Читать книгу Art in Theory - Группа авторов - Страница 97

Barthélemy d’Herbelot de Molainville (1625–95) was the foremost French Oriental scholar active during the reign of Louis XIV. His magnum opus was the Bibliothèque Orientale, an encyclopaedia‐like compendium of knowledge of Eastern civilizations, their dynasties, laws, religion, culture and literature. In 1692, Antoine Galland, also an Oriental scholar who, unlike d’Herbelot himself, had actually travelled in the Levant, became his principal assistant. When d’Herbelot died in 1695, before the project was completed, Galland took it over and saw it through the press. For publication, Galland contributed a synoptic preface which gave an overview of the book’s aims and scope. The Bibliothèque was a work of synthesis, its 8,000‐plus entries drawing on existing Islamic commentaries, including that of Hajji Khalifa (also known as Katib Celebi), an Ottoman historian and bibliographer whose Kashf al‐Zunun itself listed over 14,000 works. Though compiled by d’Herbelot in the late seventeenth century, and published by Galland in 1697, the Bibliothèque in many ways looked forward to the eighteenth century: although critical of Mohammed its bias was secular rather than religious, with an overall intention of humanizing rather than demonizing Islam. For the historian Alexander Bevilacqua, the Bibliothèque was not only ‘the most ambitious and wide ranging European reference work’ of its day, but it also ‘formed the basis of what eighteenth‐century Europeans knew about Islamic letters and history’. Influential on figures as diverse as Jones and Gibbon (cf. IIA9 and IIC14), it maintained a ‘wide cultural resonance’ into the nineteenth century, affecting both Byron and Goethe (cf. IIIB3 and 5). The present extracts are taken from the ‘Discours pour server de preface’ to the Bibliotheque Orientale, Paris 1697, unpaginated. They have been translated for this volume by Chris Miller.

Monsieur d’Herbelot, having already mastered, in addition to Latin and Greek – two languages the possession of which is, in our society, generally considered to justify the title of Man of Letters – Hebrew, Chaldaic and Syriac, next acquired a thorough knowledge of the Arabic, Persian and Turkish languages, which formed the foundation of the great project that he had set himself, that of clearing his path toward a knowledge of the history, laws, customs, mores, religions and sects, both Christian and Muslim, of all the peoples dispersed in the three parts of our Continent who speak them.

To that end, he read the great number of books written in each of these three languages, which he found in the Bibliothèque du Roy or in the Florence library or had acquired on his own behalf. To satisfy his curiosity, he was bound to familiarize himself with these three languages; since Arab authors speak of the affairs of their own Nation better than the Persians and the Turks, and these two more knowledgeably of their own than do the Arabs, in no other way could he more surely arrive at the truth of their history and the indubitable knowledge that he sought of everything that concerned them.

By this exhausting but agreeable effort, Monsieur d’Herbelot learned what had previously been hidden from Europeans.

* * *

Those who have made a particular study of History will observe that general history, such as we possess it, combining sacred with profane history, has, till now, been defective, in as much as that history of which we now speak, which is a constituent part thereof, was lacking.

In relation to Sacred History, will they not be grateful to Monsieur d’Herbelot for having granted them knowledge of what Mohametans believe on this subject? For whether their traditions are false or true, it is always extremely agreeable to acquaint oneself with them, and they serve this further purpose, that one can debate their Religion with them, an encounter for which it is necessary to know the strengths and weaknesses of one’s adversary.

In relation to profane history, one can agree with those who, having once reflected on the subject, deem the history of the most ancient kings of Persia, the Pishdadians, to be full of fable. But when one considers the earliest times of any history – I do not here speak of that which lies within the covers of the Holy Books – can any be cited that is not fabulous in its origins?

The history of the Caianians, which includes those that the Greeks have given us of Cambyses, Xerxes, and their successors up to Darius, will also seem very obscure and imperfect. But can we say that it is clearer in the Greek Authors or indeed in better faith? The same applies to the history of the Ashkanians or that of the Sasanians or the Khosroes … What remains of the life and actions of these Monarchs in the works of Mohometan historians is quite sufficient to demonstrate that the loss is no less considerable than that of the several histories of the Greeks and Romans whose destruction we regret….

History scholars who have taken note of the Roman Emperors’ contentions with the Khosroes will here recognize those same kings of Persia by their own names and discover finer details of their actions and conduct than they have read in Greek or Latin authors, and by this means will have as complete a history as they could desire.

Our authors are unanimous that the Northern peoples are the descendants of Japheth and the Holy Books confirm this. But that the Tartars, Mongols, Turks and Chinese also derive themselves from him in the manner reported by the Oriental historians, and by the uninterrupted succession that they mention, is something that many will find difficult to believe.

It is no easy matter to pronounce on the truth of so important a fact. But, without taking sides in the matter, the reasonable will at least keep an open mind on this subject, if they are willing to consider the fact that Oriental historians assure us of the great exactitude shown by these peoples – who, we might add, neglected the sciences and the arts – in conserving the memory of their Genealogies. To which it should be added that these authors were not only the neighbours of the Tartars, Mongols and Turks but lived among them; many of them were their subjects; it can therefore be believed that they had all the time and opportunity required to find out what these peoples argued and that they were convinced by them.

As to the Customs of these nations, they will be found no different from those described by Quintus Curtius when he wrote about the Scythians, who were the same peoples. The same way of life, the same simplicity, the same candour, the same sentiments and more or less the same contempt for all sorts of ambition can be observed among them, to such a degree that the delights of Asia were unable to corrupt them. […]

But, since, after the monarchs and other sovereigns, the Oriental historians were not content to record for eternity the Memory of the greatest Captains and the most able Ministers, but also took pains to celebrate that of persons illustrious either for their virtue or their piety or their excellence in the sciences and in the arts … the judicious Monsieur d’Herbelot also found room in his work for many Sheikhs and persons renowned among the Muslims as saints, many doctors of their religion and their laws, many philosophers, mathematicians, doctors of medicine, historians, poets and so many other Authors in all kinds of science, art and profession, whose praise he drew from the historians and the other, very numerous Oriental authors who wrote individual works about their lives and their actions. Of them, he recounts a vast number of deeds and curious and erudite observations, by means of which the reader will be enabled to judge whether the Orientals are indeed as barbarian and ignorant as they have been given out to be.