OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Arabic Thought and Its Place in History

* related portals: Islam.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
ARABIC THOUGHT AND ITS PLACE
IN HISTORY
BY
DE LACY O’LEARY, D.D.
Lecturer in Aramaic and Syriac, Bristol University
London:
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD.
NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO.
1922
| CHAP. | | PAGE |
| | Foreword | v |
| I | The Syriac Version of Hellenism | 1 |
| II | The Arab Period | 56 |
| III | The Coming of the ‘Abbasids | 89 |
| IV | The Translators | 105 |
| V | The Mu‘tazilites | 123 |
| VI | The Eastern Philosophers | 135 |
| VII | Sufism | 181 |
| VIII | Orthodox Scholasticism | 208 |
| IX | The Western Philosophy | 226 |
| X | The Jewish Transmittors | 261 |
| XI | Influence of the Arabic Philosophers on Latin Scholasticism | 275 |
| Concluding Paragraph | Concluding Paragraph | 295 |
| Chronological Table | Chronological Table | 296 |
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1957, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 66 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On the Veiling of Virgins/Chapter 16

Chapter XVI.—Tertullian, Having Shown His Defence to Be Consistent with Scripture, Nature, and Discipline, Appeals to the Virgins Themselves.
Herein consists the defence of our opinion, in accordance with Scripture, in accordance with Nature, in accordance with Discipline. Scripture founds the law; Nature joins to attest it; Discipline exacts it. Which of these (three) does a custom founded on (mere) opinion appear in behalf of? or what is the colour of the opposite view? God’s is Scripture; God’s is Nature; God’s is Discipline. Whatever is contrary to these is not God’s. If Scripture is uncertain, Nature is manifest; and concerning Nature’s testimony Scripture cannot be uncertain. If there is a doubt about Nature, Discipline points out what is more sanctioned by God. For nothing is to Him dearer than humility; nothing more acceptable than modesty; nothing more offensive than “glory” and the study of men-pleasing. Let that, accordingly, be to you Scripture, and Nature, and Discipline, which you shall find to have been sanctioned by God; just as you are bidden to “examine all things, and diligently follow whatever is better.”
It remains likewise that we turn to (the virgins) themselves, to induce them to accept these (suggestions) the more willingly. I pray you, be you mother, or sister, or virgin-daughter—let me address you according to the names proper to your years—veil your head: if a mother, for your sons’ sakes; if a sister, for your brethren’s sakes; if a daughter for your fathers’ sakes. All ages are perilled in your person. Put on the panoply of modesty; surround yourself with the stockade of bashfulness; rear a rampart for your sex, which must neither allow your own eyes egress nor ingress to other people’s. Wear the full garb of woman, to preserve the standing of virgin. Belie somewhat of your inward consciousness, in order to exhibit the truth to God alone. And yet you do not belie yourself in appearing as a bride. For wedded you are to Christ: to Him you have surrendered your flesh; to Him you have espoused your maturity. Walk in accordance with the will of your Espoused. Christ is He who bids the espoused and wives of others veil themselves; (and,) of course, much more His own.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See 1 Cor. xi. 14, above quoted.
* ↑ See 1 Thess. v. 21.
* ↑ See 1 Cor. xi.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On the Veiling of Virgins/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII.—If Unveiling Be Proper, Why Not Practise It Always, Out of the Church as Well as in It?
If on account of men they adopt a false garb, let them carry out that garb fully even for that end; and as they veil their head in presence of heathens, let them at all events in the church conceal their virginity, which they do veil outside the church. They fear strangers: let them stand in awe of the brethren too; or else let them have the consistent hardihood to appear as virgins in the streets as well, as they have the hardihood to do in the churches. I will praise their vigour, if they succeed in selling aught of virginity among the heathens withal.  Identity of nature abroad as at home, identity of custom in the presence of men as of the Lord, consists in identity of liberty.  To what purpose, then, do they thrust their glory out of sight abroad, but expose it in the church? I demand a reason. Is it to please the brethren, or God Himself? If God Himself, He is as capable of beholding whatever is done in secret, as He is just to remunerate what is done for His sole honour. In fine, He enjoins us not to trumpet forth any one of those things which will merit reward in His sight, nor get compensation for them from men. But if we are prohibited from letting “our left hand know” when we bestow the gift of a single halfpenny, or any eleemosynary bounty whatever, how deep should be the darkness in which we ought to enshroud ourselves when we are offering God so great an oblation of our very body and our very spirit—when we are consecrating to Him our very nature! It follows, therefore, that what cannot appear to be done for God’s sake (because God wills not that it be done in such a way) is done for the sake of men,—a thing, of course, primarily unlawful, as betraying a lust of glory. For glory is a thing unlawful to those whose probation consists in humiliation of every kind. And if it is by God that the virtue of continence is conferred, “why gloriest thou, as if thou have not received?” If, however, you have not received it, “what hast thou which has not been given thee?” But by this very fact it is plain that it has not been given you by God—that it is not to God alone that you offer it. Let us see, then, whether what is human be firm and true.

