An interesting take, but if I may, two points, even though I have more to say about the factual background here, perhaps in another time.
(1) Arab-Muslim are not interchangeable terms. A lot of the Christian translators from Syria (I think of the likes of Yehia Ibn Adi) are Arabs through and through and to a large extent part of the Muslim world, not the (then small) Christendom. A lot of the Muslim theologians and philosophers in the Muslim world actually aren't Arabs, they participate in it in virtue of their geography and shared language. You gave the example of the Persians - but what is fundamental there is that the learned language of this world was Arabic. This is important, because self-identification on religious grounds is rather different than what constitutes the environment in which one operates.
(2) While I think your defense of the, what is now called, the Carolingian Renaissance, and separately the Byzantine heritage is commendable, I think both miss a key feature that made the Muslim world the (largely) more authentic continuation of the Hellenic culture: not dogmatic teachings, but interpretations and development the sciences. In those terms, largely speaking, the Muslim world managed to produce significant advancements in Medicine, Astronomy, Philosophy, Grammar, History, Music and many other fields that were largely stagnated in the west. Algebra in particular which you down play into an import of Arabic Numerals and nothing original was actually further developed in the Islamic world at the time. It is indicated even by the so-called 13th century Renaissance in Europe that largely dependent on steady translations and transmissions from the Muslim world. No Al-Farabi, no Aquinas.
This is without mentioning the long, too long, list of works that survived to us either exclusively in Arabic, or else were stored in the west but lost to the intellectual endevour, weren't read or at least developed or commented on. This indeed includes important works by Aristotle, Plato, etc down to lesser known commentators such as Alexander of Aphrodisia or Proclus. Availability, circulation and actual work being done is key in preserving the sciences.
Every single sentence in your comment is not only demonstrably wrong, but also I showed how it's wrong and gave the sources explaining it. I really don't think you even read the piece.
I read it twice. It happens to be one of my fields of expertise. I was being courteous and generous, but a lot more could be said about the rather conservative orientation of Byzantine teachings (that was only really influential when its scholars arrived at the west in the 14th and 15th centuries), and the very limited scope of the Carolingian Renaissance.
What you primarily did in your post is offering a nice genealogy for the contemporary historiographic narrative, supplemented by two anecdotes from the preservation in the Latin world. To do the argument justice you'd also have to actually demonstrate that it is wrong. Almost every assertion of that nature in your argument about Muslim science is questionable to say the least, and lacks the comparative element with the "west".
OK, just give me one example of Islamic transmission of classical works that I didn't cite. There probably are a few out there, so just give me one. That helps me more than general hand-waving.
As I said, it is not just about mere transmission, knowledge isn't something you preserve by perpetuating in small, largely intellectually stale, monasteries. A case and point would be Aristotle's prior and later analytics. While we do have their Greek original, nobody in the west was even remotely interested in further pursuing and developing it as a proper science until the translations from Arabic came around the 12th century. The same can be said for many important works of Aristotle. Again, I would strongly stress that the fact that knowledge is something you develop, something that almost didn't happen (in comparison) in the Carolingian Renaissance, and happened much less, and to a lesser scale, in the Byzantine empire. Again, you should really understand the dynamics in Paris and Padua in the 12th century to see just how significant the Arabic sciences (meaning, the development, and not mere preservation of texts) was. It is virtually everywhere in the prime figures such as Aquinas, Abelard, Scotus etc. But also in the very school structure of place like Paris - where until the emergence of the theology faculty, what was largely taught was Arabic science.
But to your point - Galen appears in your post only in the quotations. It is rather important that even today, some works by Galen we have only in Arabic and not in Greek. Galen of course is not simply "Medicine", but anatomy, pharmacology, the theory of humors, etc. Again, to say nothing of the significant contribution of people like Avicena that you don't even mention. A lot of your post that is dedicated to the translation and preservation of major works entirely misses the point. I could also refer to Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentaries that survived only in their Arabic form, containing also information and summary of Aristotle's works that we simply lost, not to say the important role his commentaries have played in medieval science. This also goes for lesser figures that were translated, as a science is composed not only of the "big names" but also the people who develop and keep alive. For instance, I don't know that I'd know half as much as I know about Theophrastus without the Arabic citations and discussions - and this is a body of work that otherwise is largely lost.
We are in agreement, my piece is not "Here's why Arabic-language scholarship sucks." I'm a great admirer and regular reader of many Arab greats including not just the most famous scholars, but also others less so like Al-Masudi and Al-Baladhuri.
