġalnā (1),
taʾaḫḫarnā (1), manaʿnā (1), natawassilu (1), ʿarifnā (3),
istaʿmalnā (2).
Table 2.16 shows the frequency of each category.
Table 2.16
A
B
0
0
3
C
2
9
D
6
2
E
2
12
total
8
26
18
As-Siwāsī’s most prominent category is that of non-personal we-forms (category E), which
describe general experiences, such as ġadawnā, ‘we fed’ , and ʾablaġnā, ‘we increased’;
actions of physicians which Ḥunayn, translating Galen, uses in the same way.
As-Siwāsī also regularly uses personal forms to express discourse acts (6/10,000
words). He uses the verb bayyana, ‘to explain’, five times as a discourse act, as in the
following example from his comment on aphorism i.24:
ً‫قد بيّنّا أنّ حتريك األبدان في األمراض احلادّة في األوّل ال يجوز إالّ إذا كان املرض مهيّجا‬
.ً‫واخللط متحرّكا‬
We explained that it is not allowed to move bodies at the beginning of acute
diseases, except if the disease is inflammatory and the humour moving.
Even though the verb form bayyanna refers to an action in the past, its primary function in
this sentence is to restate an explanation in the present tense of the text. As-Siwāsī uses a
limited number of endophoric markers. The verb ḏakara, which is popular among the other
authors, he uses only twice in his own narrative, and once in his quotation of Ḥunayn’s
translation of Hippocrates’ aphorism in book III.
As-Siwāsī does not express stance through personal forms, and he does not relate
personal experiences beyond the short paragraph in which he narrates how he named his
commentary and sought support from God. His rather impersonal style, especially in the latter
&69
books of his commentary, is also reflected in the impersonal expression of his own opinion.
For example in book III, he uses the phrase wa-abṭalahū aš-šāriẖ ‘the commentator
invalidated him’, speaking about himself in third person:
‫ وأبـطـلـه جـالـيـنـوس بـأن‬،‫وبـعـضـهـم فـهـم مـن االنـقـالب االنـتـقـال مـن فـصـل إلـى آخـر‬
‫ لـكـن‬،ً‫ذلـك كـمـا يـولـد األمـراض الـمـنـاسـبـة كـذلـك يـشـفـي األمـراض الـمـضـادة أيـضـا‬
‫ وأبـطـلـه الـشـارح بـأنّـه إذا صـار الـصـيـف شـتـويـاً جـاء فـي الـسـنـة‬.ً‫ذلـك وارد عـلـيـه أيـضـا‬
.‫الـواحـدة شـتـآن‬
And one of them understood ‘the transformation’ (inqilāb) as the passage from
one season to another, and Galen invalidated him by [saying that] it means that
as the appropriate diseases grow, their opposite diseases are cured, but that has
also been critiqued. For the commentator invalidated him saying that, if
summer was like winter, one year would have two winters.
Moreover, instead of using active, personal phrases such as al-ʾamrāḍu l-lātī ḏakarnāhā, ‘the
diseases which we have mentioned’, as-Siwāsī uses passive constructions such as al-ʾamrāḍ
al-maḏkūra, the mentioned diseases.
2.4.5
As-Sinǧārī
As-Sinǧarī is one of three authors to use more first person singular verb forms than plural
forms. In the first three books of his commentary, he uses just 12 first person plural forms. In
contrast, he uses 32 first person singular forms in the same books, 28 of them in book I. His
use of these forms is very diverse, he uses 25 different verbs in first person singular. However,
out of the 28 singular forms, only four forms occur in books II and III. Table 2.17 shows all
personal verb forms, both present and perfect tense, in as-Sinǧārī’s first three books.
Table 2.17
32
Singular
ʾuǧību
I answer
ʾaqūlu
I say
2 aḏkuru
12
Plural
I mention
1 ʾuǧīlu l-fikra
I ponder
&70
1 qulnā
1 manaʿnā
we said
3
we prevented
1
qultu
I said
aʿnī
I mean
1 ʾartaḍi
I agree with
1 naqūlu
we say
1
I trust
1 ʿalimnā
we learned
2
1 ʾaʿtaḥidu
ʾawḍaḥu
I explain
2 atawakkilu
I rely on
1 nuʿāliǧu
we cure
1
ʾubayyinu
I explain
1 ʾunību
I turn to
1 šāhadnā
we witnessed
1
ašraḥ
I explain
1 ḫadamtu
I served
1 natawaqqaʿu
we expect
1
ayastu
1 ǧaʿaltu
I despaired
aǧmaʿu
I collect
ra’aytu
I believed
ǧaytu
1 samaytu
1 taǧassartu
1 ḏakarnā
we mentioned
1
I named
1 nimnaʿu
we prevent
1
I was bold
1
I make
1
1 ʾaṣnafu
I came
I did
I learned
1 ʾawradtu
I produced
1
kuntu
I was
2 ʾaqdamtu
I did first
1
ǧarrabtu
I tried
1 kuntu
I was
2
ʿalimtu
These verbs can be categorised as following:
Category A:
ʿalimtu (1), raʾaytu (1)
Category B:
ḏakarnā (1)
Category C:
uǧību (2), aqūlu (1), qultu (1), qulnā (3), naqūlu (1), aǧmaʿu (1), aʿnī
(1), aḏkuru (1), uǧīlu al-fikra (1), artaḍi (1)
Category D:
kuntu (2), manaʿnā (1), nimnaʿu (1), uwaḍḍiḥu (2), ubayyinu (1),
ašraḥu (1), ayastu (1), ǧaytu (1), ʿalimtu (1), ǧarrabtu (1), aʿtahidu
(1), atawakkilu (1), unību (1), ḫadamtu (1), ǧaʿaltu (1), samaytu (1),
taǧassartu (1), aṣnafu (1), awradtu (1), aqdamtu (1), šāhadnā (1),
natawaqqaʿu (1)
ʿalimnā (1), nuʿāliǧu (1)
Category E:
Table 2.18 shows how many verbs with each semantic function occur in total.
Table 2.18
A
B
2
1
1
C
1
13
D
8
26
&71
E
16
2
total
1
44
27
‫‪Most of as-Sinǧārī’s singular forms are from category D and occur in his first book, where he‬‬
‫‪includes two personal narratives, one in which he presents himself as an author, and another‬‬
‫‪containing a story about a patient he once cured. I first quote the lengthier passage from as‬‬‫‪Sinǧārī’s introduction to his commentary, which contains most of the first person singular‬‬
‫‪forms the author uses in his first book. In this introduction, as-Sinǧārī speaks in a personal‬‬
‫‪tone, explaining why he came to write the commentary, and also that he is in the service of a‬‬
‫‪king.‬‬
‫فـإنّـنـي‪ ،‬لـمـا مـنّ اهلل سـبـحـانـه وتـعـالـي عـلـيّ بـإظـهـاري مـن عـلـم الـطـب عـلـى كـنـوزه‬
‫وكـشـف مـشكالتـه وحـلّ رمـوزه‪ ،‬وجـب عـلـيّ أن أوضـح لـطـالـبـه أسـرار مـطـالـبـه وأبـيـن‬
‫لـمـتـعـلـمـه غـوامـض حـكـمـه‪ .‬ورأيـت كـتـاب الـفـصـول ألبـقـراط يحلّ مـن هـذا الـعـلـم‬
‫مـحـل عـُضـوه الـرئـيـس ال بـل هـو مـنـه كـالـنـفـس ال يـقـاس إلـيـهـا جـوهـر نـفـيـس‪ .‬وقـد‬
‫شـرحـه جـمـاعـة مـن الـعـلـمـاء وعـدة مـن كـبـار الـحـكـمـاء إالّ أنّـهـم ركـبـوا فـيـه طـريـق‬
‫الـبـالغـة واإليـجـاز وسـلـكـوا فـيـه نـهـج الـتـغـريـب واإلعـجـاز‪ .‬وأفـهـام الـمـتـعـلـمـيـن فـي‬
‫زمـانـنـا هـذا مـحـتـاجـة إلـى أن يـتـلـطـف الـمـعـلـم إلـيـهـا ويـتـوصـل بـالـحـيـل إلـى إيـضـاح‬
‫الـحـكـم لـديـهـا لـقـصـور الـهِـمَـم لـوفـور الـهُـمـوم وفـسـاد الـشَّـتْـم لـكـسـاد الـعـلـوم‪.‬‬
‫فـأجـبـت أن أشـرحـه لـطـالـبـيـه شـرحـاً يُـنَـشّـط إلـى الـرغـبـة فـيـه وأجـمـع فـي لفظـه بـيـن‬
‫الـبـيـان والـبـيـان‪ ،‬وفـي مـعـنـاه بـيـن الـدقـة والـتـوصـل إلـى األذهـان‪ .‬ولـم أصـنـف هـذا‬
‫الـكـتـاب بـمـا أدي إلـيـه عـقـلـي بـل بـمـا أوردتـه مـن مـحـفـوظـي ونـقـلـي‪ .‬فـلـهـذا أقـدمـت‬
‫عـلـى ذلـك‪ ،‬وقـد كـنـت مـن عـقـلـي فـي أمـان وتـجـسـرت عـلـى أن جـعـلـت نـفـسي هـدفـاً‬
‫لـكـل لـسـان وجـديـر بـالـواقـف عـلـيـه سـتـر مـا يـجـده مـن ذلـك وإصـالح مـا يـطـلـّع عـلـيـه‬
‫مـن خـطـأ أو خـلـل‪ .‬وسـمـيـتـه كـتـاب تـيـسـيـر الـوصـول إلـى تـفـسـيـر الـفـصـول‪.‬‬
‫‪And I, when God, glorified and exalted be He, had bestowed upon me my‬‬
‫‪discovery of the science of medicine, its treasures, the uncovering of its‬‬
‫‪difficulties, and the solving of its riddles, had to explain to its student the‬‬
‫‪secrets of its quests and to clarify to its pupil the depths of its wisdom. And I‬‬
‫‪saw that The Book of Aphorisms by Hippocrates occupies the place of the main‬‬
‫‪member within this science, to which no precious jewel measures up.‬‬
‫‪A group of scholars and a number of great wise men have already‬‬
‫‪commented on it, but they did it in a manner of eloquence and brevity, and they‬‬
‫‪&72‬‬
followed a way of banishment and inimitability. The understandings of the
intellectuals in our days need to be dealt with carefully by the instructor, so that
he manages to explain their wisdom forcefully, due to the lack of ambitions,
the excesses of concerns, and the corrupting vilification of the sciences’
stagnation. And I agreed to provide it [the book] with a commentary for its
students that would incite desire for it, and I combine several explanations in its
formulation, and as far as its meaning is concerned, I combine accuracy and the
reaching of minds. And I do not compose this book with what my mind leads
to, but with what I have transferred from my memory and tradition. And
because of this I ventured upon this, and I was safe because of my intellect, and
I had the audacity to make myself a target for every tongue while worthy to
have a shelter against what is found of such, in the form of the repair of what is
detected in it of mistake and flaw. And I called it the book of the Facilitation of
the Achieving of the Explanation of the Aphorisms.
،‫ الـعـالـم‬،‫ الـمـلـك الـمـظـفّـر‬،‫ الـمـالـك‬،‫ الـسـلـطـان الـمـعـظـم‬،‫وخـدمـت بـه خـزانـة مـوالنـا‬
‫ غـيـاث اإلسـالم‬،‫ قـحـر الـدنـيـا والـحـق والـديـن‬،‫الـعـادل الـجـاهـد الـمـؤيـد الـمـنـصـور‬
‫والـمـسـلـمـيـن سـيـد الـمـلـوك والـسـالطـيـن مـحـيـي الـعـدل فـي الـعـالـمـيـن‬
And with it I served the treasury of our patron the great ruler, the master, the
victorious, the knower, the righteous one, the endeavorer, the supporter, the
triumphant, the glory of the world and the truth and religion, etc.
In addition to this introduction, as-Sinǧārī in his first book also narrates a personal experience
he has had in the service of a Sultan, one of whose slaves had fallen ill with homesickness.
As-Sinǧārī recounts how he interacted with the Sultan, and how he managed to find a cure for
the boy, positing himself both as a loyal, humble employee as well as a gifted physician.
‫ وذلـك أنّـي كـنـت‬،‫فـإنّـنـي جـربـتـه وصـحّ مـعـي فـي عـدة مـواضـع أذكـر بـعـضـهـا‬
‫ وكـان لـه مـمـلـوك جـمـيـل مـنـظـره مـلـيـح‬،‫فـي خـدمـة بـعـض الـمـلـوك رحـمـه اهلل تـعـالـى‬
‫ فـوقـع فـي مـرض صـعـب عـالجـه وضـاق عـلـى‬،‫ وكـان لـه بـه عـنـايـة عـظـيـمـة‬،‫مـخـبـره‬
‫ ويـرى عـنـد نـعـاسـه وغـوصـه‬،‫مـنـهـاجـه وكـان كـثـيـراً مـا يـهـجـر فـي مـرضـه بـطـيـب بـلـده‬
‫ فـجئـت‬.‫ وإنّـه قـد عـظـم عـلـيـه مـفـارقـتـه‬،‫ فـعـلـمـت شـدة مـحـبـتـه لـبـلـده‬،‫أنّـه فـي بـلـده‬
‫ قـد بـقـي عـنـدي فـي‬،‫ يـا مـوالي‬:‫إلـى مـخـدومـه بـعـد مـا أيـسـت مـن عـالجـه فـقـلـت‬
‫ إن كـان مـوالنـا يـعـاونـنـي عـلـيـهـا نـتـوقـع لـه الـراحـة والـعـافـيـة مـن‬،‫مـداواتـه فـرد قـضـيـة‬
&73
.‫ يـأمـر مـوالنـا مـن يـدخـل عـلـيـه ويـفـوّض أمـره إلـيـه‬:‫ ومـا هـي؟ قـلـت‬:‫ فـقـال‬.‫اهلل تـعـالـى‬
‫ قـد رتـّبـنـي الـسـلـطـان بـأن تـمـشـي إلـى بـلـدك وتـحـضـر مـن مـتـاع الـبـلـد الـذي‬:‫ويـقـول‬
‫ فـإحـضـرنـا هـديـة سـنـيـة وأدي‬،‫ فـأجـاب إلـى ذلـك‬.‫هـو فـيـه مـا يـصـلـح أن نـهـديـه‬
‫ وقـام‬،‫ فـصـحّ ذلـك عـنـده وداخـلـه مـن الـسـرور مـا أزال عـنـه كـل مـحـذور‬.‫الـرسـالـة‬
.‫كـنـاشـط مـن عـقـال بـعـد مـا رثـّتْ بـه األحـوال كـأنّـه قـد بـلـغ نـهـايـة األمـال‬
I tried it [a particular remedy] and it worked for me in several cases of which I
shall mention one. That is, I was in the service of one of the kings, God bless
him. He had a servant who was beautiful inside and out, and he cared about
him dearly. He was struck by a disease which was difficult to treat and had a
narrow course. He would often sink away in his disease (thinking about) the
goodness of his country, and used to imagine, when he was drowsy and
immersed, that he was in his country. Thus I became aware of how intensely he
loved his country, and that it was painful for him to be separated from it. I
came to my master after I had despaired about his treatment and said:
“O my master, I have a single proposition left regarding his treatment, if
our master supports me with respect to it we will expect him to receive rest and
well being from God the Highest.”
And he said: “what is it?”
I said: “Let our master order who enters to him and entrust his case to
him and let him say “by the power invested in me, go to your country and
collect what is useful to bring from the country’s commodities.”
And he [the sultan] told [the slave] in reaction to [this proposal]:
“Prepare us a sublime gift and carry out the mission.”
And that worked out well for him, and a joy befell him that made all his
trouble disappear. He got up as if he had been freed from shackles, after the
&74
circumstances had worn him out so much that there had been no hope left for
him.
These two passages are the reason why as-Sinǧārī is one of the only authors, together with alBaġdādī, to mostly use personal verbs of category D in the first books of his commentary. AsSinǧārī’s second most prominent use of first person verbs is that of discourse acts.
Remarkably, as-Sinǧārī uses the form ḏakarnā, ‘we mentioned’, which is so frequently used
in Ḥunayn’s and Ibn al-Quff’s commentaries, only once, and not in his own words, but in a
quote of one of the aphorisms (iii.28).
2.4.6
Al-Baġdādī
In his introduction and first chapter (15,490 words), al-Baġdādī uses only nine first person
singular verbs. In contrast, he uses 87 first person plural verbs. Of all authors he uses the
highest variety of different verbs, with 53 verb types, 37 of which he only uses once. Table
2.19 shows both the singular and plural forms that occur in al-Baġdādī’s introduction and first
book.
Table 2.19
Singular
9
88 Plural
Plural
aʿnī
I mean
5
naqūlu
we say
4 qaddamnā
ušīru
I refer
1
qulnā
we said
arā
I believe
1
ḏakarnā
urīdu
I mean
1
aʿlamu
I know
1
we advanced
1
6 aḫḫarnā
we
postponed
1
we mentioned
6 zayyafnā
we declared
false
1
naʿlamu
we know
4 abdalnā
we changed
1
raʾaynā
we saw
5 asqaṭnā
we dropped
1
we mean
4 aṯbatnā
we
confirmed
1
naʿnī
&75
ʿalim
we learned
2 intahaǧnā
we pursued
1
we know
2 aḍrabnā
we avoided
1
nanẓuru
we look at
2 šaraḥnā
we explained
1
basaṭnā
we extend
2 qāyasnā
we
compared
1
ittakalnā/
nattakilu
we trust
2 ǧaʿalnā
we made
1
naṯiqu
we trust
2 laqqabnā
we named
1
2 naʾḫuḏu
we begin
1
nā
naʿrif
u
natawaqaʿu
we expect
nataǧannab
u
we avoid
2 istafraġnā
we purged
1
nafʿalu
we do
2 iqtaṣarnā
we lessened
1
naḍtiru
we compel
1 ḥallalnā
we analysed
1
nuṣīmu
we make fast
we were
1
we are
1
we support
1
irtakabnā
faraḍnā
2 kunnā
we pursue
1 nakūnu
we suppose
1 nuʿīnu
we
contemplated
1 nuġaḏḏī
we feed
1
we have
leaned
1 laṭṭafnā
we made
delicate
1
taḥaḍḍarnā
we prepared
1 ġalaẓnā
we thickened
1
iḥtaḍaynā
we followed
1 nadaʿ
we leave
1
we burden
ourselves
1
qaṣadnā alnaẓar
iʿtamadnā
nuʿīdu
we repeat
1 natakallafu
nuhayyiʾu
we prepare
1 naḫallī
we let
1
sammaynā
we named
1 natruku
we leave
1
zidnā
we added
1 nuḥaddidu
we
determine
1
naqaṣnā
we removed
&76
1
These forms can be categorised as follows, with category D the most prominent with 27
forms.
Category A:
naʿlamu (4), ʿalimnā (2), naʿrifu (2), raʾaynā (4), ʾarā (1), aʿlamu (1)
Category B:
qulnā (4), ḏakarnā (6)
Category C:
basaṭnā (2), qulnā (2), naqūlu (4), naʿnī (4), ʾurīdu (1), ʾušīru (1),
ʾaʿnī (5), faraḍnā (1), naʾḫudu (1)
Category D:
raʾaynā (1), ittakalnā (2), natawaqaʿu (2), naḍṭiru (1), qaṣadnā alnaẓar (1), taḥaḍḍarnā (1), iʿtamadnā (1), iḥtaḍaynā (1), nuʿīdu (1),
samaynā (1), zidnā (1), naqaṣnā (1), qaddamnā (1), aḫḫarnā (1),
zayyafnā (1), ʾabdalnā (1), ʾasqaṭnā (1), ʾaṯbatnā (1), intahaǧnā (1),
šaraḥnā (1), qāyasnā (1), ǧaʿalnā (1), laqqabnā (1), iqtaṣarnā (1),
ḥallalnā (1)
Category E:
nanẓuru (2), nafʿalu (2), nuṣīmu (2), naḍṭiru (1), irtakabnā (1),
istafraġnā (1), kunnā (1), nakūnu (1), nataǧannabu (2), nuʿīnu (1),
nuġaḏḏī (1), ġalaẓnā (1), laṭṭafnā (1), nadaʿ (1), natakallifu (1),
nuḫallī (1), natruku (1), nuḥaddidu (1), nuhayyiʾu (1)
Table 2.20 shows the prominence of each semantic category.
Table 2.20
A
14
B
9
10
C
6
19
D
12
27
E
17
23
total
15
93
59
Similar to as-Sinǧārī, al-Baġdādī also engages in a relatively lengthy introduction to his
commentary, the structure of which I will discuss in chapter VI. Al-Baġdādī here uses a mix
of singular and plural personal forms, mostly of category D:
‫قصدنا النظر في كتاب الفصول ألبقراط وإثبات شرحه بحسب ما تأدى إلينا‬
‫ إذ‬.‫ واقتضاه الوقت احلاضر واحتملته همم أهل زماننا‬،‫ وانتهت إليه طاقتنا‬،‫ووسعته قوتنا‬
‫ وأجمعها لكليات صناعة الطب‬،‫كان هذا الكتاب أشرف الكتب التي حتضرنا ألبقراط‬
&77
‫العملية وأهمها عند املبتدئ والناظر في شيء والشادي والنطاسي وأوجبها أن يكون‬
‫ وهذا الكتاب لم جند أحداً من ا ملتأخرين تطاول إلى‬.(…) ‫حاضرا لذكر الطبيب ا ملاهر؛‬
،‫ ولكن وصل إلينا عن ا ملتقدمني له شرحان‬،‫شرحه إال على جهة احلواشي والتعاليق‬
‫ وعليه اعتمدنا وحذوه‬،‫ وهو ا ملشهور‬،‫ بنقل حنني بن اسحاق‬،‫ جلالينوس‬:‫أحدهما‬
‫ سيء العبارة في جانب عن فصاحة‬،‫ رديء النقل‬،‫ لبعض اليونانيني‬:‫ وا آلخر‬.‫احتذينا‬
‫ لكن يتبني من حكاية جالينوس ومجادالته أن هذا الكتاب قدكان له‬.‫جالينوس وحنني‬
‫ ولو كنا لم نعيد في كتابنا هذا أقوال جالينوس في شرحه‬،‫شروح كثيرة انتهت إليه دوننا‬
‫ وزيَّفنا من أقواله ما رأيناه‬،‫ وقدمنا وأخرنا‬،‫ لكننا زدنا ونقصنا‬،‫لسميناه اختصار ًا لكتابه‬
‫ ومن جملة ما أسقطناه تصريفه‬.‫ وأبدلنا موضعه ما رأيناه يليق به‬،‫يستحق التزييف‬
‫ونحوه الذي يستعمله على ما كان يقتضيه لغة اليونانيني إذ كان ال جدوى له اليوم عندنا‬
‫ املفتقرة إليه ما يعني‬،‫ وأثبتنا نحن من النحو والتصريف في ا ألمكنة الالئقة به‬،‫في لغتنا‬
.‫على الفهم ويرشد إلى ا ملعنى‬
We have pursued the study of the book of Aphorisms by Hippocrates and the
affirmation of its explanation to the extent of what has been given to us and for
which our strength has been sufficient, and to which our ability has led. The
present moment has demanded it and the concerns of the people of our time
have sustained it. Since this book was the most distinguished of the books that
we prepared to Hippocrates[’ work], we compile it for the colleges of the art of
practical medicine and its concerns among the beginner, the observer, the
educated, and the skilled physician. I impose it to be present in the memory of
the skilled physician.
We do not find any of the contemporary authors competent to comment
on this book, except for some marginal notes and annotations. […] if we would
not repeat Galen’s sayings in his commentary in this book of ours we would
have to call it a summary of his book, however we have added [to it] and taken
away [from it], we have provided it with an introduction and epilogue, we have
&78
declared those of his sayings false that we saw as deserving to be declared
false, and we changed the position of what we thought needed it. And among
the things we removed were his inflection and grammar which he uses
according to what the language of the Greeks requires, if there was no benefit
to it today for us in our language. And we kept the morphology and grammar in
the places that were appropriate, that needed something to point at
understanding and guide to the meaning.
Al-Baġdādī also frequently uses ‘impersonal’ we-forms, such as ‘we thicken’, ‘we feed’, and
‘we purge’, in which ‘we’ refers to the community of physicians, rather than the author
himself. Discourse acts are an important part of his style as well. He regularly uses forms such
as naʿnī ‘we mean’, aʿnī ‘I mean’, ʾurīdu ‘I mean’, and naqūlu ‘we argue’. Although the
author does not use personal forms to express stance as much as he uses them for these other
purposes, he does express his opinion with subjective forms 9 times per 10,000 words. In the
introduction quoted above, for example, he twice uses the form raʾaynā with the sense of ‘we
thought’.
2.4.7
An-Nīlī
An-Nīlī, finally, uses 19 personal forms per 10,000 words. The majority of these (8/10,000)
are impersonal. As Table 2. 21 shows, an-Nīlī strongly prefers plural forms (15) over singular
forms (4).
Table 2.21
Singular
4
15 Plural
Plural
raʾaytu
I saw
1
ḏakarnā
we mentioned
5 naḥtāǧu
we need
1
ḥaḍartu
I prepared
1
aṭʿamnā
we fed
2 ġaḏaynā
we fed
1
&79
istaḥartu
aʿnī
I mean
1
nastaʿmilu
1
naġḏī
naḏkuru
we use
1 ṣādafnā
1
we feed
1 kaṯarnā
we increased
1
we mention
1 qallalnā
we decreased
1
These verbs can be categorised as follows:
Category A:
-
Category B:
ḏakarnā (5), naḏkuru (1)
Category C:
aʿnī (1)
Category D:
ḥaḍartu (1), istaḥartu (1), raʾaytu (1)
Category E:
naḥtāǧu (1), ġaḏaynā (1), ṣādafnā (1), kaṯarnā (1), qallalnā (1),
naġḏī (1), aṭʿamnā (2), nastaʿmilu (1)
Table 2.22 shows the prominence of each semantic category among the personal forms in anNīlī’s commentary.
Table 2.22
A
B
0
0
6
C
6
1
D
1
3
E
3
9
total
9
19
19
An-Nīlī mostly uses ‘we-forms’ to describe general medical actions. He only rarely
(3/10,000 words) uses personal forms to describe his own experiences. He does tend to
use plural personal forms with a cohesive function, like Ḥunayn, in the form of
ḏakarnā, ‘we mentioned’. He only uses one discourse act, ʾaʿnī, ‘I mean’, and never
explicitly expresses stance through personal forms.
2.5
Discussion
All Arabic commentators on the Aphorisms regularly use personal verb forms, including Ibn
ʾAbī Ṣādiq, as-Siwāsī, and an-Nīlī, who use these forms relatively infrequently. The function
of these personal forms in the commentaries varies significantly between authors, and the
extent of subjectivity of the authors’ styles differs.
&80
The expression of epistemic stance (category A) is common only in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq and
al-Baġdādī. Despite his relatively infrequent use of personal forms, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s style
should be reckoned among the most subjective in the corpus, since his personal forms express
his personal opinion about his statements, and are more than just a conventional way of
expressing impersonal statements. He regularly uses the form ʾaḥsabu, ‘I assume’, which is
unique within the corpus.
The use of personal forms to introduce arguments, paragraphs, and explanations
(category C) is common among most authors. Personal forms in the corpus often serve the
purpose of emphasising the author’s arguments, and contrasting his views with other authors.
Endophoric markers (category B) are remarkably infrequent in the corpus compared to
Ḥunayn’s translation, and only Ibn al-Quff resembles his style in this aspect. Ḥunayn’s use of
these forms is part of his personalising translation technique.
Most authors in the corpus prefer plural personal forms over singular forms. Ḥunayn, alQuff, an-Nīlī, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, an-Nīlī, and al-Baġdādī all write mostly in we-form, whereas
al-Manāwī, as-Siwāsī, and as-Sinǧārī each prefer singular forms. As-Sinǧārī mainly uses first
person singular verb forms at the beginning of his first book where he writes a lengthy
introduction, in his later books his use of singular forms does not exceed his plural forms.
A closer analysis of the functions ‘we-forms’ have in the text shows that this ‘we’ is not
always a ‘personal’ we. While the authors do tend to use it to refer to themselves, as in
ḏakarnā, ‘we mentioned’, they also use it to express collective experiences (category E),
either between reader and author, as for example in the phrase ‘we have seen’, but also among
physicians. For example, the authors often formulate medical actions in personal ways, using
the personal ‘we purge’, instead of ‘one must purge’. We have seen that especially as-Siwāsī,
an-Nīlī, and al-Baġdādī tend to use this type of intersubjective ‘we’. In contrast, Ḥunayn does
not regularly use such forms, perhaps out of concern for clarity. Whenever Galen speaks of
&81
‘our body’, Ḥunayn translates this with ‘the body’. Moreover, semi-objective expressions
such as ‘we call x y’, Ḥunayn recognises as subjective to the Greek experience and translates
with ‘the Greeks call x y’.
Al-Baġdādī has the most diverse use of first person plural verbs, whereas Ibn al-Quff
uses a very high number of first plural verb forms, yet spread over a low number of verbs,
which indicates a more monotonous, standardised writing style. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses a high
variety of verbs in ‘we-form’, but a small variety in ‘I-forms’.
All authors except Ḥunayn tend to use a more personal style at the beginning of their
commentaries. Especially as-Sinǧārī and al-Baġdādī add long, personal, introductions. AsSinǧārī is furthermore the only author who narrates a personal experience of himself as a
physician.
Compared to the later Arabic corpus, Ḥunayn’s style is distinctly personal. The number
of first person verb forms in his translation is more than double the corpus average. Only Ibn
al-Quff and al-Baġdādī equal his use of 60 personal forms per 10,000 words. In his
translation, Ḥunayn uses more than three times as many personal forms as Galen. Galen, as
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, mostly uses first person forms to express stance. Ḥunayn does not fail to
translate these subjective forms, and follows most of Galen’s personal utterances, except those
which he seems to interpret as being confusing ‘objective’ uses of personal forms. In addition
to his preservation of Galen’s personal forms, he adds a considerable number of active,
personal forms to translate impersonal, passive Greek passages. Ḥunayn does not only seem
to prefer actives sentences over passive constructions out of stylistic considerations, but also
seems to be concerned with exposing and emphasising Galen’s continuous role as
commentator. Ḥunayn’s personal forms do not make the translation more subjective, but
rather serve to remind the Arabic reader that Galen’s commentary is in fact subjective even
when impersonal formulae seem to obscure this.
&82
In conclusion, the medieval Arabic commentaries vary in terms of the frequency and
purpose of their personal forms. However, they each exhibit a personal style with an
abundance of ‘I’- and ‘we’-forms. Personal forms may be typical of the ‘genre’ of the
commentary, a text type in which the commentator gives his personal interpretation of another
author’s text. The question remains whether this is the case or whether personal styles of
writing, including direct addressing of the reader which I will discuss in the next chapter, are a
broader feature of the scholarly writing of the periods in which these authors lived. &83
CHAPTER III THE READER
3.1
Introduction
This chapter analyses how frequently and with what purpose authors directly address their
reader with second person verb forms. I shall demonstrate the generic function of these forms
as a rhetorical strategy to enliven the text and involve the reader. More specifically, I show
that authors use these forms (i) as engagement markers to guide the reader through the text,
(ii) as a format to give medical instructions to the reader as physician, and (iii) as part of a
standard format to formulate hypotheticals. In addition, I will demonstrate that the direct
addressing of the reader was a particular aspect of Ḥunayn’s translation strategy; many of the
sentences where he uses such forms do not contain second person forms in Greek. Finally, this
study compares the different uses per author to determine whether the authors with their use
of second person forms follow conventions within the genre of the Arabic commentary, or if
these forms are particular characteristics of each author’s style.
3.1.1
Literature Review
In linguistics, audience studies have particularly focused on modern English. Ken Hyland
(2005a), for instance, discusses the addressing of the reader as part of his work on
metadiscourse, arguing that the use of imperative and second person pronouns ‘helps the
writer to involve himself in the text both to convey information clearly and to engage the
reader as a fellow enthusiast’ (2005a, 4). Roz Ivanič (1998) has focused on the way
contemporary authors construct a ‘discoursal self’ depending on the way they see their
readers. She writes that ‘one characteristic of a writer’s discoursal self which can be
discoursally [sic] constructed is authoritativeness’ (1998, 27), which can show through the
&84
confidence with which authors make statements and the way they address their readers.
Fitzmaurice (2004) has studied the occurrence of ‘you-phrases’ in English texts from
1650-1990, demonstrating, for instance, the use of ‘you see’ as a “rhetorical device to engage”
and as an epistemic stance marker (2004, 430 and 438), and the function of the phrase ‘you
know’ as a comment clause (2004, 431) throughout the different periods. Fox-Tree and
Schrock (2002) examine the similar functions of you know and I mean in contemporary
English, as regulating conversation on the one hand, and expressing speaker involvement in
the communicative exchange on the other. Calvo (1992) studied second person pronouns in
early modern English, and demonstrated their function as discourse markers and social
markers.
Taavitsainen (1994) has argued that in medieval English medical texts the direct
addressing of the reader indicates involvement. She moreover argues that medieval
instructional texts which aim to influence readers do this by directly appealing to the reader, a
style method also found in the aphorisms commentaries (1994, 203). She also writes that “[i]n
some treatises, even in the earliest periods, the reader is carefully guided through the process”.
Finally, Caroline Petit (2012, 59) has shown that Galen uses imperatives and second
person forms as a rhetorical strategy to enliven his text.
This brief review shows that, apart from Taavitsainen’s work, none of these studies
focused on the use of second person form as a characteristic of a genre or period. This study
will thus make an innovative contribution to study of audience addressing in medieval
medical Arabic texts, and Ḥunayn’s translation technique.
&85
3.1.2
Scope of Chapter
In this chapter, I focus on the frequency and purpose of second person verb forms in the
corpus. I also examine how authors address their reader, by comparing the use of imperatives
in the different commentaries, and analysing the images of authority these construct.
Other features of text that show reader-author interaction, such as audience-based
content choices, go beyond the scope of this chapter. Furthermore, the intersubjective ‘we’,
which includes the reader, I discussed in the previous chapter. I will discuss epistemic markers
of assumed shared-knowledge, such as ‘it is clear that’, in the next chapter.
3.1.3
Method
I have collected and analysed all second person verb forms and pronominal suffixes (2SG or
2PL) within the commentary by close reading. Admittedly, many of the second person forms
in the manuscripts could also be read as either third or first persons. Therefore, I have
carefully judged each case based on the context. I discuss these decisions where necessary.
Fortunately, many forms are accompanied by second person pronouns.
I have judged the semantic value of the verbs authors use to address the reader. For
example, some authors prefer to use epistemic verbs of understanding and knowing when they
address their audience, whereas others mainly use second person forms of verbs that express
medical actions.
In addition, I explore if, and how often, commentators use indicative or deontic forms.
Verbs in the indicative or realis mood describe a real situation (as believed by the speaker),
such as “as you see”, or “you have understood”. Deontic forms are those grammatical forms
in the irrealis mood that express a possible world that “should be”, such as imperatives,
prohibitions, and “you should” or “you must”-phrases. Besides the imperative, the jussive or
&86
short energetic mood is used in Arabic with the negating particle lā to express prohibitions (as
in Hebrew), or with the prefix li- to express exhortations. According to Wright (reprint 2004
Vol II, 36), this particle is rarely dropped in Classical Arabic. In the commentaries, I have so
far not found any instances of an exhortative jussive with the prefix li-, but I will show a few
examples where, possibly, a jussive is used to express deontic modality without li-. However,
since the jussive is not marked in regular verbs in non-vocalised text, it must be decided
according to the context whether these are actual jussives. Apart from the jussive, exhortations
in the commentaries occur in the form of the construction {yanbaġī ʾan + SUBJUNCTIVE 2SG},
which translates as a ‘you should’-phrase in English, as well as the constructions {yaǧibu
ʿalayka ʾan +
SUBJUNCTIVE
2SG} and {wa-laka ʾan +
SUBJUNCTIVE
2SG}, which both translate
as ‘you must…’-phrases. An analysis of the use of deontic versus indicative forms provides
further insight into authors’ style.
For this analysis I have examined the chapters specified in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1
Author
Book
Words
Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq
I
28,721
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
I, VI
20,579
Ibn al-Quff
I t/m p.64
25,000
Al-Manāwi
I, II, III
21,317
An-Nīlī
I, II, III, IV, V
13,183
As-Siwāsī
I, II, III, IV
15,636
As-Sinǧārī
I, II, III
16,143
Al-Baġdādī
0, I
15,490
In the first part of this chapter, I identify the readers the authors had in mind. Subsequently, in
the second part of this chapter, I analyse the way in which authors address their reader.
&87
3.2
Identifying the Reader
In this part of the chapter, I will address the question of the identity of the addressee of the
medieval commentaries. Of course, any person could stumble upon a medical commentary
and read it, but being a reader of a text is not the same as being the addressee; the reader the
author has in mind. Ken Hyland (2005, 12) argues that “[f]or some analysts, audience is real
people outside a text whom the writer must consider and accommodate, while for others it is a
fiction embodied in the writer’s rhetorical choices”, and according to Hyland audience is
“rarely a known and stable reality” (Hyland, 2005 12).
With the exception of some commentaries, such as al-Manāwī’s, which was written for
his patron, most authors seem to have had a particular group of people in mind, but not
identified individuals. The reader of the Hippocratic Aphorisms and its commentaries was
likely a student of medicine or a physician keeping up with the axioms of his field. If we look
at the way readers are addressed and with which statements, it is clear that they are mostly
instructions for a physician, which clearly indicates that the intended readers of the
commentaries were not interested lay people, but students of medicine or physicians using
them as a reference work. Moreover, according to Al-Wer, Classical Arabic was “restricted to
a small minority” and there is “no evidence that this form of standardised literary Arabic had
reached the masses, especially since access to education and written material was
restricted” (Al-Wer 1997, 253).
I shall now discuss the readers as identified by the commentators at the beginning of
their work. Not every commentator states this explicitly, but many of them at least refer to the
readers of the aphorisms as students of medicine, or physicians in general. Only al-Manāwī
and as-Siwāsī give hardly any indications of their intended audience.
&88
3.2.1
Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq
At the beginning of his commentary, Galen does not define the audience of his own work
specifically but does identify the readers of Hippocrates’ Aphorisms in general. He seems to
consider the latter to be a physician at any level of his education. One can argue that the
reader of the Aphorisms, the physician, could be similar to the reader of a commentary on the
Aphorisms: the aphorisms are the subject of inquiry of the commentaries and they are meant
to help those who want to understand the aphorisms. It is useful therefore to consider whom
Galen thought to be the readers of the aphorisms.
In the following passage from the beginning of Book 1, Galen recognises a treaty
between Hippocrates as author of the aphorisms and the physicians as students of those
aphorisms. In the first aphorism, Hippocrates states that a physician should not restrict the
time he has for studying medicine by taking over the tasks of the patient, the nurses and other
related matters. Because time is short and the art long, a physician should delegate some of
his tasks in order to have time to fully master the art of medicine, without neglecting the
patient’s care. Galen then comments:
τὸ δὲ δεύτερον οὐχ ὡς ἀποφαινόμενος, ἀλλ' ὡς συμβουλεύων γράφει.
δεῖ δ' οὐ μόνον ἑαυτὸν παρέχειν τὰ δέοντα ποιέοντα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν
νοσέοντα καὶ τοὺς παρέοντας καὶ τὰ ἔξωθεν· δυνάμει τοῦτο λέγων, ὡς εἰ
μέλλεις ἐξετάζειν τε καὶ βασανίζειν τῶν ἐν τῷδε τῷ βιβλίῳ γεγραμμένων
τὴν ἀλήθειαν, οὐ μόνον αὐτόν σε χρὴ τὸν ἰατρὸν ἅπαντα πράττειν
προσηκόντως, ἀλλ’ καὶ τὸν νοσέοντα καὶ τοὺς ὑπηρετοῦντας αὐτῷ καὶ
πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι, τὰ ἔξωθεν, ἀμέμπτως ἔχειν ἅπαντα. (…) μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον
καὶ ὁ δεύτερος οἷον συμβουλὴν ἢ συνθήκην τινὰ πρὸς τοὺς
ἀναγνωσομένους τε καὶ κρινοῦντας αὐτοῦ τὸ σύγγραμμα φέρων. (Kühn
XVII, 347-48).
[Hippocrates] does not write the second [statement] as a declaration, but as
advice. It is necessary that not only he [the physician] himself provides the
things that need to be done, but also the patient and those present and the
external factors; as if he is saying it with this meaning; “if you want to
thoroughly examine and investigate the truth of the things that are written in
this book, not only you yourself, the physician, must rightly do all the things,
but also the patient and those nursing him and besides these, the external
factors, to blamelessly master everything.” (…) After this, the second
&89
[statement] refers to a kind of prescription or some sort of treaty for those who
read and interpret his book.
Ḥunayn translates this passage as follows:
‫ فقال «وقد‬،‫فأمّا اجلزء الثاني منه فلم يخرجه مخرج خبر لك ّنه أخرجه مخرج مشورة‬
‫ينبغي لك أن ال تقتصر على توخّي فعل ما ينبغي دون أن يكون ما يفعله املريض ومن‬
‫يحضره كذلك واألشياء التي من خارج» كأنّه قال قد ينبغي لك أ ّيها القارئ لكتابي هذا‬
‫إن أردت تختبر ومتتحن وتعرف حقيقة ما كتبت في كتابي هذا أن ال تقتصر إذا كنت‬
‫ لكنّه قد يجب أن يجري جميع أمر‬،‫متطبّب ًا على أن تفعل جميع ما تفعله على ما ينبغي‬
(…).‫املريض ومن يخدمه واألشياء التي من خارج كأنه على الصواب وما ال يلحقه ذم‬
.‫ويصير القول الثاني بعده كأنه شرط وصلح بينه وبني من يريد قراءة كتابه وامتحانه‬
As far as the second part is concerned, he did not give this as information, but
as a piece of advice, saying “you should not limit yourself in your intention to
do the right thing before the patient and his carer do the same, and the external
factors [also contribute]”, as if he said “you, Oh reader of my book, if you want
to examine, analyse and know the truth of what I have written in my book,
should not limit yourself by practising medicine in such a manner that you do
everything as you should. However, each matter related to the patient, his carer,
and the external factors must happen correctly, and what does not follow him,
he must criticise.” (…) And the second statement comes after it as if it is a
stipulation and treaty between him and who wants to read and examine his
book.
In their commentaries, the other authors also interpret the identity of the ‘you’ in the phrase
[ma yanbaġī laka], “what you should do”. Al-Baġdādī explains that it refers to the
[mutaʿallim], “the educated one” or “the apprentice”:
.‫ أي يجب عليك أيها املتعلم‬،‫ومعنى ينبغي لك‬
The meaning of “you should”, is “you must, Oh apprentice.”
And according to as-Sinǧārī, Hippocrates gave his advice first of all to his students:
‫ مـن عـادة الـعـلـمـاء وخـصـوصـاً الـحـكـمـاء الـنـصـح لـكـل أحـد‬:‫قـال الـشـارح‬
‫ فـإذا كـانـوا بـهـذه الـصـفـة فـأولـى مـن يـنـصـحـون‬،‫واإلصـالح لـكـل مـا فـسـد‬
‫ فـقـال‬.‫لـتـالمـيـذهـم فـألجـل هـذا نـبـهـهـم ألمـر ال يـدخـل عـلـيـهـم مـنـه الـضـرر‬
&90
‫تـوصـيـة لـتـالمـيـذ يـنـبـغـي لـك أيّـهـا الـطـبـيـب أن ال تـعـالـج مـريـضـاً ال يـطـيـعـك‬
‫فـيـمـا تـأمـره بـه وال لـمـن ال يـكـون لـه خـادم شـفـيـق وال لـمـن ال يـحـضـر عـنـده أدويـة‬
.‫ لـئـالّ تُـنـسَـب إلـى الـقـصـور وتـقـع فـي كـل مـحـذور‬،‫جـيـدة تـطـلـبـهـا مـنـه‬
The intellectuals and especially the wise men are used to give advice to
everyone, and correction to everyone who has failed, and this being the case,
the first whom they advise are their students, and because of this he warns
them for a matter so that no harm will befall them from it. And he advised
his students: “you must, o physician, not treat a patient who does not obey
you in what you order him, nor him who does not have a compassionate
servant, nor him who does not prepare a good instrument that you can
request from him, so that you will not be accused of incapability or meet
each misfortune.
Galen gives further indication of the intended audience of the aphorisms later in his comment
on aphorism i.1:2
συγκεφαλαιωσόμεθα γοῦν ἤδη τὸν λόγον. ἡ μὲν τέχνη μακρὰ γίνεται,
ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου παραμετρουμένη βίῳ. χρήσιμον δὲ τὸ καταλιπεῖν
συγγράμματα καὶ μάλιστα τὰ σύντομά τε καὶ ἀφοριστικά· εἴς τε γὰρ
αὐτὴν τὴν πρώτην μάθησιν καὶ εἰς τὴν ὧν ἔμαθέ τις ὠφεληθῆναι
μνήμην καὶ εἰς τὴν ὧν ἐπελάθετό τις μετὰ ταῦτα ἀνάμνησιν ὁ τοιοῦ
τος τρόπος τῆς διδασκαλίας ἐπιτήδειος. (Kühn 17b.355)
‫جملة القول أنّه من أجل هذه األشياء كلّها صارت الصناعة طويلة إذا قيست مبقدار‬
‫ وصار وضع الكتب وتخليفها ملن يأتي بعدنا نافعاً السيّما إن‬.‫عمر االٕنسان الواحد‬
‫ ألنّ هذا النحو من التعليم يصلح ألوّل تع ّلم‬،‫كانت مختصرة على طريق الفصول‬
.‫ وليذكّره ما ينساه بعد‬،‫ ليحفظه ملا قد يعلّمه‬،‫االٕنسان بالشيء‬
We shall summarise this aphorism. The art becomes long, when measured
according to the life of one man. It is useful then to leave behind books and
the best short phrases and aphorisms: because for the very first learning, and
to help memorise the things someone has learned, and for the recalling of
things someone has forgotten after this, such a manner of teaching is useful.
Galen argues here that these brief sayings are useful for those who just start studying
medicine to help them memorise their new knowledge, but also for those who have already
2
My English translation here covers both the Greek and the Arabic.
&91
completed their study and need to be reminded of things they have forgotten. Both student
and skilled physician can benefit from the aphorisms, and, implicitly, from their
accompanying commentaries. As Galen says about his Book of Crisis, everyone who wants to
understand what Hippocrates wrote needs to read it, and he may have had similar ideas about
his Book of Commentaries on the Aphorisms, 1.35:
‫ومن أراد أن يستوعب علم أبقراط كلّه في هذا الباب فليقرأ ذلك الكتاب‬
And he who wants to comprehend all of the knowledge of Hippocrates in
this book, must read that book [his Book of Crisis].
3.2.2
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
At the beginning of his commentary, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq calls Hippocrates’ Aphorisms ‘statutes for
erudite physicians’ (dasātīr li-l-ʾaṭibbāʾ al-ʿālimīn):
‫وقد كان كل من املتقدمني واملتأخرين ممن تكلموا في الطب راوا أن يدوّنوا ملن بعدهم‬
‫ إالّ أن كتاب الفصول لبقراط أفضلها كلها ألنّه من أوجز‬،‫جمالً وجوامع من أصوله‬
‫الكتب املصنفة في هذا الباب وأكثرها حصراً لفصول هي دساتير لألطباء العاملني في‬
‫ وهو أحد الكتب التي ال بد ملن أراد االمتام بهذه الصناعات أن يحفظه إذا كان كل‬،‫أبوابها‬
.‫فصل منه يتضمن أصالً من األصول‬
And all those earlier and later men who have spoken about medicine used to
think it appropriate to write for those after them principles and collections of its
basic rules, except that the Book of Aphorisms is the best of all of them,
because it is the most concise of all the books that have been composed in this
field, and most of them are limited to aphorisms, which are statutes for the
erudite physicians in its domains, and it is one of the books that he who wants
to completely master these sciences, must memorise, since each of its
aphorisms includes one of the basic rules.
Again, it can be argued that those who are supposed to read the aphorisms, are the same
people for whom Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq intended his commentary. They are not lay people, but
students of medicine who need to master the aphorisms, because they are axioms of
&92
medicine. Readers of his commentary are perhaps already familiar with these aphorisms,
and turn to his explanations to gain further understanding of Hippocrates’ intentions.
3.2.3
As-Sinǧārī
As-Sinǧārī unambiguously states to whom and why he wrote his commentary in the following
passage in his introduction:
‫نـوزه‬²‫لـى كـ‬²‫طّـبّ عـ‬²‫لـم الـ‬²‫ن عـ‬²‫هـاري مـ‬²‫إظـ‬²‫لـيّ بـ‬²‫ي عـ‬²‫عـالـ‬²‫ه وتـ‬²‫بـحـانـ‬²‫نّ اهلل سـ‬²‫مـّا مـ‬²‫نـي لـ‬²‫إنّـ‬²‫فـ‬
‫بـه‬²²‫طـالـ‬²²‫رار مـ‬²²‫بـه أسـ‬²²‫طـالـ‬²²‫ح لـ‬²²‫لـيّ أن أوضـ‬²²‫ب عـ‬²²‫ وجـ‬،‫وزه‬²²‫ل رمـ‬²²‫ه وحـ‬²²‫التـ‬²²‫شـف مـشـ‬²²‫وكـ‬
.‫وأبـيـن لـمـتـعـلـمـه غـوامـض حـكـمـه‬
And I, when God, glorified and exalted be He, had bestowed upon me my
discovery of the science of medicine, its treasures, the uncovering of its
difficulties, and the solving of its riddles, had to explain to its student the
secrets of its quests and to clarify to its pupil the depths of its wisdom.
In the following paragraph as-Sinǧārī constructs a rather humble image of the reader of
Hippocrates’ work. He portrays the reader as someone who needs to be rightly guided by his
leader Hippocrates, and goes astray without his leading words:
ً‫ مـن عـادة أبـقـراط أن يـكـرّر الـمـعـنـى فـي كـتـبـه فـي عـدّة مـرار ال سـهـوا‬:‫قـال أبـقـراط‬
‫ونـسـيـانـاً لـكـنّ إيـضـاحـاً وتـبـيـانـاً وتـنـبـيـهـاً لـقـارئ كـتـبـه وتـأكـيـداً لـئـال يـزيـغ عـن‬
‫قـولـه وال يـحـيـد ويـجـعـل ذلـك لـه إمامًـا بـه يهتـدي وبـقـولـه يـقـتـدي ومـعـنـى الـكـالم‬
.ً‫كـلّ مـرض ال يـخـلـو إمّـا أن يـكـون حـادًّا أو مـزمـنا‬
Hippocrates was used to repeat his point in his books several times, not
inattentively or obliviously, but so as to clarify and explain and remind the
reader of his books, and to confirm it so that he will not deviate from his
words nor depart from it. He does that for him as a leader by whom he is
rightly guided, and by whose word he is led, so that he does not forsake the
meaning of the words about every disease, be they acute or chronic.
