This is a record of a discussion in November 1995 about the "Europeanness" of Byzantium. The discussion is as posted on various email lists, but the document has been run through a spell checker! Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:41:51 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Byzantium: A "European" Culture? At the Byzantine Studies Conference this past weekend Philip Shashko of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee presented a well-researched paper on "What and Where is Byzantium? The Presence and Absence of a Civilization in American University Textbooks". Shashko had read about 50 such textbooks, and, for just a bit longer than was necessary. regaled the audience with some sheerly stupid accounts of Byzantium presented in such books. So, for the record, I would like to state that I entirely agree that Byzantine Civilization is under reported, and misrepresented in many textbooks by authors who seem to know little but the dates of some events and that Procopius wrote dirty things about Theodora. But, in fact, Shashko's presentation raised a number of issues that indicate the problem is not only with the textbook writers. What tipped me off on this was his complaint about Byzantium being lumped with Islam ["Should a civilization be compared to a religion?" - an odd comment given that most Islamic specialists would deny that Islam can be understood as a "religion"], and his refrain that exclusion of Byzantium from "European History" affected him personally ["Am I not a European?] In short Shashko was arguing that Byzantium should have a more important role in *European history*. When I questioned this after his speech I was approached by several audience members and was told that I am a "typical Anglo-Saxon" and that I "had offended {them} personally". Let us look at the issues, which, I aver, are not purely historiographical. 1. Byzantium was for much of its history, whenever one sets the start date [323 or 640] a multilinguistic and multiethnic *empire* whose territory, indeed whose *main* territory was located in Asia Minor. At various times much of Northern Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt were also included. The political and religious culture of the Empire did of course continue late Roman characteristics [although the Roman Empire is not understood at all if it is understood as "European"], but also were heavily dependent on Persian, Egyptian, and Syrian models. There is nothing particularly "European" about Orthodox Christianity for instance. In so far as such concepts have any objective meaning, a culture which was so dependent on Armenian, Syrian, Jewish, Egyptian and Mesopotamian roots cannot be characterized in any simple sense as "European". 2. "Europe", although traceable to ancient Greek roots, is essentially a Renaissance concept [See various writings by my old Edinburgh professor Denys Hay on this], and essentially postdates Byzantine history. The concept of Europe is a purely human construct, developed in fact against "Levantine" society, a concept which included Byzantine society. If "Europe" is taken as a secularization of the concept of "Christendom" it was *Latin* Christendom, not any wider concept. 3. Within the United States for a very long time, the cultural elite has been modeled on the descendants of early British colonists [AKA WASPS]. For successive immigrant groups, the clearest way to acceptance has been through assimilation to the WASP elite. With some groups [such as Germans and Scandinavians] this assimilation occurred easily. With others - notably the Irish - it took until the 1950s [see the recent Routledge book, _How the Irish Became White_], with others it is going on before our eyes [Italian Americans for example]. In each case what has happened is that the essentially peasant and working class immigrants [and I mean no disparagement by either term - which describe very well my own family background] claimed equality with WASPS by identifying with that uniquely American catchall category of "White". The claim that one was a "European" was one way to do this, even if ones ancestors came from the margins of Europe and played absolutely no role in the creation of the privilege "European culture", nor had ever participated in the formulation of the highly prestigious political discourse of the United States. The people who paid the price for all this assimilation of "European" to "WASP" to "cultural prestige", were of course American Blacks, and to a lesser extent I suppose Hispanics and Native Americans. There can be little doubt that the cry of "I am European" parses, within American, to "I am not Black". In my opinion Shashko's unhidden refrain ["Am I not a European"] fits into this pattern, as does the "personal offendedness" of the people who came to speak to me. But, as "Europe" has been constructed since the Renaissance, I think that there is no way that the various Balkan cultures formerly under the Ottomans, nor the various areas under the domination of that most Uneuropean autocracy, Tsarist Russia, can be considered "European" except in this most generic geographical sense [and even here, as Andrew March has pointed out in his _The Idea of China_, the commonly accepted boundaries of Europe went no farther than the Don until the 1820s]. 4. This is in no way a denigration of Slavic, Romanian, Greek, or Armenian cultures. Given the terror's that "European" culture has visited upon the world in the 19th and 20th centuries, it might even be considered helpful to have access to alternate cultural roots. A Greek has no need to consider how his or her culture was responsible for slavery or imperialism: a Briton or a Spaniard with a moral concern must do so. 5. It would also seem that Shashko's approach [i.e. to claim the "rightful place" for Byzantium in *European* history] is destined to fail. After all in the survey courses which form the majority of college level offerings, even indubitably "European" societies such as Belgium, Switzerland, Bohemia, can only get a peep, if that. The defining issues, the ones that most historians see as essential in the 'Shaping of the Modern World" took place in the dominant German, French, and British cultures, with smaller roles played by Italian and Spanish states. In the narrative, even if taught analytically, of "European" culture Byzantium can only ever merit a marginal and comparative role. To pursue Shashko's agenda, even discarding its roots in American racial realities, is to perpetuate Byzantium's lowly place in the order of things. 6. And yet Byzantium is wrongly overlooked. Byzantium was an extremely significant world culture, which for over a 1000 years dominated the Eastern Mediterranean, an area central to the human achievement. Its art is beautiful even to untrained eyes, and while its fictive literature has won no great world audience, its historiographic tradition is amongst the finest anywhere. In theology also its writers essayed an intellectual achievement in Divinity and Christology which ranks, as one commentator put it, with the intellectual effort required to create modern physics. The continuance of Byzantine cultural and political formulations in both Slavic and Ottoman/Postottoman societies also make sit "relevant" [if that is important] to understanding the modern world. In short, Byzantinists need to be more worried about the continued shortchanging of Byzantium in World Culture textbooks, and courses, and less worried about providing a basis for the assimilation of immigrant groups in the United States to a model of 'European culture', where the result is the continuing suppression of American Blacks. Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:40:49 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: "European" Cultures? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET Paul Buell wrote [quoted paragraph]By your standards, was the Roman Empire a "European" culture? And then there is the problem of the two dominant religions in Europe, both of Middle Eastern origins. Also, Spain in supposedly "European," but what about its Islamic past. I think the line cannot be drawn so easily. The important thing, in my view, is the contributions of the various peoples and cultures surrounding ours and giving rise to ours to making us what we are today. From that perspective Byzantium is certainly part of my heritage if for no other reason than the transmission of Greek classics during the Renaissance. I think the question of "Europeaness" is wrongly put. This is imposing the present on the past, always a mistake. What do others think? Paul D. Buell I think I was clear in arguing that the claim to be "European" strikes me as having more to do with current American racial politics than any "objective" past. In response to the above. Rome certainly is an important precursor to modern Western Civilization, but so is ancient Judea. Rome, the city, was located in that western part of the Eurasian land mass, we now call 'Europe', but the Roman Empire is best considered in 'Mediterranean' contexts, I think. Spain also makes better sense that way. It was in considering these issues that it became clear to me for the first time just how much "eurocentricity" can resemble the misreadings of the past many of us associate with "afrocentricity". Just as the claim that Pharonic Egypt was "African" is driven by modern American [and with Diop African] racial politics and is true only in a trivial sense, so also, I think, is the claim of "Europeaness" for Byzantium, and perhaps also, Ancient Greece and Rome. If the fact that *our* culture derives much from these ancient cultures is indeed significant, why might not modern Muslims, also heirs to Greece, Rome and Persia, make similar claims? Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 21:23:34 CST From: "bachr001@maroon.tc.umn.edu" bachr001@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A "European" Culture? When does it become useful for medievalists to use the term Europe in any but a geographical sense? Hay thought that the mention of "Europeans" in a chronicle describing the forces of Charles Martel at the Battle of Poitiers in 732 to be important. The term, however, is likely an interpolation in that text. Was there a European culture in the Middle Ages. Perhaps one could talk about a Latin culture in linguistic terms. Or perhaps one could speak of a Christian culture recognizing the pope at Rome as its head. However, do these equate with Europe in a geographical sense-arguments could be made in several directions. Were not the culture(s) of southern Italy and Sicily closer to that of the Cypriots or other islanders in the Mediterranean than to those of England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales? When we consider Europe to we ignore eastern Europe and if so how much of eastern Europe and what about northern Europe. Discussion of a European culture in the Middle Ages is not very useful. I would suggest, however, that we think about Western Civilization --there are some very nice comparisons to be made, for example, between sentiments voiced in the stele of Hamurapi and the preamble to the US Constitution with all kinds of Greek, Roman and medieval sentiments linking the two. I would suggest that when these sentiments are abandoned Western Civilization is abandoned. In the Institutes of Justinian one finds many of these same ideas and values being stated so perhaps Byzantium is part of Western Civilization. By contrast, it is not easy to line up on balance the political theory one can find in the Koran with the preamble to the US Constitution. B.Bachrach U. of MND Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 22:00:29 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A "European" Culture? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET B. Bachrach writes [quoted paragraph]When does it become useful for medievalists to use the term Europe in any but a geographical sense? Hay thought that the mention of "Europeans" in a chronicle describing the forces of Charles Martel at the Battle of Poitiers in 732 to be important. The term, however, is likely an interpolation in that text. Was there a European culture in the Middle Ages. Perhaps one could talk about a Latin culture in linguistic terms. Or perhaps one could speak of a Christian culture recognizing the pope at Rome as its head. However, do these equate with Europe in a geographical sense-arguments could be made in several directions. Were not the culture(s) of southern Italy and Sicily closer to that of the Cypriots or other islanders in the Mediterranean than to those of England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales? When we consider Europe to we ignore eastern Europe and if so how much of eastern Europe and what about northern Europe. Discussion of a European culture in the Middle Ages is not very useful. Agreed. [quoted paragraph] I would suggest, however, that we think about Western Civilization --there are some very nice comparisons to be made, for example, between sentiments voiced in the stele of Hamurapi and the preamble to the US Constitution with all kinds of Greek, Roman and medieval sentiments linking the two. I would suggest that when these sentiments are abandoned Western Civilization is abandoned. In the Institutes of Justinian one finds many of these same ideas and values being stated so perhaps Byzantium is part of Western Civilization. By contrast, it is not easy to line up on balance the political theory one can find in the Koran with the preamble to the US Constitution. The problem here is that some people in Europe end up taking positions like this and bombing Sarajevo! [Which I am quite sure is not Prof. Bachrach's intent]. Shashko actually raised the issue of NATO membership in his discussion of the problem of Byzantium in Western Civ. textbooks. I also must observe, that taking the US Constitution as the teleological measure of previous "Western Civilization" is a little hard to accept. PBH Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 22:15:29 -0500 From: Richard Landes rlandes@ACS.BU.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A "European" Culture? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET I do not think it is *necessarily* an imposition on the past to look for the sources and nature of "European" or "Western" or "modern" civilization. (but then again, I wdn't wd I, I'm writing a book on it.) I think it takes great intellectual effort to deny that the culture that both Europe and the US share is, for good or evil (I'd say liberal shares of both) the most powerful, intrusive, and corrosive culture the world has yet seen, one capable of the most unusual forms of conquest/colonization. I don't think, then, that Charles Martel's troops represent the first signs of an unusual civilization, just another example of military élan. on the contrary, the key turning point, I wd argue, is when Europe's population becomes unusually aggressive on a cultural and economic plane -- technology, markets, new forms of association. and to that end, I wd like to introduce to this discussion the words of Rodulfus Glaber which constitute, I believe, the first reflection on what economic macrohistorians call European exceptionalism: Sed et illud nimirum etiam perpendendum, quoniam, cum ista quae retulimus, videlicet de conversionibus perfidarum ad fidem Christi gentium altrinsecus in aquilonaribus atque occidentalibus orbis partibus persepe fieri contgerit, nusquam talia in orientalibus atque meridianis eiusdem orbis plagis contigit audiri, cuius denique veracissimus presagii index fuit constitutio illa crucis dominice dum in ea Salvator penderet in loco Clavariae. Nam cum retro illius verticem suspensi tum fuisset crudus nimium populis oriens, tunc etiam in eius ocularum conspectu lumine fidei repleturus constitit occidens. Sic quoque omnipotentem ipsius dexteram ad misericordiae opus extensam sacri verbi fied mitis suscepit septentrio eiusque levam gentibus barbarorum tumultuosus sortitur meridies. (Quinque libri historiarum, 1.5.25) [Translation] But here is a matter worthy of meditation. We have told how it very often happened that the infidels were converted to the faith of Christ in both the northern and western parts of the world, but we do not chance to have heard of the same thing happening in the east and south. This was faithfully foretold in the position of the Lord's cross from which He hung in the place called Calvary. When He was hung from the cross the immature people of the east were hidden behind His head, but the west was before His eyes, ready to be filled with the light of the faith. So too His almighty right arm, extended for the work of mercy, pointed to the north, which was to be mellowed by the holy word of the faith, while His left was the lot of the south, which swarmed with barbaric peoples. (France translation, pp.41,43) The arrogant, invidious and religious language aside, this strikes me as a rather remarkable passage, heralding the beginning of a new kind of Christendom. for a description of the kinds of expansive and culturally innovative actions undertaken, in which pagan, Muslim and (old) Christian were essentially treated alike, see Robert Bartlett's "The Europeanization of Europe" in _The Making of Europe_. rlandes Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 23:32:32 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET Professor Bowlus writes, [quoted paragraph]As someone who actually heard Philip Shashko's presentation in New York, I think this discussion has gotten out of hand. There were no racial implications in his presentation. His complaint had to do treated, but the middle east in general as well as the Slavic world and the culture of the Eurasian steppe. Every thing that is considered as non-western from our pre perspective is lumped together because it does not seem relevant. I suggest, however, that the history of the Byzantine Empire is very relevant in so far as the Byzantine sphere embraced or was in contact with the part of the world which Americans understand least today and the part of the world in which conflict is most likely to occur. Shashko was trying to get across the point that there are many lessons to learn history, but that this history is being ignored to the point that our students think that Byzantium is some kind of heavy metal. The "part of the world which Americans understand least" is a pretty competitive category these days, and I *entirely* accept that Byzantine culture deserves more prominence. On the functional level, however, more coverage need to be extended to the Ottoman Empire, which is generally treated even worse than Byzantium in textbooks and suffers the long term effects of the nefarious _Midnight Express_. Interestingly, the current Ottoman successor state also claims, against the evidence, that it is "European". I also wish to disavow any suggestion that Prof. Shashko had any overt racial motive. It remains the case, however, that the claim to "Europeanness" and hence affiliation with the prestige WASP elite, is a recurrent theme of American immigration history, and constitutes a strategy in which the victorious leap over other Americans who have not been able to make such a claim, or at least not until afrocentrists hit on the notion of claiming that all "western civilization" was derived from Egypt. [When I asked one of my students at Brooklyn who made this claim whether this meant that Africans were responsible for the "crimes" of the West such as "dualistic thinking" and "slavery", he accused me of "arguing semantics". Apparently only the good things came from Africa!]. Paul Halsall Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 23:36:00 EDT From: FELICE LIFSHITZ LIFSHITZ@SERVAX.BITNET Subject: Re: "European" Cultures? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET I am not in the mood to argue specific points just now, but I would like to second Paul Halsall's general assertion that what "we" choose to include in or exclude From "our" definitions of "Europe" (and of any other category) at any given moment is almost entirely a function of presentist concerns. There is not way to prove such an assertion. Either one thinks representations are strongly politicized, or one does not, or something in between. It's a fascinating discussion, but one which I think can only elicit visceral reactions. Felice Lifshitz Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 07:33:42 -0500 From: Mark Sieber MarkosByz@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L BYZANS- L@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu Speaking as an American, I think the current discussion of the "European" nature of Byzantium reveals two aspects: First, that Byzantium--the name is still not beyond controversy, even in this forum--has no permanent place in Western academic structure. Since it is the bridge between old Asia and new Europe (both in it's own time, and ours), it does not fit into standard university "departments", but has become an interdisciplinary set of "studies"--along with Africa and Asia, and other non-traditional areas of investigation. This hybrid nature, rather than increasing it's importance as a model for historical change and assimilation, has made it a second-class citizen among the nationalistic and cultural baggage of American secondary school education. Second, this nationalistic and cultural baggage (racism, divisiveness, and jingoism) is still the predominant cast of American popular culture. The current tendency to avoid the "melting pot" aspects of modern America has prevented Byzantium from achieving a valuable place among the civilizations to which we Americans look for inspiration and understanding. (Consider that the word "Byzantine"-- if known to Americans at all--is perceived as an epithet denoting a convoluted and depraved self-interest--rare, perhaps, because it is not too far off the mark as a description of our own present political and economic ways of power.) I have long seen parallels between the eastern and western Byzantine empire, and the southern and northern parts of the United States prior to our Civil War--but, alas, such lessons are disregarded not only because Byzantium is a second-rate area of study, but because such introspection is sadly lacking throughout our "culture" in general. Among other current cultural taboos, the examination of the effects of a centralized bureaucracy versus a wealthy landed "aristocracy" and of state religion on a society are chiefly unexamined here in the U.S. Such topics would be wise to consider in this hybrid nation. Mark Sieber Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:13:53 -0500 (EST) From: Kristin Babcock kbabcock@acs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Byzantium: A "European" Culture? To: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Just a quick note of agreement from a Greek-American... I find that my "Greek-ness" makes me much more similar to Arabs, particularly Egyptians, than to Europeans, even other Mediterranean Europeans. Kristin (Solias) Babcock Boston University Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:11:32 -0600 From: Bob Atchison batchison@TRAVELOGIX.COM Subject: Re: Byzantium- A European C To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L BYZANS- L@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu Reply to: RE Byzantium: A European Civilization? Now, for the opposite side of Europe I would say this; should the history of the Franco-Germanic nations be called European? Yes, western nations believe themselves to the heir of Rome and Greece therefore they are. Simple as that. For the nations of Eastern Europe, Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, etc., they ultimately share the same roots and have as much claim as anyone to the European wellspring of cultural identity. Although they are children and direct heirs of Byzantium and the Orthodox Church, and the French, Germans, English, Spanish peoples are not; they all share the common link to European culture until the end of the Roman Era. Let's not forget that 'EUROPE" was a great deal larger in those days than today. I don't think anyone would define it as narrowly as we do now. Until the Islamic conquests (and for a long time afterwards) there were a lot of people in Asia Minor, Africa and the near East who thought of themselves as part of a common culture and identity that included what we call Western Europe today. Even now, I think we judge the 'Europeaness' of Eastern countries on sort of a sliding sale based on religion and 'likeness' to ourselves. Therefore, the Czechs are judged by some more 'European' than the Bulgarians, the Poles more so than the Russians. This is rather stupid and I would suggest that this discussion shows the nasty effect of centuries of Western cultural bias toward the Eastern European nations. Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 10:32:14 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium- A European C To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L BYZANS- L@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu Bob Atchison writes [quoted paragraph]Now, for the opposite side of Europe I would say this; should the history of the Franco-Germanic nations be called European? Yes, western nations believe themselves to the heir of Rome and Greece therefore they are. Simple as that. It all depends what you mean by Europe, as I have argued. "Europe", although etymologically related to a Greek word, seems *as a concept* to be an invention of the Renaissance. In American discourse it has become a coded way of saying "white". Although the radical opposition between "Asia" and "Europe" can be traced to the Iliad [for noone can doubt the ethnocentrism of the ancient Greeks!], by the time of the Renaissance the logic of arguing that "history moves west" had effectively placed the Greek speaking world outside what was meant by "Europe". [quoted paragraph]For the nations of Eastern Europe, Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, etc., they ultimately share the same roots and have as much claim as anyone to the European wellspring of cultural identity. This is doubtful, especially with regard to Russia, for a number of reasons. 1. Russian geographical isolation, 2. The long-term effects of Mongol domination of Russia at precisely the period when a distinctive "European" set of cultural coordinates was forming in the west, and 3. the lack of anything resembling a Renaissance in Russia. [quoted paragraph]Although they are children and direct heirs of Byzantium and the Orthodox Church, and the French, Germans, English, Spanish peoples are not; they all share the common link to European culture until the end of the Roman Era. I have my doubts about the "Europeanness" of Spanish history [as do a number of specialists in Spanish history btw]. [quoted paragraph] Let's not forget that 'EUROPE" was a great deal larger in those days than today. I don't think anyone would define it as narrowly as we do now. Until the Islamic conquests (and for a long time afterwards) there were a lot of people in Asia Minor, Africa and the near East who thought of themselves as part of a common culture and identity that included what we call Western Europe today. I have no idea what evidence you have to support this. [quoted paragraph]Even now, I think we judge the 'Europeaness' of Eastern countries on sort of a sliding sale based on religion and 'likeness' to ourselves. Therefore, the Czechs are judged by some more 'European' than the Bulgarians, the Poles more so than the Russians. This is rather stupid and I would suggest that this discussion shows the nasty effect of centuries of Western cultural bias toward the Eastern European nations. I agree with this wholeheartedly. I am in no way arguing for the superiority of European civilization. The attempt by the children of Eastern European immigrants in America to assert a "European" identity [which they simply did not have in Europe] is, however, a function of American ethnic and racial politics. Paul Halsall Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:51:38 -0800 From: Paul Buell pbuell@HENSON.CC.WWU.EDU Subject: Re: "European" Cultures? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET Just for the record, I don't find the Islamic World of north Africa and the Middle East to be anything "alien." The common roots with our own European-based cultures are unmistakable, as are the common past experiences of European Christian cultures and Islam and the enormous amount of mutual influence over the centuries. On the other hand, I do see a "Western tradition," and I do see the Greek world, including Byzantium as playing a most important role in it. To deny this is to distort history, whatever the laudable purpose in doing so. Debate anyone? Paul D. Buell On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Paul Halsall wrote: [quoted paragraph] Paul Buell wrote By your standards, was the Roman Empire a "European" culture? And then there is the problem of the two dominant religions in Europe, both of Middle Eastern origins. Also, Spain in supposedly "European," but what about its Islamic past. I think the line cannot be drawn so easily. The important thing, in my view, is the contributions of the various peoples and cultures surrounding ours and giving rise to ours to making us what we are today. From that perspective Byzantium is certainly part of my heritage if for no other reason than the transmission of Greek classics during the Renaissance. I think the question of "Europeaness" is wrongly put. This is imposing the present on the past, always a mistake. What do others think? Paul D. Buell I think I was clear in arguing that the claim to be "European" strikes me as having more to do with current American racial politics than any "objective" past. In response to the above. Rome certainly is an important precursor to modern Western Civilization, but so is ancient Judea. Rome, the city, was located in that western part of the Eurasian land mass, we now call 'Europe', but the Roman Empire is best considered in 'Mediterranean' contexts, I think. Spain also makes better sense that way. It was in considering these issues that it became clear to me for the first time just how much "eurocentricity" can resemble the misreadings of the past many of us associate with "afrocentricity". Just as the claim that Pharonic Egypt was "African" is driven by modern American [and with Diop African] racial politics and is true only in a trivial sense, so also, I think, is the claim of "Europeaness" for Byzantium, and perhaps also, Ancient Greece and Rome. If the fact that *our* culture derives much from these ancient cultures is indeed significant, why might not modern Muslims, also heirs to Greece, Rome and Persia, make similar claims? Paul Halsall Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:55:31 LCL From: Skip Knox ELKNOX@TOPGUN.IDBSU.EDU Subject: Re: "European" Cultures? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET When I teach Western Civ, I usually make a point of asserting that one of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages was the invention of Europe. Before the Middle Ages there is no Europe. Ancient civilizations were their own critters, and European civilization was influenced by more than one of them. Seems pretty straightforward to me. ======================================================== == Skip Knox Boise State University Boise, Idaho elknox@bsu.idbsu.edu elknox@topgun.idbsu.edu Cogito ergo spud: I think therefore I yam Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 12:49:43 -0400 From: "John C. Moore" HISJCM@HOFSTRA.BITNET Subject: Re: "European" Cultures? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET IMHO, there are two issues. The first is whether more room should be made for Byzantine civilization in textbooks and courses. In theory I can certainly say yes, but where to find room? Unfortunately, the clock keeps ticking, and the 20th century claims more space in texts and courses, and non-Western cultures do too. So my guess is that Byzantium will continue to occupy its traditional place as one of the three "heirs" of the Roman Empire, mentioned and then neglected. As for there being a Europe or a European civilization, the traditional identification of European civilization with Latin Christendom seems valid. In _The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 930- 1350_, Robert Bartlett makes very good use of the idea. In the process, he makes clear that Latin Christendom is distinguished by cultural traits other than Christianity. We should also distinguish between two kinds of Eurocentrism. The old kind, now largely abandoned, was to see that Europe dominated the globe 1500-1900 and to see that as progress, the civilizing of non-European barbarians (as 12th c. Europeans tended to see it). Another kind, one that I think entirely valid is to see that Europe dominated the globe--for better or for worse. Bartlett's subtitle identifies some of the less attractive traits of European civilization. One of the more attractive traits is indicated by the fact that nearly every country in the world is either imitating or pretending to imitate the governmental institutions that evolved in medieval England. The fact that traditional Europe came to dominate the world even as it evolved into modern Europe makes it eminently worth special attention; it does not necessarily make it worth celebrating. Jack Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:44:47 EDT From: "Marty Davis" MARTY@uscpress.press.scarolina.edu Subject: Re: Byzantium: A "European" Culture? On Tuesday, November 14, Paul Halsall wrote a long, and interesting comment on the relationship of Byzantine culture to western Europe. I only wish that I could have attended the conference. Halsall's comments raise some valid questions, I believe, about the value of studying European history in isolation. Halsall was careful to point out that while Byzantium has a long and glorious record of achievement, people such as Philip Shashko will invariably fail if they attempt to have Byzantine history placed in the corpus of Western history books. I think he is right, and I think it's unfortunate--Not because I disagree with Halsall and think that Byzantium had a tremendous influence on the development of Western European history, but rather because the world we live in demands that we be made more aware of the lands and peoples of Turkey, Greece, the hinter regions of the former USSR, and the Middle East. None of these areas may be understood well until one understands the Byzantine world--period. I have been actively involved with Professor Perkins (an Islamicist with the USC history department) in trying to develop a conference that would allow scholars of European history interact with scholars of Islamic history so that the two sides can stop speaking across each other and begin some serious dialogue on the interaction between these worlds from the 7th century to the present. The response? DEAD IN THE WATER! Why? Islamic scholars tend to feel overshadowed and looked down upon by European scholars. They are frustrated because no one wants to talk with them unless there's been a terrorist attack or someone is interested in how Christianity has changed their region of the world (OK, this is greatly simplified, but in the generalization is truth). European scholars, by and large, disdain Islam as an inferior religion and culture (much as they do Byzantium) despite the fact that Islam outstrips Europe by quite a wide margin in terms of cultural achievement between the 8th and 13th centuries. What's the solution? I would offer that we begin by allowing our Byzantine and Islamic colleagues to sit at the table with us and begin the much needed reevaluation of our approach to western history. This is not about bringing marginalized groups to the table. Islam is not a marginal society in today's world, and that fact alone, I believe, makes the study of its earlier history valuable to students of western history. Marty Davis Editorial Assistant The University of South Carolina Press Phone: (803)777-9055 E-Mail: Marty@uscpress.scarolina.edu Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 02:22:14 -0600 From: "Lynn H. Nelson" lhnelson@UKANAIX.CC.UKANS.EDU Subject: Failing (in regard) to Byzantium To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET The failure of many instructors to pay much attention to either the Muslim lands or the Byzantine Empire is not necessarily an act of will on their part, but the result of the lack of an adequate textbook dealing with these areas (as well as the Balkans and Eastern Europe) in any coherent manner. In the flurry of mergers of publishers that have taken place, many excellent textbooks have been dropped. One of these was Appleton Century Croft's text by Lamont, perhaps the only text to treat these several areas as forming an interacting whole. It was a massive and encyclopedic work covering the entire period from the Roman Empire to the early sixteenth century. It was, unfortunately graced with only a few black and white illustrations and had many "difficult" words in the text, but the major reason that it was dropped, I understand, was that the lead company in one of the mergers that swallowed up ACC had a new medieval text out and wished to avoid carrying a competing title. I used it for junior-senior classes until it was no longer available, and our present students keep their eyes open for a copy whenever they visit a used book store. I suspect that many would find it now hopelessly old-fashioned, but I still find myself browsing through it from time to time and wishing that it were still available. I think that it is important to remember that we do not have enough control over what we teach to suppose that omissions on our part are necessarily the result of our personal biases. Lynn Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:27:38 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L BYZANS- L@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu Luis de Constantinopla writes [quoted paragraph]Paul Halsall says: I think I was clear in arguing that the claim to be "European" strikes me as having more to do with current American racial politics than any "objective" past. Although, Paul, I agree with much of what you say, you have made at least two mistakes: 1. The same prejudices towards non-western Europeans exist in places outside the US. Byzantium has the same PR problem in Latin America and in Spain, for example, as it has in the US. However, Spain, for example, has no blacks nor any "racial" problem in the sense that the US has it. The current marginalization of Byzantine History in Latin America and Spain, which is the same as in the US, in no way is related to US racial politics. So it seems to me that you assume a provincial attitude when you try to explain the universe based on that which occurs in your back yard. This is a very interesting comment Luis, and could of course apply to Britain also. But it is also true that in Britain [and Hispanophone countries?] that reliance on textbooks is less an issue than in US university teaching. There is also the fact that, given the massive size of the US academy, to some extent it sets the stage for the rest of the world. Finally, I think there are at least two sorts of national historiographic traditions: in one historians concentrate on their own cultural past and few if any make significant contributions outside that area. It strikes me that this is an issue in Spain, Greece and to a limited extent in Italy. The other tradition, striking in the case of the US, Britain, France, Germany and Russia, supports historiographical research into a variety of world cultures. In other words, I do not think the situation in Latin America and the situation in the US are commensurable. In saying that I am aware I have made a number of assumptions which many might quibble with. [quoted paragraph] 2. Spain is Europe. Regardless or your opinion or any others, Spain is Europe. It created the first modern state, it "discovered" the American Hemisphere, it colonized half of it, it gave us Velazquez, Cervantes, Dali and Picasso. How more European can you be? "Europe" has shown an ability to expand, and I do not deny that Spain, or even modern Greece [and perhaps even Turkey] have every right to be considered "European". But to consider Spain in the Middle Ages as "European" severely distorts its history, and in fact buys into the ahistorical ideology of 'Reconquista'. As a matter of fact, The southern two thirds of Iberia [al- Andulus] were ruled by Muslim rulers for periods ranging from 400 to 700 years. In these areas the vast majority of the population converted to Islam by 900 CE, and played an important role in the brilliant Muslim civilization of the time. Following the political collapse of the Muslim states, a prolonged period of Christian conquest took place in which much of the Muslim and Jewish population was excluded From Spain [hence the need for all those "repopulation" projects], but this project was not completed until the 16th century. In the process *Christian Spain*, certainly in contact with the rest of Europe, developed in a significantly different way from the rest of Europe. This has been written about as a "frontier" society by Angus Mackay. Notable was the lack of a titled nobility, the existence of a town based politics at an early date, and the development of powerful representative institutions [the various corts and cortes]. Christian Spain was certainly a very specialized "European" culture, but cannot be understood in this way alone. Unfortunately for Spain its development after the 16th century diverged once again from the "European" model. *As a result* of its very mixed background, the Spanish state for three centuries used institutions of social and political control which inhibited in Spain the development of open intellectual inquiry and research which became a feature of some Italian, most French, British, and Dutch, along with German Universities. So is Spain "European"? Yes. But it was not always so. Paul Halsall Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:45:32 -0500 From: Guy Kay gkay@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L BYZANS- L@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu I've been following the thread started by Paul Halsall with some interest. I shan't excerpt his lucid and thoughtful remarks and the replies of others because they've spun out over several messages, but I do have a few comments to make. Although Halsall is entirely correct in suggesting that 'European' is a construct of the renaissance, it does NOT follow, to my mind that an examination of the idea of 'Europeanness' can only begin at that point. Among other things, it is surely germane to enquire into -why- the Rebirth defined itself around certain peoples of the past and their themes and motifs (real of imagined). Why were the classical Greeks included, indeed made central, and the Byzantine Greeks not so. An enquiry into emerging self-definition is surely a major part of the historian's task. And at the risk of oversimplification, I'll suggest that -one- reason for this choice, and others, is that the renaissance largely defined itself around the exaltation of 'man' as a rational creature. Classical Greek texts enhanced that process, while Byzantine society offered a far more 'mystical' pattern to work with. (I am quite aware of the 'irrational' subtext to Greek society, but am concerned here with the surface text, the received wisdom as to what the Greeks were about.) The culture of the West has followed an evolution built around the values of logical thought and science and Byzantium makes difficult going for those constructing images around these ideas. Other commentators here have noted that Halsall may be being too narrow in his framework by concentrating on the American attitude