My piece is "No, Muslim Scribes & Translators Didn't Save the Graeco-Roman Legacy." And they didn't. The vast majority of the Classics we have available come from either the Western copyists (Carolingian route) or the Eastern copyists (Byzantine) with a smattering of new findings in Herculanum and such, and very, very few Arabic translations not otherwise available in the original. Even examples that you cite, like Galen and Theophrastus, are, as you know, mostly preserved in the original and those works that we don't are frequently of dubious authorship and have no clear chain of transmission. Very few works of Aristotle, for example, are lost, and that is a testament to the efforts of Byzantine scholars, almost exclusively.
Arabic-language scholarship is valuable in itself. People like Avicenna, Ibn Khaldun and so many others are great scholars by themselves, not because they served as vessels to bring the glories of the Classics to us. Because, mostly, they didn't, and the allegation that they did is flat wrong.
I think you're right and we're approaching an agreement, although I suspect the gap is still quite wide. I'd understand if you wouldn't want to prusue this further. I think, generally, that you view the presevation of the Greco-Roman heritage in terms that stem from the western Renissance, and this is also why I disagree with your overall claim that the Muslims didn't save the Greco-Roman legacy, because as far as I'm concerned, they did.
Saving the classical heritage, even according to Renissance standards, isn't simply to preserve extant texts by copying them. To be extant somewhere in a remote corner of the empire until there will come a time in which people will consider that it might be a good idea to study them and develop their understanding. The Greek texts especially are the foundation of science, and in medieval times doing science was virtually equivalent to learning the Greek texts, interpert them, write commentries, and even repudiate their conceptions from time to time. In this particular sense we can talk about a development of science, and the Greek heritage, largely as an endevour of the Muslim world up until the 12th century.
Now, this is significant since texts of this sort, if we're right about their character, can't really be understood any other way. Those are not poetry or epic books (putting aside for the moment the particular understanding of the latter that re-emerged during the Renissance). If the Muslims wouldn't have developed them, it is practically unimaginable that the Scholastic science would develop as it did and create the fundamental motivations and concepts that will allow the emergence of the Renissance - those texts would have stayed in the the libraries of monasteries and for good reason.
As for Theophrastsus almost nothing is preserved in the original, and Gelen only about 80% if my rough estimation is correct - and during the middle ages most of them were known to Christindom only as translations from the Arabic. A lot, if not most of Aristotle's texts have been lost to us, I'd estimate, an overwhelming majority.
I found your title and your demonstration not coherent and misleading - You explain that Arab translator had a lesser impact that said - but still quite significant per your demonstration, and even more significant when you take into account the whole Muslim world (Spain to Central Asia). Quick Take: No, Muslim Scribes & Translators Didn't Save the Graeco-Roman Legacy alone - wouldn't it be more accurate ? I refer people to the Translation movement videos by the authors that you quote...
The version of events I heard came more from Andalusia, where Jewish and Muslim scholars translated and exported back many classical works into Europe, is there a truth in this one?
No truth to that one, either, the Andalusians were so ignorant of the Greek language that the Byzantines had to leave Greek translators in Cordoba to help them understand the gift at the center of the essay I quote in the second footnote ("Bang For His Buck: Dioscorides as a Gift of the Tenth-Century Byzantine Court"), a book by Dioscorides that, already in the early 10th century, nobody could read in what supposedly was the most scholarly city in Europe at the time (of course, if was nothing of the sort). Hard to translate if you can't read.
The Andalusian Caliphate was also extremely intolerant. The Caliph at the time of the Dioscorides embassy, Abd Al-Rahman III, was a famous torturer and killer of Christians, and female genital mutilation became all the rage in Al Andalus around this time.
I found this article to be well written and researched, it really helped to put things in perspective and clear up matters on this particular subject. I also appreciate that you mentioned chess and Indian numerals, the same thing is true about stringed instruments and the arts in general. Although stringed instruments certainly existed in the Middle East, many came from up in Central Asia, ancient Persia as well as had also been a part of ancient Europe. Evidence in Greece dating back 3500 of more years, Hallstatt culture and the British Isles 2500 to 3000 years roughly. There is also some evidence of 5000 year old Neolithic stringed instruments found in the area of modern day Italy. Anyway I may be digressing a bit, but the point is the early Muslims or Moors most certainly didn’t have a copyright on culture, something that is sometimes pushed by some scholars and fringe groups. Thanks for the article.
But, but, but I learned it the way many Americans did, at the renowned learning center known as Spaceship Earth, EPCOT, Disney World: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lvMJw81CAGg&t=341 😂
An interesting take, but if I may, two points, even though I have more to say about the factual background here, perhaps in another time.
