Customer Reviews

From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Prof. Lewis once again demonstrates his rare talent for explaining one of the most difficult subjects of world history in clear, lucid language reminiscent of a more literary era. The book is filled with insightful essays describing real episodes, thought patterns, attitudes and customs that have prevailed in the Middle East over the past millenium. As a frequent traveler to the region over the past 4 decades, I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to get a clear picture, uncluttered by neo-liberalism, of the politics and practices of the Islamic world.

In reading and reviewing two of Bernard Lewis's recent books (What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response 2002 and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Holy Terror 2003) I was favorably impressed with not only his obvious erudition, but with his reasoned tone and his realistic perceptions. However, in this volume, which is a collection of some of his writings going back to the 1950s, I found myself a bit mystified. On the one hand there is the brilliance and eloquence for which the venerable historian is well known. On the other hand, there are some strange and unsettled statements which lead me to wonder if Professor Lewis has not lost some of his fabled acuity.

First, there is the inclusion of a very short piece entitled "We Must Be Clear" that he wrote for the Washington Post a few days after September 11, 2001 in which he is anything but. Apparently Lewis wants the US to be clear about its intentions in the Middle East in light of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. He concludes that "What is needed is clarity in recognizing issues and alignments, firmness and determination in defining and applying policy." (p. 370) What this vague and essentially empty pronouncement follows is Lewis's apprehension that some states are "friends" on two levels, one "a deep mutual commitment" and the other "based on a perception of shared interests." (p. 369-370)

One will permit me a "You don't say?" here. In this same piece Lewis mentions that Saddam Hussein "has made war against three of his neighbors..." and that the other states in the Middle East "are neither forgetful of the past nor confident of the future." What Saddam Hussein (and what his neighbors think about him) has to do with 9/11 is unclear. It's as if Lewis had something he wanted to say, some connection he wanted to draw, but was unable to be clear about it, perhaps for political reasons or because he thought he knew something he wasn't at liberty to share.

At any rate, even more disconcerting is the article entitled "A Time for Toppling" from the Wall Street Journal a year later (September 26, 2002) in which he seems to be a stalking horse for Bush's desire to invade Iraq. He doesn't however argue so much that Saddam Hussein is a danger to the US, but instead makes the claim that in order to solve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, it is first necessary to deal with Saddam.

There is some legitimacy to this argument, and Lewis recalls Saddam's policy of rewarding the families of Palestinian suicide bombers with stipends of $10,000 to $25,000. However what is grievously wrongheaded about this "toppling" that Lewis seems unaware of--as was Bush and the neocons in the White House--is that in invading Iraq, the US would create massively more problems than it would solve, and would only exacerbate the predicament of the Israeli and Palestinian people, since the Arab and Muslim world would rally around a kindred Muslim nation invaded by a foreign power even if it was the fiefdom of a hated dictator. I am surprised that the usually wise and learned Professor Lewis could write so nakedly in favor of the foolishly aggressive policy of the Bush administration.

Personally, I think Lewis revealed here the true heart of the historian: such a person may be incredibly wise and reasonable when he has time to think and rethink an issue and has the benefit of his research and a considerable experience; however when he is called upon to make a quick judgment on events still warm in the doing, his judgment may suffer.

So let me recall the Bernard Lewis of the volumes mentioned above and let me quote from a couple of places in this collection in order to balance what would be, on the basis of these two articles, a misconception of the man. Consider, for example, this statement on the three Abrahamic religions of the Middle East: "If we look at them in a wider global perspective, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are different branches of the same religion....Compared with the religions of India, of China and of other places, they are as alike as peas in a pod." Lewis goes on to make the point that when Muslim and Christian say to one another, "'You are an infidel and you will burn in hell,' they understand each other perfectly." However "Such an argument between a Christian or a Muslim on the one side and a Buddhist or a Hindu on the other" would have been "impossible" because "They would not have known what they were talking about." (pp. 200-201)

This insight is from his essay "A Taxonomy of Group Hatred" which originally appeared in the Viennese review Transit in 1998-1999. This is a particularly good essay (published in English here for the first time) in which Lewis doesn't mince words about the human failing called hatred and gives a most interesting psychological and historical take on this most destructive emotion which he allies lamentably with the very essence of the human process of self-identity. He notes, "Loyalty to the tribe, however defined, and hatred of other tribes are at the very core of identity." (p. 203)

There are 51 essays arranged in three parts, "Past History," "Current History," and "About History." There are pieces on such diverse subjects as money, travel and food in addition to the usual political concerns of historians. Particularly good, because of the insight it affords us into the life of Bernard Lewis, is the Introduction in which he outlines his career as a Middle Eastern historian.

