imposed by Orientalism. In brief, because of Orientalism the Orient was not(and is not) a free subject of thought or action. This is not to say that Orientalism unilaterally determines what can be said about the Orient, but that it he whole network of interests inevitably brought to bear on(and therefore always involved in) any occasion when that peculiar entity " the Orient"is in question. How this happens is what this book tries to demonstrate. It also tries to show that European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even underground self. Historically and culturally there is a quantitative as well as a qualitative difference between the Franco-British involvement in the Orient and-until the period of American ascendancy after (4) World War II-the involvement of every other European and Atlantic power. To speak of Orientalism therefore is to speak mainly, although not exclusively, of a British and French cultural enter-prise, a project whose dimensions take in such disparate realms as the imagination itself, the whole of India and the levant, the biblical texts and the Biblical lands, the Oriental"experts"and"hands, "an Oriental professorate, a complex array of "Oriental"ideas(Oriental despotism, Oriental splendor, cruelty, sensuality ), many Eastern sects, philosophies, and wisdoms domesticated for local European use-the list can be extended more or less indefinitely. M nt is that Orientalism derives from a particular closeness experienced between Britain and France and the Orient, which until the early nineteenth century had really meant only India and the bible lands. From the beginning of the nineteenth century until the end of World War II france and Britain dominated the Orient and Orientalism; since World War II America has dominated the Orient, and approaches it as france and Britain once did Out of that closeness, whose dynamic is enormously productive even if it always demonstrates the comparatively greater trength of the Occident(British, French, or American), comes the large body of texts I call Orientalist It should be said at once that even with the generous number of books and authors that I examine, there is a much larger number that I simply have had to leave out. My argument, however, de-pends neither upon an exhaustive catalogue of texts dealing with the Orient nor upon a clearly delimited set of texts, authors, and ideas that together make up the Orientalist canon. I have depended instead upon a different methodological alternative-whose back-bone in a sense is the set of historical generalizations I have so far been making in this Introduction-and it is these I want now to discuss in more I have begun with the assumption that the Orient is not an inert fact of nature. It is not merely there, just as the occident itself is not just there either. We must take seriously Vicos great obser- vation that men make their own history, that what they can know is what they have made, and extend it to geography: as both geo-graphical and cultural entities-to say nothing of historical entities -such locales, regions, geographical sectors as"Orient"and"Occident"are man-made. Therefore as much as the West itself, the Orient is an idea that has a history and a tradition of thought, imagery, and vocabulary that have given it reality d e in and for the West. The two geographical entities thus support and to an extent reflect each other aving said that, one must go on to state a number of reasonable qualifications. In the first place, it would be wrong to conclude that the Orient was essentially an idea, or a creation with no corresponding reality. When sraeli said in his novel Tancred that the East was a career. he meant that to be interested in the east was something bright young Westerners would find to be an all-consuming passion; he should not be interpreted as saying that the East was only a career for Westerners. There were-and are--cultures and nations whose location is in the East, and their lives, histories, and customs have a brute reality obviously greater than anything that couldimposed by Orientalism. In brief, because of Orientalism the Orient was not (and is not) a free subject of thought or action. This is not to say that Orientalism unilaterally determines what can be said about the Orient, but that it is the whole network of interests inevitably brought to bear on (and therefore always involved in) any occasion when that peculiar entity "the Orient" is in question. How this happens is what this book tries to demonstrate. It also tries to show that European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even underground self. Historically and culturally there is a quantitative as well as a qualitative difference between the Franco-British involvement in the Orient and— until the period of American ascendancy after ((4)) World War II— the involvement of every other European and Atlantic power. To speak of Orientalism therefore is to speak mainly, although not exclusively, of a British and French cultural enter-prise, a project whose dimensions take in such disparate realms as the imagination itself, the whole of India and the Levant, the Biblical texts and the Biblical lands, the spice trade, colonial armies and a long tradition of colonial administrators, a formidable scholarly corpus, innumerable Oriental "experts" and "hands," an Oriental professorate, a complex array of "Oriental" ideas (Oriental despotism, Oriental splendor, cruelty, sensuality), many Eastern sects, philosophies, and wisdoms domesticated for local European use— the list can be extended more or less indefinitely. My point is that Orientalism derives from a particular closeness experienced between Britain and France and the Orient, which until the early nineteenth century had really meant only India and the Bible lands. From the beginning of the nineteenth century until the end of World War II France and Britain dominated the Orient and Orientalism; since World War II America has dominated the Orient, and approaches it as France and Britain once did. Out of that closeness, whose dynamic is enormously productive even if it always demonstrates the comparatively greater strength of the Occident (British, French, or American), comes the large body of texts I call Orientalist. It should be said at once that even with the generous number of books and authors that I examine, there is a much larger number that I simply have had to leave out. My argument, however, de-pends neither upon an exhaustive catalogue of texts dealing with the Orient nor upon a clearly delimited set of texts, authors, and ideas that together make up the Orientalist canon. I have depended instead upon a different methodological alternative— whose back-bone in a sense is the set of historical generalizations I have so far been making in this Introduction— and it is these I want now to discuss in more analytical detail. II I have begun with the assumption that the Orient is not an inert fact of nature. It is not merely there, just as the Occident itself is not just there either. We must take seriously Vico's great obser- ((5)) vation that men make their own history, that what they can know is what they have made, and extend it to geography: as both geo-graphical and cultural entities— to say nothing of historical entities — such locales, regions, geographical sectors as "Orient" and "Occident" are man-made. Therefore as much as the West itself, the Orient is an idea that has a history and a tradition of thought, imagery, and vocabulary that have given it reality and presence in and for the West. The two geographical entities thus support and to an extent reflect each other. Having said that, one must go on to state a number of reasonable qualifications. In the first place, it would be wrong to conclude that the Orient was essentially an idea, or a creation with no corresponding reality. When Disraeli said in his novel Tancred that the East was a career, he meant that to be interested in the East was something bright young Westerners would find to be an all-consuming passion; he should not be interpreted as saying that the East was only a career for Westerners. There were— and are— cultures and nations whose location is in the East, and their lives, histories, and customs have a brute reality obviously greater than anything that could