As for Professor Emeritus Bernard Lewis, please refer to my previous postings （http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20120510）（http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20120519）（http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20120620）（http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20120830）（http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20120917）（http://pub.ne.jp/itunalily/?search=20519&mode_find=word&keyword=Bernard+Lewis）. (Lily)
Sandbox（http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox）
A scholar’s library at Shalem College, 29 March 2013
by Martin Kramer
Opinions are divided over the future of the printed book. Many believe it is destined to disappear. Already anyone with an iPad in a coffee shop has instant access to several million volumes—a massive library at one’s fingertips. It isn’t hard to imagine the printed book going the way of the cuneiform tablet.
But a book-filled library is fundamental to a college. To be surrounded by books is to feel part of the scholarly chain of transmission that links us to generations past. And it’s not just a matter of nostalgic ambience. There are vast numbers of books that aren’t yet freely available electronically, and that aren’t yet out of copyright. Between the older books in the Internet Archive, and the more recent offerings available through Amazon and other digital publishers, there are decades worth of books that just can’t be had without going to a library. Google Books will change that too, but it hasn’t yet. And when it comes to books in non-European languages, print still reigns.
So from the outset, my colleagues and I resolved that the new Shalem College in Jerusalem would have a respectable library on opening day, October 6, 2013. The core of that library has been provided to us thanks to the generosity of the great historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis.
Bernard Lewis needs no introduction to my readers. In addition to his own prodigious output of authored books on Islamic and Middle Eastern history, Bernard was an avid collector. His personal library, at the time he moved out of his Princeton home two years ago, came to 18,000 volumes. It was then that he sent his library to Tel Aviv University, to which he had promised it many years ago.
But he did so with a proviso: any book in his collection already possessed by Tel Aviv University’s library was to be passed on to the library of the fledgling Shalem College. And so the new college library has come into possession of many thousands of volumes, most dealing with the history of Islam and the Middle East, but also with many other aspects of medieval and modern history. It’s a splendid start for the library, especially as one of the first accredited degree programs in the new college is in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies.
For me, the arrival in Jerusalem of so large a part of Bernard’s library closes a circle. I was his student in Princeton in the late 1970s, when he held a dual appointment at the university and the Institute for Advanced Study. He had one of the largest offices at the Institute, and it was packed tight with his books. A few months after we met, Bernard invited me to the Institute, and proposed that I catalogue incoming offprints for a per-hour wage. (In the pre-internet age, scholars would send printed copies of their articles to one another, a method of dissemination that now seems as remote from us as the carrier pigeon.) He gave me the key to his office, and on evenings and weekends I would enter Aladdin’s cave, seat myself at his desk, and ponder what it must be like to be the most renowned historian of Islam in the world.
I also came to know his library quite well. I much preferred his office to the deepest basement floor of Firestone Library, where the university’s own Middle East collection resided, so I would bring my own work to his desk. And once every week or so, we would have lunch or tea, followed by a stroll in the Institute’s woods. We would then repair to his office, where he would select a shelf and begin a running commentary on the books it held—their relative place in the field, a bit of lore about the authors, and his take on the dedications. In those days, everyone sent everything to Bernard, and practically all of the books carried handwritten dedications. I recall some of his comments to this day. He once took in hand a book by his contemporary, the French Marxist (and rabidly anti-Israel) scholar Maxime Rodinson (who also happened to be Jewish). The dedication was quite admiring, which surprised me, given his politics. Bernard smiled with satisfaction: “He’s a scoundrel,” he said of Rodinson, “but I like him.”
When Bernard retired in 1986, he transformed the master bedroom of his home into a magnificent, light-filled library. His desk faced a wall of glass overlooking the grounds, and massive wooden bookshelves stood perpendicular to the walls. Even this addition didn’t suffice to contain the entire library, and the basement of the house was outfitted with shelves to handle the overflow. In a few of the bedrooms, every flat surface was likewise occupied by still more books. (Some sense of the library at his Princeton home is preserved by BookTV, which interviewed him there ten years ago.)
I feel privileged to have known Bernard’s library in both of its Princeton settings, but its two Israeli settings also do it justice. In January, Bernard visited Shalem College at my invitation, so that he could see the campus and especially the library: a two-tiered structure, featuring a large atrium-like gallery that provides ample room for books and for study. He selected the design of an ex libris plate to be placed in each volume, and I said some grateful words about his remarkable gift.
