texts. Europe: a history. byDavies, Norman. Publication date Topics Europe -- History Borrow this book to access EPUB and PDF files. EUROPE: A HISTORY BOOK BY NORMAN DAVIS FREE DOWNLOAD. Jan ; Total pages ; Writer of Book Professor Norman Davies. If you want. defined the history of modern Europe by uniting the stories of its eastern and western Europe's Worst Massacre Since World War II . NORMAN DAVIES.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Japanese|
|ePub File Size:||15.67 MB|
|PDF File Size:||13.78 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
Europe_ a History - Norman Davies - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File The final chapter on post-war Europe takes the narrative to the events of. europe norman davies download. Free UK delivery on eligible editable pdf from indesign cs4 teshimaryokan.info: A History is a narrative history book by Norman. In this monumental book Norman Davies presents over thousand-year history of Europe. He focuces not only on the most recognised cultures like Latin, Greek.
Equally, the study of the geological strata of history must never be divorced from doings on the ground. Recent studies show that the movement of genetic material into prehistoric Europe corresponded with parallel cultural trends. Norman Davies has been appointed to the Advisory Board of the European. So Poland-Lithuania was in and Russian Muscovy was out. The priorities and assumptions which derive from Allied attitudes of the wartime vintage are very common in accounts of the twentieth century. It was a case of tit for tit.
Forthcoming The history of Europe, Poland, Wroclaw One will have to wait and see what he has next in the pipeline - details can be found here!
A History. A History "Europe: A History" began in , and came to fruition nearly nine years later in It resulted from a commission from Oxford University Press to put 'the whole European History between two covers. I remember the experience as a marathon of intense concentration, in which planning for the book's contents and structure took up more time than the actual writing.
The twelve main chapters took up two years; the 'snapshots', that provided a charge of magnification at the end of each chapter, were produced at the rate of one a day, and the 'capsules' at more or less one a day. The maps and diagrams of the Appendix swallowed a whole final year.
Delivery of such a complicated monster volume almost brought Oxford University Press to its knees. Standard editorial procedures could not cope and preparation and production was supervised by a brilliant, ex-Oxford University Press printer, Pat Duffy, who was brought out of retirement for the purpose.
The experiment of sending it to Pondicherry for digital type-setting nearly proved disastrous; and the desperate editors pondered the possibility that the pages could only be published in electronic form. It was an act of faith that Oxford University Press decided to press ahead with the 1. Their greatest surviving masterwork, as the Age of Stone gave way to that of Bronze, was built on the edge of human habitation on a remote, offshore island.
But no amount of modern speculation can reveal for certain what inspired those master masons, nor what their great stone circle was called.
By tradition the Hellenes descended from the continental interior in three main waves, taking control of the shores of the Aegean towards the end of the second millennium BC. They conquered and mingled with the existing inhabitants. They spread out through the thousand islands which lie scattered among the waters between the coasts of the Peloponnese and of Asia Minor. They absorbed the prevailing culture of the mainland, and the still older culture of Crete. They were told about the Flood, and about Europa.
Europa was the subject of one of the most venerable legends of the classical world. Europa was the mother of Minos, Lord of Crete, and hence the progenitrix of the most ancient branch of Mediterranean civilization. She was mentioned in passing by Homer. But in Europa and the Bulk attributed to Moschus of Syracuse, and above all in the Metamorphoses of the Roman poet, Ovid, she is immortalized as an innocent princess seduced by the Father of the Gods.
Wandering with her maidens along the shore of her native Phoenicia, she was beguiled by Zeus in the guise of a snow-white bull: Then—slowly, slowly down the broad, dry beach— First in the shallow waves the great god set His spurious hooves, then sauntered further out Till in the open sea he bore his prize. Fear filled her heart as, gazing back, she saw The fast receding sands.
Her right hand grasped A horn, the other lent upon his back. Her fluttering tunic floated in the breeze. The historian Herodotus, writing in the fifth century BC, was not impressed by the legend.
In his view, the abduction of Europa was just an incident in the age-old wars over women-stealing. It was a case of tit for tit. But in carrying the princess to Crete from the shore of Phoenicia now south Lebanon Zeus was surely transferring the fruits of the older Asian civilizations of the East to the new island colonies of the Aegean.