## Footnotes

* ↑ As distinguished from the “on account of the angels” of c. xi.
* ↑ i.e., for the sake of the brethren, who (after all) are men, as the heathens are (Oehler, after Rig.).
* ↑ i.e., as Rig. quoted by Oehler explains it, in inducing the heathens to practise it.
* ↑ See Matt. vi. 2.
* ↑ 1 Cor. iv. 7.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On the Veiling of Virgins/Chapter 12

Chapter XII.—Womanhood Self-Evident, and Not to Be Concealed by Just Leaving the Head Bare.
Recognise the woman, ay, recognise the wedded woman, by the testimonies both of body and of spirit, which she experiences both in conscience and in flesh. These are the earlier tablets of natural espousals and nuptials. Impose a veil externally upon her who has (already) a covering internally. Let her whose lower parts are not bare have her upper likewise covered. Would you know what is the authority which age carries? Set before yourself each (of these two); one prematurely compressed in woman’s garb, and one who, though advanced in maturity, persists in virginity with its appropriate garb: the former will more easily be denied to be a woman than the latter believed a virgin. Such is, then, the honesty of age, that there is no overpowering it even by garb. What of the fact that these (virgins) of ours confess their change of age even by their garb; and, as soon as they have understood themselves to be women, withdraw themselves from virgins, laying aside (beginning with their head itself) their former selves:  dye their hair; and fasten their hair with more wanton pin; professing manifest womanhood with their hair parted from the front. The next thing is, they consult the looking-glass to aid their beauty, and thin down their over-exacting face with washing, perhaps withal vamp it up with cosmetics, toss their mantle about them with an air, fit tightly the multiform shoe, carry down more ample appliances to the baths. Why should I pursue particulars? But their manifest appliances alone exhibit their perfect womanhood:  yet they wish to play the virgin by the sole fact of leaving their head bare—denying by one single feature what they profess by their entire deportment.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Oehler’s “immutare” appears certainly to be a misprint for “immature.”
* ↑ Vertunt: or perhaps “change the style of.” But comp. (with Oehler) de Cult. Fem., l. ii. c. vi.
* ↑ i.e., without appealing to any further proof.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On the Veiling of Virgins/Chapter 15