&93
3.2.4
Al-Baġdādī
Al-Baġdādī explicitly identifies the readers of his work; he writes that his book is intended for
both beginners (al-mubtadīʾ), those interested (al-nāẓir fi-š-šayʾi), the educated (aš-šādī), and
the skilled physicians (an-naṭāsī). He writes this in his introduction:
‫ة‬²‫ناع‬²‫كليات ص‬²‫معها ل‬²‫ وأج‬،‫قراط‬²‫ا ألب‬²‫ضرن‬²‫تي حت‬²‫كتب ال‬²‫رف ال‬²‫كتاب أش‬²‫ذا ال‬²‫ان ه‬²‫إذ ك‬
‫بها أن‬²‫ي وأوج‬²‫نطاس‬²‫شادي وال‬²‫يء وال‬²‫ي ش‬²‫ر ف‬²‫ناظ‬²‫بتدئ وال‬²‫ند امل‬²‫مها ع‬²‫عملية وأه‬²‫طبّ ال‬²‫ال‬
‫كتاب‬²‫ذا ال‬²‫ي ه‬²‫ا ف‬²‫كن م‬²‫م ي‬²‫ى ول‬²‫رض‬²‫ن زاول ا مل‬²‫إن م‬²‫ر؛ ف‬²‫اه‬²‫طبيب امل‬²‫ر ال‬²‫ذك‬²‫را ل‬²‫اض‬²‫كون ح‬²‫ي‬
‫لمه‬²‫ى ع‬²‫تكان إل‬²‫ وال أن يُس‬،‫ه‬²‫قضائ‬²‫ق ب‬²‫وث‬²‫سغ أن ي‬²ُ‫م ي‬²‫نه ل‬²‫ذه‬²‫ر ًا ل‬²‫اض‬²‫فسه وح‬²‫ند ن‬²‫تيد ًا ع‬²‫ع‬
.‫وعمله وكان خطأوه أضعاف صوابه‬
Since this book was the most distinguished of the books that we prepared in
relation to Hippocrates[’ work], we compile it for the academies of the
practical art of medicine and its concerns among the beginner, the observer,
the educated, and the skilled physician. And I impose it to be present in the
memory of the skilled physician, as he who devotes himself to patients
without the content of this book being familiar to him or present in his mind,
should not be permitted to trust his judgment, nor to be surrendered to his
knowledge and practice while his mistake exists in the weaknesses of his
intellect.
Al-Baġdādī is rather critical of these devotees to medicine and its students in “our age”. He
further writes the following:
ً‫ذا‬²‫ وال آخ‬،‫لسان‬²‫ل ال‬²‫ن أه‬²‫يس م‬²‫م ل‬²‫ثره‬²‫ذا أك‬²‫نا ه‬²‫ان‬²‫ي زم‬²‫طب ف‬²‫ة ال‬²‫صناع‬²‫لون ب‬²‫تشاغ‬²‫ان امل‬²‫ا ك‬²‫ومل‬
‫راب‬²‫ي ا إلع‬²‫نظر ف‬²‫ليهم ال‬²‫قل ع‬²‫ ث‬،‫بز‬²‫صيل اخل‬²‫يا وحت‬²‫دن‬²‫عيشة ال‬²‫هم م‬²‫رض‬²‫ان غ‬²‫ وك‬،‫ه‬²‫فسه ب‬²‫روض ن‬²‫ب‬
‫ملوا‬²‫د اه‬²‫ل ق‬²‫ ب‬،‫فاظ‬²‫األل‬²‫لهم ب‬²‫بب جه‬²‫ي لس‬²‫عان‬²‫ن ا مل‬²‫هم م‬²‫ات‬²‫ا ف‬²‫وا مب‬²‫بال‬²‫م ي‬²‫ ول‬،‫فاظ‬²‫صحيح األل‬²‫وت‬
،‫ب‬²²‫ى املكتس‬²²‫بادرة إل‬²²‫ك م‬²²‫ل ذل‬²²‫ ك‬،‫علمية‬²²‫ها ال‬²²‫ول‬²²‫يما أص‬²²‫ والس‬،‫ية‬²²‫ذات‬²²‫ة ال‬²²‫صناع‬²²‫زاء ال‬²²‫ل أج‬²²‫ج‬
‫ذات؛‬²‫ال‬²‫ة ب‬²‫لصناع‬²‫ة ل‬²‫اي‬²‫كون غ‬²‫ير أن ت‬²‫ن غ‬²‫اً م‬²‫رض‬²‫فسهم غ‬²‫ا ألن‬²‫صبوه‬²‫تي ن‬²‫ة ال‬²‫غاي‬²‫يل ال‬²‫لى ن‬²‫اً ع‬²‫رص‬²‫وح‬
،‫ه‬²‫دت ل‬²‫ا أع‬²‫ير م‬²‫ته غ‬²‫اي‬²‫عل غ‬²‫قد ج‬²‫ة ف‬²‫عرف‬²‫ير ا مل‬²‫نها غ‬²‫ته م‬²‫اي‬²‫عل غ‬²‫ة ج‬²‫ناع‬²‫لم أو ص‬²‫ب ع‬²‫ال‬²‫ل ط‬²‫وك‬
‫ها‬²²ّ‫ ألن‬،‫ة‬²²‫علوم‬²²‫ة – م‬²²‫غاي‬²²‫صيل ال‬²²‫ب حت‬²²‫صواب – بحس‬²²‫رب؛ ألن ال‬²²‫نها أق‬²²‫يدودة ع‬²²‫ى احل‬²²‫كان إل‬²²‫ف‬
‫كد‬²‫م ي‬²‫يه ول‬²‫دد رم‬²‫م يتس‬²‫صره ل‬²‫ند ب‬²‫حص ال ع‬²‫كن م‬²‫م ي‬²‫متى ل‬²‫ ف‬،‫ي‬²‫لرام‬²‫غرض ل‬²‫ال‬²‫علم ك‬²‫ب ال‬²‫طال‬²‫ل‬
.‫يصيب نبله ولم يفز باحلذق سهمه‬
&94
Since most of those who devote themselves to the art of medicine in our age are
not Arabic speakers, and they are not well versed in it [Arabic], and their goal is
to live a worldly life and to bring bread to the table, it is burdensome for them to
look at the inflection and correction of words. They do not heed to the meanings
they miss because of their ignorance of the terms, but instead they ignore the
majority of the parts of this very science, especially its scientific axioms, all of
this out of an impulse to make profit, in the endeavour to obtain the goal that they
set for themselves, which is not the same as the purpose of this science. Every
student of either science or art pursues his studies for any reason but knowledge,
and not for the reason that science is supposed to have, but rather more likely to
digress from it. For the right goal to obtain is knowledge, because it is for the
student of science like the target for the thrower, and when there is no clarity in
his gaze then his throwing is not guided and his arrows hardly hit the target and
his darts do not triumph with skill.
Al-Baġdādī furthermore writes the following about Hippocrates’ writing style:
‫وأبقراط استعمل في هذا الكتاب ما يُسهِّل فهمه وما يُسهِّل حفظه مبا فيه منا إليجاز وجودة‬
‫ واتكل فيه على‬،‫ وأما ما يبني أنه حق فقلما استعمله‬.‫ ووصف الشيء بأخص صفاته‬،‫البيان‬
.‫أنه مقبول وسيصححه السامع وا ملتعلم بالتجربة والقياس عندما يتبحر‬
Hippocrates wrote this book in a way that facilitates an easy understanding and
memorisation, through its brevity and excellent clarity, and he has described
things by their most specific qualities. And what shows that it is true, is that he
hardly uses it without trusting that it is understood, and the listener and the student
will confirm this through experience and reasoning when they thoroughly study it.
3.2.5
Ibn al-Quff
Ibn al-Quff is less specific about his audience or the physicians in his time. He only tells us, at
the beginning of his commentary, that ‘a student’ (baʿḍun man yaštaġilu) asked him to
&95
comment on the Aphorisms, which would be the person he is directly writing for. He does not,
however, specify who this was:
‫فـقـد سـألـنـي بـعـض مـن يـشـتـغـل عـلـى أن أشـرح لـه كـتـاب الـفـصـول لـإلمـام أبـقـراط‬
‫ وإن أذكـر لـه مـع ذلـك اإلرادات الـتـي لـلـرازي وغـيـره وأجـيـب‬،‫قـدس الـلـه روحـه‬
.ً‫عـنـهـا وأرتـب لـه عـلـى كـل كـلـمـة مـن كـلـمـات فـصـولـه بـحـثـاً خـاصـا‬
A student asked me to explain for him the Book of Aphorisms by the master
Hippocrates, may God bless is soul, and to mention for him besides that arRāzī’s decrees and others, and to comment on it and to organise for him a
special examination of each word of his aphorisms.
3.2.6
An-Nīlī
An-Nīlī reveals his intended audience on the first page of his commentary; they are those
people who are too lazy to read long books, and prefer brief summaries:
‫ إنّ الذي دعاني إلى‬:‫قال الشيخ أبو سهل سعيد بن عبد العزيز النيلي رحمه اهلل‬
‫تلخيص جالينوس لفصول أبقراط مع قصور الوسع واإلقرار عن اإلتيان مبثل ذلك من‬
‫النظم في احلسن والبيان ممّا رأيت من تكاسل األصحاب عن النظر في الكتب الطويلة‬
ّ‫وقصورهم وميلهم إلى اخملتصرات القصار لسرعة ماللهم وفتورهم تقديراً منهم بأن‬
‫ أغنته عن مشارفة البساط وكانت له فيها‬،‫الساوي إذا حظي مبا حضرته الكتب املوجزة‬
.‫مندوحة عنها‬
Abū Sahl Saʿīd Ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz an-Nīlī, may God have mercy upon
him,said: What called me to summarise Galen[’s commentary] on the
Aphorisms by Hippocrates, to reduce its vastness, and perform this
endeavour with such a good and clear structure, is what I saw of the
negligence of people to look at long books, their incapability, and their
inclination towards brief excerpts due to the promptness of their boredom
and languor. I concluded from this that the student, if he were to favour the
concise books I prepared, I would have helped him to overlook the vastness,
and he would have an alternative to it.
&96
3.3
The Form and Function of ‘You-forms’ in the Corpus
All authors, except an-Nīlī, directly address their reader. Table 3.2 shows that Ibn al-Quff does
so most frequently. Ḥunayn’s translation is, moreover, not per se unique in its use of youforms, at least not compared to most authors.
Table 3.2 You-forms per 10,000 words
Ibn al-Quff
38
Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq
31
Al-Baġdādī
26
Al-Manāwī
21
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
15
As-Sinǧārī
8
As-Siwāsī
6
An-Nīlī
0
Table 3.3 shows what kind of second person verb forms are most frequent. For instance, alManāwī, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, and as-Sinǧārī each use more imperatives and commands than
declaratives such as ‘as you see’. Ḥunayn’s use of commands is infrequent compared to most
authors.
Table 3.3 Deontic and Indicative Verbs per author per 10,000 words
Deontic
Indicative
Ibn al-Quff
14
24
Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq
7
24
Al-Baġdādī
14
14
Al-Manāwī
15
6
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
8
6
As-Sinǧārī
6
2
&97
As-Siwāsī
2
4
An-Nīlī
0
0
Table 3.4 shows the different verb types per author. A high number of different second person
verb forms indicates a lexically richer style, and a more spontaneous addressing of the reader.
Ibn al-Quff’s low variety of verbs indicates that his addressing of the reader is a rather
standardised feature of his style. I will now discuss the occurrence of these forms per author.
Table 3.4
absolute
per 10,000
words
Al-Baġdādī
21
14
Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq
36
13
As-Sinǧārī
11
7
Al-Manāwi
13
6
As-Siwāsī
7
4
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
7
3
Ibn al-Quff
3
1
An-Nīlī
0
0
3.3.1
Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq
In his translation of the first book, Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq addresses his reader, the student of
medicine, 87 times. However, only 20 of these second person singular forms in Book One
occur in Galen’s Greek. The following sentence is an example of the few cases where both
Galen and Ḥunayn address the reader, from the commentary on Aphorisms i.12:
‫وقد تقدر أن تعلم ما وصفه أبقراط من هذا علماً واضحاً إن أنا كتبت لك في هذا املوضع‬
.‫ما قال أبقراط في املقالة الثالثة من كتاب إبيذمييا‬
And from this [paragraph] you could clearly come to know what Hippocrates
has described, if I would write for you here what Hippocrates said in the third
article of the Book of Epidemics.
&98
μάθοις δ' ἂν ὃ διδάσκει σαφῶς, εἴ σοι παραγράψαιμι τὰ ἐκ τοῦ τρίτου
τῶν ἐπιδημίων ἐπὶ Ἀναξίωνος εἰρημένα τοῦ πλευριτικοῦ. (Kühn 17b.392)
You can know what he [Hippocrates] teaches [here] clearly, if I would describe
for you the contents of the third part of the Epidemics about Anaxionus the
pleurisy patient.
In most cases, however, there is no second person form in the Greek when Ḥunayn uses such
a form in his translation. Ḥunayn often addresses an Arabic reader where Galen did not
directly address a Greek reader.
In a few instances, Ḥunayn translates a first person plural in Greek with a second person
singular in Arabic, for example in the comment on Aphorisms i.12, where Galen uses an
intersubjective ‘we’ , which includes the reader.
‫إن كنت ذاكراً ملا تقدّم قول أبقراط في تدبير الغذاء فإنّ احلاجة إلى ما قاله في هذا الفصل‬
.‫يكون عندك أبني‬
If you remember what preceded Hippocrates’ words about diets, then the need
for what he said in this aphorism should be clear for you.
Εἰ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένων αὐτῷ περὶ διαίτης ἀναμνησθείημεν,
ἐναργεστέρα ἡμῖν ἡ χρεία φανεῖται νῦν τῶν λεγομένων. (Kühn 17b.
381.10.)
If we remember the words he said before about diets, the clear need of the
words he says now will be manifest for us.
In other cases the second person singular translates an impersonal third person, such as in the
following sentence from the comment on Aphorisms i.14:
‫والشيء احلارّ في الشيوخ قليل وعلى أيّ املعنيني الذين ينتظمهما اسم احلارّ فهمت قوله‬
.‫ فإنّك جتده فيهم قليالً على الكيفية فهمته أم على اجلوهر‬،ّ‫في هذا املوضع احلار‬
The warm element in old people is little, no matter according to which of the
two meanings of the word “warm” you understand his use of the word here,
because you will find it is little in them whether you understand it as referring
to the quantity or to the essence.
τούτοις μέν γε κατ’ ἄμφω τὰ σημαινόμενα τῆς προσηγορίας ὀλίγον
ὑπάρχει τὸ θερμὸν, εἴτ' ἐπὶ τὴν ποιότητά τις ἀναφέρει τὸν λόγον εἴτ' ἐπὶ
τὴν οὐσίαν. (Kühn 17b.413)
&99
For them [old people] then, according to both the meanings of the noun, little
warmth exists, whether someone ascribes the word to the quantity or to the
essence.
Ḥunayn mostly addresses his audience using declaratives. He does not use imperatives as
much as he uses indicative verbs, and does not give many authoritative commands to his
reader. In Book One, 67 verb forms are indicative versus 19 deontic (see below). In the first
book, Ḥunayn uses 36 different verbs in second person singular imperative or indicative.
These have roughly three functions within the text. Firstly, Ḥunayn uses epistemic verbs such
as “to understand (fahima)” (8 times), and “to know (ʿalima)” (5 times) to refer to the reader’s
understanding of the text. With these verbs he directly addresses his reader as the student of
his commentary, as he does in the two examples I just gave above. Whenever an author uses
phrases such as “you understand,” these also reveal information about the author’s own stance
towards the subject matter. Therefore, these phrases also function as epistemic certainty
markers, which I discuss in chapter IV.
Secondly, Ḥunayn also uses second person singular forms not so much to address his
reader, but as a technique to translate Galen’s hypotheticals. These are sentences in which
Galen uses an unreal condition in order to explain the meaning of a word or argument.
Ḥunayn uses the form qulta, ‘you say’ with this function five times in Book One, for instance
in the following passage from the comment on Aphorisms i.14. Galen here gives an example
with warm water in two uneven bowls to explain the meaning of “essences (οὐσιῶν)”. While
Galen uses first person verb forms, such as “we say (λέγομεν)”, to express this hypothetical
explanation, Ḥunayn uses second person verb forms, such as “as if you were to put,” and “you
say”:
‫أمّا في اجلواهر التي ليست مبمتزجة فكأنّك وضعت حوضني غير متساويني وصيّرت فيهما‬
‫ماء مقداره في احلرارة مقداراً واحداً ثمّ قلت إنّ احلارّ في أحد احلوضني أكثر وهو الذي‬
.ّ‫حوضه أكثر وفي اآلخر أقل‬
&100
As to the essences that are not mixed, as if you put two unequal bowls, and put
water in them with the same amount of heat, and then said that the heat in one
of the bowls is more, namely the one whose bowl is bigger, and the other one
less.
ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀμίκτων, ὡς ἂν εἰ καὶ δυοῖν ἐχόντοιν ὕδωρ ὁμοίως θερμὸν ἐν
δεξαμεναῖς ἀνίσοις περιεχόμενον, τὸν μὲν ἕτερον πλέον ἔχειν λέγομεν τὸ
θερμὸν, ᾧ μείζων ἡ δεξαμενὴ, τὸν ἕτερον ἔλαττον. (Kühn 17b.405.10)
With regard to [the essences] of the unmixed [substances], it is as if, when
water with a similar heat is contained in two uneven bowls, we say that the one
has more heat, the one whose bowl is bigger, the other one less.
Finally, Ḥunayn also directly addresses his reader in his capacity as physician. For this
purpose he uses verbs such as “to do (faʿala),” “to look at (naẓara),” and “to need (iḥtāǧa).”
All instances of these forms need to be close read not only to identify them as second person
forms, but also to understand their function. The following sentence is a translation from
Galen’s comment on Aphorisms i.7:
.‫وذلك أنّك إن فعلت هذا مات املريض قبل أن يبلغ إلى منتهى مرضه‬
Because, if you do this [i.e. administer a very lean diet], the patient dies before
he reaches the crisis of his disease.
Ḥunayn here directly addresses his reader as a physician performing, in a possible world,
medical actions. However, if we look at the Greek text we find that Galen does not do the
same. He merely uses the adverb οὕτως ‘so’, which Ḥunayn explains with the phrase “if you
do this (wa-ḏālika ʾannaka ʾin faʿalta hāḏā)”:
φθάσει γὰρ οὕτως ἀποθανεῖν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, πρὶν εἰς τὴν ἀκμὴν
ἀφικέσθαι. (Kühn 17b.374)
For so [i.e. if a patient receives a very lean diet], a man will die, before
reaching the crisis [of the disease].
The examples above all contain indicative verb forms such as “you do,” and “you remember.”
Ḥunayn also addresses his reader with a more imperative tone. In Book One, Ḥunayn uses 20
deontic forms expressing necessity or command. Out of these, 13 follow the pattern {yanbaġī
&101
+ ʾan +
SUBJUNCTIVE
2SG}, and two the pattern {yaǧibu + ʿalayka + ʾan}, “you should”. He
also uses four imperatives and one jussive.
These deontic forms are used both to address the reader as student and as
physician. Ḥunayn uses the construction {yanbaġī ʾan + 2SG SUBJUNCTIVE}, mostly with
the verbs “to understand”, “to look”, and “to do”. For example, in the following
sentence from the comment on Aphorisms i.12, Galen exhorts his reader to correctly
understand the term ‘paroxysm’, and Ḥunayn translates this by also directly addressing
the reader.
،‫وينبغي لك أن تفهم ع ّني من قولي تز ّيد النوبة في هذا املوضع أردأ جزء الدوركلّه‬
.‫وهو ما بني أوّل ابتداء احلمّى وبني منتهاها‬
You should understand that, when I mention [the term] “paroxysm” in this
passage, I mean “the worst part of the whole cycle”, namely what is
between the beginning of the fever and its climax.
This sentence does have a second person singular in the Greek too, in the construction {χρὴ +
INFINITIVE + σε}, “it
is necessary that you” 3.
παροξυσμὸν δὲ ἀκούειν σε χρὴ νῦν τὸ χεῖρον μόριον τῆς ὅλης
περιόδου τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης εἰσβολῆς ἄχρι τῆς ἀκμῆς. (Kühn 17b.388)
It is necessary for you to understand now that a paroxysm is the worst part
of the whole cycle from its first beginning to the climax.
In four cases, Ḥunayn uses {yanbaġī + ʾan + tanẓura}, ‘you must look at’, to explain
the things a physician must consider when dealing with a disease. He does so for
instance in his translation of Galen’s comment on Aphorisms i.2:
.‫وينبغي أن تنظر مع هذه األشياء كلّها في نفس طبيعة املرض‬
You should, besides all these things, look at the nature of the disease.
3
Ḥunayn translates this construction with a second person four times in Book One, two of which are in fact personal in
the Greek too, where Galen uses χρὴ + infinitive + σε, “it is necessary that you”.
&102
The following example is one of five cases in book I in which the construction {yanbaġī
ʾan + 2SG SUBJUNCTIVE} translates the Greek impersonal verbal adjective ending -τέον,
which expresses necessity:
ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἅπασιν, αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος τῆς νόσου ἐπιβλεπτέον.
(Kühn 17b.360)
But with all these things one must look at the nature of the disease.
This is also an example of a sentence which conveys the image of a confident teacher
speaking to his student, and not a scholar defending his point to his peers.
The construction {yaǧibu ʿalayka}, ‘you must’, occurs twice in Book One. Ḥunayn uses
it once in his translation of Galen’s comment on Aphorisms i.1, with an adjectival sense to
translate the Greek participle δέοντα in the phrase “τὰ δέοντα ποιέοντα (the things that
must be done),” (Kühn 17b.355.17), which he renders with “the doing of what you must do
(fiʿlu mā yaǧibu ʿalayka fiʿluhū)”. He also uses it once in his translation of Galen’s comment
on Aphorisms i.16, in a sentence in which he addresses the reader more directly, with the
construction {yaǧibu + ʾalayka + ʾan +
SUBJUNCTIVE 2SG},
SUBJUNCTIVE
2SG}, to translate Greek {σὺ + ἂν +
which expresses exhortation:
‫فيجب عليك من ذكره لهما أن تذكر معهما املزاج الطبيعي والوقت احلاضر من أوقات‬
.‫السنة والبلد‬
And in addition to what he mentions of these things you must remember the
natural temperament, and the present season, and the country.
σὺ δ’ ἂν καὶ τῆς φυσικῆς κράσεως καὶ ὥρας καὶ χώρας εὐλόγως
μνημονεύσεις, (Kühn 17b.427).
You then must remember sensibly also the natural temperament, and the
season, and the country.
In his translation of Galen’s comment on Aphorisms i.15, Ḥunayn uses the jussive fa-tifham,
‘understand!’, or ‘you should/must understand’. This exhortation does not occur in the Greek.
However, the directly following imperative, ʾunẓur, ‘look!’, translates the Greek σκόπει:
&103
‫فتفهم اآلن وأنظر كيف صار ليس ألحد من الناس في هذه املسئلة جواب سوى‬
.‫أبقراط ومن كان من حزبه‬
And [you should] understand now and look at how nobody has acquired an
answer in this matter, except Hippocrates and those in his party.
σκόπει τοίνυν εἰ κᾀνταῦθα τοῖς μὲν ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἄπορος ὁ λόγος
Ἱπποκράτει δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀπ' αὐτοῦ μόνοις εὔπορος. (Kühn 17b.420)
Look therefore whether the word here is difficult for all others but easy for
Hippocrates and only those with him.
The Greek particle τοι, which can be translated with ‘mark you’, ‘let me tell you’, or other
emphasis such as ‘surely’, implies, according to Liddell and Scott (p. 1801) ‘a real or
imaginary audience’. It occurs 28 times in Galen’s commentary. Ḥunayn does not translate
this particle with a second person form, and in fact often leaves it untranslated. Occasionally,
he seems to translate it with qad, or ʾinnamā.
The examples I have given illustrate Ḥunayn’s vivid interaction with the reader, the
student of medicine, throughout his text, while Galen only addresses the reader a few times.
Ḥunayn clarifies impersonal Greek sentences using you-phrases. He also prefers, perhaps out
of habit, to turn Greek hypothetical phrases such as ‘suppose we say’, into Arabic ‘suppose
you say’-phrases.
3.3.2
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq addresses his reader only 15 times per 10,000 words, less than half as
frequently as Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq, which makes him one of the more impersonal authors
among the commentators, together with as-Sinǧārī, as-Siwāsī, and an-Nīlī. Ịbn ʾAbī Ṣādiq not
only addresses his reader less frequently, he also uses less first person forms than Ḥunayn (14
vs. 84 times per 10,000 words), as we have seen in the previous chapter. This is remarkable
since Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq is closest to Ḥunayn both in respect to period and location. Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq uses slightly more deontic forms (eight) than indicative verb forms (six), which,
&104
together with as-Sinǧārī and al-Manāwī, makes him one of the few authors to predominantly
address the reader in a commanding way. He uses only six different verbs, three of which he
only uses once. His most frequent verbs are related to the reader’s understanding of the text;
fahima, ‘understand’ (17 times in books I and VI), ʿalima, ‘to know’, ʿarafa, ‘to know’ (five
and four times in the same books).
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq regularly uses the imperative ʾifham, ‘understand!’ (ten times in books I
and VI). This form could also be read as ʾafhamu ‘I understand’, but it is more likely to be an
imperative, since Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses the same form in similar sentences four times with the
pronoun ʾanta ‘you’. The following example from Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s comment on Aphorisms
vi.19 illustrates this use of ʾifham:
.‫ فافهم أن جلد االنسان رقيق جداً أكثر من جلود سائر احليوان بقدر عظيم‬،‫وأنت‬
And you, understand that the skin of man is very tender, much more than the skin
of the rest of the animals.
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s commands are of a didactic nature. He only twice addresses the reader as
physician, to explain medical procedures, with the phrases “you must look at (yanbaġī laka
ʾan tanẓura)”, and “you must use (yanbaġī laka ʾan tastaʿmila)”. This “you should”-phrase
which Ḥunayn’s uses so frequently, occurs only one more time besides these two examples.
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq does not use the construction {yaǧibu ʿalayka ʾan + SUBJUNCTIVE 2SG} but
does use another with the same deontic meaning, {wa-laka ʾan +
SUBJUNCTIVE
2SG}, “you
must …”, which occurs twice “you must say (wa-laka ʾan taqūla),” and “you must know (walaka ʾan taʿlama).”
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq regularly repeats the phrase kamā ʿalimta (“as you know” or “as you
have learned”), which could, however, also be read as kamā ʿalimtu (“as I know” or “as I have
&105
learned”). This phrase occurs also in al-Baġdādī’s and al-Manāwī’s commentaries. Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq uses it for instance at the end of his comment on Aphorisms vi.20:
.‫ورمبّا كان تغيره إلى الفساد كما علمت‬
And sometimes it changes towards decay, as I have found out/ as you have
learned.
3.3.3
Al-Manāwī
Al-Manāwī addresses the reader about 23 times per 10,000 words; 15 times deontically and 6
times while using indicative verb forms, and two possessive pronominal suffixes. This means
he addresses the reader slightly less often than Ḥunayn does (34 times), but he is still fourth of
all authors in terms of frequency. Strikingly, he uses imperatives considerably more than
indicative forms. Most of these (30 out of 31 in the first three books) are forms of the verb
ʿalima, ‘to know’.4 Al-Manāwī quite constantly addresses his reader with ‘know that’. The
“you should”-phrase {yanbaġī ʾan +
SUBJUNCTIVE
2SG} he uses twice as part of the
prohibition “you should not use (fa-lā/mā yanbaġī laka ʾan tastaʿmila).” Besides the verb “to
know” he uses 12 other verbs, which is nearly three times less diverse than Ḥunayn’s use of
second person singular verb forms.
In the following example, Al-Manāwī leads the reader through a paragraph in which he
explains the seventh of the eight introductory topics (ruʾūs) authors traditionally discuss in
their introductions.5 This seventh topic in particular relates to the structure of a work and the
didactic method it follows. In this paragraph from his comment on Aphorisms i.2, al-Manāwī
explains the didactic methods (ṭuruq at-taʿlīmiyya), of his commentary, i.e. tarkīb wa-l-ʿaks,
‘inverse structure’. He uses second person forms to facilitate his explanation:
4
The other imperative form he uses is imnaʿ, “prevent!”.
5
These headings I discuss in detail in chapter VI.
&106
،‫مثال الثاني هو أن تنظر إلى الشيء الذي تريد علمه فتضعه في وهمك من أوله إلى أخره‬
‫ مثال ذلك اإلنسان‬.(…) ‫ثمّ تبتدي من آخره راجعاً بالعكس فتنظر في شيء شيء منه‬
.(…) ‫فإنّك تقيم جملته في وهمك ثمّ تقول بدن اإلنسان يتحلّل إلى األعضاء اآللية‬
The example of the second [inverse structure learning method] is that you
contemplate and imagine the thing you want to learn from tip to toe, then you
start from its end back to the beginning, and consider it step by step (…). An
example of this is man, whom you first imagine as complete in your mind, so
that you can consequently say that the human body is divided into upper body
parts (etc.).
The following example is an indication of Al-Manāwī’s confidence in his own explanatory
skills, as he writes that to understand Hippocrates’ aphorism, the reader only needs to
contemplate what he tells him:
.‫ويظهر لك ما ذكر إذا تأمّلت فيما يقال لك اآلن‬
And what he mentioned will become clear to you if you contemplate what is
said to you now.
3.3.4
Al-Baġdādī
Al-Baġdādī addresses his reader 30 times per 10,000 words, 28 of which are second person
singular verb forms of which the reader is the subject, and two possessive pronominal
suffixes. He has an equally frequent use of deontic and descriptive forms, each 14 times per
10,000 words. Al-Baġdādī uses 21 different verbs, over half of which (13) he uses only once,
and six of which he uses twice. Similar to al-Manāwī, al-Baġdādī uses the verb “to
know (ʿalima)” most frequently to address the reader (12 times), both in imperative forms (six
times) and indicative forms (six times). The form ʿalimta, ‘you have learned’, can also be read
as ʿalimtu, but the context seems to call for the reading of a second person form. Al-Baġdādī
uses it to repeat previous information, which he may do to help the reader keep on track, as in
his comment on Aphorisms i.12:
.‫وقد علمت أن الدور هو زمان األخذ والترك‬
&107
You have already learned that a cycle is a period of give and take.
In this case, al-Baġdādī refers back to the beginning of the same comment, where he indeed
has explained what a cycle is. It thus seems more plausible that with this form al-Baġdādī
means ‘you already know’ (because I explained it on the previous page) and not ‘I already
know’ (because I explained it on the previous page).
Al-Baġdādī uses the “you should”-phrase {yanbaġī ʾan + SUBJUNCTIVE 2SG} 9 times (six
times per 10,000 words) , in combination with a variety of verbs, mostly of “medical” action
(“do”, “look”, “support”, “weigh”), and three of knowing. He uses six imperatives (4 per
10,000 words), two of which are 2PL forms of the verb “to give (ʾaʿṭā),” and the other four all
2SG forms of the verb “to know (ʿalima),” for example:
.ً‫واعلم أن املرض احلاد في الغاية يأتي منتهاه بدئا‬
And know that the climax of utmost acute diseases comes slowly.
He uses the construction {yaǧibu ʾan +
SUBJUNCTIVE
2SG} once with the verb istaʿmala, ‘to
use’ in his comment on Aphorisms i.7, where Hippocrates uses the same phrase (in Ḥunayn’s
translation):
‫ير‬²‫تدب‬²‫تعمل ال‬²‫ة أن تس‬²‫عالم‬²‫ذه ال‬²‫ت ه‬²‫ إذا رأي‬،ً‫با‬²‫اً وواج‬²‫ أيّ الزم‬،‫رورة‬²‫جب ض‬²‫حينئذ ي‬²‫ف‬
.‫الذي في الغاية القصوى‬
At that time you must necessarily, that is crucially and exigently, if you see
these symptoms, use the treatment that is utterly [delicate].
Otherwise, al-Baġdādī never uses this construction and prefers {yanbaġī ʾan +
SUBJUNCTIVE
2SG}, which might be less harsh, even though it appears from the following sentence of his
commentary that the author is aware that when someone writes “you should” they can mean
“you must”:
.‫ أي يجب عليك أيها املتعلم‬،‫ومعنى ينبغي لك‬
&108
The meaning of “you should” (yanbaġī laka), is “you must (yaǧibu ʿalayka), oh
apprentice”.
Finally, there are five imperfects in the introduction and Book One that can be read as jussives
with a deontic modal meaning, and which I have counted as instances of deontic addressing of
the reader. One of these is “you use (tastaʿmilu)”, which occurs in al-Baġdādī’s comment on
Aphorisms i.5:
‫ومع ذلك فإنك تستعمل التدبير البالغ في اللطافة على حذر وتوق ألن اخلطأ فيه أعظم‬
.‫من اخلطأ في ضده‬
Besides, you [should] use an utmost delicate treatment, cautiously, because a
mistake in this case is worse than a mistake in the opposite case.
3.3.5
Ibn al-Quff
Ibn al-Quff addresses the reader 38 times per 10,000 words, more than all other
commentators. He mostly uses this as a strategy to guide the reader through his commentary.
In the first half of the first book of his commentary he only uses the verbs ʿalima and ʿarafa
(48 and 46 times), which both mean ‘to know’; this is the lowest variety of all authors.
Interestingly, Ibn al-Quff uses ʿalima primarily deontically and ʿarafa descriptively. His use of
indicative forms is more frequent (24/10,000) than that of his deontic forms (14/10,000). One
of his common phrases is {ʿalā mā sa-taʿrifuhū}, meaning ‘as you will know’, which he uses
for example in his comment on Aphorisms i.1:
.‫فـإن هـذا غـيـر مـمـكـن عـلـى مـا سـتـعـرفـه‬
And this is impossible, as you will know.
Out of the verbs with deontic meaning, the majority (32/35) are imperatives (all “know that
(aʿlam ʾan)”), and three are part of the construction {yaǧibu ʾan +
example:
&109
SUBJUNCTIVE
2SG}, for
.‫لكن يجب أن تعلم أنّ األعراض على نوعني‬
But you must know that the symptoms are [divided] in two types.
Quff never uses the construction {yanbaġī ʾan +
SUBJUNCTIVE
2SG}, which is so frequent
among Ḥunayn and al-Baġdādī. Moreover, unlike al-Baġdādī’s explanation we saw above, Ibn
al-Quff makes a clear distinction between the phrases {yanbaġī ʾan +
{yaǧibu ʾan +
SUBJUNCTIVE
SUBJUNCTIVE
2SG} and
2SG}, in his comment on Aphorisms i.1:
.‫وكذلك قال ينبغي أن تنظر ولم يقل يجب أن تنظر‬
“And therefore he said you should look, and he did not say you must look.”
Quff ends his commentary with the following request to his reader:
‫ ونحن نسأل ممن يطالع كتابنا هذا من‬،‫متّت املقالة السابعة ومتّ بتمامها شرح هذا الكتاب‬
‫ فإن الح له في‬،‫العارفني وذوى العقول السليمة أن ميعن في مطالعة ما قلناه ويفكّر فيما ذكرنا‬
.‫ذلك خلل أو نقص فعليه أن يسدّ خللي ويخيّر نقصي‬
The seventh book has finished, and with that, the commentary on this book has
finished, and we ask those intellectuals and those men with sound minds who read
our book to carefully study what we said and think about what we mentioned, and
if he notices a shortcoming or imperfection, he should rectify my shortcoming and
correct my imperfection.
3.3.6
As-Sinǧārī
As-Sinǧarī addresses the reader ten times per 10,000 words, eight times actively, and twice
using pronominal suffixes. Most verbs are, in contrast to Ibn al-Quff’s verbs, verbs related to
medical actions, and their purpose is to give the reader as physician instructions, and not to
lead the reader through the commentary. Of the second person singular verb forms, six are
deontic forms and two indicative, descriptive forms. In Books One, Two, and Three, asSinǧārī uses 11 different verbs (7/10,000 words), only two of which he (possibly) uses twice:
“to proceed (taqaddama),” and “to imagine, presume (tawahhama)”. The latter, however,
&110
could in both instances also be read as a third person singular, as for example in the following
sentence from as-Sinǧārī’s comment on Aphorisms ii.29:
.‫فال ىتوهّم أنّ قوليه يوجبان التناقض‬
fa-lā ya/tatawahham [JUSSIVE 3SG or
tanāquḍa.
2SG]
ʾan qawlayhī yūǧibāna t-
can be read and translated either as:
.‫فال يتوهّم أنّ قوليه يوجبان التناقض‬
And one must not think that his two phrases encompass a contradiction.
or as:
.‫فال تتوهّم أنّ قوليه يوجبان التناقض‬
And you must not think that his two phrases encompass a contradiction.
An unambiguous example is found in the following paragraph from as-Sinǧārī’s comment on
Aphorisms ii.52, where he uses the personal pronoun “you (ʾanta)”:
‫هـذا الـفـصـل مـن وصـايـا أبـقـراط لـألطـبـّاء مـعـنـاه إذا عـرفـت الـمـرض وتـحـقـّقـت سـبـبـه‬
‫الـمـوجـب لـه عـالـجـتـه بـمـا يـنـبـغـي مـن أنـواع الـعـالج الـصـحـيـح ولـم يبـن لـك أثـر‬
.‫االٕصـالح فـيـه فـدم عـلـى مـا أنـت عـلـيـه‬
This aphorism is one of Hippocrates’ instructions to physicians, meaning: “If
you have come to know the disease, and are certain of its causing reason, and
you treat him with what is appropriate of the types of the right treatment, but
no sign of improvement appears to you, continue what you are doing.
As-Sinǧārī’s second person singular forms in this comment closely resemble those in the
aphorism he comments on, which reads as follows in the Arabic version as-Sinǧārī quotes
(Ḥunayn’s translation):
‫ إن أنت فعلت جميع ما ينبغي أن تفعل على ما ينبغي ولم يكن ما ينبغي أن‬:‫قال أبقراط‬
.ً‫ فال تنتقل إلي غير ما أنت عليه ما دام ما رأيته منذ أول األمر ثابتا‬،‫يكون‬
“Hippocrates said: if you have done all that you should do in the way you should
do it, but what should happen does not happen, do not shift to something else than
what you are doing, what you have seen at the beginning is still fixed”.
&111
As-Sinǧārī, in his comment, merely paraphrases Hippocrates’ words, as seems to be case with
his other instances as well. This implies that the addressing of the reader is not part of asSinǧārī’s personal style.
As-Sinǧārī uses 5 imperatives (3/10,000 words) and uses the construction {yanbaġī ʾan
+ SUBJUNCTIVE 2SG} only twice while negated (“you should not…”). As-Sinǧārī once uses the
possessive pronominal suffix -ka, in baladuka (“your country”) and once uses the objective
pronominal suffix -ka, in yaṭīʿuka “to obey you”, in his comment on Aphorisms i.1:
.‫يـنـبـغـي لـك أيّـهـا الـطـبـيـب أن ال تـعـالـج مـريـضـاً ال يـطـيـعـك فـيـمـا تـأمـره بـه‬
You should, Ohphysician, not treat a patient who does not obey you in what
you order him.
As-Sinǧarī regularly gives orders to the doctor without directly addressing the reader, for
example in his comment on Aphorisms i.2:
ّ‫ينبغي إذا عزم الطبيب على استفراغ البدن أن ينظر في فصول السنة وفي البلد والسن‬
.‫واألمراض‬
When a physician is determined to purge the body, he must consider the
seasons of the year, the country, the age, and the diseases.
Consider also his comment on Aphorisms i.8:
.‫فـيـنـبـغـي لـلـطـبـيـب فـي ذلـك الـوقـت أن يـكـون كـالـمـعـون‬
And the physician must, at this time, be like a helper.
3.3.7
As-Siwāsī
As-Siwāsī is the second least frequent user of second person verb forms and pronouns after
an-Nīlī. He uses only six such verb forms per 10,000 words besides two pronominal suffixes.
Four of these are indicative forms and two are imperatives. In his first four books, he uses
eight different verbs (equalling four per 10 000 words), of which he only use the verb ʿarafa,
‘to know’ more than once (four times). Of the four deontic forms he uses in his first four
&112
books, three are part of the construction {yanbaġī ʾan + SUBJUNCTIVE 2SG}, and only one is an
imperative (qis, ‘to measure/weigh’).
The following sentence from as-Siwāsī’s comment on Aphorisms i.22 contains one
indicative (“if you know”) and two deontic modals; one imperative (“pursue”), and one
command (“you must consider”):
‫وإذا عرفت ذلك فيما يكون من تلقاء نفسه فقس عليه فيما يكون بالدواء ألنّ العمل‬
ّ‫يحذو حذو الطبيعة وينبغي أن تعتبر الوقت احلاضر من أوقات السنة والبلد والسن‬
.‫واملرض‬
If you know this about what happens automatically, pursue it in regard to what
happens by medication, because [medical] work should imitate the example of
nature, and you must consider the current season of the seasons of the year, and
the country, the age, and the disease[.]
Besides these direct forms, as-Siwāsī addresses himself to “him who reads” in the following
indirect, yet confident way in his comment on aphorism iv.58:
‫ إذا لـم يـكـن إقـالع الـحـمـى عـن الـمـحـمـومـيـن فـي يـوم مـن أيـام األفـراد‬:‫قـال أبـقـراط‬
‫ وقـال أنـه لـيـس فـي‬،‫ أنـكـر جـالـيـنـوس هـذا الـفـصـل‬:‫الـتـفـسـيـر‬.‫فمن عادتها أن تعود‬
‫هـذا الـكـتـاب ألنّ أبـقـراط وصـف األزواج بـالـبـحـران كـالـرابـع والـرابـع عـشـر والـعـشـريـن‬
‫واألربـعـيـن ويـمـكـن أن يـحـمـل عـلـى الـتـخـصـيـص بـبـعـض األزواج حـتـى يـكـون مـراده‬
‫أن الـحـمـى إذا انـقـلـعـت فـي بـعـض األزواج كـالـسـادس أو الـثـامـن فـمـن عادتها العود‬
.‫ فالكالم عليه واضح‬،‫لداللة التجربة عليه وأمّا من قرأ‬
Hippocrates said: if the fever does not leave a patient with fever on one of the
odd days, then it usually returns. The commentary: Galen contested this
aphorism and said that it is not part of this book, because Hippocrates
described the pairs [of the days] of crisis as the fourth, the fourteenth, the
twentieth, and the fortieth, and it is possible to specifically refer to some pairs,
so that he means that the fever, if it leaves during some pairs such as the sixth
or the eighth, then it usually comes back in accordance with the empirical proof
to that, and as far as the reader is concerned, these words are clear to him.
&113
As-Siwāsī by this last statement assumes that his intended audience understands his short
treatment of the aphorism. He believes the paragraph he has just written is (or at least should
be) clear to his reader and therefore needs no explanation. As-Siwāsī is not, therefore, writing
for non-physicians, because to understand this paragraph one would need some basic insight
into contemporary beliefs about the critical days and fever.
3.4
Conclusion
The addressing of the reader is an important part of Ḥunayn’s translation technique. He uses
second person forms to translate impersonal Greek sentences with different functions. One of
these is the formulation of medical procedures. Ḥunayn formulates such procedures by giving
direct instructions more often than Galen does. Ḥunayn also uses second person forms to
translate examples and hypotheticals, where Galen uses first person plural forms or
impersonal verb forms. In such instances, the direct addressing of the reader seems to serve to
enliven dry text. Galen regularly uses such phrases as “as you know,” or “you should
understand,” that help guide the reader through the text. Ḥunayn preserves these phrases, and
adds his own as well.
Ḥunayn’s use of second person forms differs from that of the other Arabic
commentators in terms of frequency and function. This further supports the idea that the
addressing of the reader is a specific part of Ḥunayn’s translation technique. Ibn al-Quff, alBaġdādī, al-Manāwī and Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, as-Sinǧārī and as-Siwāsī each use second person
forms, but Ibn al-Quff does so much more frequently than as-Sinǧārī and as-Siwāsī. An-Nīlī
uses no 2SG forms in his first five books. Besides, Ibn al-Quff uses these forms mainly, it
seems, to keep the reader involved in the text, using phrases such as ‘you know’. In similar
fashion, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq mainly uses epistemic verbs, while al-Manāwī has a more idiomatic
&114
use of the phrase ‘know that’. In contrast, as-Sinǧārī mostly addresses the reader as physician,
when he gives medical instructions.
Besides, the authors differ with Ḥunayn and each other in their use of deontic forms and
mere descriptive ways of addressing. Ḥunayn ibn ʾIsḥāq and Ibn al-Quff have a less frequent
use of imperatives and other exhortative forms, and tend to address their audience in a more
guiding way, with indicative phrases such as “as you know” or “you see”. Of all authors, alBaġdādī is most similar to Ḥunayn, using a high number of second person verbs of with a
range of different functions. Interestingly, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, who follows his style in other
respects, is rather different to Ḥunayn in this respect.
In terms of tone, the authors use more imperatives than indicative forms. Ibn al-Quff,
Al-Manāwī, Ibn ʾAbī Sādiq and as-Sinǧārī each use considerably more imperatives than “you
should”- phrases. Ibn al-Quff never uses the latter, and Al-Manāwī and as-Sinǧārī only rarely
use the negative “you should not”. Ibn al-Quff and Al-Manāwī both continuously address
their reader with the imperative “know that”, and Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq does the same with the
phrase “understand that”. Ḥunayn Ibn ʾIsḥāq, al-Baġdādī, and as-Siwāsī each use more “you
should” - phrases than imperatives, though all of them do use at least a few imperatives. The
authors do not use direct questions, or rhetorical questions, as a strategy in their writing.
The ambiguity of the Arabic second person perfect forms and imperatives, as well as the
questionable reliability of the diacritics on the /ta/ (‫ ) ت‬and /ya/ (‫ )ي‬marking imperfect forms,
may make a study of second person forms using distant reading a risky endeavour. However,
the authors’ use of pronouns and particular contextual indications, as well as the Greek source
text in the case of certain instances in Ḥunayn’s commentary, allowed for a valuable study of
second person forms in the corpus, based on a careful close reading of the text.
&115
Addressing the reader is one of Ḥunayn’s translation strategies, which is not imitated by
the majority of later authors. Although the addressing of the reader is not an alien writing
style to them, proven by their own use of the same style figure, they address their readers
either considerably less frequent and/or with different purposes, with the exception of alBaġdādī.
&116
CHAPTER IV EPISTEMIC MODALITY AND HEDGES: EXPRESSIONS OF
CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY
4.1
Introduction
This chapter further explores stance within the Arabic commentaries on the Hippocratic
Aphorisms. It particularly focuses on stance as expressed by epistemic modal markers that
express the author’s opinion about his statement, such as yumkinu ʾan ‘it could be that’, and
wa-lā šakk ‘no doubt’. I will give a detailed overview of the Arabic modal markers used in the
corpus. In addition, I will analyse whether there is a discursive convention regarding
confident or careful scientific writing within the genre of the commentaries. An analysis of
epistemic modality offers insight into yet another aspect of the authors’ personal image and
style.
4.1.1
Literature Review
Epistemic modality as a semantic category has received considerable attention in recent years,
by linguists such as Traugott (2011), Pietrandrea (2005), Nuyts (2005), Coates (2003), Biber
(2002), Palmer (2001), and Stubbs (1996). Few studies exist on epistemic modality in Arabic
in particular, although some work on modality in general has been done. For example, Nadia
Anghelescu (2013)6 has published a book chapter in which she gives a theoretical discussion
of modality in Arabic, briefly covering all types of modality, while Maher Bahlul (1994) has
written a monograph which focuses (in part) on the syntax and semantics of modality in
Standard Arabic. In addition to these studies of Standard Arabic, some studies focus on Arabic
colloquials, such as a study of the grammaticalisation of modality in mediterranean Arabic
6
first published in 1999.
&117
dialects (Vanhove, Miller, and Caubet 2009), a study of modality in spoken Egyptian and
Levantine Arabic (Mitchell and Hasan 1994), and a corpus study of modality and aspect in
Cairene Arabic (Moshref 2012). Classical Arabic has not received much attention.
With regard to the use of epistemic modal markers in scientific writing, many studies
focus on contemporary languages or historical phases of English. For instance, Salager-Meyer
(1994) studies the use of hedges in contemporary written medical English, and Hyland (2005)
studied Darwin’s use of hedges in his Ethos. Eva Thue (2006) has engaged in a comparative
study of the use of epistemic modality markers in contemporary English, French, and
Norwegian. Douglas Biber (2005) has done a diachronic study of stance in English texts of
the last three centuries. Taavitsainen, in her study of English medical texts I mentioned
previously, has examined modality and writes that “[e]videntiality, both in the attitude and the
mode of knowing, is an important feature in these [17th-century medical] texts.” She further
found that in these texts, “modal auxiliaries and stance adverbs are frequent” (1994, 205). The
present study makes an innovative contribution to the history of scientific discourse by
studying the use of epistemic modal markers in medieval Classical Arabic.
4.1.2
Epistemic Modality
My theoretical framework in this chapter draws on scholars with a broader, pragmatic
linguistic view, such as Stubbs (1996), Traugott (2011) and Coates (2003), who consider all
forms that express the speaker’s stance, including epistemic verbs, to be epistemic modality.
Paola Pietrandrea (2005, 13) writes that epistemic modality is “an expression of the speaker’s
opinion about the truth of a propositional content.” In addition to auxiliaries, I also look at
adverbial phrases; in accordance with Traugott (2011, 382), who writes that “it has long been
recognized that modality is expressed not only by grammatical auxiliaries (e.g. may, have to)
but also by lexical verbs (be supposed to, believe), adjectives (probable, necessary), and
&118
adverbs (perhaps, truly).” Epistemic modals which express uncertainty are also called hedges,
which Coates defines as those “words and phrases, as well as certain prosodic and
paralinguistic features, [which] have the effect of damping down the force of what is
said” (Coates 2003, 331).
4.1.3
Method
For this study, I have first collected all modal adverbials and auxiliaries by both a close
reading of the texts, and distant reading searches of known modals. Next, I have searched the
complete commentaries of each author to determine the frequency of these modals, which was
possible because of the low occurrence rate of these markers. I have analysed all books of
each author for most of the markers, except in the case of modals which use the root b-y-n, for
which I analysed a smaller sample, the reason for which I defend more carefully below. I have
not done a study of the Greek modal markers in Galen’s text and their translation into Arabic,
but first analysed Ḥunayn’s text for such markers and then examined the underlying Greek
source text. Therefore, I do not know how Ḥunayn translates certain Greek markers such as
ἤτοι, ‘surely’. This needs to wait for a future study.
In the remainder of this chapter, I will first offer a typology of the epistemic markers
that occur within the commentaries, before discussing their use and frequency by author. In
the discussion, I compare the epistemic modality markers in Ḥunayn’s translation, with their
occurrence in the later commentators.
4.2
Epistemic Markers in the Corpus
In the Arabic commentaries, stance is mainly expressed by epistemic verbs, adverbial phrases,
and auxiliary or semi-auxiliary modal verbs. These express certainty, neutrality, and doubt.