to these issues. Not only the American attitude, in truth, but the -contemporary- American attitude. Certainly 'code words' and present-day racial politics enter into modern academic discourse, but it is surely too temporally and geographically restrictive to assess the definition of European only in terms of modern American issues. I may be being unfair to Halsall (who has, as I said, made several thoughtful points) and his point may -only- be that in modern American studies these latent political issues dominate, and he is -not- alleging that that is the whole context of evaluation of the idea of 'European.' Having said all this, I believe Halsall's original point about the drum-beating for the importance of Byzantium in 'European' history is well-taken. Indeed, my first point in this too-long comment can also be seen as an endorsement of his critique of Philip Shashko's paper - that Byzantium represents a society that does -not- offer easy assimilation into models of what European society 'created' itself to be. Finally, amid all the self-flagellating about the evils of western Imperialism, surely the discussion must factor in the creation of liberal democracy, the abolition of slavery (what other society has?) and the emergence and even flourishing of an intelligentsia that freely and aggressively pillories its own society. May I diffidently suggest that these issues are almost always more complex than the zealots on either side prefer to believe? Guy Kay Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 08:52:14 -0600 From: "Charles R. Bowlus" CRBOWLUS@UALR.EDU Subject: Byzantium To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET Lynn Nelson's point is right on the mark. Many of us do not give the Byzantium the time it deserves because our text books are inadequate. That is exactly the point that Philip Shashko was making in his presentation at the Byzantine Studies Conference in New York. Mark Whittow is coming out with a wide ranging book, The Making of the Byzantine Empire (U. Cal Press) which I hope will be suitable as a class text in combination with Roger Collins for courses in Early Medieval history. Whittow's book will be available in paperback (17.50). It terminates in 1025. Charles R. Bowlus Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 10:20:04 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L BYZANS- L@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu Guy Kay made some interesting remarks, but I only want to address one: [quoted paragraph] Other commentators here have noted that Halsall may be being too narrow in his framework by concentrating on the American attitude to these issues. Not only the American attitude, in truth, but the -contemporary- American attitude. Certainly 'code words' and present-day racial politics enter into modern academic discourse, but it is surely too temporally and geographically restrictive to assess the definition of European only in terms of modern American issues. I may be being unfair to Halsall (who has, as I said, made several thoughtful points) and his point may -only- be that in modern American studies these latent political issues dominate, and he is -not- alleging that that is the whole context of evaluation of the idea of 'European.' As some posters know, I am not American. I was born in England and was an undergraduate at Edinburgh and a masters student at London. It is also true that I was addressing primarily American issues in my original post. The context of American college history teaching is radically different from that which obtains in Britain, and I suspect most other "European" countries. Britain with a population of circa 55 million has about 100 universities [with 150 or so other college type institutions]. The US with only 250 Million people has over 3000 college type institutions. In most European universities, as I understand it, people attend knowing what they are going to "read". A Chemical Engineering student will thus take NO "humanities" course at all in 3 or 4 years in college. Similarly a someone reading history will take no maths or science courses. At American colleges the project is somewhat different: it is in fact to provide a minimal level of cultural literacy to a group of students who do not conceive of intellectual attainment as a goal in itself, but rather see a college degree as a means to economic security. European students are still expected to be educated when they arrive at college: such an expectation would be unrealistic in the US. [In conformation of this, a French bac certificate will get you two years of college transfer credit in many American Colleges; ditto a good array of A levels; and while British O levels will not get you into any British University, Five will get you into an American college, and you will be better prepared than many American students]. As a result of these differences, the European history student will take an array of in-depth and specialized courses [my final year at Edinburgh, for instance, consisted of two courses "The Fourth Lateran Council" and "Byzantium 1025- 1118", for both of which we were expected to do a paper very two weeks, and to have read virtually all relevant texts: - such courses are not common even in Graduate school in the US]. Survey courses are much rarer, and when they do exist, typically take up three terms and so go in much deeper than their American equivalents. Given the relative homogeneity of most European countries, inclusion and exclusion from the curriculum occurs without the racial and ethnic politics that are a constant in American university life. [There are in fact some oddities: In Britain, for instance, British Empire History was largely overlooked, at least in my time. You had to take a special course to get into it.] What does all this mean with regard to the place of Byzantine studies? I suppose it means that I agree with Guy Kay that there are wider issues involved [the long term effects of Gibbon, relative inaccessibility of sources, historiographical traditions and so forth]. But within the American context, I think my original comments stand. And given the size and influence of the American Academy, the issues taken on a wider significance. Paul Halsall PS: I hope this discussion is not boring to Byzans-l members. I think we somewhat underutilize this list. At the BSC, a straw poll in one session showed a majority of those present had some sort of Internet connection. I hope other discussions will take place. I have found, for instance, that reading the Mediev-l list has familiarized me with issues I would otherwise have overlooked, and has contributed to better class teaching. Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 12:05:00 PST From: Chris Hermansen clh@TFIC.BC.CA Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L BYZANS- L@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu On Guy Kay's follow-up to Paul Halsall's comments; Surely Guy's statement: [quoted paragraph] Although Halsall is entirely correct in suggesting that 'European' is a construct of the renaissance, it does NOT follow, to my mind that an examination of the idea of 'Europeanness' can only begin at that point ...points the way. Who in fact cares if a notion of `European' came out of the renaissance, since as Paul has already pointed out, it is our modern notion of `European' which influences *our* understanding (e.g. Paul's comment that `European' is a modern euphemism for `white') and is surely at the root of any discussion that goes by the title "Byzantium: A European Civilization?". Chris Hermansen Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Voice: 1 604 733 0731 302 - 958 West 8th Avenue FAX: 1 604 733 0634 Vancouver B.C. CANADA clh@tfic.bc.ca V5Z 1E5 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 11:33:00 PST From: Chris Hermansen clh@TFIC.BC.CA Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-LWarning: rank amateur's opinions follow! Further to Luis' follow-up to Paul Halsall's comments on Europe, surely Paul did a disservice not only to Spain but Eastern Europe as well in cutting them out of "the perception that is Europe". If the involvement of eastern Europe in the Renaissance were the only possible way of linking the post-Roman-empire east and west together, all well and good; but look at other times. Mozart clearly showed the Eurocentric focus of his locale in _The Abduction from the Seraglio_; the Hapsburgs spread their political and social influence throughout Europe (east and west); the Normans and the Spanish ruled in chunks of Italy. I should probably stop here. Even calling the Renaissance "European" is giving short shrift to the influences From other contemporary cultures (such as that of Islamic culture on the troubadours or Islamic science on mathematics and astronomy); or, per Vasari, the notion that Renaissance art was, to a great deal, a re-discovery of classical principles in art. I should probably stop here, too. Doubtless my post has clearly demonstrated my ignorance in the matters to which Paul was referring, so I would be pleased to be enlightened. Chris Hermansen Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Voice: 1 604 733 0731 302 - 958 West 8th Avenue FAX: 1 604 733 0634 Vancouver B.C. CANADA clh@tfic.bc.ca V5Z 1E5 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:20:33 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L George Theodoropoulos, writing from my hometown of Manchester, asks, "Has anyone ever heard of Chrysolaras?" Of course we have - and I even have Genakoplos's books to prove it. But "Byzantine influence" on "Western European" civilization is not the same as "Byzantium was a European Civilization". Muslims, Indians and Chinese all had an influence [has anybody heard of algebra, alchemy, the number zero, I could ask], without being western. To make this argument stick - that the renaissance is based on Byzantine input - runs into two problems. 1. The roots of the renaissance are manifold, and 2. you end up validating Byzantine culture by how much it contributed to the West. It is precisely this latter aspect, however much it may by politically attractive, which used to annoy my old mentor John Meyendorff who insisted, as do I, that Byzantium is a valuable area to study *in its own terms*. Paul Halsall Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:43:03 +0000 From: Christine Richelle Greene CGRE ENE@ALPHA.ALBION.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A "European" Culture? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET A student's opinion: I was studying medieval history at Oxford last year, and I was quite mortified to find that we focused on Rome, Paris, and England. I asked several times about the rest of "Europe", but I was told that there wasn't as much influence from other areas )upon these small bits, I guess). When we discussed the split of the Roman Empire, we simply dropped Constantinople, and when we discussed the crusades We didn't discuss so much where they were going as where they came From. I wondered- Hey, isn't this the twentieth century? Now I know what my teachers meant when they told me that people in Columbus' time thought the Earth was flat: I guess there was "Western Europe" and then when ships sailed too far, they fell over the edge into oblivion. Chris Greene Albion College Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:49:30 -0500 From: "p.d. snider" psnider@JULIAN.UWO.CA Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L I have been holding myself from joining this debate because I felt Halsall's posts have been exceptionally good and needed no extra comment. However, this post attracted me. I would suggest that it is important to recognize the origin of our modern concept of Europe in this debate because I do believe that we are making a mistake if we decide to impose our own concepts on an earlier period. The result is a distortion of our understanding of Byzantium. I think Halsall's essential point was to question the question in this case by examining the preconceptions that caused it to be asked. I would submit, that part of what we are trying to do when we study a culture which is not our own is to ask the right questions. Imposing one of our cultural concepts on another culture is not conducive to this endeavor. Phil Snider Graduate Student University of Western Ontario psnider@julian.uwo.ca On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, Chris Hermansen wrote: On Guy Kay's follow-up to Paul Halsall's comments; Surely Guy's statement: Although Halsall is entirely correct in suggesting that 'European' is a construct of the renaissance, it does NOT follow, to my mind that an examination of the idea of 'Europeanness' can only begin at that point. points the way. Who in fact cares if a notion of `European' came out of the renaissance, since as Paul has already pointed out, it is our modern notion of `European' which influences *our* understanding (e.g. Paul's comment that `European' is a modern euphemism for `white') and is surely at the root of any discussion that goes by the title "Byzantium: A European Civilization?". Chris Hermansen Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Voice: 1 604 733 0731 302 - 958 West 8th Avenue FAX: 1 604 733 0634 Vancouver B.C. CANADA Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 10:05:11 +0800 To: HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU From: jrmelvil@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (John Melville-Jones) Subject: Byzantium/Europe This is a most interesting thread. When it finally dies away, it would be interesting to see a summary of what was said, if you or someone else would prepare one. It also seems to me that there is a good conference topic which is emerging if someone can organise it somewhere some time: Byzantium and the European Renaissance or something of that kind. John Melville- Jones. Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 05:14:51 -0500 From: BRANISLAV DJORDJEVIC DJORDJEVIC@PA.MSU.EDU Subject: Europe: East - West To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L I am following the current discussion on "Byzantium - Europe" issue with great interest. In fact, it is the topic I have been discussing with my friends lately. I must say, I am not a professional Byzantinists. There is one interesting book written by Larry Wolf: "Inventing Eastern Europe - The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment", Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1994. I wonder if somebody on this list had the opportunity to read this book? Any comment? I know very few Byzantinists who read, or ever mentioned Philip Sherrard, who wrote among other things "Greek East and Latin West". I would like to know what is the current status of Philip Sherrard's opus in the Byzantinists circles. Two of his books I was very interested to read: "Mount Athos - the mountain of silence", and "Constantinople - the iconography of a sacred city", from some obscure reason, are put in the Remote Storage area, here at Michigan State University. Those books were published in the late sixties or early seventies, so I do not see any reason why the University library had to get rid of them so quickly. The problem: "Is Byzantium a European civilization", became a political issue more than anything else, since the time when the West Europe acquired its political power and assumed the right to judge and evaluate all civilizations in space and time, measuring them with its own, western-European stick. So today, some of evidently European countries have to apply for membership into so called "European Union". (Significantly, this union is not called "Western European Union", but "European" one). Thus, it seems that so called "East European" countries can not even consider themselves as merely European. This is exactly along the lines of general arrogant attitude that Western Europe had toward "The Others" for the last couple of centuries, which resulted in their conquest of the half of the globe. For people from so called "East European" countries it is definitely offending to tell them that they do not belong to Europe. Ask them, and they will say they are Europeans. From the other side, it is very strange how Western Europe acquired its identity - claiming for itself to be the only hair of ancient Greek and Roman culture, and denying the same right to such claims even to modern Greece. Of course, the picture of ancient Greece that the classicists created, had little to do with any Greek reality, ancient or modern, but it was so appealing that it became more real than reality itself. Renaissance in Western Europe was possible because there was a long discontinuity there with ancient Greek and Roman culture. Even if Byzantium, and other countries from Byzantine commonwealth, did not fall under Turkish yoke, it is hard to imagine that a renaissance would have happened like in the West, because Byzantium was continuously aware of ancient Greek and Roman culture, and generally not so much impressed with it, like "discoverers" of that culture in the West. And it is very strange that otherwise rational spirit of modern Western Europe could not comply to the very simple scientific truth: If I discover the low of gravity today without knowing the work of Newton, this would give me some credit in local circles, but it will not be considered, or remembered as A DISCOVERY. Reading the text-books in Art History, one can get an impression that Renaissance in the Western Europe was something of global planetary and cosmic importance. This could be simply called: West European self-centrism. In that light, I agree, it is very touching to see so called "East European" countries longing to be considered as not only European, but even West European, like this is the most precious achievement they can have. The same is true for insisting that Byzantium was a West European civilization. Byzantine civilization would gain nothing by becoming the member of "European Union", so to say. But this insistence is the result of the aggressive attitude of Western Europe who tended to exclude "The Others" (Slavs, Greeks, Bulgars, Hungarians, Romanians,...) from Europe as a whole (read Larry Wolff). As my wife use to say laconically: "All that, is simply tribal." Gibbon is still alive: A professor at Michigan State University said to my wife: "I hope your Orthodox Christian faith will not prevent you to teach Ancient Greek and Roman Art objectively!" This was said with that kind of ambiguous, almost "Byzantine" smile and wittiness. I was not particularly upset, but then .... I read Larry Wolff. I hope this discussion will continue on this list. The complexity of the issue deserves much more attention than it had in the recent past. I believe both sides, "East" and "West", would only benefit from discussions like this. Branislav Djordjevic' Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:16:58 -0500 From: Guy Kay gkay@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L [quoted paragraph]Paul Halsall says: teaching. There is also the fact that, given the massive size of the US academy, to some extent it sets the stage for the rest of the world. Finally, I think there are at least two sorts of national historiographic traditions: in one historians concentrate on their own cultural past and few if any make significant contributions outside that area. It strikes me that this is an issue in Spain, Greece and to a limited extent in Italy. The other tradition, striking in the case of the US, Britain, France, Germany and Russia, supports historiographical research into a variety of world cultures. In other words, I do not think the situation in Latin America and the situation in the US are commensurable. [quoted paragraph]Paul: You are quite wrong, not to say offensive, when you once again indulge in provincialism. To say that the US academy sets the stage for the rest of the world is truly a shocking statement that can only be explain as a incredibly strong case of US centrism. Luis, There's little need for loud cries of outrage, and less need for insults in this discussion. I rather think you are misconstruing Paul Halsall's arguments here, and greatly doubt that an English-trained academic who is on record here with observations about the limitations of American academic training is especially provincial or US-centric. To the best of my understanding the issue here had to do with defining European history and traditions of historiography in the west. Citing billions of uninfluenced Chinese or Islamic scholars and intellectuals seems slightly beside the point. On a different level, is it really a -virtue- to declaim the ignorance of English- language works and historiographic debates among Latin American or Spanish writers? Surely it isn't, no more than ignorance of Castro and Menendez Pidal's debate on Spanish history and identity would be for an English-language historian of Spain. As a Canadian, I'm quite sensitive to American hubris and intellectual parochialism. I'm also conscious that the opposite reaction - reflexive denial of the reality of American importance - is equally or even more silly. Guy Kay Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 12:07:52 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-LLuis writes [quoted paragraph]Paul Halsall says: teaching. There is also the fact that, given the massive size of the US academy, to some extent it sets the stage for the rest of the world. Finally, I think there are at least two sorts of national historiographic traditions: in one historians concentrate on their own cultural past and few if any make significant contributions outside that area. It strikes me that this is an issue in Spain, Greece and to a limited extent in Italy. The other tradition, striking in the case of the US, Britain, France, Germany and Russia, supports historiographical research into a variety of world cultures. In other words, I do not think the situation in Latin America and the situation in the US are commensurable. Paul: You are quite wrong, not to say offensive, when you once again indulge in provincialism. To say that the US academy sets the stage for the rest of the world is truly a shocking statement that can only be explain as a incredibly strong case of US centrism. While I am concerned about being "wrong" Luis, I am not concerned in the least about being "offensive" [at least as long as I am not being personally offensive] in academic discourse. [quoted paragraph] The rest of the world, you know, includes a billion islamics and 1.2 billion Chinese. Do you truly believe US sets the stage for these intellectuals? In the case of Latin America, Spain and other European countries (except maybe England , Germany and other Nordic countries) the US academy is mostly ignored or outright rejected. What kind of stage does the US set for Mexican, Argentinean or Brazilian intellectuals? At the mere thought, I laugh out loud. There is practically no contact between these intellectual traditions. I can tell you that in my personal case, a Latin American with a Ph.D., to this date I am still surprised by some aspects of the cultural US tradition, that play absolutely no part of ours. Sometimes US literary scholars, that are friends of mine, mention critics or scholars that I do not know. They are then shocked to learn that those authors play no role in my tradition. The reverse happens to me when I read, for example, a history of philosophy written by an American. I am shocked by philosophers he leaves out, and by some he includes. To some extent, Luis, this is a good point. However, and I am sad to say this, the American, British, German and French academic world's do interact, and as a whole do impact on other, much smaller, academies. A failure to be able to read at least one of the relevant languages condemns a scholar in the humanities in other parts of the world to sheer provincialism. I get the impression from Hispanicist specialists that this is particularly true in Spain, but I have no personal experience. I would say that, like many, but by no means all, Greek historians, many Spanish historians seem to have an excessively nationalist mindset. I put this down to the rather dramatic class divisions in most Spanish [and Portuguese] speaking countries] which has effectively limited participation in the academy to the economic elite. This was long the case in Britain and the US of course, but since WWII access to higher education has opened up and radically transformed the product of historical researchers. [I am particularly aware of the situation in Brazil since my significant other is Brazilian and had to leave Brazil to gain the sort of access to education available in the US. I have also some efforts to learn Portuguese, not very successfully I confess, so I am not hostile to Lusanophone culture at all.] [quoted paragraph] Even though I, a Latin American, went to the BSC, maybe you noticed I was the only Latin American (as far as I was able to tell). There where only two Spaniards. No French. No Italian. Only Americans, British and other English speaking peoples. (Aside from Greeks and East Europeans, obviously.) (May I say that I believe I only saw one black person in the BSC?) There were two Black people, and I entirely agree that the BSC was perhaps the whitest place in New York last weekend. It was that which set off the whole train of thought which has lead to these postings! [quoted paragraph] I reject your statement that the US academy sets the stage for the "rest of the WORLD". I haven't even mentioned Russian scholarship, because it would be (is) such an obvious case of non-US influence. Luis, there are *3000* American colleges. Quantify the output of various national academic professions, and you will see that I am being entirely accurate. In some areas indeed [many of the sciences] American dominance is so great that even the French publish in the only world language that now exists - i.e. American English. [quoted paragraph] Maybe you are confused by the fact that so many foreigners are in US academy. Maybe you think that if Greek, Argentinean or Israeli scholars are in the US, then US is influencing these cultures. This is not true. Most Have you been to Israel, Luis? [quoted paragraph]of these persons are emigrants. They have left their countries. They have learned to admire the obvious quality of US scholarship. But it does not mean that their countrymen, back in the OLD home, share this admiration. Admiration has nothing to do with it. I do not admire Foucault, but anyone writing history, especially of the body, or of institutions who does know about Foucault is simply not part of modern academic discourse. Paul Halsall Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 12:56:15 -0500 (EST) From: George Baloglou baloglou@Oswego.Oswego.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, you wrote: [quoted paragraph] many, but by no means all, Greek historians, many Spanish historians seem to have an excessively nationalist mindset. I put this down to the rather dramatic class divisions in most Spanish [and Portuguese] speaking countries] which has effectively limited participation in the academy to the economic elite. This was long the case in Britain and the US You seem to imply above that historians with an upper class background would on the average be more nationalistic (or narrow minded, whatever) than those coming from the lower classes; is that obvious? Isn't it the case that well to do individuals tend to be more cosmopolitan and/or well traveled, while the underprivileged, restrained by/within their nation- states, have far fewer opportunities to be exposed to "alien" cultures? On another note: in one of your (very interesting) messages you made a passing reference to "zero coming from India"; I know this is true, as an Indian friend keeps asking me for "original" (?) references establishing this fact: should you, by any stroke of luck, be able to help in that direction, you would make his day--and mine, too :-) Sincerely yours, George Baloglou Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 12:49:59 -0600 From: James Dimos Dimarogonas jdd1@CEC.WUSTL.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L In-Reply-To: v01530500acd0f50d4c69@[128.100.160.130] I am getting a little confused here, with the use of the term "European". Is it used to denote "Germanic"? (i.e. German, English, Frankish etc.) My impression was that the definition of "European" civilization is one based on Roman (and Byzantine?) law, Greek culture and philosophy, and Jewish religion. The definition I have seen in most Byzantine history books about Byzantium, is identical to the one above. Eastern European civilizations would fall under the same definition. Turkey (as someone mentioned) would not ( roman+byzantine law, mainly Arabic culture, and Islamic religion) To go one step further, renaissance was not based exactly on ancient Greece, but basically on the Byzantine version of Greece, studying the texts that the Byzantines chose to keep alive, basing their studies on the analysis that the Byzantines had done (as for example the "library" of patriarch Photios around 880 AD, who wrote a commentary on 280 ancient Greek writers). The fusion of Christianity and ancient Greece was already done in Byzantium, and it was a long and painful process. So what we call renaissance does NOT start in Italy, but in Byzantium quite earlier. It is just that, as happened long before in Greece, the creation of a merchant class in Italy, independent of the religious centers, boosted the thirst and need for philosophy and art. The same thing happened with Ionia almost 2000 years earlier (don't forget that practically all the innovations of ancient Greece were NOT conceived in mainland Greece, but in the colonies, such as theatre, science, philosophy...) So to change the previous definition of "European", it is a civilization based upon roman law filtered through Byzantium, ancient Greek culture filtered through Byzantium, and Jewish religion filtered through Rome and Byzantium. Now you could define if you want "western European" a civilization described as above, with the addition that it also includes Germanic elements. That would be Britain, France, Germany, Italy (mostly northern Italy), and a few others. Maybe Spain could be included (Visigoths? someone was telling me that there is a word that means something like aristocrat, idalgo? that literally means son of Goth) I don't know. But then, you should define Slavic European, Greek European (or lump them together under eastern European) Celtic European etc. But that division is too confusing (for example what would you consider Sicily?) Rgds Jim Dimarogonas Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 14:52:38 -0500 From: Luis de Constantinopla L_LOPEZ@USCAC1.USC.CLU.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-LGuy Kay says: [quoted paragraph]There's little need for loud cries of outrage, and less need for insults in this discussion. Guy, nobody enjoys being misunderstood nor misrepresented. I have not cried in outrage nor insulted anyone. Please leave out personal issues and stay on the intellectual issues. I did laugh when I read the statement that the US "sets the pace" for world academics. I laughed because it can only be a joke, especially to a person like me that comes from a strong non- American tradition. Paul did not say WEST, he said WORLD. [quoted paragraph]Citing billions of uninfluenced Chinese or Islamic scholars and intellectuals seems slightly beside the point. This, precisely, is the point. Many Americans have the habit of saying the WORLD when they mean the WESTERN ANGLO-SAXON WORLD. You can not say that the US sets the pace for the academic WORLD, and leave out billions of people that, whether you like it or not, live and THINK. They do have an intellectual tradition, you know. [quoted paragraph]On a different level, is it really a -virtue- to declaim the ignorance of English- language works and historiographic debates among Latin American or Spanish writers? This is another matter. I did say it was a VIRTUE to ignore the English language intellectual tradition. If you seriously want to discuss what I did say, you should read me carefully first. I said that there are different intellectual traditions. That some of these have no knowledge of some important aspects of other traditions. Let me put it this way: As a Latin American with a Ph.D. on Latin American literature, I have to know many works that are of no consequence to you, a Canadian. If you have not read XVII or XVIII century novels of Venezuela or Bolivia or Puerto Rico you are no less a scholar, because these works, a fundamental part of a Latin Americans education, is of no consequence to YOUR tradition. Now, let me explain what I said to Paul. I am familiar with many works in the English language. But they are works of international (universal) importance. Faulkner, Mailer, Melville, Poe, etc. However, there are many, many other works which are of importance to an American, an integral part of their education, but that are of no consequence to me. I have not read, for example, Fennimore Cooper nor Washington Irving (and many more that I do not even know). I do not need to know these writers because they are of no consequence outside the American frontiers. So, you see, I do not believe ignorance is a VIRTUE. I think it is an abomination. But I also admit that each intellectual tradition has its own MUST RE ADs. Many things you MUST RE AD in Canada, for example, I have never heard about. Does that make me ignorant? No, it just means I am not Canadian (which is a pity, because I am in love with Quebec City). [quoted paragraph]As a Canadian, I'm quite sensitive to American hubris and intellectual parochialism. I'm also conscious that the opposite reaction - reflexive denial of the reality of American importance - is equally or even more silly. The US is important. But not to the degree stated by our brilliant friend Paul, when he stated that it SETS THE PACE for the RE ST OF THE WORLD. I think this statement, especially for a Latin American, is truly a joke. Not silly, but a joke. Luis de Constantinopla L_LOPEZ@USCAC1.USC.CLU.EDU Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:10:15 -0500 (EST) From: George Baloglou baloglou@Oswego.Oswego.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU [quoted paragraph] I think, given the nature of the Upper class in Greece, and in many Latin American countries, that they are frequently in practice nationalistic [as were many German, French, British and American historians]. People from less economically advantaged backgrounds, I think, are more likely to be critical of society. And, as a (Greek) friend of mine used to say, "wealth in those countries (of Latin America) brings (social/political/historical) ignorance"; let me point out, by the way, that Greece is far less polarized (in terms of social classes) than Latin America. Anyway, thanks again for your insights and the information on zero. George Baloglou Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 12:06:00 PST From: Chris Hermansen clh@TFIC.BC.CA Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-LJames Dimos Dimarogonas wrote: [quoted paragraph] To go one step further, renaissance was not based exactly on ancient Greece, but basically on the Byzantine version of Greece, studying the texts that the Byzantines chose to keep alive, basing their studies on the analysis that the Byzantines had done (as for example the "library" of patriarch Photios around 880 AD, who wrote a commentary on 280 ancient Greek writers). The fusion of Christianity and ancient Greece was already done in Byzantium, and it was a long and painful process. So what we call renaissance does NOT start in Italy, but in Byzantium quite earlier. It is just that, as happened long before in Greece, the creation of a merchant class in italy, independent of the religious centers, boosted the thirst and need for philosophy and art. Can this be correct, in terms of Renaissance art? Vasari makes it quite clear that Byzantine art was seen as unnatural and undesirable and that the tradition beginning with Cimabue and Giotto was a rediscovery of classical forms and a rejection of Byzantine style. Chris Hermansen Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Voice: 1 604 733 0731 302 - 958 West 8th Avenue FAX: 1 604 733 0634 Vancouver B.C. CANADA clh@tfic.bc.ca V5Z 1E5 Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:15:13 -0600 From: James Dimos Dimarogonas jdd1@CEC.WUSTL.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Chris Hermansen wrote: [quoted paragraph] Can this be correct, in terms of Renaissance art? Vasari makes it quite clear that Byzantine art was seen as unnatural and undesirable and that the tradition beginning with Cimabue and Giotto was a rediscovery of classical forms and a rejection of Byzantine style. The visual art forms of Byzantium influenced the west earlier. Not the renaissance though. I was basically referring to literature, poetry, historiography, medicine etc. Byzantine art may be a continuation of ancient Greek, but down a totally different path that leads to a level of abstraction, in contrast to the realism of ancient art. But Ancient writers were preserved selectively by the Byzantines, analyzed through a Christian viewpoint, and taught to the west after the fall of Constantinople by Byzantine teachers in Italy. The filtering process can be seen in the example of Aristotle and Plato and Plutarch, which were preserved almost intact. On the other hand Diophantus and much of Heron of Alexandria was preserved by the Arabs (Heron's book in Arabic is now being translated into English for the first time!) This selectivity alone set the stage for the kind of "renaissance" of ancient Greece that was to take place in the west. Except for visual and arts, it would follow the lines that the Byzantines had set. The time was right for the cultural explosion ,though, because of the creation of the strong middle class in Italy, and later in the rest of Europe due to the colonization. Rgds Jim Dimarogonas Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:17:04 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L I suppose it hardly needs to be said, but the main "preserver" of Classical culture for Western audiences was *Latin* literature. The Italian Renaissance did indeed use Byzantine resources, but to quite distinct ends. Quite apart from anything else there was a pretty heft rejection of *Christian* readings of Classical antiquity. Paul Halsall Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 19:59:50 GMT From: George Theodoropoulos georget@CS.MAN.AC.UK Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L Luis de Constantinopla wrote: [quoted paragraph] I reject your statement that the US academy sets the stage for the "rest of the WORLD". History is always written by the winners and then enforced upon the losers. US and the west European people are the winners. Had the Romioi (Greeks, Hellenes or Byzantines if you like) not lost in 1204, it is very likely that there would not be a thread today in this list under the title: "Byzantium: A European Civilization?" Regards, Yiorgos Theodoropoulos Manchester. Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 05:21:27 -0500 Reply-To: ce809@freenet.carleton.ca From: Fr Andrew Morbey ce809@FRE ENET.CARLETON.CA Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L [quoted paragraph]On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, George Baloglou wrote: I would like to point out here that Byzantine art never employed the principles of Perspective, which appears to be a Western invention; unfortunately, I know little more than what I just stated, hence any insights in this direction would be appreciated. I am not sure if this is quite true. Is it not the case that a very intentional inverse perspective is employed in many icons (that is, the viewer is the point from which perspective unfolds), precisely as a theological / eschatological statement? Again, the geometry of many icons is pointedly inside-out or inverse, as are the various planes. It seems to me that the 'deconstruction' of 'normal perspective' requires a rather detailed knowledge of the principles of that perspective. Boris Uspensky's The Semiotics of the Russian Icon (Lisse: The Peter De Ridder Press, 1976) has a fair deal of information on this subject, and Egon Sendler, The Icon: Image of the Invisible: Elements of Theology, Aesthetics and Technique (Oakwood, 1988) has a very informative section which includes discussion of linear, perceptive, isometric, and inverse perspective, as well as discussion of various theories of inverse perspective. A. Morbey Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:36:47 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L James Dimos Dimarogonas jdd1@CEC.WUSTL.EDU writes [quoted paragraph]On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Paul Halsall wrote: I suppose it hardly needs to be said, but the main "preserver" of Classical culture for Western audiences was *Latin* literature. The Italian Renaissance did indeed use Byzantine resources, but to quite distinct ends. Quite apart from anything else there was a pretty heft rejection of *Christian* readings of Classical antiquity. My sources indicate otherwise. James, after you cited _The Oxford Illustrated History of Anything_ as one of your sources in an earlier post, I am not sure exactly *what* or *how extensive* your "sources" are. [quoted paragraph] What are the Latin text equivalents of Plato and Aristotle in Philosophy, Aristotle in science, Galena and Dioskouridis in medicine and Ptolemy and Aristarchos in astronomy, Euripidis, Aischulos and Sophocleus in Drama, Euclid in Geometry etc. etc. Especially in the sciences, there are no Roman equivalents. I think you are talking about something very different here, could you please give a reference to your statement above, to get an idea of what you are talking about? Plato and Aristotle were fully known long before the Renaissance: both in persevered Latin versions [Boethius, for instance, translated much of Plato]. I am not sure why you ask about Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus. Modern European drama seems to be an independent evolution from Classical Greek drama, and the biggest single impact of Italian efforts to recover Greek theatre was Opera, the most magnificent mistake in the history of musicology. But you seem to characterized the 'Renaissance' incorrectly in a number of ways 1. Despite its name, the "renaissance" was not a "rebirth" of anything. It was the flowering of a number of distinct long term developments within Italian, and later French, German, Dutch and English culture. 2. I have not sought to a: deny Byzantine influence, b: denigrate Byzantium, or c: say much about Modern Greece. Byzantine culture is valuable *in its own right* and not because the "West" was "influenced" by it. As I have stated repeatedly [and shall do not so again], an attempt to locate Byzantium in "European Culture", an effort which will inevitably marginalize and trivialize Byzantine cultural achievements, should be seen as part and parcel of American racial and ethnic politics. 3. [Back to] The Renaissance was not primarily a scientific movement. Western science, [or rather the Scientific Revolution] seems to have resulted from movements within western Medieval universities [think of the work of Nicholas of Oresme for instance] and from a rejection of Aristotle. It is true that the Platonic exaltation of Mathematics influenced people such as Copernicus and Keppler, but that "eternal philosophy" had long been fully available in Latin language writing. 