Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:07:03.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VIRTUE LANGUAGE IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY ORIENTALISM: A CASE STUDY IN HISTORICAL EPISTEMOLOGY*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2015

HERMAN PAUL
HERMAN PAUL*
Affiliation:
Institute for History, Leiden University E-mail: h.j.paul@hum.leidenuniv.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historical epistemology is a form of intellectual history focused on “the history of categories that structure our thought, pattern our arguments and proofs, and certify our standards for explanation” (Lorraine Daston). Under this umbrella, historians have been studying the changing meanings of “objectivity,” “impartiality,” “curiosity,” and other virtues believed to be conducive to good scholarship. While endorsing this historicization of virtues and their corresponding vices, the present article argues that the meaning and relative importance of these virtues and vices can only be determined if their mutual dependencies are taken into account. Drawing on a detailed case study—a controversy that erupted among nineteenth-century orientalists over the publication of R. P. A. Dozy's De Israëlieten te Mekka (The Israelites in Mecca) (1864)—the paper shows that nineteenth-century orientalists were careful to examine (1) the degree to which Dozy practiced the virtues they considered most important, (2) the extent to which these virtues were kept in balance by other ones, (3) the extent to which these virtues were balanced by other scholars’ virtues, and (4) the extent to which they were expected to be balanced by future scholars’ work. Consequently, this article argues that historical epistemology might want to abandon its single-virtue focus in order to allow balances, hierarchies, and other dependency relations between virtues and vices to move to the center of attention.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Intellectual History , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , November 2017 , pp. 689 - 715
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A draft of this paper was presented at the Nineteenth and Twentieth-Century Philological Encounters conference at Leiden University on 5 June 2014. I would like to thank the audience on that occasion for their helpful feedback, as well as Henning Trüper, the editors of this journal, and four anonymous reviewers for important queries and suggestions. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are mine. Funding was generously provided by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).

References

1 “Liberal theology” is the customary English rendering of what, from the 1850s onwards, was known in the Netherlands as moderne theologie. See, e.g., [D. Th. Huet], Wenken opzigtelijk moderne theologie (The Hague, 1858), and the debate elicited by this anonymous pamphlet. Although liberal theologians in the 1850s and 1860s fought several battles at once, their uncompromising commitment to biblical criticism was one of their most important and most contested hallmarks. See Buitenwerf-van der Molen, Mirjam, God van vooruitgang: De popularisering van het modern-theologische gedachtegoed in Nederland (1857–1880) (Hilversum, 2007), 34 Google Scholar.

2 Karl Marx to Engels, Friedrich, 20 Jan. 1864, in The Letters of Karl Marx, trans. Saul K. Padover (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1979), 177 Google Scholar.

3 Acquoy, J. G. R., Jezus Christus de waarheid: Leerrede (Arnhem, 1863)Google Scholar; Acquoy, Jezus tegenover de ouden: Leerrede (Arnhem, 1867)Google Scholar. See also Rogge, H. C., “Johannes Gerardus Rijk Acquoy,” in Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen gevestigd te Amsterdam 1897 (Amsterdam, 1898), 57–96, at 69–70Google Scholar.

4 Marx to Engels, 16 June 1864, in Letters of Karl Marx, 186 (translation slightly modified). Marx's source of information was Leon Philips's letter of 12 June 1864, published in Gielkens, Jan, Karl Marx und seine niederländischen Verwandten: Eine kommentierte Quellenedition (Trier, 1999), 196–7Google Scholar.

5 According to [W. G. C.] Byvanck, “R. Fruin (II),” De Gids, 63/2 (1899), i–xxxvi, at xxxi n. 1, Dozy's book was even prescribed to grammar-school students.

6 HaCohen, Ran, Reclaiming the Hebrew Bible: German-Jewish Reception of Biblical Criticism, trans. M. Engel (Berlin, 2010), 140–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Vrolijk, Arnoud and van Leeuwen, Richard, Arabic Studies in the Netherlands: A Short History in Portraits, 1580–1950, trans. Alastair Hamilton (Leiden, 2014), 97, 102Google Scholar.

