Translation Notes: Salchichas

Before I put my translation project aside to #FinishYourDamnBookAlready, I had started blogging a set of (mostly) lexical quandaries that I was facing. Now that I’m back to the project, I think I’ll resume the notes, too. So first up in Translation Notes 2.0, salchichas.

I know the word. I’ve heard it a million times. But I still had to look it up to see what its English counterpart is. And I realized that one of the consequences of translating Spanish literature while keeping kosher is that I have a whole battery of Spanish food vocabulary for which my internal definition is simply: can’t eat that.

Translating in a Time of Trump

(Or, How To Think Like a Literary Terrorist)

It is with absolute glee that I have returned to the literary translation project that I had to shelve 18 months ago in the interest of finishing my work and doing the kind of work that would count towards making me tenurable. Yes, I still have a bee in my bonnet about peer review and about what “counts,” but let’s shelve that for the moment in the interest of talking about a strange new nexus between literature and terrorism.

In the course of yesterday’s work, I arrived at a passage that discusses the Umayyad practice of crucifying convicts and the fear and displeasure it could inspire in the citizens of the capital city of Córdoba:

The promenade stretched out at the foot of the wall on the right bank of the river, unspooling a thread of fortresses and, sometimes, of crosses; for that is where the bodies of executed convicts were placed on public display. Amongst the smells of Córdoba that texts have preserved for us, one we have to overcome is the stench of rotting human flesh. Not for nothing does Ibn Khaldun (who knew everything) affirm that in the cities the air is cut with the putrid breath of filth and only thanks to the constant movement of people do waves of fresh air disperse those immovable humors.”

And because this is work for a general audience of readers, and because Islamophobic crimes and terrorist attacks have risen by order’s of magnitude since last year‘s presidential election, I found myself pausing to wonder how some general readers might misapprehend or misappropriate this graphic, smelly passage.

The white nationalists, Klansmen, neo-Nazis, sons of the Confederacy, and general racists, Islamophobes, and anti-Semites who have been dominating the news more and more (no, really, in spite of Trump having ruined that phrase for us, too) have shown themselves beyond willing to use the Middle Ages and classical antiquity to further their claims of religious hegemony and racial superiority. (For examples, see recent public interventions by my colleagues here, here, here, here, here, and here.) Their rhetoric is confused. On the one hand they use the term “medieval” to mean backwards and to criticize Islam. But on the other hand, they idealize the medieval as a time of racial purity. Crusading rhetoric has become commonplace in current political discourse. The Middle Ages is fair game for the racists who have proven themselves, over and over again, a hundred years ago and today, willing to kill for their cause.

The city walls of Córdoba during the Cruces de Mayo festival this year.

One of the terrible things about terrorism is that you have to start to think like a terrorist just to go about daily life: When I pack to go to the airport, I have to think about whether anything I’m packing might be or look like something I could hijack or crash or blow up a plane with just to be able to get through security. I have to think about the most logical path for a gunman through a building to be able to have an escape-or-barricade plan in mind just in case, to be able protect myself day to day. I wouldn’t think about how to crash planes or shoot people in buildings otherwise but for the rise of terrorism and my need to go on with my life around it and around the security (theater) measures it has necessitated. Terrorism breeds terroristic thinking.

And now — do I have to think like an Islamophobe or a white supremacist just to be able to do my work and do no harm? I must take into account how my translation project about medieval Islam might be used against modern, flesh-and-blood Muslims by white nationalist terrorists. I have to wonder whether the above passage might be seized out of the historical and narrative context of late antique and early Islamic crucifixion and out of the context of the love letter to Córdoba that I am translating and used instead to demonize any and all Muslims, medieval and modern, as… I don’t know. I don’t want to have to get seven feet ahead of deadly hatred by imagining hatred. I don’t want to be the one who demonizes my academic subjects and my friends, even if it is to protect them. These are lines I will not cross.

I find myself in a quandary: If I go ahead with this project, if I put this paragraph out in the world, I might be putting ammunition into the hands of terrorists. But if I quash it, I let those same terrorists dictate nothing less than the very course of history, medieval and modern; they would limit what people could know about the Middle Ages and limit what people in the present could say about it.

