Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Author(s): M. E. Yapp
Source: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 58,
No. 1 (1995), pp. 40-49
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/619997 .
Accessed: 27/01/2011 08:22
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 service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies 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
TWO GREAT BRITISH HISTORIANS OF THE
MODERN MIDDLE EAST
By M.E. YAPP
School of Orientaland African Studies, London
their mark during the 1950s, no doubt greatly assisted by the Scarbrough
initiative, and into the confused intellectual world described above began to
penetrate a few rays of light. One, which happily continues to shine, emanated
from Bernard Lewis, although he was not primarily an historian of the modem
Middle East. At his seminars at SOAS one observed the mind of a trained
historian at work on the problems of Middle Eastern history and in his
Emergence of modern Turkey (London, 1961) he put the right questions to the
available Turkish sources. The other two great sources of light in Britain were
at St. Antony's College Oxford and at the London School of Economics, the
respective academic homes of Albert Hourani and Elie Kedourie. Over the
following 20 years these scholars played a major part in shaping the revolution
in the study of modern Middle Eastern history.
Albert Hourani was born in 1915 in Manchester, whither his father had
come in 1891 from Marjayoun in South Lebanon. Some observers claimed to
discern distinctive Lebanese characteristics in Hourani and asserted that these
served him well amid the academic politicking of Oxford. To me he had the
characteristics of the ideal English gentleman: unfailing good manners, a
familiar range of interests and associations, a strong sense of duty, and sensitiv-
ity to the feelings of others. Newman once wrote that a gentleman was one
who avoided giving pain to others; in this respect Hourani was careful almost
to a fault. He had also a deep reserve. Once, introducing him to an audience,
I made some complimentary remarks about his work. Noticing that he sat
stony faced I changed my style when proposing a vote of thanks at the end of
his lecture and made some mildly amusing but slightly critical observation. He
beamed happily and afterwards said; 'I liked your vote of thanks '. No mention
was made of the introduction. But it may be, as he used to say, that Manchester
and Marjayoun were not so very different;with its cluster of separate commu-
nities at once living together and living apart Manchester was a little like
Lebanon. Perhaps Hourani saw Oxford as also possessing passing similarities:
'that segmentary society without formal and explicit authority,' as he once
described it.
Hourani went to school in London and thence to Magdalen College Oxford,
where he read not history but PPE, in which he gained a first. From 1937 to
1939 he taught at the American University of Beirut. With the outbreak of
war he joined the research department of the Foreign Office and subsequently
was employed in Cairo in the Office of the Minister of State Resident in the
Middle East. In the course of this employment he travelled widely in the region
and formed links which seemed likely to draw him into Arab politics; in his
Palestine diary Richard Crossman suggested that Hourani was the intended
successor to George Antonius as interpreter of the Arabs to the West. But
Hourani preferred to remain an observer of politics: his calling was that of a
scholar and in 1948 he returned to Oxford, first as a Fellow at Magdalen, then
as Lecturer and finally as Reader in the Modern History of the Middle East.
In 1958 he became director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies which
was located in St. Antony's College, and there he remained until his retirement.
It was from this academic home, which he had largely created and over which
he presided with such grace, that he exercised his beneficent influence over
modern Arab history through his teaching and his publications.
Probably it was a teacher of graduate students that Hourani made the
greatest and most enduring impact. He had the qualities of a great teacher;
the reserves of knowledge on which to draw freely for the advantage of others,
the ability to inspire with ideas and the willingness to play the part of the
laborious mentor. Above all he had the humility which a teacher needs; to
42 MALCOLM YAPP
know not only when to come forward with advice or exhortation but also
when to remain silent and watch a student develop his own ideas, even to
make his own mistakes. I have yet to meet a student of Hourani who did not
speak of his teacher with admiration and affection.