8 Marchand, Suzanne L., German Orientalism in the Age of Empire: Religion, Race, and Scholarship (Cambridge, 2009), 102–56Google Scholar; Mangold, Sabine, Eine “weltbürgerliche Wissenschaft”: Die deutsche Orientalistik im 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 2004), 78–115 Google Scholar.

9 Irwin, Robert, For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and Their Enemies (London, 2007), 189–236 Google Scholar.

10 As Uljana Feest and Thomas Sturm explain, historical epistemology has alternatively been defined as the historical study of (1) epistemological concepts like objectivity, (2) epistemological objects like DNA, and (3) long-term scientific developments. Feest, Uljana and Sturm, Thomas, “What (Good) Is Historical Epistemology?”, Erkenntnis, 75 (2011), 285–302, at 288CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Daston, Lorraine, “Historical Epistemology,” in Chandler, James, Davidson, Arnold I., and Harootunian, Harry, eds., Questions of Evidence: Proof, Practice, and Persuasion across the Disciplines (Chicago, 1994), 282–9, at 282Google Scholar.

12 Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter, Objectivity (New York, 2007)Google Scholar.

13 Murphy, Kathryn and Traninger, Anita, eds., The Emergence of Impartiality (Leiden, 2014)Google Scholar; Kivistö, Sari, The Vices of Learning: Morality and Knowledge at Early Modern Universities (Leiden, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Olesko, Kathryn M., Physics as a Calling: Discipline and Practice in the Königsberg Seminar for Physics (Ithaca, NY, 1991), 366–450 Google Scholar, on nineteenth-century virtues of exactitude. Histories of scholarly values, as distinguished from virtues and vices, can be found in Wise, M. Norton, ed., The Values of Precision (Princeton, 1995)Google Scholar; and Hagner, Michael and Laubichler, Manfred D., eds., Der Hochsitz des Wissens: Das Allgemeine als wissenschaftlicher Wert (Zurich, 2006)Google Scholar.

14 On which see Baehr, Jason, The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology (Oxford, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Greco, John and Turri, John, eds., Virtue Epistemology: Contemporary Readings (Cambridge, MA, 2012)Google Scholar.

15 Although Daston and Galison admit that epistemic virtues may collide or otherwise stand in tension with each other, they suggest that such tensions are more likely to occur “at the level of specific, workaday choices” than on the ideal-typical level on which their study mostly operates. Daston and Galison, Objectivity, 28. At the latter level, the primary form of tension that Daston encounters takes the form of friction between “old” and “new” ideals—between the ancient virtue of impartiality and the mid-nineteenth-century virtue of objectivity, for example. See Daston, Lorraine, “Objectivity and Impartiality: Epistemic Virtues in the Humanities,” in Bod, Rens, Maat, Jaap, and Weststeijn, Thijs, eds., The Making of the Humanities, vol. 3 (Amsterdam, 2014), 27–41 Google Scholar.

16 On Dozy's life see Fück, Johann, Die arabischen Studien in Europa bis in den Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1955), 181–5Google Scholar; Brugman, J., “Dozy: A Scholarly Life According to Plan,” in Otterspeer, Willem, ed., Leiden Oriental Connections, 1850–1940 (Leiden, 1989), 62–81 Google Scholar; Santing, Catrien G., “De middeleeuwen met een phrygische muts: De geschiedvisie van Reinart [sic] Dozy en Willem Jonckbloet,” Theoretische Geschiedenis, 26 (1999), 220–37Google Scholar; Vrolijk and Van Leeuwen, Arabic Studies in the Netherlands, 95–102.

17 On the discursive power of such biographical templates among mid-nineteenth-century scholars at Leiden see Paul, Herman, “‘Werken zoo lang het dag is’: Sjablonen van een negentiende-eeuws geleerdenleven,” in Dorsman, L. J. and Knegtmans, P. J., eds., De menselijke maat in de wetenschap: De geleerden(auto)biografie als bron voor de wetenschaps- en universiteitsgeschiedenis (Hilversum, 2013), 53–73 Google Scholar.

18 See the lecture notes made by the future historian P. J. Blok, in Leiden University Library (hereafter LUL), BPL 2982. Blok's opinions on these courses were not particularly favorable: “From a scholarly point of view, Dozy's entertaining historical lectures were a poor affair.” Quoted in Brugmans, H., “Levensbericht van P. J. Blok,” in Jaarboek der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen gevestigd te Amsterdam 1930–1931 (Amsterdam, 1931), 1–30, at 6Google Scholar.

