Introduction
During the Mongol and Timurid periods, cities such as Tabriz, Shiraz, Herat, and Samarkand witnessed a surge in the production of works in astronomy, mathematics, and medicine. These works constituted a body of literature that Ottoman scholars either followed, read, or were at least aware of in some capacity. The pharmacological knowledge and compendia that were read and written in the Turkish-Islamic power centers like the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires were predominantly composed in Arabic and Persian, a tradition that dated back to the Islamic Middle Ages. Consequently, many scholars and authors in this field continued to draw upon earlier compendia by predecessors such as Ibn al-Bayṭār (d. 646/1248) and Yūsuf b. İsmā‘īl al-Kutubī (d. 754/1353-54)[1] , utilizing a shared medical and pharmaceutical nomenclature that was heavily influenced by Arabic, Greek, and Persian terms, especially when it came to the names of remedies and medical terminology. However, the Ottomans distinguished themselves from their Eastern neighbors (particularly in the Safavids and Mughals) through their greater efforts in producing Turkish medical and pharmaceutical works and in translating previously written texts into Turkish.
During this period, the three empires, closely connected through literary and visual arts, shared an intellectual network that facilitated the circulation of knowledge from the Indian subcontinent to the lands of Rūm. A portion of the literate population proficient in Arabic and Persian sustained the exchange of knowledge and culture among the three empires, with Persian—at least as much as, if not more than Arabic—serving as a significant channel in facilitating this circulation. From the sixteenth century onward, as the Ottomans expanded eastward, Persian became essential for identifying medicinal substances among imported goods. This need fostered interest in Persian pharmacopoeia (mufradāt) literature. Among the prominent works in this literature, and the focus of this study, is Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī (The Selections for Badī‘).
Ḥaji Zayn-i Aṭṭār (d. 806/1403-04), the author of Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī, was a physician who lived in Iran during the period between Mongol and Timurid rule. His aforementioned work gained popularity not only among the Ottomans but also in Safavid Iran and the Mughal Indian subcontinent, with numerous copies surviving to this day[2] . Another significant aspect of this work is that it was produced during the Mongol and Timurid periods. Thus, while the depth of the Mongol-Timurid influence in the Ottoman pharmacopeial corpus requires a more comprehensive study, this work will only briefly address this point.
This paper first introduces Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī and highlights its position within the Islamic medical and pharmacopeial literature. Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī, written in Persian in the late 14th century, is an extensive pharmacopoeia that discusses not only simple remedies but also compound remedies, and its numerous surviving copies indicate its esteemed status. In this study, while presenting Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī, aspects that are likely to capture the interest of Ottoman readers have been emphasized.
Subsequently, this study briefly outlines the journey of Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī in the Ottoman realm, highlighting the points at which it attracted Ottoman interest and how it was utilized as a source. Both in the 14th century, when Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī was composed, and in the 18th century, when it was translated into Turkish, the circulation of medical and pharmacopeial knowledge between Ottoman lands and Persia remained steady and uninterrupted. The transmission of Persian medical and pharmacological experience to Turkish-speaking readers was made possible through, albeit partially, translations of esteemed figures such as Zayn al-Dīn Ismā‘īl al-Jurjānī (d. 531/1137), Maḥmūd b. İlyās al-Shīrāzī (d. 730/1330), and Mawlānā Yūsufī Harawī (10th/16th century), culminating in the 18th century with the translation of two significant and comprehensive works: Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī, the focus of this study, and Tuḥfat al-mu’minīn [The Gift to the Faithful] by the Safavid physician-author Muḥammad Muʾmīn Ḥusaynī (c. 11th/17th century). The aim of this paper, however, is not to provide a comprehensive account of the scientific exchange between the lands of Rūm (diyār-i Rūm) and Iran (diyār-i ‘Ajam). Rather, it seeks to explore how Persian pharmacopeia works, which served as sources for the Ottomans’ knowledge of simple remedies, came to their attention, with a particular focus on Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī. This study examines the motivations behind its translation, the methods employed in the process, and its relationship to similar contemporary translations.
Zayn-i Aṭṭār [Zayn the Apothecary] and his Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī
Throughout the Middle Ages, the Persian region, and particularly Shiraz, provided an ideal environment for pharmacologists due to its diverse climate, the ability to cultivate various plant species, and its strategic location along major trade routes. This allowed it to connect with far-reaching regions such as China, India, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Anatolia, and the Mediterranean, positioning Shiraz at the center of plant trade traffic. The vineyards and gardens of Shiraz, celebrated in poetry, not only inspired literary works but also created a conducive environment for those studying medicine and pharmacopoeia. In other words, a wide variety of remedies flowed into Shiraz through trade, while its cultivated gardens enabled the agricultural growth of numerous plant species.
