University of Tehran Press Journal for the History of Science 1735-0573 18 2 2020 12 21 Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in by Ḥājjī Zayn al-ʿAṭṭār Shīrāzī: Identification of Sources, Manuscript Genealogy, and Its Relationship to Ikhtiyārāt-i Badīʿī Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in by Ḥājjī Zayn al-ʿAṭṭār Shīrāzī: Identification of Sources, Manuscript Genealogy, and Its Relationship to Ikhtiyārāt-i Badīʿī 521 565 82578 10.22059/jihs.2021.320446.371620 FA Younes Karamati استادیار 0000-0001-9587-3282 Journal Article 2021 03 10 Background & Objectives: Manuscript catalogers and contemporary scholars have generally regarded Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in as a preliminary version of Ikhtiyārāt-i Badīʿī, authored by ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Anṣārī, known as Ḥājjī Zayn al-ʿAṭṭār Shīrāzī, in 767 AH (1365–66 CE). According to this prevailing view, the author later revised the text in 770 AH (1368–69 CE) by omitting the second discourse (maqāla) and adding four chapters to the final discourse, dedicating the newly titled Ikhtiyārāt-i Badīʿī to Badīʿ al-Jamāl, the spouse of the Muzaffarid ruler Amīr Mubāriz al-Dīn. The assumed similarity between these two works is so pervasive that several scholars—treating them as virtually identical—have considered Ikhtiyārāt-i Badīʿī to be the author's only known work, largely neglecting or failing to cite the actual content of Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in. However, a textual analysis based on the manuscripts of Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in demonstrates the inaccuracy of this common assumption, as the discrepancies between the two works are far too substantial to overlook one in favor of the other. These differences extend beyond structural additions or omissions to the core content of numerous entries, revealing significant revisions that reflect a fundamental shift in the author's methodological approach across the two compositions.Methodology & Findings: By examining three early manuscripts of Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in and over twenty manuscripts of Ikhtiyārāt-i Badīʿī, this study demonstrates a textual contamination between the two works across a considerable number of extant copies. Consequently, preparing a critical edition of either text proves impossible without consulting the earliest manuscripts of the other, particularly given that this intermixing is already prominent in the second-oldest surviving manuscript of each work. Furthermore, several manuscripts misidentified in manuscript catalogs as Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in have been identified and distinguished from authentic copies. Through a comparative analysis of entry titles and content—focusing on scribal errors, lacunae, and shared textual corruption—a stemma codicum (genealogical tree) for the manuscripts of Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in has been established.Results & Conclusion: Statistical analysis of the entries reveals that Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in deviates from the standardized conventions of Islamic pharmacological treatises. Nevertheless, it holds exceptional linguistic significance due to its comprehensive inclusion of diverse drug names across multiple languages, dialects, and variant orthographies. Finally, a critical examination of the author's citations shows that among the 22 sources referenced in Miftāḥ, Zayn al-ʿAṭṭār consulted only Ibn Jazlah’s Minhāj al-Bayān and Ibn al-Bayṭār’s Al-Jāmiʿ directly, relying on these two works as intermediaries for the remaining citations. In addition, two unacknowledged sources utilized in the text—Rāzī’s Abdāl al-Adwiya and Bīrūnī’s Kitāb al-Ṣaydana—have been successfully identified. Background & Objectives: Manuscript catalogers and contemporary scholars have generally regarded Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in as a preliminary version of Ikhtiyārāt-i Badīʿī, authored by ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Anṣārī, known as Ḥājjī Zayn al-ʿAṭṭār Shīrāzī, in 767 AH (1365–66 CE). According to this prevailing view, the author later revised the text in 770 AH (1368–69 CE) by omitting the second discourse (maqāla) and adding four chapters to the final discourse, dedicating the newly titled Ikhtiyārāt-i Badīʿī to Badīʿ al-Jamāl, the spouse of the Muzaffarid ruler Amīr Mubāriz al-Dīn. The assumed similarity between these two works is so pervasive that several scholars—treating them as virtually identical—have considered Ikhtiyārāt-i Badīʿī to be the author's only known work, largely neglecting or failing to cite the actual content of Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in. However, a textual analysis based on the manuscripts of Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in demonstrates the inaccuracy of this common assumption, as the discrepancies between the two works are far too substantial to overlook one in favor of the other. These differences extend beyond structural additions or omissions to the core content of numerous entries, revealing significant revisions that reflect a fundamental shift in the author's methodological approach across the two compositions.Methodology & Findings: By examining three early manuscripts of Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in and over twenty manuscripts of Ikhtiyārāt-i Badīʿī, this study demonstrates a textual contamination between the two works across a considerable number of extant copies. Consequently, preparing a critical edition of either text proves impossible without consulting the earliest manuscripts of the other, particularly given that this intermixing is already prominent in the second-oldest surviving manuscript of each work. Furthermore, several manuscripts misidentified in manuscript catalogs as Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in have been identified and distinguished from authentic copies. Through a comparative analysis of entry titles and content—focusing on scribal errors, lacunae, and shared textual corruption—a stemma codicum (genealogical tree) for the manuscripts of Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in has been established.Results & Conclusion: Statistical analysis of the entries reveals that Miftāḥ al-Khazā’in deviates from the standardized conventions of Islamic pharmacological treatises. Nevertheless, it holds exceptional linguistic significance due to its comprehensive inclusion of diverse drug names across multiple languages, dialects, and variant orthographies. Finally, a critical examination of the author's citations shows that among the 22 sources referenced in Miftāḥ, Zayn al-ʿAṭṭār consulted only Ibn Jazlah’s Minhāj al-Bayān and Ibn al-Bayṭār’s Al-Jāmiʿ directly, relying on these two works as intermediaries for the remaining citations. In addition, two unacknowledged sources utilized in the text—Rāzī’s Abdāl al-Adwiya and Bīrūnī’s Kitāb al-Ṣaydana—have been successfully identified. https://jihs.ut.ac.ir/article_82578_b23875a22c4fcfebc11826fe50e4ec53.pdf