What do you think?
Rate this book
Eccentric Culture: A Theory of Western Civilization
Western culture, which influenced the whole world, came from Europe. But its roots are not there. They are in Athens and Jerusalem. European culture takes its bearing from references that are not in Europe: Europe is eccentric.What makes the West unique? What is the driving force behind its culture? Remi Brague takes up these questions in Eccentric Culture. This is not another dictionary of European culture, nor a measure of the contributions of a particular individual, religion, or national tradition. The author's interest is especially, with regard to the transmission of that culture, to articulate the dynamic tension that has propelled Europe and more generally the West toward civilization. It is this mainspring of European culture, this founding principle, that Brague calls Roman.Yet the author's intent is not to write a history of Europe, and less yet to defend the historical reality of the Roman Empire. Brague rather isolates and generalizes one aspect of that history or, one might say, cultural myth, of ancient Rome. The Roman attitude senses its own incompleteness and recognizes the call to borrow from what went before it.Historically, it has led the West to borrow from the great traditions of Jerusalem and Athens: primarily the Jewish and Christian tradition, on the one hand, and the classical Greek tradition on the other. Nowhere does the author find this Roman character so strongly present as in the Christian and particularly Catholic attitude toward the incarnation.At once an appreciation of the richness and diversity of the sources and their fruit, Eccentric Culture points as well to the fragility of their nourishing principle. As such, Brague finds in it notonly a means of understanding the past, but of projecting a future in (re)proposing to the West, and to Europe in particular, a model relationship of what is proper to it.An international bestseller (translated from the original French edition of Europe, La Voie Romaine), this work has been or is presently being translated into thirteen languages.
211 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
6 people are currently reading
392 people want to read
About the author
Rémi Brague
97 books54 followersFrench historian of philosophy, specializing in the Arabic, Jewish, and Christian thought of the Middle Ages. He is professor emeritus of Arabic and religious philosophy at the Sorbonne, and Romano Guardini chair of philosophy (emeritus) at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.
Brague is the recipient of numerous awards, including honors by both the French National Centre for Scientific Research and the Academy of Moral and Political Science. In 2009, he received both the Josef Pieper Prize and the Grand prix de philosophie de l'Académie française, and he was awarded the 2012 Ratzinger Prize for Theology alongside Brian E. Daley. In 2013, he was named a Chevalier de l'Ordre National de la Légion d'honneur.
Brague is the recipient of numerous awards, including honors by both the French National Centre for Scientific Research and the Academy of Moral and Political Science. In 2009, he received both the Josef Pieper Prize and the Grand prix de philosophie de l'Académie française, and he was awarded the 2012 Ratzinger Prize for Theology alongside Brian E. Daley. In 2013, he was named a Chevalier de l'Ordre National de la Légion d'honneur.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 14, 2023
The Frenchman Remi Brague is a somewhat underrated figure in the list of European conservative thinkers of the last decades, in line with Roger Scruton and Theodore Dalrymple. He studied philosophy and first specialized in classical Greek thinking, later also Jewish and Islamic.
The first edition of this book dates from 1992, when the Iron Curtain had fallen and many Eastern European countries were to become members of the European Union, a Union that had just taken a step further as a single economic market. It is clear that Brague was not very keen on the political and economic interpretation given to the concept of Europe. In this book, he tries to formulate his own approach that emphasizes the uniqueness of European culture.
His line of approach can at least be called original, albeit rather far-fetched. He draws a parallel with Roman culture: the Romans acknowledged that they were almost entirely indebted to the Greek- Hellenic culture and they were always aware of a form of inferiority. Similarly, according to Brague, Europe has always recognized that it owed tribute to the entire classic antiquity and to Jewish Hebrew culture, all passing through Christianity (hence the English title: "eccentric culture", that is: away from the centre). That too has always given European culture an implicit form of inferiority complex, which at the same time explains the enormous openness of that culture, and even a high degree of self-criticism. For Brague, that is also the justification that European culture rightly makes universalist claims.