I will confess an unpopular opinion here: I am a free-speech absolutist. Incitement to violence? No way. But short of that? Sure. Even after this weekend I’m still the Jew who believes that Nazis should be allowed to march down Main St. and that I should then denounce them long and loud. I believe that we fight speech with speech. It’s a position that has been sullied lately by white dudebros who don’t really understand or believe in free speech, but rather who feel entitled, but it is one that is still carefully thought and actively defended by organizations such as the ACLU. (This Twitter thread by my colleague David Perry is a useful and clear articulation of the difference and the consequences.)

This is not a decision I take lightly or unaware of the potential real-world consequences. But I will translate, I will publish, and if it all goes badly wrong I will fight speech with speech and hope that it will be enough.

Writing for a General Audience: An Overthinking in Questions

I had thought about writing the previous post in such a way that I could submit it to the New York Times op-ed page. Obviously, I chickened out. Or, more to the point, I overthought it. I was overcome with questions and doubts that stymied my perception of the piece as something that was editable into a proper op-ed piece for a proper periodical. So these are some of the things I have to think about as I try to move forward with my goal of doing some writing for a general audience now that I no longer have to worry about it all “counting*”:

— How much to balance classroom anecdata with the meat of the matter? In a certain respect, students can figure in a popular piece as the proxy for the audience. But does that make it all too schoolyard-y?

— What makes an anecdote interesting or worthy of publication, and where? This piece was hysterical, all anecdote, and not something that would ever have occurred to me to submit to the Times, even in the service of a  subtly-argued larger point.

— How do we choose a publication that will on the one hand allow for depth in writing but on the other hand reach a wide audience? What publications would put up with our view of the medieval as current? How hard to we have to try? How hard to we force the analogy?

— How far does our expertise go? How does our definition of our own field factor in? I’m not an art historian, I don’t work on central Europe, and I don’t consider my work primarily to be a part of Jewish Studies (regardless of what everyone tells me). But realistically, the history of the six-pointed star in Jewish and Islamic contexts is basically in my wheelhouse. Would I have really had the authority to write this for a proper publication? Would it have been responsible for me to write about something that I wouldn’t consider to be in my immediate area of research? Do our very narrow academic definitions of what we do and where we are experts in limit our writing for a general audience? Should they?

— How much will people in the field be willing to read charitably and understand that one writes differently for a popular audience than for a scholarly audience rather than condemning us for oversimplifying? Why does this still matter to me now that I have tenure?

— *What counts? Why? Why not?

— Trolls? Trolls.

— Ultimately, what is the purpose of popular writing? The question I’m really getting at with this broad one is this: How do we balance arguing an opinion, arguing an academic point, and elucidating the public?

The Star of David (and the Church and the Caliph and Chicago Feminsits)

The first time I traveled with students to Spain, one in my group was a talkative sophomore in the NYU honors program with a name straight out of the Hebrew Bible. He was great at keeping any discussion going — I suspect that he liked the attention that talking brought him, but he was also genuinely interested and had questions at every turn. In the Prado Museum he saw six-pointed stars surrounding a late fourteenth-century church altarpiece and asked our tour guide — an older Spanish art historian of a conservative school of thought — why there were Jewish stars in Christian art.  The guide looked puzzled and I asked him to hold off and ask me later. I knew she wouldn’t understand his question, because those six-pointed stars were not Jewish stars. He repeated his question when he saw the same geometric design in the modern plaza below the tenth-century walls of the Arab settlement at Majeriṭ, which would come later to be known as Madrid.

“It reflects geometric designs found in Islamic contexts from the period when this wall was built,” I explained. He argued for its inherent Jewishness.

“In the tenth century,” I answered him, “and all the way up to the fourteenth, the six-pointed star wasn’t a Jewish symbol; it was just a geometric design.”

He was incredulous, reluctant to accept that a shape with such deep symbolism could have been chosen, as he put it, “just at random.” His final argument was: “But it’s on the flag of Israel!”

“Which,” I reminded him, “was founded well after the fourteenth century.”