It is through his publications that Hourani is most widely known. His first
book, Syria and Lebanon (London, 1946), the product of those wartime wan-
derings in the Middle East, established an abiding interest in the region,
demonstrated his lifelong ability to sympathize with everyone concerned, and
also indicated a new approach. In describing the evolution of the newly
independent states, Hourani made the actions of local groups and politicians
comprehensible by placing them not only in the context of new ideas and of
their struggles with outside powers (although in that book he gave pre-eminence
to the clash between Arab nationalism and Western civilization) but also in
the situation of the local communities which had evolved from millets into
minorities through the Ottoman period. Syria and Lebanon, however, was a
halfway house of a book, written at a time when Hourani was caught between
the desire to write an academic study and the wish to help to make policy:
many passages are devoted to prescribing what ought to happen and how
people should behave in the future. Hourani was quick to abandon such
presumption and to confine himself to analysis.
The same subject matter became the seedbed of a most influential article
published in 1968 (' Ottoman reform and the politics of notables') in which,
adapting a concept derived from Max Weber, he developed his perception of
the leaders of these local communities into a most fertile theory subsequently
employed by all who wrote on the political history of the Syrian world and
by many who were concerned with events farther afield. He argued that the
local notables (a'yan) functioned as intermediariesbetween the Ottoman power
and the local communities and developed through this a pattern of political
behaviour based upon bargaining. The introduction of the Ottoman Tanzimat
into Syria with its corollary of more centralized (and also more representative)
government posed new problems and opportunities for the notables and they
evolved a strange relationship with government: they had to co-operate and
they had to oppose. To advance their own interests the notables demanded
more than they wanted, promised more than they could deliver and threatened
more than they could perform. The Ottomans understood this behaviour and
managed to live with it. But the European mandatory powers found it inexplic-
able, declined to behave like the Porte and took the notables at face value,
thereby turning them into something to which they had never in their hearts
aspired, namely, leaders, not intermediaries. Of course, Hourani did not dis-
cover the a'yan, nor was he the first to describe their role as intermediaries or
the ambiguity of their position under the mandates. One thinks especially of
the important work of C. E. Dawn. But Hourani turned a number of separate
and partial perceptions into an elegant and rounded theory of political behavi-
our rooted in historical experience and it is right that it should have been his
name which was especially associated with it. In the Middle Eastern field it
has been as influential a theory as the notion of the rise of the gentry was in
English history.
During the 1950s Hourani was developing another great talent. This was
for explaining the ideas of others more lucidly than they could ever do,
identifying the origins of their ideas, and extracting from those ideas implica-
tions and possibilities of which their authors had probably never dreamed.
This talent was memorably demonstrated one hot summer afternoon in July
1958 at SOAS. It was the last day of a week long conference on Middle Eastern
TWO GREAT BRITISH HISTORIANS OF THE MODERN MIDDLE EAST 43
historiography. Two long papers, partly because their themes were tangential
to the main purpose of the conference, partly because of the difficulties which
they presented, had been left to the last afternoon, usually a time of brief
discussion, polite thanks and congratulations, and hasty departures to airports.
By a stroke of genius the organizers of the conference asked Hourani to
introduce them. Hourani turned this poisoned chalice into a cornucopoeia of
ideas expressed with such wit, clarity and grace as to charm his somnolescent
audience into an efflorescenceof intellectual activity. The result was a discussion
which, whilst it had little to do with the papers under review, was the intellectual
highlight of the conference. Cyril Philips looked in during the proceedings and
sat down next to me. 'Has the conference all been like this?', he inquired in
a hushed and awed voice.
Hourani's facility for exposition found its finest expression in his Arabic
thought in the liberal age (London, 1962) in which he set out and discussed the
ideas of a number of prominent nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Arab
writers. It was indeed the period when liberalism was the dominant political
ideology and he traced the way in which Arabs sought to adjust its claims to
their own circumstances. The ideas were congenial to Hourani and he was in
sympathy with the aspirations of the writers even when their performance did
not live up to their pretensions. Essentially it was a study in reconciliation;
how men tried in a serious intellectual endeavour to bring into harmony the
claims of Islam and of the rights of man, of Arab nationalism and political
liberty, of science and divine truth. And it was about compromise; it was not
that one set of ideas was right and another wrong-such claims led to a dead-
end of confrontation. What was important was the effort to understand and
to find a middle way. It was and is a great book and it represented the heart
of Hourani's own thought. It was what Hourani thought ought to have
happened in the Middle East after 1945. Hourani loved ideas but he thought
people more important. People must live together and irreconcilable systems
of ideas were obstacles to that process. Of course the book was written at a
time when compromise had fallen out of fashion. Hourani ended his book in
1939 and thereby avoided the distasteful task of expounding new ideas which
were alien to him.
