hut of wisdom

By Sweed Basher - historian

If Christians thought Greek learning was the work of the devil (which they did not - that is an ignorant slur) and as (only part of the holdings of) the Library of Alexandria was destroyed in 391, some centuries before the Arab conquest of Egypt in 639; and that the Christian Byzantine Empire ruled in Syria, Palestine and Egypt up to the time of the Arab conquest; how do you explain the survival of Greek learning at all, if Christians were unwilling to preserve it?

Modern historians place a heightened emphasis on the revival of links with Byzantium at the end of the 11th century in the process of translation and dissemination into W Europe. The Byzantines had never lost the knowledge of ancient Greek thought and learning (most of our finest versions of ancient texts are Byzantine Greek ones, not Arab versions). The old idea that everything was translated from Arabic in Spain has been seriously modified. Robert Grosseteste (one of the mythic European intellectuals you ask about) used Greek versions obtained probably from Southern Italy or Sicily.

I am afraid the Arabs were not the most intellectually forward of peoples before they conquered and absorbed the cultures of the Greek East. That is why the Dome of the Rock was built by Byzantine masons - they didn't know how to do it themselves. Now this is not to say that they never added to the knowledge they gained from the Greeks following their conquests - they certainly did. But it must be accepted that Arab learning (beyond their theology) is derived from that of the Greeks.

But the argument made in this review is that the Europeans were not as ignorant as is claimed. Bede knew the Earth was round, and described as such in De Temporum Ratione.

I think it would be fair to say that the reason that the intellectual effort of Europe was concentrated on theology in the centuries 500 - 900 is that this is where the culture of the time placed its greatest emphasis. For example, Arab astronomy developed from a need to accurately find the direction of Mecca. No such requirement acted as a spur to Christendom. Indeed in some aspects of achievement Europe was ahead of Islam, and would remain so - notably in the field of architecture. As for your statement that the 'advanced principles' of Greek mathematics were wrong and needed to be corrected, well Euclid stands as the foundation of all geometry, and his work needed no such 'correction'. Also, I must ponder, why if Arab science was so far advanced in the Middle Ages, did they meekly accept the Ptolemaic view of the universe? This is not a sneer at Arab learning - Copernicus only made the mental leap in the 16th cent. but the tired old idea that the Arabs had it centuries before the West just won't do. The real picture is a lot more complex and interesting; even if it does upset some pseudo-historical propaganda.

Oh and as for European thinkers, well I will start with Boethius, and add John the Scot and Anselm of Bec. I won't mention Abelard, Fulbert of Chartres or Anselm of Lyons, as they are a little late.

One thing is certain, once Europe had absorbed Greek learning in the century and a half following the First Crusade, Arab learning was overtaken. This is not jingoism, just fact. From Bacon to Aquinas Europe powered into the lead, intellectually - a position it still holds.

Bettany Hughes' documentary was very biased. For example the assertion that the artistic expressions, known as Courtly Love and the Troubadours, originate in Moorish Spain is highly contentious. It is one theory put forward, but is not a majority opinion by scholars in the field.

Also the inane attempt to argue that the Gothic architectural style derives from Islamic architecture is tenuous at best and certainly not as proposed in that travesty of an assertion. I suggest you read Wilson 'The Gothic Cathedral' to get a more realistic view of architectural history; it's a good place to start. The same warping of fact is true of her implication that Oxford University began as a direct result of one mans efforts to acquire translations of Arab texts. This makes no mention that the schools of Oxford had been growing in importance for many years prior to that - or that Paris had already developed a fully fledged university before the translations of texts really began. I must also add that the picture of Arabs being 'invited' to take over in Spain is far from the reality. Those Visigothic leaders, who could, escaped to the north of Iberia, from where they would eventually revive. Indeed the idea of happy coexistence in Moorish Spain is not the whole picture (leaving aside the crippling financial and legal discrimination for Christians and Jews), once the Almoravids conquered Alandalus, the Jews were driven out by ferocious persecution and sought sanctuary in the Christian kingdoms. (This latter b should really be born in mind when the 'bad' Christian attitude to Judaism in the Middle Ages is talked about, but that's another debate).

Hughs may be a historian - but she is no Medieval historian. In this field she is an amateur, and sadly one who seems to be on a mission to twist history for what seems to be a political agenda.

Finally maybe we should be told your religious faith, as you seem so quick to judge others? And your condemnation that a Christian is not capable of clear thought and unbiased conclusions is offensive and speaks of your bigotry, not that of the reviewers.

I also disagree with a little that the initial review said, although his questioning the significance of Adelard of Bath is valid, I feel it is over-stressed.