Phoenicia belonged to the orbit of the Pharaohs. Unlike the great river valley civilizations of the Nile, of the Indus, of Mesopotamia, and of China, which were long in duration but lethargic in their geographical and intellectual development, the civilization of the Mediterranean Sea was stimulated by constant movement. Movement caused uncertainty and insecurity. Uncertainty fed a constant ferment of ideas. Insecurity prompted energetic activity. Minos was famed for his ships. Crete was the first naval power.
The ships carried people and goods and culture, fostering exchanges of all kinds with the lands to which they sailed. According to another legend, the Sun was a chariot of fire, pulled by unseen horses from their secret stables behind the sunrise to their resting-place beyond the sunset. At the dawn of European history, the known world lay to the east. The unknown waited in the west, in destinations still to be discovered. But it led to the founding of a new civilization that would eventually bear her name and.
Map 2. One can write the history of the universe on a single page, or the life-cycle of a mayfly in forty volumes. A very senior and distinguished historian, who specializes in the diplomacy of the s, once wrote a book on the Munich Crisis and its consequences —9 , a second book on The Last Week of Peace, and a third entitled 31 August His colleagues waited in vain for a crowning volume to be called One Minute to Midnight1 It is an example of the modern compulsion to know more and more about less and less.
The history of Europe, too, can be written at any degree of magnitude. Y no historian can compete with the poets for economy of et thought: Sebastopol and Azoff, Petersburg, Mitau, Odessa: These are the thorns in her feet. Paris is the head, London the starched collar,. And Rome—the scapulary. The Cambridge Mediaeval History —9 ,for example, covers the period from Constantine to Thomas More in eight volumes.
But not all historians are willing to indulge them. But it means that any general survey must break off at the point where it starts to be most interesting.
Contemporary history is vulnerable to all sorts of political pressure. Y no educated adult can hope to function efficiently without et some grounding in the origins of contemporary problems. Successful attempts to survey the whole of European history without recourse to multiple volumes and multiple authors have been few and far between. Both were the offshoots of opulent television productions. A more recent essay approached the subject from a materialistic standpoint based on geology and economic resources.
Neither full-time history students nor general readers are going to plough through ten, twenty, or one hundred and ten volumes of general European synthesis before turning to the topics which attract them most.
This is unfortunate.
The framework of the whole sets parameters and assumptions which reappear without discussion in detailed works on the parts. In recent years, the urgency of reviewing the general framework of European history has grown in proportion to the fashion for highly specialized, high-magnification studies. A few distinguished exceptions, such as the work of Fernand Braudel,16 may serve to prove the rule. Y the humanities require all et degrees of magnification.
History needs to see the equivalent of the planets spinning in space; to zoom in and observe people at ground level, and to dig deep beneath their skins and their feet.
The historian needs to use counterparts of the telescope, the microscope, the brainscanner, and the geological probe. It is beyond dispute that the study of history has been greatly enriched in recent years by new methods, new disciplines, and new fields.
Anti-racism, environment, gender, sex, Semitism, class, and peace are topics which occupy a sizeable part of current writing and debate. None the less, the multiplication of fields, and the corresponding increase in learned publications, have inevitably created severe strains.
They are tempted to plunge ever deeper into the alleyways of ultra-specialization, and to lose the capacity of communicating with the general public.
Much specialization has proceeded to the detriment of narrative history. Some specialists have worked on the assumption that the broad outlines need no revision: They produce students who have no intention of learning what happened how, where, and when. The decline of factual history has been accompanied, especially in. Imagination is undoubtedly a vital ingredient of historical study.
But empathetic exercises can only be justified if accompanied by a modicum of knowledge. Fortunately, as the wilder aspects of deconstructionism are deconstructed, there are hopes that these esoteric rifts can be healed. It would now seem, therefore, that the specialists may have overplayed their hand. There has always been a fair division of labour between the industrious worker bees of the historical profession and the queen bees, the grands simplifica-teurs, who bring order to the labours of the hive.
There will be no honey if the workers take over completely. They too shift according to fashion: Equally, the study of the geological strata of history must never be divorced from doings on the ground. Specialization has opened the door to unscrupulous political interests.
