You are on page 1of 3

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Bernard Hamilton Reviewed work(s): Muslims under Latin Rule 1100-1300 by James M.

Powell Source: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 55, No. 1 (1992), pp. 126-127 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/620485 Accessed: 08/09/2009 06:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

School of Oriental and African Studies and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

http://www.jstor.org

1 26

REVIEWS

it at somestage.He offersa convincing criticism of the view of Voobus that the Ethiopicwas translated from a Syriacversion,and his own conclusionstie in with those that have been reachedby a numberof earlierscholars:the Ethiopic version was clearly made from the Greek,but the evidence provided the way in by whichsome namesand loanwordswere transcribed particularly appearance correctly the of spelled Aramaic words indicates that the translators had some basic knowledge of Aramaic, which was probably derived from Aramaic-speaking Syriacinfluence the Jews; on Geiez text is likely,not necessarily only at the time of the original translation;occasional correctionof the Geiez text on the basis of a Coptic text is a fair possibility;there is clear influencefrom Arabic sourcesfrom the fourteenthcenturyonwards(the Cc, Cd, D and E texts), and Arabic may also have been the mediumby which Greek, Syriac,and Coptic elementsinfluenced Geieztext. the Of the remaining materialin Part I, it must sufficehere to referto the surveyof Ethiopian Service Books (? 15), whose numerous prescribedreadingsprovideevidencefor substantial portionsof the text of the synopticgospels. Zuurmond notesthatquantitively contributhe tion of the Service Booksto the textualcriticism of the gospelsis huge,but thatqualitatively is it poor. The surveyitselfis veryhelpful,but it is not clear how far the textualevidenceof the ServiceBooks would repaydetailedinvestigation.

Zuurmond'sedition of Mark (Part II) is basedon twenty-four manuscripts. Thesehave beenchosen out of the sometwo hundred and fifty manuscripts the gospels that he has of examinedand classified on the basis of providingthe evidenceof all manuscripts down to the earlyfifteenth centuryand of a selectionof latermanuscripts. practice hasincluded In he all manuscripts the A and B groupsdownto the of middleof the fifteenth century and,wherepossible, three representatives each of the later of groups(butnoneof the M group).His intention is to presentthe oldest form of the text that is availableto us, and accordingly has chosen he the Aa-textas his base, and Abba GarimaI as the best representative this-as we have of already noted. He follows Abba Garima I except where other representatives the Aaof text(AbbaGarimaIII, the Lalibala MS)clearly have a superior reading,and only occasionally does his text differfromthe Aa-text.All textual variants withsomelimitedexceptions of the manuscriptsthat have been used have been recordedin the apparatus,but orthographic andgrammatical variants andthenonlyof the older manuscripts have been relegatedto an
appendix.

positioninsteadof' i ' beforethe semivowel y ' ' (hencesuch formsas Xyasus for Iyasus) or the related phenomenon the occurrence forms of of likenaboy for nabEy. mightbe arguedthatthe It occurrence of ' non-standard' orthography wouldbe an unnecessary sourceof confusionto those who use the edition.However,the very concept of a standardorthography, which is represented Dillmann,is problematic, by and standardization of orthography inevitably resultsin an elementof artificiality. In the introductorysections of Part II Zuurmond outlines the procedures he has followed in the preparationof the edition (??21-26)and gives brief descriptionsof the manuscripts has used(?27). (A full list of all he gospelmanuscripts givenin section18of Part is I.) Part II also includesan Epilogue in which the Ethiopicversionin its oldestavaiiable form (the Aa text) has been collated against the Greek,and some commentsadded.Thereis a singleindexto both partsof the volume. Therearea number mistakes misprints of and in the Englishtext, but on the otherhandsuch checks as it has been possible to undertake indicate that the Ethiopicevidencehas been recordedaccurately.(The Ethiopic has been copiedby hand,not printed.) Overall thereis no questionbut that this volumerepresents very a substantialscholarlyachievement. Both those concerned withthe textualcriticism the New of Testamentand those concernedwith Ethiopic studieswilllook forward withimpatience the to publicationof the editions of Matthew and Luke.
MICHAEL A. KNIBB

JAMESM . POWELL .): Muslims (ed

under Latin rule 1100-1300. [xi]

221 pp. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990. $29.95.


As a resultof theirmilitarysuccessesin the eleventh century, Western Christians found themselves ruling over substantial Muslim populations the Iberian in peninsula, Sicilyand theCrusader States.Thiscollection essaysby of a distinguished groupof specialists examines the waysin whichtheCatholic worldcameto terms withthissituation. JosephF. O'Callaghan deals with Muslimsin Castile and Portugal,about whom little has been writtenbefore,RobertI. Burns's essay on Muslims in the crown of Aragonin the thirteenth centuryis a masterly resume of his earlier work; David S. H. Abulafia examines the decline of Islam in thirteenth-century Sicily; BenjaminZ. Kedar considersa hithertoratherneglectedaspectof crusading history,the Muslimsof the Frankish East, and James M. Powell writes about the papal attitude to Muslims in these frontier communities. ApartfromB. Z. Kedar's Crusade and mission (Princeton, 1984),whichdealswith the whole rangeof Westernresponses towards Islamduringthe medieval centuries, thereis no similar comparativestudy of the place of Muslimsin Catholic frontiersocieties in the centralMiddleAges. Treatment of Muslims in those societies variedverygreatly, it is atrocities but whichstill continueto be most widelyreported popular in

All this seemseminently sensible correct. and One may, however, wonder whether Zuurmond'sdecision to standardizethe orthographyof his base-manuscript, of the and evidencein the apparatus, largelyaccording to Dillman's Lexicon and Grammar was also correct.There is admittedlya problemhere whichadmitsof no easysolution.Theorthography of all the manuscripts the Aa group is of archaic,and in additionAbba GarimaI has a numberof peculiarities its own, such as the of almost consistentappearance 's ' in initial of

REVIEWS

27

histories,the massacre, enslavement, expulor sion of Muslims from conqueredareas. Yet such cases were exceptional.The majorityof Muslims thoseareasremained men,were in free grantedreligious toleration becausethe Churcn refused to countenance forced conversions wereallowedto own property, and wereruled by their own magistrates accordancewith in their own religious law. Toleration did not mean equality. Muslims were second-class citizens,just as Christiansliving in Muslim societies were at that time. Their religious freedomdid not includethe right publiclyto criticize Christianity to convertChristians or to Islam. Moreover,all Muslims had to pay a religiouspoll-tax and their legal rights were
circumscribed.

