Introduction.

introduction

Among the studies that have engaged my attention since I published the “Ethical Treatises of Berachya” in 1902, one of the most fascinating has been that of his “Dodi Venechdi” (Uncle and Nephew), which exists in manuscript—either in whole or in part—in Munich, Oxford, Leyden, and Florence.

In my introduction to the aforementioned edition, I promised to present this latter work to the public. However, other absorbing interests—and especially the heavy professional demands on my time—made the execution of my plans in this respect seem almost hopeless. Nevertheless, having already transcribed the Munich manuscript (No. 42) for this purpose while engaged on the larger work, and having collated it a second time at a later period, I did not give up hope of one day being able to produce this somewhat curious work, the “Dodi.” I now feel a sense of satisfaction in being able to redeem the promise I made many years ago.

What gives this work added interest is the fact that it is not an original thesis; rather, it relies more or less upon the work of that prolific writer Adelardus Bathoniensis (Adelard or Athelard of Bath), which has been given the name “Quaestiones naturales” (Natural Questions).

I use these words advisedly. Although all writers who refer to this work of Adelard’s use this name, it seems to me—having the only printed edition (15th century) before me—that this may not be the original title, but simply a description of the subject matter the treatise deals with. It is for this reason, if I may anticipate the very tantalizing problem that has cropped up during my investigations, that it is difficult to determine absolutely (even though such a towering authority as Moritz Steinschneider (1816–1907), a famous bibliographer of Jewish literature. Steinschneider speaks with dogmatic certainty to the contrary) whether, in addition to the Latin version, which is the only...