If the course of this explanation should prove correct, it may be supposed that in other matters the author was well oriented, that in more or less weighty affairs his observation had been true and
that his version is correct. He handles y. The the history rather in the way of adAuthor's doting significant events than of a
Methods. complete narration. With regard to
the sections in which the first person is used, it is now seldom affirmed that they proceed from a man who falsely claims to have been present, and it is generally assumed that an eye‑witness stands behind those sections. But it is sometimes held that the eye‑witness is a different person from the author of the book, though against this is the lack of linguistic differences in the two portions of the text. Moreover, the time indications of the " we " sections agree well with those of the Pauline epistles concerning the .companionship of Luke and Paul. If all the indications be taken together, the pronouncement of historians like Curtius and Ranks, of philologists like Bless and Vogel, and archeologists like Ramsay, as well as of a host of theologians, to the effect that the authorship by Luke of the Acts of the Apostles is best supported is not easily to be combated.
Some other questions remain for consideration. One is that of sources. A starting‑point like that given for the Gospel in the parallel accounts is not furnished for Acts, and consequently no sure results are attained. The relation of Acts to the
Pauline epistles is also debated, one 8. Remain‑ affirming the frequent use of them, ing another asserting that they were inPtoblems. accessible to the author. It can not
be definitely proved that literary dependence existed between the two sets of writings. A difficult question is that of the date, which can not be fixed at the conclusion of Paul's two years at Rome (Bless). The dependence of the Gospel upon Mark, which was not written before the death of Peter, gives the superior date. Krenkel in 1894 attempted to show literary dependence upon Josephus; in that case the earlier date would be 7580 A.D. Tradition is silent as to the place of writing, though in Rome both writings were known at an early date. In the matter of the diffusion of these writings before the name of Luke was attached to them, the testimony of Clement of Rome (as implied by his citation of passages) is not easy to contest, and the same may be said of citations in Hernias, Barnabas Ignatius, the Didache, Polycarp, and Papias. With respect to the text it may be said that in no other book of the New Testament is the text in so bad a condition as in Acts. It is due to Bless that a new stadium has been reached in its treatment. This scholar observes that in a number of manuscripts circulated in the East of which D is the example among the uncials, one form of text is current which is no less original than that of the received text, and that of the two forma of text thus existent one is that of the original first draft while the other is the result of a revision by Luke's own hand. Bless in 1900
maintained that neither of these forms of the text is the original, but that both are the editions of a prior form (TSK, 1900, pp. 11, 19). That the hypothesis of the use of sources will be fully disproved in case of the establishment of this view is to be regarded as doubtful. (PAUL EWALD.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the personality of Luke, consult the introductions prefixed to the commentaries and the pertinent sections in the works on Biblical introduction; also A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, Leipaic, 1908, Eng, tranal.. Edinburgh, 1907; W. M. Ramsay, Luke the Physician and Other Studies, New York, 1907; DB, iii. I61‑182; EB, iii. 2830‑33.