The latter immediately reveals a paradox, which also underlines the weakness of Brague's position. Europe may indeed have borrowed world views, ideas, values and ethics from elsewhere, but in historical reality it has not prevented the continent from imposing its will on the rest of the world with great brutality and arrogance. Brague remains blind to that. This is best demonstrated by the short chapter on eurocentrism, in which he first denies the existence of such eurocentrism, and then states that every culture puts itself in the middle. Here too, a check with historical reality is lethal.
For Brague, there is no discussion that the individuality of Europe, that "Roman way" (which has only indirectly to do with the Roman Empire), can be found in essence in Christianity. After all, that also has its source elsewhere (in Judaism and Hellenism) and is also very aware of that. But Brague seems to limit Christianity to Roman Catholicism: curiously, the contribution of Protestantism to European culture remains unmentioned, and he expresses himself rather denigrating about orthodox Christianity.
This book is not always easy to follow, because Brague uses a rather ethereal, French style of thinking. His focus is also constantly shifting, and in the end his argument even becomes an outright apology of Christianity, as said limited to Roman Catholicism. I’m not saying that Brague’s book is not interesting, on the contrary. His erudition is impressive, and the chapters on borrowing from ancient and Jewish-Hebrew culture are particularly fascinating. The contrast between European and Islamic thinking is also highlighted, an issue that has only become more important since the publication of the book. His vision may be somewhat far-fetched, it does stimulate reflection and certainly touches upon aspects of European culture that are worthwhile. In short, a mixed opinion.
The first edition of this book dates from 1992, when the Iron Curtain had fallen and many Eastern European countries were to become members of the European Union, a Union that had just taken a step further as a single economic market. It is clear that Brague was not very keen on the political and economic interpretation given to the concept of Europe. In this book, he tries to formulate his own approach that emphasizes the uniqueness of European culture.
His line of approach can at least be called original, albeit rather far-fetched. He draws a parallel with Roman culture: the Romans acknowledged that they were almost entirely indebted to the Greek- Hellenic culture and they were always aware of a form of inferiority. Similarly, according to Brague, Europe has always recognized that it owed tribute to the entire classic antiquity and to Jewish Hebrew culture, all passing through Christianity (hence the English title: "eccentric culture", that is: away from the centre). That too has always given European culture an implicit form of inferiority complex, which at the same time explains the enormous openness of that culture, and even a high degree of self-criticism. For Brague, that is also the justification that European culture rightly makes universalist claims.
The latter immediately reveals a paradox, which also underlines the weakness of Brague's position. Europe may indeed have borrowed world views, ideas, values and ethics from elsewhere, but in historical reality it has not prevented the continent from imposing its will on the rest of the world with great brutality and arrogance. Brague remains blind to that. This is best demonstrated by the short chapter on eurocentrism, in which he first denies the existence of such eurocentrism, and then states that every culture puts itself in the middle. Here too, a check with historical reality is lethal.
For Brague, there is no discussion that the individuality of Europe, that "Roman way" (which has only indirectly to do with the Roman Empire), can be found in essence in Christianity. After all, that also has its source elsewhere (in Judaism and Hellenism) and is also very aware of that. But Brague seems to limit Christianity to Roman Catholicism: curiously, the contribution of Protestantism to European culture remains unmentioned, and he expresses himself rather denigrating about orthodox Christianity.
This book is not always easy to follow, because Brague uses a rather ethereal, French style of thinking. His focus is also constantly shifting, and in the end his argument even becomes an outright apology of Christianity, as said limited to Roman Catholicism. I’m not saying that Brague’s book is not interesting, on the contrary. His erudition is impressive, and the chapters on borrowing from ancient and Jewish-Hebrew culture are particularly fascinating. The contrast between European and Islamic thinking is also highlighted, an issue that has only become more important since the publication of the book. His vision may be somewhat far-fetched, it does stimulate reflection and certainly touches upon aspects of European culture that are worthwhile. In short, a mixed opinion.
March 19, 2015
I decided to engage with the thought of Rémi Braque a couple of years ago when I encountered a reference to him in the book, The Axial Age and Its Consequences (Edited by Robert N. Bellah and Hans Joas). I believe it was in the article by Jan Assman, a strong critic of the Axial Age thesis, where I read that Brague presented a good counterpoint to the thesis. I therefore ordered three of Brague’s books in a fit of enthusiasm. I still have my doubts about the Axial Age thesis but enjoy the works of some of its promoters (late Robert Bellah and Charles Taylor). This is my first read of my Brague collection. It was okay but I was not as enamoured as I had hoped. Although Rémi Brague is obviously a man of great learning and scholarship, he suffers from what I often rail against in my GR reviews, the habit of stating conclusions without bothering in demonstrate them, often supporting them by name dropping: a very popular tactic among French academics. I suppose I am just too much embedded in an analytic tradition. In any event, I still have two more books to read.
-
Eccentric Culture: A Theory of Western Civilization was written in French in 1992 as a response to the further unification of Europe by the signing of the Maastricht Treaty although Brague goes on to say:
“Indeed, I am trying to consider here what the essence of Europe is, what it is fundamentally.” He proposes a theory, not particularly new, that European ‘culture’ is a product of the Greek and Jewish cultures as refined and brought forward by Rome. He coins this process ‘Romanity’. I will not go into all of Brague’s development of the theory, just to say that his arguments, while indicative of his voluminous knowledge, are often a bit obscure and arbitrary.
-
For example, he raises the specter of what effect the adoption of Marcionism, the rejection of the Old Covenant of the Jews leaving Christianity with the gospels of the New Testament, would have had on Christianity. It is obvious that a wholesale rejection of the Judaic tradition would have had a huge effect on Christianity. Christianity without the Ten Commandments and without the (pseudo) explanatory references to the Old Testament in order to justify much that is lacking in the story of Christ in the Gospels would have had a large influence on European culture (perhaps making it even worse for the Jews). For Brague, more importantly, rejection of the Old Testament would have meant a rejection of ‘the word’ which ‘became flesh’ in the gospel of John. This concept only makes sense as a reference to ‘the word’ in Genesis. I take issue with Brague, however, as to how much of a threat Marcionism really presented to the early church. Acceptance of Marcionism would have meant a rejection of much of the gospels. Although Paul led the early church in bringing gentiles into what was otherwise a Jewish sect, his writings are full of discussions of the Old Covenant. Rejection of Paul and the gospels would have meant a totally different religion, not the Christianity of the 2nd Century when Marcionism arose. Brague also cites the Cathars of the 12th century as heretics who were Marcionists. Given that the so-called Cathar religion, while persistent until the crusade of the Pope slaughtered most Cathars, there was never any real possibility that this heresy would spread. My point here is that Marcionism is a bit of a straw man set up by Brague to strike down.
-
Arianism, which challenged the concept of the Trinity, was a much stronger movement which was a greater threat to Christianity from the 4th century on. If the Arian Goths who occupied Rome had almost whimsically, decided to accept the Trinity, there would have been a much greater break with Judaism as Christ would no longer be part of the godhead and Christianity would have become polytheistic. A very different, more pagan religion would likely have arisen. (Although I’ve always been suspicious of Mary etc.). However, this large a shift in Christian dogma would not have suited Brague’s argument. He wants to maintain the Old Testament as a necessity to his point. Arianism would have gone too far for his argument.
-
In the final analysis, Brague wants to make the point that it is Christianity that has long defined the nature of European culture. It is Christianity which has in the past created a possibility of speaking of Europe as a cultural unity and, he surmises, it was the Christianity of the European leaders after World War II that led to the Maastricht Treaty. I do not believe that anyone would seriously deny this fact of Christian roots in most aspects of modern European culture. What is strange in this story is that in order to preserve his theory, he narrows Christianity down to Catholicism, more especially, Roman Catholicism. Other ‘Christianities’ are virtually ignored. (He does admit to this in the Postface. The admission does not, however make up for the fact that much of Europe is therefore ignored in his definition of “European” or would contradict aspects of his theory.)
-
Brague ends his analysis by asking that Christianity (Roman Catholicism) have a stronger role in framing the Europe of the future (post 1992). That, of course, did not happen. First, Western Europeans in general, unlike Americans who make a point in their Constitution of separation of church and state and then drag religion into politics and politics into religion, tend to ignore religion in their politics (Despite a number of right wing 'Christian' parties). Second, neither Brague nor anyone else could have predicted the effects of the fall of the iron curtain and the subsequent growth of the EU. Today’s EU is much larger and more diverse than could have been predicted in 1992. Only the addition of Poland with its Roman Catholic population has done anything to add a Catholic voice to Europe. This has surely been offset by the other new nations in the EU.
