Now, Yves Daoudal posts a link to a petition drawn up by the faculty members of the ENS-LSH (Ecole Normale Sup'erieure-Science and Humanities Section) where Gouguenheim teaches. The petition is in three parts followed by the first signatories. Here are some excerpts:
(...) The methodological bases and theories of this book are debatable and are currently being debated by the community of experts of this period, historians and philosophers.
It is perfectly legitimate for a researcher to defend and justify his point of view, especially when it is unexpected and iconoclastic. It is then up to the specialists to respond to his arguments and to question them if need be. And so we intend to continue this intellectual debate in seminars to be held at ENS-LSH in the autumn of 2008.
Unfortunately, the affair appears to go beyond the simple expression of scientific theories. The work by Sylvain Gouguenheim contains a certain number of value judgments and ideological positions regarding Islam. It is currently being used as an argument by groups of xenophobes and Islamophobes who express themselves openly on the Internet. Furthermore, entire passages of his book were published at these blogs, almost word for word, several months before its release.
We also find on the Internet statements signed "Sylvain Gouguenheim" (a commentary at Amazon dated April 16, 2002) or "Sylvain G." (at Occidentalis, dated November 8, 2006). Now it is obvious, and we are certainly aware, that nothing that circulates on the Internet is automatically valid, but at the very minimum, these points merit an explanation, and if need be, an in depth inquiry. We are not at all convinced by the argument provided by Sylvain Gouguenheim to the Monde des Livres: "For five years I've been giving excerpts of my book to many different people. I have no idea what they did with them afterwards."
Note: Le Monde des Livres is the weekly literary supplement to Le Monde. Apparently Gouguenheim sent passages of his book to various people during the years when he was writing it. I made an attempt to find the two Internet sites mentioned above, without success. Occidentalis no longer publishes, but the site is supposed to be accessible. However I could not get beyond the home page. As for Amazon, I could not find anything except two of Gouguenheim's most recent books.
The ENS-LSH, a secular ("la"ique") institution, to which Sylvain Gouguenheim belongs and from which he draws, to a great extent, his legitimacy, cannot by remaining silent condone such declarations.
- We the teachers, researchers, students and alumni of the Ecole Normale Sup'erieure-Science and Humanities Section, solemnly affirm that the ideological positions taken by Sylvain Gouguenheim in no way reflect those of the members of his school.
- By keeping ourselves detached from corporative quarrels, personal conflicts and all manner of exploitation, we hope to forcefully reaffirm our attachment to the necessary distinction between scientific research and ideological passions.
- We demand an in-depth inquiry into the points mentioned above.
- We demand that all necessary measures be taken to preserve the pedagogical serenity and the scientific reputation of the ENS-LSH.
The petition does provide a link to a column by Pierre Assouline, a Moroccan-born writer and literary critic who has no fondness for the book. At his very popular blog, Assouline offers an incredible profusion of incriminations against Gouguenheim:
What are they accusing him of? Of presenting as an unknown fact things that were already well known: namely the role played by Jacques de Venise and the monks of the Mont-Saint-Michel Abbey in the translation of Greek texts into Latin. Of blowing out of proportion a presumably widespread notion (that Europe owes its knowledge to Islam) in order to better refute it, while no serious historian has ever claimed such a thing. Of being as systematically benevolent towards Latin sources as he is suspicious of Arabic sources. Of making of the Greek miracle the reason and absolute criteria of the hierarchy of civilizations. Of having over-valued the role of the Byzantine world. Of claiming to have revealed the role of Hunayn ibn Ishaq, the 9th century translator of Greek, while the importance of this Christian Arab has been studied many times. Of being mistaken when he affirms that John of Salisbury was a commenter or that the Syriacs translated the Organon in its entirety. Of having borrowed his title from an article by C. Viola published in 1967. Of underestimating the scholarly output of the Muslim Arabs, notably in mathematics and astronomy, between the 9th and the 13th centuries. Of confusing Muslim fundamentalism with Islamic civilization. Of postulating that on principle Arab/Muslim thought was incapable of reasoning ("rationaliser") since it was blocked by the revealed Word of the Koran. Of being ignorant (or feigning to be) of the fact that in the Middle Ages the name "Aristotle" designated both the philosopher's writings and those of his commenter Averro`es (Avicenna and Algazel as well) indissolubly tied to one another. Of not seeing that the Muslim Arabs not only transmitted but reinvented Aristotle. Of not seeing that without Cordoba, the Enlightenments of Paris and Berlin would never have received the Greek and Roman heritages as they did. Of being preemptory in his conclusions, when he doesn't know Greek or Arabic. Of ignoring in his bibliography and his acknowledgements those eminent specialists of medieval philosophy who contradict his theories. Of deliberately confusing "Muslim" and "Islamic" - in other words, religion and civilization. Of betraying his job as historian and of being at bottom an ideologue governed by fear and narrow-mindedness.
Assouline's post proceeds to question and condemn the book. He says that whereas Samuel Huntington (author of Clash of Civilizations) offers a political choice between two camps, Gouguenheim offers none:
We are European, therefore Christians, therefore Greeks. And so our history is irreconcilable with 14 centuries of Islam that led nowhere. CQFD.
As I said in my , I have not read the book. Even if I had, I would not be qualified to say that it is good or bad. One thing emerges clearly from the above discussion: Gouguenheim has not said anything that was not already known, although he may be in error on some points. Therefore the anger is aimed at something else, namely, the fact that he has apparently taken a firm stand in favor of the West, instead of according equal importance to both Islam and the West, and that he dares to use the first person plural "we", as if Europeans are a family. Not to mention the fact that he refuses to acknowledge that Europe was formed from the fusion of Islamic scholarship with the Greco-Roman heritage.
French readers who have an interest in this polemic can follow Assouline's links to articles by scholars critical of Gouguenheim: Gabriel Martinez-Gros, Julien Loiseau and Alain de Libera.
Le Conservateur and Le Salon Beige have articles favorable to Gouguenheim. For them, this is a "fatwa" issued by a Left that only knows how to censure and intimidate. And one reader's comment reminds us that even before the monks of Mont-Saint-Michel, the monks of Ireland were busy translating Greek texts.
However I leave the last word to Yves Daoudal:
A lot of gibberish for nothing. Just get rid of this bothersome fellow, tie him to the pillory with a sign "Islamophobe" tied around his neck. In the name of freedom of speech and historical research.
The famous painting of Aristotle contemplating a bust of Homer is from Artchive. I recommend the simple but lucid commentary by Sister Wendy.