Since no one is judged competent to offer an opinion beyond their own particular mine-shaft, beasts of prey have been left to prowl across the prairie unchecked. The combination of solid documentary research harnessed to blatantly selective topics, which a priori exclude. One single viewpoint is risky. But fifty or sixty viewpoints—or three hundred—can together be counted on to construct a passable composite.
Archimedes knew that the length of the circumference must lie somewhere between the sum of the sides of a square drawn outside the circle and the sum of the sides of a square drawn inside the circle see diagram. Unable to work it out directly, he hit on the idea of finding an approximation by adding up the length of a sided polygon contained within the circle.
The more sides he gave to his polygon, the nearer it would come to the shape of the circle. Elsewhere, the impossible task of the historian has been likened to that of a photographer, whose static two-dimensional picture can never deliver an accurate representation of the mobile, three-dimensional world.
A large number of shots taken from different angles, and with different lenses, filters, and films, can collectively reduce the gross selectivity of the single shot. As movie-makers discovered, a large number of frames taken in sequence creates a passable imitation of time and motion.
The effect will never be perfect; but every different angle and every different technique contributes to the illumination of the parts which together make up the whole. Distortion is a necessary characteristic of all sources of information. Absolute objectivity is absolutely unattainable. Every technique has its strengths and its weaknesses. The important thing is to understand where the value and the distortions of each technique lie, and to arrive at a reasonable approximation.
It is as though one could object to X-ray pictures of the skeleton, or ultra-sound scans of the womb, on the grounds that they give a pretty poor image of the human face. Medical doctors use every known device for prying open the secrets of the human mind and body. Historians need a similar range of equipment for penetrating the mysteries of the past.
Documentary history, which has enjoyed a long innings, is simultaneously one of the most valuable and the most risky lines of approach. Treated with incaution, it is open to gross forms of misrepresentation; and there are huge areas of past experience which it is incapable of recording.
Lord Acton, founder of the Cambridge school of history, once predicted a specially deleterious effect of documentary history. The pursuit of scientific objectivity has done much to reduce earlier flights of fancy, and to separate fact from fiction. At the same time it has reduced the number of instruments which historians can use. For it is not sufficient for the good historian merely to establish the facts and to muster the evidence.
These perceptors include not only all five physical senses but also a complex of pre-set intellectual circuits, varying from linguistic terminology, geographical names, and symbolic codes to political opinions, social conventions, emotional disposition, religious beliefs, visual memory, and traditional historical knowledge.
Every consumer of history has a store of previous experience through which all incoming information about the past must be filtered. For this reason, effective historians must devote as much care to transmitting their information as to collecting and shaping it. In this part of their work, they share many of the same preoccupations as poets, writers, and artists. In this supposedly scientific age, the imaginative side of the historical profession has undoubtedly been downgraded.
The value of unreadable academic papers and of undigested research data is exaggerated. Imaginative historians such as Thomas Carlyle, have not simply been censured for an excess of poetic licence. They have been forgotten. All historians must tell their tale convincingly, or be ignored. It refers to a fashion which has followed in the steps of the two French gurus, Foucault and Derrida, and which has attacked both the accepted canon of historical knowledge and the principles of conventional methodology.
In its contempt for prescribed data, it hints that knowing something is more dangerous than knowing nothing. Its et enthusiasts can only be likened to those lugubrious academics who, instead of telling jokes, write learned tomes on the analysis of humour. It is all very well to deride the authority of all and sundry; but it only leads in the end to the deriding of Derrida.
It is only a matter of time before the deconstructionists are deconstructed by their own techniques. Any narrative which chronicles the march of history over long periods is bound to be differently designed from the panorama which co-ordinates all the features relevant to a particular stage or moment.
The former, chronological approach has to emphasize innovative events and movements which, though untypical at the time of their first appearance, will gain prominence at a later date. The latter, synchronic.
The first risks anachronism, the second immobility. Early modern Europe has served as one of the laboratories for these problems. Once dominated by historians exploring the roots of humanism, protestantism, capitalism, science, and the nation-state, it then attracted the attention of specialists who showed, quite correctly, how elements of the medieval and pagan worlds had survived and thrived.