-
Finally, I was somewhat disappointed by Brague’s overall project here. He has set out, for the most part to argue the obvious, that Europe has Jewish, Greek and Roman roots and owes a great deal of its development and current culture to Christianity, without really bringing anything new to the conversation. Charles Taylor has made the same basic point about the place of Christianity in western society in A Secular Age with a much more coherent set of arguments although starting his analysis in the late middle ages and, admittedly, in a book with a great deal more physical heft. Taylor also argues for a place for religion, not just Roman Christianity, Taylor’s own confession, but religion in general in public fora. Although Taylor’s book is more of a challenge to read, I would recommend it before Eccentric Culture, I do not believe that Brague has really done justice to his case.
-
Eccentric Culture: A Theory of Western Civilization was written in French in 1992 as a response to the further unification of Europe by the signing of the Maastricht Treaty although Brague goes on to say:
“Indeed, I am trying to consider here what the essence of Europe is, what it is fundamentally.” He proposes a theory, not particularly new, that European ‘culture’ is a product of the Greek and Jewish cultures as refined and brought forward by Rome. He coins this process ‘Romanity’. I will not go into all of Brague’s development of the theory, just to say that his arguments, while indicative of his voluminous knowledge, are often a bit obscure and arbitrary.
-
For example, he raises the specter of what effect the adoption of Marcionism, the rejection of the Old Covenant of the Jews leaving Christianity with the gospels of the New Testament, would have had on Christianity. It is obvious that a wholesale rejection of the Judaic tradition would have had a huge effect on Christianity. Christianity without the Ten Commandments and without the (pseudo) explanatory references to the Old Testament in order to justify much that is lacking in the story of Christ in the Gospels would have had a large influence on European culture (perhaps making it even worse for the Jews). For Brague, more importantly, rejection of the Old Testament would have meant a rejection of ‘the word’ which ‘became flesh’ in the gospel of John. This concept only makes sense as a reference to ‘the word’ in Genesis. I take issue with Brague, however, as to how much of a threat Marcionism really presented to the early church. Acceptance of Marcionism would have meant a rejection of much of the gospels. Although Paul led the early church in bringing gentiles into what was otherwise a Jewish sect, his writings are full of discussions of the Old Covenant. Rejection of Paul and the gospels would have meant a totally different religion, not the Christianity of the 2nd Century when Marcionism arose. Brague also cites the Cathars of the 12th century as heretics who were Marcionists. Given that the so-called Cathar religion, while persistent until the crusade of the Pope slaughtered most Cathars, there was never any real possibility that this heresy would spread. My point here is that Marcionism is a bit of a straw man set up by Brague to strike down.
-
Arianism, which challenged the concept of the Trinity, was a much stronger movement which was a greater threat to Christianity from the 4th century on. If the Arian Goths who occupied Rome had almost whimsically, decided to accept the Trinity, there would have been a much greater break with Judaism as Christ would no longer be part of the godhead and Christianity would have become polytheistic. A very different, more pagan religion would likely have arisen. (Although I’ve always been suspicious of Mary etc.). However, this large a shift in Christian dogma would not have suited Brague’s argument. He wants to maintain the Old Testament as a necessity to his point. Arianism would have gone too far for his argument.
-
In the final analysis, Brague wants to make the point that it is Christianity that has long defined the nature of European culture. It is Christianity which has in the past created a possibility of speaking of Europe as a cultural unity and, he surmises, it was the Christianity of the European leaders after World War II that led to the Maastricht Treaty. I do not believe that anyone would seriously deny this fact of Christian roots in most aspects of modern European culture. What is strange in this story is that in order to preserve his theory, he narrows Christianity down to Catholicism, more especially, Roman Catholicism. Other ‘Christianities’ are virtually ignored. (He does admit to this in the Postface. The admission does not, however make up for the fact that much of Europe is therefore ignored in his definition of “European” or would contradict aspects of his theory.)