Nadia Anghelescu (1999) gives a list of Arabic modal markers (an-nawāsikh) in her book
&119
chapter, but many of these do not occur in the Arabic commentaries on the Hippocratic
Aphorisms. The modals in the Arabic commentaries include adverbs and auxiliaries of
possibility, likelihood, and certainty. For analytical purposes, I divide the semantic function of
these modals into two groups, (i) markers of uncertainty or hedges, and (ii) markers of
certainty. I made two tables, one presenting the hedges (Table 4.1) and one presenting the
certainty markers in the corpus, excluding epistemic verbs (Table 4.2). The Greek source
words are given wherever a marker occurs in Ḥunayn’s translation. I shall further discuss the
meaning and frequency of these modals below.
Table 4.1 Uncertainty Markers in the Commentaries
Arabic
Greek
-
{fa-yumkinu + ʾan}
{wa-yuḥtamalu + ʾan}
English
δήπου, τάχα,
δύναται + inf.
-
{lā/laysa + yuʾmanu + ʾan}
possibly
it is possible, conceivable,
bearable; probably
it is not believed that
{yaǧūzu + ʾan}
δήπου
it is possible that, allowed that
{fa-ẖalīq + ʾan}
ἴσως
probably, perhaps
{wa-yušbihu + ʾan}
ἔοικε
it seems that
{laʿalla}
τάχα, ἴσως
perhaps, probably
The Arabic adverb rubbamā, meaning both ‘sometimes’ and ‘perhaps’ in later Arabic, does
not seem to occur with the modal meaning of ‘perhaps’ in the commentaries. R. Dozy (1881,
p.488) gives its meaning only as ‘peut-être’. However, Ḥunayn only uses it to translate Greek
ἐνίοτε µὲν… ἐνίοτε δὲ, ‘at times… at other times’, and a preliminary study of its occurrence
in the other commentaries seems to confirm that it is mostly used with the meaning
‘sometimes’ there, too.
Table 4.2 Certainty Markers in the Commentaries
Arabic
Greek
&120
English
-
{wa-lā šakk}
no doubt
{wa-min + al-bayyini}
δηλονότι
and it is clear/obvious that; clearly
{fa-bayyinun + ʾan}
δηλονότι
and it is clear/obvious that; clearly
{wa-qad + tabayyana + ʾan}
δηλονότι
it is clear that
{wa-min + al-maʿlūm + ʾan}
-
it is known that
{al-ẓāhiru + ʾan}
-
it is obvious that
{yaẓhuru + ʾan}
φαίνεται
it appears
In addition to these auxiliaries and adverbs, epistemic modality in Arabic can also be
expressed by the long energetic form. This form can denote uncertainty (and desire); for
example yaktubanna, ‘he may write’ (cf. Lipínski 2001, 362). However, such forms I have not
(so far) found in the commentaries.
Another way to express possibility is with the particle {qad + imperfect}, which may or
may not denote uncertainty. The phrase qad yaf ʿalu can mean ‘he might do’, but it can also
mean ‘he does’, which is difficult to judge in some cases even when considering the context.
In the following sentence, for instance, Ḥunayn uses the phrase qad taʿriḍu, which can be
translated with ‘it occurs’, or ‘it may occur’. In the Greek, Galen uses δήπου, which can mean
either ‘perhaps’ or ‘surely’ (cf. Liddell and Scott 1940, p.388).
‫ إذا عـرض فـيـهـا‬،ّ‫وقـد عـلـمـنـا أنّـه قـد تـعـرض األوجـاع فـي األحـشـاء بـسـبـب الـورم الـحـار‬
.‫ والـسـدّة الـقـويـة أو الـخـراج‬،‫الـحـمـرة‬
We know that pains in the bowels may occur because of an inflammation, in
the case of erysipelas, or severe constipation, or an abscess[.]
ἴσµεν δὲ δήπου καὶ διὰ φλεγµονὴν ἢ ἐρυσίπελας ἢ ἔµφραξιν ἰσχυρὰν ἢ
ἀποστήµατα ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις ὀδύνας γιγνοµένας. (Kühn 17b 747)
We know that surely pains in the bowels occur also due to an inflammation, or
erysipelas, severe constipation, or an abscess.
&121
I have not systematically studied all instances of {qad + IMPERFECT} in the commentaries, so I
do not include them in this chapter. However, verbal mood in Arabic does still deserve further
scholarly attention.
The commentators also use other expressions of certainty that are non-grammaticalised
modals. For instance, Ibn al-Quff finishes one of his inquiries into Aphorisms i.1 with the
confirmative statement wa-hāḏā huwa l-ḥaqqu, “and this is the truth”. In comparison, Ibn
ʾAbī Ṣādiq, who will prove to be the more careful author in the corpus, writes in reflection to
his own comment on Aphorisms vi.20: wa-hāḏā t-tafsīru ʾalyaqu bi-naṣṣi buqrāṭ, “this
explanation is the most suitable to Hippocrates’ text.” These phrases, though interesting, are
beyond the scope of this study. However, I discuss some of them further in chapter VI.
4.3
Uncertainty Markers
Table 4.3 shows the frequency of each uncertainty marker per commentator. Every first
column gives the absolute number per commentary, every second column shows the relative
number per 10,000 words in italics. It is clear, that especially Ḥunayn and Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
regularly use hedges. Ḥunayn has a diverse use of these markers, while Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
particularly tends to use fa-yumkinu ʾan. The other commentators very infrequently express
uncertainty using these modals, especially as-Sinǧārī and as-Siwāsī.
Table 4.3 Frequency of modals per commentator
IAS
Ḥun
ayn
Quff
Baġdādī
Sinǧārī
Siwā
sī
Nīlī
Manā
wī
{fa-yumkinu + ʾan}
13
1
26 4
16 1
10
1
0
0
31
4 2
1 0
{wa-yuḥtamalu + ʾan}
12
1
5 1
12 1
5
1
1
0
00
0 0
1 0
{yaǧūzu + ʾan}
8
1
1 0
0 0
4
1
0
0
00
2 1
7 2
{fa-ẖalīq + ʾan}
7
1
4 1
1 0
4
1
0
0
00
4 2
0 0
19
2
13 2
5 0
0
0
0
0
00
0 0
0 0
{wa-yušbihu + ʾan}
&122
laʿalla
total
4.3.1
5
1
8 1
16 1
4
1
0
0
00
0 0
1 0
64
5
57 9
50 3
27
4
1
0
31
10 5
10 2
{fa-yumkinu + ʾan}
The construction {fa-yumkinu + ʾan} is an auxiliary of possibility meaning ‘it could be
that’ (cf. Freytag 1837, p.200, who translates it with ‘fieri potest, ut…’). Not all of the
instances of {fa-yumkinu + ʾan} are instances of epistemic modality. Following Verstraete
(2001), Nuyts (1992), Lyons (1977) and Halliday (1970), I distinguish between subjective and
objective modality, a functional distinction first made by Lyons (1977). In the case of
subjective modality, modals express some form of the speaker’s stance towards his utterance,
while objective modals place an utterance in a possible world, without involving the speaker.
For example, in sentences such as ‘I know that this woman can give birth’, ‘can’ is an
auxiliary but not an epistemic modal marker, only the epistemic verb ‘I know’ expresses
stance in this sentence. When ‘can’ is used subjectively, it does express the speaker’s stance. It
occurs with this function in Ibn al-Quff’s comment on Aphorisms ii.18. Ibn al-Quff here tries
to explain Hippocrates’ use (in Arabic translation) of the word dufʿa, ‘gush’, in this particular
aphorism. Although familiar with the possible meanings of the word, Ibn al-Quff is not sure
how Hippocrates uses it in this aphorism, and he expresses this uncertainty as follows:
.‫وميكن أن يقال أن معنى الدفعة هاهنا املبالغة في قصر زمان اإلستحالة‬
It can be said that the meaning of “gush” (dufʿa) here is that the
transformation time becomes shorter.
&123
In contrast, Al-Baġdādī uses {fa-yumkinu + ʾan} objectively in his comment on Aphorisms ii.
20. Here, {fa-yumkinu + ʾan} expresses modality but not subjective epistemic modality. AlBaġdādī writes the following regarding people with dry excretions:
‫ فإذا شاخ أمكن أن يلني بطنه‬،‫فأما من جف برازه لقلة املرار املنصب إلى معدته وأمعائه‬
.‫إلفراط البرد على كبده وميكن أن يبقى على تلك احلال إن لم يفرط البرد‬
Someone with dry excretions due to a shortage of bile in his stomach and
intestines, can (ʾamkana ʾan) get a soft stomach when he becomes old, because
of the excessive cold near his liver. And it is possible (fa-yumkinu ʾan) that [his
stomach] stays in this condition, if the cold does not become excessive.
In this example, ‘it is possible’ translates the construction {fa-yumkinu + ʾan}. Now, alBaġdādī’s use of this construction here does not express his stance towards the truth of this
statement. In fact, he seems quite sure, that as long as the condition is fulfilled, of cold not
becoming excessive, an old man can have a soft stomach.7 Suppose, in contrast, al-Baġdādī
had been dealing with a particular patient of old age, and he would have said to him ‘it could
be that your stomach will remain soft’. In this case, ‘it could be’ would indeed have been an
instance of subjective epistemic modality. I have not counted the objective instances of {fayumkinu + ʾan} as epistemic modals.
Ḥunayn, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, and an-Nīlī especially tend to use {fa-yumkinu + ʾan} to
translate or express possible meanings of certain words in the aphorisms they quote and
comment on. An example of this is found in Ḥunayn’s translation of Galen’s comment on
Aphorisms iv.76. In this aphorism, Hippocrates speaks about ‘thick urine’, and Galen, in his
comment, wonders what kind of urine Hippocrates refers to with the adjective ‘thick’. Galen
is almost certain, but not fully, about the possibility that Hippocrates intended thick urine to
7
On modals and conditionals, see A. Kratzer, 2012.
&124
mean balanced or natural urine. He uses the form ἐγχωρεῖ, ‘it is possible’, which Ḥunayn
translates with {fa-yumkinu + ʾan}.
ἐγχωρεῖ οὖν, ἡγοῦµαι, παχὺ οὖρον εἰρῆσθαι πρὸς αὐτοῦ τὸ σύµµετρόν τε καὶ κατὰ
φύσιν. (Kühn 17b.771.3)
It is possible then, I believe, that “thick urine” is said by him [Hippocrates] with regard
to balanced and natural [urine].
.‫وأرى أنّه قد ميكن أن يكون أبقراط عنى بالبول الغليظ البول املعتدل الطبيعي‬
I believe that it could be that Hippocrates meant with “thick urine”, natural,
balanced urine.
In this sentence, Galen uses both ἐγχωρεῖ, ‘it is possible’, and ἡγοῦµαι, ‘I believe’,
emphasising his uncertainty, that the word παχὺ, thick, can refer to a certain type of urine.
Galen does not make a final decision about what Hippocrates meant.
Comparing the use of {yumkinu + ʾan} per author we find this construction to be quite
rare. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses it most frequently, 26 times throughout his commentary equalling
four times per 10,000 words, compared to once per 10,000 words in Ḥunayn, Ibn al-Quff, alBaġdādī and as-Siwāsī, as Table 4.4 shows.
Table 4.4
Ḥunayn
fa-yumkinu ʾan
13(1)
Ibn ʾAbī Quff
Ṣādiq
26(4)
16(1)
al-Baġdādī as-Sinǧārī as-Siwāsī
10(1)
0
3(1)
an-Nīlī al-Manāwī
4(2)
1(0)
Ḥunayn uses yumkinu ʾan yufham minhu seven out of the 13 times he uses yumkinu ʾan. AnNīlī uses yumkinu four times in his commentary, three times in his first book and each time in
the phrase yumkinu ʾan yufham minhu; ‘it can be understood from it’. When used
epistemically, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq often uses the phrase “it is possible that he meant (yumkinu ʾan
yakūna ʿanā)” (ten times), and “it is possible to understand from it (yumkinu ʾan yufham
minhu)” (nine times). This latter phrase occurs, for instance, in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s comment on
&125
Aphorisms vi.14, in which Hippocrates speaks about dropsy, and how it is cured when water
flows through the veins to the stomach. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq in the following part of his comment
explains what he believes Hippocrates meant by “veins”.
‫ميكن أن يفهم من العروق ههنا العروق التي في حدبة الكبد ألن املائية إذا جرت فيها فهي‬
‫ وميكن أن يحمل معنى هذا الفصل على وجه‬.‫صائرة ال محالة الى بطن الكلى وفضاء املثانة‬
‫آخر وهو أن املائية متى دفعتها الطبيعة من البطن في املنفذ الذي في مقعر الكبد إلى العروق‬
.‫املعروفة باملاساريقا ومنها إلى جوف األمعاء كان بذلك انقضاء املرض‬
It is possible to understand “the veins” here as the veins that are in the convex of
the liver because the watery [matter], if it occurs there, will no doubt go to the
cavity of the kidneys and the room of the bladder. And it is possible to take the
meaning of this aphorism differently, namely that the watery matter, if nature
pushes it from the cavity located in the passage in concave of the liver to the veins
known as the ‘mesenteric’, and from these to the cavity of the kidneys, this will
bring about the cure of the disease.
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq here gives two possible veins to which Hippocrates could have referred, either
those in the liver’s convex, or the mesenteric veins. Although the detail with which Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq describes both processes demonstrates that he himself understands how dropsy can be
cured, he does not claim to know which of the two options Hippocrates meant.
4.3.2
{yaǧūzu + ʾan}
The construction {yaǧūzu + ʾan}, ‘it is possible that’, does not always have an epistemic
modal meaning either, as it most often expresses an objective, real, possibility, especially in
the case of Ibn al-Quff. However, in a number of cases it can be considered as an epistemic
modal. Consider the following example from Ḥunayn’s text, which is his personal addition to
Galen’s commentary, with no correspondence in the Greek text. Ḥunayn’s comment on
Aphorisms vii.32, in which Hippocrates writes that when the sediments in urine are bilious,
&126
and ‘fine from above’ (ἄνωθεν δὲ λεπταὶ) 8, this indicates an acute disease. Galen, in his
comment, wonders what Hippocrates meant with ἄνωθεν, and suggests it could have a
temporal sense ‘at first’ (cf. Magdelaine 1994:697).9 Ḥunayn translates this obscure phrase
with “ʾaʿlāhu raqīqan”, ‘its [the majority of the sediments] upperpart is fine’. In the following
personal addition to his translation of the commentary, Ḥunayn sets out some thoughts on the
meaning of this phrase, which do not agree with Galen’s interpretation.
‫ إنّ الـلـفـظـة الـتـي يـسـمـي بـهـا أبـقـراط الـرقـيـق فـي هـذا الـفـصـل يـحـتـمـل أن‬:‫قـال حـنـيـن‬
‫ فـقـد‬،‫يـكـون مـعـنـاهـا الـرقـيـق فـي الـقـوام ويـحـتـمـل أن يـكـون مـعـنـاهـا الـرقـيـق فـي الـشـكـل‬
‫يـجـوز عـلـى هـذا الـقـيـاس عـنـدي أن يـكـون بـقـراط أراد بـقـولـه أعـاله رقـيـقـا أي يـتحـرّك‬
.‫أعـاله ومييل إلى الرقّة‬
Ḥunayn said: The [Greek] expression with which Hippocrates refers to “fine” in
this aphorism, possibly means [lit. it is possible that its meaning is] fine in
consistency, and it possibly means fine in shape, and it is possible by this analogy,
in my opinion, that Hippocrates meant by his phrase “its upper part is fine” that its
upper part moves and tends to be delicate.
By using {yaǧūzu + ʾan}, Ḥunayn conveys his own opinion about what Hippocrates must
have meant in a careful way. As Table 4.5 demonstrates, the use of {yaǧūzu + ʾan} with this
meaning is not very frequent in the corpus. Al-Manāwī uses it most frequently, 2/10,000
words, while in Galen, al-Baġdādī and an-Nīlī it occurs once per 10,000 words.
Table 4.5
Ḥunayn Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq
{yaǧūzu + ʾan}
8/1
1
Quff al-Baġdādī
0
4/1
8
C. Magdelaine 1994, Vol.II, p.464, my translation.
9
Magdelaine translates with “fins en surface”, 1994, Vol.II, p.505.
&127
as-Sinǧārī as-Siwāsī
0
0
an-Nīlī
al-Manāwī
2/1
7/2
Al-Manāwī prefers this construction over yumkinu ʾan. For example, in book I, he uses it four
times in the phrase wa-yaǧūzu ʾan yakūna murāduhū ‘x’, “it is possible that his [Hippocrates’]
intention is ‘x’”. Besides this, he also uses it in the phrase wa-yaǧūzu ʾan yurāda bihī “and it
is possible that he meant with it…”, twice in book IV, whereas Ḥunayn’s use is more varied.
4.3.3
{fa-ḫalīq + ʾan}
According to Freytag (1830, p.520) and Wehr (1979, p.300), the main meanings of Arabic
ḫalīq is ‘appropriate’, ‘apt’, ‘convenient’. Yet, Ḥunayn uses it four times in his translation to
render the Greek ἴσως, or {ἴσως ἄν + optative} (once), in sentences where the latter is likely
to mean ‘probably’ or ‘perhaps’. One of these instances is found in Ḥunayn’s translation of
Galen’s comment on Aphorisms iv.36. Hippocrates here describes the benefit of sweats that
occur on particular days in the cycle of a disease. He lists the days on which these sweats are
good, from the third and fifth to the twenty-seventh and thirty-fourth. Now, according to
Galen, there are two variant readings regarding the last part of this aphorism. Instead of
mentioning the thirty-fourth day, some instead write thirty-first.10 Galen comments on these
two different readings in the following manner. Without choosing one of the two, he writes
that both days are part of the days on which crises can occur within a cycle, although the crisis
on the 34th day is probably (ἴσως) stronger.
‫وقـد نـعـلـم أنّـهـمـا جـمـيـعـاً داخـالن فـي عـدد أ ّيـام الـبـحـران وخـلـيـق أن يـكـون الـيـوم‬
.‫الـرابـع والـثـالثـيـن أقـوى‬
We know that both of them are included in the number of days of crisis, and
that the 34th day is probably stronger.
ἴσμεν δ' αὐτὰς ἐν τῷ καταλόγῳ περιεχομένας τῶν κρισίμων ἡμερῶν καὶ
ἴσως ἰσχυροτέραν γε τὴν τριακοστὴν τετάρτην. (Kühn 17b.714.16)
10
Interestingly, the Arabic translation includes both the thirty-first and thirty-fourth day.
&128
We know that they are included in the list of the critical days and that the
34th is probably more intense.
Table 4.6
Ḥunayn
{fa-ẖalīq + ʾan}
7(1)
Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq
4(1)
Quff
1(0)
al-Baġdādī Sinǧārī
4(1)
0
as-Siwāsī
0
an-Nīlī al-Manāwī
4(2)
0
As Table 4.6 shows, {fa-ẖalīq + ʾan} does not occur frequently in the commentaries. Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq, for example, only uses it four times. He does so for instance in his comment on
aphorism vi.18, where Hippocrates writes that wounds of the bladder, the brain and a number
of other body parts are deadly. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq knows from Galen that only wounds in the
heart are always deadly. He therefore here suggests, albeit carefully, that Hippocrates must
have meant a large and deep wound.
،‫فأما غيره من األعضاء فليس يجب ضرورة متى نالته جراحة أن يتبعها املوت ال محالة‬
‫ ولذلك فخليق أن يكون أبقراط عنى بقوله خرق العظيمة‬،‫لكن متى كانت غائرة عميقة‬
.‫الغائرة‬
As to the other body parts (other than the heart), it is not absolutely necessary
that when a wound happens in them, death necessarily follows, except when
[the wound] is low-lying and deep, therefore, it could be that Hippocrates
meant with his expression “a tearing” [a wound] that is large and deep.
4.3.4
{wa-yušbihu + ʾan}
“It seems [to be the case that] (ἔοικε)” is a hedge Galen uses 28 times. It is translated by
Ḥunayn with {wa-yušbihu + ʾan}. It occurs for instance in Ḥunayn’s translation of Galen’s
comment on Aphorisms iv.11, in which Hippocrates sets out some of the symptoms of ‘dry
dropsy’. In his commentary, Galen distinguishes between two types of dropsy, dry and watery.
About the cause of watery dropsy, he formulates the following hypothesis:
&129
ἔοικε δὲ μείζονος μὲν τῆς ψύξεως ἔκγονος ὑπάρχειν ὁ ὑδατώδης ὕδερος,
ὃν ἀσκίτην ὀνομάζουσιν, ὅτι καθάπερ ἐν ἀσκῷ τινι τῷ περιτονίῳ
κατακέκλεισται τὸ ὑγρὸν[.] (Kühn 17b.670.5)
Watery dropsy, which they call ascites because the water is trapped inside the
membrane as it is inside a leather water bag [ἀσκῷ], seems to originate from a
greater chilling[.]
‫ذي‬²² ‫و الـ‬²² ‫وى وهـ‬²² ‫د وأقـ‬²² ‫رد أزيـ‬²² ‫ن بـ‬²² ‫تـولّـد مـ‬²² ‫ي يـ‬²² ‫مـائـ‬²² ‫تـسـقـاء الـ‬²² ‫كـون االسـ‬²² ‫بـه أن يـ‬²² ‫ويـشـ‬
‫بـطـن‬²²‫لـى الـ‬²²‫مـمـدّد عـ‬²²‫غـشـاء الـ‬²²‫وف الـ‬²²‫ي جـ‬²²‫حـصـور فـ‬²²‫يـه مـ‬²²‫مـاء فـ‬²²‫ ألنّ الـ‬،‫ز ّقـي‬²²‫ه الـ‬²²‫سـمـّونـ‬²²‫يـ‬
.ّ‫الـذي يـسـمّـيـه الـيـونـانـيــون فـاريـطـونـاون كـالـمـاء الـمـحـصور فـي الـزق‬
It seems that watery dropsy originates from a stronger and greater coldness,
and this is the one that they call “the bag-like” [az-ziqqī], because the water in
it is trapped inside the membrane that is extended along the stomach, which the
Greek call fārīṭūnāwun, like the water that is held inside a leather bag.
In three cases, Ḥunayn adds {wa-yušbihu + ʾan} to the translation without a Greek equivalent.
Remarkably, besides Ḥunayn only Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses this phrase regularly, that is, 13 times
throughout his commentary, which still only amounts to twice per 10,000 words. Besides him,
al-Baġdādī is the sole author who uses {wa-yušbihu + ʾan}, merely five times in his
commentary, as shown in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7
wa-yušbihu + ʾan
Ḥunayn
Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq
Quff al-Baġdādī Sinǧārī As-Siwāsī
19(2)
13(2)
5(0)
0
0
0
an-Nīlī al-Manāwī
0
0
Considering the fact that none of the later authors ever uses this phrase, except Ibn al-Quff,
one could speculate that Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq imitates Ḥunayn’s style, which seems to be
influenced by the Greek. However, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq is a very careful writer in general, and his
frequent use of this phrase could also be explained as a result of his reserved style.
&130
4.3.5
laʿalla
“Maybe” and “perhaps” occur in the commentaries as the Arabic laʿalla. The particle laʿalla
is quite rare in the commentaries, used only five times by Ḥunayn to translate Greek {ἴσως δ'
ἄν} or {τάχα ἂν} (three times), as shown in the following two sentences. For instance, it
occurs in Ḥunayn’s translation of part of the comment on Aphorisms iii.16, in which a number
of diseases are described that occur in times of little rainfall. Among these diseases
Hippocrates mentions “pain of the joints”. In his comment on this aphorism, Galen wants to
explain why Hippocrates used νοσήµατα ἀρθρίτιδες, the plural of ἀρθρῖτις (‘diseases of the
joints’). He writes that with this term, Hippocrates refers to all possible joint pains, because if
he wants to refer to a particular joint disease, he would instead say, for instance, ‘diseases of
the knees’. Galen then carefully formulates the following statement about the meaning of
‘arthritis’, using ἴσως ἄν τις λέγοι, ‘one may say’ it is used so and so. Ḥunayn translates this
with laʿalla qāʾilan yaqūlu.
ἴσως δ’ ἄν τις λέγοι μὴ τὸν ἑνὸς ἄρθρου πόνον, ἀλλὰ τῶν πολλῶν
ἀρθρῖτιν ὀνομάζεσθαι. (Kühn 17b.605.5)
Perhaps one can say that ‘arthritis’ is used to refer not to the pain of one joint,
but [to the pain] of many joints.
‫ولـعـلّ قـائـالً يـقـول إنّـه لـيـس يـسـمـّي وجـع الـمـفـاصـل مـا كـان فـي مـفـصـل واحـد‬
.‫نـظـيـره لـكـنّـه إنّـمـا يـسـمّـي وجـع الـمـفـاصـل مـا كـان فـي مـفـاصـل كـثـيـرة مـخـتـلـفـة‬
Perhaps one may say that not [the pain] in one and the same joint is called
“pain of the joints”, but rather [the pain] in many different joints is called “pain
of the joints”.
Ḥunayn also uses laʿalla in his translation of part of Galen’s comment on Aphorisms ii.42.
This aphorism says that strong apoplexy is impossible to cure, and weak apoplexy is difficult
to cure. In his commentary, Galen explains under which condition one can cure weak
&131
apoplexy, using {τάχα ἂν + optative} to express the uncertainty of the possibility to cure a
patient with this disease. Ḥunayn translates this with laʿalla.
ὡς ἐφ' ὧν γε διασώζει τινὰ τάξιν, ἀσθενὴς ἡ τοιαύτη, καὶ πράττων ἃ χρὴ
πάντα, τάχα ἂν αὐτὴν ἰάσαιο. (Kühn 17b.541.15)
When in those patients [of apoplexy], in which it [the breathing] preserves a
certain order, it [the apoplexy] is weak, and you are doing all the necessary
things, maybe you can cure it.
‫ومتى كان صاحبها يتنفّس تنفّساً الزما لنظام ما فسكتته ضعيفة وإن أنت تأتّيت في أمره‬
.‫بجميع ما ينبغي أن تفعله فلعلّك أن تبرئه‬
And when the patient breathes according to some sort of rhythm, and his stroke
is weak, and if you have supported his case with all that you should do, then
maybe you can cure it.
Table 4.8
Ḥunayn
laʿalla
5(1)
Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq
8(1)
Quff
Bagdadi
16/1
4(1)
Sinǧārī
0
As-Siwāsī an-Nīlī
0
0
al-Manāwī
1(1)
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, Ibn al-Quff, al-Baġdādī and al-Manāwī each use laʿalla approximately once
per 10,000 words, as shown in Table 4.8. An example of its use is found in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s
comment on Aphorisms iv.75, in which Hippocrates speaks about thick urine. In his comment
on this aphorism, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq spends a few words to clarify what Hippocrates meant with
‘thick’. He introduces his explanation carefully, with the particle ‘perhaps’.
‫ولعلّ أبقراط عنى بالغليظ هاهنا االعتدال في القوام حتّى يكون قوله وهو غليظ معناه أنّه‬
.‫ليس بالرقيق‬
Perhaps Hippocrates meant with ‘thick’ here a balance in terms of its physique, so
that when he says ‘while it is thick’, it means that it is not delicate.
&132
4.3.6
{wa-yuḥtamalu + ʾan}
The Arabic construction {wa-yaḥtamilu + ʾan} (active) or {wa-yuḥtamalu + ʾan} (passive),
form VIII, means ‘to be possible’ or ‘probable’, and occurs a few times in the commentaries.
Ḥunayn uses it nine times to translate Greek δύναται, ‘it is possible’, and three times in his
own addition to the text. He adds it for instance in his translation of Galen’s comment on
Aphorisms iv.32. Here, Hippocrates writes that he who recovers from a disease but suffers
(πονεῖν) in part of his body, has an abscess growing in that part. Galen wants to clarify the
meaning of πονεῖν, and writes the following:
Εἴπερ ὁ πόνος τήν τε σφοδρὰν κίνησιν σημαίνει καὶ τὴν ὀδύνην καὶ τὴν
βλάβην, ὡς ἔμπροσθεν ἐδείχθη, πρόδηλον δήπου ὅτι καὶ πονεῖν τὸ ἐν
πλείονι κινήσει γενέσθαι δηλώσει καὶ τὸ σχεῖν τινὰ ὀδύνην ἢ βλάβην.
(Kühn 17b.699.13)
If [the word] πόνος means ‘intense movement’, ‘pain’ and ‘damage’, as was
shown earlier, it is clear indeed (δήπου) that πονεῖν signifies ‘the occurring of a
lot of movement and the having of pain or harm’.
Ḥunayn adds {wa-yaḥtamilu + ʾan} and writes that ‘it is clear that expression [x]
probably means [y]’. This does, based on the position in the sentence and the meaning,
not seem to be a translation of δήπου.
‫ إن كـان الـكـالل قـد يـدلّ عـلـى الـحـركـة الـشـديـدة وهـي الـتـي تـسـمـّى‬:‫قـال جـالـيـنـوس‬
‫ فـبـيـن أنّ قـولـه كـلّ قـد‬،‫الـتـعـب ويـدلّ عـلـى الـوجـع ويـدلّ عـلـى الـضـرر كـمـا بـيـ ّنـا قـبـل‬
.‫يـحـتـمـل أن يـكـون مـعـنـاه إن نـالـتـه حـركـة كـثـيـرة وإن حـدث فـيـه وجـع أو ضـرر‬
Galen said: If kalāl (weariness) denotes ‘intense movement’, which is called
‘toil’, and it denotes ‘pain’, and it denotes ‘damage’ as we have explained
before, it is clear that his expression kalla (he suffers), probably means ‘if a lot
of movement happens to him and if pain or harm occur in him’.
This Arabic translation is an interesting example of the speaker expressing his certainty (‘it is
clear that’) about a possibility (it ‘probably’ means), something Galen does not seem to do. As
shown in Table 4.9, {wa-yaḥtamilu + ʾan} occurs about once every 10,000 words in Ibn ʾAbī
&133
Ṣādiq, Ibn al-Quff, and al-Baġdādī, a little less for as-Sinǧārī and al-Manāwī, and not attested
in as-Siwāsī and an-Nīlī.
Table 4.9
Ḥunayn
wa-yuḥtamalu ʾan
4.4
Ibn ʾAbī Quff
Ṣādiq
12(1)
5(1)
al-Baġdādī as-Sinǧārī as-Siwāsī an-Nīlī
12(1)
5(1)
1
0
0
al-Manāwī
1
Certainty Markers
Table 4.10 shows the frequency of certainty markers in the corpus. To find the frequency of
these markers, I analysed the complete commentaries of all authors, except for the varieties of
the root byn.11 Especially Ibn al-Quff, as-Siwāsī, and as-Sinǧārī use more certainty markers
than uncertainty modals. Ḥunayn and al-Manāwī express uncertainty and certainty equally
often using modals.
Table 4.10
Ḥunayn
IAS
Quff
Baġdādī
Sinǧā
rī
Siw
āsī
Nī
lī
Manā
-wī
{wa-lā šakk}
0 0
0
0
345 13
1 0
26 6
7 3
1 0
4
1
{fa-ḥaqīq + ʾan}
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1
0
{ẓāhira + l-ʾamru +
ʾan}
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
{wa-ẓāhiru + l-ḥāl
+ ʾan}
0 0
0
0
2 0
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 0
0
0
{ẓāhirun + ʾan}
0 0
2
0
0 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
{al-ẓāhiru + ʾan}
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3
1
{yaẓhuru + ʾan}
2 0
0
0
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
{wa-min + albayyini}
3 1
14
4
3 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
0
0
11
The form ‫ﺑﯿﻦ‬, which is frequent in the commentaries, can be read in multiple ways. It can be read as
bayyana, ‘he explained’, bayyin, ‘clear’, or bayna ‘between’. Each form of ‫ ﺑﯿﻦ‬must be carefully closely read.
Therefore, in the case of certainty markers that include bayyin, I did not examine the full commentaries of all
authors; I only analysed chapters 1-3 of Ḥunayn, chapters 1-4 of Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, and chapters 1-3 of Ibn alQuff. In these authors this number of chapters was the minimal necessary for a good overview.
&134
{bayyinun + ʾan}
14 3
1
0
0 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
0
0
{wa-qad +
tabayyana + ʾan}
9 2
0
0
1 0
2 0
2 1
0 0
0 0
0
0
{wa-min + almaʿlūm + ʾan}
0 0
1
0
4 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
{wa-maʿlūm + ʾan}
0 0
0
0
2 0
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
28 5
18
4
44 13
11 0
21 6
7 3
1 0
5
2
total
4.4.1
wa-lā šakk
The epistemic marker wa-lā šakk, ‘doubtless’, or ‘with no doubt’, occurs most often in asSinǧāri’s commentary, followed by Ibn al-Quff, as-Siwāsī, and al-Manāwī, as shown in Table
4.11.
Table 4.11
Ḥunayn
wa-lā šakk
0
Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq
0
Quff
al-Baġdādī as-Sinǧārī as-Siwāsī
345(13)
1
26(6)
7(3)
an-Nīlī al-Manāwī
1
4(1)
Ibn al-Quff uses this certainty marker frequently, for instance in his comment on the first
aphorism, where he explains that the conditions of the body are infinite, and that medicine
looks into all of them, which makes this science “long”, as Hippocrates writes in his
aphorism.
.‫وصـنـاعـة الـطـبّ ال شـكّ أنّـهـا نـاظـرة فـي تـلـك األحـوال‬
And the science of medicine no doubt looks into these conditions.
As shown in Table 4.11, Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq and Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq never use this expression,
which is another similarity between the earliest two commentators. Instead, Ḥunayn uses the
&135
following phrase: wa-laysa yašakku ʾaḥadun ʾan, “nobody doubts that…”, which he uses
eight times throughout his commentary. It translates Greek εὔδηλον ἅπαντι (quite clear to
everyone), πρόδηλον παντί (clear to everyone) or εὔδηλόν ἐστι (it is quite clear). It occurs for
example in his translation of Galen’s comment on Aphorisms v.33, in which Hippocrates
writes that if menstruation is held back, a nose bleed is a good thing. The first thing Galen
comments on this aphorism is the following, using πρόδηλον παντί ‘it is clear to everyone’ at
the end of his sentence.
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι τὸ καλῶς ἐφ' ἑκάστῳ μηνὶ κενούμενον αἷμα,
ἐπειδὰν κατά τινα διάθεσιν ἐπισχεθῇ, βλάπτειν τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ ὅτι δι’
ἑτέρου χωρίου κενουμένου ἰάσεται τῆς βλάβης τὸ πᾶν σῶμα πρόδηλον
παντί. (Kühn 17b.822.9)
That it is necessary that when the blood which is rightly emptied each month, is
held back following some condition, it harms the woman and that when it is
emptied from another place, the whole body will be cured from its harm, is
obvious to everyone.
The fact he uses this last phrase does not only show his own certainty of his statement, it also
serves as an indication that he assumes all of his readers know it. Even though he writes
“everyone”, he means probably not all his contemporaries but his students and other
prospective readers. Ḥunayn translates it with wa-laysa yašakku ʾaḥadun ʾan:
ّ‫ مـا يـشـكّ أحـد أنّـه يـجـب ضـرورة أن يـكـون الـدم الـذي يـسـتـفـرغ فـي كـل‬:‫قـال جـالـيـنـوس‬
‫ وأنّه إذا‬،‫شـهـر عـلـى مـا يـنـبـغـي إذا احـتـبـس بـسـبـب مـن األسـبـاب ضـرّ احـتـبـاسـه الـمـرأة‬
.‫استفرغ من موضع آخر أنفذ البدن كلّه من ضرر احتباسه‬
Galen said: Nobody doubts that it must necessarily be the case that when the
blood which is rightly emptied each month, is retained for whatever reason, then
its retention harms the woman, and that when it is emptied from another place, the
whole body is saved from the harm of its retention.
&136
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq does not use wa-lā šakk nor Ḥunayn’s expression wa-laysa yašakku ʾaḥadun. I
see this as another indication of his reserved writing style.
4.4.2
{wa-min + al-bayyini}
The construction {wa-min + al-bayyini}, ‘it is clear that’, or ‘clearly’, occurs in a variety of
forms, all of which I shall discuss shortly. These forms have a further investigative value.
When an author says a certain statement or aphorism is clear, this not only informs us about
the epistemic certainty an author has, but also about the knowledge a writer considers to be
common, or at least supposes to be present among the audience of his commentary. One must
keep in mind though that these could also be mere rhetorical ploys, which does not, of course,
make them any less interesting. I give a few examples below of the ways authors express their
confidence in their reader’s knowledge.
4.4.2.1 {wa-min + al-bayyini}
The Arabic certainty marker {min al-bayyini}, ‘clearly’, ‘obviously’, ‘evidently’; is used
mainly by Ibn Ṣādiq, who uses it 14 times in the first four books of his commentary, equalling
about four times per 10,000 words, as shown in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12
Ḥunayn
min al-bayyini
3(1)
Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq
14(4)
Quff
al-Baġdādī
3(1)
0
as-Sinǧārī as-Siwāsī
1
1
an-Nīlī al-Manāwī
0
0
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses it, for instance, when explaining why Hippocrates, in his first aphorism,
writes that “experience is dangerous”.12 According to Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, there are two types of
experience, one, when someone experiences individual things and relates them to scientific
12
Franz Rosenthal (1966) describes Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s comment on this aphorism in detail in his article “Life
is short, Art is Long: Arabic Commentaries on the First Hippocratic Aphorism”, Bulletin of the History of
Medicine 40(3): pp. 226-45.
&137
facts, which is not dangerous, and the other type that kind of experience which is not
connected to reason (qiyās).13 It is this second type of experience which Hippocrates refers to
according Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, who writes that this second type is ‘clearly (min al-bayyini an) not
to be trusted’:
.‫ومن البني أن هذا النوع من التجربة غير موثوق به‬
This kind of experience is clearly not trustworthy.
Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq hardly uses the adverbial phrase min al-bayyini an, only three times in the
first four books, to translate Greek εὔδηλον, δηλονότι, and δῆλον. For instance, he does so
when translating δηλονότι in Galen’s comment on Aphorisms ii.12, in which Hippocrates
writes that ‘what remains from diseases after a crisis usually produces relapses’14. In the
following passage, Galen confidently explains what Hippocrates meant by ‘the remains’ (τὰ
ἐγκαταλιµπανόµενα in the Greek). His confidence shows from his use of the adverb δηλονότι,
‘quite clearly’.
δηλονότι τὰ λείψανα τῶν µοχθηρῶν χυµῶν ἐγκαταλιµπανόµενα κέκληκεν. (Kühn
17b.469)
With “leftovers” (ἐγκαταλιµπανόµενα), he [Hippocrates] clearly referred to the
remains of the bad juices.
‫ومـن الـبـيـن أنّـه يـعـنـي بـالـبـقـايـا مـا يـبـقـى مـن الـكـيـمـوسـات الـرديـئـة الـتـي فـي الـبـدن‬
And it is clear that by ‘the remains’ (al-baqāyā), he [Hippocrates] means what
remains of the bad juices in the body.
4.4.2.2 {fa-bayyinun + ʾan}
Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq prefers the phrase{fa-bayyinun + ʾan}, ‘it is clear that’, over {min albayyini an}. It occurs 14 times in the first three books of his commentary (about three times
Ibn Abī Ṣādiq here quotes from Ḥunayn’s translation of Galen’s commentary on the Aphorisms, in which
Ḥunayn uses qiyās to translate λογος, cf. Ullman 2002, p.397.
13
14
Translated by the author from the Greek version in Magdelaine 1994, p.388.
&138
per 10,000 words), while the same expression is hardly or never used by the other Arabic
commentators, as Table 4.13 shows.
Table 4.13
fa-bayyinun ʾan
Ḥunayn
Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq
14(3)
1
Quff al-Baġdādī as-Sinǧārī as-Siwāsī an-Nīlī al-Manāwī
0
1
1
1
0
0
Ḥunayn uses this phrase to translate Greek adjectives πρόδηλον, δηλον, and εὔδηλον, and
the adverb δηλονότι. For example, it translates εὔδηλον ὅτι in Galen’s comment on
aphorism iii.31, in which Hippocrates sets out a number of diseases that occur particularly to
old men, among which wet eyes and noses. Galen is certain of the cause of this wetness, as he
writes that:
αἱ δ' ὑγρότητες αὐτοῖς αἵ τε τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν καὶ τῶν ῥινῶν εὔδηλον
ὅτι διὰ τὰ τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου περιττώματα γίγνεται. (Kühn 17b.651.1)
Their eye and nose fluids clearly originate from brain residues.
.‫وأمّا رطوبة العينني واملنخرين في الشيخ فبنيّ أنّ سببهما كثرة فضول الدماغ‬
As to the wet eyes and nose of old men, it is clear that these are caused by
the large quantity of brain residues.
Ḥunayn once in book II uses fa-bayyinun ʿinda kulli aḥadin, “it is clear for everybody”, to
translate Greek πρόδηλον παντί, clear to everyone, which he usually translates with wa-laysa
yašukku aḥadun, as shown above.
4.4.2.3 {wa-qad tabayyana ʾan}
To translate the Greek (εὐ)δηλον, Ḥunayn uses another construction with the root byn, namely
{wa-qad tabayyana ʾan}, ‘it is clear that’. He uses it, for instance, to translate εὔδηλον in his
translation of Galen’s comment on aphorism i.12. In this comment, Galen gives a long
&139
overview of the things from which one can know how a disease functions (literally ‘the
system’ of a disease, κατάστασιν τοῦ νοσήµατο) and when a disease has its paroxysms.
.‫وقد تبني أنّه قد يعرف من هذه األسباب التي ذكرنا نظام األمراض ونوائبها‬
It is clear that the system [of the cycle] of a disease and its paroxysms are
known from these causes [things] which we have mentioned.
ἐκ μὲν δὴ τούτων εὔδηλον ὅτι τήν τε κατάστασιν τοῦ νοσήματος καὶ
τοὺς παροξυσμοὺς γνωσόμεθα, (Kühn17b.387.3).
It is clear that we shall know the system of the disease and its paroxysms from
these things.
Ḥunayn is the only commentator to regularly use this phrase, as shown in Table 4.14. He uses
it twice per 10,000 words, whereas the other commentators hardly use it at all.
Table 4.14
Ḥunayn Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq
wa-qad
tabayyana ʾan
9 (2)
0
Quff
al-Baġdādī as-Sinǧārī as-Siwāsī an-Nīlī al-Manāwī
1 (0)
2 (0)
2 (1)
0
0
0
4.4.2.4 {wa-ḏalika bayyinun}
Another epistemic phrase is the evaluative {wa-ḏalika bayyinun}, ‘and that is clear’, which
Ḥunayn adds to parts of comments or to judge aphorisms. Though it is an expression of
certainty, it is not a grammaticalised modal marker, but the utterance of a mental state, and it
makes assumptions about the reader’s understanding. For example, Ḥunayn adds it to his
translation of Galen’s comment on aphorism i.14:
.ً‫وذلك بنيّ ملن هو ملا كان تقدّم من قولنا ذاكرا‬
And that is clear for him who remembers our previous words.
Galen also adds a similar sentence at the end of his comment on aphorism iii.7, saying that the
next aphorism is clear, and does not need commenting on.
&140
τὰ δ᾽ ἑξῆς τούτων εἰρηµένα κατὰ τὸν ἀφορισµὸν εὔδηλα.
The words spoken following these things after this aphorism are clear.
.‫وأمّا ما قاله بعد هذا الفصل فبنيّ واضح‬
As for what he said after this aphorism, it is obvious and clear.
Through this statement, he not only shows that apparently the meaning of aphorism iii.8 is
obvious to himself, but also that he assumes it is clear to his audience.
4.4.3
{wa-min + al-maʿlūm + ʾan}
A very rare certainty marker in the commentaries is the adverbial phrase{wa-min + al-maʿlūm
+ ʾan}, ‘it is known that’, which occurs only in al-Baġdādī and Ibn al-Quff, three and two
times in total respectively. Ibn al-Quff uses it in his comment on aphorism i.1, when
explaining Hippocrates statement ‘experience is dangerous’:
‫ ومـن الـمـعـلـوم أنّـه‬.‫ فتكون أحوالهم كذلك‬،‫فتكون أشخاص الناس غير متناهية العدد‬
‫مـسـتـحـيـل أن يجـرب شـخـص واحـد أو أكـثـر مـن واحـد فـي كـل واحـد واحـد مـن تـلـك‬
.‫األحـوال الـتـي هـي غـيـر مـتـنـاهـيـة‬
The number of individual people is infinite, and so are their conditions. It is
known that it is impossible for one person or more than one person to try out
each and every case of these infinite situations.
4.4.4
{yaẓhuru + ʾan}
The root /ẓhr/ is not commonly used in constructions expressing epistemic modality in the
commentaries, neither with its meaning ‘to appear’, nor meaning ‘to be evident/clear’. As
seen above, for ‘appear’ or ‘to seem’, Ḥunayn and Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq use forms of the root /šbh/.
However, there are a few variant phrases using the root /ẓhr/, mostly with the sense of being
&141
clear, used by different authors. I list these and their frequency (in absolute numbers) in Table
4.15.
Table 4.15
Ḥunayn IAS
Arabic
Quff Baġdādī
Sinǧarī
Siwāsī
an-Nīlī
Manāwī
{ẓāhara + l-ʾamru + ʾan}
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
{wa-ẓāharu + l-ḥāl + ʾan}
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
{ẓahirun + ʾan}
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
{al-ẓāhiru + ʾan}
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
{yaẓhuru + ʾan}
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Ḥunayn uses the construction {yaẓhuru + ʾan} with epistemic meaning, ‘it appears that’,
twice to translate Greek φαίνεται, ‘to appear’. He does so for instance in his comment on
Aphorisms iv.69, which I discussed above under 2.3. Here, Galen explains that this aphorism
in fact only applies to thick urine, and not to “rotten urine”.
‫ وإنّـمـا أراد بـه‬،‫وكـالم أبـقـراط كـلّـه فـي هـذا الـمـوضـع يـظـهـر أنّـه لـم يـرد بـه الـبـول الـمـنـتـن‬
.‫الـبـول الـيـسـيـر الـغـلـيـظ فـقـط‬
Hippocrates evidently did not refer his full argument in this passage to rotten
urine, but rather meant it to refer to a little bit of thick urine only[.]
ὅ γε µὴν σύµπας λόγος τοῦ Ἱπποκράτους οὐ φαίνεται περὶ δυσωδῶν οὔρων
γιγνόµενος, ἀλλὰ µόνων ὀλίγων τε καὶ παχέων, ὡς ἐκ τῆς ἀντιθέσεως ἔσται
δῆλον. (Kühn 17b.751.13)
Hippocrates’s argument as a whole appears not to be about ill-smelling
urine, but only about a little and thick [urine], as is clear from the opposite.
4.4.5
{ẓāhirun + ʾan}
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq and al-Baġdadi each use the construction {ẓāhirun + ʾan} (form I, present
active participle, ‘appearing that’), as a marker of certainty. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq employs it in his
&142
comment on Aphorisms ii.17, where Hippocrates writes that too much food causes disease.
The commentator writes the following in response:
‫ فإنّه قد يحدث في البدن زيادة ال‬،‫وظاهر أنّ الغذاء إذا كان أكثر ممّا حتتمله القوة‬
.‫يحتاج إليها‬
It is evident that food, if it is more than what the strength can bear, causes an
excess in the body which it does not need.
{wa-ẓāhiru + l-ḥāl + ʾan}
4.4.6
Ibn al-Quff and as-Sinǧārī each use the expression {wa-ẓāhiru + l-ḥāl + ʾan}, meaning ‘the
case is clear that’, two times in their commentaries. Ibn al-Quff uses it when commenting on
Aphorisms iv.64, where Hippocrates describes on what days of a cycle the occurrence of
jaundice is laudable. Ibn al-Quff writes that among the days listed, the eleventh day is
missing, which, he argues, cannot be Hippocrates’ mistake, but must rather be blamed on the
scribe:
‫ وظاهر احلال أن إسقاطه سهو من الناسخ‬،‫وكان يجب على أبقراط أن يذكر احلادي عشر‬
.‫ واهلل أعلم‬،‫األول‬
Hippocrates must have mentioned the eleventh [day], and it is evident that its
omission was the first copier’s negligence, and God knows best.
4.4.7
{al-ẓāhiru + ʾan}
Al-Manāwī is the only commentator to use the phrase {al-ẓāhiru + ʾan}, ‘it seems that’ or ‘it
is evident that’. For example, the same sentence we find in Ibn al-Quff, just quoted above in
the previous subsection, al-Manāwī formulates as follows:
.‫والظاهر أن الناسخ أسقط اليوم احلادي عشر‬
It is evident that [lit. the evident is that] the copier dropped “the eleventh day”.
&143
{wa-ẓāhiru + l-ʾamru + ʾan}
4.4.8
As-Sinǧārī is the only commentator to use the construction {wa-ẓāhiru + l-ʾamru + ʾan}, ‘the
case is clear that’, and only once, in his comment on Aphorisms iii.25, where Hippocrates
writes that spasms can occur to children who are teething. As-Sinǧārī here explains what type
of spasms Hippocrates means:
.ّ‫وظـاهـر األمـر أنّـه أراد بـه الـتـشـنّـج االمـتـالئـي لـهـيـجـان الـمـواد‬
It is evident that by it [i.e. the word ‘spasm’] he is referring to a spasm out of
repletion, which is caused by the matters being stirred up.
4.5
Conclusion
I have demonstrated which epistemic adverbials and auxiliaries occur in the corpus. The
authors differ in their use of these modals; some prefer certainty markers, others have a more
reserved style. Ḥunayn uses an equal number of certainty and uncertainty markers. Many of
these translate similar Greek modals in Galen’s commentary. Galen mostly uses these to
express the possible meaning of words in the aphorisms, or to state the clarity of passages and
statements.
Of the later Arabic commentators, only al-Manāwī expresses both certainty and
uncertainty. An-Nīlī, Al-Baġdādī, and Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq each use hedges more regularly. In fact,
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses more than twice as many hedges as certainty modals. This indicates a
reserved style which is also attested in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s regular use of the verb ʾaḥsabu, ‘I
assume’, demonstrated in chapter II. In contrast, Ibn al-Quff, as-Sinǧārī, and as-Siwāsī never
or hardly use hedges, but rather prefer certainty modals. Out of all commentators, Ibn al-Quff
has the most confident writing style, making frequent use of phrases such as “this no doubt
means.”
&144
Besides identifying the different conventions of the commentators in the corpus
regarding hedges and epistemic modals, this study has also contributed knowledge of modal
adverbials and auxiliaries in Classical Arabic. I have shown the prevalence of certain modals,
common formats and their functions, and also demonstrated the lack of other modals common
in later Arabic. Finally, I have indicated that the particle rubbamā, which in later Arabic is
often understood to mean both ‘perhaps’ and ‘sometimes’, mainly occurs with the meaning
‘sometimes’ in the corpus.
&145
CHAPTER V COHESION PART I: DISCOURSE MARKERS
5.1
Introduction
The search for metadiscursive conventions within the corpus continues in the present chapter
with a quantitative analysis of strategies relating to text cohesion. Textual cohesion is an
important contributor to the readability and clarity of text. The marking of semantic relations
with connectives is one of the resources that contribute to text cohesion and thus facilitate text
processing. This study examines the discourse connectives that medieval Arabic scholars used
to create cohesion in their commentaries to determine which semantic relations are most
prominently marked in each author. I will compare these results with the translation of
Galen’s commentary in order to evaluate possible differences in the rhetorical traditions
between Greek and Arabic communities of medical writers. The outcomes reveal standards of
cohesion within the corpus that further reveal the discursive unity of the genre of the medical
commentary. At the same time, the results also offer another set of characteristics by which to
judge the authenticity and authorship of the individual texts.
