124 HISTORY OF 
Etiam sciverunt quod zedoaria resistit napello. . . Est theriaca venenosorum xc eee 
et napelli et aliorum." It is evident that Avicenna's "melior m an 5 18 
* Napellus Moysi buha” are one thing, whilst the inferior Zedoa) i4 which he men yh 
in the same chapter (745) is Zerumbeth—he actually uses this word in n 5 
directions for the preparation of the theriacon—most likely Cureuma rotunda, Т о oh 
Zedoar—the Greek form of Zadwar (Pers.) or Jadwar ( Arab.) occurs, оре read y 
with Aetius (6th century) and Macer (9th or 10th cent.) who says of it: prime 
sumptus Zedoar obstare venenis affirmunt ” (Dymock, Warden, and Hooper, =; 
p. 20). Serapion (10th and 11th cent.) would also seem to hare mixe 3s л ws 
Zerumbet, but in cap. 172 he states according to Matthioli (Comm. Dioscorides : dies ” 
1565, p. 581): —“ Zedoaria convehitur e Sinarum regione ultra extremas ирер oras. 
However, Garcia d'Orto (Arom. Hist. Ed. Clus. in Erot., р. 214) remarks :— coin cae 
autem legitimi codices non habent adlitam expositione n Zerumbet, id est, Se 
sed ab interprete insertam verisimile est, qui differentiam inter Zedoatia et erumba 
іспогаһа, Id ех sequentibus facile deprehenditur, cum ait, е Sinarum regione 
convehi. Certum enim est, Zedoariam non nasci apud Indos, sed e Sinarum sowie 
advehi, raramque apud Indos inveniri. Zerumba vero abunde in India nascitur." 
Matthioh seems to have seen both drugs. The Zerwnbet was then fairly well 
known, whilst he received specimens of the genuine Z:doar froni a Belgian Gulielmus 
Qualcebenus:—‘‘ Medicus insignis et rei plantariae studiosus, qu . . . misi ad me 
Constantinopoli Antorae radices aliquot, quas mercatores a quibus emerat magno satis 
precio, zedoariam appellabant. Quae si non sunt, alterius quidem plantae radices esse 
non poterunt quam eius, de qua sub Napell Moysi nomine meminit." (Matth., Comm. 
Dioscorides, p. 1097, see also Matth. Epistol. ii, pp. 102 and 105), The confusion of Zedoar 
and Zerumbeth must have begun very early; and as the genuine article hardly ever reached 
Europe, the name Zedoar seems to have fixed itself on its commoner substitute. That - 
Matthioli compared the Zedoar he received from Constantinople with Anthora (Aconitum 
Anthorae) is not surprising, considering the great external resemblance of the Zedoar root 
and that of Aconi‘um Anthorae ; and as to the alleged Chinese origin of the former, I need only 
refer to the fact that the most valuable kind of Jadwar is still known in India as Jadwar- Katar, 
or * Chinese Jadwar.” Garcia d'Orto (7. c., p. 213) also distinguishes carefully between the 
true Zedoar and the one which they called Zerumba or Zerumbet at Goa, and һе remarks :— 
"Quod nos hie Zedoariam appellamus, Avicennae lib. II, cap. 734, Geiduar dicitur, aliud 
nomen ignoro quii nascitur regionibus Sinensium provincae vicinis, Magno vero emitur 
Geiduar; nee facile invenias, nisi apud circumforaneos quosdam et cireulatores, quos Indi 
Jogues, Mauritani calandares appellant, hominum genus quod peregrinationibus et stipem 
emendicando vitam sustentat. Ab his enim et Reges et Magnates Geiduar emunt," 
Clusius (Zzot., р. 378) mentions, in a scholion to Garcia d’Orto’s chapter on Zedoaria, that 
he received іп 1605 from Pona of Verona two roots of “Gedwar veri and figures one 
of them in three positions. But from the figures and his statement that the taste was 
hot and acrimonious I doubt that it was the genuine article. 
Among the Persian Pharmacopmas the Ulfaz Udwiyeh (about 1450; Trans. Gladwin) 
has Jadwar in three places, namely, No. 398: *'Bar.Heo, also Neer Bissee. Zedoary v. 
Jedwar"; Хо, 608: *Judwar. Zedoary"; and No. 1352: <“ Mah-Fir-Feen, Zedoary, p. 
(Persian) Judwar." This is important because here for the first time Jadwar or Zedoar 
is clearly connected with Nirbish; but Royle (ГЇ, Bot. Him., p. 50) states also that 
the Persian authors distinguished five kinds of Judwar, “The best, called Khutat, or 