(1) Arab-Muslim are not interchangeable terms. A lot of the Christian translators from Syria (I think of the likes of Yehia Ibn Adi) are Arabs through and through and to a large extent part of the Muslim world, not the (then small) Christendom. A lot of the Muslim theologians and philosophers in the Muslim world actually aren't Arabs, they participate in it in virtue of their geography and shared language. You gave the example of the Persians - but what is fundamental there is that the learned language of this world was Arabic. This is important, because self-identification on religious grounds is rather different than what constitutes the environment in which one operates.
(2) While I think your defense of the, what is now called, the Carolingian Renaissance, and separately the Byzantine heritage is commendable, I think both miss a key feature that made the Muslim world the (largely) more authentic continuation of the Hellenic culture: not dogmatic teachings, but interpretations and development the sciences. In those terms, largely speaking, the Muslim world managed to produce significant advancements in Medicine, Astronomy, Philosophy, Grammar, History, Music and many other fields that were largely stagnated in the west. Algebra in particular which you down play into an import of Arabic Numerals and nothing original was actually further developed in the Islamic world at the time. It is indicated even by the so-called 13th century Renaissance in Europe that largely dependent on steady translations and transmissions from the Muslim world. No Al-Farabi, no Aquinas.
This is without mentioning the long, too long, list of works that survived to us either exclusively in Arabic, or else were stored in the west but lost to the intellectual endevour, weren't read or at least developed or commented on. This indeed includes important works by Aristotle, Plato, etc down to lesser known commentators such as Alexander of Aphrodisia or Proclus. Availability, circulation and actual work being done is key in preserving the sciences.
Every single sentence in your comment is not only demonstrably wrong, but also I showed how it's wrong and gave the sources explaining it. I really don't think you even read the piece.
I read it twice. It happens to be one of my fields of expertise. I was being courteous and generous, but a lot more could be said about the rather conservative orientation of Byzantine teachings (that was only really influential when its scholars arrived at the west in the 14th and 15th centuries), and the very limited scope of the Carolingian Renaissance.
What you primarily did in your post is offering a nice genealogy for the contemporary historiographic narrative, supplemented by two anecdotes from the preservation in the Latin world. To do the argument justice you'd also have to actually demonstrate that it is wrong. Almost every assertion of that nature in your argument about Muslim science is questionable to say the least, and lacks the comparative element with the "west".
OK, just give me one example of Islamic transmission of classical works that I didn't cite. There probably are a few out there, so just give me one. That helps me more than general hand-waving.
As I said, it is not just about mere transmission, knowledge isn't something you preserve by perpetuating in small, largely intellectually stale, monasteries. A case and point would be Aristotle's prior and later analytics. While we do have their Greek original, nobody in the west was even remotely interested in further pursuing and developing it as a proper science until the translations from Arabic came around the 12th century. The same can be said for many important works of Aristotle. Again, I would strongly stress that the fact that knowledge is something you develop, something that almost didn't happen (in comparison) in the Carolingian Renaissance, and happened much less, and to a lesser scale, in the Byzantine empire. Again, you should really understand the dynamics in Paris and Padua in the 12th century to see just how significant the Arabic sciences (meaning, the development, and not mere preservation of texts) was. It is virtually everywhere in the prime figures such as Aquinas, Abelard, Scotus etc. But also in the very school structure of place like Paris - where until the emergence of the theology faculty, what was largely taught was Arabic science.
But to your point - Galen appears in your post only in the quotations. It is rather important that even today, some works by Galen we have only in Arabic and not in Greek. Galen of course is not simply "Medicine", but anatomy, pharmacology, the theory of humors, etc. Again, to say nothing of the significant contribution of people like Avicena that you don't even mention. A lot of your post that is dedicated to the translation and preservation of major works entirely misses the point. I could also refer to Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentaries that survived only in their Arabic form, containing also information and summary of Aristotle's works that we simply lost, not to say the important role his commentaries have played in medieval science. This also goes for lesser figures that were translated, as a science is composed not only of the "big names" but also the people who develop and keep alive. For instance, I don't know that I'd know half as much as I know about Theophrastus without the Arabic citations and discussions - and this is a body of work that otherwise is largely lost.
We are in agreement, my piece is not "Here's why Arabic-language scholarship sucks." I'm a great admirer and regular reader of many Arab greats including not just the most famous scholars, but also others less so like Al-Masudi and Al-Baladhuri.