Now that we are deep into the digital age, few scholars will ever build so large a personal library. Bernard amassed his collection during the explosion of scholarly publishing that followed the Second World War, and before the advent of the Internet and ebook. Scholars in future won’t leave great collections behind, and in the libraries we do have, shelves will gradually yield to screens.
But scholars and students will always find inspiration in the physical book, for as the word “volume” suggests, the full appreciation of a scholarly achievement is much enhanced by an encounter with its heft. Book design is also evidence for past conventions that provide context for text, and the elegance of a well-designed book will always evoke pleasure. Bernard Lewis has given Shalem College a voluminous gift. When it is combined with the immense contribution represented by his scholarship, it secures his place in the pantheon of those who have nurtured the life of the mind in Jerusalem.
Martin Kramer accepts books from Bernard Lewis,
Shalem College, January 14, 2013.
Special Announcement | 619 | May 22, 2018
MEMRI Mourns The Passing Of Prof. Bernard Lewis, Renowned Professor Of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus At Princeton And Member Of MEMRI Board Of Advisors
MEMRI mourns the passing of Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies, Emeritus at Princeton University, renowned and highly influential historian of Islam and the Middle East, and longtime member of the MEMRI Board of Advisors. Prof. Lewis, who authored nearly two dozen books, was considered one of the greatest historians and interpreters of the region and the people of the Near East. His research interests included Islamic history and the contemporary Middle East, as well as the history of the Ottoman Empire and the history of the relations between Europe and Islam from early Ottoman to modern times.
He has been called "the West's leading interpreter of the Middle East," and had great influence with the George W. Bush administration on Middle Eastern affairs. Today, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Prof. Lewis "a true scholar and a great man" and added, "I owe a great deal of my understanding of the Middle East to his work." Prof. Lewis was a beacon for MEMRI's work, and, in 2007, stated: "MEMRI is the single most important development in Middle East Studies in the last 25 years."
(End)
PS2:
(https://www.memri.org/reports/arab-writers-renowned-historian-prof-bernard-lewis-1916-2018)
June 12, 2018
Special Dispatch No.7517
Arab Writers On Renowned Historian Prof. Bernard Lewis (1916-2018)
Following the death of preeminent historian and Middle East researcher Prof. Bernard Lewis of Princeton University, many articles were published in the Arab media about his activity and his attitude towards the Arab and Islamic countries. Most of the articles expressed opposition to him and his ideas, but quite a few praised him, stating that he possessed profound knowledge and a rational approach, that he was always an enlightening lecturer and was sympathetic towards Islam, and that he was one of the most important historians of the modern era. These writers also rejected claims by his critics, who stated that Lewis, as a Jew, had contributed to the alleged Western plan to partition the Arab world and to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, even while acknowledging that the Arab world had been disintegrating since the dawn of Muslim history.
The following are collected quotes from articles in the Arab media about Prof. Bernard Lewis:
Praise For Prof. Lewis: One Of The Most Important Historians Of The Modern Era
Lebanese journalist Nadim Qutaish told of his 2005 meeting with Prof. Lewis at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, and stated that it was Lewis who coined the term "clash of civilizations," not political scientist Samuel Huntington as is commonly thought. He wrote: "[Prof. Lewis] praised Islam for its legacy of tolerance and of recognition of the other, and called it 'one of the world's great religions... [that] has given dignity and meaning to drab and impoverished lives."[1]Such a statement is inconsistent with Lewis's reputation in the Middle East as a hater of Islam and the Muslims... and particularly not with his role in giving cultural weight to the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq, which was made without taking Bernard Lewis's opinion into account...
"Lewis never ceased to amaze, and to present questions challenging conventions. His most alarming question was: 'Most Muslims are not terrorists. But why are most terrorists Muslims?' Truly, why?"[2]
In an article titled "Bernard Lewis, Engineer of the Partition of the Middle East," Saudi journalist Muhammad Al-'Adadi wrote: "Lewis opposed the invasion of Iraq, and said so in more than one interview in the press and on television." Criticizing the argument that Lewis had contributed to the alleged plan to divide the Arab world, he wrote: 'The Arab and Islamic world has been dividing and crumbling since the meeting in the hut of the Banu Sa'ida, to this day,[3] [and this will continue] tomorrow, and this precedes Lewis, America, and Israel by centuries. This is because Islam provides fertile ground for the exploiting of its texts by all the political powers fighting [out of] lust for power and for control of the ummah [Islamic nation]. The most salient example of this is the Sunni-Shi'ite divide, which is nothing but the direct result of a blood feud over the seat of power between 'Ali and A'isha, and then between 'Ali and Mu'awiya, between Yazid and Hussein, and so on,[4] throughout Arab and Islamic history, to this very day...