Nevertheless,as these essays show, great diversity existedwithinthis generalframework. Thusin partsof Castile,despitefreedom cult of the Moorswerenot allowedto keepanyof their mosques, whereas the neighbouring in kingdom of Valencia muezzins continued call the faithto ful to prayeruntil the fifteenthcentury.There were also considerable differences the legal in status which Muslims enjoyed. In parts of Castilethe life of a Moor was held cheap:at Zoritathe legalfinefor killinga Moorwas only half that for killing a Christian.But in the Kingdom Jerusalem of therewasparitybetween Christiansand Muslimsfor some offences:a Christianman who raped a Muslim woman incurred samepenaltyas a Muslim the manwho rapeda Christian woman,that of castration. As this law suggests, part of the price of toleration a sexualapartheid, was desired the by re!igious authoritiesof both faiths, for the mlxed marriagein which both partnerspractised theirown religionhad no place in either Christian Islamicthoughtat that time. The or two communities could not therefore united be throughintermarriage, only by the converbut sion of Muslims the Christian to faith.Thiswas achievedin Sicily, although it is not known how:Abulafia pointsout thatwhereas therehad beenabouta quarter a millionMuslims the of in islandin 1060,only some 20,000 remained by the 1220s, the rest had become Christian. Elsewhere, surprisingly attempts few weremade to evangelizeMuslims.The Papacyleft this to localchurchmen werelargely who apathetic. No doubt that was partlybecauseChristianlandowners in frontierregions were reluctantto encourage missionary endeavours whichmight alienatetheir labour force, but in most cases meaningful communication was impossible because localCatholic the clergywereunwilling to learn Arabic, while the Muslimsremained monoglot.Underthe thirteenth-century Crown of Aragon some friarsdid attemptto convert Muslims,but as Burnsexplains,the appealto reasonwhichthe friarscultivated to a large was extent neutralizedby ' a decisive turn from metaphysics Sufimysticism'amongSpanish to Muslimsat precisely that time. Thiscollectionof studiesends in 1300,when the CrusaderStates had revertedto Muslim rule, there were virtuallyno Muslimsleft in Sicily,and Muslimcommunities survivedonly in the ChristianKingdomsof Iberia. Yet as Muslims Christian in landsbecamerarerso the Churchbecamemoreintolerant towardsthem. Powellarguesthat this was becausethe Church

believedthat the Muslimswerea threatto the faith of their Christianneighbours.That is certainlyhow the popesjustifiedtheirpolicies but they were merely voicing the fears of Christiansociety about the loyalty of Muslim minoritiesat a time when Christendom was once more threatenedby a resurgentIslam. Muslimreligious identityhad a politicaldimenslon becausetherewas no separation between churchand statein Islam.Muslimswereunder a religiousobligationto pray for the Muslim sovereign during the Friday prayers and because Christian few rulers wouldallowthis,in many places despite freedom of cult the Muslimswereunableto say the Fridayprayers at all. It was this kind of reactionwhichmade the loyaltyof Muslimcommunities Christian in states seem suspectto some people. But such fearswereby no meansuniversal: the Kingin dom of Valencia,for example,the Crown of Aragonwas prepared arm its Moorishsubto jects to fight against its Christianneighbours and to protect them against the restrictive legislation of the Church. This is further evidenceof the great diversityof approaches towards Muslim groups which existed in Western Europeduringthe MiddleAgesand to whichthis volumeof essaysprovidesan excellent introduction.
BERNARD HAMILTON

SVEND HELMS, four others:Early and Islamicarchitecture the desert:a of bedouin stationin eastern Jordan. xi 188pp. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPress l 990. ?25.
This shortbook represents in a seriesof one studies by Svend Helms and Alison Betts elucidatingthe history of settlementin the easternJordanian desert,to a largeextent the archaeological historyof the bedouinand their predecessors. The presentvolume is the contribution the EarlyIslamicperiod to The focus is a site called al-Rlsha, some 40 km. northof Ruwaishid (formerly H4), and to the eastof QasrBurqu'. siteconsistsof a The scatterof fifteencourtyard buildings, which of one iS granderand calleda ' khan', and a site explalnedas a small mosque. The surviving remalnsare of stone, preserved a heightof to not more than one or.two courses(thesemay have been soclesfor pise superstructures). The site was surveyed, surface the potterycollected and one smallsondagedug. On the basisof the pottery,they suggestthat the site was founded in the Umayyad period,possiblyalready A.D. by 700, and was still in occupation the eleventh in or twelfthcenturies. The site is strikingly similar to the two neighbouring modern bedouin settlementsof Upper and Lower al-Rlsha, settled by the Rwalaafter 1968,anddescribed the Lancasby ters in theirchapteras ' a permanent address '. Theparallelism the centralmotifof the book is andprovides basisof an ethnographic the backproJection modernbedouinpractice of onto the EarlyIslamicperiod,and an assessment the of relationship between such a site and the Umayyadqusur or DesertCastles. Whiletheparallelism the siteto modern of al-