This chapter first provides a theoretical background, including a review of linguistic
research on discourse markers, as well as an elaboration of the method which I have used for
the analysis. Then, I discuss Ḥunayn’s use of discourse connectives in his translation of
Galen’s commentary, before comparing these results to findings in the texts of the Arabic
authors.
&146
5.1.1
Theoretical Background
According to Brown and Yule (1983, 24), “the requirements of the particular recipient(s), in
definable circumstances, influence the organisation of the producer’s discourse.” Discourse
markers appear to especially meet the demands of scientific writing to produce clear texts.
Smith and Frawley (1983, 353) argue that complex scientific texts demand “a cognitively
simple syntax for processing by a reader”, because of the “predominance of discourse-specific
lexical items.” They further add that “[c]oordination contributes to right branching in syntax,
which has long been claimed to be cognitively simpler.” A scholar trying to teach or persuade
a readership will make sure his readers make the right inferences about the semantic relations
in his text and add connectives to mark semantic relations such as causality, comparison,
contrast. Moreover, according to Halliday, (1994, 339 quoted in Martin 2001, 37) a coherent
text “must deploy the resources of cohesion in ways that are motivated by the register of
which it is an instance.” The particular connectives we find in the corpus will thus be
following standards of the medical register, standards that may be different from those in
other text types. At present however, comparative material in this respect is scarce.
The term ‘discourse marker’ is ambiguous among researchers. Scholars with a
pragmatic approach, such as Fraser (2006) and Redeker (1990), use ‘discourse marker’ to
refer to a “linguistic expression that is used to signal the relation of an utterance to the
immediate context” (Redeker 1990, 372). Others, who adhere to the Relevance Theory
framework, such as Blakemore (2002), use the term discourse marker for a much broader
category of markers including both connectives and markers such as ‘anyway’, ‘you know’
and ‘finally’, which Blakemore calls ‘discourse connectives’. In turn, Fraser (2006) calls this
broader category ‘pragmatic markers’. Schiffrin (1987, 31) defines discourse markers as
&147
‘sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk’. Moreover, some scholars, such
as Hyland (1998, 442) , refer to discourse connectives as ‘logical connectives’.
I follow the pragmatic approach and define discourse markers or connectives as words
or phrases in a text that link clauses and sentences and by doing so signify the semantic
relationship between clauses (cf. Fraser 2006, Redeker 1990). According to Fraser, there are
four types of semantic relations: (1) elaboration, (2) contrast, (3) inference, and (4)
temporality. With these categories, Fraser follows Halliday and Hassan (1976), who have
proposed a categorisation of additive, adversative, causal, and temporal conjunctive relations.
However, Fraser’s preference for an elaborative instead of additive category of semantic
relations allows for a more inclusive grouping of comparative, explicative and additive
connectives. The present study follows Fraser’s version of Halliday and Hassan, but divides
the elaborative category into three groups, to reflect the connectives in the corpus: (1) additive
(e.g. ‘and’, ‘subsequently’), and (2) elaborative proper (explicative relations, e.g. ‘namely’,
‘such as’, ‘i.e.’), and (3) comparative relations. Each of these three sub-categories I employ as
independent categories within this study to reflect the frequency with which the authors
marked these relations. Whenever an elaborative clause is also a reason clause, for example in
clauses beginning with ‘namely because’, I have classed the marker introducing such clauses
as causal and not as elaborative. Thus, the categories of semantic relations according to which
I class the connectives in the corpus are: (i) elaborative, (ii) comparative, (iii) additive, (iv)
contrastive, (v) causal, and (vi) temporal.
The contrastive relations of category (iv) can be argued to be a type of comparative
relation; however, with Fraser, I consider positive comparing to be a form of adding, and class
markers of negative comparison separately to gain insight into the way and frequency authors
mark contrast, disagreement and new arguments. The present analysis separately classes
&148
connectives which mark causal (or inferential) relations in category (v). These include
connectives introducing both purpose, reason and result clauses.
As for temporal connections in the corpus, category 6, these often signal the protasis of
conditional sentences (such as iḏā and matā, ‘when’ or kullamā, ‘whenever’), and I will
discuss these in detail in chapter VII. Other connectives, such as awwalan—ṯāniyan, ‘first—
second’, occur as frame markers to organise comments, and accordingly I will discuss these in
the next chapter, which further explores text cohesion.
Discourse markers can be conjunctions, prepositions, prepositional phrases, or adverbs
(cf. Fraser 2005). Grammatically, they can function as coordinating connectives, also called
conjunctions, which introduce equal clauses (also called paratactic clauses); correlative
connectives, which are pairs of conjunctions that connect elements in sentences, and finally,
subordinating connectives, which introduce subordinate clauses (also called hypotactic
clauses). Conjunctions operate on the micro-proposition level of text structure, which
involves the interrelation of clauses and sentences, while subordinating connectives function
at the macro-proposition level, which involves interrelation of groups of sentences and
paragraphs (cf. Meyer et al. 1980, 77). Halliday and Hassan (1976) consider conjunctions
within sentences to be structural rather than cohesive. However, scholars such as Gutwinski
(1976) and Fraser (2006) do include conjunctions on the micro-proposition level of text
among discourse markers. The present study analyses both the use of conjunctions and
connectives as discourse markers. For example, in the sentence ‘The man stays inside,
because it rains’, ‘because’ functions as a conjunction within a sentence, on the micro-position
level of text. In comparison, in the sentence ‘It rains. Therefore, the man stays inside’,
‘therefore’ is a subordinating connective marking the causal relation between two sentences.
&149
Both the conjunction ‘because’ and the connective ‘therefore’ I would class under category
(v).
5.1.2
Arabic Connectives
Traditionally, grammars of Classical Arabic, such as Lisān al-ʿarab15 (Ibn Manẓūr [1290]
1955-6) speak of nine coordinating conjunctions called the ḥurūf al-ʿaṭfi. Six of these are
copulative: wa, ‘and’, fa, ‘and’, ṯumma, ‘subsequently’, ‘then’, ḥattā, ‘so that’, aw, ‘or’, am,
‘or’, and three are disjunctive conjunctions (denoting opposition in meaning): bal, ‘rather’,
lakin ‘but’ and ‘wa-lā’, ‘nor’. The common conjunctions wa- and fa- I discuss in section 5.2
below. Besides these, there are subordinating connectives which are mostly compounds using
wa- and an, such as wa-ḏālika an, ‘namely’.
To find the connectives occurring in the corpus I have relied on grammars as well as
close reading of the texts over the past years. The list of connectives I initially collected has
kept growing over the months as continuous searches of the corpus brought new connectives
to my attention. Though I trust that I have found the vast majority, I cannot exclude the
possibility that I have missed a small number of less prominent connectives. In order to
analyse the frequency of these connectives, I searched for them in Sketch Engine, where I
uploaded all commentaries. Many of these I also searched manually in order to compare the
results, and I engaged in close reading of the text in case of connectives with ambiguous
meanings. Based on this method, I collected the following connectives, which are listed in
order of the average frequency of the semantic relation they mark. Table 5.1 shows the
additive connectives in the corpus.
15
Muḥammad ibn Manẓūr (1232-1311) edited this encyclopaedic Arabic dictionary in AD 1290.
&150
Table 5.1 Additive Connectives
wa- (abs)
and
wa-maʿa hāḏa
besides, moreover
fa-
and
faḍlan ʿan
besides
ʾaw
or
wa-ayḍan
and also
ʾam
or
hal—ʾam (lā)
whether… or
(not)
wa-lā
nor
ʾimmā—ʾimmā
either…or
ṯumma
then, subsequently ʾimmā—ʾaw
wa-maʿa ḏālika
besides, moreover,
despite
either…or
Table 5.2 shows the causal connectives in the corpus. Some of these are conjunctions, such as
the causal marker li-ʾanna, ‘because’, and the purpose conjunctions kaymā, and ḥattā, ‘so
that’. The others are ‘compound’ connectives . The large variety of these connectives with the
same meanings in English is due to the different stylistic or lexical preferences of the authors.
Table 5.2 Causal Connectives
li-ʾanna
because
bi-ḥayṯu ʾan
since
li-ḏālika
therefore
wa-sababu ḏālika
the reason for this
wa-ḏālika li-anna
namely because
wa-ḏālika bi-sababi
namely because
ḥattā
so that
wafa-min qibali ḏālika
because of that
fa-li-hāḏā
therefore
wa s-sababu fi
the reason for
bi-ḥayṯu
since
min aǧli (abs.)
because
li-aǧli (abs)
because
li-aǧli ḏālika
because of that
wa-ḏālika bi-anna
that is because
li-aǧli an
because
wa-hāḏa li-anna
namely because
wafa li-hāḏā s-sababi
because of this reason
kaymā
so that
min aǧli ḏālika
because of that
wa-ḏālika li
namely because
wa-sababu hāḏā
the reason of this is
fa li-aǧli hāḏa
because of this
min qabīla
because of
The elaborative connectives are listed in Table 5.3. These include connectives that explicate a
previous clause, either by explaining it or by specifying it. The wide variety of Arabic terms
&151
for ‘namely’ are due both to authorial preferences as well as the feminine and masculine
versions of wa-huwa and wa-hiya, and distal and proximal versions of wa-ḏālika and wahāḏā.
Table 5.3 Elaborative Connectives
wa-huwa
namely, i.e., that is
miṯla
like
ʾayy
namely, i.e., that is
maṯalan
for example
wa-ḏālika an
namely, i.e., that is
miṯālu ḏālika
for example
wa-hiya
namely, i.e., that is
siyyamā
especially
wa-lā siyyamā
especially
wa-ḏālika (abs) namely, i.e., that is
wa-hāḏā
namely, i.e., this is
wa-ḫuṣūṣan
especially
min ḥayṯu
inasmuch as
wa-ḫāṣṣatan
especially
wa-hāḏā huwa
namely, i.e., that is
wa/fa-ʾaḥrā an
more adequately
ka
like, such as
There are six adversative connectives in the corpus, which I list in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4 Contrastive Connectives
lakin
but
ġayra ʾan
except that
ʾillā ʾanna
except that
min ġayri ʾan
without
bal
rather
maʿa ʾan
although
Finally, Table 5.5 shows the comparative connectives in the corpus. The conjunction ka-, ‘as’,
can also have the meaning ‘such as’, and therefore in some instances functions as a
comparative, in others as an elaborative connective. The varieties of the phrase wa-ʿalā hāḏā
are each vary rare in the corpus, which I discuss in more detail below.
Table 5.5 Comparative Connectives
ka-mā
like
wa-miṯla hāḏā
likewise
wa-ka-ḏālika
and likewise
bi-miṯlihī
likewise
ka-anna
as if
wa-ʿalā hāḏā ṭ-ṭarīqi
in this way
ka-mā… ka-ḏālika
as… so
wa-ʿalā hāḏā n-naḥwi
in this way
&152
wa-hākaḏā
and so
wa-ʿalā hāḏā t-taqdīri in accordance with this
evaluation
ka-
as, like
wa-ʿalā hāḏā l-waǧhi
in accordance with this
aspect
miṯla mā
as
wa-ʿalā hāḏā l-maʿnā
in accordance with this
meaning
wa-ʿalā hāḏā
and according to this
wa-ʿalā hāḏā t-tafsīri
in accordance with this
explanation
wa-ʿalā hāḏā l-qiyāsi
following this analogy
wa/fa-miṯla ḏālika
likewise
wa-ʿalā hāḏā l-miṯāli
following this example
Naturally, the Arabic connective categories differ from the Greek system. According to Uwe
Vagelpohl (2012, 134) “[o]ne of the more prominent features of ancient Greek is the ubiquity
of so-called ‘connecting particles’,” that “establish connections between equal grammatical
and textual elements” and “express subtle nuances of tone and emphasis.” Denniston
recognised four ‘methods’ of connection of classical Greek particles, namely (a) additional,
(b) adversative (c), confirmatory, (d) inferential (1954). Additional connectives he understood
to be those particles that convey ‘not merely the static piling-up of ideas, but movement of
thought’ (1954, p.xlvii), such as ἀλλὰ µήν, γε µήν, µέντοι, and καὶ δή.16 As adversative
markers he considers µέν οὖν, ἀλλά, δέ, ἀταρ, and καίτοι, while all of group (c) is represented
by γάρ (the meaning and translation into Arabic of which we will further discuss below).
Finally, inferential markers are particles such as τοιγάρ, οὖν, δή, δῆτα, and ἄρα.
These four categories do not reflect the connectives in Classical Arabic which I listed in
Τables 5.1-5.5. Vagelpohl, in his study of the Arabic translation of Galen’s commentary on the
Epidemics, indeed argues that “the Greek language system as a whole differs substantially
from its Arabic-language counterpart” (2012, 134). For example, Denniston (1954, xliii) has
noted ‘the commonness of µέν—δέ in all periods of Classical Greek’, which can be translated
16
The last mentioned, καὶ δή, is a frame marker that introduces a new point, which I discuss in chapter VI.
&153
in English with ‘on the one hand—on the other’. Arabic does not have an equivalent to the
Greek µὲν-δέ, despite the commonness of other correlative conjunctions, such as ʾimmā—
ʾimmā, ‘either—or’. Uwe Vagelpohl has shown that the translator of the Epidemics, widely
believed to be Ḥunayn, in most instances does not translate µέν—δέ in Arabic, and sometimes
renders it with Arabic fa-.
Besides µὲν—δέ, Vagelpohl gives an overview of the way Ḥunayn rendered the
particles µέν, δέ, γάρ, and οὖν. These particles, which can have both a connective and an
emphatic function, are among the most frequent particles in Galen’s commentary on the
Epidemics. Vagelpohl shows that the translator was well acquainted with the different
semantic relations these particles could mark, for example translating γάρ with liʾanna when it
has a causal function within a sentence, and with wa-ḏālika ʾanna when it has an elaborative
role. In the Aphorisms Commentary, these particles have a similar prominent position in the
text: δέ (1783), µέν (1353) γάρ (1011), οὖν (509). Most frequent is the conjunction καί
(4546), which can have numerous functions among which that of the additive ‘and’, and
‘also’. Other frequent connectives are ὡς (580), which also has various meanings, such as ‘in
order to’, and ‘as’; ἀλλά (315), ‘but’, and ὡσπερ (170) (+ ptc. ‘as if,’; + inf. ‘just as’), which
Vagelpohl does not examine.
I should, however, note that the present study does not aim to provide a quantitative
overview of the different connectives in Galen’s commentary on the Aphorisms and their
translation into Arabic. Instead, it analyses the connectives in Ḥunayn’s translation to
determine the most prominent semantic relations he marks within his text. It then compares
these relations with the later Arabic commentaries, and not with the original Greek text.
However, for each connective Ḥunayn uses, I do give the corresponding Greek connective it
translates, unless Ḥunayn adds a connective to translate an asyndetic Greek sentence. The
&154
analysis of the use of connectives in the Greek text in comparison to Ḥunayn’s translation
would nevertheless be a valuable future elaboration of the present study.
As to asyndeta, these are more common in Greek than in Arabic. According to
Denniston ‘[i]n a long series of co-ordinated nouns, adjectives, or verbs, connectives are, on
the whole, more often omitted than inserted’ (1954, xiiv). Such asyndeta do not, generally,
occur in Arabic. I will give examples below of sentences where Ḥunayn needs to add
connectives to his translation of asyndeta to create smoothly running sentences.
5.2
The Conjunctions wa- and fa-
The conjunctions wa- and fa- are the most frequent connectives in the corpus. They both have
a basic meaning of ‘and’, besides a further range of meanings which I shall discuss in more
detail below. In total, wa- occurs 73,632 times in about a million words, while fa- occurs
22,326 times. To put this into perspective, the conjunction liʾanna, ‘because’, occurs about
5300 times in the corpus. Figure 5.1 shows a word cloud of the proportions within the corpus,
with wa- so huge it renders the other connectives nearly invisible.
Figure 5.1
&155
However, both wa- and fa-, are often used as an element of compound connectives, which are,
as I will show below, compounds of wa- or fa- and another adverb, demonstrative, particle, or
conjunction. When one excludes these compound connectives from a search for wa- and fa- in
the corpus, the amount of wa- and fa- drops significantly.17 For wa- this leaves an ‘absolute’ 18
occurrence of 22,464 times, which means that only 30% of wa-’s in the corpus are absolute
occurrences of just ‘and’. In the case of fa- this search leaves 3,560 out of 22,346 instances, so
only 16 % of fa-’s in the corpus are used ‘absolute’. The ‘absolute’ instances of wa- and fastill highly exceed any other conjunction or connective in the corpus. This is not uncommon
in languages. For example, Smith and Frawley’s study of English (1983) gave similar findings
for ‘and’ in English used in science, fiction, religion and journalism.
As for the use of wa- and fa- at the beginning of sentences, where on first sight nearly
all sentences start with wa-, when excluding the connective compounds again a much smaller
number remains. To search for sentences starting with wa- in Sketch Engine, one can run a
search for [. ‫]و‬, and to search for sentences starting with wa- absolute, one runs the same
search, excluding results containing any of the compound connectives mentioned in footnote
1.19 One must bear in mind that these results are tentative, since the periods in the corpus are
often added by different transcribers in the Aphorisms team and not by the authors or scribes
themselves, and the idea of sentence in these texts is a problematic concept. Especially in
Siwāsī’s commentary, a low number of sentences is found as a result of the fact that sentence
markers have not been added when we digitised his commentary.
17
This implies a search on sketch engine excluding ‫ ذﻟﻚ ھﺬا ان اذا ﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻻ ل ك ﻛﻠﻤﺎ اﺣﺮى ھﻮ‬, ‫ﻣﺘﻰ‬
‫اﻣﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ‬. And for fa the same + ‫إن‬.
‘Absolute’ here meaning not as part of a compound connective. Fayrūzābādī calls this waw the waw almufrada ‘the solitary waw’, in his dictionary ‘al-muḥīṭ’.
18
19
Mind that for Galen in this search many sentences begin with a bracketed numbers, so a . ‫ و‬search will not
give all results.
&156
Table 5.6 ‘Sentences’ beginning with ‘and’
Ḥunayn
%
Man
%
IAṢ
%
Quff
%
Baġ
%
with wa
abs
88
16
29
21
146
30
689
21
183
47
with wa
383
71
45
32
337
70 1400
44
276
71
with fa
abs
72
13
3
2
66
14
180
6
13
3
2
3
2
2
34 13
with fa
85
16
3
2
80
17
423
13
16
4
3
5
3
4
45 18
540 100
140
100
483 100 3198
100
total
387 100
Nīlī % Siw
5
8
5
15 23
23
64 100
% Sin %
6
86 34
27 134 53
84 100 252 100
Table 5.6 shows that out of the 540 sentences in Ḥunayn’s translation of Book One of Galen’s
commentary, 383 start with wa-, ‘and’, which is 71%. However, 295 out of these are
sentences that begin with a wa-compound connective, which leaves 88 sentences, only 16 %,
to begin with a wa- absolute. In the same book, 85 sentences begin with fa-, following the
current sentence marking, of which 72 are absolute, which is 13% of all sentences in Galen.
Of the other commentaries, only al-Baġdādī uses a relatively high number of ‘and’ at the
beginning of sentences, as he begins 47% of his sentences with wa. Again, however, these
results should be seen as an example for future research and not definitive, the low numbers in
al-Manāwī and as-Siwāsī are not because they use less sentences or less wa- and fa-, but
rather because their manuscripts have been digitalised without sentence markers.
Having established the frequent role of wa- and fa- in compound connectives, we need
to look at the meaning of ‘absolute’ wa- and fa- in more detail. Fayrūzābādī (1329-1414), in
his dictionary Al-muḥīṭ, lists 27 meanings of wa-. These range from wa- as conjunction
(al-‘āṭifatu), to the wa- of oaths, and the wa- of enumeration (az-zāʾida). Freytag (1837 vol
IV, p.426) translates -‫ و‬first with et and atque, and secondly with at, sed, and autem. An
analysis of the different functions of wa goes beyond the scope of this chapter. For the present
&157
analysis, I have included wa- and fa- in the category of additive markers based on their
assumed main function. We must keep this in mind, when we turn to the analysis below.
Another question is whether wa- in the corpus is mostly used on micro-level, to list
nouns within clauses, and ‘merely statically pile up ideas’ or on discourse level, to connect
sentences and clauses (to mark ‘the movement of thought’). While Table 6 seems to imply
that only part of the instances of wa- has a discursive function, a lot of the instances where
wa- does not occur at the beginning of sentences can still have a similar role. To analyse this
requires a close reading approach beyond the scope of this thesis.
5.3
Conjunction in Ḥunayn’s Translation
In Ḥunayn’s markers of additive relations, such as ‘and’, and ‘subsequently’, are most
prominent. Table 5.7 shows Ḥunayn’s translation, marks elaborative relations most frequently
after this group, followed closely by causal relations, and finally comparative and contrastive
relations. With respect to these last two categories, Ḥunayn differs from the later texts in the
corpus, who on average mark contrastive relations more often than comparative relations.
Table 5.7
Galen
average
%
Corpus
average
%
867
76
1001
77
Elaborative
92
8
101
8
Causal
70
6
117
9
Comparative
56
5
31
2
Contrastive
52
5
46
4
1136
100
1296
100
Additive
Total
Ḥunayn uses six coordinating conjunctions besides wa- and fa-; li-ʾanna, ‘because’, kaʾanna,
‘as if’ , wa-lā, ‘nor’ lākinna, ‘but’ and bal, ‘rather’. These are each counted together with the
subordinating connectives to give the most frequently marked relations. Figure 2 shows a
&158
word cloud of the most prominent connectives in Ḥunayn’s translation, while figure 3 does
the same without
the overwhelming wa- and fa-.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
&159
5.3.1
Additive Markers
In Book One, Ḥunayn uses ‘and’ (abs) 1100 times (572/10,000 words), 1012 times as a
coordinating conjunction, and 88 times at the start of a sentence. He adds it to asyndetic
Greek sentences, uses it to translate Greek καί, and also, infrequently, to translate Greek
µέν… δέ. The sequential marker fa- occurs 185/10,000 words in his commentary, and is
significantly less common than the conjunction wa-. Besides the additive markers wa- and fa-,
11 other additive markers which occur in his commentary. I discuss them in order of
frequency below.
ʾaw
Ḥunayn uses the conjunction ʾaw, ‘or’, 57/10,000 words. The variant ʾam
occurs five times in his commentary (1/10,000 words).
wa-lā
This conjunction means ‘nor’ (literally ‘and-not’) and is one of the ḥurūf alʿaṭfi. It is frequent in the corpus. Ḥunayn uses it 23 times per 10,000 words,
to translate Greek μήτε… μήτε, ‘nor…nor’, or καὶ μή, ‘and not’.
faḍlan ʿan
This connective, ‘besides’, is specifically frequent in Ḥunayn’s translation
compared to the other authors. It occurs twice every 10,000 words in his
text, but hardly once every 10,000 words in the later commentaries. Ḥunayn
often seems to add it to his translation.
&160
wa-maʿa ḏālika This idiom literally means ‘and with that’, ‘moreover’. If not preceded by
the conjunction wa-, maʿa ḏālika is not a connective between clauses but
means ‘with that’ and is rather to be translated as ‘also’. Ḥunayn uses this
connective only once in book I, and only 9 times in all of his translation
(hardly once per 10,000 words). He tends to use it followed by ʾayḍan
‘also’, for example in book IV:
‫والـعـالمـات الـدالّـة عـلـى أنّ خـروج مـا يـخـرج جـيـداً هـي نـضـجـه خـاصـة‬
‫ ومـع ذلـك أيـضـ ًا طـبـيـعـة‬،‫واحـتـمـال الـبـدن لـخـروجـه بـسـهـولـه وخـفّـتـه بـه‬
‫الـمـرض ومـن بـعـدهـا الـوقـت الـحـاضـر مـن الـسـنـة والـبـلـد والـسـن وطـبـيـعـة‬
.‫الـمـريـض‬
The signs that indicate that what comes out [excrement, phlegm, pus
etc.] is supposed to come out are especially its digestion; the fact the
body easily tolerates its going out; and its lightness. Besides that, also
the nature of the disease [is one of the factors] and after that the
season, the country, the age, and the nature of the patient.
τεκµήρια δὲ τοῦ καλῶς ἀποκρίνεσθαι µέγιστα µὲν, εἰ πέψις εἴη καὶ ἡ
εὐφορία. σὺν αὐτοῖς δὲ καὶ ἡ τοῦ νοσήµατος ἰδέα καὶ µετ' αὐτῶν ὥρα
καὶ χώρα καὶ ἡλικία καὶ ἡ τοῦ κάµνοντος φύσις. (Kühn 17b.726.16)
The signs that [indicate that] it is well separated are mostly whether
there is digestion and a sense of wellbeing, and with these things also
the kind of disease, the season, region, age, and nature of the patient.
The equivalent phrase wa-maʿa hāḏā, ‘and with this’, ‘moreover’, Ḥunayn
uses only once in his translation.
wa-ʾayḍan
Another connective used to add clauses and sentences is waʾayḍan, ‘and
also’. It is usually followed by fa-, and always preceded by wa-. It never
occurs preceded by fa. Ḥunayn uses it rather infrequently, only three times
in book one (to translate Greek καὶ, ‘also’, and ἐτι ‘yet’, ‘besides’), but it is
&161
a regular expression in some of the other commentaries, such al-Baġdādī’s
and Ibn al-Quff’s, which are discussed below.
wa-maʿa hāḏā
aydan fa
This is a rare phrase meaning ‘and moreover’, that never occurs in the other
commentaries. Ḥunayn only uses it twice, once in book five to translate
πρὸς τούτοις, and once in book seven to translate καί, ‘and’. He does so
when translating part of Galen’s discussion about Hippocrates’ expression
‘the place between the stomach and the membrane’ (‘µεταξὺ τῆς γαστρὸς
καὶ τῶν φρενῶν’), in aphorism vii.54. Galen in his comment to this
aphorism writes that Marinus understood Hippocrates differently than he
does himself, and Galen here explains his own stand:20
οὐ δυνατὸν γὰρ ἐντεῦθεν ἐπὶ τοὺς νεφροὺς ἀφικέσθαι διὰ
φλεβῶν, οὐδ' ἐκ τῆς ὑπὸ τὸ περιτόναιον εὐρυχωρίας
ἀδύνατον πρὸς τῷ καὶ παντελῶς ἄκυρον εἶναι τὴν
κατάχρησιν τῆς κατὰ γαστέρα προσηγορίας. (Kühn 18a.
164.4)
For [he said] it is not possible to arrive from there [the place
between stomach and membrane] at the kidneys through the
veins, but it is not impossible [to reach] it from the space under
the membrane, moreover, it is completely incorrect to use that
phrase for stomach.
‫فإن قال إنّه ميكن أن يجري ذلك البلغم من هذا املوضع إلى الكلى في‬
‫العروق فليس هو محال بل هو أحرى أن يجري من الفضاء الذي في‬
ً‫ ومع هذا أيضا‬،‫جوف الغشاء املمدود على البطن في العروق إلى ما هناك‬
‫فهذا النوع من االستعارة لألسماء حتّى يستعمل مكان الغشاء املمدود‬
.‫على البطن املعدة بعيد جدًّا‬
It seems that Ḥunayn changes Galen’s words, as Galen says that Marinus said phlegm cannot move from
the place between stomach and membrane, while Ḥunayn changes Marinus’ words to say that this is not
impossible, but more likely to move from the space along the stomach.
20
&162
He [Marinus] said that it is possible for phlegm to flow from this
place [the place between stomach and membrane] to the kidneys
through the veins, which is not impossible, but it is more likely
to flow in veins to that place from the space inside the
membrane stretched along the stomach, and moreover, this type
of word borrowing that uses ‘stomach’ instead of ‘membrane
stretched over the belly’ is far off.
ṯumma
This conjunction means ‘then’, or ‘subsequently’ and is one of the ḥurūf alʿaṭfi, or conjunctions. It is usually preceded by the conjunction wa-. Ḥunayn
uses it about 19 times per 10,000 words, mostly to translate Greek ἔπειτα,
‘thereupon’, εἶτα, ‘then’, but he also adds it to translate asyndetic Greek
clauses. The following translation is an example of a sentence where
Ḥunayn adds ṯumma (and wa- (twice), and fa-) to the text, when he
translates Galen’s comment on aphorism i. 16.
ὀγδόῃ ἀγκῶνα ἔταμον, ἔρρυε πολὺ οἷον ἔδει, ξυνέδωκαν οἱ
πόνοι, αἱ μέντοι βῆχες ξηραὶ παρείποντο. ἑνδεκάτῃ
ξυνέδωκαν οἱ πυρετοὶ, σμικρὰ περὶ κεφαλὴν ἵδρωσεν.
(Kühn17b.392.15)
On the eighth [day] they cut his elbow, he bled as much as was
necessary, the pains gave in, however a dry cough remained with
him. On the eleventh day the fevers abated, he sweated a little on
his head.
‫وفصد في اليوم الثامن من باطن مرفقيه وأخرج له دم كثير كما كان ينبغي‬
‫ ثمّ خفّت حمّاه‬.‫ ولزمه السعال اليابس الذي كان به ولم يبعد‬،‫فخفّ وجعه‬
.ً‫في اليوم احلادي عشر وعرق رأسه عرقاً يسيرا‬
He let his blood on the eighth day from inside his elbows and a lot
of blood was made to come out, as it should, so that his pain
became less, but his dry cough stuck with him and did not go away.
Subsequently, his fever decreased on the eleventh day and his head
sweated a little.
&163
immā—immā
This is a correlative conjunction meaning ‘either… or’. Ḥunayn uses it
twice as much as the corpus average (6/10,000), for example to translate
Greek ἢ…ἤ ‘either…or’. He does not use the variant immā—aw, which
does occur in the later commentaries.
ʾawwalan, —
wa-ṯumma
This is the construction Ḥunayn uses to translate Greek πρῶτον µὲν…
εἶτε δὲ. He does not use this often though, only once per 20,000
words. For instance when he translates Galen’s comment on
Aphorisms i.15.
‫فأقول أوّالً إنّ الربيع في أوّله أشبه في مزاجه بالشتاء منه بالصيف وفي آخره‬
‫ ثمّ أقول إنّ الربيع ر ّمبا كان أيضا باجلملة بارداً يشبه الشتاء ورمبّا كان‬.‫بالعكس‬
.‫حارّا يشبه الصيف‬
I first say that the weather at the beginning of spring is more similar to
that of winter than to that of summer, and at its end the opposite.
Subsequently, I say that spring can sometimes also be completely cold
like winter, and sometimes hot like summer.
ἐγὼ διοριοῦµαι, πρῶτον µὲν ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅµοιόν ἐστι µᾶλλον
κράσει χειµῶνος ἢ θέρους, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς τελευτῆς ἔµπαλιν. εἶθ' ὅτι
πολλάκις µὲν οἷον χειµῶνος γίνεται ψυχρὸν, ἐνίοτε δὲ οἷόν περ θέρος
θερµόν.(Kühn 17b.424.13)
I will clearly say first that spring is more similar to the weather of
winter to that of summer at its beginning, and towards the end the
opposite. Then, that it often becomes cold like winter, and sometimes
warm like summer.
5.3.2
Elaborative Markers in Ḥunayn’s Translation
After additive relations, Ḥunayn most frequently marks elaborative relations, which are either
explicative or specifying. These elaborative markers include connectives such as ‘such as’,
‘namely’, ‘for example’, and ‘i.e.’. In this respect, his translation differs from the later
&164
commentators, who mark causal relations more frequently than elaborative relations. The
reason for this partly lies in the frequency with which Galen uses the conjunction γάρ, which
often has an explicative function. It can also be due to Ḥunayn’s explications of Greek terms,
for which he uses Arabic wa-huwa.
wa-ḏālika
This is the most prominent elaborative connective in Ḥunayn’s translation,
with the meaning of ‘namely’ (53/10,000). It has an explicative, specifying
function. Ḥunayn regularly uses the connective phrase wa-ḏālika ʾanna
(49/10,000), which means ‘which means that’, ‘to be more precise’, or
‘namely’. The high frequency of this connective in Ḥunayn’s translation is
due to the fact he uses it to translate the Greek conjunction γάρ. This
corresponds to Vagelpohl’s indication (2012, 135) that the translator of book
one of the Epidemics (Ḥunayn) preferably translates γάρ with wa-ḏālika
ʾanna(hū/hā). The particle γάρ is a semantically flexible marker, with either
a causal or elaborative function (‘for’, or ‘namely’), described by Denniston
as ‘confirmative’. Vagelpohl has argued based on his study on Ḥunayn’s
translation of Epidemics book one, that ‘the translations specifically of the
semantically more flexible particles seem a good match for specific
functions of these particles’, (2012, 136).
wa-huwa
These two words, wa- and huwa, literally mean ‘and’ and ‘he’, and when
used together can either mean ‘and he’; introduce a subordinate clause (ḥāl)
beginning with ‘while he’; or, in some contexts, can be translated as
‘namely’, or ‘that is’. This latter meaning of wa-huwa, Ḥunayn
&165
uses
21/10,000 words to introduce explications, less than half as frequent as he
uses wa-ḏālika ʾanna.
sawāʾan… aw
This conjunction, combining sawāʾan, ‘equality’, with the conjunction
aw, ‘or’, means ‘regardless whether—or’. Ḥunayn uses it rarely,
4/100,000 words. When he does, it is to translate a Greek sentence
containing the elements ‘whether.. or’. In the following passage, Ḥunayn
adds the indirect object ʿalayka, ‘to you’, so that sawāʾa ʿalayka comes to
mean ‘it makes no difference to you’, in his comment on aphorism i.12:
‫ثمّ قال ”واألشياء أيضاً التي تظهر بعد“ يريد أنّه ينبغي أن يستدلّ أيضاً على‬
‫ وسواء عليك‬،‫نوائب احلمّيات ونظام املرض كلّه من األشياء التي تظهر بعد‬
.‫سمّيت هذه األشياء من األشياء التي تظهر بعد أعراض ًا أو عالمات‬
Subsequently, he said ‘also the things that appear later’ meaning that it
is necessary to deduce these from the crises of the fevers and the
complete system of the disease as part of ‘the things that appear later’,
regardless whether you call those things that occur later signs or
symptoms.
ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖσιν ἐπιφαινοµένοισίν φησι τεκµαίρεσθαι χρῆναι περί τε
τοῦ παροξυσµοῦ καὶ τῆς καταστάσεως ὅλου τοῦ νοσήµατος. εἴτε δὲ
συµπτώµατα καλεῖν εἴτε σηµεῖα βούλοιτο ταῦτα τὰ ἐπιφαινόµενα
διήνεγκεν οὐδέν. (Kühn 17b.389.16)
But he said that ‘also to the things that appear later’ must refer to the
crisis and the whole system of the disease, and whether someone
would want to call these ‘things that appear later’ symptoms or signs
makes no difference.
ʾay
This is a small particle with different meanings; including ‘namely’, or ‘that
is’. Ḥunyan uses it less than wa-huwa and wa-ḏālika anna (3/10,000).
&166
wa-la siyyamā
This conjunction comes from the same root as sawāʾ, (swy), and means,
preceded by the negation lā, ‘especially’, or ‘in particular’. Ḥunayn uses it
3/10,000 words to translate the Greek adverb µάλιστα, superlative of µάλα,
‘mostly’, for example in his translation of aphorism i.16:
‫ األغذية الرطبة توافق جميع احملمومني ال سيّما الصبيان‬:‫قال أبقراط‬
.‫ من قد اعتاد أن يغتذي باألغذية الرطبة‬،‫وغيرهم‬
Hippocrates said: Moist food suits all people with fever,
especially boys and others, who are used to eat moist food.
Ὑγραὶ πᾶσαι δίαιται τοῖσι πυρεταίνουσι ξυμφέρουσι,
μάλιστα δὲ παιδίοισι καὶ τοῖσιν ἄλλοισι τοῖσιν οὕτως
εἰθισμένοισι διαιτᾶσθαι. (Kühn 17b.425.11)
All humid diets agree with those who have fever, and especially
with children and others who are used to eat such food.
miṯālu ḏālika
ʾannahū
Ḥunayn uses the phrase wa-miṯālu ḏālika annahu, ‘the example of that is
that’ 1/10,000 to introduce examples. In the following translation he uses it
to render Greek οἷον ‘just as’, ‘such as’. It is used here in Ḥunayn’s
translation of Galen’s comment on aphorism vi.5
‫وذلـك أنّ قـولـه يـكـون عـلـى هـذا الـمـثـال أنّـه ال يـنـبـغـي أن تـقـتـصـر عـلـى‬
‫الـنـظـر فـي الـوجـع الـعـارض فـي األعـضـاء وال يـتـوهّـم أنّ الـعـلّـة واحـدة فـي‬
‫ مـثـال ذلـك أنّـه إن كـان أصـاب ديـونـامـس‬.‫جـمـيـع مـن يـعـرض لـه الـوجـع‬
‫وجـع فـي جـنـبـه وأصـاب الـيـوم ثـاون وجـع فـي جـنـبـه فـال يـنـبـغـي أن‬
‫ لـكـن يـنـبـغـي أن يـتـفـقّـد ويـتـعـرف هـل‬،‫يـتـوهّـم أنّ حـالـهـمـا حـال واحـدة‬
.‫بـيـن وجـعـيـهـمـا فـرق عـظـيـم أم هـمـا كـالـمـتـشـابـهـيـن‬
For his argument will be like this, namely that one should not
restrict himself when observing a pain in the body parts, nor
imagine that everyone who has this pain has the same disease. For
example, if Diyonamus had a pain in his side and today Theon has
a pain in his side, then one should not think that their situation is
&167
one and the same, but examine and learn whether there is a great
difference between these two pains or whether they are similar.
γενήσεται γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοιοῦτος, οὐχ ἁπλῶς χρὴ σκοπεῖσθαι
τὴν ὀδύνην τῶν μορίων, οὐδ' ἡγεῖσθαι τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπὶ παντὸς
εἶναι διάθεσιν· οἷον εἰ ἔμπροσθεν μὲν Δίων, νυνὶ δὲ Θέων
ἀλγεῖ πλευρὰν, ὑπολαμβάνειν ὡσαύτως ἔχειν αὐτοὺς, ἀλλὰ
καταμαθητέον εἴτε μεγάλα διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων εἴτε
παραπλήσιοί πώς εἰσι. (Kühn 18a.15.13).
For his argument will be like this, one should not simply observe
the pain of the parts, and derive that the same condition applies to
everything: just as if first Dion, and now Theon suffers pain in his
side, to suppose that they have the same, but one must find out
whether they greatly differ from each other or whether they are
about equal.
wa/fa-ʾaḥrā ʾan This phrase, ‘more adequately’, Ḥunayn uses to translate the Greek adverbs
πολὺ δὴ μᾶλλον (Kühn 17b.545.3), and μάλιστα δε (Kühn 17b.546.3),
which introduce a specification of the preceding statement. He uses the
phrase 16 times in his commentary, 1/10,000 words, which is still twice as
much as the other commentators. In the following passage, from the
comment on aphorism vi.50, Galen specifies the situation in which bile
flows to the stomach. He has previously explained that the throwing up of
bile occurs due to the connection between the opening of the stomach and
the brain by veins. Now, he writes that bile flows to the stomach anyway
(καὶ ἄλλως) because of its nature, especially (πολὺ δ' ἔτι μᾶλλον) when it
is weak. Here, Ḥunayn uses wa-ʾaḥrā ʾan, ‘more precisely’, or ‘more
adequately’, which makes the succeeding clause seem to function as
reformulation of the preceding sentence, whereas it seems to be an addition
in Galen’s sentence.
εἴωθε μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλως ἐπί γε μεγάλοις ἀλγήμασι καὶ
λύπαις ἰσχυραῖς συρρεῖν εἰς τὴν γαστέρα χολῶδες
&168
περίττωμα, πολὺ δ' ἔτι μᾶλλον ὅταν ἀρρωστήσῃ. (Kühn 18a.
85.6)
Bile-like sediment usually flows to the stomach anyway in [the
case of] great pains and intense distress, and even more so when
it [the stomach] is unwell.
‫ومن شأن املرار أن يتحلّب إلى املعدة من غير هذا السبب عند األوجاع‬
.‫ وأحرى أن يكون ذلك إذا ضعفت املعدة‬،‫الشديدة أو االغتمام الشديد‬
Bile is naturally drawn towards the stomach without this reason
[i.e. the connection between brain and stomach through nerves]
in the case of intense pains or intense distress; more adequately,
this happens when the stomach is weak.
ḥayṯumā
Ḥunayn once uses this conjunction, which means ‘wherever’, in Book IV, to
translate a sentence where Galen only uses the conjunction ἐάν τε… ἐάν τε,
‘when…when’. In this passage, Galen criticises aphorism iv.79, which says
that people with sandy sediment in their urine have stones that originate in
their bladder. Galen argues that these stones can also originate in the
kidneys, which according to him makes the aphorism incomplete.
ὥσθ' ἡµάρτηται φανερῶς ὁ ἀφορισµὸς ἤτοι γε αὐτοῦ τοῦ
Ἱπποκράτους περιδόντος ὅλου τοῦ λόγου τὸ ἥµισυ µέρος ἢ τοῦ
πρώτου βιβλιογράφου παραλιπόντος. ἐάν τε γὰρ ἐν νεφροῖς ἐάν
τ' ἐν κύστει λίθοι γίνωνται, συνεξέρχονται τοῖς οὔροις τὰ
ψαµµώδη. (Kühn 17b.775.13)
(…)so that the aphorism is clearly wrong either because
Hippocrates left out half of the whole argument or because the
first copyist left it out, for whether stones originate in the
kidneys or in the bladder, sandy sediment comes out with the
urine.
‫فاخلطأ في هذا الفصل بنيّ وال يخلو إمّا أن‬
.ً‫يكون أبقراط أغفل نصف القول أو يكون الناسخ األوّل أسقط منه حرفا‬
‫وذلك أنّه حيث ما تولّد احلصى كان تولّده في الكلى أو كان في املثانة‬
.‫فإنّه يخرج مع البول شيء شبيه بالرمل‬
And the mistake in this aphorism is clear, even though it is not
clear whether Hippocrates ignored half of the argument or
&169
whether the first copyist dropped a letter from it. Namely that,
wherever the stones originate, whether in the kidneys or in the
bladder, something similar to sand comes out with the urine.
5.3.3
Causal Markers in Ḥunayn’s Translation
Ḥunayn uses 70 causal markers per 10,000 words, which is below the corpus average of 115
markers per 10,000 words. His most frequent causal marker is the conjunction li-ʾanna, which
he uses 36/10,000 words, almost twice as infrequent as the corpus average (61/10,000).
Ḥunayn mostly uses it to translate Greek ὅτι, ‘because’, and only six times to translate ἅτε,
‘since’, or ‘inasmuch as’.
li-ḏālika
This connective, which means ‘and therefore’, Ḥunayn uses mostly to
render οὖν and διὸ καὶ, ‘and therefore’; κατὰ τοῦτο ‘because of this’; or διὰ
τοῦτο, ‘because of this’, as in the following translation of Galen’s comment
on aphorism i.23.
‫وليس معنا إلى هذه الغاية عالمة تدلّنا على كمّية االستفراغ مثل ما‬
‫ ولذلك أعطانا أبقراط‬.‫وصفنا من العالمات التي تدلّ على كيفيته‬
.‫عالمات يبني بها مقدار االستفراغ‬
Up to this point [in the text] we do not have a sign to indicate to
us the quantity of purging, such as the signs we have described
that demonstrate its quality. Therefore Hippocrates has given us
signs by which the amount of purging becomes clear.
ποσότητος δ' οὐδὲν τοιοῦτον ἔχοµεν εἰπεῖν γνώρισµα. διὰ τοῦτ’
οὖν ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ἔδωκεν ὁ Ἱπποκράτης ἡµῖν κριτήριον τὴν
εὐφορίαν. (Kühn 17b.444.1)
But we are not able to give any such indication of quantity.
Because of this, Hippocrates has given us a criterion [to judge]
it, [namely] the [patient’s] sense of wellbeing.
&170
ḥattā
This conjunction introduces a purpose clause, and can be translated with
‘until’ or ‘so that’. It is one of the ḥurūf al-ʿaṭfi as well. Ḥunayn uses it
10/10,000 words to translate Greek ἵνα, and twice to render Greek {ὡς +
subjunctive}, both conjunctions meaning ‘with the result that’ or ‘so that’.
wa-ḏālika
li-ʾanna
Quite regularly (3/10,000), Ḥunayn introduces reason giving clauses with
the phrase ‘namely because’. He mostly employs it to translate Greek γὰρ,
‘for’, when it has a causal value. When counting its components wa-ḏālika
and li-ʾanna, the instances where they occur as part of this phrase are not
included. Less than once per 10,000 Ḥunayn uses wa-ḏālika with the
preposition li-, ‘for’, which also translates as ‘that is because’.
kay-mā
This conjunction, ‘so that’, is rare in the corpus (1/10,000), but used by
Ḥunayn to translate Greek ἵνα. He is not systematic in his translation of ἵνα,
which he sometimes translates with ḥattā, and other times with kay-mā. The
shorter version kay only occurs once in book V, and nowhere in the rest of
the corpus.
min ʾaǧli
The proposition min aǧli, ‘due to’, or ‘because of’ , does not often occur in
the corpus but is used by Ḥunayn 1/10,000 words to signal a cause. The
phrase min ʾaǧli ḏālika, ‘because of that’, he uses twice in the first book.
wa/fa- min
qibali ḏālika
Ḥunayn uses the expression wa/fa-min qibali ḏālika, ‘because of that’
nearly 1/10,000 words, it is infrequent in his translation and hardly occurs in
&171
the later commentaries.
fa-li-hāḏā ssababi
Finally, Ḥunayn uses fa-li-hāḏā s-sababi, ‘and for this reason’, and wa-ssababu fī [x], and “the reason for [x]”, both of which do not occur more than
once per 100,000 words.
5.3.4
Comparative Markers in Ḥunayn’s Translation
Ḥunayn marks comparative relations 56 times every 10,000 words. This makes them the
second least frequently marked category after contrastive relations, while in the later
commentaries they are generally the least prominent group, with a corpus average of
39/10,000.
ka-mā
Ḥunayn’s most frequently used conjunction to mark comparison is the
conjunction ka-mā, which means ‘like’. Ḥunayn uses it frequently
(23/10,000), mostly to translate Greek ὡς, ‘like’, or as addition to the text,
such as in the following passage from Galen’s comment on aphorism i.1,
where Ḥunayn adds a metaphor to Galen’s sentence.
ّ‫أعني بدن اإلنسان إذ كان يجري كما يجري املاء ويتغيّر في أقل‬
.‫األوقات‬
I mean the body of man, since it flows as water flows and
changes in the briefest of times.
λέγω δὲ τὸ σῶµα ῥέον ἀεὶ καὶ µεταβαλλόµενον ἐν ἀκαριαίῳ
χρόνῳ. (Kühn 17b.353.10)
And I mean that the body always flows and changes in short
time.
&172
wa-ka-ḏālika
This is a connective of comparison meaning ‘and besides’, or ‘and
likewise’. It occurs quite frequently in the corpus, Ḥunayn uses it 10 times
per 10,000 words, mostly to translate Greek οὕτω δὲ, and οὕτως δὲ . In the
following translation of Galen’s comment on aphorism i.18, Ḥunayn adds
ka-ḏālika while Galen does not use an equivalent in the Greek.
‫وذلك أنّ حال البدن في ذلك الوقت شبيهة بحاله في األمراض التي‬
.‫ وكذلك حتتاج إلى الزيادة‬،‫تكون من النقصان‬
For the condition of the body at that time is similar to its
condition during diseases caused by deficiency, and likewise it
needs a supplement.
ἡ γὰρ τοῦ σώµατος διάθεσις ὁµοία τοῖς κατ’ ἔνδειαν οὖσι
νοσήµασιν προσθήκης δεῖται. (Kühn 17b.434.1]
For the disposition of the body, which is similar to diseases that
occur due to deficiency, needs a supplement.
kaʾanna
This conjunction, which can be translated with ‘as if’, Ḥunayn uses
7/10,000 words, mostly to render the Greek conjunction οἷος ‘just as’ , or ὡς
εἰ, for example when he translates this part of the comment on the first
aphorism:
‫فإنّي أرى أن أبقراط إمنّا استعمل هذا الصدر ألحد هذين املعنيني أو لهما‬
… ‫ كأنّه قال‬،ً‫جميعا‬
I think that Hippocrates used this beginning [i.e. the first
aphorism] for one of these two reasons, or for both of them [i.e.
to be clear, informative], as if he said…[in the text follows a
paraphrase of the first aphorism]
ἤτοι γὰρ διὰ θάτερον τούτων ἢ δι' ἄμφω δοκεῖ μοι τοιούτῳ
τινὶ κεχρῆσθαι τῷ προοιμίῳ, ὡς εἰ καὶ οὕτως ἔγραψεν·
(Kühn 17b.352)
&173
It surely seems to me that he [Hippocrates] either used this
beginning [i.e. the first aphorism] for one of the two, or for both
these reasons, as if he had written the following… [in the text
follows a paraphrase of the first aphorism]
ka-
This conjunction can mean ‘as’, with a comparative function, or ‘such as’,
with an elaborative function. While both meanings are common in the later
commentaries, it only occurs with the first meaning ‘as’, in Ḥunayn’s
translation (5/10,000 words). He uses it for example to translate Greek
ὥσπερ, as in the following sentence from Galen’s comment on Aphorisms i.
12:
.‫واحلال في سائر األمراض كاحلال في احلمّيات‬
The condition in the other diseases is as the condition in fever.
ὥσπερ δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν πυρετῶν, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων νοσηµάτων.
(Kühn 17b.384.14)
As in fevers, thus also [is the condition] in the other diseases.
kamā, ka-ḏālika The correlative conjunction kamā—ka-ḏālika can be translated in English as
“and just as—so”. It is infrequent in most commentaries, but occurs
regularly in Ḥunayn’s translation, about 4/10,000 words. It translates Greek
ὥσπερ—οὕτω; ‘as—so’, or κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ‘in the same manner’.
In Ḥunayn’s translation of Galen’s comment on aphorism i.7, kamā—kaḏālika translates ὥσπερ—οὕτω:
‫كما أنّ أبقراط عنى فيما تقدّم بقوله األمراض التي في الغاية القصوى‬
‫ كذلك عنى في هذا القول بقوله األوجاع‬،‫األمراض التي في غاية العظم‬
.‫التي في الغاية القصوى األوجاع التي في غاية العظم‬
Just as Hippocrates previously meant most severe diseases when
he said ‘most intense diseases’, thus he means here when he
says ‘most intense pains’ pains that are most severe.