On matters of criticism consult the works cited under BIBLICAL INTRODBCrION IL, particularly Zahn, and under PAUL. Special treatises on authorship, credibility, and the like are: H. H. Evans, St. Paul the Author of the Third Gospel, London, 1884‑86; J. Friedrich, Daa Lukaeevanpelium and die Apostelgeschichte 1Verke deaaelben Verjaaaera, Halls 1890; A. C. Hervey, Authenticity of Luke, London, 1892; F. H. Chase, Credibility of the Acts, iii. 1901. On origins and sources consult: E. Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte each ihrem Inhalt and . ... Uraprunp, Stuttgart, 1854, Eng. travel., with Overbeck's Introduction to Acts, 2 vols., London, 1875; H. J. Litzinger, Die Entatehunp den Lukaaeuanpeliuma and der Apoatelpeachichte, Essen, 1883; F. Spitta, Die Apoatelpeachichte, Are Quellen and deren peschichtlichen alert, Halls, 1891; J. Jiingat, Die Quellen der Apoatelpeachichte, Goths, 1895; B. Weiss, Die Quellen den Lukaeeaangeliuma, Stuttgart, 1907; J. Horner, Gospels of Matthew and Luke: a Vindication of their Agreement and Accuracy, Pittsburg, 1908; A. Harnaek, Beitrtipe zur Einleitung in daa N. T., III., Die Apoetelgoschichk, Leipaic, 1908, Eng. travel., New Testament Studies. III., The Acts, London, 1908. Other problems are discussed in: F. Schleiermacher, Ueber die Schriften den Lukas, Berlin, 1817, Eng. traasl., London, 1825; M. Schneckenburger, Ueber den Zweck der Apoatelpeschichte, Bern, 1841; J. R. Oertel, Paulus in der Apoatelpeachichte, Halls, 1868 (on the historicity); W. Stewart, The Plan of Luke's Gospel, Glasgow, 1873; W. M. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, chap. viii., London, 1876; W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of Luke, ib. 1882; A. Kloatermann, Problems in Apoateltexte, Goths, 1883; P. Ewald, Daa Hauptproblem der Evanpelienfrape, Leipaie, 1890; J. M. Stiffer, Introduction.to the Study of Acts, New York, 1892; W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire New York, 1893; idem, St. Paul the Traveller, ib. 1896; M. Krenkel, Jcaephua and Lukas Leipeio 1894; J. Weiss, Ueber die Abeicht and den literdtriaehen Charakter der Apostelpeachichte, Marburg, 1897 (makes Acts an apologetic work addressed to the heathen world); DB, i. 25‑35, iii. 162173; EB, i. 37‑57, ii. 1761‑1898.
For the Gospel the beat commentary in English is A Plummer, Edinburgh, 1897, which eentswne a goed list of the earlier literature. Other commentaries are: C. W. Stein, Halls, 1830; J. Ford, London, 1851; J. H. Schol‑
ten, Het pauliniach evanpel%e Leyden, 1870; M. Vernet, Paris, 1870; H. Cowie% New York, 1881; W. H. Van Doren, 2vols., ib.1881; P.Schanz, Tiibingen, 1883; T. Lindsay, 2 vole., Edinburgh, 1887; F. Godet, 3 vole., Neuchhtel, 1875, Eag, tranal, of earlier edition, Edinburgh, 1875; C. Robinson, New York 1889; H. D. M. Spence, in Pulpit Commentary. London, 1889; H. Burton, ib. 1890; F. W. Farrar, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1890; A. MaoIaren, New York, 1894 J. C. Ryle, 2vols., London, 1896; P. Girodon Penis, 1903; J. M. S. Baljoa,Uttecht 1908.
Commentaries on the Acts are: F. Blass, GtSttingen, 1895, and an edition of the text, Leipsic, 1897; F. Rendall, London, 1897 (the two works just mentioned are the beat); P. J. Gloag, 2 vole., Edinburgh, 1870 (ultraconservative); J. S. Howson, Companions of St. Paul, London, 1871; J. R. Lumby, in Cambridge Bible, Cam‑
bridge, 1879 H. B. Hackett, Philadelphia, 1882 (long regarded as the beat); C. F. NSegea, Leipaic, 1882; A. C. Hervey, in Pulpit Commentary, 2 vole., London, 1884; T. M. Lindsay, Edinburgh, 1885 (very helpful); D. Thomas, London, 1889; W. Arnot, The Church in the House, New Yok 1891 G. T. Stokes, in Expositor's
Bible, 2 vole., London, 1891; J. M. Stiffer, ib. 1894; B. B. Loomis, Studio in the Acts, New York, 1896; J. Beleer,
LULLY, RAYMOND. I. Life. Scientific (§ 3).
II. Works. Polemic (§ 4).
Poetical (§ 1). Dogmatic (§ 5).
Methodical (§ 2). Ascetic ($ 8).
III. Posthumous Fortunes.
not improbable that Lullus founded also the mon
astery of Bleidenatadt. (A. HAUCg.)
