heraclius

Is there any reason that 2 is the best of all possible indices? It sounds, prima facie, reasonable, but it is unclear whether it is the best, what the best is, or even whether it can reasonably be calculated given that people behave irrationally in different ways.

Indeed, relatedly, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that in 853 Alfred was consecrated king by the Pope; I believe that it is theorised, quite plausibly, that this was an important influence in later life.

Green notes that England is rather remote. This may be one reason for the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons.

> “The utter remoteness of the islands at the north-westerly limits of the Ocean and the barbarian nature of their inhabitants was a commonplace or topos in the work of Roman poets and historians. ….Christian commentators living in the Empire, however, adapted this secular image of the centrality of Rome in the light of a very different biblical tradition that Jerusalem was the centre of the earth. Old Testament prophecies had announced that the glory the God of Israel would one day be revealed to all peoples, even to idolatrous gentiles throughout the ‘multitude of isles’…”¹

But the theme was not exclusively eschatologic. “Bede made sophisticated use of the Roman, biblical, and patristic strands of the topos in his account of the various conversions and reconversions of peoples and regions within ‘the multitude of isles’.”

Awareness of the remoteness of Britain was likely therefore closely related to British Christian identity.

Interestingly, however, the scholarly basis of that identity was increasingly undermined. Of Charlemagne’s time, Pirenne wrote

> Among these purely Germanic Anglo-Saxons the Latin culture was introduced suddenly, together with the Latin religion, and it profited by the enthusiasm felt for the latter. No sooner were they converted, under the influence and guidance of Rome, than the Anglo-Saxons turned their gaze toward the Sacred City. They visited it continually, bringing back relics and manuscripts. They submitted themselves to its suggestive influence, and learned its language, which for them was no vulgar tongue, but a sacred language, invested with an incomparable prestige. As early as the 7th century there were men among the Anglo-Saxons, like the Venerable Bede and the poet Aldhelm, whose learning was truly astonishing as measured by the standards of Western Europe.

> The intellectual reawakening which took place under Charlemagne must be attributed to the Anglo-Saxon missionaries.³

And Alcuin, an Anglo-Saxon, was of course in charge of the Palace School. Pirenne continues:

> It was the North that now proceeded to diffuse the culture which it had received from the Mediterranean. …In this way the Anglo-Saxons became simultaneously the reformers of the language and also the reformers of the church.⁴

By Alfred’s time, however, the English were in dire need of scholarship from the continent. I haven’t a copy of English Historical Documents on me, but Fulk, to whom Alfred wrote in supplication that scholars from Rheims might be sent to revive learning in England, replied most condescendingly (whilst granting his request): he informed Alfred, as if he were some ignoramus, of the existence of church councils (as if any Christian at the time would have been unaware of their existence), rambled on about his part in the apostolic succession (as if England was not also home to bishops validly part of the episcopal succession too), and emphasised the propriety of customs in his part of the world. Alfred could do nothing but accept the onerous conditions imposed upon him near the end of the letter, such was the state of degeneration of the church.

1. Jennifer O’Reilly, “The art of authority”, in After Rome, Thomas Charles-Edwards ed., p. 141 2. Ibid, p. 142 3. Henri Pirenne, “From Mohammed and Charlemagne”, in The Pirenne Thesis: Analysis Criticism And Revision, A.F. Havighurst ed., Boston 1958, 109pp., p. 38 4. Ibid, p. 39

The socialist roots of the PAP live on in institutional form if not policy. Yesterday a May Day Rally was held, for example.

As K. Jeyaratnam says, Singaporeans get the government they deserve. A lack of pressure on the government produces complacency. When they feel threatened we have people of the Tharman and LKY type.

The destruction of these buildings is emblematic of the destruction of the old competent Singapore. LHL’s rule has not seen any significant progress and much backsliding, e.g., in the MRT, management of state enterprises, etc. These buildings will be replaced, but they will be replaced by novelties, not elements of a coherent vision as those built in the twentieth century were. It was fun whilst it lasted.

Yes, this is an important instance of the problem with excessive generalisation. Unfortunately Bruckner ends up excessively generalising about the use of the term “Islamophobia”, hence the not unjustified comments here attacking him for bigotry.

