50 MESSRS. H. E. STAPLETON AND R. F. A20 



Altitudo vero hujus parietis sit ad mensuram altitudinis parietis conchas, aut paulo 

 minus. Formentur vero duo coopertoria ad mensuram hujus concavitatis duorum 

 parietum, aequalia, quorum longitudo sit aequalis, et sit unius spannae, et figura eorum 

 figura una, scilicet piramidalis, in quorum capitibus duo sequalia sint foramina : unum 

 scilicet in uno, alterum in altero, in quibus ambobus possit cadere major gallinae 

 penna, ut hie clarius cernere licebit. Est ergo conchae vasis intentio, ut possit moveri 

 secundum artificis voluntatem coopertorium illius, et quod junctura sit ingeniosa, 

 per quam sine lutatione aliqua non pateat spiritibus egressio. " (pp. 569 and 570 ; 

 cf - Fi g- 3). 



M. Berthelot's comment on this apparatus furnishes an excellent epitome of the 

 views that we desire to criticise. He says : — 



" Ce sont les formes memes des appareils du XIII e siecle. Mais on n'est pas 

 autorise a les faire remonter plus haut, ni surtout a les attribuer a Geber, comme on l'a 

 fait jusqu'a present. En effet, les traites arabes authentiques qui portent le nom de 

 Geber ne renferment ni ces figures, ni leur description, ni l'expose precis des operations 

 qui s'y accomplissent. Cependant, elles offrent de l'interet, merae lorsqu'on en limite la 

 date au XIII e siecle." ' 



To these statements the ' Ainu- s- San' ah lends no support, whilst the similarity in 

 principle between the aludel and furnace described above, and the uthal and mustauqad 

 of the last pages of our analysis, proves that so far as instruments are concerned, 

 M. Berth elot has over-estimated the inventive capacity of the Middle Ages. Agreeing, as 

 we do, with M. Berthelot that the Summa was finally moulded into its present form 

 during the 13th century, two deductions seem necessarily to follow from this similarity. 

 One is that the contents of the Summa were derived from previously-existing Arabic 

 works on alchemy : the other, that in the 200 years or more that elapsed between 

 the writing of the 'Ainu-s-San'ak in Ba gh dad and the compilation or editing of 

 the Summa in Spain little or no progress in alchemy occurred. 



If these deductions are true, what is to prevent the ultimate affiliation of 

 the Summa with an authentic work of Jabir ? 2 



In conclusion, we desire to express our best thanks to His Highness the Nawab 

 of Rampur for permission to study and publish extracts from the MS. in which the 

 l Ainu-s-Sau'ak was found. We have also to acknowledge the assistance that Maulawi 

 Hidayat Husain, of the Calcutta Madrasah, has given us in the preparation of this paper. 



1 Loc. cit. p. 149. 



2 It should be added that M. Berthelot's disbelief in Jabir being the author of the Summa is mainly based on a considera* 

 tion of the mystical Kitabu-r-Rahmah (Book of Pity). So far as we can ascertain he has never replied to Leclerc's suggestion that 

 theoriginal of the Summa is the Kitdbu-l-Khalis (Book of the Essence), of which a copy exists in Arabic MS. No. 1083 of the 

 Bibliotheque Nationale (cf. Histoire de la Medecine Arabe, I, p. 74 ; Hajl Khalfa's Kashfu-Ah-hDunun, V, p. 79). 



