Part 90

Abu’l Faraj Gregory, Bar Hebraeus (Wüstenfeld, op. cit., No. 240).

In his work entitled ‫تاربخ مختمر في الدول‬, ‘Compendious History of the Dynasties’ (edited and translated by E. Pocock, Oxford, 1663), p. 457 f. of the Arabic and p. 300 of the Latin. Beyrout edition, 1890, p. 420.

Two MSS. of the work are mentioned in the Catalogue of the Khedive’s library, ‫فهرست كتابخانه خديوية‬, vol. vi, p. 38. For further references concerning Muhaḏḏib ed Din and his works, see (a) Wüstenfeld, op. cit., § 202; (b) Brockelmann, op. cit, vol. i, p. 490; (c) P. de Koning, Traité sur le calcul, Leyden, pp. 186-228. The more important Arab authors other than Ibn Abi ‘Uṣaibia are: (d) Bar Hebraeus, Pocock’s edition, p. 457 of the Arabic part and p. 300 of the Latin part, Beyrout edition, p. 420; (e) Haji Khalfa, G. Fluegel’s edition, Leipzig and London, 1835-58, vol. v, p. 436, No. 11584.

See J. Pagel, ‘Maimuni als medizinischer Schriftsteller’, in the volume of studies on ‘Moses ben Maimon’ edited by W. Bacher and others, Leipzig, 1908, vol. i, p. 232.

Op. cit., vol. ii, p. 117.

‫طبقات الحكماء واصحاب النجوم والأطباء‬ in MS. at British Museum (see Catalogue of Oriental MSS. at the British Museum, London, 1846, part II, No. 1503, p. 684), Leyden, Berlin, Escurial, and elsewhere. See Brockelmann, op. cit., vol. i, p. 325.

See Leclerc, op. cit., vol. i, p. 5.

See W. D. Macray, Annals of the Bodleian, Oxford, 1890. p. 270.

See Macray’s Annals of the Bodleian, p. 271, and the Dict. of National Biography.

Bibliothecae Bodleianae codicum manuscriptorum ... catalogus, vol. ii, ed. A. Nicoll and E. B. Pusey, Oxford, 1835, p. iv.

‘Praeter errores enim quos ipse admiserit Urius, deprehendi omnibus fere horum librorum emptoribus, uno Pocockio excepto, libros supposititios pro veris subinde venditasse vafros Orientales. Codices ergo fere universos Arabicos, quos recensuit Urius (vulgatioribus quibusdam exceptis) oculis perlustravi, quo certius scirem titulisne responderent an non. Quo facto varias errorum formas deprehendi, titulis nunc charta coopertis, nunc atramento oblitis, nunc cultro paene abrasis; auctorum porro nominibus paullulum immutatis quo notiora quaedam referrent, numeris etiam quibus singula volumina signata sunt permutatis, quo quis opus imperfectum pro integro habeat, paginis denique pauculis operi alieno a fronte assutis.’

Steinschneider (Cat. Libr. Hebr. in Bibl. Bodl., p. 1926) says this title is invented and no doubt suggested by the name of Al Tamimi al Muqaddasi (the Jerusalemite), a doctor of the tenth century (Wüstenfeld, § 112) often praised by Maimonides in the Aphorisms, e.g. at the end of chap. 20. Pusey’s only note on Uri’s entry in the MS. is concerned with this title (vol. ii, p. 588): ‘Translator in Cod. appellatur Alsheikh Soleiman Alhabashi, notus in terra Hierosolymitana nomine Ibn Hubaish. Opus autem A.D. 1363 ex Hebraico transtulit.’

From the text of the Aphorisms as given in the Bodleian MS. Pocock 319.

Omitted from the MS. obviously by accident.

No doubt for הרתב.

See p. 227.

= A.D. 1363. The numerals which accompany the written figures are equivalent to 6,527 and are meaningless.

Published by Macmillans, 1912.

Cf. Mr. H. W. B. Joseph’s Logic^2, p. 548.

Cf. §§ 10, 28.

Post. Anal. i. 2. 71 b 20.

i.e. truth-claim.

Cf. Formal Logic, p. 173.

Mr. Alfred Sidgwick has been pointing out for the past twenty years how fatal this difficulty is to the traditional notion of formal validity; nor has any logician confuted his argument, or even shown that he apprehended its meaning and scope. It would seem, therefore, that the condition of formal logic is so precarious that its only chance of survival lies in hushing up all the vital objections to its stereotyped doctrines. But is not the policy of ignoring unanswerable objections the sure mark of a pseudo-science?

The latest I have noticed occurs in Abercrombie’s Inquiries concerning the Intellectual Powers (1830); it reads very strangely now.

Controversially the criticism of ‘self-evidence’ has been met in the same way as that of the ‘validity’ of the syllogism, i.e. by total silence.

Anal. Post. i. 34.

It may be suggested that there is a similar confusion on this question: when history is called a science, it is often forgotten that its data are essentially such that they can only occur once, while the material of the other sciences is such that cases of ‘the same’ may always be found in it. But neither need it be denied on this account that history can, and should, be written in a scientific spirit.