Ideas came from cities where people met and exchanged experiences and
where they were obliged to devise ways of living together. Hourani's interest
in cities found an outlet in a volume which he edited with S. M. Stern in 1970
(The Islamic city) and he was to draw on this study and on his reflections on
the subject in his last great book, A history of the Arab peoples (London, 1991).
In retirement many historians are tempted by publishers and by the last flicker
of ambition to write a synoptic book in which they set out the lessons they
have learned from a lifetime of practising history. Most of them regret it and
Hourani was no exception. 'Why,' he used to complain, 'did I ever agree to
write a big general book. I have nothing new to say.' He was quite wrong.
Incidents, biographies, ideas and themes were blended in an apparently effort-
less narrative which left his readers with a vivid impression of the growth of
Arab communities. It was not the conventional glories of Arab civilization but
the warmth and realities of Arab life which he celebrated; the hopes, fears,
ambitions, successes and failures of individuals, groups and empires; the charm
of houses and gardens; the bustle of the bazaar and the creaking of caravans.
It was a very long way from an older history of the Arabs written in the
traditional dynastic mode, that by Philip Hitti, and I remarked on this contrast
in conversation with him. It was characteristic of Hourani that while acknow-
ledging the difference he expressed his regret that his own treatment of the
44 MALCOLM YAPP
most vivid writings. For the historian, Sir John Kaye once wrote, all men are
dead. For Hourani, one sometimes feels, they were all alive.
Elie Kedourie, who was also an Honorary Fellow of SOAS, had no such
friendly feelings for Hamilton Gibb. In the preface to the 1987 edition of his
England and the Middle East (Boulder, Colorado) he tells the story of his
D. Phil. viva voce examination at Oxford in December 1953, when Gibb was
one of his examiners. Gibb was unhappy with the thesis and declared that
Kedourie had failed to give adequate weight to the importance of broad ideas,
namely, the general oriental awakening and the new ideas of nationalism and
self-determination which flourished at the end of the First World War, or to
the power of public opinion as a constraint on British policy. Kedourie
answered that he had found no trace in the sources that such ideas or the
force of public opinion had played any significant role in the making of policy
and the course of events and asked that Gibb would point to the documents
which would reveal that influence. Gibb could not do so but maintained his
insistence and the result was that Kedourie's thesis was referred. Kedourie
refused to modify his thesis and resubmit and so one of the great formative
works of modern Middle Eastern history never gained the doctoral imprimatur
of Oxford University.
Elie Kedourie was born into the prosperous and long-established Iraqi
Jewish community in January 1926. No event had a more powerful effect on
him than the attack on that community in June 1941 by a Baghdad mob whilst
the government and the British authorities turned a blind eye on the scenes of
murder and pillage. 'A wilderness of tigers' was one of the many memorable
phrases he employed to describe the modern Middle East and much of his
life's work was an attempt to refute more optimistic theories of Middle Eastern
development and to explain how the Middle East had achieved such a dismal
state. He tells in an essay how he was drawn to the subject. Reading Ronald
Storrs's Orientations on a train between London and Oxford, on his way to
an interview for a postgraduate scholarship in 1951, he was struck by the
contrast between the sophisticated political world described by Storrs and 'the
crude corruption, brutality and ideological ranting which was the political
spectacle disclosed to a schoolboy growing up in Baghdad in the 1930s and
1940s'. It was then he decided to write his thesis about the diplomatic transac-
tions which had created the modern Middle East and its new ruling class
during and after the First World War.
Kedourie's early education had been more French than English. He
attended the deservedly renowned Alliance Israelite school in Baghdad before
coming to London in that hot, sunny summer of 1947. Like Hourani he did
not choose to study history but enrolled at the London School of Economics
to read for the BSc. Econ., specializing in political thought and graduating in
1950. In 1951 he joined St. Antony's College. His supervisor was Sir John
Wheeler-Bennett who received him with sherry and a polite invitation to call
and discuss his work when he deemed it necessary. Kedourie did not seek and
Wheeler-Bennett did not offer more assistance and his thesis was written, like
many another at that time, with no more formal guidance than tea once a
term at which supervisor and student talked at large. Kedourie did not find
the style of Oxford academic life congenial-he wrote that he derived most
intellectual enlightenment from the conversation of his fellow postgraduates.
After the debacle of his viva he was happy to return to London where in 1953
he accepted an assistant lectureship in politics and British administration in
the Department of Government at LSE under Michael Oakeshott, whose
conservative mistrust of optimistic theories of human progress was very much
46 MALCOLM YAPP
of thoughts and actions now dead and gone which once upon a time were the
designs and choices of living men.'
Kedourie's contribution was especially to the study of British policy in the
Middle East, although he was also able to use European and American archives
to illuminate features of internal Middle Eastern development. The best of his
articles, like the great essays on Egypt and Palestine, which are contained in
The ChathamHouse version(London, 1970), Arabicpolitical memoirs (London,
1974) and Islam in the Modern World (London, 1980), are archive-based. In
the Anglo-Arab labyrinth(Cambridge, 1976), a study of the Husayn-McMahon
correspondence and its subsequent fate, was also securely founded on a mastery
of the archival sources. The same is also true of many articles in the journal,
Middle Eastern Studies, which he founded with his wife, Syvia Haim, in 1964,
and which quickly became the premier journal in the field of modern Middle
Eastern history. His editorship of this journal not only permitted Kedourie to
publish articles illuminating many areas of the subject but also enabled him
to impose his own high standards on the academic world of Middle Eastern
history.
There was another, quite different aspect of Kedourie's work. This was his
interest in ideas, indeed it was his first interest. Nationalism (London, 1960)
was an important theoretical contribution to the subject. Much previous writing
had concentrated on the practical expressions of nationalism, often assuming
that nation states were such natural political forms that it was of more interest
to explain why they had not always existed rather than why they should have
come into being. Kedourie, by contrast, focused on nationalist ideologies and
their origins, particularly in Germany in the late eighteenth century. Kedourie
argued that nationalism was the artificial creation of intellectuals, although it
was a doctrine which many others found eminently suitable to their purposes.
Taken further this argument yielded a view of nationalism as the product of
manipulation by small groups of men rather than the expression of the popular
will. In his anthology, Nationalism in Asia and Africa (London, 1970), Kedourie
applied this view to the non-European world and concluded that in those
regions even the argument that the doctrine of nationalism, invented or bor-
rowed, was an appropriate ideology for the place and time also failed. In Asia
and Africa nationalism was wholly unsuitable, he declared, and contended that
it was foisted on those continents by intellectuals who uncritically copied
Western ideas.
There is little doubt that Kedourie's hostility to nationalist claims owed
much to his own knowledge of the sufferings inflicted on minorities in the
Middle East by men claiming to act in the name of nationalist doctrines. As
early as 1951, under the pseudonym of Antiochus (the allusion to Racine was
perhaps a reflection of his French education), he had published articles on the
fate of minorities in the region. As time went on he broadened his criticism of
the importation of Western ideas into the Middle East and his last book,
Politics in the Middle East (1992), included a sustained argument that constitu-
tionalism (by which he meant parliamentary democracy) was quite unsuitable
to the region and had failed almost completely. Despotism was the normal
political condition of the Middle East, he contended; and in the past it had
worked not too badly because people understood it and could manage to live
under it. But inappropriate Western ideas such as nationalism and democracy
had deranged the old system without providing a viable alternative; in fact
they had helped to produce the disaster which was the modern Middle East.
Kedourie was a conservative in the profoundly pessimistic tradition which
finds its roots in Plato and in the Old Testament but which in political
48 MALCOLM YAPP