BrHr.roaSI,pHy: The EpiatotLullue, ed. E. Diimmler, are in MGH, Epdat., iii (1891), 207 eqq., and also in P. Jaff6, BRG, vol. iii. The Vita by Lambert of Hersfeld, ed. Holder‑Egger with preface, is in MGH, Script., xv. 1 (1887), 132‑148 (contains only chaps. i.‑axii., the other five chapters are in the Opera of Lambert issued by the same editor, pp. 30740, Hanover, 1894). Consult: ASM, iii. 2, pp. 392‑401; C. Will, Repeater zurGeachichte der Mairzer ErzbiachGfe, i., pp. xiv., xv., 34‑45, Innsbruck, 1877; F. Falk, in Der Kathdik, ii (1879), 882‑887; A. G$pfert, Lullua der Nachfoiger des Borafacius im Mainzer Erziristhum, Leipeic, 1881; H. Hahn, Borijaa and Lul, ib. 1883; Holder‑Egger, in NA, ix. 285‑320, aia. 509; Hauck, KD, vole. i.‑ii.; Rettberg, KD, i. 573 eqq.
Beilrttpe aw Erkl.Srurp der APoateIpeachichte, Freiburg, 1897 (takes especial note of codes D); J. ICnabenbauer, Paris, 1899 (in Latin); R. B. Rackham, London, 1901; W. Robertson, Studies it the Acts, Edinburgh, 1901; A. Schlatter, Stuttgart, 1902.
LUKE OF PRAGUE: Bohemian bishop; b. probably at Prague about 1460; d. at Jungbunzlau (30 m. n.e. of Prague) Dec. 11, 1528. He studied at the University of Prague (B.A. about 1480). In 1480 he joined the Moravian Brethren (see BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, IL) and soon became one of their leaders. In 1491 the Brethren sent him to the East to discover if there were not some body of Christians there with whom the Brethren might make an alliance. In 1497 he was sent on a similar errand to the Waldensians and he also had dealings with Luther (q.v.), which, however, came to naught. In 1500 he was elected bishop of the Brethren. He was a voluminous writer in the departments of apologetics, hymnology, exegesis, and catechetics, more than eighty different works being ascribed to him.
BIBLIOGRAPHY'. Consult the literature under BOHEMIAN
LULLUS OF MAINZ: German ecclesiastic; b. in England about 705; d. at the monastery of Hersfeld (32 m. s.e. of Cassel) Oct. 16, 786. The son of well‑to‑do people in England, he was educated at the monastery of Malmesbury and subsequently at Nhutscelle [a monastery in Southamptonshire] while Boniface was teaching there. After a pilgrimage to Rome he followed Boniface to Germany, where he was consecrated deacon about 745. His relations with Boniface were very intimate, and the latter employed him repeatedly on important missions. In his old age Boniface made Lullus his associate and consecrated him bishop (752), to become at his death his successor at Mainz, although the dignity of archbishop was not conferred till later. Lullus was a stanch defender of the rights of the episcopate and endeavored to maintain episcopal supervision over monasteries and convents. In this way he became implicated in a controversy with Sturm, also a disciple of Boniface, abbot of Fulda, who maintained the independence of the monasteries. Thus the two great tendencies, the episcopal and the monastic, which were united in Boniface, were segregated in his disciples. Lullus assumed the control of the monastery of Fulda, and it was probably owing to his influence that Sturm was banished in 763 by King Pippin. Two years later Sturm was pardoned and in 767 assumed again the direction of the monastery. Thereupon Lullus founded in 768 or 769 his own monastery of Hersfeld which developed into a rival to Fulda. Sturm died in 779. Probably in the same year Lullus was made archbishop in connection with the renewal of the metropolitan constitution by Charlemagne. His influence as archbishop can not be compared with that of Boniface, and his relations with Charlemagne were not always peaceful. Under Lullus Cologne severed its relations with Mainz and developed its own archbishopric. He always maintained his connection with his native country, maintained strict canonical discipline and had the confidence of the higher clergy. It is VIL‑5
Raymond Lully (Ram6n Lull, Ruymundua LttZlus) was born on Majorca (Balearic Islands) c.1232; d. at sea near Cabrera, another of the Balearic Islands, June 30, 1316. As poet, philosopher, theologian, missionary, and martyr, he was one of the most remarkable personages of the Middle Ages for a combination of the mgt varied mental qualities, for adventurous and many‑sided activity, and for the influence which he exercised not only on his own countrymen and contemporaries but on distant generations. His importance in the history of theology is due to the fact that, like his contemporary and fellow Franciscan Roger Bacon, he followed the path pointed out by St. Francis, that leading to the knowledge of God by study of the life of his creatures, in the direction of a scientifically organized natural theology; and also to the manner in which his fiery propagandist zeal anticipated the work done by his countryman Ignatius of Loyola 250 years later.