4. The Renaissance was above all about Latin and slightly later vernacular literature. Petrarch knew more about Greek literature than his Greek teachers it seems, but never mastered Greek. Dante, Shakespeare, Calvin and Rabelais, creators to some extent of their respective languages represent perhaps the most lasting consequences of Renaissance literatures. If the importance of Latinity and the vernacular has not manifested itself in your reading on the Renaissance, I suggest beginning with a good introduction such as Denys Hay _The Italian Renaissance_ or the various books by J. Hale. Hale, however, represents the whole problem with this "Byzantine Influence" approach. At one point he describes the "role of Byzantium" as that of 'Librarians to the World". To see Byzantium this was is as much to miss the point as to see Benedictine monasticism's main role as one of "preserving culture". Paul Halsall Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 09:23:00 PST From: Chris Hermansen clh@TFIC.BC.CA Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-LFollowing George Baloglou and Jim Dimarogonas: Vasari's view that Renaissance art revived classical tradition, rather than continuing the Byzantine, is apparently the accepted wisdom of his time (i.e., the Renaissance). While the artists of this time certainly formalized the use of perspective, it is clear that some artists had tumbled upon perspective in other times. The same with what we now refer to as "classical proportions" (Jim says "built like an ancient god"). Also the golden mean, etc. etc. The basic issue seems to me unrelated: that is, Vasari and his contemporaries clearly recognized that they were making a break with the mainstream Byzantine tradition (Jim says "giving more emphasis on the spirituality of the face") and consciously following the classical, which they viewed as "more real" (my flawed term). To me, this says an enormous amount about their changed world-view, which is what I always think "we" mean when we say "Renaissance". Chris Hermansen Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Voice: 1 604 733 0731 302 - 958 West 8th Avenue FAX: 1 604 733 0634 Vancouver B.C. CANADA clh@tfic.bc.ca V5Z 1E5 Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 00:23:48 +0200 From: Evangelos Chrysos echrysos@CC.UOI.GR Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L The political notion of Europe is earlier than renaissance. It was first articulated at the court of Charlemagne (pater Europae). This term I started a new course within our University's Byzantine studies program "From Constantine to the Carolingians, (330-879)" as an attempt to see the late and post- Roman world as early European. It is exciting and my students work with me enthusiastically. The issue of Europeanness of Europe is quite an issue in Europe too. By the way, I think this is a very good issue for the BYZANS- list. I hope that European scholars will join this discussion. Evangelos Chrysos Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 17:08:00 PST From: Chris Hermansen clh@TFIC.BC.CA Subject: Re: Byzantium- A European C To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-LBob Atchison writes: [quoted paragraph] I also think it is important to understand what was a real Byzantine product from Constantinople and what passed for the Greek Manner of painting in Italy. This both an issue of technique and style. No doubt. However, I'm sure examples of frescoes such as those in Ravenna qualify as "real Byzantine products", and I would hazard a guess that there were many more extant in the time of Cimabue or Giotto than there are now. [quoted paragraph] I don't know if Vasari thought everything done in Italy from 500-1400AD to be Greek=Byzantine. Certainly an inhabitant of Byzantium in Constantinople would have a totally different impression of the quality of "Byzantine" technique and style than what Vasari could see around Florence in inadequate copies and second rate exports. Hmm. To categorize the samples of Byzantine style available to the elite artists and architects of duecento-quattrocento Toscano, Venezia, Bologna & co as "inadequate copies and second rate exports" sounds a trifle dangerous to me... I can only assume that de'Medici must have had some decent stuff in their collections :-) Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Whatever Vasari saw as Byzantine art (the real thing or pale imitation), he and his contemporaries reviled it and sought classical influence instead. That is to say, the claim that was made sometime back that Renaissance art sprung from the Byzantine is mostly incorrect. Chris Hermansen Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Voice: 1 604 733 0731 302 - 958 West 8th Avenue FAX: 1 604 733 0634 Vancouver B.C. CANADA clh@tfic.bc.ca V5Z 1E5 Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 19:48:18 -0600 From: James Dimos Dimarogonas jdd1@CEC.WUSTL.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L In-Reply-To: 951117113647.20612660@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Paul Halsall wrote: [quoted paragraph] James, after you cited _The Oxford Illustrated History of Anything_ as one of your sources in an earlier post, I am not sure exactly *what* or *how extensive* your "sources" are. That is RE ALLY low! I cited a picture there, not any text. I just happened to have it in front of me. And after all, even if I cited any text, Oxford university press publications are generally respectable, and the author of the chapter on Renaissance, Peter Denley, seems to be OK, I got five journal article hits on OCLC by him , all on medieval subjects in the last five years. I understood that you meant that the renaissance was based mainly on Latin authors. But you say: [quoted paragraph] Plato and Aristotle were fully known long before the Renaissance: both in persevered Latin versions [Boethius, for instance, translated much of Plato]. Hmmm Boethius also translated a couple of Aristotle's works, I was not aware of any of Plato's works translated by him. I could argue though that Boethius (that was executed in 526?) could be considered Byzantine, since he was a Greek classicist and theologian, and subject of the Byzantine empire (and executed by it!). If he was a pagan, I could have called him a roman. But this is not the case. But anyway, there was transfer of Greek texts into Latin before, by Byzantines, but a large part happened in the fifteenth century with Chrysoloras translating Plato, Bessarion translating Xenophon, Aristotle, and was the initiator of the Platonic academy in Florence, Gemistus Plethon, and many others. There is a very long list of Byzantine professors occupying chairs in Italian universities at the time, and they pushed for the revival of ancient Greece in the west. [quoted paragraph] I am not sure why you ask about Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus. Modern European drama seems to be an independent evolution from Classical Greek drama, and the biggest single impact of Italian efforts to recover Greek theatre was Opera, the most magnificent mistake in the history of musicology. ! If you are referring to Shakespeare for example, no he probably did not have the ancient Greek tragedies, since they were not translated in his time (?). He based his theatre on roman references, of Greek tragedy. But still based it on Greek tragedy. But the influence of Greek tragedy on modern theatre continues up to our day. [quoted paragraph] But you seem to characterized the 'Renaissance' incorrectly in a number of ways 1. Despite its name, the "renaissance" was not a "rebirth" of anything. It was the flowering of a number of distinct long term developments within Italian, and later French, German, Dutch and English culture. That is a very long discussion. I will leave it for another time. [quoted paragraph] 2. I have not sought to a: deny Byzantine influence, b: denigrate Byzantium, or c: say much about Modern Greece. Byzantine culture is valuable *in its What on earth does modern Greece have to do with this discussion? [quoted paragraph] own right* and not because the "West" was "influenced" by it. As I have stated repeatedly [and shall do not so again], an attempt to locate Byzantium in "European Culture", an effort which will inevitably marginalize and trivialize Byzantine cultural achievements, should be seen as part and parcel of American racial and ethnic politics. Maybe your right. It would be more appropriate to say that European is a Byzantine culture :-))))) But I stated in a previous mail, what I define as Byzantine and what as European culture. Both are Roman Law, Greek culture (or Greco-Roman if you want) and Christian religion. Could you give me a definition that would make them distinct enough so as to disassociate them? 3. [Back to] The Renaissance was not primarily a scientific movement. Western science, [or rather the Scientific Revolution] seems to have resulted from movements within western Medieval universities [think of the work of Nicholas of Oresme for instance] and from a rejection of Aristotle. It is true that the Platonic exaltation of Mathematics influenced people such as Copernicus and Keppler, but that "eternal philosophy" had long been fully available in Latin language writing. This is wrong. The renaissance lasted till the 17th century, so the "scientific revolution" was up to an extent concurrent. How about Newton and Galileo that were also classicists? And if the west rediscovered science on it's own, why are most scientific words in Greek? Why say Euclidean geometry, or Pythagoras' theorem? The rejection of Aristotle also means that he was read as a main textbook. So how was the scientific revolution independent of the classical tradition? Hale, however, represents the whole problem with this "Byzantine [quoted paragraph] Influence" approach. At one point he describes the "role of Byzantium" as that of 'Librarians to the World". To see Byzantium this was is as much to miss the point as to see Benedictine monasticism's main role as one of "preserving culture". But you say above that renaissance was based on Latin texts. So why would the Byzantine influence on the west be that of a librarian? You said many times above that most of Greek literature was already translated in Latin. So the preservation of ancient texts by Byzantium was useless! Rgds Jim Dimarogonas Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 03:26:04 -0500 From: Luis de Constantinopla L_LOPEZ@USCAC1.USC.CLU.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-LPaul: You have brought to my mind those immortal words of the ex vice-president of the country you admire so much: "I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people." --J. Danforth Quayle OK, so your lover is Latin American (Brazilian). This proves you must have extraordinary good taste. My ex-wife was also Brazilian, so I may also have good taste. But I fail to see what it has to do with our current conversation. Actually, I fail to see what most of your arguments have to do with the original issue: Your statement that the US "sets the pace for the rest of the academic WORLD". I have said that the US does NOT set the pace for the rest of the world (in the field of Humanities, of course; we are not discussing science, which would be another topic). I say that you forget huge and prestigious scholarly traditions, such as the Islamic, Chinese, Latin American, Soviet, etc. I say a Mexican or Argentinean would laugh you off the podium if you said something like this in front of them. You answer with a melodramatic story concerning the tribulations of your Brazilian lover that had to come to the US to get a higher education. Is this some kind of weird "Byzantine" joke? (Pardon the pun.) I will return to my original argument (and forget our Brazilian friends for a while). US academy does NOT set the pace for the rest of the world in the field under discussion: Humanities. To say so is a joke for millions of intellectuals that could care less about the US tradition or that feel it as something alien. (Of course, most of them are not on this list, because of these same reasons. A poll would be un-scientific, to say the least.) The reasons are many. Tradition, of course, is one of the main reasons. The difference of the issues of interest (and the perspectives) is another. The US, for example, has this big interest in Jewish affairs. Many prominent US intellectuals are Jewish. In Latin America, all these Jewish issues are foreign to us. There is no significant amount of Jews in Latin America nor in Spain (I do not think I have to explain why to the members of this list). On the other hand, Latin America does not have a significant Black population, outside of the Antilles and Brazil. (Spain has practically none.) So these issues, so important to the US, are of little interest to Latin America. I think it is so obvious that you are wrong, and provincial, that I really am not enjoying this discussion: I am getting bored. The burden of proof is evidently on your side. When the writers of the US constitution said ALL MEN ARE CRE ATED EQUAL, it is now known that they meant WHITE MEN and that they truly were referring to MEN ONLY. Now YOU refer to the WORLD, when you only mean the Anglo-Saxon world. It is your mistake, not mine. Josi Martm, a Latin American hero that died fighting against the Spanish, said: "The vain villager believes that his village is the world" (this is a quick translation of mine). You may not admire Foucault, as you end your last message, but you certainly adore the US. I just learned that you are from this small island off the northwest of Europe called Britain. Is this a serious case of More Papist Than The Pope? Luis Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 03:42:26 -0500 From: Luis de Constantinopla L_LOPEZ@USCAC1.USC.CLU.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantine History To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L Would you please tell me: Is Byzantine history studied extensively in Latin America and in Spain? Are there any useful texts in Spanish that you could recommend for me to read? David A. Cook -------------------------- Yes, Byzantine history is studied in Latin America and Spain. It is part of our tradition, because parts of Spain belonged to the Byzantine Empire, as you surely know. You may be surprised to hear that I find MANY more books on Byzantine History in an average Spanish bookstore, than I do in the US, except for obvious places like Manhattan and Cambridge (Harvard Book Store has an excellent collection.) Also, during the last BSC the only western European country to assist (non English speaking) was Spain, with two interesting speakers. At this time I do not have my books nearby. I remember: 1. BIZANCIO, coleccion Historia Universal Siglo XXI, Mexico. 2. EL MUNDO BIZANTINO, Salvador Claramunt, Montesinos, Barcelona. 3. LOS LABERINTOS BIZANTINOS, Juan Perucho, Alianza Editorial, Madrid. 4. HISTORIA DEL ESTADO BIZANTINO, Ostrogorsky, Akal, Madrid. (translation). There are more, but I am currently away from my library. Luis Luis de Constantinopla L_LOPEZ@USCAC1.USC.CLU.EDU Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 19:05:55 +0200 From: Evangelos Chrysos echrysos@CC.UOI.GR Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L this has nothing to do directly with Pirenne. At the court of Charles the Great the court propaganda framed the notion of a political unit Europa, of course identified with his realm. 60 years earlier Latin sources named Charles Martel's soldiers "Europeans". If necessary, I can easily provide you with the reference. Evangelos Chrysos Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 10:38:56 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L James Dimos Dimarogonas jdd1@CEC.WUSTL.EDU writes [cuts] On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Paul Halsall wrote: I understood that you meant that the renaissance was based mainly on Latin authors. But you say: Plato and Aristotle were fully known long before the Renaissance: both in persevered Latin versions [Boethius, for instance, translated much of Plato]. Hmmm Boethius also translated a couple of Aristotle's works, I was not aware of any of Plato's works translated by him. You may be correct, partially, here. Boethius translated about 5 works of Aristotle, and in his Commentary on *De Interpretione* stated an intention to translate all Plato's dialogues. The matter is trivial though because Platonic thought was known [and as misunderstood] in the West as Byzantium. Boethius *De Trinitate* for instance is a Latin work based on [neo]platonic thinking. Augustine also, without a doubt the most significant writer for the later West, represents Platonic thought. [quoted paragraph]I could argue though that Boethius (that was executed in 526?) could be considered Byzantine, since he was a Greek classicist and theologian, and subject of the Byzantine empire (and executed by it!). If he was a pagan, I could have called him a roman. But this is not the case. Boethius was executed by Theodoric. He wrote in Latin, and was read in Latin. If you want to call him a "Byzantine", you have some ahistorical agenda. And that is what I am objecting to in calling Byzantium "European". [quoted paragraph]But anyway, there was transfer of Greek texts into Latin before, by Byzantines, but a large part happened in the fifteenth century with Chrysoloras translating Plato, Bessarion translating Xenophon, Aristotle, and was the initiator of the Platonic academy in Florence, Gemistus Plethon, and many others. There is a very long list of Byzantine professors occupying chairs in Italian universities at the time, and they pushed for the revival of ancient Greece in the west. Most Greek texts were in fact translated by Latin speakers [for instance William of Moerbecke [sp?] in the early 13th century]. Few of the texts they bothered to translate were "Byzantine", with the exception of some of the fathers. It is true that few in the West could read Greek, but equally true that few in Byzantium [which you persist in identifying with Greeks] could read Latin. Name this "long list" of "Greek Professors". Chrysolaras arrived in curac 1397. There was another influx of Byzantine sources around 1422. Chrysolaras seems to have been the first professional teacher of Greek in an Italian university. [Barlaam of course taught Petrarch, or rather failed to, but that was a private arrangement]. By any measure the Italian Renaissance was well under way by 1400. I am not sure why you ask about Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus. Modern European drama seems to be an independent evolution from Classical Greek drama, and the biggest single impact of Italian efforts to recover Greek theatre was Opera, the most magnificent mistake in the history of musicology. ! If you are referring to Shakespeare for example, no he probably did not have the ancient Greek tragedies, since they were not translated in his time (?). He based his theatre on roman references, of Greek tragedy. But still based it on Greek tragedy. But the influence of Greek tragedy on modern theatre continues up to our day. You miss my point. Ancient drama has nothing to do with Byzantine culture. And, second point, it seems that the tradition of Western theatre grew out of passion plays, and other paraliturgical presentations rather than being modeled on Ancient theatre. Opera is the clear exception . [quoted paragraph] But you seem to characterized the 'Renaissance' incorrectly in a number of ways 1. Despite its name, the "renaissance" was not a "rebirth" of anything. It was the flowering of a number of distinct long term developments within Italian, and later French, German, Dutch and English culture. That is a very long discussion. I will leave it for another time. Perhaps, but it goes to the core of your assertions. [quoted paragraph] 2. I have not sought to a: deny Byzantine influence, b: denigrate Byzantium, or c: say much about Modern Greece. Byzantine culture is valuable *in its What on earth does modern Greece have to do with this discussion? own right* and not because the "West" was "influenced" by it. As I have stated repeatedly [and shall do not so again], an attempt to locate Byzantium in "European Culture", an effort which will inevitably marginalize and trivialize Byzantine cultural achievements, should be seen as part and parcel of American racial and ethnic politics. Maybe your right. It would be more appropriate to say that European is a Byzantine culture :-))))) "Europe", and concept formed, whatever earlier etymologies, in the 14th and 15th centuries to apply to Western European culture [in other words it is a secularization of the notion of Latin Christendom], had many "influences": Roman, Greek, Byzantine, Celtic, Germanic, Muslim, Jewish, and even Chinese. Influence is not identity. [quoted paragraph]But I stated in a previous mail, what I define as Byzantine and what as European culture. Both are Roman Law, Greek culture (or Greco-Roman if you want) and Christian religion. Could you give me a definition that would make them distinct enough so as to disassociate them? But this is inadequate in two ways. First as a matter of logic: you provide a definition, which has limited connection with the variable realities, and then assert an identify. The identity is in your head. Second the definition itself fails: Byzantium was the clearest continuer of late Antique Mediterranean imperial culture, but underwent its own internal changes. Two might seem significant. First the population of the Byzantine Empire became progressively less multivariate: whereas late Roman Christian culture was multilingual and multi ethnic [Latin, Greek. Syriac], Byzantium became first largely Greek and Armenian, and later mainly Greek. This "narrowing" which led later Byzantines to identify the "Roman" tradition with being Greek clearly distinguishes Byzantium from the early later antique world. Second, Antique culture was based on a series of active and populated cities. From the 7th century on al cities except one disappeared in the Byzantine world. Byzantium was a large peasant economy run by an army and a bureaucracy. Later it evolved some "feudal" forms [apparently in imitation of the West !]