فهرست نشریات علمی دسترسی آزاد ایران

Background and Aim: The tradition of writing commentaries on earlier scholars’ works has been a pivotal factor in the advancement of knowledge throughout history. Avicenna (Ibn Sina) is among the scholars whose works have consistently attracted the attention of subsequent scientists. Allāma al-Ḥillī (648-726 AH) alongside thinkers such as Khwāja Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī and Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, is a distinguished figure in the tradition of interpreting Avicenna's work, whose lifetime coincided with the "avicennian revival in Maragheh". Among his works, a commentary on Avicenna’s Canon (Sharh-e Al-Qānūn fī al-Ṭibb) has been cited, the only reported manuscript of which is preserved in the Mar'ashī Najafī Library in Qom. The present study aims to introduce this manuscript while verifying the authenticity of its attribution to Allāma al-Ḥillī. Methods: This research was conducted using a documentary-library method. Initially, drawing upon codicological analysis (nuskha shinasi), the manuscript in question was introduced. Subsequently employing methodologies of textual criticism (matn-pazhuhi), the attribution of the work was critically examined and evaluated. Ethical Considerations: In this research, the principles of integrity in citation, authenticity of sources and avoidance of bias in referring to texts or analyses have been observed. Results: Although Allāma al-Ḥillī articulated medical perspectives within his works, the existence of an independent work in the form of a commentary on the Canon has not been established. A comparative analysis of several manuscripts of Al-Ṭuḥfa al-Sa'dīyya by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī's reveals a complete correspondence between its text and the manuscript housed in the Mar'ashī Najafī Library. Conclusion: Based on the evidence, it appears that the unique manuscript reported as 'Allāma al-Ḥillī's commentary on the Canon is, in fact, the text of Al-Ṭuḥfa al-Sa'dīyya by 'Allāma Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī. The similarity in the honorific title of these two scholars, as well as the potential existence of a gloss (ta'līqa) by Al-Hilli on a book titled Qanun (likely a different text or context) led to an erroneous attribution by the cataloger.