I. Life: Singularly little, however, is known with certainty about his life. Outside of the scanty biographical indications found in his works, the best source is the life by an anonymous disciple written in 1312. He came of a rich and noble family, and lived until he was thirty at the court of King James of Aragon, where he was grand seneschal. This period of his life was careless and worldly; he spent his time in the pursuit of pleasure and knightly exercises, including the practise of poetry in the manner of the courtly troubadours of the time. Suddenly convinced of the vanity of earthly pleasures, he turned to heavenly things and resolved to devote his life to the cause of Christ. He distributed most of his property among the poor, made pilgrimages to Compostela and other shrines, and returned to his native island with the intention of missionary labors among the mainly Mohammedan population of that and the neighboring lands. He learned Arabic from a Moorish slave, who made an attempt on his life. About the same time, certainly before 1275, he met the aged Dominican scholar Raymond of Pennaforte (q.v.), to whom he unfolded his plan of seeking knowledge at the University of Paris, but was dissuaded. He then withdrew to a hermitage he made for him‑
Lully THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 88
self on his property in Majorca, broke off intercourse with his family, and gave himself up to meditation and study. He seems to have entered the third order of St. Francis; at least he brought thirteen young Franciscans as the first students to the college opened at Miramar in Majorca (Nov., 1276) for the study of the Arabic and Chaldean tongues, the direction of which he undertook with the sanction of Pope John XXI. He was also occupied at this time with the composition of his ambitious Ars magna. About 1285 he thought the time had come to carry out his extensive missionary plans, and went to Rome to obtain the sanction of Honorius IV. for his project of erecting missionary institutes in all countries of Christendom. But Honorius was dead when he reached Rome, and Nicholas IV. seemed little inclined to favor his views. He went to Paris, where he is said to have lectured on his philosophic method (1287‑89), then to Montpellier, where he continued his lectures and studies. After about two years there and one at Genoa, he set sail from the latter port in the autumn of 1291 to attempt a missionary campaign in Africa, landed at Bugia in Tunis, preached against Islam, and challenged the fanatical Mohammedan scholars to a public disputation. His words made some impression, and the king, feeling that the Mohammedan supremacy was threatened, condemned him to death, which was commuted to banishment by the intercession of a learned man. He remained in concealment on a ship in the harbor for some time, seeking an opportunity to penetrate once more into the country, but finally lost hope and returned to Italy. He spent about a year (1292‑93) in Naples, completing his Tabula generalis and writing his DisPutatio quinque sapientum. His hopes revived with the election of Pope Celestine V., whose pontificate, however, was too short to accomplish anything, while his successor Boniface VIII. had other things to think about. After a sojourn of two years in Rome, during which he composed his poem DesconorE and his treatise Arbor acienti.ce, he went back to Genoa (1296), and then, after a short visit in Majorca, to Paris (1298‑99). About 1300‑01 is the most probable date for his visit to the Levant in pursuance of his plans for the conversion of the Mohammedans. The years 1302‑05, full of literary activity, were spent between Genoa, Majorca, Montpellier, and Paris. In 1305 or 1306 he made a second attempt on North Africa, this time with the special design of opposing the Averroists. He ventured to appear once more in Bugia, passing through many perils and spending 81X m011t116 1T1 rigorous captivity, only to be banished once more. On the return journey he was shipwrecked near Pisa and lost all his possessions, including his books. He now went to Avignon to see the new pope, Clement V., but again met with discouragement, and lectured once more in Paris (1309‑11). In the latter year he appeared at the Synod of Vienne and addressed the assembled bishops several times, urging the condemnation of Averroism, the union of the spiritual orders of knighthood into one, the conquest of the Holy Land, and especially the erection of missionary colleges and chairs for instruc‑
tion in the oriental languages. The last proposal was the only one adopted; professorships of oriental languages were created at Avignon, Paris, Bologna, Oxford, and Salamanca. From Vienne he seems to have gone first to Majorca, then to have been in Paris and Montpellier again, and to have sailed in the winter of 1314 from Messina for his last African missionary journey. After a short stay in Tunis, he returned to Bugia, where he lay concealed for a time with Christian merchants. Presently, however, he emerged into public notice with fresh fiery attacks on Islam. The Mohammedan population rose against him, drove him out of the city with sticks and atones, and left him half dead on the shore, where he was picked up by two Christian ship captains, but died the next day on the way to Majorca.