. But its social and economic structure was, after the 7th century. distinct from Late antique culture. in many respects Heraklios was the first Byzantine emperor. You cannot simply ignore the nature of the population and the social/economic structure in defining "Byzantium", as your definition does. [quoted paragraph] 3. [Back to] The Renaissance was not primarily a scientific movement. Western science, [or rather the Scientific Revolution] seems to have resulted from movements within western Medieval universities [think of the work of Nicholas of Oresme for instance] and from a rejection of Aristotle. It is true that the Platonic exaltation of Mathematics influenced people such as Copernicus and Keppler, but that "eternal philosophy" had long been fully available in Latin language writing. This is wrong. The renaissance lasted till the 17th century, so the "scientific revolution" was up to an extent concurrent. Leaving aside your somewhat expansive definition of "Renaissance" [I see the death of Michaelangelo as a limit myself], does this mean you consider the reformation an aspect of the Renaissance. Calvin after all was a great classicist [his first published work was a commentary on Seneca's *De clementia*. [quoted paragraph]How about Newton and Galileo that were also classicists? And if the west rediscovered science on it's own, why are most scientific words in Greek? Why say Euclidean geometry, or Pythagoras theorem? The rejection of Aristotle also means that he was read as a main textbook. So how was the scientific revolution independent of the classical tradition? Rather the classical tradition was independent of Byzantium. Hale, however, represents the whole problem with this "Byzantine Influence" approach. At one point he describes the "role of Byzantium" as that of 'Librarians to the World". To see Byzantium this was is as much to miss the point as to see Benedictine monasticism's main role as one of "preserving culture". But you say above that renaissance was based on Latin texts. So why would the Byzantine influence on the west be that of a librarian? You said many times above that most of Greek literature was already translated in Latin. So the preservation of ancient texts by Byzantium was useless! You need to reread what I wrote about *Hales* opinion. Paul Halsall Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 10:54:12 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L Luis, Argentina has about 400,000 Jews, making it the 5th largest center of Jewish population in the world [after the US, Israel, Russia and France]. Iberian culture is literally unimaginable without Jewish and Muslim contributions. The unfortunate self-definition of a modern nation in 15th and 16th century Spain, and the evolution of the first modern racism, the theory of limpezia del sangre, were all done upon the creation of the Jew as the "other". One has to ask then, just what the Latin American academy is up to if it does not study Jews? And how seriously, apart from obvious areas of expertise such as Iberian literature, its findings need to be taken? This is a question, please note, not a condemnation, because I am not sure that you are correct in some of your statements. [Apart From anything else you seem to be essentilising all Latin American countries as the same, or at least similar.] Paul Halsall Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 12:27:00 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L Evangelos, The use of "Europe" which seem to be indicating also seems to exclude Byzantium, or am I misreading you? I would like to know your references for this usage. It is quite possible that Denis Hay in his 1957 book on the concept of Europe overlooked information. I think, though, that scattered references may not be enough to convince me. It is a whole discourse about 'Europe' that concerns me. And that does seem to be a Renaissance development. The much more usual concept before then, at least in the West, was the much more universal notion of "Christendom". This did include Byzantium, at least in theory if not practice. The notion of "Europe" as used in the West does not seem to have included Byzantium. I think part of the expressed incredulity over this pertains to the obvious use of Greek culture by Westerners. In the whole notion of 'Europe' however is the presumption that "history moves west". This can be seen in many "Western Civ" courses which begin in Sumer and Egypt, move to Judea then Greece, and then on to Rome and Latin Christendom, and end up discussing the US. Other cultures, as we have seen, possess equally, dare I say it, ethnocentric, historical narratives. Paul Halsall Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 12:30:07 -0500 From: George Baloglou baloglou@OSWEGO.OSWEGO.EDU Subject: Perspective Comments: cc: kastanis@olymp.ccf.auth.gr To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Fr Andrew Morbey wrote: [quoted paragraph] On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, George Baloglou wrote: I would like to point out here that Byzantine art never employed the principles of Perspective, which appears to be a Western invention; unfortunately, I know little more than what I just stated, hence any insights in this direction would be appreciated. I am not sure if this is quite true. Is it not the case that a very intentional inverse perspective is employed in many icons (that is, the viewer is the point from which perspective unfolds), precisely as a theological / eschatological statement? Again, the geometry of many icons is pointedly inside-out or inverse, as are the various planes. It seems to me that the 'deconstruction' of 'normal perspective' requires a rather detailed knowledge of the principles of that perspective. You are right, of course. My message was based on last summer's discussion with my friend Nikos Kastanis and his (now "re-located") pamphlet/preprint "The Fate of Linear Perspective in the Modern Greek Educational System" (in Greek-- Aristotle University, June 1995), which corroborates what you write above, except that it treats (Byzantine) Inverse Perspective as the "negation" of (Western) Linear Perspective; not an intended negation, of course, as Byzantine icons employing Inverse Perspective predate the earliest known/surviving example of Linear Perspective: Tommaso Masaccio's 1425 fresco of The Holy Trinity (church of Santa Maria Novella, Florence), following the steps of his teacher, Filippo Brunelleschi. Concerning Byzantine/Greek attitudes toward Linear Perspective, Kastanis' preprint provides an interesting example: in 1597, Venice's Greek Society rejected Jacopo Negretti's perspective- employing drawing for the dome of their church, claiming that "its style is not consistent with our dogma". [quoted paragraph] Boris Uspensky's The Semiotics of the Russian Icon (Lisse: The Peter De Ridder Press, 1976) has a fair deal of information on this subject, and Egon Sendler, The Icon: Image of the Invisible: Elements of Theology, Aesthetics and Technique (Oakwood, 1988) has a very informative section which includes discussion of linear, perceptive, isometric, and inverse perspective, as well as discussion of various theories of inverse perspective. A. Morbey Two references regarding elements of Linear Perspective in older times (and related to what James Dimos Dimarogonas hinted on in another message) are: Richter, G. M. A., Perspective in Greek and Roman Art, Phaidon, 1970. White, J., Perspective in Ancient Drawing and Painting, The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, 1956. George Baloglou "H Pwmavia ki' av enepacev av8ei kai fepei ki' allo" "Even though it faded, Hellenism blooms and branches out again" Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 17:59:28 -0800 From: "S.M. Ghazanfar" ghazi@UIDAHO.EDU Subject: Re: "European" Cultures? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET Interesting and rather illuminating exchange on the "Europeanness" of the Byzantine culture. Have glanced through several of the comments on this list, starting with Prof. Halsall's reference to Philip Shashko's paper, "What and Where is Byzantium? The Presence and Absence of Civilization in American University Textbooks." One can fully sympathize. I am not a Byzantine specialist, nor a medieval historian. Occasionally, however, I have stuck my neck out (and even almost had it chopped it off by the anger of a few!). Regardless, here are a few thoughts to share. In about the same vein as Prof. Shashko, not long ago I presented a paper at a national gathering on what I chose to call the "literature gap" in the mainstream circles concerning the contributions of medieval pre-Aquinas/post Aristotle Arab- Islamic economic thought (though the argument can be extended to other disciplines also. One of the reviewer's from a mainstream journal labeled my arguments as "racist"--and that was that. However, Oxford University's Journal of Islamic Studies has just published the paper. The larger point, however, is that far more significantly than Prof. Shashko's argument, as many medievalists (contemporary, such as Professors Buell, Halsall, Glick and others--hope I am not too presumptuous; and some earlier one--e.g., Haskins, Sarton, etc.) would corroborate, the most dominant link with medieval Europe was from the Arab-Islamic world. Sarton refers to several "Arab giants" on whose "shoulders" Europe stood (in addition to their Greek forerunners). In the evolution of medieval economic thought specifically, the late Joseph Schumpeter in his HISTORY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, unfortunately, simply dismissed the period between Aristotle and Aquinas as "great gap" of "blind centuries" during which nothing of any intellectual significance happened anywhere! As for the Byzantines, he says, they must have "reasoned" about a "host of legal, monetary, commercial, agrarian, and fiscal problems ... If they did, however, the results have been lost" (p.73). So that's that. Origins of modern economic concepts began with St. Thomas Aquinas, as per Schumpeter; even Aristotle did not have much to offer. But it is precisely during those centuries the Arab-Islamic civilization was flourishing in and around the Mediterranean--and the contributions of that civilization, in all its dimensions, facilitated the early European Renaissance. Indeed, "One of the hallmarks of civilized man is knowledge of the past--including the past of others with whom one's own culture has had repeated and fruitful contact; or the past of any group that has contributed to the ascent of man. The Arabs[Muslims] fit profoundly in both of the latter two categories. But in the West the Arabs are not well known. Victims of ignorance as well as misinformation, they and their culture have often been stigmatized from afar" (John Hayes, THE GENIUS OF ARAB CIVILIZATION: SOURCE OF RE NAISSANCE; MIT Press, 1983; p.2). Of course, there is the iconoclast, Edward Said and his ORIENTALISM and COVERING ISLAM. And more recently, there is Maria Rosa Menocal: "Westerners--Europeans--have great difficulty in considering the possibility that they are in some way seriously indebted to the Arab [Islamic] world, or that the Arabs[Muslims] were central to the making of medieval Europe (see her THE ARABIC ROLE IN MEDIEVAL LITERARY HISTORY, 1987; xiii). That sort of a central role belongs eminently to the medieval Arab-Islamic civilization, not the Byzantines, nor any other civilization of that general era. However, one would hardly notice so in the mainstream American university textbooks--at least not in the field of which I have some familiarity (economics and economic thought). Indeed, it is a reflection of that crucial historical link to Europe that some prominent American scholars--e.g., Carl Sagan of Princeton and John Esposito of Georgetown, and others--lately have talked in terms of "our Judeo-Christian-AND-Islamic traditions." So much of the medieval Latin world relied on the Islamic scholasticism for its intellectual armory--the Franciscans and the Dominicans had their parallels in earlier Ibn Rushd's Aristotelian rationalism vs. Al-Ghazali-type "faith over reason" orientation. And to say that "The Arabs [Muslims] simply translated Greek writings, they were industrious imitators.... [while] not absolutely untrue, but is such a small part of the truth, that when it is allowed to stand alone, it is worse than a lie" (George Sarton, A GUIDE TO THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE, 1952, P.28). And, as for such omissions being due to "lack of adequate textbooks" to fill the missing links, I am afraid textbooks reflect the larger mainstream intellectual world--and they are written by well-meaning people who have themselves been trained with certain orientations, not their fault at all. That's how it is. As one colleague has often remarked, "Face it--it is just a cultural thing." Best wishes. Ghazi Dr S M Ghazanfar College of Business and Economics University of Idaho Tel: (208) 885 7144 Fax: (208) 885 8939 On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Paul Buell wrote: [quoted paragraph] By your standards, was the Roman Empire a "European" culture? And then there is the problem of the two dominant religions in Europe, both of Middle Eastern origins. Also, Spain in supposedly "European," but what about its Islamic past. I think the line cannot be drawn so easily. The important thing, in my view, is the contributions of the various peoples and cultures surrounding ours and giving rise to ours to making us what we are today. From that perspective Byzantium is certainly part of my heritage if for no other reason than the transmission of Greek classics during the Renaissance. I think the question of "Europeaness" is wrongly put. This is imposing the present on the past, always a mistake. What do others think? Paul D. Buell Subj: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? Message-ID: 9511191228.AA00398@solon.cc.uoi.gr Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 14:28:51 +0200 From: Evangelos Chrysos echrysos@CC.UOI.GR Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L Paul, here some of the references for Europe in the Middle Ages: Leonis IV Epistola 41 (a. 853): Roman church's concern "per totam Europam". Isidori iunioris, Continuatio Hispana p. 361: Charles Martell's soldiers as "Europenses". Annales Fuldenses a. 788: "Europa vel regnum Karoli". Carmen de Karolo magno III 393- 402:Charles as "Europae pharus", "decusque Europae venerandus apex" or even "pater Europae". It is true, Byzantium is not included in this Europe. It is a western political structure. By the way, in a. 1022 Heinrich II' Germany is called "mater Europa"! If you read modern Greek I can provide you with special bibliography. For the Byzantines' notion of Europe see Johannes Koder, Zum Bild des "Westens" bei den Byzantinern in der fruehen Komnenenzeit, in the volume "Deus qui mutat tempora. Menschen und Institutionen im Wandel des Mittelalters, Sigmaringen 1987, p. 198 sq. with reference to a modern Greek article of the same author on the notion of Europe as geographical concept in Byzantine Geography (1985). Evangelos Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 13:21:20 -0500 From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Subject: The "Western Old World Ecumene" Comments: To: MEDIEV-Ll%UKANVM.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu {I have included the whole post as I am forwarding this to the Byzans-l list. My comments follow} [quoted paragraph]Interesting and rather illuminating exchange on the "Europeanness" of the Byzantine culture. [quoted paragraph]Have glanced through several of the comments on this list, starting with Prof. Halsall's reference to Philip Shashko's paper, [quoted paragraph]"What and Where is Byzantium? The Presence and Absence of Civilization in American University Textbooks." One can fully empathize. I am not a Byzantine specialist, nor a medieval historian. Occasionally, however, I have stuck my neck out (and even almost had it chopped it off by the anger of a few!). Regardless, here are a few thoughts to share. [quoted paragraph]In about the same vein as Prof. Shashko, not long ago I presented a paper at a national gathering on what I chose to call the "literature gap" in the mainstream circles concerning the contributions of medieval pre-Aquinas/post Aristotle Arab-Islamic economic thought (though the argument can be extended to other disciplines also. One of the reviewer's from a mainstream journal [quoted paragraph]labeled my arguments as "racist"--and that was that. However, Oxford University's Journal of Islamic Studies has just published the paper. The larger point, however, is that far more significantly than Prof. Shashko's argument, as many medievalists (contemporary, such [quoted paragraph]as Professors Buell, Halsall, Glick and others--hope I am not too presumptuous; and some earlier one-- e.g., Haskins, Sarton, etc.) would corroborate, the most dominant link with medieval Europe was [quoted paragraph]from the Arab-Islamic world. Sarton refers to several "Arab giants" on whose "shoulders" Europe stood (in addition to their Greek forerunners). In the evolution of medieval economic thought specifically, the late Joseph Schumpeter in his HISTORY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, unfortunately, simply dismissed the period between Aristotle and Aquinas as "great gap" of "blind centuries" during which nothing of any intellectual significance happened anywhere! As for the Byzantines, he says, they must have "reasoned" about a "host of legal, monetary, commercial, agrarian, and fiscal problems ... If they did, however, the results have been lost" (p.73). So that's that. Origins of modern economic concepts began with St. Thomas Aquinas, as per Schumpeter; even Aristotle did not have much to offer. [quoted paragraph]But it is precisely during those centuries the Arab-Islamic civilization was flourishing in and around the Mediterranean--and the contributions of that civilization, in all its dimensions, facilitated the early European Renaissance. Indeed, "One of the hallmarks of civilized man is knowledge of the past--including the [quoted paragraph]past of others with whom one's own culture has had repeated and fruitful contact; or the past of any group that has contributed to the ascent of man. The Arabs[Muslims] fit profoundly in both of the latter two categories. But in the West the Arabs are not well known. Victims of ignorance as well as misinformation, they and their culture have often been stigmatized from afar" (John Hayes, THE GENIUS OF ARAB CIVILIZATION: SOURCE OF RE NAISSANCE; MIT Press, 1983; p.2). [quoted paragraph]Of course, there is the iconoclast, Edward Said and his ORIENTALISM and COVERING ISLAM. And more recently, there is Maria [quoted paragraph]Rosa Menocal: "Westerners--Europeans--have great difficulty in considering the possibility that they are in some way seriously indebted to the Arab [Islamic] world, or that the Arabs[Muslims] were central to the making of medieval Europe (see her THE ARABIC ROLE IN MEDIEVAL LITERARY HISTORY, 1987; xiii). That sort of a central role belongs eminently to the medieval Arab-Islamic civilization, not the Byzantines, nor any other civilization of that general era. However, one would hardly notice so in the mainstream American university textbooks--at least not in the field of which I have some familiarity (economics and economic thought). Indeed, it is a reflection of that crucial historical link to Europe that some prominent American scholars--e.g., Carl Sagan of Princeton and John Esposito of Georgetown, and others--lately have [quoted paragraph]talked in terms of "our Judeo-Christian-AND- Islamic traditions." So much of the medieval Latin world relied on the Islamic scholasticism for its intellectual armory--the Franciscans and the [quoted paragraph]Dominicans had their parallels in earlier Ibn Rushd's Aristotelian rationalism vs. Al-Ghazali-type "faith over reason" orientation. And to say that "The Arabs [Muslims] simply translated Greek writings, they were industrious imitators.... [while] not absolutely untrue, but is such a small part of the truth, that when it is allowed to stand alone, it is worse than a lie" (George Sarton, A GUIDE TO THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE, 1952, P.28). And, as for such omissions being due to "lack of adequate textbooks" to fill the missing links, I am afraid textbooks reflect the larger mainstream intellectual world--and they are written by well-meaning people who have themselves been trained with certain orientations, not their fault at all. That's how it is. As one colleague has often remarked, "Face it--it is just a cultural thing." [quoted paragraph]Dr S M Ghazanfar College of Business and Economics [quoted paragraph]University of Idaho Tel: (208) 885 7144 Fax: (208) 885 8939 Prof. Ghazanfar does raise an interesting topic here: namely the interelatedness of the Muslim, Latin and Byzantine worlds in the middle ages. Some theorist, notably Abu-Lughod, have argued that all the "civilized" cultures of the Eurasian/N.African world participated in a "world system" in the 13th century. It is certainly true that Islam in particular was connected in some way with both India and China. Still, leaving aside the dynamics of ethnic and racial positioning in the US, while I have argued that 'Europe' is term that was created to apply to a secularized version of Latin Christendom [i.e. Denis Hay's thesis], it is also true, surely, that there is a "Western Old World" Ecumene [is Latin Christendom/Europe, Byzantium, and Islam] in which each civilization is too distinct to be considered as "part of" the other two, but in which all three cultures have interacted to such an extent that some general knowledge of all is a requirement for a student of any. This "western old world Ecumene" is rather distinct its seems to me from Indian civilization, [even though Islam was deeply involved there], and even more so from Chinese civilization. A student of Byzantium or Latin Christendom really needs to know about all three culture, but does not need to know about China or India. What I am suggesting is that useful university courses could be developed which eschewed the blindly Western orientation of "Western Civ" courses, and avoided the "throw it all in" nature of "world civilization" courses. What we need, especially for the middle ages, is an "Old World Western Ecumene" approach [with better name, of course]. Paul Halsall Subj: The "Western Old World Ecumene" Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 13:30:56 -0600 From: James Dimos Dimarogonas jdd1@CEC.WUSTL.