Revfews
feel, therefore, that Creel's book will serve as
excellent propaganda -and I do not believe
that he ever intended it as such -but truth,
which really interests him, is going to suffer.
To sum up, we welcome here the result of
many years of reflection and indefatigable in-
dustry for which the author can take comfort
in the thought that he is now sharing with the
widest possible audience his understanding and
appreciation of a truly great man and teacher.
The defect in the narrative -and what book
does not have them? -lies in over-simplifica-
tion and super-idealization, and this not only for
Confucius himself but also for the doctrinaires
of the succeeding centuries where it would be
more realistic to accept the reconciliations and
the syncretizations of the texts even though
they fail to persuade or even attract the normal
Western mind.
JAMES R. WARE
Harvar d University
DE LACY O'LEARY: How Greek Science
passed to the Arabs. vi + I96 pp. London:
Broadway House, I948. I5 S.
In 1922 the same author published a
rather interesting and readable study on Arabic
Thought and its Place in History (Isis 4, 539)
in which he proposed to delineate "the history
of the cultural transmission by which Greek
philosophy and science were passed from Hel-
lenistic surroundings to the Syriac speaking
commuinity, thence to the Arabic speaking
world of Islam, and so finally to the Latin
Schoolmen of Western Europe." In that book
the emphasis was placed on philosophy and
theology. The present volume, in which the
stress is laid on the history of the transmission
of Greek science, appears as a continuation of
the former study. In both books the center
of gravity lies in those sections which deal with
the so-called "Syriac version of Hellenism",
with the role played by the Nestorians and
Monophysites as the intermediaries in the trans-
mission of Hellenistic thought and learning.
The volume before us contains thirteen chap-
ters inscribed as follows:
I. Introduction; II. Hellenism in Asia; III. The
Legacy of Grcccc; IV. Christianity as a hcllcnizing
force; V. The Ncstorians; VI. The Monophysitcs;
VII. In(lian influence,I: The Sea route; VIII. Indian
influence, II: The Land route; IX. Buddhism as a
possible medium; X. The Khalifate of Damascus;
XI. The Khalifate of Baghdad; XII. Translation
into Arabic; XIII. The Arab philosophers.
Accordingly, only 3 out of I3 chapters are
devoted to the Arabs, and only one chapter of
20 pages deals with the transmission of Greek
science to the Arabs. To the students of history
of science who, relying on the title, must have
expected a systematic and thorough account of
the revival of Greek science by the Arabs this
book will therefore be a great disappointment.
However, the reviewer's quarrel with the author
is concerned not so much with the meagerness
I25
of the quantity of the book as with the in-
adequacy of its quality. The great bulk of the
book named "How Greek science passed to the
Arabs" is given to a discursive and digressive
discussion of "Greek science," which in the
treatment is transmuted into Hellenism -an
entirely different matter -, and "how it passed,"
or its various migrations. But when the author
comes to "the Arabs," which apparently was his
ultimate goal and main subject, he seems to have
become wearied from his long wanderings to and
fro in the earth, and so he disposes of his main
theme in a few cursory remarks, jotted down in
a hurry and in an offhand and utterly careless
manner, without any system and order and with-
out giving due consideration to the work done by
his predecessors.
The late Max Meyerhof published in 1930 a
very learned memoir called "Von Alexandrien
nach Bagdad,"' which deals with the subject of
O'Leary's book in a specific sense, namely, with
the direct path in the transmission of Greek
science from the schools of Alexandria to Bagdad.
This important paper of Meyerhof which made
a valuable contribution to the subject has been
ignored by O'Leary. Ignored are also, among
many other outstanding monographs, the funda-
mental work of George Sarton in his Introduction
to the History of Science which ought to be used
as a standard volume of reference by every stu-
dent in this field; the erudite study of Jaroslaus
Tkatsch entitled Die arabische Uebersetzung der
Poetik des Aristoteles, etc.,2 which presents in
the Introduction (pp. 53-II8) a complete sketch
of the contributions made by the Syrians and
early Muslims to the transmission of Greek
science; the classic chapter on the problem of
"Euclid in Arabia" given by Sir Thomas L. Heath
in the Introduction to his translation of Euclid's
Elements.3
A whole volume could be filled if one wanted
to discuss the Arabic transmission of Euclid in a
proper and exhaustive manner. But the author
of our book is quite unaware of all the problems
and difficulties involved and he dismisses the
subject of the Arabian Euclid in a few lines
replete with errors and inaccuracies. O'Leary says
(on p. 158):
The same translator(al-Hajjaj) is said to have made
an Arabic vcrsion of Euclid's Elements, not includ-
ing Book X which was later (about 9I0) translated
with Pappos' commcntary by Sa'id al-Dimishqi.
