^{page 23 note 1} Les Prolegomènes historiques, Paris, 1863–8.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 2} Kremer, A. von, Ibn Chaldûn und seine Kuliurgeschichte der islamischen Reiche, S.-B. Ak. Wien, 1878. Full bibliographies of the other articles will be found in any of the works mentioned below.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 3} Hussain, Taha, Étude analytique et critique de la philosophie sociale d'lbn Khaldoun, Paris, 1917.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 4} Bouthoul, Gaston, Ibn Khaldoun, 8a Philosophie sociale, Paris (Geuthner), 1930, pp. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 5} Schmidt, Nathaniel, Ibn Khaldūn, historian, sociologist, and philosopher, (Columbia U.P.), 1930, pp. 68.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 6} Ayad, Kamil, Die Geschichts- und Gesellschaftslehre Ibn Haldūns, 2tes. Heft der “Forschungen zur Geschichts- und Gesellschaftslehre” hrsg. v. Kurt Breysig, Stuttgart and Berlin, 1930, pp. x + 209.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 7} Rosenthal, Erwin, Ibn Khalduns Gedanken über den Stoat, Beiheft 25 der Historischen Zeitschrift, München and Berlin (R. Oldenbourg), 1932, pp. x + 118.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 1} Mention may also be made here of the Special Number issued by the Arabic journal al Hachth of Aleppo in Sept, 1932, to celebrate the sexcentenary of Ibn Khaldūn's birth. The articles, which are all from the hands of leading Arabic scholars of the present day, are somewhat unequal in value, but demonstrate the very keen interest shown m his work in modern Arabic circles. A note of dissidence is, however, introduced by the encyclopaedist Farīd Waǵdī, who in a brief and rather unsatisfactory article argues that the Mugaddima is a work neither of sociology nor of the philosophy of history.

^{page 24 note 2} The necessity for a revision of de Slane's somewhat loose translation (indispensable as it still is) has long been known to Orientalists, and it is one of the merits of R.'s book that, with some assistance from Professor Bergstrasser, he provides a much more literal and accurate version of the passages translated, so far as I have tested it. Some errors remain, however, eg p 41 “hat den Namen Komgtum, und es ist sem Sem, das sie beherrscht” (tusammā ‘l-malakata wahīya kawnuhu yamlukuhum); p. 97. “und auf jede emzelne von ihnen (diesen Kunsten) grosse Sorgfalt zu verwenden” (li'tta'annuqi fī kulli wāhidm sanāi'u kathīratun). Doubtful words or readings are responsible for some errors, p. 23. ‘I suspect the word ‘umūmīyatun” rendered as “die Bevolkerung (?)” to mean something like “complex of tribal relationships”; a few lines further on “unterstutzen sie”, which makes nonsense in the context, is due to an apparent error of ma'ūnatun” for ma'unatu” (“source of expense”); p. 57. “einen Genuss aus dem Streit machen (?)” has arisen from a misreading bi'lkhilūfi for bi'lkhalūqi (“enjoyment of worldly happiness”).

^{page 25 note 1} Muqaddima to Bk. i (Quatremère i, 65).

^{page 26 note 1} First Muqaddima to Bk. i, section 1 (Q. i, 72).

^{page 26 note 2} Al-Ḥisba fi'l-Islām (Cairo, Mu'aiyad Press, 1318 H.), p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 1} Q. i, 337–8; translated in Rosenthal, , p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 2} Q. ii, 290, 11. 9–18

^{page 29 note 1} Cf. esp. Bk. ii, chap. 6, translated in R., pp. 68–9 (Q. i, 230–2), and ii, 27 (Q. i, 275).

^{page 29 note 2} Bk. iii, chap. 6 (Q. i, 286–90), translated in R., p. 54.

^{page 30 note 1} Bk 1 ch 1, 1st Muqaddima (Q 1, 70–1).

^{page 30 note 2} Bk 11, ch 20 (Q l, 259–60)

^{page 30 note 3} Bk 111, ch 4 (Q I, 284)

^{page 30 note 4} Bk 111, ch 25, translated m R, 61–2 (Q I, 342–3).

^{page 30 note 5} De Slane's translation misses the point of the phrase min ghairi nazari'shshar'i inserted in Q after bi muqtada's siyāsati wa” ahkāmihā.

^{page 30 note 6} The same judgment is expressed in a slightly different fashion in Bk 11, ch. 20 (Q. i, 259–60), from which it is clear that Ibn Khaldun's connotation of the term Caliphate i general and not restricted to the historical Caliphate.

^{page 30 note 7} It is the chief defect of Dr Rosenthal's otherwise admirable survey of Ibn Khaldūn's political thought that he has overlooked the logical sequence of his exposition, and bv shuffling about his chapters unwittingly distorts his point of view. For example, in the section headed “The evolution of the State” the order of the passages which he has selected is as follows Bh 11, ch 15, 111, 14, 111, 17, 11, 16, 111. 15, 11, 18, 111, 11, 111, 12, 111, 16, 11, 22, 111, 2, 111, 3; 11, 4, 11, 5, 11, 23, 111, 7, 111, 8 111, 18, 111, 10, 111, 13, 111, 47, 111, 46.

^{page 31 note 1} Dr. Ayad points out that Ibn Khaldūn denies that the Caliphate (or Imāmate) is one of the “pillars of the faith”, but fails to observe that it is the Shi'ite doctrine that he rejects, and that in his arguments against the rational necessity of the Caliphate (iii, 26; Q. i, 345–6) he is in complete agreement with the classical doctrine expounded by al-Māwardī (p. 4).

^{page 31 note 2} Bk. iii, ch. 28 (Q. i, 367 fl.); note especially walam yazhari ‘ttaghayyuru illā fi'l-wāzi'i ‘lladhī kāna dīnan thumma ‘rqalaba ‘aṣabīyatan wa-saifan (Q. 375, 97ndash;10). This instance brings out clearly that what Ibn Khaldūn means by “natural” development in social and political life is very different from the mechanical doctrine which Dr. Ayad regards as the outstanding feature of his theory.

^{page 31 note 3} M. Bouthoul's accusation (p. 88) that Ibn Khaldūn's outlook is governed by a kind of intellectual sadism, characteristic of “mediaeval mentality ”, appears to me very wide of the mark. Cf. again Bk. v, ch. 6 (Q. ii, 290).

^{page 31 note 4} Bk. iii, ch. 38 (Q. ii, 79).