In the 14th century, Shiraz was home to prominent figures in the fields of science and philosophy. The Muzaffarid ruler Jalāl al-Dīn Shāh Shujā‘ (r. 1358-1384) made Shiraz his capital and gathered scholars and artists in the city[3] . Influential poets of Persian literature, such as Ḥāfez Shīrāzī (d. 792/1390 [?]), produced significant works, while esteemed scholars, including Qutb al-Dīn Shīrāzī (d. 710/1311)[4] , a prominent medieval Islamic astronomer and philosopher; Qaḍī Aḍud al-Dīn al-’Ījī (d. 756/1355), author of al-Mawāqif; and Sayyid Sharīf alJurjānī (d. 816/1413)[5] , renowned for his commentary on al-ʿĪjī’s al-Mawāqif and invited by Shāh Shujā‘ to serve at the Muzaffarid hospital, reflected the intellectual and literary richness of Shiraz during this era[6] . Thus, the city where Ḥaji Zayn al-Dīn Alī b. Ḥusayn al-Ansārī (previously mentioned as Zayn-i Aṭṭār[7] and will be referred to as such hereafter), the author of one of the most important works of the Persian pharmacopeial corpus, Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī, lived, was, as Limbert puts it, simply “Shiraz in the Age of Hafez”, a city rich in such scholarly and cultural life[8] .
Zayn-i Aṭṭār, born in AH 730 (1329/30) into a family of physicians, received his initial medical training from his father[9] . From AH 760 (1358/1359) onward, he served as a physician to Shāh Shujā‘ for 16 years[10]. While continuing his practice as a physician, Zayn-i Aṭṭār compiled his pharmacopoeia Miftāḥ al-khazā’in [the Key of Treasures] in AH 767 (1365/66), which was actually the first version of his more popular work, Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī, completed three years later in AH 770 (1368/69). The full title of the book is Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī, fī al-adwiya al-mufrada wa al-murakkaba or Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī, fi al-ṭibb, also known as Jāmi‘ Zayn al-Aṭṭār, but it is widely referred to simply as Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī. The work is divided into two sections (referred to as maqāla or risāla in some manuscripts), covering both simple remedies and compound remedies[11].
It is evident that the title of the book was inspired by Badī‘ al-jamāl, whom the author praises as “the protector of faith and the world, the purity of time and place, the source of generosity, and the epitome of beauty”[12]. Likely upon Badī‘ al-jamāl’s request, Zayn-i Aṭṭār expanded his Miftāḥ al-khazā’in and adapted it to be more suitable for the use of palace women, creating a new compilation[13]. According to the contemporary historian Maḥmūd Kutbī (9th/14th century), Badī‘ al-jamāl was a devout and charitable woman who, after being captured, married Muzaffarid ruler Mubārez al-Dīn Muḥammad (r. 1314-1358)[14]. This aligns with Zayn-i Aṭṭār’s elaborate praise: “…no matter how deep understanding, religious consciousness, contemplation of secrets, quick comprehension, and sharp intellect may travel in the vast realm of possibilities and the expanse of time, they cannot reach the throne-bearing, queenly figure, the earthly Bilqis, the queen of women, except in the celestial abode and the gardens of paradise…”[15]. From this lengthy eulogy, it is clear that Badī‘ al-jamāl held Zayn-i Aṭṭār in high regard and acted as his patron.
After the death of Shāh Shujā‘ and during the Timurid rule over Shiraz, there is no information available regarding Zayn-i Aṭṭār’s activities, except that he passed away in Shiraz in AH 806 (1403/04)[16]. Ikhtiyārāt, which has 26 copies identified in Turkish libraries, shows variations in some of its manuscripts[17]. Indeed, in certain versions of the text, it is evident that sentences beginning with “ ابن مؤلف كويد” /the son of the author states...” were additions made by his sons[18].
The first maqāla of the book focuses on simple remedies and introducing the remedies in alphabetical order. Many of the lemma titles are in Arabic, as was customary for the scientific language of that period. Following the lemma names, information is provided on their local equivalents, types, properties, benefits, potential harms, and possible substitutes to use if they are unavailable. In short, Zayn-i Aṭṭār adhered to a tradition applied in nearly all classical Islamic pharmacopoeias. In line with the tradition of Islamic pharmacopeial literature, while the lemmas are given in Arabic for terminological consistency, Ikhtiyārāt also follows the practice of including equivalents in Greek, Berber, Persian, Syriac, Turkish, Mongolic, and Indian languages[19]. However, although Zayn-i Aṭṭār structured his work with Arabic names, he also provided Persian equivalents for each lemma, along with local names used in regions within Iran (such as Shiraz, Tabriz, and Isfahan). This not only created Persian equivalents for remedies for Persian-speaking readers but also strengthened this tradition in subsequent Persian medical texts. In other words, through Ikhtiyārāt, which extensively included Persian equivalents of the Arabic lemma dominant in the Islamic Middle Ages, a nomenclature for the Persian pharmacopeial corpus was established[20]. However, since not every reader would be familiar with the Arabic technical terms for remedies or the Arabic medical terminology, independent treatises were also prepared to explain the Arabic terms and remedy names used in Ikhtiyārāt for its readers[21].
