Proof and Persuasion in Black Athena: The Case of K. 0. Muller Josine H. Blok Non tali auxilio. Virgil, Aeneid II, 521 When in 1824 the German classical scholar Karl Otfried Muller (1797- 1840) set down to write a review of Champollion's first Letter to M. Dacier (1822), he was profoundly interested.' For several years he had been working on Egypt, and as he told his parents in 1820, "I have come to love Egyptian antiquity so much, that, if I were not constricted by the schedule of my classes, I would have set myself to the decipherment of the hieroglyphs, which I would not deem impossible by the clues I have found."' During the same years (1820-25) that he wrote his early books on ancient Greece, he ' I am much indebted to the program "Standards of Proof and Methods of Persuasion in the Discipline of History" of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center of Historical Studies at Princeton University, in which I participated in 1994; to Glen Bowersock, Suzanne Marchand, Joan Wallach Scott, Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and to the members of the Historische Kring at Groningen; Stefan Radt, Henk Versnel, and Donald R. Kelley. The survey ofMuller's works by Wolfhart Unte, provided for the K. 0. Miiller-Tagung (Bad Homburg; March 1994) has been an invaluable checklist. Reference here is to Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, I, The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985 (New Brunswick, 1987). On his studies in these fields see, e. g., Muller to his parents, 26 March 1820, Carl 2 Otfried Muller. Lebensbild inBriefen an seine Eltern, mit dem Tagebuch seiner italienisch- griechischen Reise, ed. 0. and E. Kern (Berlin, 1908) [henceforth cited as LMIC], no. 42; 70; on his various publications on Egyptian culture and art, see E. Muller's biographical ii sketch in K.O. Muller's Kleine deutsche Schriften iiber Religion, Kunst, Sprache und Literatur, Leben und Geschichte des Althertums, nebst Erinnerungen aus dem Leben des Verfassers, ed. E. Muller (2 vols.; Breslau, 1847-48), lv and note (henceforth KdS); and his unnumerable reviews of studies on Egyptian antiquities in Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen (henceforth GGA). 705 Copyright 1996 by Journal of the History of Ideas, Inc. Josine H. Blok 706 reviewed sixteen studies on Egypt alone.' In his review of theLetter, then, he wanted to draw "the attention of [the] readers to this, certainly not un- founded, discovery,' though he feared the author was inclined to jump to conclusions. But in August 1824 he reviewed Champollion's more complete publication of his findings of the same year and, recalling his previous anxiety, commented: Now, however, the reading of the present work hastotally convinced me, that the usage of hieroglyphs to indicate sounds is as ancient as this writing system itself. [... This discovery should also mean that ...] the history of Egyptian religion and state will be reconstructed and expanded.' From that moment he sided unequivocally with Champollion, politely but clearly reminding German colleagues who still stumbled on with decipher- ments of their own, that this would not do.6 With these facts in mind, Martin Bernal's rendering in his Black Athena, volume I, is bound to surprise: "[U]nlike Humboldt, Niebuhr and Bunsen [Muller] disregarded the sensational scholarly developments between 1815 and 1830. There is no indication that he paid any attention to Champollion's decipherment" (316). The contradiction between Bernal's statements and the sources on Mailer's life and work turns out notto be an incidental error but part of a larger pattern. To understand this pattern and its objectives, let me first summarize Bernal's argument and my own. In his challenging book Bernal argues that the ancient Greek world was founded on the colonization of Greece by Phoenicians and Egyptians in the second millennium BC.7 The material which is to prove his thesis is offered in volume II, though volume I includes a summary. In this first volume Bernal of observes that from late antiquity until the eighteenth century, awareness the Afroasiatic roots of ancient civilization had been retained as the heritage of ancient Greece itself. Hence Bernal labels this perception underlying Western classical scholarship of the early modern period the "Ancient Model." By or soon after the 1820s, however, it was replaced by the "Aryan Model," which took Greek civilization to be partly autochthonous and partly 3 Of his reviews in GGA of 1822 one concerned Egypt, in 1823 two,in 1824 seven, in 1825 six; add another six in 1826. 