19 The influential German orientalist Heinrich Leberecht Fleischer reviewed Dozy's work in great detail in his “Studien über Dozy's Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes” (1881–6), in Fleischer, Kleinere Schriften, vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1888), 470–781, vol. 3 (Leipzig 1888), 1–102. According to de Goeje, M. J., “Levensbericht van Reinhart Dozy,” in Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen gevestigd te Amsterdam voor 1883 (Amsterdam, [1884]), 12–52, at 47, Dozy was particularly satisified with Fleischer's praiseGoogle Scholar.

20 Paul, Herman, “The Scholarly Self: Ideals of Intellectual Virtue in Nineteenth-Century Leiden,” in Bod, Rens, Maat, Jaap, and Weststeijn, Thijs, eds., The Making of the Humanities, vol. 2 (Amsterdam, 2012), 397–411 Google Scholar. The line from Shakespeare's Othello was approvingly quoted by the historian Fruin, Robert in his Afscheidsrede bij het nederleggen van het hoogleeraarsambt aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, den 1sten juni 1894 uitgesproken (The Hague, 1894), 28 Google Scholar, and attributed to Abraham Kuenen by Tiele, C. P., Elements of the Science of Religion, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1897), 17 Google Scholar. The term “philological ethos” is borrowed from Kolk, Rainer, “Wahrheit, Methode, Charakter: Zur wissenschaftlichen Ethik der Germanistik im 19. Jahrhundert,” Internationales Archiv für Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Literatur, 14 (1989), 50–73 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; who in turn derives it from Schultz, Franz, “Die Entwicklung der Literaturwissenschaft von Herder bis Wilhelm Scherer,” in Ermatinger, Emil, ed., Philosophie der Literaturwissenschaft (Berlin, 1930), 1–42, at 37Google Scholar.

21 Eskildsen, Kasper Risbjerg, “Inventing the Archive: Testimony and Virtue in Modern Historiography,” History of the Human Sciences, 26/4 (2013), 8–26, at 9–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shapin, Steven, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, 1994), 65–125 Google Scholar.

22 Matthes, J. C., “Eene nieuwe ontdekking,” De Tijdspiegel, 2 (1864), 349–69Google Scholar, at 349.

23 [Aloys Sprenger], review in Das Ausland, 37 (1864), 773–6, at 773; and, in almost identical wording, the anonymous review in the Methodist Quarterly Review, 48 (1865), 120–21, at 121.

24 [Gustav Weil], review in Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur, 57 (1864), 595–602, at 596.

25 [Petrus Hofstede de] G[root], “De oorsprong van de Mohamedaansche godsdienst,” Waarheid in Liefde (1865), 373–6, at 373. See also Jastrow, M.'s review in the Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 13 (1864), 313–17, at 314Google Scholar.

26 [Ludwig Philippson], review in Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, 28 (1864), 589–90, at 589.

27 Kirchheim, Raphael, review in Ben Chananja, 7 (1864), 974–7 and 1000–1, at 975Google Scholar. The Kladderadatsch (1848–1944) was a German satirical periodical.

28 Marchand, German Orientalism, 138.

29 Santing, “De middeleeuwen,” 221, 225; Brugman, “Dozy,” 72.

30 Marín, Manuela, “Scholarship and Criticism: The Letters of Reinhart Dozy to Pascual de Gayangos (1841–1852),” in Millán, Cristina Alvarez and Heide, Claudia, eds., Pascual de Gayangos: A Nineteenth-Century Spanish Arabist (Edinburgh, 2008), 68–85, at 85 n. 52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 See, e.g., ibid., 79–80; P. J. Veth to Dozy, 10 Dec. 1843 and 3 Jan. 1846, LUL, BPL 2487.

32 Irwin, For Lust of Knowing, 175. See also Brugman, “Dozy,” 66; Daniël van der Zande, “Martinus Th. Houtsma, 1851–1943: Een bijdrage aan de geschiedenis van de oriëntalistiek in Nederland en Europa” (Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University, 1999), 129; Vrolijk and Van Leeuwen, Arabic Studies in the Netherlands, 95–7.

33 On this series see Molendijk, Arie L., The Emergence of the Science of Religion in the Netherlands (Leiden, 2005), 62–3Google Scholar.

34 Dozy to A. C. Kruseman, 26 Nov. 1862, LUL, LTK 1505.

35 Dozy, R., Het islamisme (Haarlem, 1863), 2 Google Scholar.

36 De Goeje, “Levensbericht van Reinhart Dozy,” 37–8.

37 Abraham Geiger to Dozy, 16 June 1864 and undated (1864), LUL, BPL 2487. Writing to Michaël Jan de Goeje, 1 May 1864, LUL, BPL 2389, Theodor Nöldeke adopted a more reserved stance: “Between the two of us, I have to admit that I do not expect much of the new discoveries that have been promised” (original emphasis). I owe this reference to Christiaan Engberts.

38 de Goeje, M. J., “Een stap vooruit,” De Gids, 28/2 (1864), 297–312, at 298Google Scholar. Dozy himself spoke in no less exalted prose about “an entire series of discoveries, of a kind I had never made before and had never dared to hope for; discoveries that I trust will receive an honorable place among the great scholarly results achieved in this century, which shall break new grounds in philology, the history of humankind, and the history of religion. I have literally received inspirations, I myself don't know how.” Dozy to Kruseman, 26 Nov. 1862, LUL, LTK 1505.

39 Dozy, R., De Israëlieten te Mekka van Davids tijd tot in de vijfde eeuw onzer tijdrekening (Haarlem, 1864), 8 Google Scholar.

40 Dirksen, P. B. and van der Kooij, A., eds., Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891): His Major Contributions to the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Centenary of Abraham Kuenen's Death (10 December 1991) (Leiden, 1993)Google Scholar.

41 E.g. Is. Costa, da, Wat er door de theologische faculteit te Leyden al zoo geleerd en geleverd wordt: eene stem der smart en des beklags (Amsterdam, 1857)Google Scholar; “Leydsche beginselen,” De Tijdspiegel, 2 (1862), 393–408.

42 Johannes Jacobus Kotzé to Abraham Kuenen, 20 Nov. 1863, LUL, BPL 3028.

43 On Geiger's and Weil's Koranforschung see Heschel, Susannah, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus (Chicago, 1998), 50–75 Google Scholar; and Ruchama Jerusha Johnston-Bloom, “Oriental Studies and Jewish Questions: German-Jewish Encounters with Mohammed, the Qur’an, and Islamic Modernities” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 2013), 85–125.

44 Stefanidis, Emmanuelle, “The Qur’an Made Linear: A Study of the Geschichte des Qorâns’ Chronological Reordering,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 10 (2008), 1–22 Google Scholar; Sinai, Nicolai, “Orientalism, Authorship, and the Onset of Revelation: Abraham Geiger and Theodor Nöldeke on Muḥammad and the Qur’ān,” in Hartwig, Dirk et al., eds., “Im vollen Licht der Geschichte”: Die Wissenschaft des Judentums und die Anfänge der kritischen Koranforschung (Würzburg, 2008), 144–54Google Scholar.

45 Dozy, Islamisme, 18, 31 n. 2, 75.

46 Judging by his letters to Kruseman (24 Aug. 1864; 3, 6, and 19 Sept. 1864; 17 Oct. 1864; 13 Nov. 1864, LUL, LTK 1505) and De Goeje (11 Oct. 1864, LUL, BPL 2389), Dozy monitored with great attention how colleagues from near and abroad responded to this book.

47 de Goeje, M. J., “Bibliographisch album,” De Gids, 29/1 (1865), 531–48, at 531Google Scholar.

48 Oort, H., The Worship of Baalim in Israel: Based Upon the Work of R. Dozy, “The Israelites at Mecca”, trans. John William Colenso (London, 1865)Google Scholar. On Colenso's interest in Dozy see Colenso to Abraham Kuenen, 3 Feb. 1865, LUL, BPL 3028; Cox, George W., The Life of John William Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal, vol. 1 (London, 1888), 223–5Google Scholar. In order to reach an international audience, the publisher also issued a German translation, which became a commercial disaster. Over twelve years, only 251 out of 1,500 copies were sold. Enschedé, J. W., A. C. Kruseman, vol. 2 (Amsterdam, 1902), 99–100 Google Scholar. Nonetheless, the German edition contributed to the international reputation of Dozy's work, witness the fact that not only German but also English-language reviews such as those in the Westminster Review, 26 (1864), 484, and the Saturday Review, 18 (1864), 372, based themselves on Die Israeliten zu Mekka.