The second maqāla, however, addresses compound remedies and is organized into sixteen chapters[22]. He was able to acquire and experiment with many plant species, even those not native to the Persian region, thanks to Shiraz’s position along major trade routes[23]. Thus, he had the knowledge and experience to test the data from prominent medieval pharmacopoeia authors, such as Ibn al-Bayṭār and Ibn al-Kutubī, whose works he frequently referenced[24]. Thus, this work, which succeeded in achieving originality, maintained its prestige even during the periods when Western influences were felt in the Iranian pharmacological literatüre[25].
The author, considering the interests of Badī‘ al-jamāl to whom he dedicated his work, did not limit the content to just the description and use of remedies but also included recipes for various foods and fragrances. Additionally, taking into account the differences between male and female bodies, he devoted special sections to remedies specifically for women’s health and ailments (such as menstruation, childbirth, breastfeeding, and cosmetic recipes tailored for women). As I will elaborate below, it is evident that Ottoman authors also referred to Ikhtiyārāt when discussing treatments and recipes specific to women, making it a frequently consulted source in this regard, as I will detail further.
The Journey and Influence of Ikhtiyārāt among the Ottomans
In the second half of the 14th century, when Ikhtiyārāt was compiled, and in the period that followed, scholars who wished to leave Iran due to the political instability following the Timurid era tended to prefer Ottoman territories, thanks to the presence of earlier Iranian scholars in Ottoman scholarly centers[26]. The flow of scholars from the regions of Iran and Azerbaijan to Anatolia and Rumelia, which would later become Ottoman territories, continued to exist from the very foundation of the Ottoman Empire in the 14th century, albeit with fluctuations[27].
Particularly in the 15th century, following the conquest of Istanbul, the Ottoman territories became attractive to scholars due to their newfound political stability and the construction of numerous madrasas, which created a demand for professors[28]. Likewise, during this period, the Ottoman court, having consolidated regional political power, offered ideal patronage opportunities for Muslim scholars. During the reign of Mehmed II (r. 1444-1446, 1451-1481), physicians arriving from Iran were held in high regard and appointed to positions at the Topkapi Palace[29]. In addition to scholars who came voluntarily, there were also those forcibly brought to Istanbul by Selim I (r. 1512-1520) after his conquest of Tabriz, along with hundreds of other scholars and craftsmen[30].
During this period, several key figures stand out in establishing a network between the Iranian region and the Ottomans: Sabuncuoğlu Şerefeddīn (d. after 873/1468) and Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī (d. 908/1502). In the 15th century, the Amasya Darüşşifa (hospital) became a significant stop for some scholars coming from Iran. For instance, during the reign of Mehmed II, Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd al-Shirvānī (9th/15th century), who influenced Ottoman gastronomy and medicine through his works and was described by Taşköprīzāde Ahmed (d. 968/1561) as a “very knowledgeable and virtuous physician”, is said to have received training at the Amasya Darüşşifa[31]. While it is unclear whether Şerefeddīn had any contact with Shirvanī, he held an important position in this transfer network. Indeed, another contemporary Ottoman scholar of Şerefeddīn, Ibn Şerīf (9th/15th century), is known to have met Shirvānī or seen his Works[32]. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Şerefeddīn translated only the last part (Aqrabādhīn, the 10th book)[33] of Zayn al-Dīn Ismāʿīl al-Jurjānī’s Dhakhīra-i khwārazmshāhī [the Treasure of Khwarazmshāh] into Turkish in the 15th century, rather than the entire work[34]. Through his translation of a portion of al-Jurjānī’s Dhakhīra-i khwarazmshāhī, Şerefeddīn was a pioneer in introducing the Persian medical tradition into the Ottoman intellectual milieu. By contrast, the complete work was later translated into Turkish in the 16th century by Abū’l-Fażl Muḥammad b. Idrīs Efendi al-Defterdār (d. 971/1564) under the title Qānūn al-‘ilāj wa shifā’al-amrāż li-kulli mizāj [The Canon of Treatment and the Healing of Diseases according to Every Humoral Temperament][35]. Additionally, Şerefeddīn mentored the Iranian physician Ghiyāth al-Dīn b. Muḥammad Mutatabbib Isfahānī (d. 908/1502), who came to Amasya to advance his medical knowledge, enabling him to later serve the Ottomans[36]. Like Şerefeddīn, Ghiyāth al-Dīn also utilized al-Jurjānī’s Dhakhīra in his own work, Mir‘āt al-siḥḥa fī al-ṭibb [The Mirror of Health in Medicine], which he presented to Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512) [37].
Apart from Şerefeddīn, al-Dawānī also played a key role in facilitating the migration of Iranian scholars to Ottoman territories. He maintained connections with both Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II and the scholars in Istanbul and Anatolia[38]. Al-Dawānī and his students, such as Ḥakim-shāh Muḥammad al-Qazvīnī (d. 928/1522), were pivotal in the exchange of knowledge and scholars between Iran and Anatolia[39]. Indeed, this network established by al-Dawānī was supported by his former student, Mu’eyyedzāde Abdurrahmān Efendī (d. 922/1516), who was known for his close ties with Bayezid II and his open support for scholars coming from Iran, such as Idrīs Bidlīsī (d. 926/1520)[40].