&174
Ὥσπερ ἔσχατα νοσήµατα τὰ µέγιστα προσηγόρευσεν, οὕτω καὶ
νῦν ἐσχάτους πόνους τοὺς µεγίστους καλεῖ. (Kühn 17.373.5)
Just as he called the most extreme diseases the greatest
[diseases], so he now calls the most extreme pains ‘the greatest
[pains]’.
miṯla-mā
This conjunction, meaning ‘as’, occurs only twice per 10,000 words in the
commentary of Ḥunayn, and half that amount on average in the whole
corpus.
ʿalā hāḏā
Ḥunayn uses a number of expressions beginning with ʿalā hāḏā, ‘according
to this’, to introduce comparisons. These include ʿalā hāḏā l-miṯāli, ʿalā
hāḏā ṭ-ṭarīqi, and ʿalā hāḏā l-qiyāsi, and are uncommon in the rest of the
corpus. The first, wa-ʿalā hāḏā l-miṯāli, ‘and similarly’, Ḥunayn uses 13
times in his commentary (1/10,000), but it does not otherwise occur in the
corpus, except once in the commentaries of Ibn al-Quff and al-Baġdādī.
Ḥunayn uses this phrase to translate the Greek κατά τε τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον,
‘and in the same way’, or οὕτω δὲ καὶ, ’and thus’. In the translation below,
Ḥunayn uses the phrase to introduce a comparison, whereas Galen uses
ὡσαύτως, ‘in like manner’, as an adverb at the end of his sentence: (3.53)
‫ وجدت‬،‫فإذا توهّمت أيضاً أنّ هذه األربعة األمزجة املفردة قد تركّبت‬
‫أنّ احلال التي يحدثها الهواء املفرط احلرارة واليبس في البدن احلارّ اليابس‬
‫ وعلى هذا املثال‬،‫أخرى واحلال التي يحدثها في البدن احلارّ الرطب أخرى‬
.‫فافهم األمر في املزاجني املركّبني الباقيني‬
If you also imagine that these four separate humours are joint
together, you find that excessively dry, hot air causes a different
condition in the dry warm body than it does in the wet warm
&175
body, and thus understand the case in the remaining two
composed mixtures.
καὶ κατὰ τὰς συζυγίας δὲ τῶν ἁπλῶν δυσκρασιῶν ἄλλην µὲν ἐν
τῇ θερµῇ τε καὶ ξηρᾷ, διαφέρουσαν δ' αὐτῆς ἐν τῇ ψυχρᾷ τε καὶ
ξηρᾷ, κἀπὶ τῶν ὑπολοίπων δυοῖν ὡσαύτως. (Kühn 17b.606.3)
And according to the compositions of the single humours it
[excessive drought] causes one [condition] in a warm and dry
[body], but it differs from it in a cold and dry [body], and in the
two remaining mixtures in like manner.
The second phrase, ʿalā hāḏā ṭ-ṭarīqi, ‘in this way’, occurs altogether 11
times in Ḥunayn’s commentary (1/10,000 words), but never elsewhere in the
corpus, and is clearly a phrase particular to Ḥunayn, used to translate the
Greek κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, and ὡσαύτως; ‘in like manner’, or οὕτω,
‘thus’. For example 2.8:
‫فـعـلـى هـذا الـطـريـق يـنـبـغـي أن تـفـهـم األرق الذي باملقدار القصد أي‬
.‫باملقدار اليسير‬
And thus you should understand ‘wakefulness with the intended
amount’, as [wakefulness] in a small quantity.
οὕτω γοῦν καὶ ἀγρυπνίαν ἀκούειν χρὴ µετρίαν ἐν ἴσῳ τῷ
µικράν. (Kühn 17b.458.7)
Thus, then, it is necessary to understand ‘moderate wakefulness’
as equivalent to fairly little.
The third phrase, ʿalā hāḏā l-qiyāsi, literally ‘by this analogy, model’,
Ḥunayn uses seven times in his commentary, to translate the Greek idiom
καὶ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον (Kühn 17b.613.4). An example can be found in
Ḥunayn’s translation of the comment on aphorism iii.18:
‫وأنت قادر أيضاً أن تعرف أردأ أوقات السنة لكلّ واحد من األسنان‬
‫ وذلك أنّ أشدّ ما مضادّة ألفضل‬.‫والطبائع والبلدان ممّا قد وصفت‬
&176
‫ وعلى هذا القياس أيضاً تعرف أوقات السنة‬.‫األوقات فهو أردأها لها‬
.‫املتوسّطة فيما بني أردأ األوقات لها وأجودها لها‬
And you can also know the worst seasons for each age, nature
and country from what I have just described. For the most
opposite to the best seasons are the worst for it. And by this
analogy you can also know the average seasons between those
worst and those best for it.
καὶ µὲν δὴ καὶ τὰς χειρίστας ὥρας ἑκάστῃ τῶν ἡλικιῶν καὶ τῶν
φύσεων καὶ τῶν χωρῶν ἐκ τῶν εἰρηµένων ἔνεστιν εὑρεῖν.
ἐναντιώταται γάρ εἰσι ταῖς ἀρίσταις αἱ κάκισται. κατὰ δὲ τὸν
αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ τὰς µέσας τῶν ἀρίστων τε καὶ χειρίστων
εὑρήσεις. (Kühn 17b.613.18)
And it is possible to find the worst seasons for each of the ages
and natures and countries from the things that have been said.
For the worst seasons are the most opposite to the best seasons.
And by the same analogy you will find the average seasons
between the best and the worst.
Two less frequent phrases in Ḥunayn’s translation are ʿalā hāḏā l-waǧhi and
ʿalā hāḏā l-maʿnā, which occur 5 and 4 times in the commentary.
wa-hākaḏā
This phrase means ‘and likewise’. It hardly occurs in the corpus (1/10,000
words). Ḥunayn uses it three times in his translation.
5.3.5
Contrastive Markers in Ḥunayn’s Translation
Discourse markers signalling contrastive semantic relations between clauses are least
common in Ḥunayn’s translation. A contrastive marker occurs 52 times per each 10,000 words
in his translation, which is slightly more than the corpus average (46/10,000). Ḥunayn uses
six different contrastive connectives, of which the conjunction (wa-)lākinna, ‘but’, is the most
prominent. It occurs 33/10,000 words as a translation of Greek ἀλλὰ, ‘but’, or ‘δέ’. In the
majority (87%) of these instances lākinna occurs without the conjunction wa-.
&177
ʾillā ʾanna
This conjunction means ‘except that’. Ḥunayn uses it 13/10,000 words to
translate Greek ἀλλά οὐκ, ‘but not’, or ἀλλά οὔτε—οὔτε, ‘but not—nor’.
min ġayri ʾanna The connective phrase min ġayri ʾanna introduces an adverbial subordinate
clause which in English is translated with {‘without’ + participle}. Ḥunayn
uses it 4/10,000 words, four times more frequently than the corpus average.
In the following example, Ḥunayn translates a subordinate clause formed by
a participle in the Greek text with a subordinate clause introduced with the
adverbial connective min ġayri ʾanna:
‫ إنّ أبقراط بعد أن فرغ من قوله في تدبير الغذاء أقبل على‬:‫قال جالينوس‬
‫فنّ آخر يعلّمنا متى ينبغي لنا أن ندع الطبيعة تفعل جميع ما ينبغي أن‬
،‫يفعل باملريض من غير أن نتكلف له نحن شيئاً سوى تدبير الغذاء‬
Galen said: Hippocrates, after he finished speaking about diets,
[now] turns towards another topic in which he teaches us when
we should let nature do everything that must be done to a patient
without us taking up anything except the diet[.]
Τὸν περὶ διαίτης συµπληρώσας λόγον ἐφ' ἕτερον µεταβαίνει
κεφάλαιον, ἐν ᾧ διδάσκει πότε µὲν ἐπιτρεπτέον ἐστὶ τῇ φύσει τὸ
πᾶν αὐτῇ περὶ τὸν νοσοῦντα διαπράττεσθαι, µηδὲν ἡµῶν ἄλλο
διαπραγµατευοµένων ὅ τι µὴ τὸ κατὰ τὴν δίαιταν (Kühn 17b.
436.12)
Having completed his paragraph about diets, he [Hippocrates]
turns to a different topic, in which he teaches when one must
permit nature accomplish everything for a patient by itself, while
we do not busy ourselves with anything else except that what
has to do with diets[.]
bal
This conjunction is another ḥarf of the ḥurūf al-ʿaṭfi, which can be translated
with ‘not—but rather’; or ‘however’, ‘yet’. Ḥunayn uses it only 12 times in
&178
his translation, 1/10,000 words, which is well below the corpus average of
9/10,000.
maʿa ʾanna
This connective means ‘although’, and is uncommon in the corpus. Ḥunayn
uses it only seven times in his translation.
wa-ġayra ʾanna Ḥunayn uses this connective, ‘except that’, only twice in his whole
translation. It is generally rare in the corpus, except, as we will see below, in
Ibn al-Quff’s commentary.
5.4
Conjunction in the Corpus
Compared to Ḥunayn, the later commentators mark the categories of semantic relations with
different frequencies. All authors most often mark additive relations, which is due to the high
frequency of wa- and fa-, and in this respect they do not differ from Ḥunayn’s translation.
However, as Table 5.8 shows, the later authors mark causal relations more frequently than
elaborative relations. Only al-Manāwī follows Ḥunayn in this respect, and uses more
elaborative connectives than causal connectives. Admittedly, the difference between the two
categories in al-Baġdādī’s commentary is marginal. Yet the difference in prominence in
especially Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s and an-Nīlī’s commentaries is more significant.
Another difference is found in the marking of comparative and contrastive relations.
Whereas Ḥunayn marks comparative relations more regularly than contrastive relations in all
other commentaries, except in as-Sinǧārī’s, comparative relations are marked least frequently
and surpassed by markers of contrastive relations. Table 5.8 shows the frequency of markers
within each semantic category per 10,000 words, per author, as well as the percentage of each
category within the total amount of connectives in each commentary.
&179
Table 5.8
Avg
.
%
IAṢ
%
Siw.
%
Baġ.
Additive 1002 77
679
68
1057
79
901
Causal
117
9
147
15
128
10
99
8
Elab.
101
8
102
10
96
7
98
Contr.
46
4
35
4
46
3
Comp.
31
2
28
3
16
1
Total
1297 100
991 100
1343 100
%
Quff
%
Nilī
%
76 1136
77
1126
79
126
9
148
10
67
5
151 11
8
121
8
68
5
53
4
180 13
50
4
65
4
57
4
26
2
36
3
41
3
28
2
21
2
30
2
30
2
1189 100 1476 100
1420 100
Sin
%
1280 88
1456 100
Man
%
969 71
1366 100
Ibn al-Quff uses discourse connectives most often in the corpus, in total he uses 1476 such
markers per 10,000 words, as can be seen in figure 6. He is closely followed by as-Sinǧārī,
who uses 1456 connectives per 10,000 words, but whose use of connectives consists for
nearly 90% of additive markers, and an-Nīlī, who uses 1418 markers per 10,000 words. Ibn
ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses relatively few discourse markers, 991 per 10,000 words, which is the result of
his less frequent use of wa- and fa-. Only 68% of his connectives are additive, while 15 %
mark a causal relation, which is the highest percentage in the corpus. Below follows a
description of the use of these connectives in the corpus.
5.4.1
Additive Markers in the Corpus
For all authors, except Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, more than 70% of discourse markers used mark an
additive relation. In as-Sinǧārī’s commentary, this number is as high as 87%, whereas in Ibn
ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s commentary it is 68%. The dominance of this class of relations is, as explained
previously, because of the frequent use of ‘and’. As-Sinǧārī uses wa- 880 times per 10,000
words, in contrast to Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq in whose commentary wa- is found less than half that
amount (332/10,000 words). On the other hand fa- occurs most regulary in Ibn al-Quff’s
commentary and least frequently in an-Nīlī’s.
&180
ʾaw
This conjunction, ‘or’, is the most frequently used conjunction after wa- and
fa-. On average, it occurs 68/10,000 words. Ibn al-Quff uses it least often, as
Ḥunayn he uses it 57/10,000 words. Al-Baġdādī uses it most often;
86/10,000 words. In the corpus, this conjunction is used with an additive,
rather than a contrastive function. Usually, it is used to list items in a
sequence. For example, in the following sentence from as-Sinǧārī’s
comment on aphorism i.19, both the suggested recipes are equally
recommended, and the ‘or’ used is an ‘inclusive or’:
‫ يعطى شيئا من الغذاء كاخلبز‬،‫فإذا دعت احلاجة اليه ودعت الضرورة‬
.‫املبلول في ماء الرمان او السويق بشراب احلماض‬
And if need and necessity call for it, some food must be given,
such as bread moistened in pomegranate juice, or sawīq 21 with a
broth of sorrel.
The variant ʾam hardly occurs in the corpus. It is used in alternate questions
(though rarely in the corpus), as part of the construction hal—ʾam, ‘whether
—or’.
wa-lā
This conjunction, ‘nor’, is the third most used additive marker both in
Galen’s commentary and in the other commentaries, except for Ibn alQuff’s. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq and as-Sinǧārī use it about twice as much as the other
authors, 41 and 52 times per 10,000 words.
ṯumma
This conjunction comes in the fourth place for most authors. It usually
appears preceded by the conjunction wa-. As-Sinǧārī only uses it 7/10,000
21
Hans Wehr: “sawīq: a kind of mush made of wheat or barley (also with sugar and dates)”.
&181
words. It occurs most regularly in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, where it is found
28/10,000 words.
ʾimmā—ʾimmā This correlative conjunction does, as discussed above, regularly occur in
Ḥunayn’s translation. It is found quite similarly in Ibn al-Quff and alBaġdādī but is never used by as-Siwāsī and as-Sinǧārī. It is used to sum up
possibilities. The version ʾimmā—ʾaw, which has the same meaning, does
not occur in Ḥunayn’s translation, but is more common than ʾimmā—ʾimmā
in the later commentaries, except in al-Baġdādī’s, who, like Ḥunayn, prefers
ʾimmā—ʾimmā. Especially as-Sinǧārī and Ibn al-Quff use immā—aw
frequently, it is found 11 times in as-Sinǧārī’s commentary, while he never
uses ʾimmā—ʾimmā, and nine times in Ibn al-Quff’s.
wa-ʾayḍan
Even though wa-ʾayḍan, ‘and also’, is hardly found in Ḥunayn’s translation,
it is more common in the commentaries of Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq (4/10,000), Ibn
al-Quff(4/10,000) and al-Baġdādī (6/10,000).
wa-maʿa ḏālika This connective is as infrequent in the corpus as it is in Ḥunayn’s
translation, and occurs once per 10,000 words in most commentaries. Only
Ibn al-Quff uses it more than once per 10,000 (2/10,000). As-Siwāsī never
uses it. The variant wa-maʿa hāḏā, followed by fa- is very rare, and does
occur once only every 20,000 words in most commentaries.
al-awwalu
—aṯ-ṯānī
Al-Manāwī regularly uses al-‘awwalu—at-ṯānī…, ‘the first[:]—the
second[:]’, to connect lists of conditions, symptoms etc. For example, he
&182
paraphrases aphorism i.24, where Hippocrates states that in acute diseases
one only rarely needs purging medicine, by cutting the aphorism off and
continuing with a list, numbered from one to six, of instances where an
acutely ill patient does need purging. As I will show in the next chapter, AlBaġdādī and Ibn al-Quff make similar lists.
5.4.2
Causal Markers in the Corpus
The medieval scholars frequently signal causal relationships in their commentaries. Causal
markers come second after additive markers in terms of frequency. Especially Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
uses a relatively high number of causal connectives. Of the connectives in his commentary,
15% are causal. In comparison, in as-Sinǧārī only 5% of connectives mark a causal
relationship. In the corpus, 23 different causal connectives occur. However, only six of these
occur with some regularity in all commentaries. Moreover, 11 of the causal markers in the
corpus do not occur in Ḥunayn’s translation.
li-ʾanna
The most prominent causal marker is the subordinating conjunction li-ʾanna,
’because’. It occurs 61/10,000 words on average. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses it
most regularly, (86/10,000), which is more than twice as much as Ḥunayn
uses it in his translation. The other authors use it roughly as frequently as
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, except for as-Sinǧārī and al-Baġdādī, who use it 43 and 57
times per 10,000 words respectively.
li-ḏālika
The connective wa-li-ḏālikā means ‘and therefore’ (cf. Freytag 1830, p.93;
propterea). It is among the most common conjunctions in the corpus. An-
&183
Nīlī uses li-ḏālika most frequently to introduce result clauses, 38/10,000
words, more than twice as much as Ḥunayn (15/10,000). Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq and
Ibn al-Quff follow an-Nīlī with usages of 33 and 26 times per 10,000 words
respectively. As-Sinǧārī stands out; he only uses wa-li-ḏālikā 5 times per
10,000 words. The following is an example from Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s comment
on aphorism i.16:
.‫وأمّا الصريعون فإنّهم باستعمالهم الرياضة أكثر حارًّا غزيريًّا من غيرهم‬
.‫فهم لذلك أحوج الناس إلى كثرة الغذاء وأقدرهم على أن يتناولوها‬
Wrestlers, because they engage in sports, have more natural heat
than others, and they are, therefore, the people with the greatest
need of a lot of food, and most capable of all to consume it.
The proximal version of this connective, fa-li-hāḏā, which also means
‘therefore’, occurs in the corpus too, although not as frequent as li-ḏālika,
on average it is found 4/10,000 words. Although it is found only four times
in Ḥunayn’s translation, the later commentators use it considerably more
frequently than that, especially Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, who uses it up to 10/10,000
words, and as-Sinǧārī (7/10,000).
wa-ḏālika
li-ʾanna
This compound connective, meaning ‘namely because’, is used with great
variety in the corpus. While on average it occurs 3/10,000 words, al-Manāwī
and Ibn al-Quff employ it considerably more than that, up to 27 and 23
times per 10,000 words respectively. In contrast, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq and alBaġdādī use it only 1/10,000 words. The following is an example from alManāwī’s comment on aphorism i.15:
&184
‫وقال الرازي أن هذا غلط في احلسّ وذلك ألنّ ظاهر اجلسم يكون بارداً في‬
.‫الشتاء لبرد الهواء اخلارجي فيحسّ بحرارة في الباطن‬
Ar-Rāzī said that this [i.e. the opinion that inner heat comes
from outside air] is wrong with regard to sensation, namely
because the outside of the body is cold in winter on account of
the cold of the outside air, while inside the body heat is felt.
A proximal version of this connective is found in the corpus as well, namely
wa-hāḏā
li-ʾanna, which uses the demonstrative hāḏā ‘this’, instead of
ḏālika ‘that’. It only occurs in an-Nīlī (12/10,000), who prefers it over the
distal ‘that is because’. The shorter phrase wa-ḏālika li- occurs regularly
only in Ibn al-Quff’s commentary, who uses it 5/10,000 words. The
proximal version of this phrase, wa-hāḏā li-, does not occur in the corpus.
ḥattā
The later commentators regularly use this conjunction ‘so that’. Especially
as-Siwāsī and al-Baġdādī use it frequently, 18 and 14 times per 10,000
words respectively. As-Sinǧārī uses it least frequently, (3/10,000 words).
The other purpose clause marker, kay-mā, is very infrequent in the corpus,
occurring three times less on average than in Ḥunayn’s translation. It does
not occur in as-Sinǧārī’s commentary, and only 1/20,000 words in Ibn alQuff’s. The other authors do use it at least 1/10,000 words, but no more than
three times, as in the case of an-Nīlī. The shorter version kay does not occur.
The variant li-kay only occurs twice, in Ibn al-Quff’s commentary.
bi-ḥayṯu
This conjunction means ‘inasmuch as’, ‘so that’, ‘in such a way that’ ( cf.
Freytag 1830 p.449, “ita ut”). Ḥunayn does not use it in his commentary,
nor does an-Nīlī. The other commentators use it around 5/10,000 words. Ibn
&185
ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses {bi-ḥayṯu + imperfect} 5 times per 10,000 words, alBaġdādī three times. Ibn al-Quff is the only author to use this conjunction
with ʾanna, for instance in his comment on aphorism i.15:
‫واجلواب عن الثالث قريب من الثاني وهو أنّ احليونات الضعيفة احلرارة‬
‫عند هجوم الشتاء عليها تسكن حرارتها وتنكسر بحيث أنّها تصير‬
.‫كامليتة‬
And the answer to the third point is similar to the second,
namely that the heat of lukewarm animals abates and subsides
when winter falls upon them, so that they become like dead.
li-ʾaǧli
The connectives li-ʾaǧli and min ʾaǧli mean ‘because of’, or ‘an account of’.
The former is slightly more common in the corpus, although Ḥunayn never
uses it in his translation, nor does al-Baġdādī. An-Nīlī uses it most often
(10/10,000 words). The author authors use it at least 1/10,000 words. While
Ḥunayn does use the second variant, min ʾaǧli, 12 times in his translation, it
is hardly found in the later commentaries, only twice in those of Ibn al-Quff
and al-Baġdādī, and once in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq. The connective li-ʾaǧli ʾan,
which normally introduces a result clause beginning with ‘so that’, is a
hapax legomenon in the corpus, and only found in an-Nīlī’s commentary.
However, here, in an-Nīlī’s comment on aphorism i.17, li-ʾaǧli ʾan must
have the meaning ‘because’, instead of ‘so that’.
.‫أمّا القليل فألجل أنّ القوّة ال يقوى على الكثير‬
As for the little [food given to the patient], [this is] because the
strength can not bear a lot.
wa-sababu
ḏālika
There are a few phrases that introduce reason clauses in the corpus. One of
these, wa-sababu ḏālika, ‘the reason of that is’ occurs regularly only in alManāwī. Ibn al-Quff twice uses this phrase with the proximal demonstrative
&186
hāḏā. Another variant, wa-ḏālika bi-sababi, and that is because of, is used
once by Ibn al-Quff and as-Sinǧārī. Other infrequent phrases are wa-ssababu fi ḏālika, ‘the reason for this’, and wa/fa li-hāḏā s-sababi, ‘for this
reason’.
wa/fa-min
qibali ḏālika
The connective phrase wa/fa-min qibali ḏālika, ‘because of that’, is not used
more than twice in any of the later commentaries. An-Nīlī and as-Sinǧārī
never use it.
min qabīla
Quff is the only author to regularly use this connective as a causal marker,
‘because of’, though very rarely, not more than six times. As-Sinǧārī uses it
once. It seems to be a variant spelling on min qibali. Ibn al-Quff uses it for
instance in his comment on aphorism i.4:
.‫وال شكّ أنّ هذا من قبيل التغليظ‬
No doubt that this [dryness of body-parts] is because of the
thickening [of foodstuffs in a diet].
5.4.3
Elaborative Markers in the Corpus
As shown above, elaborative markers come third place in terms of frequency in most
commentaries. Especially al-Manāwī uses these markers frequently, 132/10,000 words, in
contrast to as-Siwāsī, who uses them no more than 29/10,000 words. They do not make up
more than 10% of all markers in any of the commentaries, and in this respect the later
commentaries are again similar to Ḥunayn’s translation.
wa-huwa
With a corpus average of 29/10,000 words, the elaborative marker wa-huwa,
when it means ‘that is’, ‘i.e’, ‘namely’; is the most frequent elaborative
&187
marker in all commentaries except in al-Baġdādī, who prefers the marker
ʾay. Al-Manāwī uses it most frequently (46/10,000), for instance in his
comment on aphorism i.13:
‫وأقلّ الناس احتماالً للصّوم الصبيان وهو الذين سنهم دون سن الفتيان‬
.‫لكثرة التحليل في ابدانهم وزيادة النمو‬
The people who least tolerate fasting are young men, namely
those whose age is different from the age of boys because of the
many dissolutions in their bodies and the excessive growth.
The feminine variant wa-hiya, which can have the same function, occurs
regularly as an elaborative marker as well, 9/10,000 words averagely. Here
too, al-Manāwī is the most frequent user among the commentators.
ka-
The conjunction ka-, which I briefly discussed as a comparative marker in
Ḥunayn’s translation, has a different function in the remainder of the corpus.
In the later commentaries ka- is not a comparative marker with the meaning
‘like’, but an elaborative marker meaning ‘such as’. While in Ḥunayn’s
translation it occurs about 5/10,000 words, in the other texts it occurs
13/10,000 words on average. ِAn-Nīlī and as-Siwāsī are the only authors
who use it less than 10/10,000. Again, al-Manāwī is the author who most
frequently uses this conjunction (27/10,000), for instance in his comment on
aphorism iii.28, in which Hippocrates describes diseases that occur to
adolescents:
.‫فيعرض له كثير من هذه األمراض املذكورة كاحلميات واالختالف‬
Many of these diseases that have been mentioned occur to him,
such as fevers and diarrhoea.
&188
ʾay
Τhe corpus is divided regarding this connective. Half of the authors,
(Ḥunayn, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, an-Nīlī, and as-Sinǧārī), hardly or never use it. In
contrast, al-Baġdādī, al-Manāwī, as-Siwāsī and Ibn al-Quff, use it frequently
(30, 27, 21, 16 times per 10,000 words respectively). Al-Baġdādī is the only
author to prefer this conjunction to introduce explications over wa-huwa.
wa-ḏālika ʾanna The conjunction wa-ḏālika ʾanna, ‘namely’, is at least four times less
frequent in the later commentaries than in Ḥunayn’s translation, in the case
of some authors even less. While Ḥunayn uses it 49/10,000 words, Ibn alQuff only uses it 3/10,000 words. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s uses it most frequently of
all later authors (14/10,000). The reason for this difference is the fact that
Ḥunayn uses wa-ḏālika ʾanna to translate γάρ. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s relatively
high use compared to the other authors may be the result of his attempt to
stay close to Ḥunayn’s style, but this would be a highly speculative
explanation.
The shorter version, wa-ḏālika without ʾanna is used with the same
meaning, ‘namely’, but occurs less frequently; 5/10,000 words on average in
the corpus, while Ḥunayn uses it about 4 times. In Ibn al-Quff’s
commentary it is found most often, 11 times per every 10,000 words, while
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, al-Manāwī, and al-Baġdādī each use it around 7/10,000. AsSinǧārī again differs from the other authors, he does not use this variant at
all.
The proximal version, wa-hāḏā, ‘namely’, uses the demonstrative
hāḏā, ’this’, in absolute form, i.e. without following noun. It occurs
&189
6/10,000 words on average in the corpus, and is about as frequent as its
distal equivalent wa-ḏālika. The phrase wa-hāḏā huwa, in which the
personal pronoun follows the demonstrative, meaning ‘and this is’,
‘namely’, is used in a third of these instances.
min ḥayṯu
A variety on the conjunction ḥayṯu, min ḥayṯu means ‘with respect
to’,‘inasmuch as’. It is a hapax legomenon in Ḥunayn’s translation, as well
as in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq and as-Sinǧārī. It is, in contrast, common in al-Manāwī
(15/10,000 words). He uses it in the almost standardised sentence with
which he concludes most of his comments, for instance here in book VI:
‫هذا واملناسبة بني الفصل املتقدم و ما يذكر اآلن من حيث اشتمال كل‬
.‫منهما على حكم ورم‬
This [concludes this comment], and the connection between the
previous aphorism and what will be mentioned now lies in the
fact that they both cover the judging of wounds.
wa-lā siyyamā
This connective means ‘especially’, or ‘in particular’. It occurs in all
commentaries, while especially an-Nīlī uses it regularly, (9/10,000 words),
followed by Ibn al-Quff (6/10,000). Interestingly, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq nearly
exclusively uses the connective siyyamā without the negation lā, with the
same meaning. This shorter version occurs 44 times in his commentary
(6/10,000 words), whereas the version with lā occurs only 5 times,
(1/10,000). He is not the only author to employ the shorter version siyyamā;
an-Nīlī and as-Siwāsī each use it once in their commentaries (though they
prefer lā siyyamā), and as-Sinǧārī three times.
&190
wa-ḫusūsan
The adverb wa-ḫusūsan, ‘especially’, functions as an elaborative marker
introducing a specification of the preceding clause. The corpus is divided
regarding its use. As-Siwāsī, al-Manāwī, and as-Sinǧārī each use it 7, 6 and
4 times per 10,000 words respectively, instead of the similar connectives
(lā) siyyamā and ḥāṣatan. In contrast, Ḥunayn, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq and an-Nīlī
never use it, but strongly prefer the connective (lā) siyyamā. Ibn al-Quff and
al-Baġdādī both hardly use this variation (less than three times in their
commentaries). The following sentence is an example from as-Siwāsī’s
comment on aphorism iv.72:
‫البول األبيض إذا كان مستشفا يكون رقيقاً مائيًّا داالًّ على عدم النضج‬
.‫جداً وخصوصاً في احلمى التي من ورم الدماغ‬
White urine, when it is translucent 22, is thin and watery implying
severe indigestion, especially in the case of fevers caused by an
infection in the brain.
maṯalan
This connective means ‘for example’, and links elaborating examples to
preceding clauses. It is found frequently in al-Manāwī’s commentary
(11/10,000 words), but never, or hardly ever, in the other commentaries,
including Ḥunayn’s translation. Al-Manāwī uses maṯalan for instance in the
introduction to his commentary, when he participates in the discussion
regarding the benefit of medicine. In the following passage, he collaborates
Ibn al-Quff’s and al-Qurašī’s argument regarding the benefit of medical
actions, and adds another argument:
22
Al-Baġdādī in his commentary to this aphorism explains that ḏā mustaššif means ḏā šafīf or ḏā stišfāf,
‘translucent’, ‘thin’.
&191
‫ وهو أن يقال إنّ هذه‬،‫فما أجاب به فهو جواب له ويظهر لي جواب آخر‬
.‫األمور اقتضت صحة زيد مثالً مبراعاته ألسباب تزيل مرضه‬
What they [Ibn al-Quff and al-Qurašī] answered is one answer to
it [i.e. the discussion], but it seems to me that there is another
answer, namely to say that these things [eating, drinking etc.]
procure extra health, for example by taking care of factors that
diminish his [a man’s] disease.
miṯla
A variant on the conjunction ka-, the connective miṯla has the same
elaborative value, ‘such as’. It does not occur in an-Nīlī’s and as-Sinǧārī’s
commentaries, but is used approximately twice every 10,000 words by the
other authors, including Ḥunayn.
miṯālu ḏālika
A less frequent alternative to maṯalan is the marker miṯālu ḏālika, ‘the
example of that is’. If already infrequent in Ḥunayn’s translation, in the later
commentaries it is even more irregular, none of the authors use it more than
once per 10,000 words.
wa/fa-aḥrā an
The elaborating connective ‘more adequately’ is rare outside Ḥunayn’s
translation, but does occur once or twice in each commentary.
wa-ḫāṣṣatan
This conjunction also means ‘especially’, however, it is considerably less
common in the commentaries than lā siyyamā and wa-ḫaṣūṣan. Only alManāwī and al-Baġdādī use it more than 1/10,000 words, though even they
use it no more than twice. Ḥunayn never uses it.
&192
5.4.4
Contrastive Markers in the Corpus
Most authors, except Ḥunayn and as-Sinǧārī, mark contrastive relations least frequently after
comparative relations. Ḥunayn and as-Sinǧārī use contrastive connectives least often (as
shown in Table 5.8). Six different contrastive markers occur in the corpus, of which the
conjunction lākinna, ‘but’, is most prominent, used 23/10,000 words on average. It occurs
both preceded by wa- and without wa-. All authors prefer to use this connective without wa-.
An-Nīlī uses it most often (47/10,000 words), while it is least common in Ibn al-Quff’s
commentary, where it is found 11/10,000 words.
ʾilā ʾanna
This conjunction, ‘except that’, is most common in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
(17/10,000 words), and least frequent in al-Baġdādī (5/10,000 words).
bal
Similar to Ḥunayn, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq and an-Nīlī each only use it 2 /10,000
words. Ibn al-Quff, in contrast, uses it 30 times per 10,000 words. It can be
preceded with the phrase laysa faqaṭ, meaning ‘not only [x], but (also) [y]’.
In the corpus, this expression is found only five times; three times in Ibn alQuff, and once in al-Baġdādī and as-Siwāsī.
wa-ġayra ʾanna This conjunction means ‘however’, or ‘except that’. It is rare in the corpus,
as we have seen, Ḥunayn uses it only once in his translation, and the other
authors do not use it a lot more frequently. Ibn al-Quff is an interesting
exception; he uses the conjunction often compared to the other authors;
15/10,000 words, compared to Ḥunayn’s 1/10,000 words. The following
sentence is an example from the first book of Ibn al-Quff’s commentary:
&193
‫ادّعى الفاضل جالينوس أنّ احلرارة في األحداث والشباب حرارة واحدة‬
‫ وذكر لهذا‬،ّ‫أي متساوية غير أنّها في األحداث ألني وفي الشباب أحد‬
.‫مثاالً في كتاب املزاج‬
The eminent Galen claimed that the heat in youngsters and
young men is one and the same heat, i.e. a similar heat, except
that it is more tender in youngsters and more intense in young
men, and he mentioned an example of this in his book “On
Mixture”.
min ġayri an
This conjunction, ‘without’, is infrequent, used 2/10,000 words on average
in the corpus. Only al-Baġdādī and Ibn al-Quff use it that much, the other
authors use it less than twice per 10,000 words.
5.4.5
Comparative Markers in the Corpus
Comparative relations are signalled least frequently out of all semantic relations in the corpus.
Only in as-Sinǧārī’s commentary and Ḥunayn’s translation do they come second place.
Nevertheless, 19 different comparative markers occur in the corpus. There are two markers
that only occur in Ḥunayn’s translation, ka- with comparative meaning, and wa-ʿalā hāḏā ṭṭarīqi. In turn, six markers occur in the later commentaries, that are not found in Ḥunayn’s
translation, which will be discussed with the other markers below. The most frequently used
comparative conjunction is ka-mā, which means ‘such as’. Though the later commentators do
not use the conjunction as much as Ḥunayn does in his translation, none of them uses it less
than 9/10,000 words. Al-Manāwī and al-Baġdādī use it most frequently, both 19 times per
10,000 words; whereas As-Siwāsī and as-Sinǧārī use it least frequently, 9/10,000 words.
&194
wa-ka-ḏālika
This connective, meaning ‘and besides’, or ‘and likewise’, occurs quite
frequently in the corpus. As-Sinǧārī uses it most frequently (16/10,000
words). Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses it only once per 10,000 words.
kaʾanna
Al-Baġdādī uses this conjunction, ‘as if’, most out of all authors (8/10,000
words). An-Nīlī and as-Siwāsī never use it at all. On average it occurs
4/10,000 words.
wa-hākaḏā
This connective, preceded by wa- at the beginning of a clause, means ‘thus’.
It does only occur a few times in most commentaries, if at all. Ḥunayn uses
it three times in his translation. In contrast, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq regularly
connects clauses with ‘thus’ (3/10,000 words), for instance in his comment
on aphorism 1.12:
‫ فليطعم‬،‫وإن كانت القوة قوية وال فساد وال نقصان على معنى االعتدال‬
‫ وهكذا فليدبّر في الشتاء إذا القوة قوية وال فساد وال‬.‫كثيراً وفي مرات قليلة‬
.‫نقصان في البدن‬
If the constitution is strong without corruption nor deficiency with
regard to the [humoural] balance, then he [the patient] must eat a
lot in little moments, and so should be his diet in winter if the
constitution is strong and there is no corruption nor deficiency in
the body.
kamā, ka-ḏālika The construction wa/fa-kamā…, ka-ḏālika occurs considerably less in the
later commentaries. Whereas Ḥunayn uses it 4/10,000 words, none of the
later authors use it more than 2/10,000 words, while an-Nīlī and as-Siwāsī
never use it at all.
wa-ʿalā hāḏā
Another, irregular, way to connect sentences in the corpus, is the use of the
phrase wa-ʿalā hāḏā, ‘and according to this’, in which the demonstrative
&195
pronoun hāḏā is used substantively. It is not common, but Ibn-al-Quff, alBaġdādī, and al-Manāwī each use it once per 10,000 words. Ibn al-Quff uses
it for instance in his comment on aphorism i.1:
‫الـصـنـاعـة مـلـكـة نـفـسـانـيـة يـقـتـدر بـهـا اإلنـسـان عـلـى اسـتـعـمـال‬
‫مـوضـوعـات مـا نـحـو غـرض مـن األغـراض عـلـى سـبـيـل اإلرادة صـادرة‬
‫ وعـلـى هـذا يـكـون جـمـيـع الـعـلـوم‬،‫عـن بـصـيـرة بـحـسـب اإلمـكـان‬
.‫صـنـائـع‬
Art is a mental talent that allows man to use any subject for any
goal as he pleases based on insight in the possibilities, and
according to this all sciences are arts.
As discussed previously, a few connective constructions use hāḏā
adjectively, for example wa-ʿalā hāḏā l-miṯāli, ‘and similarly’, found only
once in Ibn al-Quff and al-Baġdādī. Another example is the phrase ʿalā hāḏā
l-qiyāsi, ‘following this analogy’, which occurs more widely throughout the
corpus (though still infrequently), besides Ibn al-Quff and al-Manāwī, all
authors use it. It is found most often in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, where it occurs 5
times in total (1/10,000 words). One idiom,
wa-ʿalā hāḏā t-taqdīri, ‘in
appreciation of this’, is characteristic of Ibn al-Quff, he uses it 12 times
throughout his commentary.
wa-miṯla hāḏā
Ibn al-Quff regularly (10/10,000 words) uses this connective with the sense
of ‘and similarly’. The word miṯla itself is a preposition meaning ‘like’.
However, Ibn al-Quff usually attaches it to the demonstrative pronouns hāḏā
or hāḏihī ‘this’, giving it the meaning ‘something like this…’, which is not
used in English. Ḥunayn and the other authors never use it in the first book,
&196
except for al-Manāwī and Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, who use it 2 and 4 times per
10,000 words respectively.
wa-bi-miṯlihī
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses a different construction containing the preposition
miṯla, namely wa-bi-miṯlihī. He only uses it once, in his comment on
aphorism i.13, and it does not occur in the other commentaries.
‫فيّة‬²‫ري‬²‫ واخل‬،‫ول‬²‫ة أط‬²ّ‫توي‬²‫ الش‬،‫صر‬²‫صيفيّة أق‬²‫ع ال‬²‫رب‬²‫إنّ ال‬²‫ ف‬،‫سنة‬²‫ات ال‬²‫نها أوق‬²‫وم‬
‫ي‬²‫نها ف‬²‫صر م‬²‫كون أق‬²‫صيف ت‬²‫ي ال‬²‫ها ف‬²ّ‫إن‬²‫ ف‬،ّ‫غب‬²‫ثله ال‬²‫ ومب‬،‫ينهما‬²‫طة ب‬²ّ‫توس‬²‫م‬
.‫الشتاء‬
The seasons [are another indicator by which to judge the length
of diseases], for [just as] quartan fever in the summer is shorter,
in the winter longer and in the autumn average [in length],
likewise tertian fever is shorter in summer than in winter.
miṯla mā
This conjunction, meaning ‘as’, occurs only twice per 10,000 words in the
commentaries of Ḥunayn and as-Siwāsī. The other commentators do not use
it, except al-Baġdādī, who does not use it more than once per 20,000 words.
5.5
Conclusion
The main conclusion to be drawn from this study is that the later commentaries differ from
Ḥunayn with respect to the frequency with which they mark the different semantic groups.
While Ḥunayn marks elaborative relations more often than causal relations, the later authors
use more causal connectives than elaborative connections. I showed that the reason for this
lies in Ḥunayn’s use of the connective wa-ḏalika ʾanna, with which he translates Greek γάρ.
In the later commentaries, this conjunction occurs only a quarter of the amount it is found in
Ḥunayn’s translation, in the case of some authors more. Al-Manāwī is the only author to
&197
resemble Ḥunayn in this respect, while as-Sinǧārī is the only author to mark comparative
relations more often than contrastive relations. The high frequency of elaborative and causal
markers seems to correspond to the genre of the commentary, which engages in explaining
lemmata and giving reasons for medical phenomena.
Ḥunayn also differs from the later commentators in terms of his use of individual
connectives. For example, he is the only author to use the conjunction ka- with comparative
meaning, it is used with an explicative meaning in the later commentary. The most significant
difference lies in his use of wa-ḏalika ʾanna, which he uses to introduce explications, where
later authors prefer conjunctions such as ʾay, ka-, and wa-huwa. The fact that Ḥunayn
systematically uses wa-ḏālika ʾanna to translate the elaborative instances of the Greek γάρ,
like the translator of Epidemics Βοοk One, further confirms the similar authorship of both
translations, and marks wa-ḏālika ʾanna as one of Ḥunayn’s stylistic preferences.
The connectives described in this chapter also show stylistic preferences among each of
the later commentators, which are a useful tool to establish the authenticity of their individual
texts, within and outside the corpus. Al-Manāwī, for instance, stands out in his frequent use of
elaborative markers such as wa-huwa and ka-.
&198
CHAPTER VI COHESION PART II: FRAME MARKERS AND
ENDOPHORIC REFERENCE
6.1
Introduction
After analysing the use of connectives on the micro position level of texts, this study ‘zooms
out’ to analyse facilitators of structure on the macro position level of text. I divide these
facilitators in two groups. The first consists of the connective phraseology which delimits text
units such as arguments, paragraphs, comment sections, and even chapters. The second group
of cohesive markers is that of endophoric references, with which authors refer to other places
in their text. The shared function of these markers is the ensuring of the ‘navigability’ of the
commentary for its readership, which enhances its clarity and usefulness. In addition to these
two groups of facilitators, I also analyse the structure of the introductions of the
commentaries, and the way authors conclude their commentaries.
Redeker (1990, 367) argues that “the central question for a theory of discourse
coherence is how people signal and recognise structural units in discourse and how they
identify connecting links between those units”. In this study, I apply this question to the
corpus to discover how medieval authors created structure in their commentaries. How do
authors signal units in the commentary and mark connecting links between those units? How
do they connect clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and books? A comparison between the
structuring strategies in Ḥunayn’s translation and the later corpus may indicate yet another
difference in both writing and reading conventions between the worlds of late antiquity and
medieval Islam. Thus, this study provides insight in the development of signalling in written
text.
After a brief theoretical discussion, I cover the structural elements of the prolegomena
in the corpus in section 6.2. Subsequently, in 6.3.1, I examine the ways the commentators, if
&199
not their scribes, mark the beginning of their comments following the quotation of
Hippocrates’ aphorisms. Then, section 6.3.2 discusses the different ways in which authors
structure their comments on the macro-level of text, examining how they order text units such
as paragraphs, and the phrases they use to begin new topics. Finally, in section 6.3.3, I treat
the sentences authors use both to finish books of their commentaries and connect them to
following books. It also provides some details on how the different authors conclude their
commentaries, including some of the epilogues found in the corpus. In section 6.4, I discuss
the endophoric markers used in the corpus.
6.1.1
Theoretical Framework
Whereas scholars such as Ifantidou (2005, 1331) consider ‘above’, ‘following’, ‘first’, and
‘second’ all to be ‘sequence markers’, the present analysis divides sequence markers into
endophoric and frame markers, following Hyland (1998). Frame markers signal the beginning
and end of text units. Hyland (1998, 442) defines frame markers as phrases that ‘explicitly
refer to discourse acts or text stages’. According to this definition they include expressions
such as ‘we aim to’, ’firstly’, and ‘to conclude’. However, this study focuses on text stages
rather than discourse acts, with the understanding that some markers of text stages may indeed
be discourse acts. Therefore, I follow Sultan who argues that frame markers are ‘elements of
schematic text structure’ that mark text boundaries (Sultan 2011, 32).
Gerhard Endress (2002, 240) has recognised the existence of a “phraseology” of
medieval Arabic philosophical and mathematical texts, arguing that:
Both in mathematical and in philosophical texts (translations as well as original
expositions), we find a stylistic repertory, structuring and organising the outline
and sequence of arguments: an inventory of introductory, summarising,
transitional and connecting phrases.
&200
In his brief description of this phraseology, Endress mentions several structural phrases, such
as the introductory fa-naqūlu ʾaydan, ‘we moreover argue’, which also occurs in medical
texts. Other phrases such as fa-li-nafriḍa, ‘let us posit’, however, do not occur in the corpus,
nor do we find the conclusive sentence wa-ḏālika mā ʾaradnā ʾan nubayyina, “quod erat
demonstrandum”. Instead, the medical commentaries do demonstrate different types of
sentences, which I will discuss below.
6.2
Introductions within the Corpus
Most authors begin their commentary with an introduction. These introductions differ in
content, length, and structure, but also contain shared elements. For instance, many authors
give praise to God, discuss why they are writing a commentary, and mention the previous
commentaries they have relied on. Peter Pormann and Peter Joosse (2008) briefly discuss
some of the introductory remarks in as-Sinǧārī, al-Baġdādī, and as-Siwāsī. Their discussion,
however, does not intend to be complete. To provide further insight into their structure, I will
first discuss these introductions author by author, and shall then provide a cross-corpus
comparison at the end of this section. I will also discuss the use of the Hellenic introductory
‘headings’ in al-Manāwī and al-Baġdādī.
6.2.1
Introductions by Author
Galen’s commentary on the Aphorisms does not contain an introduction, nor does Ḥunayn
provide one in his translation.23 This does not prevent the Arabic authors from commencing
their commentaries with introductions. An-Nīlī (d.1029), for instance, provides a short
introduction in which he addresses four things. He first explains why he has decided to
23
Galen does introduce his other commentaries, for example his commentary on Hippocrates’ On The Nature
of Man, and the Epidemics.
&201
summarise Galen’s commentary, (namely because of the reluctance of students of his time to
read long books). Then, he explains why aphorisms and summaries are the format he has
chosen, namely because ‘they are among the best formats to memorise knowledge’. Third, he
mentions his predecessor, Galen, who he writes made an effort to find all the right meanings
of medical terms. Finally, he acknowledges his dependence on God.
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, in his prolegomenon, sets out to explain (i) why medicine is the best of
all sciences, and (ii) why The Aphorisms is the ideal book to comment on, because it is the
most concise, and it is what everyone who wants to be a doctor must learn. He also (iii) gives
a background explaining what aphorisms are (constitutions (dasātīr) and laws (qawānīn)
about medical topics); and (iv) mentions that Galen has preceded him in commenting on the
collection, with a commentary ‘complete in meaning’. He then (v) states his own goal: to
elaborate on Galen’s words and fill in what he missed out on from his other work. Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq also mentions the books which Hippocrates must have drawn from while collecting the
Aphorisms. Finally, he (vi) introduces the first book with the following comments on its
structure and content:
‫ وفصل في‬،‫ ومنها فصل في مفتتح الكتاب‬.ً‫وهذه املقالة تشتمل على ثالثة وعشرين فصال‬
،‫ وأربعة فصول في أغذية األصحّاء‬،‫ وأحد عشر فصالً في تدبير أغذية املرضى‬،‫قوانني كلّيّة‬
‫ وقد كنت هممت أن أرتّب فصول هذا الكتاب فأجمع بني‬.‫وستّة فصول في االستفراغ‬
‫الفصول التي تنتظم معنىً واحدًا وهي متقاربة املعاني وأجعلها في سبع مقاالت أخر ث ّم‬
‫ ثمّ اقتصرت على ترتيب فصول هذه‬.‫رأيت أن ترتيب فصول كلّ مقالة على االنفراد أولى‬
.‫املقالة الواحدة ليمتثلها من أرادها في املقاالت األخر وهذه املقالة‬
This book consists of 23 aphorisms. One of these is about the opening of the
book, one about axioms, eleven about the diets of patients, four about the diets of
the healthy, and six aphorisms about purging. I intended to organise the aphorisms
of this book, and to collect the aphorisms with the same meanings and those with
similar meanings, and to make them into seven different books, [but] then I saw it
better to first organise all aphorisms individually, then I shortened the order of the
&202
aphorisms in this one book so that he who wants to can follow it in other books.
This is the book.
As-Sinǧārī begins his 12th-century commentary with an introduction in which he first (i)
praises God and the prophet Mohammed. Then, he (ii) explains why he comments on the
Aphorisms:
I, when God, glorified and exalted be He, had bestowed upon me my discovery of
the science of medicine and its treasures, the uncovering of its difficulties, and the
solving of its riddles, had to explain to its student the secrets of its quests and to
clarify to its pupil the depths of its wisdom. And I saw that The Book of Aphorisms
by Hippocrates occupies the place of the main constituent of this science, no, it is
even like the soul (nafs), to which no precious jewel measures up.
As-Sinǧārī continues (iii) to mention his predecessors, whom he calls ‘great wise men’ (kibār
al-ḥukamāʾ) (cf. Pormann and Joosse 2008, p.227). He then (iv) briefly touches on his
method, saying that he does not use reasoning, but works from his experience, while
combining several explanations in his comments. As-Sinǧārī also (v) mentions the title of his
commentary, The Book that Facilitates the Achieving of an Explanation of the Aphorisms. He
concludes (vi) by mentioning his patron, whom he praises with a lengthy (more than ten)
series of epithets (such as “the knower”, “the victorious”, “the supporter”, etc).24
Quff writes an extremely short prolegomenon compared to the length of his
commentary. It is only 100 words long. He begins with praise to God and then explains why
he set out to write his commentary, and mentions the title of his book:
‫فـقـد سـألنـي بـعـض مـن يـشـتـغـل عـلـى أن أشـرح لـه كـتـاب الـفـصـول لـإلمـام أبـقـراط قـدس‬
‫ وإن أذكـر لـه مـع ذلـك اإلرادات الـتـي لـلـرّازي وغـيـره وأجـيـب عـنـهـا وأرتـّب لـه‬،‫اهلل روحـه‬
‫ فـأجـبـتـه إلـى ذلـك مـسـتـعـيـنـاً باهلل‬.ً‫عـلـى كـل كـلـمـة مـن كـلـمـات فـصـولـه بـحـثـاً خـاصّـا‬
.‫تـعـالـي ووسمته بكتاب األصول في شرح الفصول‬
24
On dedications in medieval Islamic books, see Houari Touati (2000), “La dédicace des livres dans l'Islam
médiéval”, in: Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 55(2), pp.325-353.
&203
A student asked me to explain to him the Book of Aphorisms by the master
Hippocrates, may God bless his soul, and to mention to him moreover the decrees
by ar-Rāzī and others, and to comment on them and to prepare for him a special
examination of each word of his aphorisms. And I responded to this while seeking
support from God, exalted be He, and I called it the Book of the Foundations in
the Commentary of the Aphorisms.
Not all manuscripts of as-Siwāsī’s commentary contain an introduction, but S4 does. The
scribe of this manuscript rubricates its beginning, wa-ʾammā baʿdu, ‘and as to what follows’.
In the introduction in this manuscript, as-Siwāsī begins (i) with praise of God and then (ii)
continues to mention previous commentaries, of which none, he argues, was as good as Ibn
ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s. However, as-Siwāsī will make his own commentary less lengthy and repetitive.
He then (iii) mentions his patron and finally (iv) the name of his commentary:
.‫وسمّيت هذا اخملتصر بعمدة الفحول لشرح الفصول ومن اهلل استمررت حسن التوفيق ولطفه‬
I have named this brief exposition The Support of the Masters to comment on the
Aphorisms, and I have continuously sought success and kindness from God.