49 Graf, K. H., review in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 19 (1865), 330–51, at 350Google Scholar. See also K. H. Graf to Eduard Reuss, 6 Oct. 1864 and 6 May 1866, in Budde, K. and Holtzman, H. J., eds., Eduard Reuss’ Briefwechsel mit seinem Schüler und Freunde Karl Heinrich Graf (Giessen, 1904), 538, 564Google Scholar.

50 E.g. Kuenen, A., “Simeonieten en Ismaëlieten: Eene bijdrage tot de critiek van Dozy's Israëlieten te Mekka,” Godgeleerde Bijdragen, 40 (1866), 449–515, at 449Google Scholar; X+Y (pseudonym of Meijer Roest Mzn.), “Boekbeschouwing,” Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad, 1 Sept. 1865; Pierson, H., Baetyliëndienst (Arnhem, 1866), 45–7Google Scholar; Elte, Philip, Moderne theologie in Nederland (Amsterdam, 1871), 8–9 Google Scholar. According to HaCohen, Reclaiming the Jewish Bible, 145 n. 34, the seven-part series of articles published under the pseudonym “X+Y” in the Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad was authored by Joseph Hirsch Dünner, the future chief rabbi of the Dutch Israelite Main Synagogue. M. Roest Mzn., “Brieven van een provinciaal over de Amsterdamsche opperrabbinaats-questie,” Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad, 10 April 1874, reveals, however, that the first three articles were written by Meijer Roest, assistant librarian of the Royal Academy of Sciences and editor of the Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad. The remaining four articles came from Dünner's pen.

51 See esp. J. P. N. Land, “Een nieuwe lichtstraal op het Oude Verbond,” De Nederlandsche Spectator (1864), 227–9; Matthes, “Eene nieuwe ontdekking”; Oort, H., De dienst der Baälim in Israël: Naar aanleiding van het geschrift van dr. R. Dozy “De Israëlieten te Mekka” (Leiden, 1864)Google Scholar. Land, Matthes, and Oort had defended their doctoral dissertations at Leiden in 1854, 1859, and 1860 respectively. Another enthusiastic (anonymous) review appeared in the liberal periodical De Onderzoeker, 6 (1865), 129.

52 Leenmans, H. A., “Aan den lezer,” in K. H. Graf, De Israëlieten te Mekka van dr. R. Dozy, beoordeeld door dr. K. H. Graf, trans. H. A. Leenmans (Utrecht, 1866), iii–iv, at ivGoogle Scholar.

53 De Heraut, 6 Oct. 1865, cited in Enschedé, A. C. Kruseman, 97–8.

54 Tinholt, L., “Eene Jakoetische voorlezing uit de 38ste eeuw onzer jaartelling,” Stemmen voor Waarheid en Vrede, 1 (1864), 411–44, at 416Google Scholar. The Athenaeum, too, chose ridicule by presenting Dozy's book as a clever joke (“a rare hoax” and “brilliant travesty”) and the serious responses it elicited as giving Dozy lots of fun: Athenaeum (1865), II, 797–99, at 797 (I have been unable to identify the author of this piece). Colenso objected to this treatment in Natal, J. W., “Israelites in Mecca,” Athenaeum, 1 (1866), 497–8Google Scholar. Cf. Colenso to Charles Lyell, 1 March 1866, in Cox, George W., The Life of John William Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal, vol. 2 (London, 1888), 22 Google Scholar.

55 HaCohen, Reclaiming the Hebrew Bible, 145.

56 Kuenen, A., “De Baälsdienst onder Israël,” Godgeleerde Bijdragen, 38 (1864), 449–91, at 449Google Scholar.

57 Colenso, John William, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, vol. 5 (London, 1865), 265 Google Scholar. See also the Saturday Review, 16 (1864), 372.