The dominant thought of all his later life and literary remains is the idea of Christian missionary enterprise, of which, in the modern sense, he may almost be called the pioneer. To proclaim in the very home of Islam, in the speech of the oriental peoples, the Gospel of Christ; to provide a new and simple scientific method, adapted to all subjects and capacities, for meeting both non‑Christian and heretical opponents of the truth; to set before Christian people in the vernacular and in popular form the ideal of the Christian life, the fervor of mystical love of God, and finally to seal this testimony by the sacrifice of his life‑such was the purpose and the achievement of nearly fifty years of his life.
B. Works: Of several hundred works left by him only a comparatively small part is printed; many manuscripts are extant in Spanish, French, and German libraries. It may be sufficient here, without going into the minute classification sometimes attempted, to give some account of the more important divisions of his work.
Among his fellow countrymen he is still considdered primarily as a poet. His Obras ranadas (ed. Rosello, Palms, 1859) count among the most valuable products of the medieval na‑
r. Poetical. tional literature of Spain, belonging to the Catalan‑Proveneal branch. The beat known is El Desconort, composed of sixty‑nine twelve‑line stanzas in the form of a dialogue between the author and a pious hermit who tries to console him for the discouragement described above.
Outside of Spain, he owes his fame principally to his scientific method (Ars magna or generalia or univeraalia), which has been as much overesti‑
mated by a distinct Lullist gehool as
s. Meth‑ underestimated by others. Its esodical. sense consists in the arrangement of a
number of partly formal, partly material concepts, which are designated by letters, in various circles or other mathematical figures, in such a way that by turning the circles or drawing connecting lines all possible combinations may readily be perceived. The concepts are not explained or made the basis of deductions, but are merely schematized. Mechanical as the whole process seems, it met a want of the age; and there were not only a number of enthusiastic Lullists in
87 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Lnliy
the thirteenth century who lauded him under the title of Doctor illuminatus, but later philosophers and theologians such as Agrippa of Nettesheim, Giordano Bruno, and Kircher were much interested in his system, which seemed to offer an easy road to the coordination of all sciences in one master science. However external and arbitrary the method may appear, it must not be forgotten that the whole scholastic method, built up on the traditional logic and metaphysic of Aristotle, was open to the same objection. Ritter points to the technical logical symbols attributed to Raymond's countryman Petrus Hispanus (d. 1297) as a possible model for the system; but it is more probable that he followed Jewish or Arabic predecessors; he himself uses Kabbala as an alternative title for his art, explaining it as " the reception of truth divinely revealed."
He attempted to employ this method for the solution of various problems in the individual sciences‑not merely logic and meta‑
tinus, i.e., Raymond himself) to instruct the Sara
cen in the errors of Islam. Another of somewhat
similar form is the Liber de gentili et tribes sapien
tibus, in which the interlocutors are a pagan philos
opher, a Jew, a Christian, and a Saracen. The Dis
putatio Raymundi Christians et Hamar Sarraceni
(1307) is an extended defense of the doctrines of
the Trinity and the incarnation against the Mo
hammedan philosopher Hamar.
Under the head of specifically dogmatic writings the first place is taken by expositions of the exist‑
ence and nature of God, especially of the Trinity. Others deal with the creation and fall of man
and the doctrine of the atonement, g. Dog‑ which Raymond conceives, in a way matic. reminding the reader of Anselm, as an infinite satisfaction offered by the God‑Man for an infinite debt. In matters of ecclesiastical discipline he had a keen insight into the conditions of his time, and hit some of their most salient defects, as in his expressions on the value of pilgrimages and the excessive veneration of crosses and pictures, or in his portraiture of the various classes and orders in Christendom, their duties, virtues, and vices.