4 GGA, March 1824, 353-59; 356. GGA, August 1824, 1257-71; 1258, 1261, 6 On the late F. A. G. Spohn, GGA, 1825, 1225-30; on his successor G. Seyffart, GGA, 1826, 825-36; on J. W. Pfaff, GGA, 1826, 837-40, Muller siding with Champollion against J. Letronne; but cf. Bernal, 253. 'Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, I, The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985 (New Brunswick, 1987), pagescited in parenthe- ses. Vol II. The Archeological and Documentary Evidence (New Brunswick, 1991). Two more volumes are promised. Black Athena 707 shaped by invasions coming from the North. To reveal that the fall of the Ancient Model was not the result of internal developments in classical scholarship but of externalist influences, notably the belief in progress, the defense of Christianity, Romanticism, and most importantly racism, is the core theme of volume I. Bernal sustains his argument by contending that historical source criticism was not really or entirely an internal development but created to serve the external ends, and by presenting Muller as the embodiment of Romanticist racism, who was responsible for overthrowing the Ancient Model and inaugurating its Aryan successor. Hence, by thus designating Muller as the axis around which the overall turn of classical scholarship revolved, he wants to prove that the fall of the AncientModel was unjustified in terms of scholarship but only occurred due to dishonorable ideologies. Through a limited number of representative issues I want to argue that 1 Bernal's rendering of Mailer and the context of his work is untenable in the light of the source material and that Bernal's explanation of the fall of the Ancient Model is untenable as well. My aim is not just to clear Muller'sname of Bernal's accusations and far less to criticize Bernal's views8 bypresenting a "true" reading of Muller.' Rather, focusing on this essential case, I will s For criticism up to 1992 see Molly Myerowitz Levine, "The Use and Abuse of Black Athena," American Historical Review, 97 (1992), 440-64, who recurrently mentions the silence of classical scholars on vol. 1, beside discussing the effect of Black Athena on ethnicity-debates in the U.S.; Robert L. Pounder, Black Athena 2: History without Rules," American Historical Review, 97 (1992), 461-64; Robert Palter, "Black Athena, Afro- centrism, and the History of Science," History of Science, 31 (1993), 227-87; P. 0. Kristeller, "Comment on Black Athena," JHI, 56 (1995), 125-27. To many of these texts Bernal has written a reply. I could not yet read Mary Lefkowitz, Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History (New York, 1996), and Black Athena Revisited, ed. Mary Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers (Chapel Hill, 1996), offering a survey of critical responses to Black Athena, includingessays by Robert Norton on J. G. Herder and by Guy MacLean Rogers on George Grote. In his review of Not Out of Africa in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review on internet (5 April 1996), Bernal reiterates that "it is precisely this historiographical or ideological aspect ofmy work [that is, vol. I and the neglect of Champollion's decipherment in Germany until the 1850s dueto racism only] that has been most widely accepted." I thank Froma Zeitlin for bringing thisreview to my attention. 9 On Muller see the theme-issue of Annali della Scuola NormaleSuperiore de Pisa (henceforth ASNP), ser. 3, 14 (1984); K. Nickau, "Karl Otfried Muller, Professor der Klassischen Philologie 1819-1840," Die Klassische Altertumswissenschafi an der Georg- August-Universitdt Göttingen. Eine Ringvorlesung zu ihrer Geschichte, ed. C. J. Classen (Gottingen, 1989), 27-50; W. Unte, "Karl Otfried Muller," Classical Scholarship. A Biographical Encyclopedia, ed. W. W. Briggs and W. M. Calder III (New York, 1990), 310-20; A. D. Momigliano, "A Return to Eighteenth-Century 'Etruscheria': A. D. Momigliano, K. 0. Muller," Studies on Modern Scholarship, ed. andtr. G. W. Bowersock, and T. J. Cornell (Berkeley, 