Al-Baġdādī begins his commentary with a roughly 5000 word-long introduction, in which he
(i) sets out why he is writing his commentary, (ii) defines his readership, (iii) points out
previous scholarship, and (iv) explains his method. The latter seems to be a sort of revision of
Galen’s commentary. He writes that in his commentary he has added to Galen’s words,
removed some words, and:
we have provided it with an introduction and epilogue, we have declared those of
his sayings false that we saw as deserving to be declared false, and we changed
the position of what we thought needed it. Among the things we removed were his
inflection and grammar which he uses according to what the language of the
Greeks requires, if there was no benefit to it today for us in our language.
In comparison to the other commentators, al-Manāwī’s introduction is comprehensive. He
first (i) praises God, and then sets out (ii) what his book is about, describes (iii) his method,
&204
(iv) his sources, (v) the title of the book (The Realisation of the Achievement of the
Commentary on the Aphorisms). Finally (vi) he defends the use of medicine.
6.2.2
The Eight ‘Headings’
After introducing their commentary, both al-Baġdādī and al-Manāwī give a background of the
Aphorisms by discussing eight ‘headings’ (ruʾūs). Al-Baġdādī, after two pages of introduction,
mentions that the ‘modern authors’ (al-mutaʾaḫḫirūn) include a discussion of eight capita
(ruʾūs) in their writings (cf. Pormann and Joosse 2008, p.231):
‫وقبل الشروع في شرح الكتاب ينبغي أن ننظر في الرؤوس الثمانية التي جرت عادة املتأخرين‬
‫ الفحص عن غرض الكتاب ما هو؟ وعن نحو‬:‫ وهي‬،‫من الشراح أن يفتتحوا بها شروحهم‬
‫ واسم‬،‫ ومعنى عنوانه‬،‫ وأقسامه‬،‫ ومرتبته‬،‫ ومنفعة ما فيه‬،‫ وعن نسبته‬،‫التعليم املستعمل فيه‬
.‫واضعه‬
Before we begin the commentary on this book we must look at the eight elements
with which modern authors have become used to commence their commentaries,
these are: the examination of the purpose of the book, the method of instruction
used in it, its connection [or relation, to the field], the usefulness (manfaʿa) of
what is in it, its rank, its sections, the meaning of its title, and the name of its
author.
Al-Manāwī also briefly discusses the eight headings. These are almost identical to AlBaġdādī’s capita, and include (i) the book’s purpose (‘so that its learning is not in vain’); (ii)
‘its usefulness to instigate activity in the student’; (iii, Baġdādī’s seventh component), the
work’s title; (iv) what science the work belongs to (‘to consult it for what it is for’); (v) the
place a book has in the order of scholarly works (martaba), so that one can ‘give precedence
to what is important and to postpone what is not’; (vi) the book’s sections; (vii, Baġdādī’s
third component), the work’s method of education (aṭ-ṭuruq at-taʿlīmiyya); and finally, (viii)
the book’s authorship (muʾaliffa).
&205
With this structure, al-Manāwī and al-Baġdādī follow the Hellenic custom of discussing
eight introductory capita at the beginning of commentaries, which Endress (2012) identified
as an invention among the Alexandrian commentators on Aristotle, in the school of
Ammonius (d. AD 240). The ‘Ammonians’ introduced the Aristotelean work they were
commenting on with “six or eight capita, on 1. subject, 2. usefulness, 3. order of treatment, 4.
title, 5. authenticity, 6. disposition of the work, 7. the method of instruction used, and 8. the
section of philosophy to which the work belongs” (Endress 2012, 243).
According to Endress (2012), the eight introductory capita first made their way into the
Arabic world in al-Kindi’s ‘Book of Definitions’ and his ‘Epistle on the Number of Aristotle's
Books’, and more generally from the tenth century onwards. He argues that one of the earliest
Arabic authors to adopt these headings was the Iranian astrologer Abu Maʿšar al-Balḫī, a
student of al-Kindī, in the 9th century, who, however, refers to some of them differently than
Al-Baġdādī and al-Manāwī do. He refers to the title of the book with ism al-kitāb, instead of
ʿunwān in the physicians’ commentaries, and adds a heading ‘to/for whom the book is’, with
which he either refers to a patron or a reader. The heading ‘when it is to be read’ he calls fī
ʾayyi waqt yuqraʾ, instead of martaba in al-Baġdādī), ‘what part (of science) it belongs to’
min ʾayyi ʾaǧīzāʾ huwa, which in al-Baġdādī calls nisba, ‘the sections of the book’ (qismat
ʾaǧīzāʾ al-kitāb, ʾaqsām in al-Baġdādī).
In his study of prolegomena in Late Antiquity, Jaap Mansfeld (1994) also traces these
capita back to the tradition among Late Antique Greek commentators. He identified seven
similar components (the theme of the work under study, its position in the corpus, its
usefulness, discussion of the title, authenticity, its division into sections or chapters, the
branch of philosophy to which it belongs), but leaves out the method of instruction used in the
&206
book. I have schematised the eight capita as found among the Ammonians, the Greek
commentators according to Mansfeld, and as found in al-Baġdādī and al-Manāwī in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1
Ammonians
Greek Commentators
(Mansfeld)
Al-Baġdādī
al-Manāwī
subject
theme
purpose
purpose
usefulness
position
method
usefulness
order of treatment
usefulness
branch
title
title
title
usefulness
branch
authenticity
authenticity
rank
rank
disposition
sections
sections
sections
method
branch
title
method
author
author
branch
Al-Baġdādī and al-Manāwī both adopt similar versions of the ‘Ammonian’ capita. However,
al-Baġdādī spends a lengthy paragraph defending the use of these elements, while al-Manāwī
does not. The fact it was in need of such a defence and explanation, and its lack in most of the
medical commentaries, shows it was not a common practice within the corpus, nor in his time.
6.2.3
Comparison
Comparing the introductions, we find some shared and some more unique components. I have
presented the components in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2
Ḥunayn an-Nīlī
x
Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq
motivation benefit
medicine
format
Quff
al-Baġdādī
praise to
God
motivation praise to
God
explanation motivatio
aphorisms n
&207
audience
Sinǧārī
As-Siwāsī al-Manāwī
praise to praise to
God
God
motivation previous topic
work
predecess
or
previous
work
thanks to
God
title
previous
work
previous
work
patron
method
purpose
method
method
title
previous
work
structure
capita
title
title
patron
benefit
medicine
capita
Four of the authors, both the Christian physician Ibn al-Quff, and the Muslim authors asSinǧārī, as-Siwāsī, and al-Manāwī, begin their commentaries with praise to God. Instead of
this opening praise, an-Nīlī closes his introduction with thanks to God. Another common
element is the mentioning of the reason why the author is writing his commentary, for
example because the Aphorisms is the most important medical work (as-Sinǧārī).
The most commonly shared component in each introduction is a discussion of previous
scholarship. All authors either mention earlier commentaries or give the names of preceding
commentators. The discussion is, however, mostly limited to Galen, whom only Ibn al-Quff
does not mention. Al-Manāwī mentions more sources, such as Ibn al-Nafīs, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq,
and Ibn al-Quff.
As Table 6.2 shows, three authors explain their method, and three comment on the title
of their commentary. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq and al-Manāwī both also defend the benefit of the
science of medicine. Al-Baġdādī is the sole author to explicitly state what audience he has in
mind, while al-Manāwī is the only one to include a dedication; an unnamed but extensively
praised patron.
Only two of the later authors, al-Baġdādī and al-Manāwī, discuss the eight capita. AlBaġdādī spends seven pages to elaborate these, while al-Manāwī devotes only a small
paragraph to their discussion. The fact that Baġdādī needs to defend his treatment of these
&208
capita shows it is not a completely accepted tradition among his readership. However, it is
interesting that this Late Antique tradition is preserved in Arabic commentaries from as late as
the thirteenth century.
6.3
Frame Markers
6.3.1
Openings of Comment Sections
After each quoted aphorism, each author marks the beginning of his comment in a specific
way. Ḥunayn, for instance, uses the phrase qāla ǧālīnūs, ‘Galen said’, to mark the beginning
of each of Galen’s comments he translates. Galen himself does not use a similar phrase to
explicitly distinguish between Hippocrates’ and his own words. ِAl-Baġdādī in similar fashion
begins his comments with ‘qāla al-baġdādī’, ‘Al-Baġdādī says’. The other commentators
mark their comment section more anonymously. As-Sinǧarī, for example, introduces his
comments with the phrase qāla aš-šāriḥu, ‘the commentator says[:]’, while Ibn an-Nafīs and
Ibn al-Quff simply write aš-šāriḥu, ‘the commentator[:]’, or in some manuscripts, such as L5,
aš-šarḥ, the comment[:], or nothing at all. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq and as-Siwāsī both mark the
beginning of their comments with the word at-tafsīru, ‘the explanation[:]’, or ‘the comment’.
An-Nīlī, who writes a short commentary for ‘those who are too lazy to read long books’, does
not mark his comment with the word tafsīr, but with talḫīṣuhū, ‘its [i.e. the aphorism’s]
summary[:]’. Most scribes put these phrases in rubrics, i.e. in red, to further emphasise the
beginning of comments.
Al-Manāwī does not mark his comment, instead he paraphrases the Hippocratic lemma
and continues his comment from there. Al-Kīlānī does not regularly mark the beginning of his
comment section either, but he does tend to follow the lemma with either yaʿnī, ‘that is’, ‘he/it
&209
means’, or with the command aʿlam ʾan, ‘know that’, to introduce his explanation. ʿAbd arRaḥīm aṭ-Ṭabīb, who wrote a commentary on al-Kiši’s Epitome of the Hippocratic Aphorisms
Books, starts each comment with ʾaqūlu, ‘I say’.
Two things become clear from this short overview. First, there was no standard format
with which commentators began comments. Second, some of the phrases or rubrics found in
manuscripts are typical to particular scribes rather than characteristic of the original authors.
With many manuscripts dating back to the medieval period themselves, this still provides
relevant information about cohesive strategies from the time.
6.3.2
Macro-level Text Structuring within Comments
Ibn al-Quff is one of few authors to systematically structure his comments into subdivisions.
He calls each section a baḥṯ, ‘enquiry’. He divides each of his comments into any number of
enquiries from 2 to 15. Most of his paragraphs thus begin with al-baḥṯu l-ʾawwalu, ‘the first
enquiry[:]’, etc. Some scribes, for example the scribes of the 14th-century manuscripts L5 and
Y, mark the word al-baḥṯ, (‫بحث‬22 2 2‫)ال‬, by stretching out the letters: ‫بحــــــــــث‬22 2 2‫ال‬, or writing them in
rubric, so that it becomes a sort of heading. They also tend to stretch out the last word of the
preceding paragraph to mark the end of a text unit. However, they do not use a new line to
begin a new paragraph. Figure 1 shows the rubric and slightly enlarged marking of the words
‫سادس‬22 2 2 2 2 2‫بحث ال‬22 2 2 2 2 2‫‘ ال‬the sixth enquiry’ and ‫ع‬22 2 2 2 2 2‫ساب‬22 2 2 2 2 2‫بحث ال‬22 2 2 2 2 2‫‘ ال‬the seventh enquiry’, on folio 4a in
manuscript Y of Ibn al-Quff’s commentary.
&210
Figure 1
Quff regularly begins his first enquiry with the phrase al-baḥṯu l-ʾawwalu fī ṣilati hāḏā l-faṣli
bi-mā qablahu, ‘the first enquiry into the connection between this aphorism and the aphorism
before it’. Al-Baġdādī and Ḥunayn sometimes devote the first sentence of their comment to
the explanation of this connection as well. I will show below that al-Manāwī adds a similar
sentence to describe the connection between succeeding aphorisms. However, he does this at
the end rather than at the start of his comments.
Al-Baġdādī does not divide his text into buḥūṯ, but he does regularly structure his
comment around quotations from the lemma he is discussing. Most new paragraphs he starts
with wa-qawluhū, lit. ‘and his word’, followed by a quote (one or two words) from the
lemma, often followed by the connective particle ayy, ‘it means’. Some scribes render ‫وﻗﻮﻟﮫ‬, in
rubric for additional emphasis. Ibn an-Nafīs does the same in some of his paragraphs.
Besides these ‘enquiries’ and quotations, we find some form of subdivision in
enumerations. In the previous chapter I showed that al-Baġdādī, Ibn al-Quff and al-Manāwī
often make lists using ʾawwalan…, ṯāniyan…etc., ‘the first’…, ‘the second’…; and so on.
&211
While these can be argued to be connectives when they connect sentences, they are frame
markers when they divide comments into paragraphs. In terms of visualisation, scribes often
‘stretch out’ the last word before a new numbered section, while in other manuscripts (for
example J1) the cardinals are put in rubrics, like other markers I discussed above, such as ‫ﻗﺎل‬
‫ اﺑﻘﺮاط‬, which marks the lemma, and ‫اﻟﺸﺮح‬, which marks the beginning of the comment. This is
the case, for example, in al-Baġdādī’s comment on aphorism 2.17. In the first half of his
comment on this aphorism, al-Baġdādī explains that this aphorism can be explained in three
ways. He then goes on to elaborate each possible meaning in a new paragraph, introducing
each paragraph with an ordinal number. Ḥunayn does not use ‘firstly…, secondly…’ as
regular markers in his commentary, nor do Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, as-Siwāsī, as-Sinǧārī, or an-Nīlī.
Besides these structural, correlating ordering devices, authors also use ‘independent’
ways to mark the beginning of new text units, such as paragraphs that cover a separate section
of an explanation, a new argument, or a refutation of a conflicting view. An Arabic word
commonly used to open a new topic is wa-ʾamma. This is a ḥarf istiftāḥ, lit. ‘opening word’,
meaning ‘and as for’. It is widely used in the corpus, 36/10,000 words on average, though a
little less frequent in al-Manāwī, an-Nīlī, and as-Sinǧārī.
Another structuring device is the use of the imperatives wa-ʿlam ʾan, ‘and know that’,
and wa-fham, ‘and understand’. While in chapter III I described imperatives as a means to
enliven the text for the reader, some of them also function as frame markers, which clarify the
structure of the text. Al-Baġdādī, al-Manāwī, and Ibn al-Quff each use them regularly to turn
to a new topic, or to add information to an ongoing discussion. However, they are the only
authors in the corpus to do so; none of the others use such imperatives.
The discourse act naqūlu, ‘we say’, which seems to function like the contemporary
English ‘we argue’, is common in the corpus. It is especially prevalent in Ibn al-Quff, who
&212
generally uses the forms fa-naqūlu, ‘we say’ (imperfect), and qulna, ‘we say’ (perfect) to
begin statements. An example of this if found in his third book, where Ibn al-Quff uses the
connective sentence wa-li-nubassiṭa l-qawla fī hāḏā, fa-naqūlu, ‘in order to simplify the
words about this, we say[:]’. He also uses the formulaic sentence wa-iḏā ʿarifta hāḏā, fanaqūlu, ‘if you have learned this, we [now] say’, 31 times in his commentary to conclude a
previous explanation and start a new topic.
Gerhard Endress (2002) has demonstrated that the phrase fa-naqūlu ayḍan was
commonly used to posit theses in philosophical and mathematical texts. Ḥunayn twice
introduces new paragraphs with the phrase wa-ʾaqūlu ʾayḍan ʾinna, ‘and I also say that…’. He
does so for instance in his translation of Galen’s comment on Aphorisms i.3. However, while
in this example wa-ʾaqūlu ʾayḍan ʾinna seems to be a frame marker, the Greek µοι δοκεῖ ‘it
seems to me’, which it translates, comes at the end of the sentence and must not be understood
as a frame marker:
.‫وأقول أيضاً إنّ زيادته في قوله أيضاً يدلّ على أنّ هذا املعنى الذي قلت‬
And I also say that the excess in his argument also indicates that this is the
meaning that I have mentioned.
καὶ µὲν δὴ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ προκείµενον ὄνοµα κατὰ τὴν λέξιν, τὸ πάλιν,
ἐνδείκνυσθαί µοι δοκεῖ τὴν εἰρηµένην γνώµην. (Kühn 17b.367.1)
And it seems to me that this preceding word in his speech, again, points at the
opinion that has been mentioned.
Quff regularly (4/10,000 words) uses the phrase wa-l-ǧawābu ʿan [x], ‘the answer to [x]’, to
mark his own reaction to someone else’s words, a question he posed himself. He also uses it
to begin his discussion of an item from a list of issues, in which case he uses phrases such as
wa-l-ǧawābu ʿan al-ʾawwali, ‘the answer to the first [point]’ etc. Sometimes this expression
&213
marks his critique, sometimes just an elaboration.25 In the example below, Ibn al-Quff reacts
to a discussion about the purpose of medicine at the beginning of book I:
‫الـشـبـهـة الـثـانـيـة أنّـهـم قـالـوا لـو كـان الـطـبّ عـلـمـاً نـافـعـاً فـي حـفـظ الـصـحـة وإزالـة الـمـرض‬
‫ لـكـن ذلـك مـحـال ألنّ أبـقـراط‬،‫لـكـان الـطـبـيـب الـفـاضـل قـادراً عـلـى دفـع الـمـوت عـن نـفـسـه‬
‫ والـجـواب عـن هـذا أن نـقـول كـل عـلـم فـلـه غـايـة‬.‫وغـيـره مـن أمـة الـطـبّ عـجـزوا عـن ذلـك‬
.‫ولـكـن لـيـس غـايـتـه دفـع الـمـوت‬
Their second obscure argument is “if medicine was a useful science to preserve
health and remove sickness, then an excellent doctor would be able to keep
death away from himself. However, that is impossible, because Hippocrates
and other members of the medical community were unable to do that”. In
answer to this we say: every science has a purpose, but its purpose is not to
keep away death.
Al-Manāwī uses wa-l-ǧawābu ʿan [x] twice, and as-Siwāsī once. Ibn an-Nafīs does begin
some paragraphs in his comments with the word al-ǧawābu, ‘The answer[:]’, but he does so
only infrequently. As-Sinǧārī uses this phrase five times, mostly to mark contrast. In his
comment to aphorism iii.9, he uses the phrase wa-l-ǧawābu ʿan hāḏā l-iʿtirāḍi, ‘and the
answer to this objection’, to introduce his own counterargument. He uses a similar phrase four
more times to utter disagreement with other scholars, including Galen and Hippocrates.
Al-Manāwī also introduces counterarguments with the phrase wa-yaẓhuru lī ǧawābun
ʾāḫaru, ‘but to me there seems to be another answer’. Similarly, as-Siwāsī sometimes
contrasts his own argument to that of other scholars with the phrase al-ǧawābu ṣ-ṣaḥīḥu ‘the
right answer is’, for instance in his comment on Aphorisms iii.1.
In addition to al-ǧawābu, some authors occasionally mark their replies to questions and
debates with ʾaǧību, ‘I answer’. As-Sinǧārī uses it once to begin one of his comments, while
Some scribes, for example the scribe of the 14th-century manuscript L5, stretch out al-ǧawābu, ‫الجــواب‬, in
order to emphasise a new section in the comment. The scribe of the 18th-century manuscript J1 rubricates
instances of al-ǧawāb.
25
&214
al-Manāwī uses it to formulate a counterargument against al-Qurašī. He does so when
commenting on Aphorisms iii.19:
‫ وأجـيـب بـأن األمـر لـيـس‬.‫ فـإن قـيـل يـنـبـغـي أن يـكـون الـربـيع أوفـق لـلـكهول‬:‫قـال الـقـرشـي‬
.‫كـذلـك ألن الـشـتـاء أقـوى تـرطيـبـاً وهـم يـحـتـاجـون إلـى ذلـك‬
Al-Qurašī says: People say that autumn is the most agreeable to middle aged
people. I answer that the issue is not like that, because the winter is more moist
and that is what they need.
6.3.3
Endings of Comments, Chapters, and Commentaries
I already showed that Ibn al-Quff sometimes concludes paragraphs with the sentence wa-ʾiḏā
ʿarafta hāḏā, fa-naqūlu, ‘since you have learned this, we [now] say’. In comparison, neither
Galen nor Ḥunayn use particular sentences to mark the end of comments. By way of
exception, Ḥunayn once uses the phrase wa-ǧumlatu l-qawli ʾannahū, ‘to sum up’ at the end
of the comment on aphorism i.1. With this phrase, Ḥunayn impersonalises the Greek first
person plural form, συγκεφαλαιωσόµεθα, ‘we will summarise’:
‫وجملة القول أنّه من أجل هذه األشياء كلّها صارت الصناعة طويلة إذا قيست مبقدار عمر‬
.‫االٕنسان الواحد‬
To sum up, the art becomes long because of all these things [previous
mentioned reasons], when measured against the life of one human being.
συγκεφαλαιωσόµεθα γοῦν ἤδη τὸν λόγον. ἡ µὲν τέχνη µακρὰ γίνεται, ἑνὸς
ἀνθρώπου παραµετρουµένη βίῳ. (Kühn 17b.355.5)
We will now summarise this statement. The art becomes long, when it is
measured against the life of one man.
This phrase does not occur elsewhere in the corpus. Ibn al-Quff typically ends his comments
with wa-Allahu aʿlam, ‘God knows best’ (13/10,000 words). Al-Manāwī and as-Sinǧārī both
use this expression once per 10,000 words, while it occurs once in as-Siwāsī’s commentary as
well. As expected, this expression does not occur in Ḥunayn’s translation.
&215
Al-Manāwī usually ends his comments with the verb intahā, ‘it has finished’, or the
demonstrative pronoun hāḏā, ‘(so far) this’, followed by a sentence showing the connection
between the present aphorism and the next. Thus, each comment ends with a variant on the
following phrase, which is an example from his third book:
.‫ واملناسبة بني ما سيذكر االن ملا قبله ظاهرة‬،‫هذا‬
So far, and the connection between what he [Hippocrates] will mention now
and what preceded it, is obvious.
Galen does not add a concluding or connective sentence between his books, at least not in the
Ḳühn edition of his commentary. His translator Ḥunayn, or later scribes, on the other hand, do
add different sentences at the end of each translated book. Most of these sentences follow the
same format: (i) Book [x] has finished, (ii) Ḥunayn has translated it, (iii) praise be to God. For
example, at the end of book II, the scribe of the 13th-century manuscript P1 adds the
following sentence:
‫متّت املقالة الثانية من كتاب الفصول شرح الفاضل جالينوس ترجمه حنني بن إسحاق‬
ّ ‫والسبح‬
.‫هلل وحده‬
The second book of the Aphorisms has finished, the great Galen commented
[on it] and Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq translated it. Glory be to God alone.
The last part of this sentence, wa-s-subḫu li-llahi waḫdahū, is a Christian phrase that occurs
here and once in Book Four of Ḥunayn’s translation.26 Instead of this phrase, the scribes of
manuscripts E7 and E5 add the phrase “with the glory and help of God (bi-ḥamdi llahi waʿawnihi)”. In any case, it appears that only later scribes saw it necessary to mark the end of
chapters with this type of phrases, while neither Galen nor Ḥunayn added such sentences
themselves.
26
That the scribe of P1 was Christian can also be inferred from the dating of the manuscript; it is dated 6735
Anno Mundi, from the creation of the world, the official calendar era of the Byzantine Empire which the
Islamic world never adopted.
&216
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq concludes only some of his books with a final sentence, such as ‘Book
[x] has been completed’, as does as-Sinǧārī. In his turn, as-Siwāsī adds no such sentences at
the end of his books at all, while Ibn al-Quff and al-Baġdādī finish some of their books with a
glorification. We have only one manuscript of al-Manāwī, E10. In this 15th century
manuscript, either al-Manāwī or the scribe ends some of the books simply with intahā,
‘finished’. Book Three ends with the sentence “the words on book three are completed”. AlManāwī twice introduces the next chapter with a sentence similar to the following:
‫تمل‬²‫ضا يش‬²‫ي أي‬²‫كتاب فه‬²‫ليه ال‬²‫ب ع‬²‫تي رت‬²‫بع ال‬²‫قاالت الس‬²‫ن امل‬²‫ة م‬²‫سادس‬²‫ة ال‬²‫قال‬²‫ا امل‬²ّ‫ وأم‬،‫ذا‬²‫ه‬
.‫على فصول‬
[So far] this, and as for the sixth of the seven books in which this book is
arranged, it also comprises aphorisms.
Conclusions are not common in the corpus. The reader finds epilogues only in the
commentaries of Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, al-Baġdādī, and Ibn al-Quff. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s epilogue
almost seems to be a defence of his right to finish his commentary where he does. He explains
how he dealt with the difficult, the easy, and the fake aphorisms he encountered:
‫قـد‬²‫ فـ‬،‫غـمـوض‬²‫ن الـ‬²‫اً مـ‬²‫ربـ‬²‫تـظـمـت ضـ‬²‫تـي انـ‬²‫كـتـاب والـ‬²‫ذا الـ‬²‫ن هـ‬²‫صـة مـ‬²‫عـويـ‬²‫فـصـول الـ‬²‫ا الـ‬²‫أمّـ‬
‫عـد أن‬²‫كـاك بـ‬²‫ع أشـ‬²‫وضـ‬²‫نـهـا مـ‬²‫يء مـ‬²‫ي شـ‬²‫نّـي فـ‬²‫ب ظـ‬²‫بـق بـحـسـ‬²‫م يـ‬²‫ا لـ‬²‫هـا مـ‬²‫رحـ‬²‫ي شـ‬²‫غـنـا فـ‬²‫الـ‬²‫بـ‬
‫قـد‬²²‫لـة فـ‬²²‫فـصـول الـسـهـ‬²²‫ا الـ‬²²‫ وأمّـ‬.ً‫ا‬² ‫ونـ‬²²‫انـ‬²²‫الً وقـ‬² ‫لّـهـا أصـ‬² ‫يـهـا كـ‬²²‫يـنـوس فـ‬²²‫الـ‬²²‫الم جـ‬²²‫عـلـنـا كـ‬²²‫جـ‬
ً‫ا‬²‫يـانـ‬²‫ك بـ‬²‫ذلـ‬²‫زداد بـ‬²‫ا يـ‬²‫ه مـ‬²‫حـقـنـا بـ‬²‫صـل أَال وألـ‬²‫يـهـا فـ‬²‫ضـى ف‬²‫لّمـا مـ‬²‫مّ قـ‬²‫يـهـا ثـ‬²‫ه فـ‬²‫الـ‬²‫ا قـ‬²‫خّـصـنـا مـ‬²‫لـ‬
‫رح‬²‫ي شـ‬²‫خـوض فـ‬²‫ن يـ‬²‫إنّ مـ‬²‫ فـ‬،‫ر‬²‫تـبـه األخـ‬²‫ي كـ‬²‫ه فـ‬²‫الم‬²‫ن ك‬²‫ا مـ‬²‫ذنـ‬²‫د أخـ‬²‫نّـا قـ‬²‫مّـا كـ‬²‫اً مـ‬²‫وحـ‬²‫ووضـ‬
‫ك‬²‫لّ ذلـ‬²‫ي كـ‬²‫هـو فـ‬²‫عـيـنـه فـ‬²‫نـه بـ‬²‫فـحـص عـ‬²‫يـنـوس فـ‬²‫الـ‬²‫بـق جـ‬²‫د سـ‬²‫ وقـ‬،ّ‫طـب‬²‫زاء الـ‬²‫ن أجـ‬²‫زء مـ‬²‫جـ‬
‫ى‬²‫تـمـر إلـ‬²‫ل الـ‬²‫اقـ‬²‫ة نـ‬²‫نـزلـ‬²‫نـدي مـ‬²‫ك عـ‬²‫ي ذلـ‬²‫تـه فـ‬²‫نـزلـ‬²‫عـيـه ومـ‬²‫ر سـ‬²‫قـتـفـي أثـ‬²‫ره ومـ‬²‫ن بـحـ‬²‫ارف مـ‬²‫عـ‬
‫ره‬²‫آخـ‬²‫ا بـ‬²‫رهـ‬²‫يـد ذكـ‬²‫د أعـ‬²‫تـي قـ‬²‫سـة والـ‬²‫مـدلّـ‬²‫فـصـول الـ‬²‫ا الـ‬²‫ وأمّـ‬.‫دن‬²‫ى عـ‬²‫بُـرُد إلـ‬²‫ب الـ‬²‫الـ‬²‫ر وجـ‬²‫هـجـ‬
.ً‫مـن الـكـتـاب فـتـركـنـا ذكـرهـا شـفـقـة عـلـى فـوت الـزمـان بـمـا ال يـجـدي نفعا‬
&217
As for this book’s difficult and somewhat obscure aphorisms, we have done our
utmost to explain those in which, in my opinion, no doubtful passages remained,
after we represented Galen’s words on them originally and lawfully.
As for the easy aphorisms, we have summarised what he [Galen] said about
them and, subsequently, in the rare case he missed an aphorism, we added words
we took from his other books that increased its clarity. For Galen has already
preceded whomever comments on any part of medicine, and he has examined that
same part, and thoroughly knows all of it, and follows its tracks. His position in
this respect is, for me, [like] the position of one who brings dates to Hajar, and
garments to Eden.
As for the fake aphorisms and those that were repeated at the end of the
book, we did not mention them out of fear of wasting time with what is not useful.
Al-Baġdādī, who wrote his commentary about a century later than Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, possibly
wrote an epilogue. It only appears in some manuscripts, such as K1 (fol. 95a). Al-Baġdādī
addresses some of the same issues as Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq. He, too, justifies finishing his
commentary where he does, and explains why he has left certain aphorisms out:
‫د‬²‫وج‬²‫ وي‬.‫ه‬²‫عمل ب‬²‫رح وي‬²‫ثبت ويش‬²‫نبغي أن ي‬²‫قراط ي‬²‫فصول ألب‬²‫تاب ال‬²‫ن ك‬²‫ه م‬²‫دت‬²‫ا وج‬²‫ر م‬²‫ذا آخ‬²‫ه‬
،‫ها‬²‫عمل ب‬²‫جب أن ي‬²‫رح وال ي‬²‫ى ش‬²‫فتقر إل‬²‫ثيرة ال ت‬²‫صول ك‬²‫ثة ف‬²‫دي‬²‫ة واحل‬²‫قدمي‬²‫نسخ ال‬²‫ن ال‬²‫ثير م‬²‫ي ك‬²‫ف‬
ٌ‫ختَرَع‬²ُ‫سٌ م‬²َّ‫دل‬²ُ‫عضها م‬²‫ وب‬،‫ثير‬²‫ليل أو ك‬²‫ف ق‬²‫ري‬²‫نصه أو بتح‬²‫كتاب ب‬²‫ناء ال‬²‫ي أث‬²‫كرر ف‬²‫عضها م‬²‫ألن ب‬
ً‫ا‬²‫احل‬²‫قداراً ص‬²‫ك م‬²‫ن ذل‬²‫ينوس م‬²‫ال‬²‫ر ج‬²‫د ذك‬²‫ وق‬،‫فظة‬²‫ة ل‬²‫تقام‬²‫عناه وال اس‬²‫حة م‬²‫عرف ص‬²‫يك ال ت‬²‫رك‬
،‫واه‬²‫ي س‬²‫غرض ف‬²‫ أو ألن ال‬،‫دواه‬²‫قلة ج‬²‫نه ل‬²‫يء م‬²‫عرض لش‬²‫فحاً وال أت‬²‫نه ص‬²‫رب ع‬²‫ا أن أض‬²‫ت أن‬²‫رأي‬²‫ف‬
‫ود‬²²‫ه ذو اجل‬²²‫يق إن‬²²‫توف‬²²‫ة وال‬²²‫عون‬²²‫نه امل‬²²‫تمدّاً م‬²²‫ه ومس‬²²‫بحان‬²²‫اهلل س‬²²‫تعيناً ب‬²²‫كتاب مس‬²²‫نا ال‬²²‫قطعت ه‬²²‫ف‬
.‫واألفضال املدعو بيا ذا اجلالل واإلكرام‬
This is the last I found of Hippocrates’ Aphorisms that must be written, explained
and treated. There are many aphorisms in many old and new manuscripts that do
not need a commentary or discussion, because some of them are repeated
verbatim in the course of the book, or corrupted to varying extents, while some
are altered into such a feeble invention that neither the right meaning nor its
correct pronunciation are known. Galen has mentioned a good amount of them,
but I decided to ignore them and not to pay attention to them because they have
little benefit, or because they cover the same topic, so I ended the book here,
seeking support from God, praised be He, and asking Him for help and success,
for He is the provider of goodness and favours, He Who is addressed with ‘oh
Glorious One’ and ‘Honourable’.
&218
In contrast to these two authors, Ibn al-Quff does not say anything about the types of
aphorisms he encountered or his method of dealing with them, but he does add an epilogue,
which I discussed in chapter III, in which he asks his reader to critically study his commentary
and improve it where necessary:
The seventh book has finished, and with that, the commentary on this book has
finished, and we ask those intellectuals and those men with sound minds who read
our book to carefully study what we said and think about what we mentioned, and
if he notices a shortcoming or imperfection, he should rectify my shortcoming and
correct my imperfection.
Al-Manāwī ends his commentary with nothing but an extensive acknowledgement of God’s
help. Galen, as-Sinǧārī and as-Siwāsī finish their commentaries without epilogue or even a
concluding sentence. An-Nīlī and al-Manāwī’s commentaries do end with concluding
sentences. In manuscript Ox1, the last line of an-Nīlī’s commentary reads that the book has
been completed with ‘the help of the providing king’ in the month Ṣafar27 in the year 924 H.
(1518 CE), which, considering that an-Nīlī died in 1029, must be an addition by the scribe.
6.4
Endophoric References
In this section, I analyse how often authors refer to previous and following parts in their
commentary by using endophoric markers. Endophoric reference is another device that
facilitates navigation through a text. With endophoric markers, such as ‘as we will discuss
later’, authors refer readers to other places within the same text. In the corpus, endophoric
references typically consist of a place or time reference, such as ‘before’, and a discourse act,
such as ‘we explained’. Endophoric references either refer back to what precedes in the same
text (anaphoric reference), or ahead to what follows (cataphoric reference). Halliday and
27
Second month of the Islamic calendar.
&219
Hasan (1976) introduced this terminology to refer to micro-level referencing.28 Here, this
terminology is adopted to refer to referencing on the macro-level of the commentary.
Endophoric reference is not the same as exophoric reference, which refers to places outside
the text.
Anaphoric references such as ‘we have mentioned this’ have a guiding function as they
revisit information in the commentary, while cataphoric sentences such as ‘as we will discuss
later’ make the reader aware of what is still to come. According to Hyland (1998, 443) these
markers “play an important role in making additional ideational material salient and therefore
available to the reader in aiding the recovery of the writer's argumentative intentions.”
Scholars are not unanimous in their use of this terminology. Ken Hyland calls markers such as
‘finally’ frame markers, and markers such as ‘below’ endophoric markers, whereas Ifantidou
(2005) classes both ‘finally’, ‘below’, and ‘first’ as sequence markers. Though some markers
in Ifantidou’s definition are sequence markers, others are endophoric markers, and this study
therefore follows Hyland.
6.4.1
Searching for Endophoric References
I have counted all endophoric references in the corpus using a set of searches in Sketch
Engine. I first searched the anaphoric markers using the 1PERSON verb forms I collected for
Chapter II. Subsequently, I identified a few more verbs when searching on the actual place
references which I show in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3
ḏakarnā
we mentioned
takallamnā
we spoke
qulnā
we said
iʾtaḏarnā
we apologised
28
According to Halliday and Hassan’s definition, in the sentence ‘The students like Greek, they find it
interesting’, they is anaphoric reference, to the antecedent ‘the students’.
&220
waṣafnā
we described
qarrarnā
we decided
bayyanna
we explained
ḥafaẓna
we kept
raʾaynā
we saw
ḍamamnā
we included
taqaddamnā
we introduced
laḫasnā
we summarised
fassarnā
we explained
qasamnā
we divided
ʾawḍaḥnā
we explained
The place references in Table 6.4 I identified from running searches using the verbs in Table
3, and continuous close reading of the texts.
Table 6.4
fīmā taqaddama
in what preceded
(fī) mā qabluhū
in what is before it
fī l-maqālati l-[x]
in book [x]
qablu
before
fīmā maḍa
in what preceded
al-faṣlu al-lāḏī awwaluhū
[x]
the aphorism which starts with
fīmā sabaqa
in what preceded
al-faṣlu l-lāḏī qāla fīhi [x]
the aphorism in which he said
[x]
qubayla
previously
al-faṣlu l-lāḏī qīla fīhi [x]
the aphorism in which is said
[x]
(al-)fuṣūl (allāti)
taqadammat
in (the) preceding
aphorisms
faṣlun aḫarun
another aphorism
fī l-faṣli lmutaqaddami
in the previous
aphorism
al-qawla llāḏī qālahū
the saying which he said
fī l-faṣli l-māḍī
in the previous
aphorism
al-qawlu llāḏī qabla hāḏa
the saying before this
fī l-faṣli l-sābiqi
in the previous
aphorism
al-qawlu llāḏī qablahū
the saying before it
fī l-faṣli llāḏī
qabluhū
in the aphorism
before it
al-qawlu llāḏī taqadamma
the saying that preceded
Some of these place references occur with verbs that are not normally part of endophoric
references. For instance, iʾtaḏarnā, ‘we refuted’, which occurs as part of an endophoric
reference in as-Sinǧārī’s comment on aphorism i.8:
.‫و هذا املعنى قد كرره كثيرًا واعتذرنا عنه فيما تقدم‬
This meaning he repeated many times, and we refuted it in what preceded.
&221
This example shows, that to find all endophoric markers, one must use a combined search of
both the verbs in Table 6.3 and the place references in Table 6.4, and then exclude the double
findings. One cannot, moreover, simply rely on the verbs in Table 6.3, since Ibn al-Quff,
especially, uses similar perfect forms not as anaphoric markers, but as a way to introduce
arguments. I have, moreover, excluded any of the verb forms which were accompanied by a
reference to another book.
Through a search for the same verbs in first person singular, I identified four singular
forms that occasionally function as endophoric markers in the corpus; ḏakartu (I mentioned),
qultu (I said), bayyantu (I explained), and taqaddamatu (I introduced). As for second and
third person verb forms, these can only be identified as anaphoric markers when accompanied
by a place reference, and therefore do not need to be separately searched for. To prevent
overlap while at the same time ensuring completeness, I counted all first person plural verb
forms, including place references, and then counted the place references without these verb
forms, but including first person singular forms. Finally, I counted first person singular verb
forms without place references.
A search for al-qawlu llāḏī, which occurs only in Ḥunayn, is enough to give all the
place references built on this element, including less frequent variants such as al-qawlu llāḏī
qīla qablu hāḏā, ‘the saying spoken before this’. Finally, the adverb qablu looks the same as
the preposition qabla: ‫ﻗﺒﻞ‬. Therefore results of a search for ‫ ﻗﺒﻞ‬must be narrowed down to
those including ‫ ﻗﯿﻞ ﻗﻠﺖ‬, ‫ذﻛﺮﻧﺎ‬, ‫ ذﻛﺮت‬, ‫ ذﻛﺮ‬, ‫ﻓﺼﻮل‬, while excluding those results containing qawl
(or include qawl and exclude qabl when counting the results of al-qawlu llāḏī). The same
applies for qablu hāḏā.
To find the cataphoric references I ran a search for the future tense marker sa-, which
identified the verb forms in Table 6.5. This table shows that sa-aḥkī, ‘I will speak’, is the only
&222
first person singular verb-form used for future reference, and sa-yuḏkaru, it will be
mentioned’, the only third person singular future verb form used for cataphoric reference.
Table 6.5
sa-naḏkuru
we will mention
sa-nubayyinu
we will explain
sa-naqūlu
we will say
sa-yuḏkaru
it will be mentioned
sa-natakallamu fī
we will speak about
sa-taʿrifu
you will know
sa-nušarriḥu
we will explain
sa-taʿlamu
you will know
sa-nuwaḍḍiḥu
we will clarify
sa-tifhamu
you will understand
sa-nuḥaqqiqu
we will verify
sa-ʾaḥkī
I will tell
Any non-future tense verb-forms need one of the place references in Table 6.6 to be
(recognisable as) an endophoric marker, and therefore cannot be separately searched. A place
reference search shows that for cataphoric references containing a third person singular verb,
often a perfect is used, as in “he mentioned it in what follows”. However, future tense markers
do also occur, for instance the form sa-yuḏkaru, which only occurs in al-Manāwī’s phrase ‘the
aphorism that will be mentioned now’. Moreover, in the following passage from book I, both
Galen and Ḥunayn use a future third person endophoric marker, ἐρεῖ and sa-yaḏkuru, ‘he will
say’.
κατὰ τίνα δὲ καιρὸν τοῦ νοσήµατος ἐπιχειρεῖν δεῖ τῇ κενώσει καὶ τίνι τρόπῳ
ποιητέον αὐτὴν ἐν ἄλλοις ἀφορισµοῖς ἑξῆς ἐρεῖ. ὅθεν οὐδ’ ἐµοὶ νῦν ἀναγκαῖόν
ἐστι λέγειν περὶ αὐτῶν. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν οὐδὲν µὲν εἴην σοφώτερος διδάσκων, εἰς
µῆκος δὲ λόγων οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἐκτείνων τὰ ὑποµνήµατα. (Kühn 17b.361.3)
At what stage of the disease it is necessary to purge and in what way one must do
it he will say next in other aphorisms. For this reason I do not need to say
anything about these things now. For thus I would not be teaching anything wiser,
while stretching the comments to an unnecessary length of words.
ّ ‫وسيذكر بعد في فصول أخر في أيّ وقت من أوقات املرض ينبغي أن تروم االستفراغ وبأ‬
‫ي‬
‫ ألنّي إن‬،‫ فليس تضطرّ في األمر إلى ذكر هذه األشياء في هذا املوضع‬.‫وجه ينبغي أن تفعل‬
‫ذكرتها لم أت بشيء أحسن ممّا قاله أبقراط وأكون قد طولت تفسيري بكالم ليس يضطرّ إليه‬
.‫شيء‬
&223
He [Hippocrates] will mention in later aphorisms in what stage of the disease you
must purge and how, so there is no reason to mention these things in this place,
because if I mentioned them I wouldn’t introduce anything better than what
Hippocrates said, and I would have lengthened my commentary with words not
called for at all.
I identified the place references in Table 6 from their occurrence in sa-results, as well as
searches on faṣl, qawl, and baʿdu.
Table 6.6
baʿd qalīlin
after a bit
al-faṣlu llāḏī baʿda
hāḏā
the aphorism after it
fīmā baʿdu
in what follows
al-faṣlu llāḏī ʾatā bihī
baʿda hāḏā
the aphorism that he has put after
this
al-faṣlu llāḏī
yalīhū
the aphorism
that follows it
al-qawlu llāḏī fī
baʿdihi
the saying after it
al-faṣlu llāḏī yaʾtī
baʿdu
the aphorism
that comes after
it
al-qawlu llāḏī yaʾtī
baʿdu
the saying that comes after it
With this method, I found over 1500 endophoric markers in the corpus as a whole, or about 23
per 10,000 words. These are not evenly distributed. As Table 6.7 shows, Ibn al-Quff, alManāwī, and Ḥunayn use far more endophoric markers than the other authors. Al-Manāwī
leads the corpus with an average use of 50 markers per 10,000 words.
Table 6.7
Corpus
Average
Endophoric
Markers
19
Manāwī
50
Ḥunayn
Quff
30
29
Baġdādī
13
IAS
9
Siwāsī
9
Sinǧārī
6
Nīlī
4
To compare, Hyland’s 1998 study of contemporary academic English found an average of 46
endophoric markers per 10,000 words in Biology, and 62 in Astrophysics. The corpus average
of 23 is modest compared to that, and the majority of authors in the corpus, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq,
Nīlī, Siwāsī, and Sinǧārī, use a number of markers well below that average, as low as 4 per
10,000 words in the case of an-Nīlī. In this respect, Ḥunayn does not stand out from the rest
&224
of the corpus, though he does use more endophoric markers than the majority of the later
authors.
6.4.2
Endophoric References in Ḥunayn’s Translation
The endophoric markers in Ḥunayn’s translation differ from those in the other Arabic
commentaries in several respects. He is the only author in the corpus to use the temporal
adverb qubayla, ‘shortly before’, to refer to previous places in the text, as in ‘I have shortly
before explained this aphorism’. In his translation, qubayla occurs 31 times, and is no
addition to the text, but is most frequently a translation of one of two Greek adverbs,
ἔµπροσθεν ‘before’ and ἄρτι ‘just now’. The expression fī mā taqaddama, ‘in what preceded’,
Ḥunayn uses 3 times per 10,000 words, to translate Greek ἔµπροσθεν, ‘before’. This is three
times more frequent than Ibn al-Quff, al-Manāwī, and as-Sinǧārī, while Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq never
uses it.
Ḥunayn is, moreover, the only author to use the substantive qawlun, ‘saying’, instead of
faṣlun as a place reference in endophoric references (1/10,000 words), and the only one to
regularly use the verb form waṣafnā, ‘we have described’, to refer to an explanation earlier in
the commentary (5/10,000 words), usually to translate a form of the Greek verb λέγω, ‘to
say’. All these forms are translations of Greek terms. Besides al-Baġdādī, who uses it
1/10,000 words, none of the other authors use it.
To refer to other aphorisms in the commentary, Galen usually quotes their beginning,
using the phrase κατὰ τὸν ἀφορισµὸν οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ (cf. Kühn 17b.415.1), “in the aphorism of
which the beginning is”. Ḥunayn translates this phrase with al-faṣlu l-lāḏī awwaluhū [x], ‘the
aphorism which begins with [x]’, or by quoting another part using the phrase al-faṣlu l-lāḏī
qāla fīhī, ‘the aphorism in which he said’ (both nearly once per 10,000 words). Al-Baġdādī
&225
and al-Manāwī use the former phrase in a similar fashion. Ḥunayn also translates Galen’s
references to previous aphorisms with the phrase al-faṣlu l-lāḏī qabluhū, ‘the previous
aphorism’, these references occur twice as much in Ḥunayn’s translation as they do in the
other authors.
Ḥunayn is, furthermore, unique in his use of the phrase kamā qultu, ‘as I said’, which
occurs 19 times in his translation, (nearly twice per 10,000 words). It translates a similar
Greek form (ὡς ἔφην/ (once) εἶπον) in 12 instances. When it does not, five times it translates
an impersonal passive verb form in Greek which also functions as an endophoric marker, as in
book I, where kamā qultu qablu translates the perfect form ὡς προείρηται (Kühn 7b.786.13),
‘as has been previously said’. In only two instances, ‘as I said’ is Ḥunayn’s addition.
Ḥunayn also frequently uses the phrase ‘as I have explained’, kamā bayyantu, whereas
the other authors do not use this phrase. However, this is not usually an endophoric reference,
since Ḥunayn uses it mostly (21 out of 24 times) to translate Galen’s references to his other
books. Ḥunayn is the only author to use a future first person singular verb form to refer to a
following place in the commentary, the only first person singular future endophoric marker in
the corpus. It occurs in Ḥunayn’s translation of Galen’s comment on Aphorisms v.59, which
reads as follows:
“If a woman does not conceive, and wishes to ascertain whether she can
conceive or not, wrap her up in blankets, then vaporise her below, and if you
see that the scent of the steam passes through her body until it reaches her
nostrils and mouth, then know that the fact she does not conceive is not
because of her”.
In his comment on this aphorism, Galen says he will explain more later, since it requires the
understanding of other aphorisms first. In conclusion to his comment, Ḥunayn activises
Galen’s passive verb form λεχθήσεται:
&226
‫وسأحكي في ذلك قوله كله بعد قليل إذا فسرت جميع الفصول التي ينتفع بها في‬
.‫فهمه‬
I will talk about his complete passage after a while, when I have explained all
the aphorisms that are useful to understand it.
λεχθήσεται δ' ὁ σύµπας λόγος ὀλίγον ὕστερον, ὅταν ἅπαντας ἐξηγησώµεθα
τοὺς διαφέροντας εἰς αὐτὸν ἀφορισµούς. (Kühn 17b.858.8)
The complete argument will be discussed a little later, when we have explained
all the aphorisms that are essential for [understanding] it.
The phrase baʿda qalīlin, ‘after a while’, which in this example translates the Greek ὀλίγον
ὕστερον, ‘a little later’, is another unique feature of Ḥunayn’s translation. He uses it only ten
times in total, but in the rest of the corpus it is not used at all. Similarly, the expression fīmā
baʿdu, ‘in what follows’, mainly occurs in Ḥunayn’s translation and only rarely in the other
commentaries. Ḥunayn uses it, for instance, to translate ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆς ‘in the
following’ (Kühn 17b.793.17) or ἐν τοῖς κατωτέρω ‘in the [words] below’ (Kühn 17b.
546.14).
This overview shows that Ḥunayn’s high number of markers is the result of an equally
high number of such markers in the Greek source text. Moreover, all these forms are unique to
Ḥunayn’s translation style, and therefore important as identifying features.
6.4.3
Endophoric References in the Corpus
In the corpus, all authors refer back considerably more often than forward. On average, they
refer back 16 times per 10,000 words. In contrast, they refer ahead only three times per
10,000 words. The low incidence of cataphoric reference may be related to the fact the
medieval authors wrote their manuscripts. The form ḏakarnā, ‘we mentioned’, is the most
generally used endophoric marker in the corpus. Each author uses it at least once every 10,000
words. The verb form ‘we have said’, in contrast, never occurs as an endophoric marker in an-
&227
Nīlī, as-Sinǧārī, or as-Siwāsī, though it occurs regularly in the other commentaries. Of the
future reference markers, sa-naḏkuru, ‘we will mention’, occurs most frequently, although
only in al-Manāwī and Ibn al-Quff, and a few times in Ḥunayn’s translation. The form sanaqūlu, ‘we shall say’, occurs only four times in the corpus, twice in Ibn al-Quff, once in alBaġdādī and Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq. The other future verb forms, sa-nubayyinu, sa-nuwaḍḍiḥu, sanuḥaqqiqu, and sa-nušarriḥu occur very rarely in Ḥunayn and Ibn al-Quff’s commentaries.
Al-Manāwī uses the highest number of endophoric markers; 50 endophoric references
per 10,000 words. This can be explained by the frequency of the standard phrase which he
uses to connect his comments. This phrase contains two standard elements. The first is mā sayaḏkuru/sa-yuḏkaru, either active ‘what he will mention’, or passive ‘what will be
mentioned’. As I discussed in chapter II, scribes sometimes read this form as naḏkuru, ‘we
will mention’. The second element, mā qablahū, ‘what is prior to it’, occurs 78 times in his
commentary (20/10,000 words), while it hardly occurs in the rest of the corpus, except
6/10,000 words in Ibn al-Quff. If this connective phrase is disregarded, Manāwi uses
endophoric markers (50-38) 12 times per 10,000 words, which is not much more frequent
than the other authors. Since we only have one manuscript, E10, it is hard to decide whether
this connective sentence is the result of the efforts of an enthusiastic scribe, or part of alManāwī’s style. In either case, it is a later innovation in the commentary tradition which is
unique to manuscript E10.
The thirteenth-century author Ibn al-Quff is the most frequent user of endophoric
markers in the corpus, if we disregard al-Manāwī’s connective phrases, and the only author
whose style is similar to Ḥunayn’s style (and Galen’s), in this respect. Ibn al-Quff uses mostly
anaphoric references (24/10,000 words), and only refers ahead 4 times per 10,000 words. The
verb form he uses most frequently as part of an anaphoric reference is ḏakarnā, ‘we
&228
mentioned’, (5/10,000 words). Singular verb forms Ibn al-Quff uses as rarely as the other
authors. The singular form qultu, ‘I said’, for example, he uses to refer back to his previous
words in only five instances in his commentary.