The comprehensive historian must somehow strike a balance between the two. In describing the sixteenth century, for example, it is as misguided to write exclusively about witches, alchemists, and fairies as it once was to write almost exclusively about Luther, Copernicus, or the rise of the English Parliament. The decisive period, however, was reached in the decades on either side of after generations of religious conflict. In the West, the wars against Louis XIV inspired a number of publicists who appealed for common action to settle the divisions of the day.
The much-imprisoned Quaker William Penn — , son of an Anglo-Dutch marriage and founder of Pennsylvania, had the distinction of advocating both universal toleration and a European parliament. In the East, the emergence of the Russian Empire under Peter the Great required radical rethinking of the international framework.
The Treaty of Utrecht of provided the. After that, the awareness of a European as opposed to a Christian community gained the upper hand. Writing in , Voltaire described Europe as: They all have the same religious foundation, even if divided into several confessions. They all have the same principle of public law and politics, unknown in other parts of the world.
Twenty years later, Rousseau announced: But the delineation of its land frontier was long in the making. The dividing line between Europe and Asia had been fixed by the ancients from the Hellespont to the River Don, and it was still there in medieval times.
A fourteenth-century encyclopedist could produce a fairly precise definition: Jupiter ravished this Europa, and brought her to Crete, and called most of the land after her Europa… Europe begins on the river T anay [Don] and stretches along the Northern Ocean to the end of Spain. Neither the ancients nor the medievals had any close knowledge of the easterly reaches of the European Plain, several sections of which were not permanently settled until the eighteenth century. Sometime in the late eighteenth century, the Russian government erected a boundary post on the trail between Y ekaterinburg and Tyumen to mark the frontier of Europe and Asia.
From then on the gangs of Tsarist exiles, who were marched to Siberia in irons, created the custom of kneeling by the post and of scooping up a last handful of European earth.
The extension of Europe to the Urals was accepted as a result of the rise of the Russian Empire. But it has been widely criticized, especially by analytical geographers. The frontier on the Urals had little validity in the eyes of Halford Mackinder, of Arnold Toynbee, for whom environmental factors had primacy, or of the Swiss geographer, J.
Special emphasis is usually placed on the seminal role. Broadcasting to a defeated Germany in , the poet T. Eliot expounded the view that European civilization stands in mortal peril after repeated dilutions of the Christian core.
He stressed the organic nature of culture: And he stressed the special duty of men of letters. I am talking about the common tradition of Christianity which has made Europe what it is, and about the common cultural elements which this common Christianity has brought with it It is in Christianity that our arts have developed; it is in Christianity that the laws of Europe—until recently—have been rooted.
It is against a background of Christianity that all our thought has significance. An individual European may not believe that the Christian Faith is true; and yet what he says, and makes, and does, will all… depend on [the Christian heritage] for its meaning. Only a Christian culture could have produced a Voltaire or a Nietzsche.
I do not believe that the culture of Europe could survive the complete disappearance of the Christian Faith. This concept is, in all senses, the traditional one. It is the yardstick of all other variants, breakaways, and bright ideas on the subject.
For cultural historians of Europe, the most fundamental of tasks is to identify the many competing strands within the Christian tradition and to gauge their weight in relation to various non-Christian and antiChristian elements. Pluralism is de rigueur. Despite the apparent. Similarly, it is hard to argue that the contemporary cults of modernism, eroticism, economics, sport, or pop culture have much to do with the Christian heritage.
The main problem nowadays is to decide whether the centrifugal forces of the twentieth century have reduced that heritage to a meaningless jumble or not.
Few analysts would now maintain that anything resembling a European cultural monolith has ever existed. On the contrary, it has often been taken as a synonym for the harmony and unity which was lacking. This messianic or Utopian view of Europe can be observed as far back as the discussion which preceded the Treaty of Westphalia. It was loudly invoked in the propaganda of William of Orange and his allies, who organized the coalitions against Louis XIV, as in those who opposed Napoleon.
It was an essential feature of the peaceful Age of Imperialism which, until shattered by the Great War of , saw Europe as the home base of worldwide dominion. In the twentieth century, the European ideal has been revived by politicians determined to heal the wounds of two world wars.