My piece is "No, Muslim Scribes & Translators Didn't Save the Graeco-Roman Legacy." And they didn't. The vast majority of the Classics we have available come from either the Western copyists (Carolingian route) or the Eastern copyists (Byzantine) with a smattering of new findings in Herculanum and such, and very, very few Arabic translations not otherwise available in the original. Even examples that you cite, like Galen and Theophrastus, are, as you know, mostly preserved in the original and those works that we don't are frequently of dubious authorship and have no clear chain of transmission. Very few works of Aristotle, for example, are lost, and that is a testament to the efforts of Byzantine scholars, almost exclusively.
Arabic-language scholarship is valuable in itself. People like Avicenna, Ibn Khaldun and so many others are great scholars by themselves, not because they served as vessels to bring the glories of the Classics to us. Because, mostly, they didn't, and the allegation that they did is flat wrong.
I think you're right and we're approaching an agreement, although I suspect the gap is still quite wide. I'd understand if you wouldn't want to prusue this further. I think, generally, that you view the presevation of the Greco-Roman heritage in terms that stem from the western Renissance, and this is also why I disagree with your overall claim that the Muslims didn't save the Greco-Roman legacy, because as far as I'm concerned, they did.
Saving the classical heritage, even according to Renissance standards, isn't simply to preserve extant texts by copying them. To be extant somewhere in a remote corner of the empire until there will come a time in which people will consider that it might be a good idea to study them and develop their understanding. The Greek texts especially are the foundation of science, and in medieval times doing science was virtually equivalent to learning the Greek texts, interpert them, write commentries, and even repudiate their conceptions from time to time. In this particular sense we can talk about a development of science, and the Greek heritage, largely as an endevour of the Muslim world up until the 12th century.
Now, this is significant since texts of this sort, if we're right about their character, can't really be understood any other way. Those are not poetry or epic books (putting aside for the moment the particular understanding of the latter that re-emerged during the Renissance). If the Muslims wouldn't have developed them, it is practically unimaginable that the Scholastic science would develop as it did and create the fundamental motivations and concepts that will allow the emergence of the Renissance - those texts would have stayed in the the libraries of monasteries and for good reason.
As for Theophrastsus almost nothing is preserved in the original, and Gelen only about 80% if my rough estimation is correct - and during the middle ages most of them were known to Christindom only as translations from the Arabic. A lot, if not most of Aristotle's texts have been lost to us, I'd estimate, an overwhelming majority.
I found your title and your demonstration not coherent and misleading - You explain that Arab translator had a lesser impact that said - but still quite significant per your demonstration, and even more significant when you take into account the whole Muslim world (Spain to Central Asia). Quick Take: No, Muslim Scribes & Translators Didn't Save the Graeco-Roman Legacy alone - wouldn't it be more accurate ? I refer people to the Translation movement videos by the authors that you quote...
The version of events I heard came more from Andalusia, where Jewish and Muslim scholars translated and exported back many classical works into Europe, is there a truth in this one?
there were many universities in the christian kingdoms that translated many arabic manuscripts but andalusians weren’t really arab
think i read similar in a biography of Maimonides
No truth to that one, either, the Andalusians were so ignorant of the Greek language that the Byzantines had to leave Greek translators in Cordoba to help them understand the gift at the center of the essay I quote in the second footnote ("Bang For His Buck: Dioscorides as a Gift of the Tenth-Century Byzantine Court"), a book by Dioscorides that, already in the early 10th century, nobody could read in what supposedly was the most scholarly city in Europe at the time (of course, if was nothing of the sort). Hard to translate if you can't read.
so toleration is in inverse relations to literacy?
The Andalusian Caliphate was also extremely intolerant. The Caliph at the time of the Dioscorides embassy, Abd Al-Rahman III, was a famous torturer and killer of Christians, and female genital mutilation became all the rage in Al Andalus around this time.
It's nothing more than an attempt to claim history in their favor.
Doubt debunkings
I found this article to be well written and researched, it really helped to put things in perspective and clear up matters on this particular subject. I also appreciate that you mentioned chess and Indian numerals, the same thing is true about stringed instruments and the arts in general. Although stringed instruments certainly existed in the Middle East, many came from up in Central Asia, ancient Persia as well as had also been a part of ancient Europe. Evidence in Greece dating back 3500 of more years, Hallstatt culture and the British Isles 2500 to 3000 years roughly. There is also some evidence of 5000 year old Neolithic stringed instruments found in the area of modern day Italy. Anyway I may be digressing a bit, but the point is the early Muslims or Moors most certainly didn’t have a copyright on culture, something that is sometimes pushed by some scholars and fringe groups. Thanks for the article.