146 Notes on the oldest work on Siifism. \J$°- 2. 



of Enoch) and mystical books (like the Theologia ascribed to Aris- 

 totle) translated from the Greek into Arabic. But the number of 

 these works is extremely limited, and their influence was so small 

 as to be hardly perceptible. At a later period, repeated attempts 

 have been made to recast it in the mould of Aristotelian dialectics, 

 and in the seventeenth century of our era, some works on theosophy 

 have been translated from the Sanskrit into Persian for the special 

 edification of Siifies. Notwithstanding those extraneous elements, 

 Sufism is probably the most original and genuine phasis of the 

 development of the Islam, and well worthy of the attention of the 

 student of MoAammadan history. In a notice which I intend to 

 write on the Eisalah of Qoshayry, I trust to be able to point out 

 how from the system of ascetism which we find unmixed in the work 

 under review, a system of theosophy grew up which gradually 

 became more and more pantheistical and grew to such importance, 

 that many authors consider pantheism and Siifism as identical. 



In the same volume and written in the same hand is another work, 

 which is equally of great interest. It is an Arabic translation from 

 the Greek of four books of Enoch. I have not seen the apocry- 

 phical work of Enoch, which has lately been translated into English, 

 but from what I have read regarding it, I conclude that these books 

 are not identical with it. 



The translation is in rhymed prose, but no sacrifice is made of the 

 sense to the rhyme which would have been the case if it was an origi- 

 nal Arabic production. The style and language are very peculiar 

 and almost unintelligible. I should not be surprised if farther re- 

 searches were to show that it is not in the dialect of the Hijaz, which 

 through the Qoran became the written dialect, but in the dialect 

 of one of the Christian tribes, like the Taghlibites or the .Syrians, 

 and that it has been translated into Arabic before Mo/*ammad. 



The MS. under review was copied from one in the hand-writing 

 of the Grammarian Abu Bakr Mohammad b. al-iZasan, for whom it 

 was probably interesting on account of its lexicographical import- 

 ance. It is not unlikely that by referring to ancient philological 

 books, we shall be able to ascertain to which dialect some of the 

 words are peculiar which occur in this translation, and are not met 

 with any where else. 