I recommend this book for readers who want to increase their knowledge of the Middle East. Here is Lewis's own justification for such a study: "The history of Islam is a vital and essential part of human history without which even 'our' own history is not fully intelligible." (p. 412)

I have a couple problems with this book, but I will still give it a rating of 5 stars.

My first problem is that it doesn't flow particularly well from one chapter to the next. This is because the book is an anthology of various speeches, op-eds, chapters of other books, lectures, and other work over the years, many previously unpublished. I would have appreciated some more commentary from today's point of view on his work done many decades ago. Because it jumps from year to year, subject to subject, it is hard to digest large portions of it at a time. My recommendation would be to provide even just paragraph-long segues from one chapter to the next explaining why he included each chapter and how it all adds up to the grand point he is making.

Second, I let someone borrow it, and she declared it boring and refused to plug away to finish it. I will admit, this book is not exactly for beginners on the Middle East, nor is it for people looking for exciting quasi-history or conspiracy theories. It is not pop-history. It is, rather, a subtle and mostly objective look at the history and contemporary affairs of the Middle East over multiple generations, and in such a collection of work, one can glean bits of why the world is how it is today. But don't expect the book to jump out and slap you in the face, arguing from the point of view of an extreme ideologue. If you can't handle it being dry in some places, this is not the book for you.

As far as the good things go, the book is a great way to brush up on Middle Eastern history. I've read some of Lewis' other books, and they are also very good. Some of the other ones flow much better than this one, but this one is the one I would recommend to those who want a more comprehensive yet succinct look at the Middle East, because it does cover so many topics.

As a reader I have known more than one time in my life that very special pleasure of meeting a book, that lifts one spirit and one's mind, seems to put one in another higher realm entirely, and gives a kind of intellectual joy which certainly must be among life's greatest pleasures. Reading and meeting again the mind of Bernard Lewis in "From Babel to Dragomans" is such a pleasure.
Collected in this work are essays of one of the great intellectual figures of this past half - century. Arguably the world's foremost authority on the Middle East ( and most especially the Ottoman Empire) Lewis in these essays displays not only a vast learning but a civilized and often quietly humorous writing which continually inform and delight. In the title essay he elucidates the concept of the ` dragoman' or ` meturgaman' the translator and in so doing also helps us better understand the way societies which contained within themselves a rich variety of cultures and languages operated . In his remarkable essay " A Taxonomy of Hatred" he gives perhaps the most skilled argument I have ever seen for valuing and considering ` the other'. And this as he analyzes and explains how the instinctual hatred that seems to come to us naturally as primates is refined into something more elegant and deadly in human civilizations. As one who has been involved in the study of the Islamic world for over sixty years he brings a fine sense of the transformations that world has gone through in his lifetime while balancing this against what seem almost inherent cultural patterns these societies cannot free themselves of . His analysis of the distinct identity Iran and Iranian civilization managed to preserve after the Arab onslaught swept aside the ancient cultures of Egypt, Syria and other Mid- East regions too enables us to understand the life- struggle that society is going through today between a narrow Islamic based fundamentalism and a broader richer conception of life and civilization.
The book is divided into three large sections, part one dealing with Past History, part two with what he calls " Current History" and Part Three "About History" In this latter section he makes a defense of the practice and teaching of history. He concludes , "Our education today should be concerned with the development of many cultures, in all their diversity: with the great ideas that inspire them and the texts in which those ideas are enshrined, with the achievements they made possible, and with the common heritage their followers and successors share.
"History is the collective memory , the guiding experience of human society, and we all badly need that guidance"
In this volume Lewis provides that guidance in a continually inspiring and uplifting way.
Who reads this volume will not only read a civilization , but a very great man indeed.

This latest book of Bernard Lewis is a collection of short stories he has written in the last decades, some very old some new. The stories spans a broad area: history of the middle east, Israel, Jihad, Arab Nationalism, Shi'a, United Nations, Islam phobia and more.

I have read his previous three books as well, and I really like the writing style of Bernard Lewis. He sure likes the Arab people he writes about and the cultural legacy they own, but that does not lead him to be uncritical of their society. Also the history in his stories sometimes tries to connect with current affairs. This can lead to interesting stories about the current Jihad suicide bombers and the ancient Assassin order. Or about the Islamic invasions in Europe and the later invasions of imperial Europe. It is also interesting to see what Bernard Lewis has writes long before everybody became interested in the Islamic world (long before 9/11), some are really prophetical...