Chapter XV.—Of Fascination.
Nay, but true and absolute and pure virginity fears nothing more than itself. Even female eyes it shrinks from encountering. Other eyes itself has. It betakes itself for refuge to the veil of the head as to a helmet, as to a shield, to protect its glory against the blows of temptations, against the dam of scandals, against suspicions and whispers and emulation; (against) envy also itself. For there is a something even among the heathens to be apprehended, which they call Fascination, the too unhappy result of excessive praise and glory. This we sometimes interpretatively ascribe to the devil, for of him comes hatred of good; sometimes we attribute it to God, for of Him comes judgment upon haughtiness, exalting, as He does, the humble, and depressing the elated. The more holy virgin, accordingly, will fear, even under the name of fascination, on the one hand the adversary, on the other God, the envious disposition of the former, the censorial light of the latter; and will joy in being known to herself alone and to God. But even if she has been recognized by any other, she is wise to have blocked up the pathway against temptations. For who will have the audacity to intrude with his eyes upon a shrouded face? a face without feeling? a face, so to say, morose? Any evil cogitation whatsoever will be broken by the very severity. She who conceals her virginity, by that fact denies even her womanhood.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Comp. Ps. cxlvii. (in LXX. and Vulg. cxlvi.) 6; Luke i. 52.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On the Veiling of Virgins/Chapter 2

Chapter II.—Before Proceeding Farther, Let the Question of Custom Itself Be Sifted.
But I will not, meantime, attribute this usage to Truth. Be it, for a while, custom: that to custom I may likewise oppose custom.
Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins covered.  There are places, too, beneath this (African) sky, where this practice obtains; lest any ascribe the custom to Greek or barbarian Gentilehood. But I have proposed (as models) those Churches which were founded by apostles or apostolic men; and antecedently, I think, to certain (founders, who shall be nameless). Those Churches therefore, as well (as others), have the self-same authority of custom (to appeal to); in opposing phalanx they range “times” and “teachers,” more than these later (Churches do). What shall we observe? What shall we choose? We cannot contemptuously reject a custom which we cannot condemn, inasmuch as it is not “strange,” since it is not among “strangers” that we find it, but among those, to wit, with whom we share the law of peace and the name of brotherhood. They and we have one faith, one God, the same Christ, the same hope, the same baptismal sacraments; let me say it once for all, we are one Church. Thus, whatever belongs to our brethren is ours: only, the body divides us.
Still, here (as generally happens in all cases of various practice, of doubt, and of uncertainty), examination ought to have been made to see which of two so diverse customs were the more compatible with the discipline of God. And, of course, that ought to have been chosen which keeps virgins veiled, as being known to God alone; who (besides that glory must be sought from God, not from men) ought to blush even at their own privilege. You put a virgin to the blush more by praising than by blaming her; because the front of sin is more hard, learning shamelessness from and in the sin itself. For that custom which belies virgins while it exhibits them, would never have been approved by any except by some men who must have been similar in character to the virgins themselves. Such eyes will wish that a virgin be seen as has the virgin who shall wish to be seen. The same kinds of eyes reciprocally crave after each other. Seeing and being seen belong to the self-same lust. To blush if he see a virgin is as much a mark of a chaste man, as of a chaste virgin if seen by a man.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Comp. Eph. iv. 1–6.
* ↑ Comp. John v. 44 and xii. 43.
* ↑ Sancti.
* ↑ Sanctæ.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On the Veiling of Virgins/Chapter 10