"Thus, I largely agree with Bernard Lewis regarding the statements attributed to him, according to which the Arab countries are not structurally suited for democracy, because of the remnants of the past and the depth of the heritage of tyrannical control by means of exploitation of the region by all the elements, including by means of deadly weapons that certainly set back [the chance for future democracy] for decades, if not centuries. Proof of this may be the Arab Spring revolutions and their catastrophic results, that we witnessed in Libya, Syria, and Yemen...
"States' schisms, or unity, emanates from within, in accordance with the social, political, and historical makeup of each state – it is not caused by an academic named Bernard Lewis..."[5]
Saudi journalist Mamdouh Al-Muhaini, of Al-Arabiya TV, wrote: "...Bernard Lewis taught at the most important universities, and published important essays on Islamic heritage... He was blessed with profound historic knowledge and [the capability for] rational analysis. Some disagree with him, and have amended some of his conclusions. But he is a celebrated historian [who has nevertheless been called]... a fascist and imperialist... The [smear] campaign [against him] is preventing [Arab] societies from freely conducting intellectual debate and from accepting new ideas without prejudice, [thus] intensifying vituperation and invective, reinforcing the culture of conspiracy [theories], and [seeing] rational intellectuals with answers to our problems as traitors and agents... In this world, Lewis will remain forever one of the most important historians of the modern era."[6]
In an article in the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar, Jihad Al-Zain wrote: "Bernard Lewis... was one of the people [responsible] for my modest education. He was among those who encouraged me to adhere to a formula that has become fundamental for me – that when reading of any important writer, to refrain from connecting [what I am reading] to his political leanings or to some or all of the biases that drive his cultural instincts – [I do] the opposite...
"Despite Lewis's political criticism of the Arabs, [despite] his enthusiastic pro-Israel bias, and despite his harsh and even cruel statement that we [Arabs] are fundamentally inferior in our capability to adapt to modernity... one can also read his acknowledgement... of the effectiveness of the Palestinian Intifada...
"I call [on you the reader] to read him and afterwards to take any stand you wish. As a politician, Lewis was among the most enlightening of rivals... and like any true scholar, he [was] an enlightening and indispensable lecturer, and I recommend this type of rival."[7]
Anti-Lewis Writers: He Was A Zionist Who Contributed To The Disintegration Of The Arab States
Hani 'Asal, columnist for the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, wrote: "Bernard Lewis is dead, but his ideas will not die. Several days ago, the British-American writer, researcher, Orientalist, academic, and intellectual died at a New Jersey medical center, 12 days before his 102nd birthday. He left behind a complex world and a burning Middle East, exactly as he wished.
"The late Edward Sa'id did not exaggerate when he accused [Lewis] of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias, and of 'not understanding the Middle East as [well as] he thinks [he does].' Nevertheless, the West will continue to look upon us for [at least] the next century from this man's point of view – since what he wrote on the region is the ideological basis for the West's current policy and decisions vis-à-vis our countries, and there is little [of what he wrote] that has not yet been implemented in practice.
"The name and ideology of Lewis... are connected to the disasters in our Arab world since the 2003 Iraq war, through [the Arab Spring,] the wave of Arab ruin that began with flowers... in Tunisia and ended bitterly and thornily in Syria, Yemen, and Libya, which Egypt escaped, albeit temporarily. In his book Faith and Power,[8] he said of the peoples of the Middle East, 'Either we bring them freedom or they destroy us.' In another context, advising Western leaders, he said: 'Get tough or get out.'
"Thus he laid the first brick in the plan to invade the Arab region, plunder its resources, and split it into small states [based on] ethnicity – now in the name of spreading democracy, now in the name of the fight against terrorism. Also attributed to him is a well-known group of maps showing the large states in the region – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Sudan – partitioned into 20 parts. What has been implemented in Iraq, Sudan, and Syria follows these maps to the letter. Egypt specifically appeared in the Sykes-Picot II[9] map, split into four small states...
"Thanks to his Jewish origin and his fierce love for the State of Israel, Lewis had a pro-West bias all along, and supported its intervention [in the Middle East] in order to force freedom and democracy on the Arab and Islamic peoples. His views were the basis of the neoconservative stream in the U.S., particularly the group of hawks headed by George Bush Jr., his vice president Dick Cheney, [Deputy Secretary of Defense] Paul Wolfowitz, and others. Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's 'creative chaos' theory is a product of this thought...