“Le terme d’islamophobie remplit plusieurs fonctions : nier pour mieux la légitimer la réalité d’une offensive intégriste en Europe, attaquer la laïcité en l’assimilant à un nouveau fondamentalisme.”

I think that Google Translate is probably correct here on “en l’assimilant”,⁰ but it could also be “to attack laïcité by assimilating it into a new fundamentalism”: I suppose the argument is then that one has radically altered laïcité into some neutered form that cannot recognise any problem with Islam.

⁰ assimiler means both “liken” and “assimilate” according to my memory and Wiktionary

I think that this is a valid initial reaction, but there is a useful point here, which unfortunately has been expressed in the middle of a combination of potential bigotry as you note, bad translation (possibly) and poor phrasing.

A reasonable attack on something then begins to use a word (“Islamophobia”). It is then used by those who seek to render Islam “inviolate”. Clearly some people exist who think this, if not particularly many. Because Islamophobia can be construed as referring to any attack on Islam, there is a risk that one then incorrectly concludes from the fact that many things described as Islamophobic are bad that everything potentially Islamophobic (using the word in the broadest possible sense) is bad. Unfortunately this useful point is obscured by lots of other at least unhelpful material.

Wikipedia has a surprisingly (or should I be surprised?) extensive collection of articles on road signs.⁰ It’s interesting to observe, e.g., that road signs in Albania seem to be very similar to those in Italy, even though it is unlikely that there were that many standardised road signs during the Italian occupation.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_sign

Bruckner seems to be focusing on the word instead of the ideas behind different uses of the word. There are of course some who wish to see Islam “inviolate”, and it is natural for them to use the term “Islamophobia”. But there are also those who oppose different types of attacks on Islam, or different forms of fear of Islam. To resist a reflexive hatred of Islam per se is to say something that also usefully uses the word “Islamophobia”. It therefore makes little sense to attack the use of the term, as opposed to (a) overly broad usage where it is unnecessary, (b) automatic assumptions that an attack on Islam is invalid, and (c) attempts to render Islam “inviolate”.

[Edit] A further thought: Islam isn’t homogeneous, as many point out. Just as it is generally unhelpful to attack Christianity on the basis of observations of the Roman Catholic church, so too it is probably more helpful to describe specific groups or collections of groups. This works both ways: it helps to invalidate attacks on Islam as a whole based on rare practices, but it also helps to invalidate lazy responses that rely on a small liberal group of Muslims being representative, which is about as unhelpful as denying Christian homophobia by citing the examples of a few Oxonocantabrigian liberal Anglo-Catholics.

The Pirenne thesis is superficially plausible. However, McCormick’s Origins of the European Economy, which represents perhaps the most innovative approach in dealing with a paucity of evidence to date, suggests otherwise.

“About one in seven eastern travelers I have uncovered set out from the Arab world (49: 14 percent of 340). They were mostly Christian and Hellenic. That so many appear from research geared to the Byzantine and Latin source materials—presumably the least rewarding for the Arab world—challenges the conventional wisdom.” [p. 217]

“Another, less obvious characteristic of some other eastern travelers further undermines the notion of interrupted intercourse, at least between Byzantium and the Arab world. Beyond the travelers who came directly from the Arab world to the west, another substantial group of eastern voyagers (28: 8 percent) also traveled to the Arab world at other times. In all, nearly a quarter of all eastern travelers also came from or went to the Caliphate (77: 23 percent of all eastern travelers).” [p. 218]

Moreover, though I shan’t here give references, a substantial portion of the European economy was driven by the supply of slaves to the Caliphate. But a few more things to note: the Arabs are just as important as the Byzantines insofar as the numismatic evidence is concerned; one writer during this period wrote of relief when arriving in the areas ruled by the Arabs, which were far more orderly—all that was needed was a simple bribe, a welcome prospect compared to the banditry common in other areas; Arab piracy was certainly widespread, but in McCormick’s analysis “very few of our travelers had their voyage interrupted by violence” [170] overall, whether by Arab pirates or other actors.

The Byzantines not call themselves Byzantines; they considered themselves Roman. See a helpful answer on Reddit¹ which notes an episode in which the Byzantines imprisoned an envoy for calling their emperor that of the Greeks. It would of course be obtuse to call the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire, but the renaming was after 1453.

¹ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ak435w/did_t...