Chapter X.—If the Female Virgins are to Be Thus Conspicuous, Why Not the Male as Well?
Nor, similarly, (is it permitted) on the ground of any distinctions whatever. Otherwise, it were sufficiently discourteous, that while females, subjected as they are throughout to men, bear in their front an honourable mark of their virginity, whereby they may be looked up to and gazed at on all sides and magnified by the brethren, so many men-virgins, so many voluntary eunuchs, should carry their glory in secret, carrying no token to make them, too, illustrious. For they, too, will be bound to claim some distinctions for themselves—either the feathers of the Garamantes, or else the fillets of the barbarians, or else the cicadas of the Athenians, or else the curls of the Germans, or else the tattoo-marks of the Britons; or else let the opposite course be taken, and let them lurk in the churches with head veiled. Sure we are that the Holy Spirit could rather have made some such concession to males, if He had made it to females; forasmuch as, besides the authority of sex, it would have been more becoming that males should have been honoured on the ground of continency itself likewise. The more their sex is eager and warm toward females, so much the more toil does the continence of (this) greater ardour involve; and therefore the worthier is it of all ostentation, if ostentation of virginity is dignity. For is not continence withal superior to virginity, whether it be the continence of the widowed, or of those who, by consent, have already renounced the common disgrace (which matrimony involves)?  For constancy of virginity is maintained by grace; of continence, by virtue. For great is the struggle to overcome concupiscence when you have become accustomed to such concupiscence; whereas a concupiscence the enjoyment whereof you have never known you will subdue easily, not having an adversary (in the shape of) the concupiscence of enjoyment. How, then, would God have failed to make any such concession to men more (than to women), whether on the ground of nearer intimacy, as being “His own image,” or on the ground of harder toil? But if nothing (has been thus conceded) to the male, much more to the female.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See 1 Cor. vii. 5. Comp. ad Ux., l. i. c. viii.; de Ex. Cast., c. i.
* ↑ So Oehler and others. But one ms. reads “concupiscentiæ fructum” for “concupiscentiam fructus;” which would make the sense somewhat plainer, and hence is perhaps less likely to be the genuine reading.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Hayman, Samuel Brinkle

Edition of 1892.
​HAYMAN, Samuel Brinkle, soldier, b. in Chester county, Pa., 5 June, 1820. He was graduated at the U. S. military academy in 1842, became 1st lieutenant of infantry in 1847, captain in 1855, major in 1863, and lieutenant-colonel in 1867. During the Mexican war he was in several important battles, participating in the assault and capture of the city of Mexico. He served throughout the civil war with the Army of the Potomac, and was brevetted lieutenant-colonel for gallantry at Chancellorsville. He was mustered out of the volunteer service in June, 1863, and afterward participated in the battles of Kelly's Ford, Mine Run, and the battle of the Wilderness, 6 May, 1864, where he was wounded and brevetted colonel. In March, 1865, he was brevetted brigadier-general of volunteers for gallantry at Fair Oaks. In 1865-6 he was acting assistant provost-marshal-general, and disbursing officer at Elmira, N. Y. He took command at Fort Dakota in 1866, and was retired in 1872.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Haynes, Henry Williamson

Edition of 1892.
​HAYNES, Henry Williamson, archæologist, b. in Bangor, Me., 20 Sept., 1831. He was the son of Nathaniel Haynes, who was editor of the “Eastern Republican,” one of the principal Democratic newspapers in New England during Andrew Jackson's administration. The son was graduated at Harvard in 1851, and, after teaching, studied law, and practised for several years. Subsequently he was called to fill the chair of Latin in the University of Vermont, and later he became professor of Greek in the same institution, but resigned in 1873 to devote his time to archaeology. He then sailed for Europe, where he spent six years in systematic study among the antiquities of various countries, also taking part in several international congresses. The winter of 1877-8 he spent in Egypt, seeking for evidences of the palæolithic age in that country. The results of his investigations were presented at the International congress of anthropological sciences that was held in Paris in 1878, where he was rewarded with a medal and a diploma, and his paper was afterward published in the “Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.” Since his return to the United States he has resided in Boston, where he is a member of the school-board and a trustee of the public library, and has devoted much of his time to archæology. He has contributed to scientific and literary journals, and to the proceedings of learned bodies.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Hawley, William Merrill