It is true that al-Hajjaj made a translation of
Euclid's Elements, but it would have been more
' It appeared in the Sitzungsberichte der
Preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin
I930 (Isis z6, 540).
2 Published in the Sitzungsberichte der Akad-
ernie der Wissenschaften, Vienna I928-32 (Isis
20, 5II).
'Second edition, Cambridge I926, I, pp. 75-90.
Cf. also ibid. pp. 8-io, I7-I8. Heath's study is
based on the researches of Klamroth, published
in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndi-
schen GeselUschaftXXXV (i88i), pp. 270-326.
126 Reviews
correct to say that he was the first translator.
For there were three complete translations of the
Elements: The first was made by al-Hajjaj, who
flourished some time between 786 and 833, under
the reign of Haruln al-Rashid (786-809) and
al-Ma'miin (8I3-833); the second was prepared
by Ishaq ibn Hunain (d. 9g0) and was later
revised by Thabit ibn Qurra (d. 90I); and
finally the third was made by al-Tfisi (I20I-
I274). This latter one was more of a paraphrase
than a translation. Besides, it would have been
more correct to say that al-Hajjaj made two
Arabic versions of the Elements. The first ver-
sion prepared under Haruln al-Rashid was called
Harfini and the second made for al-Ma'muin
was known as Ma'mfinL. The Hartin? has not
survived any more than the original version of
Ishaq without the improvements by Thabit.
Incorrect and without any foundation is also
the statement that al-Hajjaj's translation did
not include Book X. Hatji Khalfa says that al-
I1ajjtj's version contained 468 propositions and
Thabit's 478, and this is stated on the authority
of al-Tfisi whose own edition contained 468.'
Hence, al-Hajjaj's translation must have con-
tained the I09, or I07, propositionsof Book X
in order to account for the total of 468. Apart
from the few divergences listed by Heath (on p.
8o) the versions of al-Hajjatj, IshIq and al-
Tilsi agree. There is no foundation whatever
for O'Leary's further statement (at the end of
p. I58) that "al-Hajjaj's translation of the Ele-
ments was revised by Qusta ibn Luiq about
9I2-13." Qusta died in 912 and is known as the
translator of the non-Euclidean Books XVI-XV
of the Elements. On the same page O'Leary
further states: "The translation of Euclid by al-
Vajjaj with the commentary of an-Naziri . .
was published by T. 0. Besthorn and J. L. Hei-
berg, Euclidis elementa . . . cum commentario
an-Nazirii etc." However, Codex Leidensis 399,1
contains only the first six Books of the Elements,
not the whole translation of al-Hajjaj, and even
these six Books were not wholly published. The
commentary was composed by Abui-l-Abbas al-
Nairizii (not an-Nazirii) from Nairiz near Shiraz,
who died c. 922 and flourished under the Kaliph
al-Mu'tadid (892-902). The name of the editor
is R. 0. Besthorn (not T. 0.), and the title of the
book reads Codex Leidensis 399,. Euclidis ele-
menta . . . cum commentariis al-Narizii etc., not
cum commentario an-Nazirii.5
The sheik of the Arabian translators was the
Nestorian physician Hunain ibn Ishaq al-'Ib&dd
(809-877), "one of the greatest scholars and the
noblest men of his time." In his chapter on the
translators O'Leary dedicates to him a long para-
graph on pages I64-I70. He transcribes his nisba
as Abadi saying that it shows "that he belonged
4 See Heath, loc. cit., p. 79.
I O'Leary seems to have copied the misprint
al-Nazirii from Sarton's Introduction, I, pp. 562,
599. But ibid., p. I54 the name is quoted cor-
rectly, and the Introduiction is not listed in
O'Leary's Bibilography.