In the s, after the First World War, when it could be propagated in all parts of the continent outside the Soviet Union, it found expression in. It was specially attractive to the new states of Eastern Europe, who were not encumbered by extra-European empires and who sought communal protection against the great powers.
In the late s, after the creation of the Iron Curtain, it was appropriated by people who were intent on building a Little Europe in the West, who imagined their construction as a series of concentric circles focused on France and Germany. But it equally served as a beacon of hope for others cut off by oppressive communist rule in the East see p.
The collapse of the Soviet empire in —91 offered the first glimpses of a pan-European community that could aspire to spread to all parts of the continent. Y the frailty of the European ideal has been recognized both by et its opponents and by its advocates.
Throughout modern history, an Orthodox, autocratic, economically backward but expanding Russia has been a bad fit. Russians themselves have never been sure whether they wanted to be in or out. So Poland-Lithuania was in and Russian Muscovy was out. When the Frenchman Louis-Philippe de Segur — passed by on the eve of the French Revolution, he was in no doubt that Poland no longer lay in.
By using economic advancement as the main criterion for European membership, he was absolutely up to date. Everyone who wished to do business with St Petersburg took note. After all, Muscovy had been an integral part of Christendom since the tenth century, and the Russian Empire was a valued member of the diplomatic round.
In Russia and Europe , the Slavophile Nikolay Danilevskiy —85 argued that Russia possessed a distinctive Slavic civilization of its own, midway between Europe and Asia. Dostoevsky, in contrast, speaking at the unveiling of a statue to the poet Pushkin, chose to launch into a eulogy of Europe. In Soviet Russia itself, the Marxist revolutionaries were often denounced. Many Russians felt humiliated by their isolation, and boasted that a revitalized Russia would soon overwhelm the faithless West.
Engage with us and prove our seed! Her eyes gaze on you—gaze and gaze again— With hate and love in a single beam. Old world—once more—awake! Once more!
As for the Bolshevik leadership, Lenin and his circle identified closely with Europe. They saw themselves as heirs to a tradition launched by the French Revolution; they saw their immediate roots in the socialist movement in Germany, and they assumed that their strategy would be to join up with revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries of the West. In the early s, Comintern mooted the possibility of a communist-led United States of Europe. Only under Stalin, who killed all the old Bolsheviks, did the Soviet Union choose to distance itself spiritually from European affairs.
Trubetskoy, P. Savitsky, and G. Vernadsky, chose to. Of course, seventy years of totalitarian Soviet rule built huge mental as well as physical curtains across Europe. The public face of the Soviet regime grew blatantly xenophobic—a posture greatly assisted by experiences during the Second World War, and assiduously cultivated by the Stalinists.
In their hearts, however, many individual Russians followed the great majority of non-Russians in the Soviet Bloc in fostering a heightened sense of their European identity. It was a lifeline for their spiritual survival against communism. For their part, Western leaders were most impressed by the need for stability. But then some of them began to see the drawbacks.
After all, the Russian Federation was not a cohesive nation-state, ripe for liberal democracy. It was still a multinational complex spanning Eurasia, still highly militarized, and still manifesting imperial reflexes about its security. It was not clearly committed to letting its neighbours follow their own road. Unless it could find ways of.
Such at least was the strong opinion of the doyen of the European Parliament, speaking in September But for most of modern history the English sought their fortunes elsewhere. Having subdued and absorbed their neighbours in the British Isles, they sailed away to create an empire overseas.
Like the Russians, they were definitely Europeans, but with prime extra-European interests. They were, in fact, semi-detached. It consists of only four figures— Britain, Germany, France, and Italy. In the late nineteenth century, the concept of a German-dominated Mitteleuropa was launched to coincide with the political sphere of the Central Powers.
This was revived again after as a convenient label for the similar set of nominally independent countries which were caught inside the Soviet bloc. Seton-Watson — During the seventy-five years when Europe was divided by the longest of its civil wars.
But it is peculiarly elusive. Especially during the forty years of the Cold War. He set out his testament on the concept of Europe in a paper published posthumously. Here was yet another configuration. In the s a group of writers led by the Czech novelist. One author has placed it in Belgium.
