Roth, N. Jews, Visigoths and Muslims in Medieval Spain. Cooperation and Conflict (Review Hurwitz Grant, B.)
Roth, N. Jews, Visigoths and Muslims in Medieval Spain. Cooperation and Conflict (Review Hurwitz Grant, B.)
Roth, N. Jews, Visigoths and Muslims in Medieval Spain. Cooperation and Conflict (Review Hurwitz Grant, B.)
http://journals.cambridge.org/AJS
Additional services for AJS
Review:
166
BOOK REVIEWS
I can imagine the response to God's Phallus being similar to that given
Philip Roth's Portnoy's Complaint, and to the work of Freud, whom EilbergSchwartz uses extensively; it's true, and so a scandal that will paint Jews as
polymorphously perverse among Gentiles (who think that they themselves
aren't). Despite this danger, we are left with a very real question: in the face
of a male/Father God, how do men recognize and embrace the feminine in
themselves and at the same time keep from excluding women? The questions,
seemingly, are not new.
Stanley N. Rosenbaum
Dickinson College
Carlisle, Pa.
Norman Roth. Jews, Visigoths and Muslims in Medieval Spain: Cooperation
and Conflict. Medieval Iberian Peninsula Texts and Studies, vol. 10. Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1994. 367 pp.
The intent of Norman Roth's work is to consider relations between
Jews and Christians in Visigothic Spain and between Jews and Muslims in
al-Andalus and Christian Spain. The author states that the topic of JewishChristian relations in later medieval Spain will be considered in a subsequent
volume. Thus, both volumes together promise to provide a comprehensive
discussion of the relations of Jews with other peoples in medieval Spain as
a whole, and thus to provide an overview of the subject lacking in the more
specialized works of E. Ashtor and Y. Baer, among others. Indeed, it appears
that Roth's intent is to provide, as well, a corrective to the views of Ashtor
and other scholars in this field of research. In the present volume, he only
partially fulfills these goals.
Structurally, the first four chapters provide a general historical consideration of the topic, followed by more specific studies of such issues as urban
life, cultural influence, and polemical encounter in chapters 5 through 7. It
is the historical survey in the first four chapters which presents the book's
greatest weakness. The organization of these chapters is unclear, and, as
well, they appear to lack an overarching thesis. Roth tends instead to become
engrossed in minutiae and rather tangential arguments. Although some of
these are quite interesting, they render the work fragmented.
The disjointed nature of his discussion is particularly evident in the
section of chapter 1 entitled "The Jews under the Visigoths" (pp. 11-13),
BOOK REVIEWS
167
168
BOOK REVIEWS
figure is also characteristic of earlier sections of the book; for example, the
extensive discussion of the Ibn NaghrTllah family in chapter 3 results in too
narrow a focus in a chapter which is meant to discuss, in general, the status
of Jews under the Umayyad and Taifa kingdoms. The superior argument of
these last three chapters is marred by the same lack of conclusions that was
symptomatic of the previous chapters. Indeed, the entire book ends with no
real conclusion and so leaves the reader with no ultimate sense of the author's
thesis.
Roth is deeply concerned to provide a corrective to opinions voiced
by other scholars that he holds to be erroneous. And, upon occasion, he
succeeds in presenting his case. However, his depiction of the views of his
colleagues as "perverse" (p. 10), "nonsense" (ibid.), "worse than useless" (p.
69), and "worthless" (p. 266 n. 27) strikes this reviewer as unnecessary and
unprofessional. Generally, Roth is most effective when he uses his research
into source materials to find contradictory evidence. His critique is weakest
when he simply argues that another interpretation does not make sense. Roth's
most unfair attack is directed at Ross Brann's otherwise-acclaimed work, The
Compunctious Poet, which he dismisses as "a generally worthless book further
marred by repeated plagiarism of my own translations of poems, articles, etc."
(p. 303 n. 51). As evidence, Roth cites his review in the Journal of Semitic
Studies 37 (1992): 335-337. But nowhere in that review does Roth mention
plagiarism, much less provide evidence for it. Such an unsubstantiated attack
on a scholar's character is misleading and irresponsible.
The question of evidence raises another, more mechanical, issue. Roth
often presents his evidence in notes rather than in the text, and frequently
these only provide references to other works. Therefore, finding the evidence
is contingent upon finding the works cited. Roth would do his readers a
great service by presenting the evidence itself either in the text or the notes.
Similarly, the bibliographical information is split among several specialized
literature surveys scattered throughout the book as well as a general bibliography at the end. Even this general list does not include all the works cited
in the notes. Hence, the reader must hunt for full citation in several places,
including, most inconveniently, the notes.
Stylistically, the book suffers from frequent instances of awkward syntax,
one-sentence or disjointed paragraphs, and a style which on occasion devolves
into mere outline. Unfortunately, the editor must share some responsibility
for these problems, as well as for a number of errors in the text and index.
Generally, the book gives the impression of work hastily done. Although
BOOK REVIEWS
169