to the subject people of Hira." But it should be
vocalized al-'Ibddi which means that he was a
member of the Christian tribe of the Arabs called
'Ibid, who lived near Hlra.6 On p. I69 O'Leary
says that Hunain died in 873 "according to the
Fihrist, or in 877 according to Ibn Abi Usaibi'a,
who is often inaccurate in his chronology"; hence,
he seems to accept 873. But on p. I64 he says
that "his autobiography was written in the form
of letters . . . in 875," and on p. i67 he speaks
of the same letters as "written in 865." Actually,
the letter, or risdla, containing his autobiography,
was composed in 856. This date, as well as the
date of his birth, 809, are established beyond any
doubt on the authority of Hunain himself who
says in this risdla of his that he wrote it at the
age of 48 in the year ii67 of the Alexandrian
(Seleucid) era, or in 856 A.D.7 The generally
accepted opinion is therefore that Hunain was
born in 809.8 However, for some reason which
he does not divulge, O'Leary refuses to accept
this date. He does not expressly commit himself
on Hunain's birth date, but he indulges in vague
and contradictory speculations. Thus, he states
once (on p. I65) that "Harun al-Rashid died in
8o8 . . . so that Hunayn's activities belong to a
period later than Harun al-Rashid," and in the
preceding sentence we are told that Hunayn
"settled for a time at Basra where he studied
Arabic under Khalid ibn Ahmad." But the name
of this famous grammarian was Khalil ibn Ah-
mad and he died in 791/2 at the age of 74 and
he is not likely to have admitted Hunain 20 years
before the latter's birth into his academy. Ac-
cording to another statement of O'Leary,9 Yahya
ibn 'Ad! of Takrit, who lived 893-974, was a
pupil of Hunain. We would thus have a remark-
able extension of the scholarly activities of this
ubiquitous Hunain. In his prenatal existence,
about 30 years before his birth, he studied Arabic
philology in the school of Khalil, and posthu-
mously, about 30 years after his death, he was
still conducting his school of translation which
was attended by the young Yahya ibn 'Ad!. By
the way, as regards Hunain's literary activities,
there is no need for vague conjectures that they
must "belong to a period later than Harun al-
Rashid." For in his above mentioned autobio-
graphy Hunain himself tells us that he prepared
his first translation for Jibril ibn Bakht-yashu'
at the age of I7, hence in the year 826. On the
same page (I65) there is a short digression con-
cerning the "Sons of Mdlsa" which reads "Of
these Sons of Miusa the eldest Muhammad rose
to high office under the Khalif al-Motadid (892-
932)."1 Actually, the caliph al-Mu'tadid ruled
' See Sarton, Introduction I, p. 6ii. In his
book Arabic Th2ought etc., p. II2 f, O'Leary
spells the word correctly as Ibadi.
`See Meverhof in his essay "New Light on
Hunavn" in Isis, 8, 687, I926.
"See, for instance, Sarton, loc. cit., p. 6ii;
Heath, loc. cit., p. 75; Meyerhof, Von Alexan-
drient nach Bagdad, p. I7.
'In his Arabic Thought, p. II4.
 Reviews
from 892 to 902 and the sons of Musa flourished
c. 850-870. Muhammad died in 972/3.
We have already noticed above (note 9) that
the same deplorable confusion and inaccuracy
conrcerning facts and dates prevails also in 0'-
Leary's previous volume on Arabic Thought and
its Place!in History. Thus, we read there (p. II3)
that "Hunayn prepared Arabic translations of
Euclid," whereas it was his son Ishaq who made
this translation; that "al-Mansur (754-775) pass-
ing by Harran observed the pagan community
and enquired of them whether they belonged to
the people of the book" (on p. iI8), whereas
this episode is related of al-Ma'miun (8I3-33),
as is correctly stated in our volume, on p. I72.
Furthermore, he states there (on p. II2) that
Yahya ibn Masawaih (d. 857) wrote a medical
treatise on "Fevers" which was "long in repute
and was afterwards translated into Latin and
Hebrew." He apparently confuses him with
Isaac Judaeus (c. 850-c. 950). Actually, Yahya
was the author of a book named Daghal al-'atn,
"Disorder of the Eye," which is the earliest sys-
tematic treatise on ophthalmology extant in
Arabic."'
