From Simon Online
Jump to: navigation, search

Engedanum pro aniudem scripsit Stephanus quod est silfium ut supra in an.


Engedanum (-nuʒ f; -nũ B p) ABC fp | Endeganũ Engedanũ ms. e | Engedamuʒ j
aniuden ms. e | aniudẽ B | āniudẽ p | anudẽ f | auiude j | anuidem (-deʒ C) AC
ut om. AC


Engedanum instead of aniudem is what Stephanus writes, and he states that it is silfium; see the entry Aniudem above.


Stephanus in his Breviarium writes: silfiõ … enɪͅedanũ {'ɪͅ' appears to have ʒ written above it} [[1]].

Engedanum and aniudem:
are attempts to represent the same word, cf. Siggel (1950: 17): ﺍﻧﺠﺪﺎﻥ /anğudān/ Bl. V. Ferula Asa foetida (Umb.), a word of Persian origin, cf. Steingass (1892: 114): انگدان /angudān/ "Assafœtida; mace”.

See also Karbstein (2002: 47-88): "10) (Saft des) Stinkasant {i.e. 'asafoetida'} Ferula assa-foetida L. (Saft) ﺍﻧﺠﺪﺎﻡ /anğidām/", and (2002: 132): "4) Stinkasant Ferula assa-foetida L. ﺍﻧﺠﺪﺎﻥ /anğidān/". ﺍﻧﺠﺪﺎﻥ /anğidān/ is probably the variant on which Stephanus based his transcription and he added the Latinising ending –um. Observe that Karbstein's Morisco dialect forms also display a change between final –m and –n, which he thinks, p. 48, is possibly interference from Spanish whose syllable structure rules do not allow word-final /m/, cf. Spanish Jerusalén. He also quotes Corriente according to whom changes in word-final –m and –n do occasionally occur in Andalusi Arabic. However in Stephanus' case it may simply be that an abbreviated form aniudẽ, which is inherently ambiguous, would inevitably result in some scribes interpreting it as aniudem and some as aniuden.

Botanical identification:

According to Siggel's identification the plant is Ferula assa-foetida L. [[2]].

WilfGunther 11:03, 20 July 2015 (BST)

See also: Aniudem, Silfium (1), Silfium (2), Laserpitium, Maharoth

Next entry