Dinawari’s surviving works connect plant knowledge, Arabic vocabulary and historical narrative. Manuscripts and later quotations reveal both the richness of his writing and the gaps in its transmission.
A ninth-century scholar with an incomplete biography
Abu Hanifa Ahmad ibn Dawud al-Dinawari worked in Arabic philology, astronomy, mathematics and historical writing. Charles Pellat’s biographical study places him at Dinawar and in Iraqi cities, and gives a reported death range of 894–903. [1] Muhammed Hamidullah discusses several death dates, preferring 895, while acknowledging the limited biographical evidence. [3] Exact birth dates and detailed itineraries should therefore be treated cautiously. Dinawar supplies a clear regional connection; a place-name alone cannot establish a precise modern ethnic identity. Pellat describes him as of Persian origin. [1]
The Book of Plants: names and knowledge
Bernhard Lewin’s examination of Kitab al-Nabat emphasizes its lexicographical purpose: preserving plant names, their correct forms and the contexts in which Arabic speakers used them. Earlier written collections, poetry, information from Bedouin informants and Dinawari’s own observations contribute to the work. Lewin distinguishes a section arranged by subjects from an alphabetical dictionary. [2] This combination explains why the book matters to the history of language as well as to botanical knowledge. It preserves a record of how plants were named, described and used.
Pasture, craft and everyday life
The Yale manuscript discussed by Lewin includes material on pasture and grazing animals, locusts, truffles, tree exudations, tanning, fire-making, dyes and aromatic plants. He notes the value of descriptions of everyday crafts and conditions that later dictionary compilers sometimes shortened or omitted. [2] Hamidullah likewise discusses soils, water, rain, growth and the food and medicinal uses assigned to plants. [3] The range is wider than a list of remedies: it connects vocabulary with agriculture, animal husbandry and material practices. Historical reports of medicinal uses should be read as evidence of past knowledge.
Surviving text and editorial reconstruction
Hamidullah identifies surviving third and fifth parts and describes the work required to recover material quoted by later writers. Lewin published the alif–zay dictionary section in 1953 and further manuscript material in 1974. Hamidullah’s 1973 sin–ya section reconstructs entries from later citations. The figure of 637 concerns that reconstructed section’s entries; it should not be presented as a count of every plant in the surviving book. [3] A manuscript passage and an editor’s reconstruction have different evidential histories, even when both are valuable. Citing the edition and section makes those differences visible.
Historical writing and the pictured edition
Al-Akhbar al-Tiwal survives as a historical narrative with particular attention to Iranian affairs before and after the coming of Islam. Pellat records its 1888 Guirgass edition and the later publication of Krachkovsky’s prefatory and reference material. [1] The image above shows the Arabic title page of the 1888 volume: it names Dinawari, identifies Guirgass’s editorial work, and gives Leiden, Brill and the date. [4] It illustrates the printed transmission of his history. It is a separate work from Kitab al-Nabat and should not be used as an image of the plant book.
Sources and further reading
- Charles Pellat, “Dīnavarī, Abū Ḥanīfa Aḥmad,” Encyclopædia Iranica VII/4 (1995), p. 417, updated 2013; biography and works.
- Bernhard Lewin, “The Third Part of the Kitāb an-Nabāt of Abū Ḥanīfa ad-Dīnawarī,” Orientalia Suecana 9 (1960), pp. 131–135; author’s manuscript study.
- Muhammed Hamidullah, “Dîneverî, Ebû Hanîfe,” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi 9 (1994), pp. 356–358; editor’s account of manuscripts, reconstruction and editions.
- Al-Dinawari, al-Akhbar al-Tiwal, edited by Vladimir Guirgass, Leiden: Brill, 1888; title page viewed, University of Toronto scan, Internet Archive, public-domain record.