Of special interest are the works written for practical edification, such as the Liber mills proverbiorum ad communem, vitam, the Liber de orationi‑
bus, and the Liber de contemplationibus 6. Ascetic. in Deum; several treatises on devotion to the Virgin; and a number still unprinted, such as De centum aignis Dei, De septem sacramentis, and De septem donis Spiritus Sancti. A remarkable work is the religious romance Blanr querns (or Bracherna), written in glorification of Christianity and especially of monasticism; the hero is conducted through a great variety of situations, being successively a married man; a hermit, a monk, an abbot, a bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and pope, finally laying aside the tiara to end his days according to the ideal of Franciscan sanctity in mystical union with God and seraphic love.
III. Posthumous Fortunes: The Roman Catholic Church long wavered between honoring Raymond as a saint or condemning him as a heretic. The Dominican Nicolaus Eymericus, inquisitor of Aragon in the fourteenth century, brought charges against his works before Gregory XI., who forbade the reading of some of them, and subsequently (1376) condemned a hundred propositions extracted from them, apparently as leading to a rationalistic rebellion against church authority. The authenticity of this bull was early contested by the adherents of Raymond, while the Dominicans supported the attack on him. Paul IV. placed the writings condemned by Gregory XI. on the Index (1559), but they were removed in 1563 at the Council of Trent on petition of the Spanish bishops. The controversy still went on; some works by Raymond's disciples, especially pertaining to alchemy, were prohibited, and Benedict XIV. expressly affirmed the authenticity of the bull of Gregory XI. though without renewing the condemnation‑and Salzinger's edition of the works of the " Doctor illuminates et martyr Raymundus Lullus " appeared without objection in his pontificate. Pies IX. authorized in 1847 an office of " the blessed Raymundus Lullus " for Majorca and conceded to the Franciscan order in 1857 the annual celebration of his feast‑day on Nov. 27; but under the same pope in 1857 the officially authorized AnaLecta juris pontificii (IL, 2480) upheld the authenticity of the bull of Gregory XI. (O. ZtScxLEat.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The only edition of the works of Lully ap
proaching completeness is that by I. Salzinger, 10 vols.,
Mainz, 1721‑48, of which vols. vii.‑viii. did not appear.
The earliest life, by an unnamed contemporary, which,
however, only came down to the year 1312, is in Latin
~T~.r ~a~ ssioa THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 88
transl. in ASB, June, v. 88188, and in Hiatoire litl€rasre
do la Franca, axis.. PD. 4‑48. with further discussion, pp.
4788; it is also to be found in $slainger's edition of the
works, ut sup., vol, i. Later accounts ate: N. Antonio,
Bibliothua Hiapauica roatua ii. 122‑123, Madrid 1788;
H. Low, De roils Raymuud% LuRi, Halle, 1830; Delecluze, in
Revue des deux mondea, Nov. 15, 1840 (an excellent account
of the life); A. Hellferieh Raymond Lull and die An
JBnge der cataloniache» Litderafur. Berlin 1858: W. Bram
baeh, Des Raymond Lulls Lebea and Werke, Carlaruhe,
1893: M. Andre, Le Bieaheureum R. Luke, Paris, 1900;
8. M. Zwamer, Raymund Lull, First MieaLOnarp to the
Moslems, New York, 1902; W. T. A. Barber, Raymond
Lull, the Illuminated Doctor, London, 1903; G. F. Maelear,
Apostles of Med%eeard Europe, pp. 289‑288, ib., 1908; Ne
ander, Christian Church, iv. 81‑71 et passim; KL, s. 747‑
753: Encyclopedia Britanniar, xv. 83‑84.
For consideration of his works consult: A. R. Pasqual, Vsndicue Lulliarue, 4 vole., Avignon, 1778; X. Rouseelot' ‑0tudea our la philosophic done le moyen dpe, iii. 78141, Paris, 1842; K. Prantl, (leachichta der Logik, iii. 145177, Leipsio, 1887; J. R. de Luanco, Ramon .Lull coteaiderad comp alquimiato, Barcelona, 1870 F de P Canalejae, Los Door%naa dal Ramon Lull, Madrid, 1872; J. B. Haureau, Hiatoire de la acolaeEique, vol. ii.. Paris, 1880; F. H. Reusch, Der Index der roerboteuen B2lcher, i. 28‑33, Bonn, 1883; O. Keieher, Raymundue Luilua and seine Stellunp zur arabiachen Philosophic, Munster, 1909.