For those who think that the heart lies in the dead centre. His argument stressed three fundamental points—the need for a European ideal. He never succumbed to the conventional wisdom of his day. As a boy he played at the knee of Thomas Masaryk. One such person was Hugh Seton-Watson — Born in London. Milan Kundera. To owe allegiance to it. This is of course a myth… a sort of chemical compound of truth and fantasy.
None of them can survive without Europe. Whether there is also a Muslim strand is more difficult to say. The interweaving of the notions of Europe and of Christendom is a fact of History which even the most brilliant sophistry cannot undo… But it is no less true that there are strands in European culture that are not Christian: Let us not underrate the need for a positive common cause. Each deserves a quotation of some length.
West European nations. The European cultural community includes the peoples living beyond Germany and Italy… something in no way annulled by the fact that they cannot today belong to an allEuropean economic or political community … Nowhere in the world is there so widespread a belief in the reality. It is a heritage which we spurn at. The absurdities of the fantasy need not obscure the truth.
Central to this process was the merging of the classical and the barbarian worlds. Rather it is our task to preserve and renew it. Nor should one forget the sorry catalogue of wars. His intellectual legacy is the one which the present work is honoured to follow most closely.
But many items have always featured prominently: No two lists of the main constituents of European civilization would ever coincide. But it was certainly well under way in the early decades of the nineteenth century.
He was one of the minority of Western scholars who bestrode the barriers between East and West. Later on. Thanks to the problems of definition. Hi s Histoire de la cvilisation en Europe —30 was based on lectures presented at the Sorbonne. He died on the eve of the events which were to vindicate so many of his judgements. Most would also agree that it was in late antiquity that European history ceased to be an assortment of unrelated events within the given Peninsula and began to take on the characteristics of a more coherent civilizational process.
The earliest effective attempt at synthesis was by the French writer and statesman Francois Guizot — Guizot has had many imitators since he identified European civilization with the wishes of the Almighty. Perhaps the most apposite analogy is the musical one. Diversity can be observed in the great range of reactions to each of the shared experiences.
Eurocentrism European history-writing cannot be accused of Eurocentrism simply for focusing its attention on European affairs.
They are out to recapture a complicated score. European historians are not tracing the story of a simple libretto. But the ensemble exists. There are certain moments when certain of the instruments play a minor role. Nor is it surprising or regrettable to find that European history has mainly been written by Europeans and for Europeans. There is diversity in the varying rhythms of power and of decline.
Eurocentrism is a matter of attitude. Everybody feels the urge to discover their roots. There is lasting diversity in the national states and cultures which persist within European civilization as a whole.
It refers to the traditional tendency of European authors to regard their civilization as superior and self-contained. European historians have frequently approached their subject as Narcissus approached the pool. Rudyard Kipling — is sometimes regarded as a central figure of the Eurocentric tradition.
Until recently. Europe was the promised land and Europeans the chosen people. A prominent American scholar. His famous Ballad of East and West was composed with India in mind: Many historians have continued in the same self-congratulatory vein.
Although a number of grand civilisations have existed in various ages. The heirs of the ancient world were the Teutonic tribes. East is East. Y he was strongly attracted to et Indian culture—hence his wonderful Jungle Books—and he was a deeply religious and humble man: The tumult and the shouting dies— The captains and the kings depart— Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice.
Breed nor Birth. In North America it has emerged from that part of the Black community. But there is neither East nor West. Opposition to Eurocentrism comes at present from four main sources. When two strong men stand face to face. Lord God of Hosts. It has found expression in the Black Muslim movement and. Lest we forget. An humble and a contrite heart. Above all. Map 3-East-West Fault Lines in Europe One way forward for historians will be to pay more attention to the interaction of European and non-European peoples.
Elsewhere in the Third World. Whatever [the West] has given to the world by far exceeds that which it has done against various societies and individuals. In the end. Western civilization is not taken to extend to the whole of Europe although it may be applied to distant parts of the globe far beyond Europe.
The workings of this syndrome have been ably exposed with regard to European attitudes towards Islam and the Arab world. Scotland or Wales. It can be viewed with admiration or with disgust. They see no more reason to consider the countries of Eastern Europe than to dwell on the more westerly parts of Western Europe. In many such works there is no Portugal.
By extension. The opinion of one Frenchman strikes an optimistic note: Generally speaking. A History of Mediaeval Europe. The realm of the Jagiellons in Poland and Lithuania.