The pharmacopeial works produced in the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires, which inherited the scholarly and cultural sphere established by the Timurids, circulated to varying extents not only among these three states but also in other Islamic territories. For example, Jāmi’al-Fawā’id [Collection of Useful Knowledge], one of the works by Mawlānā Yūsufi Harawī (10th/16th century), who served the Timurid court and then left Iran for India, had several copies that made their way to Istanbul, while his famous Treatise on Tea was translated into Ottoman Turkish by Bursalı Alī Münşī (d. 1146/1733)[41]. Similarly, the renowned work Tadhkira ’ulī al-bāb [Reminder for People of Intellect] by the famous Ottoman author Dāwūd al-Anṭākī (d. 1008/1599) was widely circulated from Iran to the Maghreb[42]. A prominent example of reciprocal exchange between the two regions is the translation of Muḥammad Mu’mīn Ḥusaynī’s Tuhfat al-mu’minīn [Gift to the Faithful], completed in 1669 and dedicated to Safavid ruler Suleimān Safavī (r. 1666-1694), which drew upon sources like Dāwūd al-Anṭākī’s Tadhkira[43]. It was translated into Ottoman Turkish by Gevrekzāde Ahmed Sānī (d. 1178/1764) under the title Gunyat al-muḥaṣṣilīn fī tarjamat tuḥfat al-mu’minīn [The Sufficient Guide for Translating the Gift to the Faithful], and numerous copies have survived.
The circulation I have briefly summarized contributed to the journey of Ikhtiyārāt within Ottoman territories. Determining exactly when Ikhtiyārāt arrived is challenging. Tracing its presence in the texts, I find no mention of it in the works of renowned 16th-century scholars such as Ibn Şerīf ’s (9th/15th Century) Yādigār, Nidāī Ankarāvī’s (d. after 975/1567) Menāfi‘ al-nās, or most notably Dāwūd al-Anṭākī’s Tadhkira. He, the most prominent representative of the Ottoman pharmacopoeia literature and author of Tadhkira, does not mention Ikhtiyārāt in his work. While listing the Arabic-writing authors who had produced works in this field before him, neither the title nor any reference to Ikhtiyārāt or Zayn-i Aṭṭār appears in his text[44]. Similarly, there is no trace of Ikhtiyārāt in the works of Şerefeddīn, who had some contact with Iran.
Despite this silence in Ottoman texts, Ikhtiyārāt is known to have been part of the library at the court of Bayezid II. In the catalog of the palace library compiled by Merzifonlu Hayreddīn Atūfī (d. 948/1541), Ikhtiyārāt is listed under the subject of adwiya wa’l-mufrada (simple remedies)[45]. This indicates that Ikhtiyārāt was already present in Ottoman territories in the early 16th century, likely reaching the Sultan through the scholarly circulation mentioned above. Of course, Ikhtiyārāt made its presence known in certain texts during this century. Hasan b. Abdurrahmān (10th/16th century), who translated Ibn al-Kutubī’s Mā lā yasa‘u tabība jahluhu [What a Physician Cannot Afford to Ignore] into Ottoman Turkish—a book frequently utilized by Zayn-i Aṭṭār —referred to Ikhtiyārāt in his translation by describing it as “the Persian pharmacopoeia known as Mufradāt-i ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī”[46]. He thus drew upon Ikhtiyārāt for additions and explanations. Although Hasan was not a physician, he noted that he had examined the pharmacopeial books of his time and received support from esteemed figures such as Hodja Sa’deddīn Efendi (d. 1008/1599) and other prominent physicians of the period[47]. This demonstrates that Ikhtiyārāt was already known and utilized during that time among the works Hasan consulted while preparing his translation. Hasan must have assumed that his readers might lack sufficient knowledge about Ikhtiyārāt, as he felt the need to briefly introduce it. In any case, it is evident that it was among the pharmacopeial works referenced by physicians of that era.