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium- A European C To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L In-Reply-To: m0tGblF-00017aC@catullus On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Chris Hermansen wrote: [quoted paragraph] Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Whatever Vasari saw as Byzantine art (the real thing or pale imitation), he and his contemporaries reviled it and sought classical influence instead. That is to say, the claim that was made sometime back that Renaissance art sprung from the Byzantine is mostly incorrect. Since I think you are referring to me, let me apologize if I gave such an impression. No, I absolutely agree with you, renaissance art was based on antiquity, not Byzantine. I was talking more about it's view of antiquity, that sprung from the Byzantine point of view. I don't know if that is carried onto the visual art forms though. That would be an interesting point, since especially in painting they did not have too many examples of original ancient paintings, how was their view of ancient art influenced by the filtering of antiquity through so many centuries Rgds Jim Dimarogonas Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:21:00 EDT From: FELICE LIFSHITZ LIFSHITZ@SERVAX.BITNET Subject: Re: The "Western Old World Ecumene" To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET I agree completely that Latin medievalists must know something of the cultures of the Greek and Arabic middle ages, and that as much as possible one must try to teach the "Europe" survey throughout as a sort of "Old World Ecumene." But if that is to become possible, it will be necessary to face the sorts of resistances and racisms and politicizations of the representation of the past which Halsall lamented, and which Ghazanfar believed to be operative but was encouraged to disregard. I would like to offer one illustration which I take to be reasonably cogent evidence that something besides ignorance or training in particular traditions is at work in the omission of the Greek and Arabic cultural realms from US textbooks. Robert Lopez did the vast majority of his heavy duty, early scholarly work, much of which is still available only in Italian and to some extent in French, on the commercial world of the Mediterranean. He knew Greek, although not Arabic, and he read Arabic sources in translation. As far as I could tell, one of the most important results of much of his early work was precisely to show the interconnectedness of the Old World Ecumene. Consider the series of articles in which Byzantine legislation about lese-majeste and minting procedures turns out to be the explanation of various aspects of the Germanic barbarian legal codes; meanwhile, the changes in Byzantine currency practice in the first place were a result of changing caliphal policies. During this period, say the late 30s but especially the 40s and early 50s, he turned out a tremendous amount of anti-Pirenne thesis work, most of which is breathtaking in its breadth of learning and erudition. So this was a person who was absolutely capable of producing a textbook whose focus would have been the Old World Ecumene. BUT...that is the exact opposite of what happened. After spending enough time at Yale, he seems to have become sucked up into a Latin Eurocentric perspective, and to have found it necessary, desirable, acceptable, I don't know what, to abrogate the findings of his early work. In a US context he just didn't see things in that integrated way any longer, and began to write and argue without the Greek and Arabic cultures. His textbook, *The Birth of Europe*, excludes those areas from consideration. Now it is true that the series in which the text appeared had already decided that Byz, the Arabs and the Slavs were "not- Europe" but Lopez, of all people, should have known that such a division was misrepresentative and unhelpful. He wrote the text anyway and was happy to see it translated and reprinted quite a bit. But he also produced totally under his own steam *The commercial Revolution of the Middle Ages* which essentially develops, without footnotes, the arguments of the textbook, and is focused entirely on Europe. He also produced *The Three Ages of the Italian Renaissance* in that 60s/70s period of profound Americanization wherein he celebrated the Italian Renaissance as a natural outgrowth of the Italian middle ages without much reference to Greek or Arabic influences on "European civilization." I would submit therefore that there is something operative in the power centers of US academic life which almost requires the denial of Greek and Arabic influence on "Europe" (as though Europe "by definition" were "not-Greek" and "not- Arabic"...facilitating the argument that the USA, conceived as an extension of Europe, is "not-Greek/Eastern European" and "not-Arabic/N. African/Middle Eastern"). Therefore, I think that scholars who wish to recognize the Old World Ecumene will have to do more than be trained and well- meaning; they will have to be willing to be overtly political. Felice Lifshitz History Florida International University Lifshitz@Servax.fiu.edu Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 12:16:07 -0500 From: Dale Landon SSYB@IUP.BITNET Subject: Re: The "Western Old World Ecumene" To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET P.H. I agree, for what it is worth, that there should be more of a development of an "Western Ecumene" approach to the Middle Ages. And also for the development of Rome in the ancient world also (both for the influence of the Eastern Mediterranean peoples in the Western Mediterranean and for the great influence of the Hellenistic world on Greco-Roman civilization; but that is probably for another list). I became very aware of my "misdirected orientation" when I participated in a NEH seminar on the influence of Asia on western civilization and on world civilization. I still think that my two weeks, one on Islam and its influences and one on Byzantium and its influences in each of my two medieval European courses, really need to be expanded. The lack of student knowledge about the Latin West keeps tugging me to devote 6/7th of the time there. The NEH seminar convinced me of the importance of student's understanding cross-cultural influences. If that understanding was deeper then perhaps we would not have the underlying hostility that seethes beneath the academic surface these days. dale e landon iup Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:18:05 -0500 From: Luis de Constantinopla L_LOPEZ@USCAC1.USC.CLU.EDU Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L Paul Halsall: There you go again, making an art out of a not-quite- subtle combination of "Ignoratio elenchi" and "Non sequitur". Since you have, with your silence, implicitly conceded that your WILD asseveration to the effect that the US sets-the-pace-for- the-world is erroneous, now you will teach me about my continent: Latin America. You will kindly illuminate me concerning my reality, as Europeans have kindly been trying to do for 5 centuries. Very kind, though un-original. Now let us look at what you are saying: Argentina has about 400,000 Jews, making it the 5th largest center of Jewish population in the world [after the US, Israel, Russia and France]. --------------------------- Yes, I know this (as well as any educated person knows this). As a matter of fact, one of my books was published in Argentina by a Publishing House owned by an Argentinean Jew who is my good friend. Argentina is the only Latin American country with a significant amount of Jews. Therefore, Argentina is the EXCEPTION. The exception, as you know, does not MAKE THE RULE. =================== Iberian culture is literally unimaginable without Jewish and Muslim contributions. The unfortunate self-definition of a modern nation in 15th and 16th century Spain, and the evolution of the first modern racism, the theory of limpezia del sangre, were all done upon the creation of the Jew as the "other". This first sentence of yours is a commonplace, a cliché. Every educated person should know this. You are manipulating my words. In my last letter you very well know that I was referring to CURRE NT Latin America and Spain when I said there are practically no Jews, especially if you compare these countries with the US, France and other Western European nations. Therefore, CURRE NT Jewish issues are not as important to Latin America as they are to the US, for example. CURRE NT. ============== One has to ask then, just what the Latin American academy is up to if it does not study Jews? And how seriously, apart from obvious areas of expertise such as Iberian literature, its findings need to be taken? =========================== Of course Jewish and Arabian cultures play a fundamental role in the formation of Hispanic culture, no serious Hispanic denies this. One of the foremost Arabists of Latin America is a friend of mine. She recently published an edition of the so- called Spanish Kama-Sutra, written in the XVII century in Spain (in "aljamiado": Castillian language, but written in Arabic signs) and found recently, under the floor of a house in (I believe) Zaragoza. It teaches how to reach God through sex. (!) On the other hand, I find very funny your statement that Spain created the first modern racism. They expelled the Jews in 1492. Didn't your small island, on the Northwest of Europe, expel the Jews earlier? I will certainly not defend the Spanish on this point, but are you reviving the Black Legend or just modernizing the old Imperial Tradition of English Academy? You can not throw stones if you live in a house with a glass roof. (Pardon if I did not get this saying correctly: please take note of the fact that I am writing in English, which is my second/third language.) ====================== This is a question, please note, not a condemnation, because I am not sure that you are correct in some of your statements. [Apart from anything else you seem to be essentilising all Latin American countries as the same, or at least similar.] Yes, I am. Latin America is a large, dis-united Nation. We have great differences, but much more in common. Maine is quite different from Florida, but the US is a country. Wales and England are different, but Britain is a country (I believe). We are a country going through its MIDDLE AGES. European "barbarians" (my ancestors from Castilla, Mallorca, Italy and the Basque Country are included) came 500 years ago and disrupted our Roman (Inca, Aztec...) Empire. We are only recently starting to get our stuff together (does this scenario sound familiar?). However, most Latin American intellectuals understand it is absurd to say I am Mexican, Chilean, Argentinean, Cuban or Puerto Rican. We are all Latin American. More than Argentinean, Borges is L.A. More than Colombian, Garcia Marquez is L.A. More than Chilean, Neruda is Latin American. So, yes, in essence, Latin America is one. But this is a matter that, I believe, does not concern this list. So I may just go back into my "lurking mode" and to those happy days in which I would passively read and learn from your always brilliant comments on Byzantium. Unless, of course, you just insist on returning upon this theme that I so much enjoy talking about. Luis Luis de Constantinopla L_LOPEZ@USCAC1.USC.CLU.EDU Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:38:47 -0500 From: Guy Kay gkay@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Subject: Re: Byzantium: A European Civilization? To: Multiple recipients of list BYZANS-L [quoted paragraph]If you choose to insult me, Luis, Do not expect that I will bother to reply. Paul Halsall I must add a brief voice to this. I'd actually drafted a note to Luis's choleric resentment at my suggesting he was being insulting to Paul Halsall last week. I didn't send it. I wish I had. Further sloppy insults have followed, including an unseemly crowing of some kind of victory based on his being, in fact, ignored. There's no academic tradition I respect that treats epithets typed in capitals as equivalent to scholarly reasoning. Nor is there any tradition that countenances the following sort of display ... 1) Luis knows Argentina has a great many Jews, but 2) No other South American country does, so 3) Argentina is an exception and can be ignored accordingly, however 4) Everyone knows all Latin America is one nation, and therefore 5) No national differences signify intellectually. This is, I believe, unworthy of discussion. Guy Kay Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 20:32:53 -0600 From: "Charles R. Bowlus" CRBOWLUS@UALR.EDU Subject: western old world eu Ecumene To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET More than twenty-five years ago the late Archie Lewis began teaching a western old-world Ecumene course very much like the one Paul Halsall suggests. It was very successful at Texas and at Massachusetts. Using Lewis' book -Nomads and Crusaders- I have been teaching an Afro-Eurasian civilizations course, also very successfully. Lewis was a close friend and ally of Roberto Lopez, and I had the great pleasure of being in on some of their wide-ranging conversations that reached from Timbuktu to Kararorum, from Greenland to the Straits of Malacca. I never had the sense that Lopez was becoming Eurocentric. In fact I saw him shortly before his death at a conference in Stillwater Oklahoma. Although he was wasted in body he was still very energetic in mind. One of the papers dealt with the world of the 13th century. He participated vigorously and demonstrated a knowledge of and interest in the Cairo Geniza and the light that it might throw on the topic at hand. To the very end, the Robert Lopez I knew had universal interests. Charles R. Bowlus Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:35:08 -0600 From: Paul Bischoff Paul.Bischoff@OKWAY.OKSTATE.EDU Subject: European oecumene To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET While I do not suggest it as a model, I have been teaching a course entitled (somewhat awkwardly) The Early Middle Ages: Byzantium, Islam, and the West. The purpose of the course is to start with the fragmentation of the Roman Empire, consider its impact on the three successor civilizations, and the evolution within the three successor civilizations of new cultural and political traditions. The approach is necessarily a survey. As Prof. Bachrach has noted, much must be left out from all of the civilizations. It's great strength is that the course offers an opportunity to do comparative history at the formative period of three successor civilizations. Each of the civilizations interprets its inheritance from the ancient world and combines that inheritance with its indigenous culture differently, but there are responses in all three that are worthy of comparison. One of those comparisons is the tension between centralized political institutions--the concept or reality of empire--and the tendency toward increasingly localized principles of political organization. Localism is present in all three civilizations, even if pronoia, iqta, and feudalism are not precisely the same things. There are real problems with texts. I use a variety: Geary's Before France and Germany, Hodgson's The Venture of Islam, and the ancient Vasiliev. I supplement these with additional readings--Pelikan's second volume of The Christian Tradition, Brown's Cult of the Saints, and Shaban's second volume of Islamic History, A New Interpretation. Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 08:28:19 LCL From: Skip Knox ELKNOX@TOPGUN.IDBSU.EDU Subject: Re: western old world eu Ecumene To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET I'll add another anecdote about supposed prejudice against non- Western European cultures. My professor at UMass was Miriam Chrisman (UMass is where Archie Lewis finished his career). Miriam was a Reformation scholar, so looking at her publication history you will find little evidence of a non-European orientation. But I was her TA for two years in Western Civ, and she taught it from a global perspective. I well remember the reaction of students as the course progressed from India to China to Africa, wondering wasn't this a class on Western Civ? But her point was that the most significant development of modern times was the interplay between European culture and these other cultures and that you really could not understand anything until you understood this. Take or leave her thesis. But the example shows it is tricky to go From published works to inferences about the individual's prejudices. What strikes me most is that we all know this elementary truth when the text at issue is medieval, but we often lose sight it when we look at the present .======================================================== == Skip Knox Boise State University Boise, Idaho elknox@bsu.idbsu.edu elknox@topgun.idbsu.edu Cogito ergo spud: I think therefore I yam Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 18:00:25 -0500 From: John Sloan JohnS426@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Byzantium: A "European" Culture? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET Dear everyone, Please forgive me the late comments on this enlightening discussion. I must say that as one whose study and early teaching experience were in the "dark ages" I find these descriptions of the travails those who labor in the academy these days to be quite fascinating. Back in the forties we started out wide eyed with ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia and learned innocently about the tremendous debt classical Greece had to both, then moved on to Rome, found it eventually divided, learned about both fragments and continued on our merry way. I have here in my lap Edward McNAll Burns's "Western Civilizations" (note the plural form) published in 1958 in the 5th edition, and one of a shelf full of ancient histories ( in terms of publication). I probably used it at least for reference teaching my first course in "western Civ". I turn quickly to the rather well done chapter of Byzantium and the Islamic world, but then must admit it was followed by two with the now notorious "f" word in their titles. I think in those dark days we reveled in the thought we were the intellectual heirs of a wide diversity of folk and gave no particular thought to their putative ethnicity. From the sounds of it there is much that needs to be rectified these days. Now for a couple of tangential nit pics. In the opening salvo Paul Halsall remarked in passing: [quoted paragraph]A Greek has no need to consider how his or her culture was responsible for slavery or imperialism: a Briton or a Spaniard with a moral concern must do so. While I refuse to believe anyone need feel any such moral concern, I don't understand how the Greeks escape unscathed. According to all I have read they were up to their eye-balls in slavery and the commercial practice thereof. The interesting book edited by John Rich "War and Society in the Greek World" published in 1993 has a couple articles that indicate early Greek "trading" enterprises were built on slave raiding. Then we have the institution at Delos which processed slaves well into the Roman period. Passing to Byzantium we have the extensive trade in Kypchak slaves from Crimea and Don valley to Cairo to fill out the Mamluke armies. And so it went with the Greeks continuing to have their share of the lucrative middleman action in this industry into Ottoman times. Someone recently was astounded to learn when I mentioned that between 1500 and 1800 certainly at least as many eastern Europeans were sold into slavery as were Africans shipped to North America. The main difference is that the majority of the Europeans disappeared without offspring. Then Richard Landes remarked, again quite in passing. [quoted paragraph]civilization. (but then again, I wdn't wd I, I'm writing a book on it.) I think it takes great intellectual effort to deny that the culture that both Europe and the US share is, for good or evil The categories "good" and "evil" I maintain are only applicable to individual human beings. They are not categories one can usefully apply to groups, civilizations, cultures or the like, which - it seems to me - all share in equal measure their desire to live out their existence in this world, and have done about the same in the pursuit of this goal, depending on their means at various stages in history. It is precisely that individuals are more and more of late encouraged to find themselves in some group identity rather than stand on their feet as individuals that much of the troubles so many have so eloquently described on this list find their roots. Naturally this demands, in turn, that they believe their group is somehow holier than any other and ascribe all evil to some other group. I agree with Skip Knox's approach: to wit: [quoted paragraph].When I teach Western Civ, I usually make a point of asserting that one of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages was the invention of Europe. Before the Middle Ages there is no Europe. Ancient civilizations were their own critters, and European civilization was influenced by more than one of them. It is just that you did not have to make a point of asserting the obvious. But also it used to be apparent that one civilization, however different, could have significant influence on successors. Finally, all I can do is feel sorry for