Talk:Pseudo-Geber

Breaking inapproriate redirect of talk pages
I wonder why the discussion of the Geber page redirects to the Pseudo-Geber talk? If at all it would make more sense vice-versa imho. 134.76.62.145 13:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My fault, sorry. About a year ago I moved the "Geber" article to "Pseudo-Geber" since its contents was about the latter. Then I started a new article on the real Jabir, which has grown to the present Geber article. However that move also created a redirect from "Talk:Geber" to "Talk:Pseudo-Geber", which I did not notice in time.  As a result, many comments about "Geber" ended up in this page. I have now broken the redirect and moved those comments to Talk:Geber where they belonged.  Unfortunately, the edit history will remain here; but since the comments on the two topics were all mixed up, that seems unavoidable. Jorge Stolfi 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

English translations of titles
The English translations of the Latin titles seem wrong. E.g, isn't "summa" more like "summary" than "sum"? Jorge Stolfi 22:07, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely certain what the intended meaning of summa perfectionis magisterii is, but summa should either be "summary" or "peak, highest point," definitely not "sum" which would be horribly unidiomatic English. Likewise, why "Magistery" rather than "Mastery"?
 * Liber fornacum does mean "Book of Furnaces," but it is likely that in this context it refers to stills, as these were apparently referred to byt he name fornax stillaticia ("dripping furnace" vel sim.) in Medieval Latin.
 * De inventione veritatis is currently rendered as "On the Invention of Verity." I ask you, who says "verity"? Obviously that should be changed to "Truth." It is also likely that inventio here means "discovery." "The discovery of truth" certainly sounds much less sinester than "the invention of truth" ;)
 * Many of these changes can be made immediately, but some kind of require a little knowledge of the subject matter. Anyone here know enough about the history of Alchemy and/or the works of Geber to comment on my suggestions? --Iustinus 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I left these titles uncorrected for almost a year, because I don't know anything about alchemy. But the horribly awkward, and sometimes downright incorrect translations finally grated on me enough that I've gone ahead and made the changes I suggested above. If you can improve them, please do. --Iustinus 08:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is who
To MykReeve: I basically copydesked the page, and have no opinin about the facts. According to the original contents, however, THIS guy is some anonymous 14th century Spaniard who assumed the pen name of Jabir Ibn Hayyan, in Latin "Geber". The REAL Jabir Ibn Hayyan/Geber lived in Islam in the 8th century. So, are you saying that this information is wrong, and there is only one Jabir/Geber? Or perhaps that this "anonymous Spaniard" was actually another Muslim, coincidentally with the same name as the real Jabir/Geber/McCoy? Thanks, Jorge Stolfi 17:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah no. I have no opinion on the facts either. I was editing the first paragraph because it didn't appear to agree with the second paragraph. I'd not realised that both names were pseudonyms and that his real name was unknown. Perhaps, for clarity, this should be mentioned. - MykReeve 20:58, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, done. Jorge Stolfi 00:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * About the talk page, this is a redirect from "talk geber". Yuber 01:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pseudo-Geber
The article on Pseudo-Geber begins:
 * Pseudo-Geber ("false Geber") is the name assigned by modern scholars to an anonymous alchemist born in the 14th century, probably in Spain. He wrote a few books on alchemy and metallurgy, in Latin, under the pen name of Jabir Ibn Haiyan (usually rendered Geber in Europe)

Um... surely if he wrote in Latin, and was in Europe, he did so under the pen name of Geber. The text as it stands seems to say he wrote under Jabir Ibn Haiyan which other Europeans changed to Geber when he must have used the name Geber just like all other European/Latin writers!

Is there a reason for the way it is phrased now? If not, I am going to change it. --Iustinus 16:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I went and made this change, and the equivalent one in the first paragraph of Geber. --Iustinus 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wait, the issue is not so clear. People at that time usually wrote "Geber" just as today English speakers write "Christopher Columbus"; but even so there were many who knew enough of Arabic to read the correct name, just as many English speakers know Columbus's Spanish or Italian name. That is even more likely for an alchemist in Spain who set out to write a pseudo-Arabic book. So it is quite possible that Pseudo-Geber wrote on the cover of his books something like "This is a treaty by the great (FULL ARABIC NAME OF JABIR), that we know as Geber".

Obviously this is not a question that we can settle by guessing. So I rewote the head section to leave that point open. Jorge Stolfi 04:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose one could go look at original editions of these books. A handy shortcut is WorldCat, which frequently gives the author's name as it appeared in the original text under the "responsibility" header. A quick, cursory look shows no hits for anythign but Geber (or inflexional forms thereof), but I confess I did not look that hard.
 * Some English speakers may refer to Columbus in Italian or Spanish forms, but I guarantee you that in Latin he is always refered to as Christophorus Columbus or Colonus. You will not see Cristobal Colón in Latin, I assure you. Partially because of the way Latin works, and partially because of tradition, Latinized forms tend to be much more common than "more accurate" vernacular ones.
 * That said, I have certainly seen some title pages for Latin translations of Arabic works that contain quotes similar to what you propose above, though the accuracy of the full names isn't always that high either. But what you say is possible.,
 * And in the final analysis I have no problem witih how you rephrased my edit. --Iustinus 08:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This "Pseudo-Geber" article needs to be removed and flagged for xenophobic hate
It appears that as anti-Middle-Eastern sentiment grows in todays "post-9/11 illusion", xenophobia is on the rise, and racism is peaking with racial profiling and torture being endorsed by the U.S government. As this is happening, it's not a surprise to me that even as the U.S attempts to erase countries from the world (Afghanistan/Iraq) with bombs, it is also trying to erase the Middle-East's culture and history. This is a perfect example, taking Middle-Eastern philosophers, inventors, scientists and leaders, then saying that "No, these people didn't exist, it was really an anonymous European/Spaniard who somehow adopted this pen name", come on, there wasn't a Spaniard alive who would take the nickname "Abu Musa Jabir ibn Hayyan" let alone be able to spell it or pronounce it at the time. This article should be removed from Wikipedia, it would be like me making an article called "Psuedo-George Washington"; George Washington was really a Muslim named Muhammad Al-Hamza Yazid Bakr who took the penname "George Washington" and moved to America. Haramzadi 05:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have misunderstood the article. Please read it again carefully. It is not about the 8th century alchemist Geber and does not denigrate him or claim he didn't exist.  The 14th century Spanish alchemist who wrote in his name was honoring Geber. This was a common practice until modern times. --Blainster 22:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OR it could be that he was a good and learned/linguist person who wanted to transfer and secure the knowledge in Arabic available in that time Spain, and he used the real Jabir's Name on articles that he translated or even decrypted as most of jabir;s work was in encrypted form and in poetic Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.45.251 (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