Ikhtiyārāt began to assert itself more strongly in pharmacopeial texts authored in the 17th century. For instance, authors such as Sakızlı Īsā Efendi (d. 1059/1649) and Hezārfen Hüseyin Efendi (d. 1103/1691) must have been aware that Ikhtiyārāt was not yet widely known, as they included brief introductions to the work. Sakızlı Īsā Efendi, who frequently referenced Ikhtiyārāt in his writings, introduced Zayn-i Aṭṭār with the statement: “The author of Ikhtiyārāt-i badī‘ī was a man who worked as an aṭṭār (pharmacist) and ‘aşşāb (herbalist) for forty years, endured many hardships, and explained every remedy with proof, drawing from numerous medical books…” acknowledging his expertise[48]. Similarly, Hezārfen Hüseyin emphasized the recognition of the work in the literature by stating, “Ikhtiyārāt and other respected books….”[49]
In the 17th-century Ottoman pharmacopeial texts, Ikhtiyārāt was among the works consulted, alongside Ibn al-Bayṭār’s al-Jāmi‘ li-mufradāt, particularly for details on the properties and uses of remedies. Beyond medical texts, Ikhtiyārāt was also a significant reference for those conducting studies in Persian literature. For example, Şu’ūrī Hasan Efendī (d. 1105/1693-94), who compiled the comprehensive Persian dictionary Farhang-i şu‘ūrī, extensively utilized Ikhtiyārāt in his detailed explanations of medicinal lemmas[50]. Şu’ūrī’s reliance on Ikhtiyārāt underscores the work’s prestige among the Ottomans as a credible source for Persian pharmacological and medical terminology.
As seen in phrases such as “…the author of Ikhtiyārāt was mistaken in this matter...,” [51] the Ottomans occasionally compared the information they obtained from the book with other works. The Ottomans evaluated Zayn-i Aṭṭār’s descriptions and definitions by comparing them with those of other pharmacopeial authors or perhaps tested Ikhtiyārāt through their own observations and experiences. In the 18th century, Yirmisekizçelebizāde Mehmed Sa’īd Paşa (d. 1175/1761) made a similar critique in Farā’id al-mufradāt [The Essentials of Simple Remedies], stating, “… the author of Ikhtiyārāt taking a risk, stated it was....” [52].
Ikhtiyārāt not only includes Zayn-i Aṭṭār’s experiences and insights but also incorporates the views and experiences of approximately 30 earlier medicine scholars, making it a frequent reference for Ottoman scholars[53]. Furthermore, Zayn-i Aṭṭār created a comprehensive work that encompassed not only the knowledge produced in the Iranian and Indian regions but also the descriptions, opinions, and formulas from other Arabic and Persian pharmacopeial texts. As seen, for example, in Sakızlı Īsā’s use of Ikhtiyārāt to convey the views of Sharīf al-Idrīsī (d. 560/1165), the Ottomans accessed a summary of pre-14th-century Islamic pharmacopeial knowledge largely through this work[54].
In the 17th century, the production of works in Ottoman literature in this field, whether original or translations, increased compared to the previous century[55]. For instance, pharmacopeial texts such as Ibn al-Kutubī’s Mā lā yasa‘u tabība jahluhu, Dāwūd al-Anṭākī’s Tadhkira, Sennert’s Pharmacologie, Ibn al-Bayṭār’s al-alMughnī fī al-adwiyah and al-Jāmi‘ li-mufradāt, von Mynscht’s Thesaurus, Muhammad Mu’min Husaynī’s Tuḥfat al-mu’minīn, and Mattioli’s Commentarii were translated into Ottoman Turkish[56]. Likewise, as I will examine in detail below, the translation of Ikhtiyārāt was also completed during this period.
The increase in the production of works starting in the 17th century was primarily driven by the belief that the simple remedies in circulation at the time were insufficient to cure diseases, prompting the search for new remedies and treatments[57]. The inclusion of medical applications of alchemy or iatrochemistry by Paracelsus and his followers, the introduction of plants such as smilax (known as chūpchīnī) from the India-China region, and the emergence of new plants like coffee increased interest in these works. More precisely, those who found the existing knowledge inadequate and sought new treatments began turning to these texts.
Additionally, the 17th century marked the peak of Ottoman imperial expansion, during which the empire encompassed ancient cultural and scientific centers like Syria and Egypt and held the Islamic literary heritage accumulated over a millennium. This was also a period when the Ottomans drew closer geographically and culturally to vibrant Islamic regions like Iran and the Indian subcontinent. Consequently, works like Ikhtiyārāt, which recorded and transmitted the experiences of those living in these regions, gained attention in Ottoman Istanbul and other central cities of the empire for their detailed knowledge about plants brought from Asia and their proper use.
Dāwūd al-Anṭākī, the author of Tadhkira, a seminal work in Ottoman and Islamic literature, also showed interest in Persian and Indian pharmacology thanks to his mentor, incorporating his observations into his writings[58]. During this period, when interest in works from the Persian and Indian regions as well as mineral remedies was growing, Fazlızāde Mehmed mentioned both Dāwūd al-Anṭākī and Ikhtiyārāt as the best sources for certain mineral compositions in his Mufradāt altibb[59]. Similarly, in his treatise introducing zedoary (jadwār), Alī Münşī claimed that Latin physicians had no knowledge of this plant and that Indian physicians were more knowledgeable. However, he chose to rely on Ikhtiyārāt as a key source on Indian medicine in his treatise[60].
Just as Alī Münşī did, Sakızlı Īsā and Fazlızāde Mehmed also referred the detailed information on jadwār (zedoary) found in Ikhtiyārāt in their works[61]. Around the same time, Europeans began exploratory expeditions to the Indian regions to study plants like jadwār, ginger, and turmeric on site[62].
