This strays beyond Nimble Tread's territorial waters, but I got a kick out of Joan Acocella's recent New Yorker article, A Better Place, and thought I'd reiterate her last point, which concerns revisionist history. The piece focused on the experience of Muslims in Iberia, particularly as seen through the lens of David Levering Lewis' book God's Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570 to 1215, which regales readers with myriad ways in which early Muslim society had the edge on contemporary Christian communities. Lewis argues that Islam paved the way for advanced social systems in Europe by introducing, amongst other things, translated Greek philosophical treaties, elaborations in architectural practices, and a slew of botanical novelties, including dates, saffron, almonds, limes, and apricots. It makes for interesting reading, but as with much of the modern historical cannon, it's at once apologetic and confrontational in tone, which is hardly going to escape Acocella, who, true to form, is sharp as a tack. Her final paragraph reads as follows:
I can foresee a time when another matter important to us, the threat of ecological catastrophe, will prompt a historian to write a book in praise of the early Europeans whom Lewis finds so inferior to the Muslims. The Franks lived in uncleared forests, while the Muslims built fine cities, with palaces and aqueducts? All the better for the earth. The Franks were fond of incest? Endogamy keeps societies small, prevents the growth of rapacious nation-states. The same goes for the Franks' largely barter economy. Trade such as the Muslims practiced -- far-flung and transacted with money -- leads to consolidation. That's how we got global corporations.
Each new problem in our history engenders a revision of past history. Many of today's historians acknowledge this, and argue that their books, if politicized, are simply more honest about this than the politicized books of the past. This pessimism about the possibility of finding a stable truth may be realistic, but it seems to sanction, even encourage, special pleading -- of which God's Crucible, for all its virtues, is an example.
This is good stuff, and as revisionism is hardly limited to social history, we'd do well to consider its faults and merits before applying it to our pet subjects -- early music for instance.
If Acocella's take on Lewis's book wasn't enough to capture your particular fancy, her piece also served up a nice amuse-gueule of Frankish sobriquets, the highlights of which centre around Charles I, aka Charles the Great, aka Charlemagne. Not only did he have a grandfather named Charles the Hammer (Martel), but was lucky enough to be raised by two loving, and amusingly named, parents Pippin the Short and, my favourite of all, Bertha of the Big Foot. And let's not forget al-Walid the Inadequate, who reigned as an Umayyad caliph for a year, and lived life with distinct flair, a trait that seems to have proven problematic, for , as Wikipedia tells us, "his reputed drinking, singing and immorality aroused considerable opposition" amongst the masses and led to an assassination plot. Sounds like an eight-century version of David Lee Roth. What a shame we've given up on juicy semi-official monikers. Oh the fun we'd have...