From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East

Rating:
Summary: The great lifework of one of our civilization's finest minds
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: The great lifework of one of our civilization's finest minds
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Worthy But Hardly Complete
Review: Bernard Lewis has been one of the most respected scholars on the history of the Middle East and Islam for the better part of the last four decades and deservedly so. "From Babel to Dragomans" is a collection of essays and articles from a variety of sources. They are, of course, quite good. Sadly, this collection cannot claim to be complete; there are some important pieces that are missing here. A better effort for a complete collection would have been worthy of this great scholar. Still, this is valuable work. Clearly more important than the popular "What Went Wrong," but perhaps not as good as the more focused "The Crisis of Islam." While hardly infallible, Professor Lewis remains the most reliable historical voice on Islam and Middle Eastern. affairs.

Rating:
Summary: I agree - all your favourite Lewis articles in 1 volume
Review: Bernard Lewis was the person who really invented the phrase the clash of civlisations and in a way very different from the notorious Samuel Huntington. Lewis's famous article is here along with most of your other favourite Lewis writings. Christopher Catherwood, author of CHURCHILL'S FOLLY: HOW WINSTON CHURCHILL CREATED IRAQ (Carroll and Graf 2004)

Rating:
Summary: Misguided, inaccurate, and dangerous
Review: Bernard Lewis, tutor of the likes of Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, recently appeared on Charlie Rose. He embarassed himself by continuing to support the completely discredited Ahmed Chalabi, insisting that WMD will be found, trying, once again, to connect Iraq and Al Qaeda, and voicing generally anti arab diatribes. He is an idealogue of the worst kind unswayed by facts and history. If you want to know the reality of the Middle East you won't find it in this book.

Rating:
Summary: A synthesis of decades of brilliant work.
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Fifty Years of Thoughts on the Muslim World
Review: If nothing else, more attention has been applied in the Western world to trying to understand the Muslim world in the time since 9/11 than at any other time. I doubt that this was an intended result of the attacks, but there are now dozens of books about the Muslin culture out now where before they would not have been published.

During this earlier time, there were certain scholars who did publish works on the Muslim culture. Berhard Lewis was one of these, and here has reprinted some 50 articles/essays that he wrote beginning in the 1950's. Because of the timespan, certain changes have taken place in the world that make some of the articles conflict with others. These points however are minor and understandable as thoughts change and mature over time.

I found this book to be much more useful than his best seller What Went Wrong. Perhaps the limitations of a short space to bring up conclusions made more sense to me. I still cannot claim a perfect, or even a good, understanding of the Muslim world. For instance, it is clear that a large number of people in the Muslim world hate the United States. It is also clear that a large percentage of people in the Muslim world would like to life in the United States.

This book presents a series of thoughts that can only help to generate the understanding that will be necessary if any kind of peace is going to happen. I can't recomment it too highly.

Rating:
Summary: An uneven but interesting collection of essays
Review: 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)

Rating:
Summary: Shock and awe for Lewis
Review: Lewis is a phenomenal scholar of the Middle East as historian and linguist. People want a single book, or at least a single author to rely on. Lewis should NOT be the one.

Lewis also over generalizes when it is convenient to his agenda and largely ignores over half the Muslim world that is Asian. As an "Orientalist" his tendency to conclude - rather ahistorically - that various things Islamic are implicit essential 'drives' of Islam is picked up by others wanting simple and quick answers and "wisdom".

Especially with modern subjects of the last century or two and topics concerning Israel or US Policy his bias is all too apt to become propaganda and lies of omission. Most of the "good" things that he has to write about Islam that might at first appear to contradict this conclusion are about the remote past and classical age of Islam. Even here is easily coaxed into misleading comments like those concerning the Assassins of the Middle Ages as roots of suicide bombers and terrorism.

A few examples follow: An essay on the foundations of Israel makes no mention of the King David Hotel, Irgun, Dier Yassin or Israeli terrorism of any kind. An essay on the first Gulf War repeats what are known to be lies about Saddam's readiness to invade Saudi (the US never showed the claimed satellite photos of hundreds of thousands of troops and independent satellite photos showed no such thing) that was the basis for US bases in Saudi. The Iranian revolution would appear to have been planned and managed solely by Khomeni entirely as a Fundamentalist revolution - which we know not to have been the case and which suggests numerous false conclusions. Discussing Islam and the West he somehow overlooks the essential example of Muhammad Ali (one should read Juan Cole's critique of "What Went Wrong?" on line also). The US is not "Imperialist" because Lewis defines the term narrowly while ignoring that the US has bases in 70% of the countries in the world as well as considerable control through the IMF and World Bank.

The infamous essay on Muslim "Rage" is simplistic sociology and horrid generalization that makes something specific to a time and place appear to be the essence of Islam exaggerating a tendency beyond recognition and excusing any responsibility of US policy (Huntington and others have made absurd further generalizations from this and it has driven some of US policy - a good example of the non expert relying almost exclusively on a highly slanted Lewis essay). He certainly knows better but leaves a reader thinking that traditionalist and fundamentalist are the same. The screed about attacks on 9-11 were because "they" hate our freedoms and way of life ignores the symbolic selection of the showcase financial and military control targets central to US policies rather than an attempt to take the most lives. Nor do any people organize attacks for such reasons alone. The US has still not seriously examined its policies as motivation for the attacks. Analogous to this is the "clash" argument that totally ignores the economic and military imperatives of US policies as well as any reexamination of the support for Israel. Lewis is not alone responsible for this but has been commonly used by those happy with this approach.

Lewis even goes so far - failing the 'laugh' test - as to suggest that the US is a largely impartial broker regarding the Palestinian issue. In doing so he inflates Israeli pride and ignores numerous inconvenient facts. That Israel on a per capita basis gets nearly ten times the US aid of the next country (Egypt) is perhaps not so important as additional favoritism, sharing military information, newer technology, intelligence and support for Israel against the UN and world community with its considerable nuclear arsenal of weapons of mass destruction on land, air, and sea. Nor are Likudniks advising the President an issue for Lewis although Perle even recommended policies of aggression, settlement, and thumbing its nose at the world community.

Essays on the very early period tend to be better, the two on the Fatimids are quite good. Reasonable people may disagree but his promoters exaggerate more than a little to call Lewis a national 'treasure' when he may be more a national 'danger'. I'm awed at his knowledge and shocked by his abuse of it.

Rating:
Summary: Superb background info for students of the Middle East
Review: 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.