Edition of 1892.
​HAWLEY, William Merrill, lawyer, b. in Delaware county, N. Y., 23 Aug., 1802: d. in Hornellsville, N. Y., 9 Feb., 1869. His father, one of the earliest settlers in western New York, was a farmer, and unable to give his children a classical education. William went to the common school, and at the age of twenty-one removed to Almond, Alleghany co., where he cleared a piece of land for tillage. In the spring of 1824 he was elected constable, and began the study of law to assist him in this office. He was admitted to the bar in 1826, removed to Hornellsville the next year, and practised his profession until his appointment in 1846 as first judge of Steuben county. He served in the state senate, was a delegate to the Democratic national convention of 22 May, 1848, which met in Baltimore, and was identified with the "Free-soil radical delegation," which culminated in the National convention of 9 Aug., 1848, held in Buffalo, N. Y., in which Martin Van Buren was nominated for the presidency. Judge Hawley was one of the committee appointed to introduce the resolutions the essential elements of which were afterward adopted by the Republican party. After his retirement from the state senate he did not again enter public life, but, devoting himself to his profession, acquired a large fortune, and practised until a short time before his death.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Haygood, Atticus Green

Edition of 1892.
​HAYGOOD, Atticus Green, clergyman, b. in Watkinsville, Ga., 19 Nov., 1839. He was graduated at Emory college, Ga., in 1859, and licensed to preach in the Methodist Episcopal church in the same year. In 1870-'5 he edited the Sunday-school publications of the Methodist Episcopal church, south, and in 1876 he was elected president of Emory college, where he remained eight years. He was appointed general agent of the “John F. Slater fund” in 1883, for the education of colored youth in the southern states, and has since devoted himself to this work and to efforts for the progress of the negro race. In 1872 he was elected bishop in the Methodist Episcopal church, south, but declined. In 1878-'82 he edited the “Wesleyan Christian Advocate.” Emory college conferred on him the degree of D. D. in 1870, and the Southwestern university, Texas, that of LL. D. in 1884. Dr. Haygood is the author of “Go or Send, an Essay on Missions” (Nashville, Tenn., 1873); “Our Children” (New York, 1876); “Our Brother in Black” (1881); “Close the Saloons” (Macon, Ga., 1882); and “Speeches and Sermons” (Nashville, 1884); and has edited “Sermons by Bishop George Foster Peirce” (Nashville. Tenn., 1886).
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Hay, John

Edition of 1900.
​HAY, John, author, b. in Salem, Ind., 8 Oct., 1838. His ancestor, John, was a son of a Scottish soldier who left his own country in the beginning of the last century and took service in the army of the Elector Palatine. The son, with his family, emigrated to this country, and two grandsons served with distinction in the war of independence. John Hay took, while in college, high rank as a writer, and after graduation at Brown in 1858, studied law at Springfield, Ill. He was admitted to practice in the supreme court in Illinois in 1861, but immediately afterward went to Washington as assistant secretary to President Lincoln, remaining with him, both as a secretary and a trusted friend, almost constantly till his death. He acted also as his adjutant and aide-de-camp, and served for several months under Gen. Hunter and Gen. Gillmore, with the rank of major and assistant adjutant-general. He was also brevetted lieutenant-colonel and colonel. He was first secretary of legation at Paris, and several times in charge in 1865-'7, and chargé de affaires at Vienna in 1867-'8, when he resigned and came home, but was soon afterward secretary of legation at Madrid, where he remained more than a year. Leaving that ​post in 1870, he came to New York and became an editorial writer on the “Tribune,” where he remained about five years. He was afterward editor-in-chief of that paper for seven months, during the absence of Whitelaw Reid in Europe. He removed to Cleveland, Ohio, in 1875, and took an active part in the presidential canvasses of 1876, 1880, and 1884. Under the administration of President Hayes he was first assistant secretary of state in 1879-'81. In the latter year he represented the United States at the International sanitary congress of Washington, of which body he was elected president. He has published “Pike County Ballads,” one of the best known of which is “Jim Bludso” (Boston, 1871), “Castilian Days” studies of Spanish life and character (1871), and has been engaged many years in writing, in collaboration with John G. Nicolay, a “History of the Administration of Abraham Lincoln,” which is now (1887) in course of serial publication in “The Century.” Col. Hay is also the translator of Emilio Castelar's treatise on the Republican movement in Europe (New York, 1874-'5).