Ikhtiyārāt is not merely a preferred source for simple remedies; it stands out among other pharmacopoeia works, particularly regarding women’s health. Since Zayn-i Aṭṭār wrote this work specifically for a princess, the detailed explanations he provided on women’s health and illnesses became a source of information for Ottoman authors as well. Consequently, Ikhtiyārāt became one of the sought-after works when Ottoman authors searched for answers on these topics. For instance, Siyāhī Lārendevī (d. before 1100/1689) partially translated Ikhtiyārāt into verse in his poetic work on medicine[63] and used its relevant sections for treatment methods, especially concerning skin and dental diseases, as well as women’s health issues (such as difficulties during pregnancy)[64]. Similarly, Hezārfen Hüseyin Efendi also referenced Zayn-i Aṭṭār’s experiences while describing a remedy for pregnancyrelated issues[65].
In summary, Ikhtiyārāt was seen by Ottoman authors as a work that re-tested the knowledge from earlier Islamic pharmacopeial texts, provided information on remedies originating from Asia (particularly Iran and India), and distinguished itself with its focus on mineral compositions. Additionally, it encompassed cosmetic and culinary information, as well as detailed examinations of women’s health and illnesses and their treatments. As such, this esteemed work in Ottoman medicine was eventually translated into Ottoman Turkish.
The Turkish translation of Ikhtiyārāt: Tercume-i ikhtiyārāt
Tercume-i ikhtiyārāt was translated into Ottoman Turkish by Muhammed Rızāyı Tabīb Īrānī[66] (12th/18th century) in Jumāda al-Awwal 1166 (March 1753), as the Sun approached the Aries. Beyond being of Iranian origin and a physician, Muhammed Rızā, whose identity I have not been able to determine, provides no further details about himself[67]. Muhammed Rızā introduces Ikhtiyārāt by stating, “Alī b. Ḥusayn al-Ansārī compiled a pharmacopoeia in Persian, known as Ikhtiyārāt-i badī’ī, which is a reputable and widely used book among physicians”. He then explains that he translated it into Turkish because, being in Persian, no one in this Turkish-speaking region could benefit from it[68].
This translated work begins with the Galenic humoral theory, which is not present in the original text[69]. It discusses the idea that bodies (minerals, plants, and animals) are formed from the proper combination of the four elements. The translator states that the purpose of beings that serve as remedies is to maintain human health and provide benefits against illnesses, and he notes that this knowledge is transmitted to humans through experimentation and research by physicians[70]. This explanation is rooted in Aristotelian philosophy, which holds that everything in the universe exists with a purpose[71].
Following this, the translation includes detailed explanations—originally developed by Ibn Sina and further elaborated by Zayn-i Aṭṭār —on where and how remedies are obtained, their storage conditions, and methods of use[72]. After this detailed introduction, the text continues with an alphabetical arrangement of simple remedies, beginning with the letter alif. Each lemma describes the remedy’s uses, its benefits, and, if applicable, its side effects.
This work, which has only one known copy in Turkish libraries, has not been finalized. The 278-folio manuscript is a draft, featuring differences in line counts and occasional scribbles on some pages. The headings of lemmas are marked with strikethroughs. The fact that the only identified copy of this work is in Bursa is notable. During that period, two of the most prolific figures in Ottoman medicine, Ömer Şifāī (d. 1155/1742) and Alī Münşī, were based in Bursa. Although Alī Münşī likely never saw this translation, Ikhtiyārāt is listed among the sources referenced in his works. The survival of two copies of Ikhtiyārāt in Bursa’s libraries suggests that physicians in Yıldırım Darüşşifa (hospital) or over Bursa, in general, showed interest in Ikhtiyārāt. It can be assumed that translator Muhammed Rızā completed his work in Bursa, driven by this local interest. Indeed, Hagen suggests that in such translations into Ottoman Turkish, the translators were likely motivated by something beyond merely making the work accessible to Turkishspeaking readers[73]. Muhammed Rızā, who likely identified himself as an Iranian-origin physician, as mentioned above, may have sought to establish his reputation within Anatolian scholarship courts or was possibly in search of patronage by translating this esteemed work, which was well-regarded in the region. From the 16th century on, Persian held a significant position for Ottoman belles-lettres in both literature and other written domains. With the support of statesmen like Nevşehirli Damad İbrahim Paşa (d. 1143/1730), the translation of Arabic and Persian classics had intensified[74]. Similarly, in the fields of medicine and pharmacology, figures like Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa (d. 1171/1758) and Damadzāde Ahmed Efendi (d. 1154/1741) acted as supporters for translations from Persian in the 18th century. It is likely that Muhammed Rızā sought to capitalize on this opportunity.
In the 18th century, Gevrekzāde Ahmed-i Sānī completed his translation of Muḥammad Muʾmin’s Tuḥfat al-mu’minīn in 1733, while Osmān b. Abdurrahmān (d. 1200/1786) finished his translation of P. Andrea Mattioli’s Commentarii on Dioscorides’s De materia medica in 1777[75]. Notably, these works were translated around the same time as Muhammad Rızā’s rendition of Ikhtiyārāt, reflecting a broader trend of pharmacological translation efforts in this period.