"Bernard Lewis, rest in peace, as the Middle East is disintegrating and changing at the hands of its sons, not at the hands of others."[10]
Subhi Hadidi, a Syrian writer residing in Paris, wrote in the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi: "There is a difference between Lewis's deep delving into Islamic history, and his placing of his profound [knowledge] at the service of a racist imperialist plan like the Zionist entity in Palestine... He was born in Britain, then lived in the U.S. and earned citizenship there, and there he recently died – but in his will he requested to be buried nowhere else but Tel Aviv..."[11]
Saudi Shura Council member and journalist Muhammad Reda Nasrallah wrote in the Saudi Al-Riyadh daily: "When you type 'Bernard Lewis' into Google, you quickly see, spread out before you, information about his Zionist ideology that has since the end of World War II influenced academic research of issues in the Islamic East, especially of Turkey, and of the Arabs...
"Bernard Lewis compares the principle of Islamic justice with European democracy, which he thinks cannot exist in the Arab world... and can exist [in the Middle East] only in Israel. [Lewis] acquired this hoard of knowledge, and his tools for researching the history of the Near and Middle East, for the sake of its [Israel's] Zionist expansion...
"[Lewis] invested his vast research experience, for decades afterwards, in serving the [element] that took over the role of the British in the region [i.e. Israel] when he showed Torah-based and blatantly Zionist enthusiasm about it – in the stupid expectation of the pro-Zionist messiah's return to the land of Palestine!"[12]
Ahmad Al-Muslimani, Egyptian media personality and columnist for the Egyptian daily Al-Masri Al-Yawm, wrote: "Bernard Lewis lived and died an extremist – he was the jewel in the crown of immorality in world sociological thought, and spent his whole life in the service of the policy of aggression and imperialism. He never stood with the principles of good or love, and never humanely addressed the suffering of the peoples and the countries, but [approached them] as if he were in a chemistry lab concocting [his perceptions,] without a scrap of emotion.
"In his youth, he was a British intelligence officer in World War II, and his mission was to sow dissent in the colonial regions...
"His work is rife with arrogance and a low level of knowledge. In his book Power and Faith: Religion and Politics in the Middle East, he stated ignorantly yet with certitude that 'the period of British occupation in Egypt was the freest in all their multimillenial history before and after' [sic].[13] When he discussed the Crusader wars, he praised them and called them wars that were understandable, and that it was stupid to apologize for them!"[14]
[1] Bernard Lewis, "The Roots of Muslim Rage," The Atlantic (US), September 1990.
[2] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), May 25, 2018.
[3] A reference to the meeting held by supporters of the Prophet Muhammad after his death to discuss who would succeed him. See Islamstory.com/ar, August 29, 2017.
[4] A reference to the power struggles after the death of Muhammad between his third wife 'Aisha and 'Ali bin 'Abi Talib, the Fourth Caliph; between 'Ali and Mu'awiya, the first Umayyad caliph; and between Yazid son of Mu'awiya and Hussein bin Ali, son of Ali bin Abi Talib, who wanted to regain the caliphate for his family.
[5] Elaph.com, May 29, 2018.
[6] Alarabiya.net, May 23, 2018.
[7] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), May 24, 2018.
[8] A reference to Lewis's book Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East, Oxford University Press, 2010.
[9] The Sikes-Picot agreement, signed in 1916 during World War I by France and Britain, set out the parts of the Ottoman Empire that each of the superpowers would control at the end of the war. In this context, the writer is referring to the common Arab argument that the West has drawn up a new Sykes-Picot agreement dividing the countries of the region into smaller states based on ethnicity. See for example MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6461, On 100th Anniversary Of Sykes-Picot Agreement, Some Arab Writers Fear New Sykes-Picot Imposed By U.S., Russia; Others Argue That Internal Arab Strife Is The Real Danger, June 7, 2018.
[10] Al-Ahram (Egypt), May 23, 2018.
[11] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), May 25, 2018.
[12] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), May 23, 2018.
[13] Lewis actually wrote that he had "been assured by Egyptians, when no one else was around" that this was the case. Faith and Power, pp. 142-3.
[14] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), May 30, 2018.
(End)
＊PS1&2 were added by Lily on 17 April 2019.
