In the upper world Aristotle’s philosophy postulates the existence of forms divorced from matter: they are the “separate Intelligences,” which emanate one from another and are eternal (see _Foundations of the Law_, _ibid._, and _Guide_, Part II., chap. iv.). Footnote 94: _Guide_, Part III., chap. viii. Footnote 95: _Foundations of the Law_, _ibid._, 8 and 9. Footnote 96: _Eight Chapters_, chap. i. Footnote 97: See Munk, _Le Guide des Egarés_, I., pp. 304-8 (note). Footnote 98: _Guide_, Part I., chaps. lxx. and lxxii. and _passim_. For details see Munk (_ibid._), and Dr. Scheyer’s monograph, _Das Psychologische System des Maimonides_, Frankfort a/M, 1845. Footnote 99: _Foundations of the Law_, chap. iv., 8, 9. Footnote 100: There is some ground for thinking that Maimonides thought of the eternal existence after death of the possessors of “acquired intellect” not as personal, but as a common existence in which they are all united as a single separate being. See _Guide_, III., chap. xxvii., and _Foundations_, _ibid._, and chap. ii., 5-6. This has been pointed out by Dr. Joel in _Die Religionsphilosophie des Mose ben Maimon_, Breslau, 1876 (p. 25, note). Footnote 101: _Guide_, I., chap. lxviii. Footnote 102: According to the division of the sciences current in those days, all this knowledge of true Being is contained in Physics and Metaphysics. Footnote 103: All this teaching is scattered up and down Maimonides’ works, partly in explicit statements and partly in hints (see, _e.g._, _Guide_, III., chap. li.). Dr. Scheyer was the first to work out these definitions in detail (_ibid._, chap. iii.). In general it must be remembered that Maimonides nowhere explains his whole system in logical order, and we are therefore compelled, if we would understand his system as it was conceived in his mind, to make use of scattered utterances, hints, and half-sentences written by the way, to explain obscure statements by others more precise, and to resort freely to inference. Footnote 104: _Guide_, III., chap. xiii., and Introduction to _Commentary on the Mishnah_, section _Zera’im_. Footnote 105: Introduction cited in last note. Footnote 106: _Ibid._ Footnote 107: _Guide_, III., chap. li. Maimonides does not there emphasise the difference between practical studies on the one hand and mathematics and logic on the other, because this is not germane to his purpose at the moment. But the distinction is necessarily implied. Footnote 108: _Guide_, III., chaps. xxvii. and liv.; _Hilchoth De’oth_, chaps. iii. and iv. Footnote 109: Introduction to _Zera’im_. Footnote 110: Maimonides’ attitude to perfection of character is most clearly revealed by the fact that he calls it “bodily perfection,” in contrast to “perfection of the soul,” which is _intellectual_ perfection (_Guide_, III., chap. xxvii.). Footnote 111: