FREEMAN'S CONQUESTS OF TUE SARACEN'S. * TILE accepted facts of history
are well known. A chronological table gives dates and results: particulars may be found in re- ceived works, so far at least as INT are able to ascertain them. Yet every age will bear a new history, because each age looks upon facts with its own eyes' from its own point of view. The particulars of early Mahometan and Saraceniclistory were nearly as well known to scholars a century or two ago as they are now, and the pith is readily got at from Ockley and other writers. But it was not the custom of those times to bring the facts of history so continually to the test of philosophy; and political economy, the most important branch of philosophy as a test of history, was unknown. More than all, religious feeling was widely different. We had not arrived at that sounder appreciation of the strength and weakness of the human mind which allows enthusiasm con- scientiousness, and beneficial results, to a man with a creed op- posed to our own. Nay, those who a century ago did not enter- tain any religious feeling against Mahomet might equally look upon him as an " impostor " or a "hypocrite." From the Re- storation till the present century it was the fashion to consider Cromwell in a similar light. The more liberal mode of judging Mahomet and his successors, without falling into religious laxity, is a leading feature in Mr. Freeman's Lectures. He also brings other and peculiar qualities to his task. His preliminary survey of the state of the world just before the appearance of Mahomet explains to the reader the causes of his success. Arabia was yearning for a reformer, and Mahomet was the man. The power of the Eastern Empire and of Persia was weakened by -their contests with one another ; the Syrians and nRgyptians were disaffected heretics their heresy being national al -rather than religious • so that Maliomet's successors encountered a reduced military; power and states prone to revolt The lecturer applies a similar penetration to the succeeding portions of the history, and to the esti- mate of his characters ,as well as to the causes of events. The distinguishing trait of the work, however, is less its critical acumen and historical estimation than its rhetorical statement. The author's conclusions may not always be cor- rect, perhaps they are mostly a little exaggerated or onesided ; but his mode of presenting them is always striking. The very liberality may even take a colour from his habit of making the most of the matter in hand. The early Caliphs, like some of the French Jacobins, were utterly indifferent to wealth, luxurious enjoyment, or external appearances; they were also ignorant and dirty, with a good deal of bigoted self-sufficiency, and no small portion of the arrogance of Diogenes trampling on the pride of Inato. It is easier, however to make a picture by bringing out the more telling virtues, than" by placing the inseparable faults in equal relief. This summary sketch of the immediate successors of Mahomet is a vigorous piece of writing, and is not untrue, but the truth on one side is more conspicuous than on the other.
• The History and Conquests of the Saracens Six Lectures delivered to tho Edinburgh Philosophical Institution. By Edward 4. Freeman, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. Published by Parkr. "The conduct of Omar at the surrender of Jerusalem is perhaps the most signal instance of good faith that history records. He secures to the Chris- tians the possession of their churches ; he refuses to pray in the Church of ;the Holy Sepulchre lest his followers should afterwards make his example an excuse for converting it into a mosque.' Succeeding Caliphs destroyed or desecrated this very temple and others secured by similar stipulations. Omar was an illiterate barbarian : he burnt the Alexandrian library ; he went clad in a dirty sheep-skin, and rode on a red camel, which carried the bag and. the wooden platter which formed all his household wealth. Succeeding Caliphs surpassed the pomp of Chosroes and Ccesar ; their courts were crowded with sevens; their palaces were filled with their writings. But Omar was just and righteous and faithful to his word ,• his splendid successors sank rote all the vulgar tyranny of the old-world despots of Babylon and Susa. "The fact was, that the stern virtues of the first Saracens were the result of a religious enthusiasm too powerful to be lasting. When the Caliphate embraced half the civilized world, when it became the possession of unprin- cipled soldiers of fortune or of dissolute youths born in the purple, it was not in human nature that the Caliphs should continue to regard them- selves as great public servants, mere trustees for the whole body of the .Faithful. While the wealth of Persia and Syria was being poured at his feet, Abu-Bekr took for himself a daily salary of about three shillings, with maintenance for himself, one slave, and one camel. Omar divided his time between preaching to the people and administering justice among them. Ile made his meal of barley and water on the steps of the mosque, and in- vited every one who passed by to partake. All when his brother asked him for a pension recommended him rather to rob a rich neighbour' it were better for him to be accused by one man at the Day of Judgment than by the whole assembly of the Faithful. All this was natural in the companions of the Prophet; we admire it in them; we do not expect it to be continued in their successors. The early Caliphs at Medina were indeed wise and good men ; their successors would have been more than men had they lived in the same way at Damascus, Cordova, or Bagdad. Indeed, such extreme simplicity, noble as it was' would have been out of place under their circumstances. The holy Imam might safely practise it in the sacred city, amidst the first fervour of devotion ; the temporal sovereign could hardly continue it when love had begun to wax cold in a more artificial state of things. Still we might reasonably have expected that something of the old Moslem virtues would have contumed. They re- vive' indeed, to some extent, with every new race, with every fresh con- quest ; but we seldom indeed find them on the throne of the Commander of the Faithful. We do not expect Haroun-al-Rashid to have imitated Omar in his private life ; we might have expected him to have imitated his justice and mercy, and not to have stained his hands with the blood of the Bar- mecides. In everything we see at once how great was the immediate reform effected by Mehemet in his own land, and how utterly inadequate his system was to effect a perfect reform in other lands. The master of such immediate scholars could not have been the wicked impostor' depicted by Dean Prideaux ; but the author of such ultimate results must surely have mistaken his calling when he announced himself as the Prophet of the whole world."
The syllabus laid down by the authorities of the Institution be- fore which Mr. Freeman delivered his course of Lectures excluded from his subject the Crusades and the history of the Ottoman Turks. His subject, thus limited, embraced Mahomet, his imme- diate successors, what may be called the genuine Caliphate at Damascus and Bagdad, and the less orthodox Spanish Caliphate at Cordova. The Barbary states belong to the Turkish history in their later day ; and these together with Egypt are slightly touched upon. There was nothing to have prevented Persia and the Indian Empire of the Moguls from being more fully treated, but they are also rather summarily dismissed. Indeed, the Lec- tures are rather a commentary upon the spirit of the early Mahometan. and Saracenie history than a full notice of events. The author takes the most prominent facts and characters to mark the social and political morals of Mahometanism, but does not attempt to tell the regular story of the Saracens in Egypt and Western Asia, the Moors in Spam, the Moguls in India, and the Persian empire. It is all well worth studying for the political and moral lessons evolved. The author's principles in the main are true, but to be received with caution in their full extent. Thus in the very outset he lays down his view of one funda- mental difference between East and West.
"We may see the empire of Ninus or of Nabuchodonosor reproduced in every essential feature at the court of any modern Oriental despot. While the West has been ruled by preordained laws, the East knows no govern- ment but the will of arbitrary rulers. No check is known except the sanc- tions of religion, no appeal except to the conscience of the despot or the long-suffering of his subjects."
The case of Daniel and the lions den would show that this was no always true before Mehemet, and since his time the Koran is the law to which Sultan and Padishah must yield obedience. In practice the difference may not be much, for a ruler can generally get an " interpretation " to suit him, whether in the East or the West. The real difference between the East and the West is deeper.
• It is probable that, aware of Mr. Freeman's Grzecomania and Tu.reophobia, the prudent men of Auld Reelde thought of shutting bun out from those topics. They have not quite succeeded. The lecturer omits no opportunity of pointing a contrast. The first extract we have quoted is preceded by a comparison between the chivalrous honour of the early Saracens and the bloody breaches of faith by the Ottomans ; and, to pass over other instances, the fall of the Caliphate is used to suggest a contrast with that of the Byzantine Empire.
-1‘ Between the last Sovereigns of Bagdad and of Byzantium there is in- deed a contrast. At Bagdad, a close of unexampled humiliation dishonoured a preceding century of recovered dignity; at Byzantium, an end of unsur- passed dignity redeemed a preceding century of humiliation. Never did the successor of Mahomet appear so degraded as in the last prostration of his empire ; never did the successor of Augustus shine forth 80 glorious as in the last agony of his. The weakest moments of Al Radhi and Al Rader ap- pear glorious beside the humiliation of Al Mostassem - the proudest tn- uniphs of Tzimiskes and of Basil appear ignominious beside the martyrdom of Constantine. The last and weakest of the Caliphs, without an effort of arms or policy to stay his fall, sinks from senseless pride to craven terror, and expires amidst the tortures of a faithless victor. The last and noblest of the Ciesars after doing all that mortal man could do for the deliverance of his city, himself dies in the breach, the foremost among its defenders. Not Darius in the bands of the traitor, not Augustulus resigning his useless purple, not the .Etheling Edgar spared by the contempt of the Norman Conqueror, ever showed fallen greatness so dishonoured and unpiticd, as did Al Mostassem Billah al Wahid, the last Commander of the Faithful not Leonidas in the pass of Thermopylw, not Decius in the battle below eau- vius, not our own Harold upon the hill of Senlac, died a more glorious death than Constantine Palceologus, the last Emperor of the Romans."
True, though high-pitched. But what judgment is to be passed upon the people who deserted their chieftain in the hour of his greatest need.? Had the Greeks or even the inhabitants of the capital done their duty, Mehemet the Second would not have en- tered Constantinople.
Previous page
