<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Profound and interesting academic introduction
Review: A superb review of the subject. I thought I knew a bit about the translation movement into Arabic through Syriac, but Gutas showed me I knew nothing almost. Very deeply researched, by an editor of Brill's Mediaeval Greek and Arabic lexicon. There can be few scholars with such a grasp of Greek-Arabic translation, or of Arabic translations of Greek works. He demolishes some old myths - the idea that Ma'mun's "Bait al-Hikma" in Baghdad was anything other than a library is shown to be baseless speculation, for example - and provides us with a view of the translators that I'd have thought impossible before. The analysis of what was translated was most interesting.
Who knows who "Jake", "Kevin" and the anonomous reader are! I see they - or he, as I suspect - have only done a single review apiece. If "they" are really disappointed by the work, it would be helpful if "they" did a fuller review of the book to let us what in "their" view the book's weaknesses are, supported by the text, if possible. I suspect however that it's Professor Gutas' public opposition to the damage to Iraq's cultural heritage resulting from the war in Iraq that's "their" issue.
I thought the book interesting enough, by the way, to give a copy to my mediaevalist sister-in-law as a present.
Rating:
Summary: response
Review: Dear Duller than a butter knife, it's a book for specialists in the field. Why did you buy it if you weren't a specialist in the field?As for the second post, on page 13 Gutas writes, "arguably the most important factor for the spread of knowledge in general was the introduction of paper making technology into the islamic world..." Gutas reads English, French, German, Greek, Arabic, Turkish, and a few other languages. While you may not like his work, I believe the charge that he isn't a scholar is a bit far-fetched.
Rating:
Summary: response
Review: Dear Duller than a butter knife, it's a book for specialists in the field. Why did you buy it if you weren't a specialist in the field? As for the second post, on page 13 Gutas writes, "arguably the most important factor for the spread of knowledge in general was the introduction of paper making technology into the islamic world..." Gutas reads English, French, German, Greek, Arabic, Turkish, and a few other languages. While you may not like his work, I believe the charge that he isn't a scholar is a bit far-fetched.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but myopic
Review: Filled with detail regarding books translated by people living under Abbasid rule, Gutas omits any reference to the contemporary revolution in paper manufacture. Surely, he would agree the 90% drop in writing material costs contributed to the blossoming of book publication (if still hand written). Additionally, Gutas fails to mention the education of scribes nor the practice of reading the Koran and Hadif. Instead, the focus is almost entirely on the intellect. Little Gutas considers has temporal context. The Abbasid debates over Aristotle could just as easily taken place in the Alexandria of Ptolemy. There is a valuable, but limited discussion of Muslim evangelism and interactions between Muslim rulers and Christian sects. I would have appreciated more. Gutas argues that the motivation for translation emerged from the Abbasid need to assimilate the Persian (Sassanid) Empire. The primary influence in the Sassanid tradition was Zoroastrian philosophy and its globalism. While this is entirely plausible, it strikes me as exaggerated. Additionally, the logic gets a bit twisted as it develops. By the end of the book, the conjectured Sassanid influence has made Aristotle, not Zoroaster, the prime focus of philosophical attention. Though far broader in stroke, a much better analysis of the translation movement can be found in "Paper Before Print: The History and Impact of Paper in the Islamic world"
by Jonathan M. Bloom
Rating:
Summary: Gutas a First-Rate Scholar
Review: The reviews below under the headings "Jake" and "Duller" demand a response -- not because they are negative, but because they are false and misleading. "Jake" claims that "Gutas is not a Near Eastern Studies specialist, so he is not qualified as an author." The truth is that Gutas is chair of the Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Department of Yale University. "Duller" asserts that intelligent people know that Gutas is not a scholar. The truth is that Gutas is one of the foremost scholarly experts in the world on the medieval Graeco-Arabic translation movement. Readers may disagree with Gutas's conclusions, and non-specialists may find his subject matter obscure (though it has profound relevance to modern issues), but surely Gutas's scholarly credentials as an expert in this field are above dispute.
Rating:
Summary: Gutas a First-Rate Scholar
Review: The reviews below under the headings "Jake" and "Duller" demand a response -- not because they are negative, but because they are false and misleading. "Jake" claims that "Gutas is not a Near Eastern Studies specialist, so he is not qualified as an author." The truth is that Gutas is chair of the Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Department of Yale University. "Duller" asserts that intelligent people know that Gutas is not a scholar. The truth is that Gutas is one of the foremost scholarly experts in the world on the medieval Graeco-Arabic translation movement. Readers may disagree with Gutas's conclusions, and non-specialists may find his subject matter obscure (though it has profound relevance to modern issues), but surely Gutas's scholarly credentials as an expert in this field are above dispute.
Rating: 
Summary: AWFUL
Review: The worst book I have ever read in my life. Joseph Cummings is actually the author in disguise, don't be fooled, readers. This book will disgust you with its inaccuracies and poor scholarship.
Rating:
Summary: Duller than a Butter Knife
Review: This book is absurd. The author is very self-satisfied and thinks that he is a scholar. Intelligent people know better! He is writing about such an obscure subject, who even cares? When I was finished with this book, I donated it to a prison! Dimitri Gutas is the worst writer in the entire world, ancient or modern.
Rating:
Summary: Pathetic
Review: Unbelievably horrible. Pathetic. Moronic. These are the only words that I can use to describe Dimitri Gutas' book. The book is supposedly for specialists in the field, but Gutas is not a Near Eastern Studies specialist, so he is not qualified as an author. Seek out other authors for a scholarly account of the Graeco-Arabic translation movement. As for this book: Tear it to shreds. Throw it in a swimming pool and leave it to drown. Bury it under ground. It doesn't deserve to be published or read by anyone. Absolutely dreadful. Ridiculous. Hateful. Dimitri Gutas is the poorest excuse for an author and a scholar.
Rating:
Summary: Pathetic
Review: Unbelievably horrible. Pathetic. Moronic. These are the only words that I can use to describe Dimitri Gutas' book. The book is supposedly for specialists in the field, but Gutas is not a Near Eastern Studies specialist, so he is not qualified as an author. Seek out other authors for a scholarly account of the Graeco-Arabic translation movement. As for this book: Tear it to shreds. Throw it in a swimming pool and leave it to drown. Bury it under ground. It doesn't deserve to be published or read by anyone. Absolutely dreadful. Ridiculous. Hateful. Dimitri Gutas is the poorest excuse for an author and a scholar.
<< 1 >>
| 