Just as in his previous works Bernard Lewis writes in a friendly, objective and balanced style about history. To compare it with his previous works, it goes further than "What went wrong" and the "Crisis of Islam" and is not as dry as "The Middle East". Most stories are good, but not all, there is some repeating in the stories, but on a whole I enjoyed it very much and gained more insight in the Islamic world.

Bernard Lewis is perhaps the world's foremost scholar on the Middle East. He also, unlike many academics, has outstanding writing skills and is able to reach a wide audience. This particular book is not about a single subject. But rather is a collection of diverse essays written over a period of many years. Of course, some essays are more interesting and insightful than others. Also several of them come across as dated in respect to current events, such as those discussing Saddam Hussein, the threat of terrorism prior to 9/11, etc. Unfortunately, Bernard Lewis also supported the idea of taking military actions in Iraq and so some of his pre-war statements come across as profoundly misguided and not well thought out. Therefore I can't give this book the sort of "5 star" ringing endorsement that goes to his best works, such as "What Went Wrong?".

But still Lewis is so knowledgeable and astute about so many aspects of the Middle East that most of the book is well worth reading. The essays cover an enormous range of topics - for example, the Ottoman Empire, the historic conflict between Islam and Christianity and the current tensions between Israel and the Palestinians - all written about with expertise and insight. Readers can sharply increase their knowledge of the Middle East by this reading this as well as the many other excellent Bernard Lewis books.

Bernard Lewis is an accomplished researcher and scholar from Princeton. His volumes of books and scholarly publications have presented the western reader well-documented information on a region of the world that we must come to know and understand.

Most of the previous books written by Mr. Lewis are dedicated to a specific topic of the Middle-East. Some of the information is repeated in various formats throughout his books for essential purposes. However, in "From Babel to Dragomans", we find a compilation of book extractions, presentations, and research articles. The word 'dragoman' is loosely related to ambassadors. Therefore, based upon the title, one might be led to believe that the book would cover topics on diplomacy within the Islamic world and its relations with non-Islamic nations. Instead, we find non-contiguous essays on varying topics.

The book is divided into three major sections. It starts off with an overview of Islamic history and a study of linguistics within Arabic and the European languages. It then moves on to covering numerous topics that were previously presented in articles and/or book extractions. However, the issues and the timeframes he covers do not follow any set pattern, so there is a lack of continuity. The third major section includes thoughts on historical research of the region.

The positive aspect of the book is that it demonstrates the contributions of non-Arab influence within Islam, primarily from Iran and Turkey (Ottoman Empire). This point is significant since many in the west associate Islam primarily with the Arab countries.

If somebody has read several of Lewis' other books, this one will not provide any ground-breaking information, except the point made in the previous paragraph. This book will be beneficial for somebody looking for an in-depth study of Islam who has not read Lewis before.

This is a series of very readable short papers by a world expert on the history of the Middle East, though there is a certain amount of overlap or repetition in them. They are divided into three parts: "Past History" (some 250 pages), "Current History" (about 200 pages), and a part about History as a subject and about Islamic historiography (about 70 pages). One or two of the papers in the first part are perhaps rather specialized for the general reader. Others are summaries of histories that will not provide much new information to the general public (e.g. on the emergence of Modern Israel). Newspaper readers will have formed some idea of the differences between the Sunni and the Shi'ites; the article on the latter gives an exceptionally good account of them. Some chapters may give information even to people who are rather well informed about the Middle East: I, for instance, found the excellent chapter on Pan-Arabism telling me many things I did not know, among them that, although Egyptians speak Arabic, Pan-Arabists did not initially consider Egypt an Arab country, nor that, until the time of Nasser, did the Egyptians themselves describe themselves as Arabs. And how many of even assiduous newspaper readers know anything of the 19th century history of Lebanon, sketched out here in a short article?

The last section has a fascinating paper showing how originally `Turkey' was a western term: the Ottomans used the word `Turk' only as a word denoting an ignorant peasant (and in the West, too, it frequently carried the connotation of 'barbarian'), but not to identify the nature of their empire or of its ruling ethnic group. Here the Ottomans followed the traditions of Islamic history which never concerned itself with national or ethnic differences. It is only with the advent of nationalism in the 19th century that the idea of the Turks as a nation developed in response, first, to the nationalism in the Balkans, then (rather later) in the Arabic lands, and finally of course, when Turkey proper was all that was left of the Ottoman Empire.