The author of these two books impresses us as
a scholar of wide erudition whose interests lie
more in the field of "fine writing" than in that
of research. He abhors the pedantry of a critical
apparatus, shuns the drudgery of long notes and
lacks the patience and discipline of mind required
for the painstaking verification of all the data
and details and their systematic arrangement in
a clear and orderly fashion. As a result, the
book under review is replete with confusing
digressions and misleading errors. In the re-
viewer's humble opinion, a book on "How Greek
Science passed to the Arabs" still remains to be
written and still constitutes a great desideratum
for the history of science.
SOLOMON GANDZ
LAWRENCE SHAW MAYO: The Winthrop Later Winthrop removed to Connecticut where,
Family in America. xii+507 pp., 23 portraits, like his father before him, he became governor.
i color plate, i chart. Boston: The Massa-
chusetts Historical Society, 1948.
This is the last work written by the well-
known student of Colonial American culture
and former Assistant Dean of the Graduate
School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University,
the late L. S. Mayo (I888-I947); it opens with
a short appreciation of Mayo by Stuart
Mitchell. This beautifully printed and illustrated
book is thus the final monument to Dean Mayo,
whose friendship and kindness to many genera-
tions of graduate students at Harvard will long
be remembered. It is a record of one of the
families that have been prominent in America
for centuries: a series of biographies, some only
a few pages long, others of considerable length,
depending on the importance of the life-achieve-
l0 See Sarton, 10c. cit. I,
574. This error, too, an educational institution in the New World.
has been corrected in O'Leary's present volume,
on p. I 64.
T 7
ment of that individual. In recent generations
the Winthrops have distinguished themselves in
law and finance, in public life, and in their
patronage of the arts, letters, and historical
scholarship; the late Grenville Lindall Winthrop
(I864-I943) built up a magnificent art collec-
tion which he bequeathed to Harvard's Fogg
Museum of Art. By contrast, the earlier Win-
throps distinguished themselves in science as
well as in public affairs.
The first Winthrop in the book is Governor
John Winthrop (I588-I649) of the Massachu-
setts Bay Colony, not a scientist nor even a
man of medical training, but one who practised
medicine in the new colony and, in the words
of the Rev. John Cotton, was "an help for our
bodies by physick." The governor's son, known
as John Winthrop the Younger, or John Win-
throp Jr (I606-I676), began his education in
Trinity College, Dublin, and ended by studying
law in London. More interested in travel and in
science than in law, he traveled in the Medi-
terranean countries and the Near East in I628-
29 and, on his return, settled his father's affairs
and soon joined him in New England. That
John Jr was interested in all aspects of science
may be seen from his library, a portion of which
is still preserved in the New York Society Li-
brary - half of the surviving works are scien-
tific, the greater number of these being devoted
to his chief interest, chemistry. He attempted to
set up a saltworks to extract salt from sea
water by evaporation and applied his knowledge
of chemistry to the investigation of the natural
resources of the new country. Iron for the
badly needed implements was found by him in
ample supply in the limonite bog iron ore in
the ponds and swamps of Massachusetts and in
I64I Winthrop was off to England to recruit
the labor and organize a company for the new
enterprise. Although the ironworks were a
success, the plant soon after went downhill.
In i66i he returned to England for another of
his many visits and renewed his acquaintance
with his scientific correspondents. He was
elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Lon-
don and read before that body a number of
papers on a variety of subjects, chemical, tech-
nological, and biological. Upon his return to
New England, he continued to send communi-
cations on sdentific subjects to the Royal So-
ciety and, with a three-and-one-half-foot tele-
scope which he had brought with him, observed
the heavens. He thought he had discovered a
fifth satellite of Jupiter, but in this he was
mistaken. (See John W. Streeter, "John Win-
throp, Junior, and the fifth satellite of Jupiter,"
Isis, I948, 39:I59-63.) In I672, he presented
this telescope to Harvard and it became the first
telescope, so far as we know, to be owned by
Winthrop is often referred to as the founder of
the chemistry in America, or the founder of