Neither Ireland nor Wales. There is sometimes a Russia. Readers of the preface may be surprised to learn. In the hope of maintaining a continuity of theme… I have probably been guilty of oversimplifying things… The history of mediaeval Byzantium is so different from that of western Europe in its whole tone and tenor that it seemed wiser not to attempt any systematic survey of it. I have said nothing about the history of mediaeval Russia.
Examples are legion. It seems to assume that historians of Europe can conduct themselves like the cheese-makers of Gruyere. I am not qualified to undertake such a survey. The huge. But then one finds that the text makes little attempt to address all the parts even of Latin Christendom. Whatever Western civilization is. But no systematic treatment of this threefold division in Europe is forthcoming. A highly influential Handbook to the History of Western Civilization is organized within a similar strange framework.
The book has many virtues. Orthodox Christianity. One sentence is awarded to pagan Scandinavia. The largest of its three parts. Russia has apparently been a fully qualified member of the West. But no further details are given. The author apologizes in advance for his. The largest of all the chapters. But there is no attempt in subsequent chapters to map out the history of this homeland.
They had legal. I could not call it non-European and have thought it best to call it eastern because it first appeared to the east of Western Europe.
What I call eastern nationalism has flourished among the Slavs as well as in Africa and Asia. Of the authors on the amended list. It was invented at Columbia University in It purports to list the key authors and works that are essential for an understanding of Western civilization.
It is very common. They had languages adapted to the … consciously progressive civilisation to which they belonged. No one would expect such a list to give exact parity to all the regions and cultures of Europe. A prominent Oxford scholar. But the prejudices and preferences are manifest. They had… philosophers. They had universities and schools imparting the skills prized in that civilisation. The chronology of the subject is also instructive.
As everyone knows. Is Eastern Europe inhabited only by Slavs? Did the Poles or the Czechs or the Serbs not feel an urgent need to acquire a state? Did not Polish develop as a language of government and of high culture before German did? Was Copernicus educated in Oxford? As it happens. If one does. The purpose is simply to enquire why the framework should be so strangely designed. Nothing is said about the three largest Slav nations. In modern times. By questioning the framework within which European history and culture is so frequently discussed.
If textbooks of human anatomy were designed with the same attention to structure. To this day. Christian utilization. As a result. The dramatic decline of major Catholic powers such as Spain or Poland was accompanied by the rise of the United Provinces. In this context.
The Catholic world was built on the divergent traditions of the Roman and the Greek churches. In this version. Islam the East. Christendom was the West. Protestantism gave Western civilization a new focus in the cluster of countries in northern Europe. See Map 3. None of these key movements made an early impact on the Orthodox world. There are a dozen or so main variants: The Roman Empire.
Other major empire-owners. It was predicated on German control of Mitteleuropa Central Europe. Marx and Engels accepted the premiss that the imperialist countries of Western Europe had reached a superior level of development. The Marxist variant was a mirror image of the imperial one.
For the rich imperial club in the West was marked by its advanced industrial economies and sophisticated systems of administration. It found expression in the secular philosophy of the Enlightenment and in the ideals of the Revolution of —both of which have had a lasting influence.
Their opinions carried little weight in their own day. The French variant of Western civilization gained prominence in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Russia and Austria were impressive imperial powers. The imperial variant of Western civilization was based on the unbounded self-confidence of the leading imperial powers during the long European Peace prior to It inevitably faded after the collapse of the British Empire and the rise of American interests in the Pacific.
The political formulation of the scheme was most closely associated with Friedrich Naumann. Sir Halford Mackinder. In the sphere of secular culture. Despite American contempt for the traditional forms of imperialism. Its strategic implications were formulated.
It looked back to Charlemagne. South Korea. South Africa. The Euro-variant of Western civilization emerged in the late s. NATO and hindered European unification. The second German variant. Greater German nationalism.
It grew from the older Anglo-Saxon variant. It was predicated on the existence of the Iron Curtain. So long as the community confined its principal activities to the economic sphere.
It specifically excluded the Jews. Through forty years of the Cold War. To the original military and strategic considerations.