This is a very typical and important kind of conversation. Students who were brought up in any one of the Abrahamic religious traditions that my research and teaching touch upon often find their personal beliefs and the tenets they learned in their families or their synagogues, churches, or mosques, challenged by the historical development of their religions and the ways in which medieval people practiced those religions that look very different from the ways in which they are practiced today. I tell every class of students at the beginning of every semester — and I firmly believe — that my role as a teacher isn’t to change or challenge their religious beliefs or their place in their own communities; rather, my role is to show them where scholarship has gotten us. And every semester I have students express shock — sometimes loudly, but always, in my experience, without malice and in a way that can start defensive but usually leads to very genuine inquiry — as they learn the history of their communities and learn the ways in which religious history has been interpreted throughout time.

A different set of questions about the symbolism of the Jewish star, and with a very different tenor, have been raised by various LGBTQ and feminist groups demonstrating this summer: The Dyke March in Chicago ejected marchers who were carrying the gay-pride flag modified with a white Jewish star; the feminist Slut Walk in the same city has indicated that it will adopt a policy of ejecting anyone wearing Jewish symbols and has begun to use the anti-semitic slur “zio” in some of its publicity materials. Slut Walk protests in some other cities are following suit, while others are openly welcoming Jewish feminist marchers.

Perhaps most striking in the aftermath of the Dyke March was some of the organizers claiming that they were justified because “different symbols mean different things to different people.” That is, of course, what makes literature work. When the principle stops working, though, is when a reader of the symbol decides that it can only work one way; it turns the interpretation of literature into a treasure-hunt for symbols and a cryptogram to be solved, nothing more. And in day-to-day life, it tends to stop working when an outside what the one operative meaning of a symbol they have chosen for themselves works.

The history of the six-pointed star as a Jewish symbol doesn’t run along a straight line. There are two ideas about the origin of the symbol that are common in many Jewish communities: First, that it is a messianic symbol that dates back to an early Jewish revolt against the Romans in the 2nd century of the Common Era; and second, that it acquires a mystical meaning somewhere in between the 13th century, when the kabbalistic work The Zohar was composed and the 16th, with the composition of Isaac Luria’s The Book of the Lion. Both of these ideas are parts of the stories that communities tell about the evolution of their own symbols and rituals. The reality is much more complicated and interesting.

The scholar of Jewish mysticism Gershom Scholem traced a different development of the symbol: It occurs occasionally in very limited Jewish contexts in the early centuries of the Common Era; it appeared as a part of underground Jewish magical practices beginning in the thirteenth century, came above ground in the fourteenth, and didn’t come to be known as the “Shield of David” and be a symbol of the Jewish people, and recognized as such by both Jews and Christians until as late as the seventeenth century in central Europe. It does not start being used on Jewish tombstones until that point, and does not spread to the rest of Europe and the world until the late eighteenth and early nineteenth. It was adopted by the Zionist congress in 1897, but also remained a Jewish symbol, apart from nationalism.

The stories about the role of the Jewish star in the Bar Kochba rebellion and as a part of Lurianic kabbalah are stories that communities tell about the origin of a symbol that has come to have meaning. In large measure, the Star of David is one that has come to be meaningful through a process of reclamation by different Jewish communities: It was imposed by Christian nobility in 17th-century Prague and Jews there came to claim it as their own; and, as Scholem himself wrote: “But even Zionism did not do so much to confer the sacredness of a true symbol on the Shield of David as did that mad dictator who made of it a badge of shame for millions of our people, who compelled them to wear it publicly on their clothing as the badge of exclusion and of eventual extermination. Under this sign they moved along the road of horror and degradation, struggle and heroism. If there be such a thing as a soil that grows meaning for symbols, this is it.” For the sake of this argument I will concede the separation of Zionism and Judaism (although I don’t think that such a point can really be conceded so freely without further discussion, nor do I think that it is non-Jewish liberals who should be allowed to define these terms, either) and say that while it is a Zionist symbol, it is also a wholly separate Jewish symbol with its own range of meanings and long, winding history.

