Where are the Arabs?

I usually have trouble reading summaries of histories or historical movements because I see things that are omitted that I think are hugely important. In the case of this introduction, I’m left asking, “Where are the Arabs?” Bizzell and Herzberg did a lot with the few pages they allocated to this “Introduction,” but they didn’t really discuss the Arab contribution to rhetoric and learning.

I was a history major (as well as English) as an undergrad, and took a few Western Medieval History classes. If it wasn’t for Arab thought, Arab translations of ancient Greek and Roman texts, and Arab contributions to the study of education, European thought would have been a bit different. The editors do note that the Crusades led to the “introduction into Europe of Arab scholarship on classical learning, especially the teachings of Aristotle” (439). However, beyond “the contact with classical learning facilitated by the Crusades” (439), the editors don’t actually mention what Arab scholarship said or how it affected European thought. This is a gross inadequacy of this text. Unfortunately, I am too far removed from my undergraduate course to recall specifics of what we read, and also unfortunately not home to consult my history texts, so I cannot do much better than the editors in illuminating this relationship right now.

When I read the lines quoted above, I become pretty upset. The Crusades, perhaps one of the most atrocious acts, lasting four centuries, committed by Europeans, is exalted by these editors (though subtly) as a means towards reintroducing Europe to the European tradition.

As I began reading this introduction, I was actually pleased with how fair the editors seemed, especially in comparison to Murphy’s book, which I found very ethnocentric at times (in specific, I am thinking of his description of “the fifth Christian century” [Murphy 50]). However, I think it’s a huge injustice to the Medieval period to exclude discussion of Arab thought and influence.

While I’m on my “we need to be inclusive” high horse, I’ll also point out the editors’ treatment of pagans, whose “incursions plagued Europe” (438) despite the fact that the pagans constituted, at times, half of Europe. Bizzell and Herzberg make the Christian-Greco-Roman-centric assumption that Europe, throughout history, is defined by only the parts that are under Greek influence, the Roman empire, or Christian (depending on the era). I am not asking for a discussion of pagan influence on the rhetorical tradition (because perhaps it was minimal or nonexistent), but rather a fair treatment of pagans, who probably “plagued” the Christian parts of Europe no more than the Christian parts of Europe “plagued” each other.

When (if?) I get some time, I’ll try to post some stuff on the blog about Arab influences on Medievel European thought.