58 De Goeje, “Een stap vooruit,” 301; Kuenen, “Baälsdienst onder Israël,” 480; Matthes, “Eene nieuwe ontdekking,” 364. Along similar lines: Godgeleerde Bijdragen, 38 (1864), 350–51, at 350; and Historische Zeitschrift, 13 (1865), 270–72, at 272.

59 Matthes, “Eene nieuwe ontdekking,” 351; de Khanikoff, N., review in Journal asiatique, 4 (1864), 433–49, at 433Google Scholar.

60 Bernheim, Ernst, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode: Mit Nachweis der wichtigsten Quellen und Hülfsmittel zum Studium der Geschichte (Leipzig, 1889), 296–7Google Scholar.

61 Bernheim, Ernst, Geschichtsforschung und Geschichtsphilosophie (Göttingen, 1880), 71 Google Scholar.

62 See e.g. “Rinck dritter Brief Pauli an die Corinther,” Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur, 16 (1823), 529–44, at 535; Kapp, Christian, Über den Ursprung der Menschen und Völker, nach der mosaischen Genesis (Nuremberg, 1829), 193 Google Scholar; Credner, Karl August, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. 1 (Halle, 1836), 338 Google Scholar; or, in the Netherlands, [R. C. Bakhuizen van den Brink], “Kritiek, hyperkritiek, onkritiek: Nalezingen op Labruyères Des ouvrages de l’esprit,” De Gids, 3 (1839), 476–83, 513–22.

63 [Hofstede de] G[root], “Oorsprong van de Mohamedaansche godsdienst,” 373.

64 Kuenen, “Baälsdienst onder Israël,” 480; Graf, review, 331.

65 Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode, 430.

66 See Muhlack, Ulrich, “Historie und Philologie,” in Muhlack, Staatensystem und Geschichtsschreibung: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zu Humanismus und Historismus, Absolutismus und Aufklärung, ed. Hammerstein, Notker and Walther, Gerrit (Berlin, 2006), 142–72Google Scholar.

67 Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode, 430.

68 Pierson, H., De heilige steenen in Israël: Naar aanleiding van het boek van prof. R. Dozy: “De Israëlieten te Mekka” (Rotterdam, 1864), 6 Google Scholar.

69 Ibid., 7.

70 Kuenen, A., “Critische bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van den Israëlietischen godsdienst,” Theologisch Tijdschrift, 4 (1870), 391–426, at 406Google Scholar.

71 Kuenen, A., De godsdienst van Israël tot den ondergang van den Joodschen staat, vol. 2 (Haarlem, 1870), 27, 173, 214, 272, 311, 428, 537Google Scholar.

72 Ibid., 521.

73 Kuenen, A., John William Colenso (Haarlem, 1884), 11–12 Google Scholar.

74 Land, “Een nieuwe lichtstraal,” 229.

75 Ibid.

76 X+Y [pseudonym of Joseph Hirsch Dünner], “Boekbeschouwing,” Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad, 29 Dec. 1865. Similar complaints about modern historians who turned out not to as “critical,” “impartial,” or “truth-loving” as they claimed to be were frequently issued among orthodox Protestants in fear of modern biblical criticism and among Roman Catholics whose views of the Pope, the Church, or the saints were put to scrutiny by modern, critical historians. See, for instance, the Roman Catholic responses to the liberal Dutch historian Robert Fruin in [Herman] Schaepman, “Een nieuw verwijt uit een oude doos,” De Wachter, 2/2 (1872), 26–47, at 35; van Rootselaar, W. F. N., “De geschiedschrijver prof. dr. R. Fruin,” De Katholiek, 109 (1896), 26–62, at 35 and 48–50Google Scholar; ibid., “De geschiedschrijvers: Ranke en Fruin,” De Katholiek, 110 (1896), 180–96, at 196.

77 Kuenen, “Critische bijdragen,” 406.

78 De Goeje, “Een stap vooruit,” 298; Matthes, “Eene nieuwe ontdekking,” 349–51; Oort, Dienst der Baälim, 2, 55; William McGuckin de Slane to Reinhart Dozy, 3 Feb. 1865, LUL, BPL 2487.

