Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T12:33:39.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Descriptive List of the Arabic Manuscripts acquired by the Trustees of the British Museum since 1894. Compiled by A. G. Ellis and E. Edwards. London: Longmans & Co., etc., 1912.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notices of Books
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1913

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1068 note 1 It may be useful to note here that a MS. of a part at least of this work, of the early date of a.h. 546, exists in the Vienna Hofbibliothek. It was described by Dr: Hans von Mžik in Anzeiger d. k. Ak. d. Wissenschaften, Phil. Hist. Kl., 1907, 132 (No. 21), as containing 204 folios of 15 lines. Of these five folios are given to the Prophet, as many to his four successors, and thirty-five to the Omayyads; the rest, from fol. 46 onwards, to the Abbasids, including Ma'mūn, about one moiety being given to Rashīd, and these may perhaps contain new matter on the Barmecides. The numerous citations of Ibn ‘Abdūs in works, which Dr. v. Mžik specifies, should enable the MS. to be identified beyond doubt. For the last work specified, Tanūkhi's Faraj ba'd al-Shidda, Professor de Goeje supplied the citations. In the printed edition, Cairo, 1903–4, some of them will be found at vol. i, 24, 1. 2; 68, 1. 6; 108, 1. 3; and vol. ii, 84, 1. 1; 119, 1. 2; 128, 1. 21; and 137, 1. ult.; whilst in vol. i, pp. 81, 83, stories from Ibn ';Abdūs are omitted which occur in the Leyden MS. No. 449 (61 Gol.). That the contents of this Vienna MS. should not be accessible to students is regrettable. The writer in 1909 made an effort to get it lent to this country, but was met by the objection, inter alia, that Dr. v. Mžik was editing it. Nothing, however, has appeared, and it is apparent from a review in this Journal, ante, p. 216, that Dr. v. Mžik has been engaged in the interval on other work. And it is only from Vienna itself that an edition is likely to emanate.