A characteristic ‘Ibn al-Quff-phrase’ is the sentence kamā ʿarafta fīmā taqaddama ‘as
you learned in what has preceded’, with which he reminds students of what they have
previously read. It occurs 13 times in his commentary. Another endophoric marker typical to
Ibn al-Quff is the phrase (ʿalā) mā sa-taʿrifuhu, ‘according to what you will know’. It occurs
63 times in his commentary, of which only eight times with a place reference, such as ‘in what
follows’, or ‘in the second book’. The following is an example from Ibn al-Quff’s comment
on Aphorisms iv.29:
‫غير أن حركتها هذه لها أيام معلومة على ما ستعرفه عند ذكرنا أيام البحران في شرح قوله‬
.‫العرق يجمد في احملمومني إذا ابتدأ في اليوم الثالث أو اخلامس‬
Except that its movement [of innate heat into the body] occurs on specific days,
according to what you will learn when we will discuss the critical days in our
explanation of his [Hippocrates’] statement “sweat clots in warm people if it
begins on the third or fifth day”.
As a less frequent alternative to sa-taʿrifuhu, Ibn al-Quff uses sa-taʿlamu, which has the same
meaning, five times in his commentary. Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses a similar expression, satafhamuhū fīmā baʿdu, ‘you will understand it later’, twice in his commentary.
Quff is the only author to refer back with the phrase fī mā maḍā ‘in what preceded’,
though only 9 times in his commentary. More frequently, he refers to a preceding aphorism
with the phrase al-faṣlu l-māḍī, ‘the previous aphorism’, five times every 10,000 words. Ibn
ʾAbī Ṣādiq prefers al-faṣlu l-mutaqaddamu to refer to the previous aphorism, which also
regularly occurs in all other authors except an-Nīlī, and only once in Ḥunayn’s translation. We
have seen that Ḥunayn prefers al-faṣlu l-lāḏī qabluhū, while al-Baġdādī is unique in his use of
the adjective as-sābiq, which has the same meaning. Al-Baġdādī is also the only author to use
&229
(1/10,000 words) the phrase fīmā sabaqa, ‘in what preceded’, which uses a perfect tense of
the same root s-b-q.
6.5
Conclusion
We can identify certain important, largely conventional elements which most authors in the
corpus mention at the start of their commentaries. However, length varies greatly, as well as
the choice of the components that different authors include. Moreover, the differing attitudes
towards the eight introductory elements show a scientific format within the commentary
tradition that remained fluid despite attempts at standardisation and recognition of such
standards outside the corpus.
As to the opening of comments, there is a common tendency by authors to mark the
comment sections with certain phrases, such as qāla š-šāriḥu, and by scribes to put these
phrases in rubrics. However, not all authors use the same phrase, and there is no standard
format in this respect. Ibn al-Quff is the only author to divide his comments into buḥūṯ,
enquiries. Other authors do use methods such as enumeration to separate paragraphs. They
moreover use regular phrases such as fa-naqūlu, ‘we argue’, that introduce new topics, as well
as al-ǧawāb, ‘the reply’, to mark a reaction or counterargument. Epilogues are found only in
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, al-Baġdādī, and Ibn al-Quff. The first of these three follow a similar format in
their epilogues, but their number is too small to justify seeing this as a characteristic of the
commentary.
In terms of endophoric reference, we find a difference between Galen and most later
authors, except Ibn al-Quff and al-Manāwī. Especially Ibn al-Quff makes the same regular use
of endophoric markers as Ḥunayn does. However, most other authors do not use such markers
more than 10 times per 10,000 words. I have given a number of endophoric phrases Ḥunayn
&230
uses to translate Greek references, and that are unique to his translation. As a rule, anaphoric
reference is more frequent in the corpus than cataphoric reference. Ḥunayn’s translated
endophoric markers are unique compared to the later authors, and he uses a wider range of
these phrases.
&231
CHAPTER VII CONDITIONALS AND TEMPORALS
Science is a discourse which postulates causes in possible worlds
Smith and Frawley (1983, 371)
7.1
Introduction
This chapter analyses the form and function of conditional and temporal clauses in Galen’s
commentary and the corpus of Arabic commentaries. I show that the authors regularly use
conditionals to express truth statements, as well as to support their explanations and
arguments with suppositions and hypotheticals. The emphasis in this chapter lies on the
comparison of conditional conjunctions in Ḥunayn’s translation versus those in Galen’s
commentary. I also compare Ḥunayn’s use of conditionals with that in the corpus. I
concentrate on the function of clauses with ʾin and law, and the temporals ʾiḏa and matā,
which are the main conjunctions used in Ḥunayn’s translation of Greek conditionals.
At least two studies have analysed the use of conditionals in medical discourse. Both of
these focus on modern contemporary medical English; Carter-Thomas and Rowley-Jolivet
(2008) examined the function of if-conditionals in English medical discourse, and Gibson
Ferguson (2001) studied the occurrence of such sentences in a corpus of contemporary
English medical written language. Similar studies do not exist for medieval Arabic. In the past
decades, however, several works have been published on conditionals in Classical Arabic
generally. Ullmann (1998), for instance, has produced a monograph on the form and meaning
of law-sentences in Classical Arabic, while Naphtali Kinberg wrote a PhD thesis (1977) on
the hypothetical function of law. Endress and Gutas (1997), moreover, devote 28 pages to ʾin
&232
in their Greek-Arabic dictionary (GAlex). Yishai Peled’s monograph (1992) on conditional
structures in Classical Arabic, discusses the form and meaning of ʾin-, iḏā-, and law-clauses.
Finally, Gätje (1980) published an article on the semantics of conditional sentences in Arabic.
The present study contributes to the study of Arabic conditionals a pragmatic perspective on
the function of law, ʾiḏā, ʾin and matā within medieval medical discourse, as well as further
insight into the semantic value of ʾiḏā and matā. Besides the linguistic value of my analysis,
this study also provides valuable insight into Ḥunayn’s translation technique regarding
conditionals. Moreover, by studying the way Arabic authors rely on conditional sentences to
communicate knowledge-statements and to support their arguments, this chapter further
explores the rhetorical strategies employed in the corpus.
This chapter first provides a short introduction on conditional sentences and
conditionals in Arabic. I then, in section 7.2, give an overview of Greek conditionals and their
use in Galen’s commentary. In section 7.3, I discuss the Greek temporals in Galen’s
commentary, while in section 7.4 I discuss the function of conditionals and temporals in
Ḥunayn’s translation. Finally, in section 7.5 I compare Ḥunayn’s use of conditionals with the
conditional sentences in the Arabic corpus.
7.1.1
Theoretical Background: Conditionals and Temporals
Conditional sentences consist of a premise described in the subordinate clause or protasis, and
a result clause expressed in the main clause or apodosis. The possible relations between
protasis and apodosis are manifold; they include relations of cause, effect, and enablement (cf.
Ferguson 2001, Comrie 1986). Consequently, conditional sentences can have a large array of
functions within text. In this chapter, I will demonstrate some of these functions within the
medical commentary. Some complex sentences consisting of a temporal clause and a main
&233
clause express similar relations between a certain event x1 happening at a definite or indefinite
moment in time and a co-occurring event (consequence/cause) x2.
Many of the aphorisms are or contain general truth statements expressing a relation
between an event x1 and its resulting or accompanying event, or cause, x2. In Arabic, these are
sometimes expressed with a conditional sentence (with ʾin), and sometimes with a temporal
clause (with ʾiḏā or matā). These statements are contingencies, which the author believes to
be necessarily true, such as aphorism vi.22:
“If fear and anger happen to a person without an obvious reason, it is clear that
this happens to him because of melancholy.”
The protasis in this aphorism expresses a condition, which is then said to signify an
underlying cause in the main clause. Conditionals of this type in the corpus reflect the purpose
of the text to describe possible connections and logical relations in possible worlds.
In addition to the formulation of truth statements, the commentators also use
conditionals to support their explanations of aphorisms and other statements. For this purpose,
they typically use unreal conditions and hypotheticals, as Galen does in his comment on
aphorism i.1:
‫ذا‬²‫ه ه‬²‫بني ل‬²‫طال‬²‫ني ال‬²‫قع ب‬²‫ان ي‬²‫ا ك‬²‫ة مل‬²‫سهول‬²‫قّ ب‬²‫د احل‬²‫وج‬²‫كن أن ي‬²‫ان مي‬²‫و ك‬²‫ه ل‬²ّ‫ك أن‬²‫وذل‬
[.] ‫االختالف كلّه‬
For, if it were possible to find truth easily, this whole dispute would not
have fallen among its pursuers.
In both Greek and Arabic, different conditionals are used to express different relations
between protasis and apodosis, or different types of conditional sentence.
&234
7.1.2
Classical Arabic Conditionals
In Classical Arabic, conditional sentences are mainly expressed with law (if), and ʾin (if), and
temporal clauses introduced by ʾiḏā (when, if), matā (when) and kullamā (whenever). Both
ʾin and law have a distinct function, and Ullmann (1998, 15) writes that “if the state of affairs
(Sachverhalt) of a conditional sentence lies in the actual or possible world, Arabic uses the
conjunction ʾin”. In contrast, the main function of the conjunction law ‘if’ is used to introduce
protases in which the state of affairs (Sachverhalt) is hypothetical or unreal. Manfred Ullmann
(1998) has set out a number of other functions of law. For instance, he also shows that walaw, can mean ‘even though’ and introduce concessive structures (p.46). Furthermore, it can
function in sentences containing wishes (p.53), negated questions (p.56) and for certain types
of shame speech (p.60). Since Ullmann has taken his sample of law-sentences from a large
example of Classical Arabic literary texts, and the corpus under investigation at present
consists of medical texts, we should not expect to find all these functions of law in the
commentaries. I shall show below, that the law-sentences, which Ḥunayn uses in his
translation, mostly translate unreal conditions in the Greek with the conditional εἰ.
Endress (2012, 10) has demonstrated that in certain texts made among the circle of alKindi, the conjunction ʾin is used in a standard phrase ‘fa-ʾin kāna ḏālika ka-ḏālika fa-kāna’,
‘if this is the case, then…’ with a function of ‘validating a conclusion from established
premisses’. Similar phrases also occur in Ḥunayn’s translation, as I will show below.
Although the conjunction ʾiḏā is a temporal marker, it frequently seems to have a
function similar to ʾin in Ḥunayn’s translation. Ḥunayn uses both ʾin and ʾiḏā to translate the
Greek conditionals with ἢν. The grammarians Reckendorf (1921), Fischer (2002), and Wright
([1896] 2004) each classify ʾiḏā-sentences as temporal clauses or Zeitsätze separate from
conditional sentences or Bedingungssätze. Fischer (2002) writes that “‫‘ إذا‬then, when, if’
&235
begins temporal adverbial clauses with conditional implication” (235). Such clauses state an
“always possible fact” that “may occur once (‘as soon as’) or several times (‘as often
as’)” (235). Reckendorf (1921) has argued that “[d]as, was bei ‫ إذا‬unsicher bleibt, ist nur der
Zeitpunkt, nicht die Tatsächlichkeit des Ereignisses” (463), ‘what remains unsure in ʾiḏāsentences is the time and not the actuality of the event’. In other words, it is sure that a certain
result will happen when certain symptoms occur, but the moment in which these symptoms
will occur is not yet defined. In comparison, Yishai Peled (1992) writes that “ʾiḏā-sentences
very often express timeless statements signalling regular co-occurrence of two events” (25), in
the case of the Arabic aphorisms the occurrence of symptoms and the existence of an
underlying disease.
In contrast to ʾiḏā, the conjunction matā is more strictly temporal, but I show below that
both conjunctions are used in sentences with similar semantic functions.
The particle fa- is generally used as the apodosis introducer, ‘then’, to “separate the protasis
and apodosis of a conditional sentence, [or of a clause introduced by ‫] إذا‬, when the
conditional particle of the protasis either cannot exercise any influence upon the apodosis, or
is not required to do so” (Wright [1859] 2004, ii p.345).
7.2
Conditionals in Galen’s Commentary
Greek knows simple conditional sentences, general truth statements, unreal conditions, and
future conditions, as described in detail by Smyth (1956). Each of these conditionals is
expressed with its own form, which is shown in Table 7.1 (cf. Smyth, 1956).
Table 7.1
Type
Simple
Tense
Protasis
Apodosis
Present
εἰ + present or perfect
indicative
present or perfect indicative
&236
Past
εἰ + imperfect, aorist,
pluperfect
imperfect, aorist, pluperfect
Present
εἰ + imperfect indicative
ἀν + imperfect indicative
Past
εἰ + aorist or imperfect
indicative
ἀν + aorist or imperfect
indicative
Present
ἐαν + subjunctive
present indicative
Past
εἰ + optative
imperfect indicative
More vivid
Future
ἐαν + subjunctive
future indicative
Emotional
Future
εἰ + future
future indicative
Less vivid
Future
εἰ + optative
ἀν + optative
Unreal
General truth
I will now treat the use of each of these conditionals in Galen’s commentary.
7.2.1
Simple Present and Past Conditional Sentences
Simple conditions are a type of neutral conditional sentences which express conditions
without expressing whether they are plausible or implausible to be fulfilled (cf. Smyth 1956,
516). According to Smyth (1956, 517), “[i]n these conditions something is supposed to be true
only in order to draw the consequence that something else is true”. Simple conditions in the
present have εἰ with a present or perfect indicative in the protasis, and a present or perfect
indicative (or any other appropriate simple sentence form) in the apodosis. Past simple
conditions have εἰ with an imperfect, aorist or pluperfect indicative in the protasis, and an
imperfect, aorist, or pluperfect indicative in the apodosis.
Moreover, when εἰ is followed by τις, ‘someone’, and the apodosis contains a present
indicative, “the simple condition has a double meaning referring both to an individual case
and to a rule of action” (Smyth 1956, 517). These conditions with present indicative in the
protasis are rare in Galen’s commentary, but do occur. For instance, in the following sentence
from Galen’s comment on the first aphorism in book I:
&237
τὴν κρίσιν δὲ, εἰ µὲν, ὡς ἐγώ φηµι, τὸν λόγον ἀκούει τις, εὔδηλον δή που τὸ
χαλεπώτατον αὐτοῦ µέχρι τήµερον ἔτ’ ἀµφισβητούµενον· (Kühn 17b.347)
As to [the word] κρίσιν, if someone understands the aphorism the way I say it,
it is clear that it is possibly the most difficult [word] of it [the aphorism], since
it is subject of dispute until today.
Ḥunayn translates this instance of εἰ with ʾin:
‫فأمّا القضاء فإن فهم منه ما قد فهمت أنّه يعني به القياس فصعوبته بيّنة إذا كان االختالف‬
.‫فيه باقياً في سالف الدهر إلى هذه الغاية‬
As to [the word] ‘judgement’, if it is understood as I have understood it, that he
means ‘the measuring’, its difficulty is clear, since the dispute regarding it lasts
from the old days until now.
Galen does regularly use {εἰ + present indicative} in the protasis with a future indicative in
the apodosis, as in the following example from his comment on aphorism i.4.
εἰ γὰρ ἤτοι φυλάττειν αὐτὴν οἵαν παρελάβοµεν ἐν τούτοις ἢ προσαύξειν ἀεὶ
σπεύδοµεν, αὐξήσοµεν τὴν νόσον. (Kühn 17b.368)
For, if we always hasten to keep it just as we received it in the case of these
[acute diseases], or increase it, we will increase the disease.
In Arabic, the future indicative in the apodosis is translated with a perfect verb, zidnā,
literally ‘we increased’, but to be translated with ‘we increase’. Ḥunayn uses the
conditional ʾin to translate εἰ in this function:
‫ألنّا إن قصدنا دائماً حلفظها على احلال التي وجدناها عليها في األمراض احلادّة أو الزيادة‬
.‫ زدنا في املرض‬،‫فيها‬
For, we, if we always intend to preserve it in the condition in which we found
it, in the case of acute diseases, or [increase it to] more than that, we increase
the disease.
7.2.2
General Truth Statements
General truth conditions are an important format for the formulation of truth statements in
Galen’s commentary. These statements, if ever their conditions is fulfilled, present general
&238
truths. In Greek typically these conditions consist of {ἐάν (ἤν, ἄν) + subjunctive} in the
protasis and the present indicative in the apodosis, (Smyth 1956, 528). Galen uses this
form, {ἐάν + present subjunctive} (here: φοβῆταί, δυσθυµῇ), in the following sentence
from his comment on aphorism vi.22:
Ἐὰν µὴ διά τινας φανερὰς αἰτίας φοβῆταί τις ἢ δυσθυµῇ φανερῶς ἐστι
µελαγχολικὰ. (Kühn 18.35.14)
If someone is afraid for no obvious reasons, or angry, it is clearly melancholia.
Ḥunayn translates ἐάν in this instance with the temporal matā ‘when’, to reflect the
‘whenever’ sense which the Greek ἐάν-sentence expresses.
‫ فاألمر فيه بني أنّ ما عرض له‬،‫متى عرض إلنسان تفزّع وخبث نفس من غير سبب ظاهر‬
.‫من ذلك إمنّا هو من طريق الوسواس السوداوي‬
When fear and bad spirit happen to a person without an obvious reason, it is
clear that this happens to him because of melancholy.
In other instances, Ḥunayn translates this type of sentence with ʾiḏā, as he does in the
following sentence from the comment on aphorism i.24:
ἔστι δὲ ἡ ὠφέλεια µείζων, ἐὰν ἀλύπως τε καὶ πᾶς ὁ βλάπτων καὶ λυπῶν
ἐκκενωθῇ χυµός.
.‫وإمنّا يكون االنتفاع أكثر إذا استفرغ الكيموس الضارّ كلّه بال أذي‬
The benefit is greater, when all of the harmful [Greek: and hurting] humour is
purged without pain.
In addition to ἐάν, Galen also uses {ἠν + subjunctive}, as in his comment on aphorism ii.1.
This is a present general condition, where the author expresses a condition, in the protasis, the
implication of which, given in the apodosis, holds true at any moment this condition is
fulfilled: whenever sleep is beneficial, it is not deadly. Ḥunayn translates this case with ʾiḏā.
φησὶ γὰρ, ἢν δ’ ὕπνος ὠφελέῃ, οὐ θανάσιµον. (Kühn 17b.451.6)
.‫ إذا كان النوم ينفع فليس ذلك من عالمات املوت‬،‫وذلك أنّه قال‬
&239
For he says, if sleep benefits, it is not deadly [Arabic: a sign of death].
Besides {ἐάν/ἠν + subjunctive}, Gales also expresses general statements with {εἰ + optative}
in the protasis, followed by an indicative present or a future indicative in the apodosis (cf.
Smyth 1956, p.535). An example of this is found in his comment on aphorism i.12. Galen
here describes a situation, namely the spitting out of food with a certain colour, and its
accompanying situation, namely a faint digestion, as in the first sentence, or a good situation,
as in the second sentence:
εἰ δὲ πτύοιτο µέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ λεπτὸν εἴη ἔτι, πέψεως ἀµυδρᾶς ἐστι σηµεῖον. εἰ δὲ
ἄκρατον εἴη ἢ ξανθὸν ἢ πυῤῥὸν, οὐκ ἀγαθόν. (Kühn 17b.395)
If, on the one hand, he [the patient] spits [the food] out, but it is still light, it is
a sign of a faint digestion. But, if it is unmixed, or yellow, or tawny, it is not
good.
Ḥunayn translates this with the conjunction ʾin:
‫فإن نفث املريض شيئاً لكنّه رقيق بعد كان ذلك عالمة تدلّ على أنّ النضج ضعيف‬
‫ فإن كان ما ينفث خالصاً وكان لونه اللون األحمر الناصع أو اللون األصفر املشبّع‬.‫خفيف‬
.‫فليس مبحمود‬
If the patient spits something out, but it is soft after that, it is a sign that the
digestion is weak and light. But, if what he spits out is pure, and its colour is
bright red or satiated yellow, it is not a good sign.
7.2.3
Unreal Conditions
In Greek, unreal conditional sentences state a premise in the protasis which is unreal, because
it is impossible to be realised in present or future time, in the case of a present unreal
condition, or because it did or could not happen in past time, in the case of a past unreal
condition. In these sentences, the apodosis expresses the hypothetical result of the premise if
the premise held now or had held in the past. Unreal conditions have εἰ in the protasis
followed by an imperfect or aorist indicative, and aorist or imperfect indicative with ἂν in the
apodosis. Ḥunayn translates this use of εἰ with the conjunction law. An example of such a
&240
conditional is found in Galen’s comment on aphorism i.12. Galen here describes the progress
of a certain disease and the days it lasted, pointing out when the crisis occurred and when the
disease was cured. He then uses an unreal condition to state a supposed situation in which the
disease would have taken a different course. To express this unreal condition, Galen uses {εἰ +
aorist indicative} in the protasis, and aorist indicative in the apodosis. To translate this,
Ḥunayn uses {law + perfect} in the protasis, followed by a perfect tense verb in the apodosis,
marked with la-qad.
εἰ δὲ πρὸ τῆς γʹ ἡµέρας ἔπτυσεν, ἤτοι περὶ τὴν ζʹ ἢ τὸν θʹ ἢ πάντως γε τὴν ιαʹ
ἐκρίθη. (Kühn 17b.393.15)
‫يوم‬²‫ي ال‬²‫ران ف‬²‫يه البح‬²‫يأت‬²‫ان س‬²‫قد ك‬²‫ام ل‬²ّ‫ة أي‬²‫الث‬²‫ه ث‬²‫رض‬²‫ي م‬²‫ليه ف‬²‫ي ع‬²‫أت‬²‫بل أن ي‬²‫ذف ق‬²‫ان ق‬²‫و ك‬²‫ول‬
.‫السابع أو في التاسع وأقصاه في اليوم احلادي عشر‬
If he would have spit something up before the third day, surely he would have
had his crisis on the seventh or the ninth or by all means around the eleventh.
Galen also regularly uses unreal conditions to reflect on the way Hippocrates could have
formulated his words, and thus explain his actual words. For instance:
Τὸ μὴ παντάπασιν ἐπιπολαίως διορισμοῦ χάριν ὁ Ἱπποκράτης
προσέθηκε. εἰ γὰρ ἁπλῶς εἴρητο, τῶν πυρεσσόντων τὸ διαμένειν καὶ
μηδὲν ἐνδιδόναι τὸ σῶμα, μοχθηρὸν ὑπάρχειν, οὐκ ἂν ἦν ἀληθὴς ὁ
λόγος. (Κühn 17b.517.5)
‫ ألنّه لو أطلق القول فقال‬،ً‫إنّ أبقراط إمنّا اشترط هذه الشريطة فقال ليست بالضعيفة جدّا‬
‫من كانت به حمّى فأن يبقى بدنه على حاله ولم ينقص شيء رديء ملا كان هذا القول‬
.ً‫حقّا‬
Hippocrates added this condition [to his statement], saying ‘not in the very
weak’, because, if he had[Greek: simply] formulated his statement saying “the
body of he who has a fever, remains as it is and nothing bad will go out of it’,
this statement would not have been true.
&241
Galen occasionally uses the the conjunction εἴπερ, the emphatic version of εἰ, + imperfect to
formulate unreal conditions. Ḥunayn translates εἴπερ with law in 6 out of the 29 times εἴπερ
occurs in Galen’s commentary, such as here in an unreal condition in the comment on
aphorism i.1:
οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἴπερ οἷόν τ’ ἦν ῥᾳδίως εὑρεθῆναι τὸ ἀληθὲς, εἰς τοσοῦτον
ἧκον ἀντιλογίας ἀλλήλοις οἱ ζητήσαντες αὐτὸ[.] (Kühn 17b.354.8)
For, if it were easy to find truth, those seeking it would not have come to this
dispute with each other.
‫وذلك أنّه لو كان ميكن أن يوجد احلقّ بسهولة ملا كان يقع بني الطالبني له هذا االختالف‬
[.] ‫كلّه‬
For, if it was possible to find truth easily, this whole dispute would not have
taken place among its pursuers.
To formulate hypothetical comparisons, Galen uses ὡς εἰ ‘as if’ (24 times in his commentary),
which Ḥunayn’s translates with kamā law. Ḥunayn uses this phrase nine times in his
commentary and four times to say kamā law qāla, to translate Greek ὡς εἰ καὶ οὕτως εἶπεν, or
a variant. In the following example from the comment on the first aphorism, Galen introduces
what Hippocrates could have said, but did not say, with an ‘as if’- clause using ὡς εἰ which
Ḥunayn translates with kamā law:
ὡς εἰ καὶ οὕτως ἔλεγεν, ὁ βίος βραχὺς, ἡ δὲ τεχνὴ μακρὰ, ὅτι ὁ καιρὸς
καὶ ἡ πεῖρα σφαλερὴ καὶ ἡ κρίσις χαλεπή. (Kühn 17b.353.1)
.‫كما لو قال العمر قصير والصناعة طويلة ألنّ الوقت ضيق والتجربة خطر والقضاء عسر‬
As if he said “life is short and art is long because time is short and experience
perilous and judgment difficult”.
&242
However, Ḥunayn does not translate every instant of ὡς εἰ with kamā law. Sometimes he
merely translates this with law, and sometimes with kaʾanna. Moreover, not every kamā
law-construction translates ὡς εἰ, sometimes it translates just εἰ.
7.2.4
More vivid future
There are three types of future conditions in Greek. The more vivid future, the emotive future,
and the less vivid future. The so-called ‘more vivid future’ differs from the less vivid future
not so much in meaning but in “temperament, tone, or style” (Smyth 1956, 523). In
comparison, consider the two English sentences ‘if you call me, I will pick up” and “should
person x call me, I would pick up”. In the case of the more vivid future the condition being
fulfilled seems to be presented as slightly more plausible. Smyth argues that the more vivid
future is “used whenever the speaker clearly desires to be graphic, impressive, emphatic, and
to anticipate a future result with the distinctness of the present” (1956, 523). It normally takes
the form {ἐάν + subjunctive} followed by an apodosis with a future indicative.
Galen uses a conditional sentence of this kind at the beginning of his comment on
aphorism ii.2. In the protasis in this sentence, he uses {ἐάν + aorist subjunctive(εἴπωµεν)},
while in the apodosis he uses a future indicative (γενήσεται). Here, the use of the aorist
subjunctive marks the completion of action in the protasis, speaking, before the status
described in the apodosis, the aphorism becoming one, begins.
Ἐὰν ἐφεξῆς ἀλλήλων εἴπωµεν ἀµφοτέρους τοὺς ἀφορισµοὺς, τοῦτόν τε καὶ τὸν
προειρηµένον, ὅλος ὁ λόγος γενήσεται τοιοῦτος· (Kühn 456.4)
If we say both aphorisms, this one and the one before [it], one directly after the
other, the whole aphorism will become like this:[…]
Ḥunayn translates this particular example with the conditional ʾin and perfect tense verb
forms in both protasis and apodosis:
&243
‫إن أضفنا هذا الفصل إلى الفصل الذي قبله وقلناهما على الوالء صار قوالً واحداً على هذا‬
:‫املثال‬
If we add this aphorism to the aphorism before it, and we say it in one
sequence, it becomes one statement like this:[…]
A present subjunctive in the apodosis expresses a continuous act. Galen uses this form, {ἐάν +
present subjunctive (ποιεῖται) + future indicative (εὑρήσει)}, in his comment on aphorism ii.
23:
ἐὰν οὖν τις, ὡς εἴρηκα, τὴν τήρησιν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀῤῥώστων ποιεῖται, πάντα
εὑρήσει τὰ δι’ ὅλων τοῖν δυοῖν ἑβδοµάδοιν ὀξέως κινηθέντα, µηδέπω
ἐξωτέρω προερχόµενα. (Kühn 17b.509.16)
If someone, as I said, watches those who are unwell, he will find that all the
[diseases] that develop quickly for two complete weeks do not as yet last
beyond that.
The present subjunctive ποιεῖται, ‘he does’, here expresses an action that continues while the
action of finding (εὑρήσει) takes place. This instance of ἐάν Ḥunayn also translates with ʾin
with two perfect senses. His choice of Arabic tenses does not reflect the difference between
the Greek aorist subjunctive (in the previous example) and present subjunctive:
‫وإن تفقّد متفقّد كما وصفت أمر املرض وجد جميع األمراض التي تكون حركتها‬
.‫أسبوعني متّصلني حركة حدّة وسرعة ال جتاوزهما في حال من األحوال حتّى تنقضي‬
If someone observes, as I described, the case of diseases, he finds that each
disease which develops intensely and fast for two succeeding weeks, does
not last beyond that in any case.
7.2.5
Emotive Future
When εἰ is used with a future indicative in the protasis, and is followed by a future indicative
in the apodosis, this expresses a conditional sentence called an emotive future condition (cf.
Smyth, 525). These conditions often express an undesired condition followed by a warning or
&244
threat, but not always. In his comment on aphorism i.15, Galen uses such a conditional to
make a strong appeal to the reader’s imagination in order to make his point. His involvement
with his statement is here not only shown by the type of condition he uses, but also by his use
of the personal form οἶµαι, ‘I think’, which places emphasis on himself.
εἰ γὰρ ἐννοήσεις ὡς ὀλίγαιµόν τε καὶ ἰσχνὸν τὸ σῶµα ἡµῶν παρὰ τοῦ
φθινοπώρου διαδεχόµενος ὁ χειµὼν εὔχυµόν τε καὶ παχύτερον ἀπεργάζεται,
γνωρίσεις, οἶµαι, τὴν ῥώµην τῆς διοικούσης ἡµᾶς δυνάµεως, ἥτις ἐστὶ τὸ
ἔµφυτον θερµόν. (Kühn 17b.422.14)
For if you consider how scant of blood and lean our body is in autumn, [and
how], when winter succeeds, it makes it well-humoured and thicker, you will
discover, I think, the strength of the power that governs us, which is the natural
heat.
Ḥunayn translates this sentence using ʾin. Note that he does not translate the first person
singular οἶµαι:
‫وإن تفقّدت حال البدن في قلّة دمه في اخلريف وقضفه فإذ أتى عليه الشتاء كثر فيه‬
‫ وتلك‬،‫ علمت أنّ القوّة التي بها يكون تدبير الغذاء تقوى في الشتاء‬،‫الدم وأخصب‬
.‫القوّة هي احلرارة الغريزية‬
If you consider how scant of blood and lean the body is in autumn, and how if
winter falls upon it, the body increases its blood and becomes stronger, you
will know that the strength through which food operates becomes stronger in
winter, and this strength is the natural heat.
7.2.6
Less Vivid Future
The less vivid future is a conditional sentence, in which the speaker expresses, according to
Smyth (1956, 523) “suppositions less distinctly conceived and of less immediate concern to
the speaker, mere assumed or imaginary cases.” These type of conditionals have {εἰ + present
or aorist optative} in the protasis, and {ἀν + optative} in the apodosis. However, sentences in
Galen’s text do not always follow this structure. In the following example from Galen’s
&245
comment on aphorism i.2., Galen uses {εἰ + present optative} in the protasis, but a present
imperative in the apodosis to express a ‘less vivid future’.
οὕτως οὖν εἰ καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἰατροῦ κένωσίς τις ἐπιτηδεύοιτο, τῶν λυπούντων αὕτη
γιγνέσθω, καθάπερ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις παρακελεύεται τὸν λυποῦντα συµβουλεύων
κενοῦν χυµὸν καὶ µὴ ἄλλον τινὰ πρὸ αὐτοῦ. (Kühn 17b. 358)
Likewise then, if some sort of purging is performed by a doctor, let it be of the
things causing pain, as he [Hippocrates] also commands in other places, when he
advises to purge the fluid that causes pain, and not another instead of it.
The state of affairs expressed in this sentence, of a doctor wanting to purge, may and is likely
to occur, but Galen primarily supposes an imaginary situation, to explain what type of fluids
must be purged in the case of a purging. Ḥunayn translates this using ʾin, with a perfect tense
verb in the protasis and a jussive in the apodosis.
‫وكذلك أيضاً إن التمس الطبيب للبدن استفراغاً ما فليكن لالشياء املؤذية كالذي أمر به‬
.‫في مواضع أخر أن يستفرغ الكيموس الذي يؤذي ال غيره‬
Likewise also, if a doctor seeks to purge a body in some way, let it be [a
purging] of the harmful things, as that which [Hippocrates] commanded in
other places; that the harmful fluid must be purged and nothing else.
7.2.7
Summary Conditionals
I shall presently give a brief overview of each conjunction, their frequency, and how Ḥunayn
translates them, before going on to the Greek temporals in Galen’s commentary and their
Arabic translation.
The conjunction εἰ is the most common conditional in Galen’s commentary, occurring
402 times. As described above, and shown in Table 7.1, it can be used for nearly all types of
conditional clauses, from present and past simple and unreal conditions, to past general
&246
conditions and future emotional and less vivid conditions. Ḥunayn translates each of these
functions and forms differently. In a sample of 45 instances, Ḥunayn translates εἰ 32 times
with ʾin, 4 times with law, three times with ʾiḏā, and the rest without marker. Ḥunayn uses ʾin
to translate different types of εἰ sentences, for example both emotive and less vivid future
conditionals, and simple present conditions, of which I gave examples above. He also
sometimes uses ʾin to translate εἰ-clauses which express general truth statements. Ḥunayn
translates those εἰ-sentences with law, which express unreal conditions, about which more
below.
In a small number of instances (3/45), εἰ is translated with ʾiḏā. All of these instances
however, occur in the same sentence, from the comment on aphorism i.12. This is a rather
long sentence, of which I give a brief extract. It has {εἰ + subjunctive} in the protasis, without
ἀν, and a future indicative in the apodosis, qualifying this sentence as a more vivid future
condition.
ταῦτα καὶ ἡ κρᾶσις τοῦ νοσοῦντος, εἰ φύσει θερµοτέρα καὶ ξηροτέρα ᾖ […]
συνενδείξεται . (Kühn 17b.386.11)
The temperament of the patient also indicates these things, if he be very
warm and dry in nature.
Ḥunayn reverses the sandwiched structure of Galen’s sentence:
.ً‫ إذا كان حارًّا يابسا‬،ً‫قد يدلّ عليه مزاج املريض أيضا‬
And the mixture of the patient indicates this too, when it is hot and dry.
The conjunction εἴπερ is the emphatic version of εἰ, ‘if really’. It is also used with a causal sense
‘to imply that the supposition agrees with the fact’, to be translated with ‘if’, or even
‘since’ (Liddell, Scott and Jones, page 485). Smyth (505) also writes that εἴ and εἴπερ, when they
‘express the real opinion of the writer or speaker, may have a causal force’. However, if used with
imperfect, it expresses an unreal condition. ‘Εἴπερ’ occurs 29 times in Galen’s commentary.
&247
Ḥunayn translates each function with what he deems appropriate, using ʾin ten times, law six, ʾiḏā
five times, ʾiḏ twice, and lamā once. In four instances, Ḥunayn does not translate εἴπερ. For
conditions where the condition is believed by the author to be true ( and by the translator too),
Ḥunayn uses ʾin. Such instances of εἴπερ can have a causal force, although causality is not a typical
function of ʾin. For example in the comment on aphorism vi.12:
εἴπερ οὖν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμασίας γεννᾶται τὸ αἷμα, πρόδηλον ὡς
οὐκέτι γεννηθήσεται σβεννυμένης αὐτῆς, ὁ δὲ ὕδερος ἀποτυχίᾳ τῆς
αἱματώσεως γίνεται. (Kühn 18a.22.9)
‫فإن كان الدم إمنّا يتولّد من احلرارة الغريزية فبني أنّ تلك احلرارة إذا طفئت لم يتولّد‬
.‫ واالستسقاء إمنّا يكون إذا بطل تولّد الدم‬،‫الدم‬
If [since] then blood originates from the natural heat, it is clear that just as
when the heat dies down blood does not originate, dropsy occurs when blood
stops originating.
In one case in the comment on aphorism vi.57, Ḥunayn emphasises a causal relation between the
premise and the result clause, and translates εἴπερ with ḥattā, ‘so that’:
εἴπερ οὖν ἀληθὴς ὁ λόγος ἔσεσθαι μέλλοι, συναπτέον αὐτὸν τῷ κατὰ τὸν
προειρημένον ἀφορισμὸν. (Kühn 18a.96.10)
If this passage were to be true, one must unite it with the aphorism mentioned
before.
.ً‫ينبغي أن يوصل هذا القول بالقول الذي تقدّم حتّى يكون صحيحاً صادقا‬
This aphorism must be united with the one that preceded so that it will be
correct and true.
Galen uses both the forms ἢν and ἐὰν which are different forms of the contraction {εἰ + ἀν}.
He prefers to use ἢν, which occurs 232 times in his commentary, (of which 133 times in
lemmata), to ἐάν, which he uses less than half than that, 93 times in his commentary. They are
used for present tense general truth statements and more vivid future conditions. Out of a
sample of 30 ἢν-sentences, Ḥunayn translates 17 with ʾin, 12 with ʾiḏā, and one with matā.
&248
Similarly, out of a sample of 30 ἐάν-sentences, Ḥunayn translates 17 times with ʾin, six times
with ʾiḏā, and three with matā. He leaves it untranslated four times.
Analysing 50 ʾin-clauses from the lemmata and Book I, I found only one instance where
ʾin translates ἐάν. However, when analysing the translation of 50 ἐάν-sentences throughout
the commentary, I found that Ḥunayn regularly (24/50) uses ʾin to translate ἐάν. This shows
that, while working with small samples, for a full picture ideally one would look at all
instances in the text. Some parts of the text may show certain uses of conditionals because of
a certain subject, a certain author or other reasons. However, the scope of this chapter only
allows to look at smaller samples.
7.3
Temporals
Galen uses more temporal clauses than Ḥunayn. Many of his conjunctions Ḥunayn translates
with ʾiḏā or otherwise interprets as conditionals. This is seems to reflect a tendency of Greek
to use temporals where other languages use conditionals. Smyth has argued for example that
Greek uses temporal conjunctions in places where English would use a conditional clause (cf.
Smyth 1956, 540). I shall give an overview of the temporal Greek conjunctions which
Ḥunayn renders with conditionals.
7.3.1
Ὅταν
Besides conditionals Galen also uses the temporal conjunction ὅταν (ὅτε ἄν) with subjunctive
to express the occurrence of certain symptoms and their implications. These clauses, which
occur are 251 times in Galen’s commentary, are indefinite in the sense of the moment in time
in which they happen, and the number of times they happen (cf. Smyth 541). Ḥunayn tends to
translate them mostly with ʾiḏā (17/30), about which more below, and only twice in the same
sample with the temporal matā.
&249
Galen uses a temporal clause instead of a truth conditional for instance in his comment
on aphorism vii.12. The use of a temporal in both Greek and Arabic seems to emphasise that
the statement (steam fills the head) is a truth that holds at any moment in time, whenever the
condition is fulfilled (a lung infection happening due to a hot humour):
Ὅταν ὑπὸ θερµοῦ χυµοῦ περιπνευµονία, πολλοὺς ἀτµοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν
ἀναπέµπουσα πληροῖ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἀτµῶν καὶ φρενῖτιν ἐργάζεται. (Kühn 18a.
112.17)
When a lung infection [happens] due to a hot humour, it fills up the head with
steam by sending a lot of steam to the head, and causes phrenitis.
‫إذا كانت ذات الرئة من خلط حارّ ارتفع منه إلى الرأس بخار كثير فيمأل ذلك البخار‬
.‫الدماغ ويحدث البرسام‬
When a lung infection happens due to a hot humour, a lot of steam will rise to
the head, and that steam will fill the brain and cause phrenitis.
7.3.2
Ἐπεί
The conjunction ἐπεί can have both a temporal and a causal meaning. It occurs 19
times in Galen’s commentary, with a temporal meaning in about eight of these, and
with a causal meaning in the remaining instances. Ḥunayn uses ʾiḏā, lammā and walaw to render the temporal meaning. He uses lammā in the following translation from
the comment on iii.13:
ἐπεὶ δ’ ὅλον τὸ φθινόπωρον ἠκολούθησε τοιοῦτον, ἀναγκαῖον ἔσται τοῖς
ὑγροτέραν ἔχουσι τὴν φύσιν ἱκανώτερον τοῦ µετρίου πληρωθείσης τῆς
κεφαλῆς ἀπαντῆσαι κατὰ τὸν χειµῶνα τὰ προειρηµένα νοσήµατα. (Kühn 17b.
593.2)
But when the whole autumn followed this [condition], it will be necessary for
those who have a more moist nature, when their head becomes moderately
congested, to encounter in winter the diseases that were mentioned previously.
&250
‫إالّ أنّه ملّا كان اخلريف كلّه على تلك احلال وجب ضرورة أن يعرض ملن كانت طبيعته رطبة‬
.‫أن يحدث له في رأسه امتالء فتكون من ذلك االمتالء األعراض التي تقدّمنا بذكرها‬
Except, when all of autumn has been of such a condition, the head of those
with a moist nature must necessarily become congested, and when it does, the
diseases we mentioned previously will occur.
7.3.3
Ἐπήν
The conjunction ἐπήν, a contraction of ἐπεὶ and ἂν, occurs nine times in Galen’s commentary,
six of these times in the lemmata. According to Smyth, {ἐπεί + ἂν indefinite} expresses a
temporal clause which denotes a “time usually prior to that of the principal verb” in the
sentence. Ḥunayn translates ἐπήν five times with ʾiḏā and twice with matā. In one instance,
the Arabic translation is not available. Galen uses ἐπήν to describe various sorts of conditions;
both bodily conditions and their implications; and wishes, followed by commands in the
apodosis, as in aphorism iv.15:
Ἐπὴν βούλει µᾶλλον ἄγειν τὸν ἐλλέβορον, κίνει τὸ σῶµα. ἐπὴν δὲ
παῦσαι, ὕπνον ποίει καὶ µὴ κίνει.
When you wish to move the hellebore more, move the body. When [you
wish] to stop [it], induce sleep and do not move [it].
‫ وإذا أردت أن تسكنه فنوّم‬،‫إذا أردت أن يكون استفراغ اخلربق أكثر فحرّك البدن‬
.‫الشارب له وال حترّكه‬
If you want to purge the hellebore more, move the body, and if you want
to stop it, put the drinker of it to sleep and do not move him.
However, a similar ‘if you want’ clause is expressed by ἢν in aphorism v.41, while ἐπήν here
is used to describe a temporal clause “when she is about to sleep”. Ḥunayn translates the
former with ʾin, and the latter with ʾiḏā:
&251
Γυναῖκα ἢν θέλῃς εἰδέναι εἰ κύει, ἐπὴν καθεύδειν µέλλῃ, µελίκρητον δίδου
πίειν, κἢν µὲν στρόφον ἔχῃ περὶ τὴν γαστέρα, κύει, εἰ δὲ µὴ, οὐ κύει. (Kühn
17b.833.13)
If you want to know whether a woman is pregnant, when she is about to sleep,
give her hydromel to drink; and if she has colics in her stomach, she is
pregnant, if not, she is not pregnant.
‫ فإن أصابها‬،‫إن أحببت أن تعلم هل املرأة حامل أم ال فاسقها إذا ارادت النوم ماء العسل‬
.‫ وإن لم يصبها مغص فليست حامل‬،‫مغص في بطنها فهي حامل‬
If you want to know whether a woman is pregnant or not, give her, when she
wants to go to sleep, hydromel to drink, and if she gets cramps in her stomach,
she is pregnant, and if she does not get cramps, she is not pregnant.
7.3.4
Ἐπειδή
Ἐπειδή is the most frequently occurring temporal conjunction in Galen’s commentary (67
times). It is a variant form of ἐπεί with a more strictly temporal meaning (Liddell, Scott, and
Jones 1940, 613), however Galen also uses it causally. Out of a sample of 25 instances,
Ḥunayn interprets ten as causal, translating these instances of ἐπειδή with liʾanna (7), ʾiḏā (1),
ʾiḏ (2), and wa-ḏālika ʾanna (1). When this conjunction has a temporal meaning, Ḥunayn
tends to translate it with lammā (11/25).
7.3.5
Ἐπειδάν
More strictly temporal is {ἐπειδάν (ἐπειδὴ + ἄν) + subjunctive}. It occurs 32 times in Galen’s
commentary. Galen mostly uses this conjunction to introduce a temporal clause describing a
certain condition in the body accompanied by a main clause expressing the results of this
condition. Ḥunayn mostly translates ἐπειδάν with the conjunction ʾiḏā (21/30). The following
sentence is a passage from Galen’s comment on aphorism iii.14. He uses ἐπειδάν here not to
refer to a bodily condition as he usually does, but to his own future actions. However, even
here Ḥunayn uses ʾiḏā:
&252
ἐροῦµεν δ’ ἐπὶ πλέον ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, ἐπειδὰν ἐξηγησώµεθα τό τε περὶ τῶν
ὑδάτων καὶ ἀέρων καὶ τόπων σύγγραµµα καὶ τὸ πρῶτον τῶν ἐπιδηµιῶν.
(Kühn 17b.597.8)
We will speak more about these things, when we will comment on the book
On Waters, Airs, Places and the first one Epidemics.
‫وسنتكلّم فيها كالماً أوسع من هذا إذا صرنا إلى تفسير كتاب املاء والهواء واملواضع‬
.‫وكتاب أفيدمييا‬
We will talk about it with more words than this, when we start to comment
on the Book of Water, Air and Places, and the Book of Epidemics.
Ḥunayn only translates ἐπειδάν with the temporal matā four times. Besides this, he translates
it with ʾin twice, with ṯumma and baʿda once, and leaves it untranslated three times.
7.3.6
Ὅκου
Ὅκου is an Ionic form of the relative ὅπου with primarily a meaning of place rather than time.
It can be translated with ‘where’. However, sometimes this ‘strict local sense passes into a
sense involving time’, according to Liddell, Scott and Jones (1940, pp.1241-1242). It occurs
28 times in Galen’s commentary, and is interpreted temporally 21 times in the Arabic
translation. Ḥunayn translates it mostly with matā (10 times), and ʾiḏā (7 times). He once uses
kullamā, ‘whenever’, and rubbamā, ‘sometimes’, to translate ὅκου. He also twice renders
ὅκου with the relative ḥayṯu, which primarily means ‘where’, but can also mean ‘since’. An
example of a translation with matā is found in the translation of the second aphorism in book
II, which reads as follows:
Ὅκου παραφροσύνην ὕπνος παύει, ἀγαθόν. (Kühn17b.456.2)
When sleep stops a delirium, it is good.
.‫متى سكّن النوم اختالط الذهن فتلك عالمة صاحلة‬
When sleep stops a delirium, it is a good sign.
Ὅκου also occurs with {ἄν + subjunctive}, with an indefinite meaning, as in aphorism ii.9:
&253
Τὰ σώµατα χρὴ ὅκου ἄν τις βούληται καθαίρειν, εὔροα ποιέειν.
Bodies, whenever someone wants to purge them, he must make it flow
easily.
Ḥunayn translates this aphorism without using a temporal clause, as he does five times in total
when translating clauses with ὅκου:
.‫كلّ بدن تريد تنقيته فينبغي أن جتعل ما تريد إخراجه منه يجري فيه بسهولة‬
In the case of each body you want to purge, you must make that which you
want to remove from it flow easily.
7.3.7
Ἡνίκα
Ἡνίκα is an adverb of time to be translated with ‘(at the time) when’. Galen uses it 16 times
to refer to other places in the commentary, mostly in phrases such as ‘when/where we said’.
Ḥunayn most of these instances translates with relative clauses introduced by al-lāḏī ‘he
who’, or ḥayṯu, ‘where’. However, he does translate three instances of ἡνίκα with ʾiḏā, and
one with lammā. He does so for example in his translation of the comment on aphorism i.14:
ἡνίκα µὲν ὑγρὰ καὶ ἀερώδης ἐστὶν ἡ οὐσία, καὶ τὸ ἀποῤῥέον αὐτῆς ἀτµῶδές
ἐστι καὶ ἡδύ· (Kühn 17b.409.2)
When the essence is moist and airy, then what flows out of it is also vaporous
and pleasant.
.ً‫ كان الذي يتحلّل منه أيضاً بخارياً لذيذا‬،ً‫فإذا كان ذلك اجلوهر رطباً هوائيا‬
When that essence is moist and airy, then what dissolves from it is also
vaporous and pleasant.
7.4
Other Conditionals Sentences in Ḥunayn’s Translation
I have discussed the instances in which Ḥunayn’s conditionals translate Greek conditionals or
temporals. In Table 7.2, I have schematised which Arabic conditionals translate which Greek
conditionals and temporals. In this table, one can clearly see that ʾiḏā has a very rich semantic
&254
range, whereas Ḥunayn uses matā, ʾin and law for more specific purposes.
Table 7.2
ʾiḏā
matā
ʾin
law
ἠν
x
x
x
-
ἐάν
x
x
x
-
εἰ
x
-
x
x
εἴπερ
x
-
x
x
ἐπήν
x
x
-
-
ἐπειδάν
x
x
-
-
ἐπεὶ
x
-
-
x
ἐπειδὴ
x
-
-
-
ὅκου
x
x
-
-
ὅταν
x
x
-
-
ἡνίκα
x
-
-
-
participle
x
x
x
x
In addition to these instances, a range of other Greek constructions, such as participles,
remain for which Ḥunayn also uses conditionals. I will discuss these now.
7.4.1
ʾiḏā
Ḥunayn uses ʾiḏā 841 times in his commentary. It occurs in almost half of the aphorisms
(112/312). I have shown the Greek conditional and temporal conjunctions and adverbs for
which Ḥunayn uses this conditional. However, in many instances Galen does not use a
conditional sentence or temporal clause in Greek, when Ḥunayn does in Arabic. However,
these ʾiḏā-clauses are not just his additions to the text; Ḥunayn uses ʾiḏā to translate particular
Greek constructions. In only 2 out of 60 ʾiḏā-sentences, is ʾiḏā an addition.
Ḥunayn mostly uses ʾiḏā to translate participles. Out of a sample of 60 ʾiḏā-sentences,
27 translate a participle. Peter Pormann (2004, 251) has shown that ʾiḏā is one of the most
&255
prominent ways in which the translator of Paul of Aegina translates both genitive absolutes
and general participle constructions into Arabic. Ḥunayn translates the (plural dative)
participle ἀπογηράσκουσι, ‘becoming old’ in aphorism ii.20 with a temporal clause introduced
by ʾiḏā:
Ὁκόσοισι νέοισιν ἐοῦσιν αἱ κοιλίαι ὑγραί εἰσι, τούτοισιν ἀπογηράσκουσι
ξηραίνονται. ὁκόσοισι δὲ νέοισιν ἐοῦσι ξηραί εἰσι, τούτοισιν
ἀπογηράσκουσιν ὑγραίνονται. (Magdelaine 1994, p.390)
Those who have moist stomachs when they are young, those, when they
become old, become dry. Those who have dry stomachs while being
young, those, when they become old, become moist.