79 Ewald, review, 1270; C. H. van Herwerden CHz., “Over de steenen- en boomendienst van Israël,” Waarheid in Liefde, 1 (1865), 377–98, at 378 and 379; Moritz Steinschneider, review in Hebraeische Bibliographie, 7 (1864), 103–6, at 105. See also Heinrich Leberecht Fleischer to Michaël Jan de Goeje (5 Dec. 1865, LUL, BPL 2389): “Dear Mister Doctor, I honestly admit to you that I consider these inferences—but entirely between the two of us!—learned Calembourgs [word plays], on which an historical edifice cannot be erected.”

80 Graf, review, 350.

81 Ewald, review, 1270.

82 X+Y [pseudonym of Meijer Roest Mzn.], “Boekbeschouwing,” Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad, 18 Aug. 1865.

83 Elte, Moderne theologie, 30.

84 [Ludwig Philippson], “Literarischer Wochenbericht,” Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, 32 (1868), 834.

85 Elte, Moderne theologie, 30.

86 Kuenen, “Baälsdienst onder Israël,” 481.

87 Fruin, R., “De drie tijdvakken der Nederlandsche geschiedenis,” De Gids, 29/2 (1865), 245–71, at 245Google Scholar.

88 Van Herwerden, “Over de steenen- en boomendienst,” 395.

89 Land, “Een nieuwe lichtstraal,” 229.

90 Oort, Dienst der Baälim, 5, approvingly quoted in Van Herwerden, “Over de steenen- en boomendienst,” 397–8.

91 “Beoordeling der recensie van het Handboek voor de geschiedenis der Joden door Sluijs en Hoofiën in het Leeskabinet,” Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad, 28 July 1871, original emphasis. See also Elte, Moderne theologie, 9.

92 Dozy to Kruseman, 13 Nov. 1864, LUL, LTK 1505. On Steinschneider's warm connection with Leiden see Witkam, Jan Just, “Moritz Steinschneider and the Leiden Manuscripts,” in Leicht, Reimund and Freudenthal, Gad, eds., Studies on Steinschneider: Moritz Steinschneider and the Emergence of the Science of Judaism in Nineteenth-Century Germany (Leiden, 2012), 263–75Google Scholar.

93 Dozy to Kruseman, 19 Sept. 1864, LUL, LTK 1505.

94 Dozy to Kruseman, 6 Sept. 1864, LUL, LTK 1505, quoting MacKay, R. W., The Tübingen School and Its Antecedents: A Review of the History and Present Condition of Modern Theology (Edinburgh, 1863), 345 Google Scholar. Dozy seems to have borrowed these quotations from David Friedrich Strauss, given that Mackay's remarks about Ewald quoted in Dozy's letter to Kruseman are identical to those quoted in Strauss, Das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet (Leipzig, 1864), 158 n. 2.

95 Graf, review, 332, 338.

96 Kuenen, “Simeonieten en Ismaëlieten,” 513, original emphasis.

97 Graf, review, 345. Similarly Kuenen, A., Historisch-kritisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds, vol. 3 (Leiden, 1865), 220 Google Scholar; and Kroese, H. E. Stenfert, review of Pierson, De heilige steenen in Israël, Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen, 105 (1865), 476–88, at 477Google Scholar.

98 [Philippson], review, 589. Cf. Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode, 297: “One sees, successful maintenance of this method requires not only shrewdness, but also careful cautiousness.”

99 Pierson, Heilige steenen, 9.

100 [Weil], review, 602.

101 Matthes, “Eene nieuwe ontdekking,” 369.

102 Pierson, Heilige steenen, 9.

103 For a similar attitude among late nineteenth-century British scientists see Stanley, Matthew, Practical Mystic: Religion, Science, and A. S. Eddington (Chicago, 2007), 46–9Google Scholar.

104 Land, “Een nieuwe lichtstraal,” 229.

105 [Philippson], review, 589, 590; Ewald, review, 1271–2.

106 Dugat, Gustave, Histoire des orientalistes de l’Europe du XIIe au XIXe siècle, vol. 2 (Paris, 1870), 61 Google Scholar.

