Taḥqīq vs. Taqlīd in the Renaissances of Western Early Modernity

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 193-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Melvin-Koushki

Abstract This essay reviews a major new study of European Renaissance Arabist-humanist philology as it was actually practiced, humanist neoclassicizing anti-Arabism notwithstanding. While definitive and philologically magisterial, that study nevertheless falls prey structurally and conceptually to the very eurocentrism whose ideological-textual genesis it chronicles. Situating it within the comparative global early modern philologies framework that has now been proposed in the volume World Philology and the present journal is a necessary remedy—but only a partial one; for that framework too still obscures the multiplicity of specifically genetically Western early modernities, thus hobbling comparative history of philology. I therefore propose a new framework appropriate to the study of Greco-Arabo-Persian and Greco-Arabo-Latin as the two parallel and equally powerful philosophical-philological trajectories that together defined early modern Western—i.e., Hellenic-Abrahamic, Islamo-Judeo-Christian, west of South India—intellectual history: taḥqīq vs. taqlīd, progressivism vs. declinism. But a broadened and more balanced analytical framework alone cannot save philology, much less Western civilization, from the throes of its current existential crisis: for we philologists of the Euro-American academy are fevered too by the cosmological ill that is reflexive scientistic materialism. As antidote, I prescribe a progressivist, postmodern return to early modern Western deconstructive-reconstructive cosmic philology as prerequisite for the discipline’s survival, and perhaps even triumph, in the teeth of totalitarian colonialist-capitalist modernity.

1994 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 582-586
Author(s):  
Basit B. Koshul

During the first three decades of this century, a lively debateemerged in western academic circles regarding the extent of theArab-Islamic influence on western civilization. Certain scholarsrejected the idea that the West had been influenced in any significantmanner by the classical Arab-Islamic civilization (ninth to twelfthcenturies CE). Barnes, in The Intellectual History of Mankind, arguesthat there is nothing in Islamic teachings or history that encouragedthe pursuit of learning and scholarship. Thus, he claimed, one cannotspeak of any "Islamic contribution" to western civilization. Sevier, inhis The Psychology of the Mussa/man, goes further and argues thatone cannot even speak of an "Arab" civilization, because all of theknowledge and scholarship produced in the classical age of Islamwere due to Syrian, Jewish, Hindu, and Persian efforts. It naturallyfollows that all talk of any Arab influence on the West is superfluous.Other scholars presented counterarguments and took the positionthat the Arab-Islamic influence on western civilization was very significant.Briffault, in The Making of Humanity, credits classical Islamicscholarship with producing the intellectual concepts and methods thatwere the indispensable preludes to the European renaissance. Sarton,in his Introduction to the History of Science, argues that the impact ofHindu and Chinese cultures on the West can be totally disregardedwithout seriously impairing one's ability to understand the postmedievalprogress of the West. But if the Arab-Islamic impact were tobe discounted, then the story of this progress would become confusedand unintelligible  ...


Author(s):  
David Randall

The changed conception of conversation that emerged by c.1700 was about to expand its scope enormously – to the broad culture of Enlightenment Europe, to the fine arts, to philosophy and into the broad political world, both via the conception of public opinion and via the constitutional thought of James Madison (1751–1836). In the Enlightenment, the early modern conception of conversation would expand into a whole wing of Enlightenment thought. The intellectual history of the heirs of Cicero and Petrarch would become the practice of millions and the constitutional architecture of a great republic....


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-65
Author(s):  
EMILY WEISSBOURD

This essay focusses on references to the sixteenth-century black poet and scholar Juan Latino in African American journals in the 1920s–1940s. Although Juan Latino is largely forgotten in the present day, publications such as the Journal of Negro History and the New Negro referred to the poet as an important figure in the intellectual history of the African diaspora. My essay posits Juan Latino (both the historical figure and an early modern play about him) as an alternative exemplar of blackness in early modern Europe to that found in Othello. By turning to Juan Latino instead of to Othello, scholars in the 1920s–1940s were able to suggest a transnational and transhistorical black diasporic identity linked with African American solidarity with the Republican cause in the Spanish Civil War.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia J. McKee

There survives an extraordinary letter of 1616 by the prominent English stage player, Nathan Field. His missive is one of the only extant apologies for the theater written by a player. Field’s letter is a response to a sermon preached by Thomas Sutton, and it richly characterizes Field’s relationship to his parish and to the larger ecclesial powers. This discussion shows how Field ironically employs the very charges often levied by opponents of theater—deception, emotional indulgence, and idolatry—to indict Sutton for a public attack he wielded against Field from the Sunday pulpit. Field’s apology is read within the context of the era’s antitheatricalist polemics, Jacobean politics, Reformation theology, and Field’s history as the son of a radical puritan preacher. The letter invites deep consideration of church and theater—preaching and playing—as competing kinds of performance. Field’s apology also focuses attention on a neglected area in theater studies—the history of players and playing in early modernity. What was an actor’s idea of himself at a time when his profession was redefined by religious reforms? Further, this discussion offers preliminary suggestions for an early modern aesthetics of performance by inviting a dialogue between the era’s extreme antitheatricalism and concurrent prescriptions for effective oratory.


Zutot ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-38
Author(s):  
Irene Zwiep

This short piece takes a longstanding problem from the history of ideas, viz. the use of contemporary concepts in descriptions of past phenomena, and discusses its implications for broader intellectual history. Scholars have argued that being transparent about anachronism can be a first step towards solving the issue. I would argue, however, that it may actually interfere with proper historical interpretation. As a case study, we shall explore what happens when a modern concept like ‘culture’ is applied to pre-modern intellectual processes. As the idea of cultural transfer is prominent in recent Jewish historiography, we will focus on exemplary early modern intermediary Menasseh ben Israel, and ask ourselves whether his supposed ‘brokerage’ (a notion taken from twentieth-century anthropology) brings us closer to understanding his work. As an alternative, I propose ‘bricolage,’ again a central analytical tool in modern anthropology but, as I hope to show, one with unexpected hermeneutical potential.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 1007-1021 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOEL ISAAC

The world of grand strategy is not one to which intellectual historians have devoted a great deal of attention. Matters of interstate economic competition and imperial rivalry have, of course, long been at the center of histories of early modern political thought. Yet, when these currents in the history of political thought narrow into nineteenth-centuryrealpolitik, and then turn toward the professionalized contemporary discourses of international relations and war studies, intellectual historians have, for the most part, left the matter to the experts. The strategic maxims of Clausewitz and Liddell Hart may fascinate IR theorists, political scientists, and military historians, but they seldom fire the imaginations of tender-minded historians of ideas. The two books under review challenge such preconceptions. They ask us to consider the history of Cold War strategic thought in a wider conceptual frame. Buried in the history of strategy, they suggest, are some of the central themes of postwar social and political thought.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document