Major Orientalist scholarship was published in Latin into the twentieth century.

Evidence

His failure to consider works written in Latin by Erpenius, Golius, Pococke, Marracci and many others may have contributed to his erroneous contention that Orientalism’s origins lay in the last decades of the eighteenth century, which was when it became fairly common to publish works of scholarship in the various vernaculars. But almost all the important work in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was published in Latin. Even in the nineteenth century and beyond scholars still published in Latin (see, for example, Flügel’s Concordantiae Corani Arabicae, first published in 1834, and de Goeje’s Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, which was published in eight volumes from 1879 to 1939). — Robert Irwin, For Lust of Knowing, 517

Categorization

• XREF: Reinforces the running critique of Said’s periodization of Orientalism’s origin, covering a distinct bibliographic angle.

Related

• Seventeenth-century European Orientalists pursued rigorous Arabic scholarship even in polemical works (similarity 0.82)
• Many Orientalists wrote directly for Muslim and Arab audiences (similarity 0.82)
• Scholarly Orientalism telescoped textual detail into policy about the whole Orient (similarity 0.82)
• The origin date of Orientalism is contested among multiple competing candidates (similarity 0.82)
• Sustained national imperial interest was required for Orientalist scholarship to thrive (similarity 0.81)
• Dismissing Orientalism as bad faith ignores its material scholarly functions. (similarity 0.81)
• Imperial ambition converted scholarly Orientalist study into active colonization (similarity 0.81)
• Said assigned Orientalism vague origins spanning from classical Greece to the fourteenth century (similarity 0.81)
• Orientalism regularizes how the Orient is taught and administered (similarity 0.81)
• Said’s Orientalism critique lacks the historical and geographical distinctions to define its target audience (similarity 0.81)
• Orientalism is only the visible tip of a larger modern structure. (similarity 0.80)
• European learning was wholly Greco-Latin before Orientalist translation expanded its canon (similarity 0.80)
• Some nineteenth-century writers engaged the Orient aesthetically without reducing it to documentary knowledge (similarity 0.80)
• Orientalist scholarship cannot be detached from its imperial context (similarity 0.80)
• Orientalist texts reveal the metropolitan culture that produced them most deeply (similarity 0.80)