(Just as an aside: I also hesitate to draw in Scholem’s point about the Holocaust being what effectively sanctified the symbol in the 20th century because of the way it has become a political football in precisely this kind of discussion: I can think of half a dozen examples since the November election when non-Jewish liberals have, on one hand, used the Holocaust to make a political point about discrimination and genocide . This political rhetoric, which grows up alongside protest movements such as the ones under discussion here, appropriates the tragedy but then also dictates what is the appropriate response of victims. I know that those are not the values and the actions of liberal groups and activists that value cultural authenticity and the self-determination of minority groups. I don’t know how to reconcile the contradiction.)

On the face of it, I’ve made two different points through the anecdotes in this blog post: On the one hand, I wanted to challenge my student to think about the six-pointed star in artistic contexts outside of Judaism and earlier than its usage as a Jewish symbol. On the other hand, I hate to see non-Jewish activists dictate how their Jewish counterparts use a symbol that is of history community value to them. Maybe I’m just a contrarian pain in the arse who likes challenging people’s assumptions. But maybe the points aren’t so far apart from each other after all: in each case, I would ask people to think about a geometric shape and its life in the world as it is, not as they would like it to be. I asked my student to think about the use of the six-pointed star outside of Jewish contexts, and I’d ask the organizers of the Slut Walk to think about it as one that has its own history and mythology in an American Jewish community that has been and is increasingly living under threats of religious persecution.  As liberals, we have accepted as a first principle that the way in which a community, particularly a community at a structural disadvantage, defines itself merits respect. (And for the academics in the bunch, we’re past the linguistic turn and know that accounts of history are representations of their author rather than a recoverable accounting of What Actually Happened Then.) And so narrative — and in this case the stories that Jews, and even politically liberal Jews tell ourselves about the history of our symbol — is a reality worthy of respect. In my role as a teacher, I want my students to see a world that does not have them at the center. In my role as a Jewish feminist, I want my community to be able to define itself and to be heard.

*None of the photos in this post are my own.

The Landscape of the Ironborn

I don’t have TV (and honestly don’t like Game of Thrones enough to bother with HBO Now, in spite of whatever Ross Douthat thinks about liberals and the show) so I won’t Game of Thrones but will rather wait until the season is over and available on iTunes, binge-watch, and as usual be the last medievalist to have seen the show. Either way, though, a recent trip to Prince Edward Island got me thinking again about the thread that unifies all of the things that add up to make me really dislike the show. So just a quick thought in advance of the start of the season:

Lots of fans complain use historical accuracy as a way to complain the inclusion of strong female and POC characters; although they never have a problem with the historical accuracy of dragons as medieval weapons of war. Click here for a good overview piece about the issue in media and fantasy series and games generally; it’s similar to the issues surrounding GoT specifically, which are the topic of this piece. This kind of complaint hinges on the idea that an authentic Middle Ages was mostly fully of white people, a complaint that has been debunked by scholars over and over again.

In light of those kinds of rageful complaint that come from Donald Trump’s America I don’t want to fall back on authenticity as the crux of own critique; but at the same time, a lot has also been written on the medieval inauthenticity of the show and the ways in which the show projects contemporary. ideas and desires on an imagined version of the Middle Ages that’s ultimately more modern than anything else (as here).

It’s not just the projection of modern desires on the Middle Ages that makes the show inauthentic, but the sloppy visual and linguistic shorthanding. For example: The Alcázar of Seville stands in for Dorne, the southern kingdom of Westeros that conforms to a variety of orientalizing stereotypes, beginning with using Spain as the setting for the place that is part-but-not-a-part of the kingdom in precisely the same way that convention wisdom has Africa beginning at the Pyrenees. The showrunners are very good about creating invented languages for people of different kingdoms and clans, but the people of Dorne instead speak the “Common Tongue,” English in the show, with an indeterminate accent rather than ever speaking their own language. The accent and the setting are tools for signaling to a general audience that the Dornish are alien to their own kingdom without having to take up time really setting up that characteristic or doing it within the framework of the series — it relies on marks of otherness from our wold in the Westerosi one.