Failing powers. The first maintains that West and East. By a process of reduction. The second implies that the division of Europe is justified by natural. Great powers can always command attention. From all these examples it appears that Western civilization is essentially an amalgam of intellectual constructs which were designed to further the interests of their authors.
Four mechanisms have been employed to achieve the necessary effect. On the brink of the twentyfirst century. Its elastic geography has been inspired by the distribution of religions. The geographical assumptions are abetted by selective constructs of a more overtly political nature. It is the product of complex exercises in ideology. In its latest phase it has been immensely strengthened by the physical division of Europe. But the accession of the United Kingdom.
Every variant of Western civilization is taken to have an important core and a less important periphery. It can be defined by its advocates in almost any way that they think fit. A set of assumptions recurs time and again. If mainstream claims to European supremacy have undoubtedly come out of the West.
They devalue the diversity and the shifting patterns of European history. Hungary from the Reformation. It would not be difficult to draw up a matching list which starts with religious persecution and ends with totalitarian contempt for human life.
By taking transient contemporary divisions. Bohemia from industrialization. By the emphases and enthusiasms of language. As for the products of European history. Anachronism is particularly insidious. By anachronism. By elimination. More seriously.
Greece from the Ottoman experience. Poland is neatly excised from the Renaissance. Just as Germany once reacted against the French Enlightenment. These are the normal mechanisms of propaganda. In the late twentieth century many would like to point to religious toleration. Here was yet another exercise in wishful thinking. It has been in place since the earliest centuries of our era. In the final years of communist rule in Eastern Europe.
But there are many others. Less certainly. In determining the difference between Western Civilization and European History. Most recently. In more modern times there is the Ottoman line. They looked forward to a time when. They drew a fundamental distinction between the political regimes of the Soviet bloc and the convictions of the people.
Having discovered where the distortions of Western civilization come from. They have repeatedly maintained that. There is the line of the Roman limes. They felt themselves less infected by the mindless materialism of the West. There is the line between the western Roman Empire and the eastern Roman Empire. The answer would seem to lie in the goal of comprehensiveness. As shown by events during the collapse of Yugoslavia. The division of Europe into two opposing halves.
It ignores serious differences both within the West and within the East. Any competent historian or geographer taking the full range of factors into consideration can only conclude that Europe should be divided. Economic historians. Cape Town. They have based their findings on the geographical Peninsula of Europe. Y one has to insist that the West-East division et has never been fixed or permanent. As mentioned above. Constitutional historians emphasize the line dividing countries with a liberal.
European peoples have migrated far and wide. Different disciplines give different analyses. Y once again. They are inhabited by peoples of predominantly IndoEuropean culture and related kin. Byzantium was far more advanced than the empire of Charlemagne which explains why Byzantium is often passed over. And there are important similarities which span the divide.
Y as many would argue. It does not apply in the earlier centuries. Western supremacy is one of those dogmas which holds good at some points in European history and not at others. In many ways. Despite their differences. Despite their own antagonisms. They are connected by every sort of political.
All European countries are different. Wherever or whatever the core is taken to be. For the purposes of comprehensive treatment. All West European countries are different. Their fundamental unities are no less obvious than their manifest diversity. It has applied in many domains in recent times. A country like Poland might be very different. Eastern Europe is no less European for being poor. They are co-heirs of Christendom. But they do not even give an honest account of the West: In the United States the debate about Western civilization has centred on the changing requirements of American education.
Such hagiography is no longer credible. In recent years. In very many cases. They were considerably more distant from those of Western Europe than several countries who found themselves on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain. The established canon of European Culture is desperately in need of revision. They extract everything that might be judged genial or impressive. Where courses on Western civilization have been abandoned.
A country like Greece. Stanford University in California took the lead in Western Culture has to go! There was no single Italian author more modern than Baldassare Castiglione. Juan Rulfo. Frantz Fanon. The trouble is that the cure may prove worse than the malady. Stanford can take some pride from seeing a problem and trying to tackle it. Most curiously. Sandra Cisneros. Conrad was included for his novels about Africa.
It is unfortunate that there is no known Tibetan Tacitus. There was one novelist from South Africa. Arnold was included as English critic and poet. In theory. Apart from Joseph Conrad Korzeniowski.
Apart from Matthew Arnold. But they were cast in the same mould.