His works dated to 1310?
It's something wrong with either his time of birth (the article said he was born in the 14th century), or the time his works was made (1310), unless he was less then 10 yrs when he made the work.

The sentence saying "Pseudo-Geber was instrumental in spreading Islamic alchemical theories throughout western Europe", doesn't make sence if u compare it with the sentence saying "In any case, Pseudo-Geber's work reflects 14th century European alchemical practices rather than earlier Arab ones". Grrahnbahr 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 A.C.E. to 99 A.C.E. was the 1st Century. If early historians had studied more pure math they might have called years 1-99 the 0th Century.  But they didn't.  So 1300 to 1399 was the 14th Century.  And 1900 to 1999 was the 20th Century.  The article is correct to place 1310 in the 14th Century.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul of Taranto?
A recent change cites a recent book, claiming it establishes that false Geber is Paul of Taranto. But it doesn't cite any passages from this book to back up that claim. I think it should be reverted. Even if a single book asserts that claim, I don't think it should be stated as an established fact -- no matter how firmly that book asserts it. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * These are better sources for authorship (the cited ref merely quotes Newman). If you have time you can read the summa at google books. Be bold.
 * 1) William Newman, New Light on the Identity of Geber, Sudhoffs Archiv, 1985, Vol.69, pp. 76-90.
 * 2) Geber and William Newman The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber: A Critical Edition, Translation and Study ISBN 9004094664
 * The article could use a lot of helpJ8079s (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I am going to make a minor rewrite to the lead paragraph, so it doesn't imply that false Geber had always been conflated with Paul of Taranto, or that this conflation was universally accepted. Geo Swan (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Content Forking
I think this article is an example of Content forking. This aricle and the Geber article credit differnt authors for the same work. Dy yol (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to see your still around. I'm sure you're aware of the confusion around these guys. This article; Vladimir Karpenko and Jon A Norris. "Vitriol in the History of Chemistry". Chemike Listy vol. 96 pp. 997-1005, 2002. ISSN 0009-2770,as the name implies, deals with sulfuric acid. Nitric acid was in use before sulfuric. Those who took the Summa to be 8th century gave the credit to "Jabir". It might be safe to Be BoldJ8079s (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

unreliable
For example, the historian Ahmad Y. al-Hassan, disputes the existence of a "pseudo-Geber" based on his research of recently discovered Arabic manuscripts of Jābir which show strong similarities to the Latin manuscripts of Geber.

I am taking out Hassan as an unreliable source. The Book of the Hidden Pearl appears to be from a German translation of the Stockholm papyrus. THE ARABIC ORIGINAL OF LIBER DE COMPOSITIONE ALCHEMIAE is not about an Arabic original just the work of others that is covered elsewhere by WP:rs. A CRITICAL REASSESSMENT OF THE GEBER PROBLEM reads like it might be his lecture notes the sources he cites do not support his conclusions. If necessary we can take this to Reliable Sources noticeboard which I might do any way.J8079s (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC) From the previous discussion at Reliable Sources noticeboard That all said, the important place of Islamic culture in the history of science is fairly uncontroversial. It is fairly well-covered by clearly reliable sources such as encyclopedias, textbooks and university press publications. The article should really be relying on this body of (relatively) easily available top-tier reliable sources. However, including a few citations to the self-published site of an established expert should not be a problem. J8079s (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Holmyard Quote Inappropriate
The Holmyard quote is very inappropriate. The explanation of the differences between Pseudo-Geber and the Arab original as being the products of the 'occidental versus the oriental' mind are spitting examples of subtle scientific racism. This certainly shouldn't be presented as a source, as it is bogus. What on earth is the 'occidental mind'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.85.182 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

like manlike
______________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.9.192 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In the new american bible in the book of Daniel it mentions Gabriel for the first time in the bible.... after it changed from Aramaic to Hebrew... Daniel 8:15,16 it mentions

15 While I, Daniel, sought the meaning of the vision I had seen, a manlike figure stood before me, 16 6 and on the Ulai I heard a human voice that cried out, "Gabriel, explain the vision to this man."

6 [16] The angel Gabriel is mentioned here for the first time in the Bible. There is wordplay in the preceding verse on geber - manlike figure.

and so I extrapolated that GEBER in hebrew means manlike... and Gabriel is a wordplay on Geber... so pseudo-geber would be "pseudo - manlike", yes?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PST.HTM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.9.192 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice idea, except that Geber is from the Arabic jabir, meaning comforter, rescuer or enforcer, and Gabriel (Man of God or Strength of God) is from Hebrew, rather than Arabic. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)