514 MEMOIR OF FLEISCHER. 



search. Many of the most i)rominent scholars of the present day have 

 in other ways arrived at a knowledge of this method, or have been in- 

 tuitively gifted with it, but its spread to extended circles we owe to 

 Fleischer, and to him alone. 



His disinclination to treat philological subjects according to routine 

 methods was shown by Fleischer in his edition of Beidhawi's Coran com- 

 mentary, which completed his fame, and which, in a way is to be con- 

 sidered the most important work of his life. He, Gottfried Hermann's 

 disciple, who surely knew what elements constitute a "methodical" 

 edition of a work, published this voluminous and difficult text with- 

 out any variant readings. I have elsewhere* shown what consider- 

 ations, in my opinion, justly led him to adojit a system unusual 

 even with himself. The character of a Coran commentary is, in every 

 respect, technical. He who would understand and edit it must first 

 have extensive and detailed acquaintance with the contents and techni- 

 cal peculiarities of the theological, juridical, and grammatical system 

 of the Islam. But so enviable a scholar, aided by all available manu- 

 scripts and super-commentaries, certainly has the ability in every case 

 to select the correct reading; and superfluous readings serve but to 

 confuse less learned readers. The responsibility incurred by an editor 

 who takes it upon himself to omit customary technicalities is propor- 

 tionately great. But whoever heard Fleiescher himself interpret his 

 own Beidhawi a single time, was forever delivered from all uneasiness 

 on the score of his power to meet such responsibility. This edition is 

 naturally not purged of every human imperfection. Fleischer himself, 

 in a lecture on one occasion, expressed his vexation that after the 



feminine ^) ^J^^ the expression ^\ ,_:.^.v^ instead of the correct 



word ^\ \ had escaped him. { Cf. FeWs Index, i). 67 .) But such 



instances assuredly are not numerous. On another occasion he related 

 that a copy of his book— (I no longer remember how and when) — had 

 been submitted to the Sheikh-ullslam at Constantinople, and that the 

 latter had considered it beneath his dignity to throw even a superficial 

 glance at an ignorant infidel's disfigurement of the classical work of 

 Mohammedan theology. Finally however he had opened it and 

 glanced at a few lines ; then, amazed had eagerly continued to read, 

 at last giving expression to his astonishment that, in the Occident, there 

 could exist a man who apparently understood Beidhawi as well as an 

 orthodox doctor. I quote these remarks of Fleischer, which I heard 

 myself, since I should consider it presumption were I to praise his 

 Beidhawi. He only has the privilege of doing this who is so well 

 versed in Muslim theology, that he might on a proper occasion, criticise 

 it. Whether there are— outside of the Orient— a half-dozen scholars 



Goiting. gelelirte. JnzeUjen, 1884, J^To. 24, p. 961, 



