Find research datasets worth reusing

Medicine [IO Islamic 1519]

<ul> <li><strong>Medicine.</strong></li> <li><strong>This manuscript is now IO Islamic 1519&nbsp;</strong><strong>in the India Office collections.</strong></li> <li><strong>[metadata:</strong><a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Loth">&nbsp;<strong>Otto Loth,&nbsp;</strong></a><strong><em><a href="http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3923636">A Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office</a></em>, (volume 1), no. 781&nbsp;here with further notations and hyperlinks]</strong>.</li> </ul> <p>781.</p> <p>1519. Size 12^1/2 in. by 6^3/4 in.; foll. 598. Twenty-nine lines in a page.</p> <p>The first part of a vast Commentary (ممزوج) on the <em>Ḳ</em><em>&acirc;</em><em>n&ucirc;n</em>, by &lsquo;AL&Icirc; G&Icirc;L&Acirc;N&Icirc;. Cf. Cat. Mus. Brit. 744.</p> <p>This commentary is preceded by a long preface, in which the author criticizes the works of his predecessors, Ḳuṭb al-d&icirc;n Sh&icirc;r&acirc;z&icirc;(قطب المحققين) , &Acirc;mul&icirc;, and Ibn Naf&icirc;s Ḳurash&icirc;, and recommends his own work, on which he spent thirty years of his life. It begins: انت المستعان فى كل خير يا حيّ احينا بحياتك ¹ . The name of the author is indicated by the following passage: اما بعد فيقول المباهى بنباهة اسمه العلى &lsquo; المتشبث باذيال الطاف سميّه الولى الخ. . The surname G&icirc;l&acirc;n&icirc; is given to him here in an inscription of recent date. As he mentions (fol.4) الشرح الجىيد للتجريد , ² he must have lived at least as late as the ninth century. The preface is followed by a detailed list of the contents of the <em>Ḳ</em><em>&acirc;</em><em>n&ucirc;n</em>.</p> <p>This volume comprises only the first book (الكلّيات) .</p> <p>It concludes as follows: تم شرح الكتاب الاول من كتب القانون بحمد الله .. و يتلوه انشاء الله تعالى شرح الكتاب الثانى الذى فى الادوية المفردة.</p> <p>Well written. On the margin are additions by the author, and extracts from different commentaries.</p> <p>[Johnson.]</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>¹ From this it would appear that this commentary is <em>not</em> identical with that of &lsquo;Al&icirc; Astar&acirc;b&acirc;d&icirc; (Ḥ. Kh. iv. 498), as is asserted in Cat. Mus. Brit., l.c.</p> <p>² See no. 409.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>