-
Brague ends his analysis by asking that Christianity (Roman Catholicism) have a stronger role in framing the Europe of the future (post 1992). That, of course, did not happen. First, Western Europeans in general, unlike Americans who make a point in their Constitution of separation of church and state and then drag religion into politics and politics into religion, tend to ignore religion in their politics (Despite a number of right wing 'Christian' parties). Second, neither Brague nor anyone else could have predicted the effects of the fall of the iron curtain and the subsequent growth of the EU. Today’s EU is much larger and more diverse than could have been predicted in 1992. Only the addition of Poland with its Roman Catholic population has done anything to add a Catholic voice to Europe. This has surely been offset by the other new nations in the EU.
-
Finally, I was somewhat disappointed by Brague’s overall project here. He has set out, for the most part to argue the obvious, that Europe has Jewish, Greek and Roman roots and owes a great deal of its development and current culture to Christianity, without really bringing anything new to the conversation. Charles Taylor has made the same basic point about the place of Christianity in western society in A Secular Age with a much more coherent set of arguments although starting his analysis in the late middle ages and, admittedly, in a book with a great deal more physical heft. Taylor also argues for a place for religion, not just Roman Christianity, Taylor’s own confession, but religion in general in public fora. Although Taylor’s book is more of a challenge to read, I would recommend it before Eccentric Culture, I do not believe that Brague has really done justice to his case.
April 2, 2021
The distinguishing feature of European culture is not its originality but rather its 'secondarity' or 'Romanity' in relation to Hellenism and Judaism. 'The cultural task that awaits Europe today could therefore consist, according to the sense that I have discussed, in becoming Roman once again'. As if written by a modern day Chesterton, this is a brilliant book that combines witty scholarship with profound thought.
April 1, 2018
Atilla Atalay'ın Sıkılganına musallat olan bi Buğra vardı, bir defasında Sıkılganı darlarken şöyle diyordu; "(.....)kafam harbiden dümdüz oldu arkadaşım. dört gündür uzay mekiği gibiyim inmeye konmaya yer bulamıyorum." işte ben de aynen böyle oldum bu kitaptan sonra..uçurdun bizi Jamiryo Brague
January 1, 2020
A high 3 stars. Enjoyable and insightful. The thesis is compelling, even if the execution and application are weaker. Still, Brague is one of the finest scholars in the humanities and he's always a pleasure to read. This was no exception.
June 23, 2018
An important consideration of Europe’s role as civilizer of the Barbarian and humble heir and conservator of the greatness of Antiquity. Brague’s main thesis is simple but important: Secondarity defines Europe’s culture and Christianity provides the form that it has followed throughout the centuries, preserving and acknowledging the past as worthy of study and often emulation. His evidence is at times obscure and hard to verify, especially for an English reader, but some of the points are made persuasively and with just the right footnote.
He acknowledges in the Postface that he tried to withhold his judgments on the Orthodox and Protestant views of Church history, although he is not entirely successful in this attempt at objectivity. Perhaps only a sensitive Protestant would take offense at some of his generalized, abbreviated, and dismissive opinions about the Protestant world and its beliefs. Nevertheless, his Roman bias is a bit too rosy for this skeptic of the RCC.
He acknowledges in the Postface that he tried to withhold his judgments on the Orthodox and Protestant views of Church history, although he is not entirely successful in this attempt at objectivity. Perhaps only a sensitive Protestant would take offense at some of his generalized, abbreviated, and dismissive opinions about the Protestant world and its beliefs. Nevertheless, his Roman bias is a bit too rosy for this skeptic of the RCC.
June 25, 2020
“Romalılık” nedir, Avrupa nedir, Avrupalı kime denir, Avrupa kültürünün kökleri nereye uzanır, Avrupa kültür tarihi nereden nereye gelmiştir ve önündeki yollar ne yöne uzanmaktadır? Yer yer İslam uygarlığı ile de karşılaştırmalı tespit ve yorumlar içeren, çok değerli bir çalışma. Ufuk açıcı. Tek okuma yetmez.
November 6, 2008
Brague is exceptionally well versed in both Occidental and Oriental history; while I didn't recognize all of his references, his thesis is thought provoking. Probably best read in as close to one sitting as possible so as to keep up with the development of his argument.
September 13, 2011
good stuff. french intellectuals know a fair bit and have good observations about Islam. very unbias and good thought process.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews