I started to read this book almost seven years ago. Only reason finished this book is my obsession about finishing books, anyway the book not was so bad to read within 7 years.
Peter Watson is good collector. He collect knowledge which he thinks matter for ideas mind. He did not comment or made interference about ideas. Just facts.
Some quotes;
The main concern among German sociologists was ‘modernity’, how modern life differed in a social,
political, psychological, economic and moral sense from what had gone before. This idea was particularly
prominent in Germany because of the country’s formal unification on 1 January 1871. All of Max
Weber’s work was aimed at identifying what made modern, Western civilisation distinctive but, as Roger
Smith has characterised it, all the early sociologists were interested in how modernity came about. Here is
Smith’s table:
Herbert Spencer: modernity involved a change from a predominantly militant [military]
society to an industrial one;
Karl Marx: the change was from feudalism to capitalism;
Henry Maine (the British sociologist/anthropologist, whose most famous work was Ancient
Law, which took an evolutionary approach): status → contract;
Max Weber: traditional authority → rational-legal authority;
Ferdinand Tönnies: Gemeinschaft (community) → Gesellschaft (association).
Lawyers had written the Declaration of Independence and it was mainly lawyers who drafted the
constitutions of the states and of the new United States. One effect of this was to shape early American
literature. In Revolutionary America there were no poets, dramatists or even novelists who could begin to
compare with the political writings of Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Tom Paine or James
Wilson. The new nation was politically-minded and legally-minded. ‘They did away with ecclesiastical
law, administrative law and even chancery law, and limited the reach of common law–it all reeked of the
Old World of privilege and corruption.’ It was this attitude that gave rise to the idea of judicial
supremacy, and judicial review. It was this attitude that gave rise to the separation of powers. It gave rise
to the law school and to the abolition of the distinction between barrister and solicitor.76 There would be
no America as we know it without the Puritan Revolution, the ideas of John Locke and Montesquieu and
a knowledge of republican Rome, but Tom Paine (the ‘lethargic visionary’ in John Ferling’s words) was
surely right when he observed that ‘the case and circumstance of America present themselves as in the
beginning of a world…We are brought at once to the point of seeing government begin, as if we had lived
at the beginning of time.’
Imperialism, therefore, wasn’t just conquest. It was a form of international government, of globalisation,
and it did not only benefit the ruling powers. The colonialists comprised not just Cecil Rhodes, but
Warren Hastings and Sir William Jones.89
The first inkling we have of English was when it arrived in the fifth century AD, spoken by Germanic
warriors, who were invited to Britain as mercenaries to shore up the ruins of the recently-departed Roman
empire.112 The original inhabitants of the British Isles were Celts, who spoke Celtish, no doubt laced with
a little Latin, thanks to the Romans. But the Germanic tribes–Saxons, Angles and Jutes–spoke a variety of
dialects, mutually intelligible, and it was some time before the Angles won out. The present-day language
of Friesland, by the North Sea in Holland, is judged to have the closest language to early English, where
such words as trije (three), froast (frost), blau (blue), brea (bread) and sliepe (sleep) are still in use.113
Early English took on a few words from Latin/Celtic, such as ‘win’ (wine), ‘cetel’ (cattle) and ‘streat’
(street), but the great majority of English words today come from Old English–you, man, son, daughter,
friend, house and so on. Also the northern words ‘owt’ (anything) and ‘nowt’, (nothing), from ‘awiht’ and
‘nawiht’.114 The ending ‘-ing’ in place names means ‘the people of…’–Reading, Dorking, Hastings; the
ending ‘-ham’ means farm, as in Birmingham, Fulham, Nottingham; ‘-ton’ means enclosure or village, as
in Taunton, Luton, Wilton. The Germanic tribes brought with them the runic alphabet, known as the
futhorc after the first letters of that alphabet. Runes were made up mainly of straight lines, so they could
more easily be cut into stone or wood. The language had twenty-four letters, lacking j, q, v, x and z but
including æ, Þ, and uu, later changed to w.
In all there were well over fifty major thinkers of the Islamic world who emerged at this time to campaign
for the modernisation of Islam–people such as Qasim Amin of Egypt, Mahmud Tarzi of Afghanistan,
Sayyid Khan of India, Achmad Dachlan of Java and Wang Jingshai of China. But the three most
influential Islamic modernists, whose names deserve to be more widely known in the West, were: Sayyid
Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, of Iran (1838–1897), Muhammad Abduh, of Egypt (1849–1905), and
Muhammad Rashid Rida (1865–1935), who was born in Lebanon but spent most of his adult life in Egypt.
Al-Afghani’s main message was that European success was basically due to two things, to its science and
to its laws, and he said that these were derived from ancient Greece and India. ‘There is no end or limit to
science,’ he said, ‘science rules the world.’ (This was in1882.) ‘There was, is, and will be no ruler in the
world but science.’ ‘The English have reached Afghanistan; the French have seized Tunisia. In reality,
this usurpation, aggression and conquest have not come from the French or the English. Rather it is
science that everywhere manifests its greatness and power.’ Al-Afghani wanted the whole Islamic
position to be reconsidered. He argued that ‘mind is the motor of historical change’ and he said that Islam
needed a Reformation. He pilloried the ulama or religious scholars of the day who read the old texts but
didn’t know the causes of electricity, or the principles of the steam engine. How, he asked, could these
people call themselves ‘sages’? He likened the ulama to a light with a narrow wick ‘that neither lights its
surroundings nor gives light to others’. Al-Afghani studied in France and Russia and while he was in
Paris he became friendly with Ernest Renan. Al-Afghani specifically said that the religious person was
like an ox yoked to a plough, ‘yoked to the dogma whose slave he is’, and he must walk eternally in the
furrow that has been traced for him in advance. He blamed Islam for the ending of Baghdad’s golden age,
admitting that the theological schools stifled science, and he pleaded for a non-dogmatic philosophy that
would encourage scientific inquiry.
Muhammad Abduh also studied in Paris, where he produced a famous journal called The Strongest Link,
which agitated against imperialism but also called for religious reform.79 Returning to Egypt he became a
leading judge and served on the governing body of the al-Azhar mosque-college, one of the most
influential bodies of learning in the Arab world. He campaigned for the education of girls and for secular
laws, beyond the sharia. He was especially interested in law and politics. Here are some of the things he
wrote: ‘Human knowledge is in effect a collection of rules about useful benefits, by which people
organise the methods of work that lead to those benefits…laws are the basis of activities organised…to
produce manifest benefits…the law of each nation corresponds to its level in understanding…It is not
possible therefore to apply the law of one group of people to another group who surpass the first in level
of understanding…order among the second group will be disturbed…’ Politics, he insisted on another
occasion, should be determined by circumstances, not by doctrine. Abduh went on to make the case for
legal reform in Egypt, for clear simple laws, avoiding what he called the ‘ambiguities’ of the Qur’an. He
referred Egypt to France after the Revolution, which he said went from an absolute monarchy, to a
restricted monarchy, to a free republic. He wanted a civil law to govern most of life, agreed by all in a
logical manner. In his legal system, there was no mention of the prophet, Islam, the mosque, or religion.
Muhammad Rashid Rida attended a school in Lebanon which combined modern and religious education.
He spoke several European languages and studied widely among the sciences.80 He was close to Abduh
and became his biographer. He too had his own journal, al-Manar (The Beacon), which disseminated
ideas about reform until his death. Rida’s view was that social, political, civic and religious renewal was
necessary and ongoing, so that societies could ‘ascend the paths of science and knowledge’. ‘Humans at
all times need the old and the new,’ he said. He noted that while the British, French and Germans mostly
preferred their own ways of doing things, and thinking, they were open to foreign influences as well. He
admitted to being helped by, and liking, men who he deemed heretics. He sounds here a bit like Erasmus
but he also recalls Owen Chadwick’s point, mentioned earlier, where he said that it was only from about
1860 that Europeans who regarded themselves as Christian could be friendly with non-believers. Most
importantly, Rida said that the sharia has little or nothing to say about agriculture, industry and trade–‘it
is left to the experience of the people’. The state, he says, consists of precisely this–the sciences, arts and
industries, financial, administrative and military systems. They are a collective duty in Islam and it is a
sin to neglect them. The one rule to remember is ‘Necessity permits the impermissible.’
The Roman achievement was colossal. The Romans themselves were aware of it and it is no surprise that
they came to believe in Roma Aeterna, the eternal city. But, as every schoolchild knows, Rome was not
eternal. ‘The best-known fact about the Roman Empire,’ says Arthur Ferrill, ‘is that it declined and fell.’
André Piganiol put it, ‘Roman civilization did not die a natural death. It was killed.’
Julius Caesar was deified posthumously after his death in 44 BC, the first emperor to receive this
accolade. Being related to Caesar, Augustus openly referred to himself as the ‘son of [the] god’.25 He too
was deified after his death, as was his successor, Tiberius. His successor, Caligula, deified himself during
his lifetime. The pagans had a tradition of free thought and citizens were free to vary in the literalness
with which they viewed the emperor as god. In the western part of the empire, it was often the emperor’s
numen, a general divine power, attaching to the rank, which was worshipped. In the east, on the other
hand, it was often the man himself who was believed to be a god
For example, Julius
Africanus (c. 160–240) argued that the world would last for six thousand years. According to his
calculations the birth of Christ had occurred exactly 5,500 years after the Creation and therefore,
‘Wisdom,’ according to an ancient Egyptian proverb, ‘has alighted on three things: the brain of the
Franks, the hands of the Chinese, and the tongue of the Arabs.
The most notable stemmed
from the famous edict of Muhammad, ‘Seek ye learning though it be in China.’