1994), 303-14 (orig. Italian, 1985); and K. 0. Muller Reconsidered, ed. W. M. Calder III, H. Flashar, and R. Schlesier (Urbana, Illinois Classical Studies, forthcoming); also W. Burkert, "Griechische Mythologie und die Geistesge- schichte der Moderne," Les Etudes classiques aux XIXe et XXe siecles: leurplace dans l'histoire des idées, ed. 0. Reverdin and B. Grange (Fondation Hardt, 26) (Vandoeuvres, Josine H. Blok 708 show why Black Athena conveys Bernal's political views but cannot be regarded as acceptable history. Conditions of Scientific Change Bernal's analysis relies on distinguishing two kinds of scientific develop- ments, internal and external.' Internal developments are normal, legitimate, and indeed valuable features of a scientific discipline. The effects of external influences are liable to a different kind of judgment, that is, the agreement of the author with the ideas that informed them. According to Bernal, a clear distinction has to be made between the fall of the Ancient Model, which can be explained only in externalist termsthat is, social and political pressuresand the rise of the Aryan one, which had a considerable internalist componentthat is to say, develop- ments within scholarship itself played an important role in the evolu- tion of the new model. (330) So one should not conclude that Bernal regards external reasons as generally wrong and internal reasons as generally right, since the Aryan model wrong, except for a few elements to be included in Bernal's Revised Ancient Modeldepended to a large extent on internal developments. Bernal's crucial case of a wrong internal development is historical "source criticism," which he introduces in quotation marks. He briefly explains what this source criticism is about: "This involved the historian assessing the value of different historical sources according to their author and social context, and basing his interpretation largely or solely on the reliable ones" (217). Bernal is cautious not to discredit this method alto- gether, since his own argument involves a judgment on reliability according to author and social context. In showing that it was nevertheless wrong, Bernal uses the same strategy as he does later on when incriminating Muller. 1980), 159-207, 162-63; R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship: From 1300 to 1850 (Oxford, 1976), 187ff.; G. Pflug, "Methodik und Hermeneutik bei Karl Otfried Muller," H. Flashar, K. Grader, and A. Horstmann (eds.), Philologie und Hermeneutik im 19. Jahrhundert. Zur Geschichte und Methodologie der Geisteswissenschaften, I (Gottingen, 1979), 122-40; A. D. Momigliano, "K. 0. Muller's Prolegomena zu einer wissen- schaftlichen Mythologie and the Meaning of 'Myth,' "ASNP, ser. 3, 13 (1983), 671-89; M. M. Sassi, "Ermeneutica del mito in K. 0. Muller," ASNP, ser. 3, 14 (1984), 911-36; H. J. Gehrke, "Karl Otfried Muller und das Land der Griechen," Athenische Mitteilungen, 106 (1991), 9-35; and J. H. Blok, "Quests for a Scientific Mythology: F. Creuzer and K. 0. Muller on History and Myth," Proof and Persuasion in History, ed. A. Grafton and S. Marchand, History and Theory, Theme Issue, 33 (1994), 26-52; J. H. Blok " 'Romantische Poesie, Naturphilosophie, Construktion der Geschichte': K. 0. Muller's Understanding of History and Myth," Calder et al. (eds.), K. 0. Muller Reconsidered (forthcoming). '° Bernal, Introduction, and passim. Black Athena 709 Before introducing this method, he gives the reader extensive information about the external developments which prepared both the creation of source criticism and the fall of the Ancient Model. Next, he attributes this to an individual by presenting Chr. Meiners (1747-1810), "later to be honoured by the Nazis as a founder of racial theory" (217), as the creator of this method. By asserting the disreputable character of its origins, Bernal tries to discredit by association the entire discipline of ancient history as it subsequently evolved. Now the choice of Meiners is odd, because usually the methods of source criticism are attributed to the philologists of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries instead of this rather obscure philosopher-anthropologist who had nothing to do with it. Indeed, Bernal does not quote Meiners on historical method," but instead he describes Meiner's racist historiography. Here Bernal draws on L. Poliakov, but he omits the latter's observation that Meiners's views did not match the common ideas in Germanyfor example on "progress" in historyand that Meiners was the first one to assume the origins of mankind to have been in Africa.' Bernal also neglects to say that Meiners worked in the Ancient Model, taking the Egyptiansand the Jews, Meiners also notesto be an "original people" who developed out of barbarism by their own efforts, in contrast to "mixed peoples" like the Greeks, who did so due to the influence of others. For this reason Meiners argued that the Egyptians did not spring from the Ethiopians, nor from any other people." But Meiners worked in Gottingen, which Bernal designatesas the center of classicist, Romantic, racist German scholarship. Here the reader will also meet Muller. K. 0. Muller in Black Athena Muller is the first classical scholar whom Bernal mentions (after James Frazer and Jane Harrison as laudable exceptions), and he is introduced as "the man who destroyed the Ancient Model" (4). Muller "used the new techniques of source criticism to discredit all the ancient references to the Egyptian colonization," (31) a phrase strongly suggesting that Muller abused an internal asset for an "externally" motivated aim. Throughout the first part, general remarks are scattered which simply designate Mulleras a racist. " C. Meiners, Geschichte des Ursprungs, Fortgangs und Verfalls der Wissenschaft in Griechenland und Rom (1781-82) is listed in the bibliography, but Bernal's note refersto a quote in L. Braun, Histoire de l'histoire de la philosophie (Paris, 1973). 12 L. Poliakov, The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe, tr. E. Howard (London, 1974), 178-79. '3 C. Meiners, Versuch fiber die Religionsgeschichte der dltesten Völker, besonders der Egyptier (Gottingen, 1775), 24 (on the Jews), 28, and extensively in ch. 3. And see Friedrich Lotter, "Christoph Meiners und die Lehre von der unterschiedlichen Wertigkeit der Menschenrassen," Geschichtswissenschaft in Gottingen, ed. Hermann Wellenreuther (Gottingen, 1987), 30-75. Josine H. Blok 710 For instance, "the question of 'Semitic blood' " leads to Muller, who "had denied that the Phoenicians had had any influence on Greece, but he was extreme in his Romanticism and ahead of his time in the intensity of his racialism and anti-Semitism ..." (33). In brief, the first forty-odd pages sketch a picture of classical studies in the decadesaround 1800 as involved in a general thrust towards"racial purity." This thrust is embodied in particular in Willer, who saw to its enforcement in theoverall perception of antiquity. This role of Muller's is confirmed by hints about the reception of his work during the nineteenth century, when extreme "Aryan Model" scholars "rec- ognized Muller as a forerunner" (34). After this judgment on Muller, partly created a priori and partly in retrospect, Bernal discusses the rise of Romantic classicism more or less in chronological order (chaps. IV-VI). Romanticism is represented only in an unfavorable contrast to the Enlightenment and is defined here to consist of belief in progress and racism, instead of being afactor among and in debate with the others, as stated elsewhere (e.g., 204). Thus racist, progressive Hellenocentrism was institutionalized in Humboldt's educational system, whose veneration of a "pure" Greece explains Mailer's "attacks" on the Model, since Muller himself was "one of (its) now "intolerable" Ancient first products" (282). Muller now gets a lengthy treatment of his own. His Romanticism is beyond doubt; even his "untimely" death is "Romantic" (309). Bernal has not read Muller's thesis of 1817, Aeginetica;" but he declares it to be, "though partly inspired by the marbles recently brought to Germany from (309; emphasis added). there ... a perfect example of Romantic-Positivism" The first phrase refers to an "internal" motivation, namely new material, which is then subjected to the second, "external," and by now unsavory objective. That the latter was what actually drove Muller to write his thesis in this manner Bernal suggests first, by citing G. P. Gooch, who quoted in 1913 the Aeginetica to the study of E. Curtius mentioning a resemblance of Moser," (309) though Osnabruck by "the Romantic-conservative Justus Bernal omits its date, 1768,'5 and second, by observing that Aegina is an and that "it was inhab- island and thus "convenient for exhaustive study," ited by Dorians and faced Athens, the chief city of the 'corrupt' Ionians" (309). That the Ionians sustained the legacy ofthe Ancient Model and thus 14 Aegineticorum liber, scripsit C. Mueller, Silesius. A copy of the unpublished original was recently rediscovered, but a summary was included in K. 0. Muller, Kunstarchdologische Werke, 1817-1840 (Berlin, 1873), I, 1-19, under the title "De arte Aeginetica." 15 No doubt, Justus Moser (1720-94) was a conservative; the Osnabrückische Geschichte (2 vols.) appeared in 1768 and a revised edition in 1780; the latter was reprinted in 1819, that is after the Aeginetica was written and included in Sdmmtliche Werke (10 vols.; 1842-44) after Muller's death. I have found noreference to author or work in Muller's writings unto now; Bernal, in his reference to Gooch, omits that the latter quotes Curtius and does not draw the comparison himself. Black Athena 711 were corrupted by Eastern influence in the eyes of Muller and his Aryan colleagues has been suggested earlier in Black Athena (e.g., 83-84). A few pages later, however, Bernal interprets Muller as regarding the Athenians as "pure-blooded" (312). That in addition there might have been some problem in Muller's having seen the Ionian Athenians as "corrupt," while he wrote "voluminously on ancient art and archeology," (309) does not seem to occur to Bernal, who accuses Muller of "confused and confusingargument" (313). Describing his happiness to be at Gottingen, Muller uses a "surprisingly Hebrew turn of phrase" (309; emphasis added).' Thus Bernal suggests that Muller, as an allegedly ardent anti-Semite, cannot be expected to use words related to the Jewish tradition. The impact of Muller's Protestant education is not mentioned at all. He is described as protected by several German states and using his wide-ranging professionalism to attack the Ancient Model. Muller's main books between 1820 and 1825 are proclaimed to have become "the pillars of Altertumswissenschaft" (309). Until now Bernal's picture of Muller is made up only by suggestions of this kind. When next Bernal rightly shows Muller refuting the impact of non- Greek civilizations on the Greek ones, he for the first time offers some quotations, mixing selections from the three works intoone argument. But he passes over the fact that Muller is concerned here with the earliest stages of Greek culture. Throughout, Bernal renders Muller views on the Greekness of Greek myth as either malicious or ignorant. He dismisses Muller's insistence on proof by denouncing "distinct proof " as "dubious in any branch of knowledge ... absurd in such a nebulous region as the origins of Greek mythology" (314). To show that Muller was wrong and wilfully misread his sources, Bernal has only his own readings to offer, which are concerned precisely with the nebulous origins of Greek mythology,notably concerning Kadmos and Danaos. Allegedly motivated by his racist wish to overthrow the Ancient Model, Muller is pictured as eager to attack his opponents, as a champion bred and set in the forefront of Romantic-Positivist racism. Attacks on himself are mentioned just once, in the case of H. Usener in 1882. Bernal does not mention that Muller started writing his Prolegomena zu einer wissen- schaftlichen Mythologie (1825) to defend his views inthe face of the harsh criticisms of Orchomenos und die Minyer (1820) and Die Dorier (1824), though the German edition is clear on this matter and Gooch also relates this fact." In the seven pages (308-14) on Muller, not including the notes, the following words set the tone: "arrogant," "despise" (twice), "pathology" (twice), "demolish," "challenge" (twice), "dismiss" (twice), "attack" (five times), "sleight of hand," and "bluff." 16 "the place of places forme...," quoted by Bernal from J. W. Donaldson, "Introduc- tion," K. 0. Muller, A History of the Literature of Ancient Greece (3 vols.; London, 1858), I, vii. '' G. P. Gooch, History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 19132), 37-38. Josine H. Blok 712 Bernal varnishes his picture of Muller's objectives and impact in two ways. On the one hand Muller had to be heralded by scholars who con- sciously elevated this uninnovative upstart as "scientific" and as the true founder of "racist" Altertumswissenschaf t. On the other hand more recent classicist interpreters and/or those who were connected with Semitist schol- arship knew better. In the latter cases, if they praise Muller, they are mis- guided; if they denounce him, they are right (315-16). Again, this picture is created almost entirely by means of suggestion. One example is C. Thirlwall's work of the 1830s on Greece, which figures as a steptowards the Aryan Model in England. In doing so Thirlwall summarized Muller's argument, though without mention- ing him by name. He also added a fascinating note on Willer's motivation: "[the early colonization of Greece by foreigners] might never have been questioned, if the inferences drawn from it had not provoked a jealous enquiry into the grounds on which it rests." Thirlwall did not specify what these inferences were, but, given Muller's work, it is hard to see any alternatives to Romantic and racial ones. (324-25, emphasis added by Bernal) Thirlwall does not mention Muller; yet he is supposed to clarify the unnamed Muller's motivation, this motivation being given as "jealous enquiry" into the foundation of the colonization-model. This jealous enquiry cannot be an internal motivationnew questions, new methodsbut has to be an external influence, that is, Romanticism and racism, "proven" by the unnamed work of Muller which was "proven" to be racist. Yet some surprises are in store. In getting on with his story, Bernal sees some differences between Muller and the proponents of the Aryan Model, although Muller is still held responsible for the change (332, 333). Indeed, Muller is now "probably anti-Semitic" (359; emphasis added). Here for the first time Bernal refers to Muller's own work on this issue, hence the reference is worth quoting: [Why is it the intention of many scholars] to transfer every greatness of Greek prehistory to the Near East [das Morgenland] [and] place everything authentic at the very end? Then, when one has quittedthe way of earlier scholars, to tie everything to the writings of the Old Covenant and make paganism into nothing else than a fractured Judaism that has lost its nature: then not a few, and highly inspired [interpreters], exactly like the ancient ones, turn their eyes steadily only to Egypt, Phoenicia, the farthest East [Morgenlande] ... [in- stead, it were a better principle to see ...] Greek and Oriental life, in their distinct authenticity and unmitigated truth, each by itself, com- pletely founded and represented." 18 Orchomenos, I, 8; trans. mine. Black Athena 713 It is difficult to read this as "intense anti-Semitism." What Muller, though a deeply pious Protestant, here defies is the tradition of understanding pagan religions as degenerated remnants of Judaeo-Christian monotheism. Assessment: Miiller's Writing In order to make his picture of Muller as a staunch racist seem true, Bernal has to make several assumptions, which are scattered throughout the pages dealing with Muller. First, Muller must reject the interest in Egypt of the Greeks themselves as "disorders" and "delusions" since the Egyptians were "barbarians" (309-10). Second, Midler must be committed to the racism and perceptions of progress that Bernal holds to be thecornerstone of Romanticism in general and of Gottingen University in particular (passim; 215ff). Third, Muller must be aware of "two enemies" whom he must "attack": on the one hand the Ancient Model as represented by the Masons and C. F. Dupuis, and on the other hand the Indophilia of F. Schlegel, F. Creuzer, and other "Heidelberg" scholars.' Fourth, Muller must ignore on purpose "facts" that sustain the Ancient Model and despise the fields that generated them. Fifth, Muller must not be innovative where his material is concerned. Bernal, who discusses only four of Miiller's several hundred publications,20 declares: "The most striking feature of Miiller's work for us is that it was based entirely on traditional material.... None of the 19th century extensions of knowledge was involved" (315-16). Though Muller is excused for not knowing material discovered after his death, unlike Heyne and Heeren, he was not particularly interested in the 18th century explorations ... [following first quote on neglect of Champollion] his hostility to India meant that despite his close contact with the Grimm brothers and other Indo-Europeanists, he did not apply the new Indo-European linguistics to his work. (316) This account is to prove that Muller did not work from changing "internal" views, but stirred by racism only. A confrontation between Bernal's account and the original documents concerning Miiller's life and work shows that not one of Bernal's assump- tions holds true. Again a few examples must suffice. 19 This is the only mention of Creuzer, whose Symbolik is mentioned only in the first edition (1810-12), although Muller responded to the second, revised edition of 1819-20. This choice may be due to Bernal's reliance here on Momigliano's article on Creuzer, "Friedrich Creuzer and Greek Historiography" (1946), in Studies on Modern Scholarship, ed. Bowersock and Cornell, 1-14. 20 I.e., the three volumes of the Geschichten (Orchomenos, Dorier, I and II) and the Prolegomena; the Aeginetica only as discussed by Gooch; and on "Orion" (the "attack" on Dupuis) see below. Josine H. Blok 714 I. Muller was not only committed to Egyptology and Champollion's work, he was also fascinated by the cultures of the Far and Near East" and etymologies and with familiar with the Indo-European, Sanskrit, and other material to be of the scholarly fields that sustained them.22 He considered new primary importance, to whose accessibility and interpretation he himself contributed a great deal. Like few others before him, he emphasized the importance of archaeological material in connection with written sources. In this respect he proved to be a true pupil of August Bockh (1785-1867), who tried to interpret antiquity based on new, epigraphical sources to an unpre- cedented degree but who does not figure in BlackAthena at all. Before he could go to Greece himself, however, Mullerresponded to all new discover- ies on the ancient world, including the Near East, in the GGA and in his own historical writing. He read a lot in the travel literature of the eighteenth century and of his own time." He knew many languages well, including Italian, Modern Greek, and Hebrew.24 His profound knowledge of Arabic was indispensable to his writing on the Near-Eastern city of Antioch (1839)," a book which Bernal does not seem to know. Muller's research on this book was inspired by collaboration with his close friend A. H. L. Heeren (1760-1842), whom we just met as the living contrast to Muller. Heeren figures in Black Athena as a "transitional figure" (297). Heeren's professional life in Gottingen is to account for his "exhaus- tive scholarship" only, but somehow did not preclude his writing on "Carthage, Ethiopia and Egypt." Heeren was not treated well by those of his contemporaries who have had an influence on posterity.... [He] was punished by the Romantics not merely for his choice of subject but for staying with the Ancient Model too long. Only black historians read him today. (297) 21 On his courses see, e.g., letter by K. J. Sillig to C. A.Bottiger,20 November 1822, recounting how he enjoys Muller's course on mythology, with its survey of Indians, Egyptians, Near Eastern peoples, Persians, Hellenes, and Italians. Quoted in S. Reiter (ed.), (2 vols.; Berlin, 1950), II, 31 C.O. Muller, Briefe aus einem Gelehrtenleben, 1797-1840 (no. 36) [henceforth BMR]. On his learning Sanskrit, letter to Bottiger, 21 November 1820; BMR, no. 22. 22A survey of his reading of travel accounts on Greece,Egypt and the East in the years 182023-25, based on his reviews in GGA: Choiseul-Gonfier to Greece, 1820; E. Dodwell in Greece (London, 1819), 1820; R. Walpole to Turkey andthe East (London, 1820), 1821; F. Pouqueville to Greece, 1821; G. Belzoni on Egypt and Nubia, including the excavations (London, 1821), 1822; T. S. Hughes to Sicily, Greece and Albania (London, 1821), 1822; new volume by Pouqueville, 1824; M. C. D. Raffenel on Greece and Turkey (Paris, 1822), 1824. 24 On the courses he took at Breslau University, LMK, no. 17,29 October 1815, where he studied Hebrew and Italian, besides of course Latin and Greek. See G. W. Bowersock, "The Search for Antioch: K. 0. Muller's Antiquitates Antio2c5henae," in K. 0. Muller Revisited, ed. Calder et al. (forthcoming), who also discusses some differences between the Latin and theGerman versions of this study.