My post-tenure trip took me to Prince Edward Island, Canada, where the beaches are mostly iron. The sand is red with all the iron content. With my toes in the water it occurred to me that the landscapes also rely on shorthand. The Island of Pyke in the series is meant to be iron but it is made up of crags of seasoned cast iron rather than the mineral as it occurs in nature. It’s a silly little observation, and maybe I’ll have more to say once I’ve watched the season through — #medievaltwitter seems to be atwitter about the depiction of chained libraries — but for now it struck me that cold, dark metal was the way to shorthand iron based on popular images in the real world without either building it up in the Westerosi world or even thinking about how it really is in our world.

It’s not medieval, it’s not real, but it’s also not fully fictional. What is it doing, in the end?

The Great Global-Conference-Conference-Research Trip of 2017

I ended the semester with a trip to Spain for my department’s M.A. colloquium and some NYU-Global responsibilities in Madrid; I had a conference the following week in Barcelona; and by the time all was said and done, I had been invited to a second conference in Córdoba and tacked on a week in Jerusalem to tie up some loose archival ends for an article I’m working on. It was a lot of work and it was exhausting, but I also managed to take a lot of pictures in Spain which in some way related to my academic and intellectual life.

Madrid is not a particularly medieval town; it’s a new capital with little of its early history readily visible. But there is currently an exhibition of objects from the Hispanic Society of America that are traveling while the HSA building is renovated. I was ambivalent about taking time to see things that I can see any time I want in New York but I’m s glad I went. It’s a completely different experience to see the HSA collection as works of art in a museum rather than as they are usually displayed, as the personal possessions of an eccentric crammed onto the walls of his mansion-turned-museum.

En route to one of my meetings with students, I popped into this neo-Mudéjar church (San Fermín de los Navarros) that has long captured my fancy; I was disappointed to discover that as neo-Mudéjar as the façade is, the interior is all neo-late-Romanesque.

Plus, one evening I was treated to “medieval week” on MasterChef. For a country with a pretty spectacular medieval past on which it could have drawn, this was about as goofy as a Renaissance faire.

Authenticity is always a fraught concept, but there’s a selection of the more authentically medieval the below the jump.

Continue reading “The Great Global-Conference-Conference-Research Trip of 2017”

Spain, I love you so much. And then you go and do stupid sh¡!t like this.

One of the more challenging aspects of Spain is its ongoing, collective ambivalence about Jews and Muslims. It’s a place that, in the last 20 (or maybe even closer to 30) years has come to embrace its Judaeo-Islamic past — uneasily and and sometimes haltingly — if for nothing else than because it makes for a very attractive draw for tourists and foreign investment; but at the same time, it is still very much a place that hasn’t figured out how to deal with the Jews and Muslims in its midst. (A brief disclaimer here: I’m talking strictly about the public sphere and not the academic one for the purposes of this blog post.)

It’s something that struck me most strongly when I was here in 2015 for a semester and visited Alcalá de Henares, a city that very much plays up the presence of its Jewish and Islamic quarters but also sports a mural that trades in stereotypes about Jews being the shadowy, driving force behind corporate and military America. And, here again for what I have come to call The Great NYU Global-Conference-Conference-Research Trip of 2017, I walked past a shop that was trying to sell highish-end women’s accessories by using the image of a frightening, unindividuated Jew conducting bad business under the table. (And now with added homophobia!)

But the casual, corporate, Jews=money=flashy accessories antisemitism of this marketing campaign pales in comparison to the postcards that are available on sale at the Museum of Jewish History in Girona, such as this one:

18301993_1264058797046333_7576347670324534424_n

Girona is easily the best-preserved medieval city I have ever visited and was an important center of Jewish life in the late Middle Ages. Yet even here, even in a medieval city that very much markets itself for Jewish tourism, the old medieval stereotypes are never far below the surface. The “joke” of this postcard is that Isaac “the Blind” of Posquieres, a thirteenth-century kabbalist, is shown selling the lotto tickets that, in Spain, are a concession held by blind and visually impaired people. The not-really-a-joke is that the postcard shows a Jew with a big nose (for anyone who needs a refresher about the medieval origins of this stereotype, see Sara Lipton’s Dark Mirror) enriching himself.

I took a photo of the postcard and showed it on my phone to the women sitting at the entrance desk and explained what I thought the issue was with it; they looked at me very sheepishly, explained that they knew about it but because the bookshop is actually a concession that isn’t operated by the museum, there was nothing they could do about it. They promised to pass my complaint on to the director of the museum, and suggested that it would be helpful if I mentioned it to the owner of the bookshop. Perhaps, they suggested it without really believing it, he just didn’t know.

Of course, the bookshop owner knew. I suspect that this is not the first time that this conversation has proceeded along the edges of this particular triangle: a surprised tourist, the women at the desk, and the owner of the book shop. The shop owner first told me that he doesn’t make the postcards but just orders them; and since the shop orders them in multi-packs and these come in the multi-pack and they are all paid for, he has to sell them. (Nevermind that if it were me and those postcards came in my multi-pack, I’d throw them out even at a loss before I’d sell them  — who’s the greedy Jew now?) He also tried to tell me that Isaac the Blind — the thirteenth-century kabbalist, in case you’d forgotten from a few paragraphs up — wasn’t a Jew, but rather was the owner of a tavern at the edge of the Call, the Jewish quarter, so it wasn’t actually a stereotype of Jews.

The tourist industry here that pours so much energy into remembering long-dead Jews and enticing the living ones to tour their old haunts will never be more than a silly little parody of itself and a pathetic disservice not just to Jewish history but to its own — which are, of course, inextricable from each other — until it actually looks its own history, both medieval and modern, squarely in the face and appreciates it rather than just casting a casual glance in its direction.

My pithy closing sentence was going to be this: I love this country deeply, but I also have to hate it because it still very much hates me. But the use of that word, country, is what opens up the broader question. How much does a modern country owe to what used to be there? To the descendants of the people who used to be there? What is the nature of what is owed? Is there only a choice between forgetting fully and remembering fully, or is there some middle ground? I had planned to end with a barrage of unanswered questions that I’d really like to answer, but I think that would make this a much longer and different post. So for now, I’ll just get on with loving and hating Spain and trying to let that seething tumult wind itself into words.

Onomastics and Minimum Standards

“If my students come away from my class and four years later remember nothing about the Middle Ages but only remember when they pick up a newspaper that not everyone with an Arabic name is Muslim, then that’s enough.”

I’ve said it often enough to colleagues, thought I’d never say it directly to students because I wouldn’t want them to know what my absolute bare minimum standard is — I always want them to exceed it rather than shoot straight for it. It’s a topic that most often comes up in the course of discussing which way we err when we simplify the complex narrative of Andalusi cultural history for introductory-level undergraduates: for the sake of the narrative do we make it seem rosier than the historical reality or more conflictive than it? In an ideal world we would do neither but even a simplified narrative is, realistically, confusing for students who are not yet primed for historical complexity and a narrative helps. I defend my kind of simplification with the logic of what I want students to walk away with. At the end of the day, if they remember only one thing from my class, what should that be? I tend to simplify in the rosy direction because I want my students to remember the cross-cultural pollination that proximity yields; and it is is easier for them to understand that in those rosy terms even if it is equally close conflict that brings about cultural flourishing.

A gruesome tragedy is playing itself out in the local — and even international — headlines: a judge, the first African-American woman to serve on the New York State  Court of Appeals appears to have committed suicide by walking into the Hudson River and letting go. It is by all accounts a tragedy; those who knew her say she was a compassionate person and a sharp legal mind. But an error crept into the first versions of the news reports and has since been replicated worldwide, even though it has been corrected at its source: the judge, whose surname was Abdu-Salam, was initially described as Muslim even though she was not.

https://twitter.com/el_pais/status/852948341491191812

A correction explains the source of the error:

C9ZOq8jVoAA7kuE.jpg_large

Her name.

With very rare exceptions, my students are not going to go on to become medievalists. Some of them take my class because they have a genuine, if lay, interest in the subject, some for reasons of heritage, some because they’ve been to Spain and have seen the Alhambra and don’t quite realize how complex and difficult the class is that they’re about to take, some because they did well in AP European History and don’t know how different my narrative and my methodologies will be; but by far and away, the most common reason I hear from students for taking my class (especially the very introductory, freshman-level lecture class) is: “It fit my schedule.” I have some students who are there because they care about the material, but a much larger percentage who are there to fulfill a requirement. I know that the smaller group will understand the complexities, ask great questions, and retain a lot of the details; but again, trying to be realistic, after the final exam most of them will remember only one big takeaway from my class, and that’s it. (Do I wish it were different? Sure. Just about every day. But you work with what you’ve got.) For those students, as heretical as it may be for me to say so, I’m not sure that the takeaway should be strictly medieval.

And so for me, that takeaway is this: language, art, and literature have no confession. That’s all.

If my students can come away from my class knowing that Christians and Jews can also have abds and ibns and als in their names, that’s enough. It’s enough so that when they are the obituary-writers and the investigative reporters who are shaping public perception and defining the news that is fit to print (nevermind when they are the ones setting immigration policy or dropping bombs), they won’t make silly mistakes based on unfounded biases about what kinds of languages and what kinds of names belong to what kinds of religions.

Paradise Lost

Update, 6/28/2020: I gather that people are finding their way to this blog post via several book and politics discussion boards/sites. Those readers who have found that there is not enough detail in this blog post may find the book chapter that I was invited to write on the basis of it to be more to their liking. It’s available here: https://www.academia.edu/41779498/The_Myth_of_the_Myth_of_the_Andalusian_Paradise_The_Extreme_Right_and_the_American_Revision_of_the_History_and_Historiography_of_Medieval_Spain?fbclid=IwAR2x_BPhJswSBpM4p7qwdtbrX-lFyWVKYFe_dSZBOqdBMIwPt3dkhAVRMug

***

I’ve taken one for the team. I’ve read it so you don’t have to. Yep. That book.

The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise is a self-proclaimed corrective to a “wide-spread belief that it was a wonderful place of tolerance and convivencia of three cultures under the benevolent supervision of enlightened Muslim rulers” (2). The book’s author, Darío Fernández-Morera is an associate professor at Northwestern, a critic of Cervantes and other early modern Spanish literati who positions himself as a “Machiavellian” (nope, not kidding, 3) interpreter of the Middle Ages. Unfortunately, the book is even more politicizing than the work it discusses and tilts, appropriately for a volume written by a Cervantes scholar, at giants that turn out to be nothing more than badly misperceived windmills.

The Myth consists of over 350 pages of what a colleague poetically calls “convivencia sneering,” a resentful drive to first misconstrue nearly 80 years of scholarship on medieval Spain as a mere celebration of the convivencia, or living-togetether-ness of Muslims, Jews, and Christians, and then tear down the newly constructed straw man. “Convivencia sneering” is often found in two guises, both of which are manifest in The Myth: first, the misrepresentation of scholarship on the Jews, Christians, and Muslims of medieval Spain as a uniformly idealizing and one-dimensional endeavor divorced from research into the real “realidad histórica”; and second, treating works written for a popular audience, most notably María Rosa Menocal’s The Ornament of the World, as the scholarship in the field while ignoring works written for a scholarly audience and refusing to treat writing for those two audiences as different beasts.

The author claims that contemporary scholarship on medieval Iberia perpetrates the myth of a paradise in with Jews, Christians, and Muslims all more or less got along, and that this view has been deceitfully conveyed to a gullible reading public. His book will set the record straight. In other words, his argument is that a caricature of convivencia has been perpetrated on an unsuspecting audience by scholars who are, in turn, too afraid of the Islamic world and too enamored of it to tell the truth about how horrendous Islam was and is. He supports this claim through a series of misrepresentations of the primary sources and ofthe state of the field facilitated by a desperately poor handle on the relevant secondary bibliography and a blinding need to prove the evil of Islam and the darkness of the Middle Ages.

He positions himself as the maverick outsider who alone can correct the deficiency he perceives in the interpretation of the medieval evidence of interactions between Muslims and others in medieval Spain. However, he does not approach a field that is not his own with the humility required to learn its contours. This is not to say, as Fernández-Morera charges, that everyone must be in agreement. In fact, a quick look at the field shows that a lot of us are in deep disagreement with each other about a lot of things. What it means, though, is that every field of study, and I mean that in the most literal sense of the term to refer to the material itself and not to the body of scholarship that has grown up around it, requires a certain degree of expertise and familiarity that a few years of reading can never yield. What’s wrong with this book is not only its ideology (although I firmly disagree with it), but its methodology and its unfamiliarity with the various genres of text upon which it builds its argument. This is not to say that no scholar should ever cross disciplinary or period boundaries — quite the contrary — but rather, that a first foray into a new field that attempts nothing short of tearing down that field is simply unlikely to be able to distinguish between real problems in that field and phantasms (see, for example, Fernández-Morera’s nonsensical discussion of the relationship between toponymy and language families on pp. 14). To make this kind of critique successfully requires many years immersed in the material rather than a dilettante’s grand tour through it.

Continue reading “Paradise Lost”

Hold the Bacon — for how long?

I had a great sandwich for lunch. I’m not the type to wax poetic about Danny Meyer’s culinary empire, or the type to use the web in that stereotypical way of announcing what I ate for lunch, but here we are all the same, with me telling you that on my way to the New York Public Library this afternoon,  I stopped for chicken sandwich with bibb lettuce, green tomato, dijonnaise, and a side of jardiniere at Meyer’s new chicken, sandwich, and baked goods shop, Daily Provisions.

IMG_2781

The sandwich was supposed to have bacon, but I asked for it without; and that’s really why I’m writing about my lunch on a blog that is supposed to be at least tangentially about life with my head most of the time in medieval Spain.

It’s well established that the preponderance of pork in Spanish food is residual (I mean, not the pork itself because that would just be gross, but the excess of it) from a time when many people were eager to prove that they were most definitely not Jewish or Muslim and did so, at least in part, by making very public displays of pork product procurement. Almost every year have my students read Inquisition testimony in which a woman explains that she ate a lot of fish specifically to avoid mixing milk and meat in violation of Jewish dietary laws but also to avoid not mixing milk and meat and drawing suspicion that she might be secretly Jewish. One anecdote has a qadi eat so many appetizers that he makes himself sick and vomits on the main course of pork so that he and his fellow cyrpto-Muslims at a dinner have a totally plausible excuse for not eating it. And a favorite interpretation of the description of Don Quijote’s Dulcinea del Toboso as having “the best hand at salting pork in all of La Mancha” is that she was trying to hide her Jewish roots with a public display of her talents related to pork preparation.

In fact, my undergraduate adviser, may she rest in peace, spent a lot of time trying to convince me (and later some other Jewish colleagues) that the most authentic way to be Jewish in Spain was to eat a lot of pork rather than to try to avoid it.

All of this brings me back to the sandwich. As I asked for it to be made without the bacon, I began to wonder how long, in the current climate of arsons at mosques and bomb threats at synagogues with no consequences for the perpetrators or for the politicians (and their daughters) who either encourage such activity or at least stand silently while it happens, how long asking a restaurant to hold the bacon will be a feasible thing to do. It has probably always marked me as Jewish to order a dish, hold the bacon, or to substitute pork for tofu in a Chinese restaurant, but I never thought about it until today. I never thought about it as a luxury to be able to go into any restaurant and choose any dish I want, even if it has bacon on it, and simply ask for the bacon to be left off without it becoming a clash of civilizations kind of situation. I wonder when we might have to stop ordering things without bacon, either choosing only dishes that do not contain pork products or making a show of eating something forbidden. As unlikely as it is to happen in New York, it is quite likely to happen some time, somewhere in the homogeneous middle of the country.

It’s not getting shot. It’s not having a visa revoked. It’s just a sandwich. Right now it’s just a potential fear of a future sandwich, at that; but it’s maybe one more little change we’ll have to make in the simplest ways that we live our lives just to protect ourselves from our fellow citizens. It’s one more reminder, one more step towards the revocability of it all.