Christine Greene. I wonder what the "teacher" would say if she pointed out that in the 11th century Kiev was a larger and richer city than either Paris or London, and probably more orderly and well governed than Rome. best wishes to all john sloan Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 08:51:11 -0600 From: "Charles R. Bowlus" CRBOWLUS@UALR.EDU Subject: Afro-Eurasian Ecumene To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET I teach a course very similar to Paul Bischoff's. His text for Byzantium is as hoary as mine (Jenkins). I have learned that Mark Whittow is coming out with a wide-ranging book, The Making of Byzantium, next year. It will be distributed in the US by University of California Press and will be available in paperback, $17.50, I think. I hope this book will solve my "Byzantine problem." Charles R. Bowlus Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 15:35:23 -0500 From: "Thomas F. Noble" tfn@DARWIN.CLAS.VIRGINIA.EDU Subject: Re: The "Western Old World Ecumene" To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET I kept thinking that someone else who has both taught for a long time and who has written (or participated in the writing of) a textbook might chime in on this thread. So now I add my two cents. Several years ago I initiated a Western Civ. Text project that takes a wider view of Europe, or of the West, than any book currently out there. It has more material on Islam and Byzantium than other texts, treats Spain as an essential past of the West, and has a whole chapter devoted to the Celtic, Slavic, and Scandinavian lands in the medieval period. Some reviewers of the developing first edition expressed considerable admiration for the scope of the enterprise but also expressed doubts about their ability to teach the material. Now my colleagues and I are making preparations for a second edition. n the run-up to that process we got twenty-some reviews of the first edition from people out there in the business. Overwhelmingly they told us to cut out all that "nonessential" stuff. These reviewers ranged from community colleges to Ivy League schools. So, the tendency for textbooks to remain distressingly alike is not to be attributed only to profit-mad publishers or too dull-witted authors. The fault is in the academy. Or, to put it differently, the academy gets the books it wants. I tried hard to nudge things gently in a different direction and was carefully moved back into line. In the review process we had people from evangelical schools and our books has been adopted in such institutions. We never, not once, got any flap about our coverage of Judaism or Islam. I did get one rather amusing criticism of my treatment of the Catholic Church. Seems that someone felt that I was too rough on Holy Mother Church. Had I been asked I might have fessed up to slipping in a pretty staunchly catholic (mind the small c) reading of the history of Christianity. But you cannot please everyone. Surely there are publishers who could be persuaded to tackle a fine "Old World Oecumene" book such as the one that has been discussed here. But will teachers out there alter their syllabuses, reorganize their lectures, rethink their reading programs, in order to use such a book? If that soul of ecumenicity Richard Landes won't do it, then who will? Tom Noble -- Thomas F. X. Noble Department of History University of Virginia 804-924-6400 tfn@virginia.edu Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 18:50:28 -0500 From: Thomas Glick tglick@ACS.BU.EDU Subject: Re: The "Western Old World Ecumene" To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET I'm glad that Felice bailed me out! From the point of view of history of ideas, history of science in particular, then it makes some sense, certainly, to consider the medieval Christian world and the medieval Islamic one as parts of the same entity. There are problems with that: (1) what does one call it?; (2) not everyone is ready to buy that proposition. An anecdote: I was at a dinner party in Riyadh with colleagues from the history dept. of King Saud U, most of them educated in the US or England. I said: "In my opinion, when one speaks of the history of ideas in the "West" and in the Islamic world, etc., there is no reason to draw a hard line between those two entities (or words to that effect). Don't you agree?" My colleagues all looked up, said "NO!" in unison and returned to what they were doing. Maybe they were just pulling my leg. Or maybe the entire notion was as foreign to them as it is to many western medievalists. Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 03:40:42 -0600 From: "Lynn H. Nelson" lhnelson@UKANAIX.CC.UKANS.EDU Subject: Medieval Oikoumene: Reform or Revolution? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET It is not difficult to find shortcomings in survey text-books; it is much less easy to correct those short-comings. Consider the circumlocutions we have been using in the absence of a rationale nomenclature for the three Mediterranean "powers." "Europe" is a region, a useful term since that "power" consisted of many small states and at least three cultural traditions in a long process of amalgamation, but one that obscures the Byzantine presence in Italy and the existence of Muslim Spain. "The Byzantine Empire" refers to a state. It is an unfortunate term in many ways in that it excludes the extensive lands within the Byzantine sphere of economic and cultural influence but not under Byzantine political control. And what shall we call the third? "Islam" is a religion, and the lands in which it was dominant were also the home of significant non-Muslim populations. "Arab" is a misnomer, since the Arabs were in fact a rather small minority of Muslims. "The East" is vague and misleading, since al-Andalus and the Maghrib -- important cultural and economic centers -- were in the West, and the "Muslim East" extended to Java and Sumatra. "The Islamic World" is common enough and roughly corresponds with Dar as- Islam, but it suggests an isolation that the discussants wish to overcome. One cannot discuss in the absence of commonly-held terms of discussion, and I do not believe that we possess even these. Also, it is not enough to include a chapter here and there on non-Western Christian states; one must integrate such materials into the overall presentation. What unifying principle will one use? Intellectual and cultural influence has been suggested, but intellectual and cultural influence is a recursive thing. To suggest that the Christian West was influenced by the culture and intellectual achievements of the Muslims without emphasizing the degree to which those achievements represented a flowering of Persian traditions would not be much of an improvement over the present view of things. Mention has been made of Janet Abu-Lughod's work as a possible model for a more balanced presentation, but I wonder if we have considered what our acceptance of that model would entail. Abu- Lughod's book is a fine example of the application of world system theory, but world systems is not the sort of history that the great majority of instructors in our field teach or are prepared to teach. It views cultures and states as the shifting elements in massive economic systems, and the development of these economic systems appear to conform to cyclical patterns that suggest that they are driven by long-term and as yet imperfectly understood economic laws. There are micro-economics and macro-economics; world system theory is mega- economics. This is not to say that a medieval history text-book based upon a world system approach would not be a quite valid effort, but that it would greatly alter the place of medieval history in the academic community and intellectual world. Rather than relating to literature, philosophy, and other humanities as it presently does, or drawing on the soft social sciences such as anthropology, a world systems-based medieval history would be closely allied with some hard social sciences such as economic analysis, statistical modeling, central place theory, and a number of other disciplines with which present-day medievalists might be a bit uncomfortable. Most revolutions begin as reforms. Lynn Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 00:01:25 -0500 From: Richard Landes rlandes@ACS.BU.EDU Subject: Re: Medieval Oikoumene: Reform or Revolution? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET On Sat, 25 Nov 1995, Lynn H. Nelson wrote: [quoted paragraph] Also, it is not enough to include a chapter here and there on non-Western Christian states; one must integrate such materials into the overall presentation. What unifying principle will one use? Intellectual and cultural influence has been suggested, but intellectual and cultural influence is a recursive thing. To suggest that the Christian West was influenced by the culture and intellectual achievements of the Muslims without emphasizing the degree to which those achievements represented a flowering of Persian traditions would not be much of an improvement over the present view of things. how about comparisons and contrasts of various key elements of these neighboring cultures with those of the west -- e.g. the forms of political organization and legitimation, the relations btw various elements within the elites and those among the commoners, urban-rural contacts, the loci of learning and literacy, etc. that way we get some perspective on what's going on in the area we study (i.e. the west) and have a conceptual framework upon which to hang our knowledge about the outside (feudalism [arghhh!] may look more feudal when compared with other arrangements). one of the most fruitful problems for me to try and answer is... if I want to attribute some historical cause to Christianity, why did the Eastern church not produce a similar one; if I want to attribute it to eschatological religions, why not the Muslims... Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 00:21:56 -0500 From: Richard Landes rlandes@ACS.BU.EDU Subject: Re: The "Western Old World Ecumene" To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, bachr001@maroon.tc.umn.edu wrote: [quoted paragraph] Dear Richard, Your struggle in one form or another is routine for those who think about what they are doing. If you insist that your lectures will be the narrative then you will always be in the same predicament. When US historians have a year to teach two centuries and we have the same amount of time to teach 12 there is bound to be a problem. If you let the textbook provide the story line then you can discuss what you want. I try very hard to avoid talking about what is in the textbook except when I decide to lecture against it as in the "f' word context. The textbooks are surely flawed but providing the CMH as the textbook would hardly remedy the situation. You can not put in a year what has been left out of the students' education for the previous 12-14 years. As to not putting in your pet projects if you intend to do the narrative yourself what you are implicitly recognizing is that sub speciae aetertitatis your pet project or mine or most everyone else's pet project does not impact the grand narrative and traditionally conceived very much. you mean "as traditionally conceived"? and yes, I do wish to have an impact on the grand narrative. indeed I wd like to rewrite it. the problem is how. [quoted paragraph] Most of the problem is with the conception of the narrative itself that is intended to tell us who WE are and how WE got to be who we are. This backwards history is in my judgment the wrong way to do history--Collingwood has some good arguments as to why this is the case. I read Collingwood on your advice, and I'm not sure I recall this specific point, although it reminds me of DH Fischer's fallacy #7562: tunnel vision, or Whig history... going back to find those things which led to us. and that can be a serious error. but I don't think it's the same thing as trying to find out how we came to be, which I think is one of the main purposes of history. if we just study the past with no concern for how things turned out, we are, ultimately, engaged in a kind of rudderless antiquarianism. (surely I miss understand you here, since that's obviously not what you're doing.) I wd distinguish here btw this tunnel vision in which anything that does not resemble what we identify as us becomes irrelevant and unworthy of our attention (as, e.g., those who start the story in the 12th cn because, at last, we have people we can identify with), and a history which looks for the forces that willy-nilly shape the direction of Western culture. in this sense, the Weberian notion of unintended consequences becomes relevant; functionalist analyses project the eventual use of some custom, law, practice, etc. back on the intentions of those who first introduced it. that's a big mistake. In this sense, most economic history, for example, has been the victim of a Pirennian approach in which homo economicus (the product of a long, painful and largely irrational process) is assumed as human nature waiting for the right conditions in order to come alive. [quoted paragraph] Thus if the millennium, broadly conceived, is to be discussed the case must be made in the context of the millennium and not in its impact upon the present. disagree. if I can make the case that the advent and passage of the millennial generation (1000-1033) constituted a mutation in European culture which at once introduced the populace (commoners, plebs) as actors on the historical (political) stage in a way they never had been before, either in western Europe, or in most any pre-modern culture; and, at the same time, it created a sea-change in the society's eschatological imagination (from passive to active human involvement); and that these changes had fundamental influences on the devt of the west over the following millennium (including the "modern world" as the unintended consequences of failed millennial expectation), then I think both contexts are relevant. part of the problem for medievalists is that, although we cover a broad period of time, we tend not to look at trends that start before and continue after our allotted time. millennialism is just such a phenomenon. [quoted paragraph] If your grand narrative is structured as usual then what people thought about various things ca. 1000 is rather meaningless except for Robert II's efforts to keep the Capetian monarchy going so that France could emerge from the MA as a unified state. I'm not sure what you mean here. isn't that the kind of history you disapprove of: i.e., the only impt thing about a period is how it contributes to the major elements (generally conceived of as political institutions) in later ones? (I may have missed the point of your "if...") wdn't "what people thought about various things ca. 1000" be impt in understanding such less precise issues of the following centuries as the economic and technological "revolutions", the religious movts (reform *and* heresy), the kinds of social dynamics that Bartlett chronicles and traces rather laconically back to the creative disorders of late Carolingian Europe. [quoted paragraph] Now we disagree about the millennium but that is not relevant to the discussion that should take place. agreed (although I can't understand how we can disagree about something so obvious). the issue here is not the specifics but the larger point. I contend that it is a perfectly valid reason (among many) to study medieval history (or any period) in order to understand how we became who we are: the problem with this approach lies not in having our "problematique" formulated by current concerns, but projecting subsequent solutions back onto people who did not see them as clearly as we do. *everyone* I study -- i.e. people who thought the world was coming to its imminent end -- was wrong. but only we know that. at the time they had to make their decisions, they didn't know; nor did their contemporaries, even the ones who opposed them. thus when Abbo takes on the preacher in Paris who predicts the end of the world for 1000, using the best of Augustinian theology, it is not at all clear that Abbo won the debate (in fact I think just the opposite). but modern historians traditionally grant him the victory. why? because he was right in a way only we (and the editors of his texts) cd know, and he uses an anti-apocalyptic theology which we approve of. but siding with Abbo in this way is a theological call, not a historical one; idem Augustine on the "fall" of Rome. Rlandes Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 02:56:33 -0600 From: "Lynn H. Nelson" lhnelson@UKANAIX.CC.UKANS.EDU Subject: Medieval Oikoumene: Compare and Contrast. To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET On Sun, 26 Nov 1995, Richard Landes wrote: [quoted paragraph] how about comparisons and contrasts of various key elements of these neighboring cultures with those of the west -- e.g. the forms of political organization and legitimation, the relations btw various elements within the elites and those among the commoners, urban-rural contacts, the loci of learning and literacy, etc. Comparisons and contrasts are always attractive, but the approach requires more intellectual rigor than historians have generally demonstrated when engaged in presenting material in such a fashion. It is usually necessary to take an element out of its context in order to compare it with another element also taken out of its context. I would not argue that this cannot be done, but I would suggest that it requires a great deal of care if the comparisons and contrasts are not to be based upon quite superficial similarities. I would suppose that others feel the same way since, in our discussion of "feudalism," almost no reference was made to the rather extensive literature upon comparative feudalism. The larger the picture, the more valid the comparisons appear, but when we focus on the validity of the single elements, we generally become extremely uncomfortable. Let me offer an example. The period around 750 represents the beginning of a significant and general change in the medieval oikoumene, a change that was largely complete by 800. The accession of the Carolingian dynasty initiated a shift from policies based upon Mediterranean concerns to policies based upon continental matters and entailed disengagement from both Byzantium and Islam. This change represented, in its broadest aspects, the triumph of the Germanic tradition over the Roman. The accession of the Abbasids at the same time also turned Muslim attention away from the Mediterranean. The capital was shifted eastward and inland, and the new caliphate abandoned its concerns over al-Andalus, al- Mugrib, and Egypt. The Abbasid caliphate was land-centered and looked toward the east and north. It represented a triumph of the Persian tradition over the heritage of conquered portions of the Byzantine Empire. Finally, the Byzantine state turned its attention from competing for naval control of the Mediterranean to its European frontiers and Black Sea trading area. Its emphasis was land-centered, and it abandoned attempts to maintain close relations with the western Mediterranean and western Europe. The period saw the triumph of a Greek tradition over a multi-cultural imperial tradition. This is a general outline of period that presents numerous opportunities to make comparisons and contrasts, but I wonder how many of us will begin to inspect it, take one or two separate elements and say "But that's not _true_." The process of comparing and contrasting requires a certain amount of generalization, generalization entails the omission of information, and the omission of information creates distortion. The question is, I think, how much such distortion would specialists be willing to tolerate in the interest of presenting cross-cultural comparisons? Lynn Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 14:27:23 CST From: "bachr001@maroon.tc.umn.edu" bachr001@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU Subject: Re: Medieval Oikoumene: Reform or Revolution? To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV- L@UKANVM.BITNET Once are discussion moves from persons to people to cultures the battle for history is lost. In this thread, for example, we have heard of Islamic science" we all know there is Christian Science and we know that it is rather curious Christianity and even more curious science. What is Islamic science or medicine for that matter. Was Maimonides an Islamic scientist or even and Islamic doctor? Did he practice Muslim medicine? Can Maimonides be called an Arab or must he not be called an Arab because he was a Jew. Can a Christian be an Arab. Today we think so? Were Christians considered Arabs during the Middle Ages? A Persian is not an Arab I am told by Persians and I heard Anwar Sadat say that he was not an Arab and the Egyptians are not Arabs. Can a Protestant be an Armenian? Can a Jew be a Pole or a Serb or a Croat? I went to college with a woman who was born in Poland and her family had lived there for centuries and they were all Muslims. She thought she was a Pole but she said that Roman Catholic Poles said she was not. I have no doubt that members of the list have answers to all of these questions and often sound historical reasons to support those answers. However, until we agree on a vocabulary we need to be very clear on what we mean when we discuss Arab Science or Christian Science or any of these terms which are often intended more for the purpose of awarding medals or writing propaganda than for the writing of history that professionals, who are not employed by one or another propaganda institution, would recognize. As Felice notes, labels are very powerful or at least people who use them try to gain influence, support, money, etc. From using them. Leave off the adjective, discuss the individual and get history back to basics. Those who want to be sociologists should recognize what they really want to do. B.Bachrach U of M END