As seen in other Ottoman Turkish translations, this translation also underwent a filtering process. In other words, the entire original text was not translated verbatim, and some parts were summarized[76]. For instance, in the section under the letter ya, the original work includes 22 lemmas, whereas the translated manuscript contains only 10[77]. Additionally, the second maqāla of Ikhtiyārāt, which covers compound remedies, was not translated. The translator completed the first maqāla (focused on simple remedies) with a prayer and dated the manuscript, suggesting that he either chose not to translate the second maqāla or that the copy of Ikhtiyārāt he had did not include the second section. This possibility is supported by the fact that some polished copies of Ikhtiyārāt in Turkish libraries also lack the second maqāla. A similar filtering approach was adopted by Osmān b. Abdurrahmān, who chose to translate only the botanical lemmas from Mattioli’s Commentarii, rather than the entire text[78].
These translation efforts indicate that the Ottomans were actively seeking advancements in medicine and pharmacology during the 18th century. However, my focus here is not on the broader panorama of Ottoman medical sciences but rather on the trajectory of pharmacological works. Both in the 18th century and in earlier periods, the production of texts addressing the practical needs of the public became widespread in Ottoman Istanbul—likely in other imperial metropolises as well—due to the insufficiency of medical institutions such as hospitals[79]. Consequently, the process of producing pharmacological texts was not solely undertaken by physicians or formally trained medical professionals; rather, it also involved translators and authors who wrote in Turkish for public benefit, even if they lacked formal medical education[80].
Within this diverse group, some translators, such as Hasan b. Abdurrahmān, explicitly stated that they were not physicians, while others, like Muhammad Rızā, identified themselves as such. Although little information is available about the translator of the present text, the simplicity of the language used in the translation and the deliberate simplification of certain details from Zayn-i Aṭṭār’s work suggest that Muhammad Rızā’s motivation for translation was not exclusively directed toward physicians or medical professionals. If a revised and finalized copy of Rızā’s translation were to surface in the future and its intended recipient became clear, some of these uncertainties might be resolved. However, based on the extant draft manuscript, it is reasonable to infer that Muhammad Rızā wrote not only for physicians and professionals but also for curious readers interested in medicine or those seeking to treat themselves independently, which aligns with the practical medical culture of the time.
Indeed, the underlying reason for Rızā’s reluctance to translate the second maqāla of Ikhtiyārāt, which deals with compound remedies, was likely the greater sophistication of their preparation and materials. He may have considered these remedies too complex and the risk factor too high for individuals without medical training to attempt on their own.
The translator, Muhammed Rızā, largely followed the author’s arrangement of lemmas and used the Arabic technical terms preferred by the author for the headings, while adding Turkish equivalents for most terms, as in the example: isfenāj (spinach), in Persian and Turkish is called isbināk[81]. However, for some lemmas whose Turkish equivalents were known at the time, such as hirşef (Gundelia tournefortii) [82], the Turkish names were not included in the translation. Unlike Osmān b. Abdurrahmān or Ahmed Sānī [83], the translator, did not demonstrate the same level of diligence in providing Turkish equivalents for the lemma headings
In Ikhtiyārāt, details such as the equivalents of plants in Greek and Hindi, as given in the lemma for faranjmushk (Clinopodium graveolens subsp. rotundifolium) [84], or the various types of the plant mentioned under afsantīn (Artemisia abssinthum) (e.g., Khorasānī, Rūmī, Susī, Tarsūsī, and Nabātī)[85] are generally not included in Tercume-i ikhtiyārāt. Unlike Muhammed Rızā, Ahmed Sānī in his translation of Tuhfat almu’minīn in corporated a significant number of equivalents for remedy names in other languages and local Iranian dialects[86]. Similarly, Osmān b. Abdurrahmān included equivalents for remedy names in Arabic, Turkish, Bosnian, Greek, Latin, “Frankish”, and even other vernacular languages in his translation[87].
Regarding the content of the lemmas, objections by Zayn-i Aṭṭār to earlier authors such as Ibn al-Bayṭār and Ibn Jazla (d. 493/1100), as in the example of āzād-dirākht (Azadirachta indica) (where the author notes that its trunk and leaves are lethal to animals), are mostly omitted in the translation, with the translator limiting himself to conveying the author’s own views[88]. The translator likely considered these debates unnecessary for his readers.
Although rare, there are instances where Muhammed Rızā’s interpretation differs from that of Zayn-i Aṭṭār. For example, in the lemma for balsam (belesān), the translator writes: ‘It is a famous tree in Egypt with leaves resembling mother-of-pearl leaves but white. Its oil is used. Its wood is fine, and its wood is called ‘Ayn al-shams [89]. However, Zayn-i Aṭṭār states: ‘It is a tree in Egypt with leaves resembling mother-of-pearl, but whiter. It is found more abundantly in a place called ‘Ayn al-shams. Its oil is better and more virtuous than its seeds, and its wood is stronger[90].