107 HaCohen, Reclaiming the Hebrew Bible.

108 Mangold, Weltbürgerliche Wissenschaft, 91–5; Marchand, German Orientalism, 74–84; Ebert, Hans-Georg and Hanstein, Thoralf, eds., Heinrich Leberecht Fleischer, Leben und Wirkung: Ein Leipziger Orientalist des 19. Jahrhunderts mit internationaler Ausstrahlung (Frankfurt am Main, 2013)Google Scholar.

109 Kuenen, A., “Critical Method – I,” Modern Review, 1 (1880), 461–88, at 466Google Scholar.

110 de Landberg, Comte, Critica arabica, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1886), 18 Google Scholar.

111 Mangold, Weltbürgerliche Wissenschaft, 254; Wokoeck, Ursula, German Orientalism: The Study of the Middle East from 1800 to 1945 (London, 2009), 170–84Google Scholar; Fraisse, Ottfried, Ignác Goldzihers monotheistische Wissenschaft: Zur Historisierung des Islams (Göttingen, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

112 Cited after Fleischer, H. L., “Eine Stimme aus dem Morgenlande über Dozy's Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes,” in Fleischer, Kleinere Schriften, 3: 615–41, at 619–20Google Scholar.

113 Hurgonje, Christiaan Snouck, Het Mekkaansche feest (Leiden, 1880), 9–10 Google Scholar.

114 As van Koningsveld, P. S. has shown in “Snouck Hurgronje zoals hij was: Een bijdrage tot de waardering van de Nederlandse oriëntalistiek,” De Gids, 143 (1980), 763–84, at 765–70Google Scholar, Snouck's criticism of Dozy became more and more negative over the years. In Leiden, this dissociation from Dozy was sharply felt, witness the fact that in 1883, right after Dozy's death, De Goeje made a lengthy attempt to explain Dozy's “faux pas” of 1864. The following year, Dozy's biographer, the Dutch Jewish scholar Levi de Hartog, judged it wise to pass over De Israëlieten te Mekka in silence. Nonetheless, as late as 1894, the Leiden church historian J. G. R. Acquoy—the man we met in the opening paragraph as pastor in Zaltbommel at the time of Marx's visit—referred to Dozy's book as a “splendid example of historical combination.” See De Goeje, “Levensbericht van Reinhart Dozy,” 37–9; de Hartog, L., Reinhart Pieter Anne Dozy (Haarlem, 1884)Google Scholar; Acquoy, J. G. R., Handleiding tot de kerkgeschiedvorsching en kerkgeschiedschrijving (The Hague, 1894), 86–7Google Scholar; as well as Snouck's final (devastating) verdict in Hurgronje, C. Snouck, “Michaël Jan de Goeje,” in Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen gevestigd te Amsterdam 1909 (Amsterdam, 1910), 107–46, at 117Google Scholar.

115 Conrad, Lawrence I., “The Dervish's Disciple: On the Personality and Intellectual Milieu of the Young Ignaz Goldziher,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 2 (1990), 225–66, at 265CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

116 Hooijkaas, C. E., “Levensbericht van Henricus Oort, 27 december 1836–13 december 1927,” in Handelingen en mededeelingen van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde te Leiden, over het jaar 1928–1929 (Leiden, 1929), 77–126, at 85Google Scholar.

117 Fleischer to De Goeje, 17 March 1865, LUL, BPL 2389. For similar criticism see Dozy to De Goeje, 11 Oct. 1864, LUL, BPL 2389; Dozy to Kruseman, 6 Sept. 1864, LUL, LTK 1505. On Ewald's dubious reputation see also Perlitt, Lothar, “Heinrich Ewald: Der Gelehrte in der Politik,” in Moeller, Bernd, ed., Theologie in Göttingen: Eine Vorlesungsreihe (Göttingen, 1987), 157–212, at 181–94Google Scholar.

118 Irwin, For Lust of Knowing, 197.

119 Daston, “Historical Epistemology,” 282.

120 On scholarly controversies as historical sources see Kracht, Klaus Große, “Kritik, Kontroverse, Debatte: Historiografiegeschichte als Streitgeschichte,” in Eckel, Jan and Etzemüller, Thomas, eds., Neue Zugänge zur Geschichte der Geschichtswissenschaft (Göttingen, 2007), 255–83Google Scholar.