

















in. 7 2 ‘ - 
FEBRUARY 10, 1923] 
to any discovery of practical value, although the 
foundations of future valuable discoveries may be 
laid. There is much to be said in favour of rewards 
for good work done, as well as for providing means for 
doing it. It would probably be found in practice that 
qT is generally agreed that the masterpieces of 
. medieval chemical literature are the “ Investiga- 
tion of Perfection,” the ‘Sum of Perfection,’ the 
“Tnvention of Verity,” and-the “ Book of Furnaces,” 
ascribed to “‘ Geber, the Most Famous Arabian Prince 
and Philosopher.” They are written in clear and 
definite language and are free from the enigmas and 
allegories which disfigure so large a proportion of 
alchemical books, and they contain much precise 
‘chemical information. The earliest Latin manuscripts 
of these works appear to be of the late thirteenth 
century, and they profess to be translations from the 
Arabic of Jabir ibn Haiyan, who lived in the eighth 
century A.D. 
_ The Arabic origin of Geber’s works was uni- 
‘ y accepted until the middle of the nineteenth 
century, when Kopp first expressed doubts as to their 
authenticity. Kopp, however, knew no Arabic and 
was not acquainted with any Arabic works of Jabir, 
so that his suggestion was merely tentative. Additional 
evidence was secured by Berthelot, who caused trans- 
lations to be made of a few Arabic manuscripts con- 
taining works ascribed to Jabir ibn Haiyan, and 
‘compared these translations with the Latin works 
mentioned above. He came to the conclusion that 
Geber’s works were European forgeries of the thirteenth 
century and could certainly not be regarded as trans- 
lations of works of Jabiribn Haiyan. Up to the present 
no one has challenged Berthelot’s conclusion, and all 
historians of chemistry have followed him blindly, 
without critical examination of the material upon 
which his conclusion was based. I hope to show in 
the present article that there is a good deal more in 
the problem than Berthelot seemed to realise, and, 
while not claiming to have proved definitely that Geber 
and Jabir are identical, I believe that the evidence 
mow accumulated renders this identity extremely 
probable. 
____ It is necessary in the first place to consider the data 
_ which Berthelot had at his disposal, and to estimate 
_ their value; and secondly, to enumerate the definite 
_ points in his argument. A fact of prime importance 
is that Berthelot was completely ignorant of Arabic 
and was therefore not in a position to draw conclusions 
_ from considerations of style—yet this is what he 
continually attempted todo. This habit of Berthelot’s 
has been severely criticised by von Lippmann (* Ent- 
stehung und Ausbreitung der Alchemie,” Berlin, 1919), 
and I need not enlarge upon it here. 
__ Berthelot’s acquaintance with Arabic alchemy was 
_ limited in two senses, for, in addition to his want of 
knowledge of the language, he knew even in translation 
_ only thirteen small works, nine of which are attributed 
to Jabir. While, therefore, one has the greatest 
admiration for Berthelot’s invaluable pioneer work, 
NO. 2780, VOL. 111] 
NATURE 
IgI 
the difficulties are not so great as might appear. It 
may be suggested that funds might be voted to the 
Medical Research Council and to the Department of 
Scientific and Industrial Research for the special 
purpose indicated. 

The Identity of Geber. 
By E. J. Hormyarp, Clifton College. 
one is justified in holding that the foundation of the 
edifice which he reared is somewhat insecure. The 
more I investigate the subject the more do I feel, 
with Berthelot’s countryman Prof. E. Blochet, that 
“il faudrait des années d’un labeur ininterrompu 
pour tirer des manuscrits la doctrine arabe de la 
chimie.”’ 4 
According to the “ Kitab al-Fihrist,” a Muslim 
encyclopedia of the tenth century A.D., Jabir wrote 
at least five hundred books, some large and some small. 
About fifty of these are known to exist, and I have 
no doubt that many others could be found by diligent 
search. A study of the extant manuscripts shows that 
Jabir was very catholic in his learning—he was at 
once philosopher, physician, mystic, and chemist. It 
so happens that Berthelot came upon some of the 
more mystical of Jabir’s works, and was therefore 
led to a wrong conclusion as to his attainments in 
chemistry. 
To come now to the definite points in Berthelot’s 
argument. It will be convenient to give these so far 
as possible in his own words (‘‘ La Chimie au moyen 
age,” tome i.). 
1. Lapremiére et la plus essentielle, c'est que le texte 
arabe renferme certaines des doctrines précises sur 
la constitution des métaux, que nous trouvons dans 
les textes latins réputés traduits de l’arabe et attribués 
{a Geber] ; tandis qu’une autre partie de ces doctrines 
manque complétement dans les traités arabes et 
parait dés lors appartenir a une période plus moderne. 
Ainsi la doctrine des qualités occultes, opposée aux 
qualités apparentes, est formellement exposée dans 
les textes arabes de Djaber [Jabir]. . . . Au contraire, 
aucune allusion n’est faite dans les textes arabes 
précédents & la théorie de la génération des métaux 
par le soufre et le mercure. 
2. On ne rencontre . . . dams les ceuvres arabes 
de Djaber, de recette précise pour la préparation des 
métaux, ou des sels, ou de quelque autre substance. 
3. Dans ces traités arabes, le langage est vague et 
allégorique. é ; 
4. Aucune doctrine ou fait précis n’est énoncé, 
aucun personnage n’est cité. ; 
5. (No direct quotation of Geber is made by 
Albertus Magnus or Vincent de Beauvais, the pre- 
sumption being that the Latin works of Geber were 
therefore not known to these two alchemists.) 
6. La Summa ne contient . . . aucune des formules 
musulmanes . . . dont [Jabir] est prodigue. 
. (The Summa contains an account of the argu- 
ments of those who denied the possibility of trans- 
mutation. Of this “on n’en trouve aucune trace 
dans les opuscules arabes de Djaber.’’) 
8. (The style of the Summa recalls that of the 
Schoolmen.) : 
9. L’auteur (of the Latin works) dit que, d’aprés 
lui, il existe, en réalité, trois principes naturels des 
métaux: le soufre, l’arsenic qui lui est congénére, 
1 Private communication to the author. 
