PROGRESS OF THE ARTS. 357 



rest, by some of our own time. But I am persuaded 

 that any attempt to answer the questions just asked, 

 will expose the untenable nature of the higher 

 claims which have been advanced in favour of the 

 Arabians. We can deliver no just decision, except 

 we will consent to use the terms of science in a 

 strict and precise sense 2 : and if we do this, we 

 shall find little, either in the particular discove- 

 ries or general methods of the Arabians, which 

 is important in the history of the Inductive Sci- 

 ences. 



The credit due to the Arabians for improve- 

 ments in the general methods of philosophizing, is 

 a more difficult question ; and cannot be discussed 

 at length by us, till we examine the history of such 

 methods in the abstract, which, in the present work, 

 it is not our intention to do. But we may observe, 

 that we cannot agree with those who rank their 



2 If I might take the liberty of criticizing an author who has 

 given a very interesting view of the period in question (Maho- 

 metanism Unveiled, by the Rev. Charles Forster, 1829), I would 

 remark, that in his work this caution is perhaps too little ob- 

 served. Thus, he says, in speaking of Alhazen (vol. ii. p. 270), 

 "the theory of the telescope may be found in the work of this 

 astronomer ;" and of another, " the uses of magnifying glasses 

 and telescopes, and the principle of their construction, are ex- 

 plained in the Great Work of (Roger) Bacon, with a truth and 

 clearness which have commanded universal admiration." Such 

 phrases would be much too strong, even if used respecting the 

 optical doctrines of Kepler, which were yet incomparably more 

 true and clear than those of Bacon. To employ such language, 

 in such cases, is to deprive such terms as theory and principle* 

 of all meaning 