In several of the papers Lewis refers to the almost total lack of interest shown by Islamic countries in the West until the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century and the expansion of Western power into the Middle East in the 19th century. Thereafter patchy efforts to modernize the Islamic world by copying western models, often slowed up by the rejection of western values by conservatives, were only partially successful and failed to stem the advance of western power in the Middle East. This has greatly contributed to fuelling the Islamic resentment of the West, which the main theme of the second part of the book.

However, Lewis points out that even the most anti-western regimes have adopted not only western technology, but in many Islamic countries also such institutions as parliaments. From the western point of view, the role of women in most Islamic countries is still very restricted; but seen against earlier periods of Islam, women have seen noticeable advances in emancipation and education.

Lewis' analysis of the past is often masterly; but it would have served his reputation as an analyst of future trends better if some of his papers had not been reprinted. In 1991, after the liberation of Kuwait and Bush Senior's unwillingness to follow this up with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Lewis believed that, since Russia was unable and the USA unwilling to play an imperial role in the Middle East, the governments there `will be able to make their own decisions'. An article first published in 1996, still before the second Gulf War, describes as a `most telling indication of the new era' the fact that the West was no longer interested in bringing about regime change in the Middle East. In 1991 Lewis did not foresee the oil-thirst of China and India and opined that `the West will more easily find other sources of energy than the oil-producing states can find other cash customers.'

On the other hand, some older papers anticipate much that has become common currency later: in a 1957 paper, Lewis several times uses the phrase and the concept of `A Clash of Civilizations' to explain the tensions between Islam and the West, a full forty years before the publication of Samuel Huntingdon's famous book of the same title. Astonishingly accurate, too, is the forecast in 1969, when Nasser was still President, that his successor might very well make peace with Israel - which Sadat did ten years later.

In one fascinating lecture Lewis asks (and answers) the question why the Arab-Israeli conflict attracts so much more world interest than the many inter-Arab and inter-Muslim conflicts, some of which have involved oppression, casualties and suffering on a far greater scale than in all the Arab-Israeli disputes put together.

The book is pervaded by Lewis' empathetic understanding of all sides in the Middle East. That does not mean that he cannot be very forthright in his judgments, as in his attitude to fanaticism, in his regret at a number of features of Islamic history and society, or in his description of the double standards that have become habitual at the United Nations, exemplified by the 1975 condemnation of Zionism as a form of racism, a resolution supported by a number of nations and groups who use anti-Zionism as a cloak for their own racist antisemitism. The official Arab media, after all, then as now, propagated the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and published cartoons that could have come straight out of the pages of the Stürmer.

Such criticisms has in recent years made Lewis the subject of some obloquy in the world of Islam, but the Arabic translator of one of his books described him as either a candid friend or an honourable enemy; and Lewis writes, 'I am content to abide by that judgment.'

This book is a collection of speeches and articles (most previously published) by Bernard Lewis, considered to be one of the world's foremost scholars on the Middle East. While he does not try to hide his personal thoughts and biases on issues (e.g. Israel), he presents everything with great erudition and scholarship. The subjects of these range from linguistics to religion to bibliography to, of course, history. Almost every aspect of Middle East studies is examined, as well as many discussions on other parts of the world. After reading the book you will have a much wider knowledge of the region, its peoples, history, culture, religions, etc. If I had to find faults with the book, I would say that there were two, nearly unavoidable, ones. First the articles cover a wide time-span, some are 60 years old! Of course that means the contents can be somewhat dated. Secondly, because these were all speeches and articles that were meant to stand alone, there is quite a bit of repetition of various materials. But nevertheless, I think this book is a must read for anyone who wants an insight into the Middle East.

This is a fine collection of articles by Bernard Lewis about the Middle East. Some are about past history, and some are about present history. And a few deal with history itself. Lewis explains that there will always be people who demand to falsify, fabricate, eradicate, invent, distort, or misuse history. But he says these people must be opposed, because otherwise they will win. And if we thus abandon history, we'll no longer be able to have a knowledge about the past, understand the present, or use that information to influence what happens next.

Perhaps my favorite of the articles was one from 1979 about the United Nations. It is at least as important today as it was then. Lewis explains that there is a religious sect called the Yazidis. They believe that there is a God and a Devil. They believe that God is good, and therefore won't cause them any trouble. But the Devil is evil and may do just that. So they offer almost all their prayers to the Devil, not to God.

And that is how Lewis describes the United Nations, where nations know that if they attack or offend the Arabs, that may be costly and risky. But if they attack or offend the United States and its policies, they risk nothing. Instead, they gratify America's enemies and win acclaim and respect from many American allies, as well as many Americans, American policy-makers, and a significant portion of the American media.

That article alone made this book worthwhile. And there are fifty articles in addition to it.