‫من كان بطنه في شبابه ليناً فإنّه إذا شاخ يبس بطنه ومن كان في شبابه‬:‫قال أبقراط‬
.‫يابس البطن فإنّه إذا شاخ الن بطنه‬
Hippocrates says: he who has a soft stomach in his youth, when he
becomes old his stomach becomes dry, and he who has a dry stomach in
his youth, when he becomes old his stomach becomes soft.
Ḥunayn also uses ʾiḏā to translate the relative ὅκοσος, ‘as many as’, which often can be
translated with ‘he who’. In aphorism iv.50 below, Ḥunayn translates the construction
Ὅκόσοισι […] δύσπνοια γίνηται, ‘to as many as dyspnoea occurs’, with a temporal clause,
ʾiḏā ḥadaṯat radāʾatu t-tanaffusi, ‘when shortness of breath happens’:
Ὁκόσοισι δ’ ἐν τῷ πυρετῷ µὴ διαλείποντι δύσπνοια γίνηται καὶ
παραφροσύνη, θανάσιµον. (Kühn xvii, 730)29
Those to whom dyspnoea and delirium happen during a non-intermittent
fever, [their case] is deadly.
‫ إذا حدثت في حمّى غير مفارقة رداءة في التنفّس واختالط في العقل‬:‫قال أبقراط‬
.‫فذلك من عالمات املوت‬
When shortness of breath and delirium occur during a non-intermittent
fever, this is one of the signs of death.
29
Interestingly, in Magdelaine’s version, this aphorism begins with Ὅκου instead of Ὅκόσοισι (1994, 421).
&256
Ḥunayn does not consistently translate ὅκόσοισι with ʾiḏā, sometimes he translates this with
man ‘he who’, for example in iv.69, where he also translates the participle ἐλθόν with ʾiḏā.
Ὁκόσοισιν οὖρα παχέα, θροµβώδεα, ὀλίγα, οὐκ ἀπυρέτοισι, πλῆθος
ἐλθὸν ἐκ τουτων λεπτὸν ὠφελεῖ […]. (Madelaine 1988, p.425)
In those in whom the urine is thick, lumpy, and little, without having a
fever, a lot of discharge coming out of these is beneficial.
‫ من كان بوله غليظاً شبيهاً بالعبيط يسيراً وليس بدنه ينقى من احلمّى‬:‫قال أبقراط‬
.[…] ،‫فإنّه إذا بال بوالً كثيراً رقيقاً انتفع به‬
Hippocrates said: He whose urine is thick, lumpy, and little, and his body
is not cleared of fever, if he discharges a lot of fine urine, he benefits
from it.
Once in the sample, in aphorism i.4, Ḥunayn uses ʾiḏā to translate οὗ, ‘where’; and in
aphorism ii.4, Ḥunayn uses {iḏā + perfect} translates the Greek formula {ὅ τι ἂν +
subjunctive}, a relative with a subjunctive marking indefiniteness in time:
Οὐ πλησµονή, οὐ λιµός, οὐδ᾽ ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἀγαθὸν ὅ τι ἂν µᾶλλον τῆς φύσεως ᾖ.
(Magdelaine 1994, p.386)
Nor fullness, nor hunger, nor anything else is good, whatsoever is ever more
than its nature.
ً‫ ال الشبع وال اجلوع وال غيرهما من جميع األشياء مبحمود إذا كان مجاوزا‬:‫قال أبقراط‬
.‫ملقدار الطبيعة‬
Hippocrates said: Nor fullness nor hunger, nor anything else is among the good
things, when it goes beyond the natural measure.
In a few instances (4/60), Ḥunayn seems to translate an ἐν-construction with a temporal
clause. He does so, for example, in his translation of aphorism iii.7:
Ἐν τοῖσιν αὐχµοῖσι πυρετοὶ ὀξεῖς γίνονται, καὶ ἢν µὲν ἐπὶ πλέον ᾖ τὸ ἔτος
τοιοῦτον ἐὸν, ὁκοίην καὶ τὴν κατάστασιν ἐποίησεν, ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ καὶ τὰ
νοσήµατα τοιαῦτα δεῖ προσδέχεσθαι. (Magdelaine 1994, 401).
&257
During droughts acute fevers occur, and if a year is mostly dry, and causes dry
weather, these diseases must generally be expected.
ّ‫ وإن كثر ذلك االحتباس في السنة ثم‬،‫إذا احتبس املطر حدثت حمّيات حادّة‬:‫قال أبقراط‬
.‫حدثت في الهواء حال يبس فينبغي أن يتوقّع في أكثر احلاالت هذه األمراض وأشباهها‬
Hippocrates said: When rain is retained, acute fevers occur, and if it is retained
more often during the year, followed by a dry condition in the air, in most cases
these diseases and the like must be expected.
7.4.2
matā
Ḥunayn uses the temporal matā, ‘when’, or ‘whenever’, 227 times in his translation (18 times
per 10,000 words), which is almost four times less than his use of ʾiḏā. I have shown that
matā frequently translates ἠν in general truth statements, as well as certain temporals. In
addition, Ḥunayn also occasionally uses matā to translate a Greek participle with a temporal
clause. He does this twice when translating the lemmata, for instance, in his translation of
lemma ii.25, where he translates συνάπτοντες, ‘being connected to’ with matā ttaṣalat bi-,
‘when they are connected with’:
Οἱ θερινοὶ τεταρταῖοι τὰ πολλὰ γίνονται βραχεῖς. οἱ δὲ φθινοπωρινοὶ µακροί
καὶ µᾶλλον οἱ πρὸς τὸν χειµῶνα συνάπτοντες. (Magdelaine 1994, 392)
The summer quartans are for the most part short. But the autumnal quartans are
long and especially the ones that occur (συνάπτοντες, occurring) close to
winter.
‫ إنّ الربع الصيفية في أكثر األمر قصيرة واخلريفية طويلة وال سيّما متى اتّصلت‬:‫قال أبقراط‬
.‫بالشتاء‬
Hippocrates said: The summer quartans are in most cases short, but the
autumnal ones are long, especially when they are connected to winter.
Ḥunayn sometimes uses matā to translate a dative of ὅκόσος with a temporal clause. He does
so twice in his translation of the lemmata, for instance in lemma iv.64:
&258
Ὅκόσοισιν ἐν τοῖσι πυρετοῖσι τῇ ἑβδόµῃ ἢ ἐνάτῃ ἢ τῇ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτῃ
ἴκτεροι ἐπιγίνονται, ἀγαθὸν, ἢν µὴ τὸ ὑποχόνδριον τὸ δεξιὸν σκληρὸν
γένηται. Ἢν δὲ µή, οὐκ ἀγαθόν. (Magdelaine 1994, 425; Κühn: εἰ δὲ µὴ,
οὐκ ἀγαθόν)
For those fever-patients who get jaundice on the seventh or the ninth or the
fourteenth day, this is good, if the right side of the hypochondrion region is
not hard, but if this is not [the case], jaundice is not good.
‫ متى عرض اليرقان في احلمّى في اليوم السابع أو في التاسع أو في الرابع‬:‫قال أبقراط‬
‫عشر فذلك محمود إالّ أن يكون اجلانب األمين ممّا دون الشراسيف صلباً فإن كان‬
.‫كذلك فليس أمره مبحمود‬
Hippocrates said: When jaundice occurs during fever on the seventh day or
on the ninth or on the fourteenth, it is good, except when the right sight
under the rib cartilages is hard, for if that is the case, the case is good.
Ḥunayn also at least once uses matā to translate an {ἐν + dative}-construction. Once when
translating the lemmata, Ḥunayn adds matā in his translation when there is no equivalent
whatsoever in Greek, in aphorism ii.35. He also adds an ʾiḏā-clause to his translation of this
sentence:
Ἐν πάσῃσι τῇσι νούσοισι τὰ περὶ τὸν ὀµφαλὸν καὶ τὸ ἦτρον πάχος ἔχειν
βέλτιόν ἐστι, τὸ δὲ σφόδρα λεπτὸν καὶ ἐκτετηκὸς µοχθηρόν. Ἐπισφαλὲς δὲ τὸ
τοιοῦτο καὶ πρὸς τὰς κάτω καθάρσιας. (Magdelaine 1994, 394)
In all diseases it is better that the areas around the navel and abdomen are fat,
and a very lean and waisted away area is [a] bad [sign]. And in this case it is
also dangerous to purge from below.
‫ ومتى كان‬،‫ إنّ األجود في كلّ مرض أن يكون ما يلي السرّة والثنة له ثخن‬:‫قال أبقراط‬
.‫ وإذا كان أيضاً كذلك فاإلسهال معه خطر‬،‫رقيقاً جدّاً منهوكاً فذلك رديء‬
Hippocrates says: It is best in all diseases that the area near the navel and
stomach is fat, and when (matā) this area is very lean and worn out, this is bad,
and moreover, when (ʾiḏā) it is like that, purging through diarrhoea is
dangerous.
&259
7.4.3
ʾin
The conjunction ʾin means ‘if’. It occurs 28 times in the lemmata, and 82 times in
Ḥunayn’s translation of the commentary. I have shown that this conjunction is typically
used for possible and real conditions. Ḥunayn also uses ʾin to translate more and less vivid
future conditionals, and certain general truth statements, but not unreal conditions or
temporals. Occasionally, Ḥunayn uses ʾin to translate a participle. Ḥunayn does not seem to
use ʾin to translate Greek temporals. In three out of the 28 instances in the lemmata ʾin
translates a participle, as well as in two out of the 22 sentences from the commentary. For
example in aphorism ii.52, Ḥunayn translates the dative participle ποιέοντι, with {ʾin +
perfect}:
Πάντα κατὰ λόγον ποιέοντι, µὴ γινοµένων τῶν κατὰ λόγον, µὴ µεταβαίνειν
ἐφ’ ἕτερον, µένοντος τοῦ δόξαντος ἐξ ἀρχῆς.
If you have done (lit.: having done) everything according to prescription,
but the prescribed things do not happen, you must not change to another
course as long as what you have seen since the beginning lasts.
‫ إن أنت فعلت جميع ما ينبغي أن تفعل على ما ينبغي فلم يكن ما ينبغي‬:‫قال أبقراط‬
.ً‫أن يكون فال تنتقل إلى غير ما أنت عليه ما دام ما رأيته منذ أوّل األمر ثابتا‬
If you do everything you must do the way it must be done, but what is
supposed to happen does not happen, do not change to something different
from what you are doing, as long as what you have seen since the beginning
of the case lasts.
7.4.4
law
The conjunction law only occurs once in the lemmata, and 52 times in Ḥunayn’s
translation of the commentary. I have shown that Ḥunayn uses law to translate Galen’s
unreal conditions with εἰ and εἰπερ. In addition, Ḥunayn occasionally (2/30) translates a
negated participle, {µη + participle}, with {law lā + perfect}, ‘if not’, again to render a
&260
unreal situation. In the following sentence, the protasis µὴ θεασάµενος ‘he [Hippocrates]
not having seen it’, is unreal because in fact, according to Galen, Hippocrates has seen it.
Ḥunayn translates µὴ θεασάµενος with law lā + perfect:
οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἔγραψεν αὐτὸ μὴ θεασάμενος. (Kühn 18a.46.2)
.‫وذلـك أنّـي عـلـمـت أنّ أبـقـراط لـم يـكـن مـكـتّـب هـذا لـو ال أنـه رأه‬
For he [Hippocrates] would not have written it, if he had not seen it.
In addition to the unreal conditions with law, Ḥunayn also uses wa-law to translate
concessive clauses. Concessive clauses are clauses which may seem to have a negating
influence on the main clause, but in fact do not. In the following example, Galen uses κἂν,
(a crasis for καὶ ἄν), which means ‘even if’, which Ḥunayn translates with wa-law:
ὅτι δὲ τὸ φαρμακεύειν ὁ Ἱπποκράτης ἐπὶ τοῦ διὰ φαρμάκου
καθαίρειν εἴωθε λέγειν ὡμολόγηται πᾶσιν ὅσοι κἂν ἐπὶ βραχὺ τῆς
λέξεως αὐτοῦ συνιᾶσιν. (Κühn 17b.654.15)
For that Hippocrates was used to say “to give medicine’ with regard to
purging by medicine has been agreed on by all who, if only a little,
understand his phrase.
‫وقد اتّفق جميع من فهم كالم أبقراط ولو اليسير منه أنّ من عادته إذا قال سقى‬
.‫الدواء املطلق أنّه يعني به سقى الدواء املسهل أو املقيء‬
All who understand Hippocrates’ words, if only a little, agree that it is his
habit to, when he uses [the phrase] ‘the application of medicine’
generally, to mean with that ‘the application of a medicine that causes
diarrhoea or throwing up’.
&261
7.4.5
kullamā
In addition to ʾiḏā and matā, Ḥunayn uses the temporal kullamā,’whenever’ to introduce an
indefinite temporal clause. Ḥunayn uses it 36 times in his translation, mostly to translate
{ὅσος (‘as great as’)+ ἂν + subjunctive}. For instance in his comment on aphorism i.7:
καὶ ὅσῳ ἂν ποῤῥώτερον µᾶλλον τὴν ἀκµὴν ἔσεσθαι προσδοκήσωµεν,
τοσούτῳ καὶ τὸ τῆς διαίτης ὑπαλλάξοµεν σχῆµα. (Kühn 17b.375.12)
As much as we expect the crisis to be further away, so much do we
change the form of the diet.
‫وكلّما كان املنتهى فيما يقدر أبعد فعلى حسب ذلك ينبغي أن يكون تغيير طريق‬
.‫الغذاء‬
Whenever the crisis is expected to be further away, according to that the
diet much change.
Ḥunayn also uses kullamā to translate ὅσῳπερ, as in his translation of Galen’s comment on
aphorism i.12. In the following passage from this comment, Ḥunayn turns the word order
around, and begins the final clause it with the conjunction kullamā, whereas the Greek
sentence begins with this clause:
τὰ µὲν γὰρ κρίσιµά ποτε γίνεται κακὰ, πέψεως δὲ σηµεῖον οὐδὲν
οὐδέποτε µοχθηρὸν, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ πάντα χρηστὰ καὶ τοσούτῳ θᾶττον
ὑγιασθήσεσθαι δηλοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὅσῳπερ ἂν ἐπιφαίνηται θᾶττον.
(Kühn 17b.399.2)
The symptoms of crises are bad when they happen, but no symptom of
ripening is ever bad, but all are always good, and it seems that man
becomes healthy faster, whenever they appear faster.
‫ وليس يكون شيء‬،‫وذلك أنّ عالمات البحران قد تكون في بعض األوقات رديئة‬
‫ لكنّها كلّها جيدة محمودة ال‬،ً‫من عالمات النضج في وقت من األوقات رديئا‬
.‫ وكلّما كان ظهورها أسرع دلّت على أنّ برء املريض يكون أسرع‬،‫محالة‬
To be more precise, the symptoms of crisis can be bad sometimes, while
the symptoms of maturity are never bad, but all good and necessarily
&262
praiseworthy, and whenever it appears faster, it indicates that the curing
of the patient will happen faster.
7.5
Conditional Sentences in the Corpus
In this section, I compare the use of conditional sentences and conjunctions in the Arabic
commentaries to that in Ḥunayn’s translation. Table 7.3 shows the frequency of law, in, iḏā
and matā in the corpus. Each right column shows the relative frequency per 10,000 words;
each left column shows the absolute numbers. In the case of the frequently occurring
conjunctions ʾin and ʾiḏa, I have examined books I and VI. For law and matā, I analysed
the complete commentaries.
Table 7.3
in
law
iḏā
matā
Ḥunayn
110
57
53
4
156
81
227
18
Manāwī
52
63
20
5
48
58
36
9
Ibn ʾAbī
Ṣādiq
32
34
33
5
173
186
219
32
230
51
220
8
237
52
1151
42
Baġdādī
73
47
23
3
104
67
77
11
Nīlī
17
60
2
1
24
84
72
37
Siwāsī
30
64
19
7
57
122
49
17
Sinǧārī
48
109
20
4
79
179
108
23
Quff
7.5.1
ʾiḏā
Just as in Ḥunayn’s translation, ʾiḏā is the most common conjunction in the corpus to
express conditions and their co-occuring or resulting events. In Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq, as-Siwāsī
and as-Sinǧārī, it is the most frequently used conditional. In the corpus, ʾiḏā is always
followed by a verb in the perfect tense. Authors use it, like Ḥunayn, to describe the relation
&263
between an event x1 and an event x2. For example as-Siwāsī in his comment on aphorism
ii.10, describes what happens when a bad mixture increases in the stomach:
.‫وإذا زاد اخللط الفاسد إزداد الشرّ ألنه يزيد مادة املرض‬
If the spoiled mixture increases, the evil increases, because it increases
the disease matter.
Al-Baġdādī also uses ʾiḏā in another truth statement, when he describes a symptom,
dryness in the throat, and its consequence in the apodosis (cough and pain). He does this in
his explanation of aphorism iii.5, in which Hippocrates describes certain diseases caused
by the Southern and Northern winds. Baġdādī writes that when a northern wind causes
dryness in the throat, this dryness is followed by a cough and pain:
.‫وإذا حدث في احللق يبس بسببها تبعه سعال ووجع‬
If dryness occurs in the throat because of it [the northern wind], a cough
and pain follow it.
7.5.2
ʾin
Most authors in the corpus use the conjunction ʾin as the second most frequent conjunction
in conditional sentences, except for al-Manāwī, for whom it is the most frequent
conjunction. However, these statistics are indicative as the edition of al-Manāwī’s
commentary is preliminary. Al-Manāwī uses ʾin as part of a general truth statement in his
comment on aphorism i.12:
ّ‫وإن لم تكن متزايدة فإنّها تدل‬، ‫فإن كانت النوبة متزايدة دلّت على قصير املرض‬
.‫على طول املرض‬
If the paroxysm increases gradually, it indicates that the disease is short,
and if it does not increase gradually, it indicates that the disease is long.
&264
In this example, both conditions are possible, and the author does not comment on a
temporal aspect.
The conjunction wa-in is used with a concessive meaning also in the corpus, such as
in as-Siwāsī comment on ii.10:
‫من كان في معدته أخالط رديئة يزيده الغذاء شرّاً ألنّ الغذاء يفسد في معدته وإن‬
.ً‫جيدا‬
Nutrition makes someone with bad humours in his stomach worse,
because nutrition corrupts his stomach, even if it is good.
7.5.3
matā
The temporal conjunction matā is not very common in the corpus, but both Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq
and Ibn al-Quff use it frequently, 32 and 42 times per 10,000 words respectively. AlManāwī and al-Baġdādī use matā least frequently (9 and 11 times per 10,000 words
respectively). In his comment on aphorism iv.16, Ibn al-Quff uses matā to describe the
implications of certain symptoms. He writes that when a patient has a bitter mouth, and
falls on the ground, it is better to purge with medicine causing vomiting than medicine
causing diarrhoea:
‫وال شكّ أنه متى ظهرت هذه األعراض دلّت على أن إخراج املادة بالقيء أجود من‬
.‫إخراجها باإلسهال‬
No doubt that when these symptoms occur it indicates that purging
through vomiting is better than purging through diarrhoea.
Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq uses matā in his comment on aphorism ii.8. In this aphorism, which Ibn
ʾAbī Ṣādiq quotes from Ḥunayn’s translation, ʾiḏā occurs instead of matā, with a similar
temporal function. Ḥunayn’s translation of aphorism ii.8 reads as follows:
&265
‫ فذلك يدلّ على‬،‫ الناقه من املرض إذا كان ينال من الغذاء وليس يقوى به‬:‫قال أبقراط‬
ّ‫ دلّ على أن‬،‫ وإذا كان ذلك وهو ال ينال منه‬.‫أنّه يحمل على بدنه منه أكثر ممّا يحتمل‬
.‫بدنه يحتاج إلى استفراغ‬
A convalescent of a disease, when (ʾiḏā) he takes food but does not improve
from it, that indicates that he burdens his body with more [food] than he can
bear. But when (ʾiḏā) this is the case [i.e. him not improving] without him
eating, it indicates that his body needs purging.
The second sentence of Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s comment on this aphorism reads as following:
‫ بل‬.‫ دلّ على أنّ في بدنه فضلة ال يحتاج بسببها إلى الغذاء‬،‫والناقه متى لم يشته‬
‫ دلّ على أنّ بدنه ليس يغتذي مبا‬،‫ ومتى اشتهى وتناول ولم يقو‬.‫يحتاج إلى االستفراغ‬
.‫يناوله ألنّه يتناول أكثر ممّا حتتمله قوّته‬
The convalescent, when (matā) he does not have an appetite, this indicates
that something in his body remains because of which he does not need food,
but purging. But when (matā) he has an appetite and eats and does not gain
strength, it indicates that his body is not nourished from what he eats,
because he eats more than what his strength can bear.
In both lemma and comment, first an occurrence x1 is described in a temporal clause in the
protasis, and subsequently, a condition x2 which this occurrence indicates is described in
the main clause or apodosis. However, in the lemma the protasis is introduces with ʾiḏā,
while in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s comment a similar protasis is introduced with matā.
7.5.4
law
The conjunction law is the least frequent in the corpus. An-Nīlī uses it least, only once per
10,000 words, while it occurs most frequently in Ibn al-Quff (8/10,000). An example of
law is found in Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s comment on aphorism vi.57, where he quotes ar-Rāzī’s
critique on Galen’s argument. Galen argues that strokes (as-sakta) and semiparalysis (alfāliǧ) only occur due to black bile, while ar-Rāzī argues they occur due to phlegm. At the
end of the quotation as-Rāzī uses the following unreal condition:
&266
‫ولو لم يوجد من ماية ألف مفلوج ومسكوت إال واحد له أحد هذين املرضني من‬
‫السوداء كان قول جالينوس في أن الكهول أقبل لهذين املرضني من السوداء‬
.ً‫صحيحا‬
If there would only be one of a hundred thousand semi-paralysed and
stroke-sufferers, who has one of these disease because of black bile,
Galen’s argument that middle-aged men are more receptive to these two
diseases due to black bile would have been correct.
According to ar-Rāzī, only if there would be one patient who suffers these diseases due to
black bile, Galen would be right, which he believes to be an impossibility, because he holds
that these diseases occur due to phlegm.
An example of law used in an hypothesis is found in Ibn al-Quff’s comment on aphorism i.
4:
،‫وأبقراط لم مينع من استعمال التدبير املذكور في األمراض املتطاولة التي هي املزمنة‬
‫ وال شكّ أنّ مثل هذا‬.‫بل منع من استعمال البالغ في اللطافة الذي هو ترك الغذاء‬
‫ انخدلت القوّة وضعفت عن مقاومة‬،‫التدبير لو استعمل في األمراض املذكورة‬
.‫املرض إلى وقت املنتهى‬
Hippocrates did not forbid the use of the mentioned diet in continuing
diseases, i.e. chronic diseases, but he forbade the extremely lean diet, i.e.
the refraining from food. No doubt that if such a diet were to be used in
the mentioned diseases, the strength would stiffen and become too weak
to resist the disease until the end.
Quff here explains why Hippocrates in his aphorism forbids certain diets by showing what
would happen if such diets would be implemented. Since these diets would have bad
consequences in the real world, they will not be used, and Ibn al-Quff mentions them
purely hypothetically.
&267
An example of wa-law, which has a concessive meaning, is found in an-Nīlī’s
comment on aphorism vi.1, where he writes that even a small amount of food does not
stick to the stomach:
‫فإذا متادت العلّة زال بسبب أنّ الطعام ال يلبث في املعدة ولو يسيراً كما يلبث في‬
.‫أوّل هذه العلّة‬
And when the disease becomes chronic, it lasts because the food does not
remain in the stomach, even if it is a small amount, as it does in the
beginning of this disease.
7.6
Conclusion
This study of conditional sentences in Galen’s commentary, Ḥunayn’s translation and the
corpus shows that the medical commentators used conditional sentences for a variety of
functions. One of the most important functions of these sentences is to communicate truth
statements regarding symptoms and their causes or required treatments. This type of
statement, {if event x1, then event x2}, occurs particularly often in Ḥunayn’s translation of
the Greek aphorisms. In the Greek, they have {ἐάν + subjunctive} in the protasis, in
Arabic mostly {ʾiḏā + perfect}. In addition to truth statements, all authors use
hypotheticals and unreal conditions to explain aphorisms, and to support their arguments.
These conditionals often contain the Arabic conjunction law.
I have moreover shown that Ḥunayn carefully distinguishes between the different
function of conditionals and temporals in Galen’s text. He does not have a standard
translation for each Greek form, but translates the same Greek conditionals with different
Arabic conditionals based on his understanding of the semantic value of each sentence. He
tends to translate Greek εἰ with ʾin when it occurs as part of a real condition, and with law
when it is part of an unreal condition. He translates ἠν with both ʾiḏā and ʾin. Ḥunayn
mostly uses ʾin to translate the Greek conjunction ἢν in general truth statements. Besides
&268
this, he uses ʾin to translate εἰ-sentences which express a general truth statement or future
condition. I have also shown that Ḥunayn uses ʾiḏā to translate εἰ when it is used in a more
vivid future conditional sentence. It translates ἐαν or ἠν both in present general truth
statements and in more vivid future conditions. While ʾiḏā is used for general truth
statements and (more vivid) future conditions, it does not seem to typically translate simple
or unreal conditions in either past or present tense. Ḥunayn also frequently adds ʾiḏāclauses to translate Greek participles. Moreover, out of a sample of 60 ʾiḏā-sentences, only
eight translate a Greek temporal clause.
Interestingly, Ḥunayn uses the temporal matā more often to translate Greek
conditionals than to translate temporals. Out of the 20 times matā occurs in Ḥunayn’s
translation of the lemmata, it translates a temporal only five times. It more frequently
translates ἢν (8 times). This is remarkable, because in Arabic, matā is a strict temporal,
while in Greek, ἢν is a strict conditional. The ἢν-conditionals matā translates in Ḥunayn’s
translation are typically general truth statements, and this might be the reason for Ḥunayn
to use matā. This way, the statement does not draw attention to whether or not a certain
condition will happen at a given point in time, but it states that when it happens, this will
have a particular consequence. Besides the conditional ἢν, matā also very rarely translates
ἐάν (3/30 ἐάν-sentences).
In the corpus, conditionals are used the same as in Ḥunayn’s translation. Although a
detailed study of each conditional sentence in each commentary goes beyond the scope of
this chapter, I have given a number of examples which illustrate the authors’ use of ʾiḏā
and ʾin for general truth statements, and that of law for hypotheticals. I have also illustrated
the concessive use of wa-ʾin and wa-law.
&269
In conclusion, a frequent use of conditionals seems to be characteristic of the
medieval medical commentary. They are used to communicate knowledge-statements
regarding medical conditions and their causes, implications, or treatments, as well as to
convince and explain such statements in the comment sections.
&270
CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION
8.1
Ḥunayn’s Translation Technique
This study has contributed an innovative contribution to the comparative studies of Ḥunayn’s
9th-century translations. Whereas previous studies have used qualitative methods to study
Ḥunayn’s translation technique, I have given a quantitative, systematic analysis of both
personal forms and conditional sentences, which I have analysed according to frequency, form
and function. In addition, I have also compared Ḥunayn’s constant addressing of the reader
with the Greek equivalent, have analysed his use of hedges, and finally given a preliminary
overview of nearly all discourse markers in his translation.
This has led to the following insights. First, Ḥunayn systematically brings back the
physician as commentator into a commentary which - at times - is marked by the absence of
the author. Where Galen’s commentary can on occasions be considered objective in style,
Ḥunayn does not preserve this objectivity but continuously emphasises that the commentary
is, in fact, subjective. Ḥunayn uses three times as many personal forms in his translation as
Galen does in his commentary. In addition to Galen’s own personal forms, which Ḥunayn
mostly preserves, he personalises and activises nearly all Galen’s passive constructions, and
translates many participles with personal active sentences. Moreover, he regularly adds first
person phrases such ‘I mean’ and ‘I argue’. His may do so out of a concern for clarity, a wish
to enliven the text, or perhaps a desire to fit into a contemporary discourse in which the
presence of the author in his text was the norm, and increased the credibility of the work.
In addition to first person verb forms and pronouns, Ḥunayn also adds second person
forms to his translation. He addresses the reader of the commentary more regularly and
directly than Galen does. In some cases, he personalises impersonal Greek sentences with
you-forms rather than I-forms. Ḥunayn uses more declaratives than commands, both to give
&271
instructions to the physician, and to guide the reader to the text. Moreover, he tends to
translate the Greek impersonal verbal adjective ending -τέον with ‘you must’ forms.
With respect to hedges and emphatics, Ḥunayn seems to closely preserve Galen’s style.
In his commentary, Ḥunayn uses an equal amount of certainty and uncertainty markers, most
of which translate similar forms in Greek. Compared to the later authors, his style can be
considered rich in this regard. Although, for instance, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq and Ḥunayn use an
equal number of hedges, Ḥunayn uses a much higher number of different types of hedge.
Ḥunayn’s style, and with that perhaps Galen’s as well, may be described as honest, confident
in its expression of certainty, yet without hesitation to express uncertainty, and seemingly no
concerns about an authoritative image.
In terms of structure, I have shown Ḥunayn’s careful translation of Greek conjunctions
such as γάρ, with wa-ḏālika ʾanna and li-ʾanna, previously demonstrated in the case of The
Epidemics by Uwe Vagelpohl, which confirms a similar technique of the two translators (both
believed to be Ḥunayn). In addition, I have shown the corresponding Greek forms to nearly all
conjunctions and connective phrases in Ḥunayn’s translation. I also show that Ḥunayn adds
conjunctions to make asyndetic sentences flow. Whereas in the later commentaries causal
markers, such as ‘because’, are more prominent than elaborative markers, Ḥunayn’s
conjunctions most frequently mark elaborative relations, such as ‘namely’ which is because of
his frequent use of wa-ḏālika ʾanna, which reflects the Greek.
In terms of commentary structure, I show that Ḥunayn adds the phrases qāla Buqrāṭ and
qāla Ǧālīnūs to mark the lemmata and the beginning of comment sections, while he tends to
mark his own words with ‘qāla Ḥunayn’. Unlike the later commentators, Ḥunayn does not
add a prologue to his commentary, nor does he use other structural devices in his comments.
&272
As to the formulation of truth statements and hypotheticals, I have shown (i) that these
are an important feature of the commentaries, both in Galen and in the Arabic authors, and (ii)
that Galen uses particular conditionals and temporals for each function, which Ḥunayn does
not render with fixed Arabic conditionals, but translates variably based on his appreciation of
their context and semantic value. In these decisions, however, he is consistent. For instance,
Ḥunayn translates Galen’s conjunction εἰ with law if it is used in a unreal condition, and with
ʾin if not. Moreover, Ḥunayn regularly uses the temporal matā to translate Greek conjunctions
such as ἠν. In addition to Galen’s conditionals and temporals, Ḥunayn also adds his own
conditionals to translate certain Greek constructions, in particular participles and relative
clauses.
8.2
Genre
Ḥunayn’s translation, in these respects, compares to the corpus in the following ways. One of
the discursive conventions within the commentaries is the regular expression of subjectivity,
as attested by the frequent, corpus-wide use of first person verb forms and pronouns. Even
those authors that use these forms least frequently, such as an-Nīlī, still employ them with
considerable regularity. While authors differ in respect to the function of these forms, frame
markers tend to be particularly common in all commentaries. Whereas in modern medical
discourse the physician, and any academic writer for that matter, is characterised by absence,
in medieval times the presence of the scientist in his text seems to have been crucial for his
reliability. This may indicate that the physician had a particular position in medieval Middle
Eastern society that was related to authority in such an extent that made his explicit
representation in his own text desirable for the credibility of his writing. The subjective style
of the commentaries may also have to do with the text type of the commentary. In
&273
commentaries, authors need to emphasise their own words in their new text vis-à-vis the
quoted old text, and do so by using personal pronouns. However, comparison to other genres
from the same period may conclude that subjective writing was a period-related rather than
genre-related feature.
While nearly all authors directly address the reader in their commentary, and this may
be seen as characteristic of the genre, they highly differ in the purpose, type and frequency of
second person forms. Some authors use a neutral language, with more declaratives, others
more authoritative language, with frequent imperatives.
In terms of hedges, the corpus is, interestingly, divided. Some authors hardly use hedges
and strictly express themselves with certainty, while other authors, such as Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq,
tend to formulate their comments almost exclusively with care. I have also suggested that the
adverb rubbamā occurs mainly with the meaning of ‘sometimes’, and not ‘perhaps’, both in
Ḥunayn’s translation and the later commentaries, however this needs to be proved more
systematically. While my study of epistemic modality in the corpus proves interesting to
characterise the individual styles, as well as for our knowledge of Classical Arabic modals, it
is less useful in characterising the internal form of the genre.
I have shown that most authors agree in their marking of semantic relations, and differ
from Ḥunayn. In addition to a frequent use of the additive wa-, with its multifold functions,
the commentators particularly tend to mark causal relations, giving reasons for Hippocrates’
statements, medical symptoms, and successful treatments.
The later Arabic commentators seem to begin their commentaries with introductions
that contain certain standardised components, such as the mentioning of previous scholarship,
a reflection on the title, methodology, and motivation for commenting. I have, however, also
demonstrated individual variations. Endophoric reference is common in the corpus, but
&274
considerably less so than it is in Ḥunayn’s translation, except in Ibn al-Quff. Although in
terms of outer form most authors (and scribes) characteristically mark quotations and
comments with rubrics, or stretched out phrases, in terms of discourse I did find few
conventional methods of structuring.
Finally, I have shown that in terms of conditionals the corpus does not seem to differ
from Ḥunayn’s translation. The formulation of truth statements and hypotheticals by means of
conditional sentences seems to be copied from Ḥunayn’s continuous use of these forms,
especially in the lemmata themselves.
8.3
Individual Styles
In this thesis, I have given a detailed overview of the stylistic differences between the authors.
I have demonstrated, for instance, that Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq’s style is reserved, which is attested by
his frequent use of hedges, and the near lack of certainty markers in his commentary.
Moreover, Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq frequently uses epistemic verbs such as aḥsubu, ‘I assume’.
I have also shown that Ibn al-Quff stands out in his regular addressing of the reader,
whereas an-Nīlī in contrast does not directly address his reader, and as-Siwāsī speaks about
himself in the third person. Ibn al-Quff is also unique in his structural method of commenting,
as he divides each of his comments into buḥūṯ, or enquiries. He is, moreover, the author with
the most confident writing style. Yet, his style is also the least diverse; his use of ‘we-’ and
‘you-forms’, seems almost standardised. In contrast, al-Baġdādī has a much richer style, as
attested by the diverse range of verbs he uses in first and second person forms.
Moreover, I have also discovered stylistic differences in the authors’ use of
conjunctions. For instance, al-Manāwī stands out in his frequent use of elaborative markers,
and his use of ayy and ka-, whereas Ibn ʾAbī Ṣādiq consistently uses the form siyyamā where
other authors use wa-lā siyyamā.
&275
Finally, al-Manāwī and al-Baġdādī each stand out in their discussion of the eight
introductory subjects in their introductions, which do not occur in any of the other
commentaries.
8.4
Future Research and Recommendations
Future research could address three distinct directions. First, I recommend a continued
systematic study of Galen’s second person forms, conjunctions, and modals, and their
translation by Ḥunayn. This would further add to our insights into Ḥunayn’s translation
technique. Second, the work I have begun with regard to epistemic modals, conjunctions, and
conditionals in Classical Arabic would ideally be extended to other text types and genres from
the same period, in order to further advance our knowledge regarding the meaning and
function of these features. Finally, the texts in this corpus need to be compared to other texts
also in terms of the rhetorical strategies I described, in order to also define the different
medieval genres in terms of their discourse, in addition to their social function.
In conclusion, despite the diversity among the commentaries, four discursive
conventions seem to stand out: the commentaries are (i) marked by the author as physician
present in his text, attested by personal narratives and a frequent use of personal verb forms
and pronouns. Moreover, the commentary (ii) knows a consistent direct addressing of the
reader, and (iii) a frequent marking of causal semantic relations. Finally, the authors exhibit
(iv) a frequent use of conditional sentences to formulate truth statements and hypotheticals.
Future research will need to compare these texts with other text types and genres from the
same period.
&276
Cited Works
Abou Aly, A. 2000: “A Few Notes on Ḥunayn’s Translation and Ibn al-Nafīs’ Commentary on
the First book of the Aphorisms”, in: Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 10, pp. 139–
50.
Al-Wer, E. 1997: “Arabic Between Reality and Ideology”, in: International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 7(2), pp. 251-265.
Anghelescu, N. 2013: “Modalities and Grammaticalization in Arabic”, in: Y. Suleiman:
Arabic Grammar and Linguistics, pp. 107-144.
Atkinson, D. 1999: Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bhatia, V. 2004: Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Essex: Longman
Group Ltd.
Bahlul, M. 1994: The Syntax and Semantics of Taxis, Aspect, Tense and Modality in Standard
Arabic. Cornell University, Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics.
Bazerman, C. 1988: Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental
Article in Science, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Benveniste, E. 1971: “Subjectivity in Language”, in: Problems in General Linguistics 1, pp.
223-230.
Biber, D. 2006: University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
——
2004: “Historical Patterns for the Grammatical Marking of Stance: A Cross-Register
Comparison”, in: Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5(1), pp. 107-136.
——
1988: Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. 1989: “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical
Marking of Evidentiality and Affect”, in: Text 9 (1): pp. 93-124.
Biesterfeldt, H. 2007: “Palladius On The Hippocratic Aphorisms”, in: The Libraries of the
Neoplatonists. Brill, 2007, pp. 385-398.
Blakemore, D. 2002: Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of
Discourse Markers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G., and G. Yule 1983: Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
&277
Calvo, C. 1992: “Pronouns of address and social negotiation in As You Like It,” in: Language
and Literature (I): pp. 5-27.
Carter-Thomas, S., and E. Rowley-Jolivet 2008: “If-conditionals in medical discourse: From
theory to disciplinary practice,” in: Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(3),
pp. 191-205.
Coates, J. 2003: “The Role of Epistemic Modality in Women’s Talk”, in: Facchinetti, Krug
and Palmer, eds.: Modality in Contemporary English, Berlin and New York: Mouton
de Gruyter, pp. 331-348.
Conrad, S. 2002: “Corpus Linguistic Approaches For Discourse Analysis”, in: Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics 22, pp. 75-97.
Denniston, J.D. 1954: The Greek Particles, 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Endress, G. 2012: “The Language of Demonstration: Translating Science and the Formation
of Terminology in Arabic Philosophy and Science”, in: Early Science and Medicine,
7( 3), pp. 231 – 253.
Endress, G. and D. Gutas 1997: A Greek and Arabic Lexicon, Fascicle 4, Leiden: Brill.
Ferguson, G. 2001: “If You Pop Over There: A Corpus-based Study of Conditionals in
Medical Discourse”, in: English for Specific Purposes 20(1), pp. 61-82.
Finegan, E. 2005: “Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: an Introduction”, in: D. Stein and S.
Wright: Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-16.
Fitzmaurice, S. 2003: “The Grammar of Stance in Early Eighteenth-century English
Epistolary Language”, in: C. Meyer and P. Leistyna eds.: Corpus Analysis: Language
Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 107–132.
——-
2004: “Subjectivity, Intersubjectivity and the Historical Construction of Interlocutor
Stance: From Stance Markers to Discourse Markers”, in: Discourse Studies 6(4), pp.
427–448.
Fischer, W. 2002: A Grammar of Classical Arabic. Yale: Yale University Press.
Flügel, G. 1841: “Dissertatio de Arabicis Scriptorum Graecorum Interpretibus,” in:
Memoriam Anniversariam Scholae Regiae Afranae celebrandam indicit
Baumgarten-Crusius Rector et Professor I. Meissen: M.C. Klinkicht, pp. 3-38.
Foucault, M. 2005. “The Discourse on Language”, in J. Medina and D. Wood (eds.): Truth:
Engagements Across Philosophical Traditions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp.
315-335.
——
1972: The Archaeology of Knowledge, London: Tavistock Publications ltd.
&278
Fox Tree, J. and J. Schrock 2002: “Basic Meanings of you know and I mean”, in: Journal of
Pragmatics 34, pp. 727–747.
Fraser, B. 2006: Towards a Theory of Discourse Markers, in: Fischer, K. (Ed.), Approaches to
Discourse Particles. Oxford: Elsevier.
——
1999: “What are discourse markers?”, in: Journal of Pragmatics 31, pp. 931-952.
Freytag, G.W. 1830: Lexicon Arabico-Latinum, Tomus Primus. Halle: C.A. Schwetschke and
son.
——
1837: Lexicon Arabico-Latinum, Tomus Quartus. Halle: C.A. Schwetschke and son.
Garcia, B. 2004: “The Scientific Register in the History of English: a Corpus-Based Study”,
in: Studia Neophilologica, 76(2), pp. 125-139.
Gätje, H. 1980: “Bemerkungen zur Semantik des Konditionalgefüges”, in: Folia Linguistica.
Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 14, pp. 123-168.
Gutas, D. 1997: Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in
Baghdad and Early ʿAbbāsid Society (2nd-4th/8th-10th centuries). London and New
York: Routledge.
Gutwinski, W., 1976: Cohesion in Literary Texts: A Study of Some Grammatical and Lexical
Features of English Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
Halliday, M. A. K. [1985] 2004: An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3d edition). New
York: Oxford Univerisity Press Inc.
Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan 1976: Cohesion in English. New York: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1970: “Functional Diversity in Language as seen from a Consideration of
Modality and Mood in English. Foundations of Language 6, pp. 322-361.
Halliday, M. A. K., A. McIntosh, and P. Strevens 1965: The Linguistic Sciences and Language
Teaching. New York: John Wiley.
Harwood, N. 2005: “‘Nowhere has Anyone Attempted . . . In this Article I Aim to Do Just
That’, a Corpus-based Study of Self-promotional I and We in Academic Writing
Across Four Disciplines”, in: Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), pp. 1207-1231.
Hyland, K. 2005: Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: A&C Black.
——
2002: “Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing”, in:
Journal of Pragmatics 34, pp. 1091–1112.
&279
——
1998: “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse”, in:
Journal of Pragmatics 30(4), pp. 437-455.
Ibn Manzûr [1290] 1955-6: Lisān al-ʿarab, 15 volumes. Beirut: Dar Sadir.
Ifantidou, E. 2005: ‘The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metadiscourse’, in: Journal of
Pragmatics 37, pp. 1325–1353
Ivanic, R. 1998: Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic
Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kilgarriff, A. et al. 2014: “The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On”, in: Lexicography 1(1), pp. 1–
30. http://www.sketchengine.co.uk
Kinberg, N. 1977: Hypothetical Conditionals in Arabic: A Study of “Law”-Clauses.
University of Michigan: PhD dissertation.
Kratzer, A. 2012: Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives, Vol. 36. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kühn, C. G. (ed.) 1829: Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia, Vol.17b and 18a. Leipzig: Knobloch.
Kuo, C. 1999: “The Use of Personal Pronouns: Role Relationships in Scientific Journal
Articles”, in: English for Specific Purposes 18(2), pp. 121-138.
Lee, D. 2001: “Genres, Registers, Text Types, Domains and Styles: Clarifying the Concepts
and Navigating a Path through the BNC Jungle”, in: Language, Learning &
Technology 5(3), pp. 37-72.
Liddell, H.G., R. Scott and H.S. Jones, 1940: A Greek-English lexicon compiled by Henry
George Liddell and Robert Scott. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lipiński, E. 2001: Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (Vol. 80). Leuven:
Peeters Publishers.
Lyons, John, 1977: Semantics Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Magdelaine, C. 1994: Histoire du Texte et Edition Critique, Traduite et Commentee des
Aphorismes d'Hippocrate, 3 vols. Paris: Université de Paris-Sorbonne Paris IV,
Doctoral Thesis.
Mansfeld, J. 1994: Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled Before the Study of an Author or a
Text. Leiden: Brill.
Martin, J.R. 2001: Cohesion and Texture, in: D. Schriffin et al. (eds.): Handbook of Discourse
Analysis, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp. 35-54.
&280
Martínez, I. 2005: “Native and Non-Native Writers’ Use of First Person Pronouns in the
Different Sections of Biology Research Articles in English”, in: Journal of Second
Language Writing 14, pp. 174-190.
Meyer, B. J. F. et al. 1980: “Use of Top-Level Structure in Text: Key for Reading
Comprehension of Ninth-Grade Students Author(s)”, in: Reading Research Quarterly
16(1), pp. 72-103.
Mitchell, T.F. and Ḥasan, S., 1994: Modality, Mood, and Aspect in Spoken Arabic: With
Special Reference to Egypt and the Levant (Vol. 11). London and New York: Kegan
Paul.
Moshref, O. 2012: Corpus Study Of Tense, Aspect, And Modality In Diglossic Speech In
Cairene Arabic, Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Nuyts, J. 2005: “Modality: Overview and linguistic issues”, in: W. Frawley: The Expression of
Modality, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
——
1992: Subjective vs. Objective Modality: What is the difference? In: M. Fortescue, P.
Harder and L. Kristoffersen, eds., Layered Structure And Reference In A Functional
Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 73-97.
Overwien, O. 2012: “The Art of the Translator, or: How did Ḥunayn ibn ʾIsḥāq and his School
Translate?” in P. E. Pormann: Epidemics in Context: Greek Commentaries on
Hippocrates in the Arabic Tradition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 151-171.
——
2005: “Einige Beobachtungen zur Überlieferung der Hippokratesschriften in der
arabischen und griechischen Tradition”, in: Sudhoffs Archiv 89, pp. 196–210.
Palmer, F. 2001: Mood and Modality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peled, Y. 1992: Conditional Structures in Classical Arabic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Petit, C. 2012: Galien et le discours de la méthode: rhétorique(s) médicale(s) à l’époque
romaine (Ier-IIe siècle de notre ère) in: J. Coste, D. Jacquart, and J. Pigeaud,(eds.):
La rhétorique médicale à travers les siècles: actes du colloque international de
Paris, 9 et 10 octobre 2008, Paris: Droz, pp. 49-75.
Pietrandrea, P. 2005: Epistemic Modality, Functional properties and the Italian system,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Pormann, P. E. 2009: “Al-Kaskarī (10th cent.) and the Quotations of Classical Authors: A
Philological Study”, in: I. Garofalo et al. (eds.), Sulla Tradizione Indiretta dei Testi
Medici Greci: Atti del II Seminario Internazionale di Siena Certosa di Pontignano
19–20 settembre 2008. Rome: F. Serra, pp. 107-139.
——
2004: The Oriental Tradition of Paul of Aegina's Pragmateia. Vol. 29. Leiden: Brill.
&281
Pormann, P. E. and N.P. Joosse 2008: “Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms in the
Arabic Tradition: The Example of Melancholy”, in: P. E. Pormann: Epidemics in
Context: Greek Commentaries on Hippocrates in the Arabic Tradition. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, pp. 211-251.
Rabin, C. 1955: “The Beginnings of Classical Arabic”, in: Studia Islamica 4, pp. 19-37.
Reckendorf, von H. 1921: Arabische Syntax. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s.
Redeker, G. 1990: ‘Ideational and Pragmatic Markers of Discourse Structure’, Journal of
Pragmatics 14, pp. 367-381.
Rosenthal, F. 1966: “Life is short, Art is Long: Arabic Commentaries on the First Hippocratic
Aphorism”, Bulletin of the History of Medicine 40(3): pp. 226-45.
——-
1965: Das Fortleben der Antike in Islam. Zürich: Artemis.
Salager-Meyer, F. 1994: “Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English
Written Discourse”, in: English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), pp. 149-170.
Schiffrin, D. 1987: Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith R. and W. Frawley 1983: “Conjunctive Cohesion in Four English Genres”, in: Text
3(4), pp. 347-374.
Smyth, H.W. 1956: Greek Grammar. Revised by G. M. Messing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Suleiman, Y. 1999: Arabic Grammar and Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sultan, A.H., 2011: ‘A Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse in English and Arabic Linguistics
Research Articles’, in: Acta Linguistica, 5(1), pp.28-41.
Stubbs, M. 1996: “Towards a modal grammar of English: A matter of prolonged fieldwork”.
In: Text and Corpus Analysis, pp. 196–228.
Swales, J. 1990: Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Taavitsainen, I. 2012: “Vernacular Glosses and the Commentary Tradition in Fifteenth- and
Sixteenth-century English”, in: Anna Alberni et al. (ed.), El Saber i les Llengües
Vernacles a l'època de Llull i Eiximenis: Estudis ICREA Sobre Vernacularització
(Vol. 170), Barcelona, Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, pp. 183-200.
——
1994: Subjectivity as a text-type Marker in Historical Stylistics, in: Language and
Literature 3: p. 197.
&282
——
1994b: “On the Evolution of Scientific Writings Between 1375 and 1675: Repertoire
of Emotive features”, in: F. Fernandez et al. (eds.): Papers from the 7th International
Conference of English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.
329-42.
Taavitsainen, I. and P. Pahta 1997: “The Corpus of Early English Medical Writing”, in:
ICAME Journal 21, pp. 71-78.
Touati, H, 2000: “La Dédicace des Livres dans l'Islam Médiéval”, in: Annales. Histoire,
Sciences Sociales 55(2), pp.325-353.
Traugott, E.C. 2006: “Historical Aspects of Modality”, in: The Expression of Modality, 1, pp.
107-139.
——
2011: “Modality from a Historical Perspective”, in: Language and Linguistics
Compass 5/6, pp.381–396.
Ullmann, M. 2002: Wörterbuch zu den griechisch-arabischen Übersetzungen des 9.
Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.
——
1998: Sätze mit lau. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenshaften.
——
1970: Die Medizin im Islam. Leiden: Brill.
Vagelpohl, U. 2014: Galeni In Hippocratis Epidemiarum Librum I Commentariorum I-III
Versio Arabica/Galen Commentary on Hippocrates’ Epidemics book I. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter.
——
2012: “Galen, Epidemics, Book One: Text, Transmission, Translation”, in: P. E.
Pormann: Epidemics in Context: Greek Commentaries on Hippocrates in the Arabic
Tradition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 125-151.
——
2008: Aristotle’s Rhetoric in the East: The Syriac and Arabic Translation and
Commentary Tradition. Leiden: Brill.
Vanhove, Miller, Caubet 2009: “The Grammaticalisation of Modal Auxiliaries in Maltese and
Arabic Vernaculars of the Mediterranean Area”, in: B. Hansen and F. de Haan (eds.):
Modals in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.
325-363.
Verstraete, J.C. 2001: “Subjective and objective modality : Interpersonal and ideational
functions in the English modal auxiliary system”, in: Journal of Pragmatics 33, pp.
1505-1528.
Webb, C. 1992: “The Use of the First Person in Academic Writing: Objectivity, Language and
Gatekeeping”, in: Journal of Advanced Nursing 17, pp. 747-752.
&283
Wenrich, J.G. 1842: De Auctorum Graecorum Versionibus et Commentariis Syriacis Arabicis
Armeniacis Persicisque Commentatio. Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel.
Wilce, J. 2009: “Medical Discourse”, in: Annual Review of Anthropology 38, pp. 199-215.
Wright, W. [1896] 2004: A Grammar of the Arabic Language, New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers.
Zhao, Y., and J. Zobel, 2007: “Searching with Style: Authorship Attribution in Classic
Literature”, in: Proceedings of the Thirtieth Australasian Conference on Computer
Science 62, pp. 59-68.
&284