In summary, Muhammed Rızā’s translation, while not a verbatim rendition of the original Ikhtiyārāt, conveys most of its content. In general, Ottoman translators, while translating original works, often considered it appropriate to include their own experiences or to incorporate the views of other authors. Sometimes, they even rearranged the structure of the text differently from the original[91]. Similarly, in Tercume-i ikhtiyārāt, the translator diverged from the author when arranging certain lemmas. For instance, the author explained the lemma for scolopendrion under the alef section, while the translator placed it under the sīn section, stating, ‘It will be explained under the letter Sin[92]. Although Muhammed Rızā, like Ahmed Sānī, identified himself as a physician, he did not make additional contributions to the translation as Ahmed Sānī did[93].
Similarly, the medical works brought back by Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa (d. 1171/1758), upon his return from Tabriz, reached Ottoman scholars[94]. It was within this context that the translation of Ikhtiyārāt, which I am examining here, emerged through the efforts of a translator aiming to contribute to the Turkish literary corpus. However, the fact that the only surviving copy is a draft and the limited information available about the translator makes it difficult to determine the exact motivations behind this translation.
Nevertheless, as evidenced by the examples, Ikhtiyārāt gained increasing interest among Ottoman scholars and became a focal point for pharmacopeial works during this period. This likely provided the translator with sufficient motivation for his work. Although the translator, Muhammed Rızā, differs from his contemporaries, Ahmed Sani and Osman b. Abdurrahman in certain aspects of his translation style and methodology, he also bears many similarities to them. In other words, Tercume-i ikhtiyārāt aligns well with the literary style and system of the 18th century in which it was produced.
Conclusion
The preservation of numerous manuscript copies of Ikhtiyārāt in libraries across India, Iran, and Turkey, as well as its frequent references in later works, indicates that, much like in the Safavid and Mughal empires, this book significantly contributed to Ottoman pharmacopeial literature. This also suggests that the Ottomans, to some extent, carried a shared intellectual and medical legacy with the Safavid and Mughal societies over an extended period.
Although detailed information regarding the translator of Ikhtiyārāt remains scarce, it is noteworthy that the work was translated during the period when prominent Ottoman statesmen, such as Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa—who encouraged the translation of Tuhfat al-mu’minīn—and Köprülüzāde Hacı Ahmed Paşa (d. 1182/1768-69), who promoted the translation of European medical texts into Turkish, were active. However, in the absence of conclusive evidence indicating that the translator resided in Istanbul, it is not possible to assert that he sought patronage. As previously mentioned, his use of plain Turkish, his tendency to summarize rather than provide extensive details, and his selective omission of certain lemmas indicate that his motivation was not merely to secure patronage or to produce a text exclusively for physicians. Rather, his translation appears to have been aimed at serving the broader public interest. If the translator’s primary objective was to make the widely circulated Ikhtiyārāt accessible to Turkish readers unfamiliar with Persian, then by completing this translation, he successfully achieved this goal.
With the growing demand for medical treatments and remedies, Ikhtiyārāt became a crucial reference for both Ottoman pharmacopeial authors, such as Sakızlı Īsā, who had formal medical training and sought to compile comprehensive works, and other scholars who aimed to provide general medical and therapeutic knowledge. As previously noted, one of the primary reasons for its significance was that, through Persian-language sources, the Ottomans had access to the accumulated medical knowledge produced in Iran and India. Additionally, with the territorial expansion of the empire, the increasing proximity of the Ottomans to Iran and India—and even to China—facilitated the introduction of plants and medicinal substances from these regions into the pharmaceutical markets of cities like Istanbul and Bursa. This, in turn, created a pressing need to understand their proper use. Particularly in the densely populated urban centers of the 17th and 18th centuries, the rising demand for self-treatment led to a surge in the readership of pharmacological texts[95]. Indeed, the number of copies of pharmacopoeias and practical medical manuals—especially those describing simple remedies—far exceeded those of advanced medical treatises and works on medical philosophy. Furthermore, considering that not all authors and translators of these texts were exclusively physicians or individuals with formal medical training, it is evident that this demand extended beyond professional circles and into the literate segments of society. During this period, there was a growing need—particularly among consumers—to accurately identify medicinal substances, understand their appropriate methods of use, and recognize the ailments they could treat. Consequently, many works, such as Mehmed b. Alī’s Tercume-i cedīde, emerged in response to this public demand.
Beyond its influence on pharmacopeial and medical literature, Ikhtiyārāt was also referenced in specialized lexicons on materia medica, such as Risāle-i feyziyye and Farā’id al-mufradāt, as well as in general Persian dictionaries like Farhang-i şu‘ūrī. As a result, Ikhtiyārāt was not only regarded as a medical text but also as a significant source for Persian medical terminology within the Ottoman context.