Philby as a source for early twentieth‐century Saudi history: a critical examination

Abstract

For two generations now, the name of Harry St. John Philby has been inextricably associated with the Arabian Peninsula in general and Saudi Arabia in particular. The scope of Philby's interests in Arabia was, indeed, impressive, encompassing such diverse fields as archeology, geology, history, politics, the classics and literature, to mention just a few. The accounts of his own adventures in Arabia, which can easily fill a sizable bookshelf, attest to his unique contributions to our knowledge of the Peninsula.' As his biographer noted, 'none of the other explorers of the peninsula had covered half so much as he of the huge surface of Arabia; none had drawn attention to so many of its antiquities; none had equalled his spread of maps'.2 In short, he had earned the inscription on his tombstone which reads: 'Greatest of Arabian explorers'. But Philby's legacy is not merely that of a prolific Arabian explorer. In the preface to his Arabia, Philby writes that 'this volume in no wise professes to be an exhaustive treatise on the modern history of Arabia, being rather a sketch designed for the use of those members of the general public ... who may be desirous of understanding something of the principal forces and tendencies which have been at work in Arabia'.3 Despite the disclaimer, for the world at large Philby's writings constitute perhaps the most fundamental historical source for the study of the modern history of the Saudi state. Indeed, many historians of Arabia find Philby's accounts of Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud's spirit, conduct and policies, as well as Philby's observations on the evolution of British-Saudi relations, essential and 'indispensable to all students of the modern history of Saudi Arabia'.4 And it is precisely this dimension of Philby's writings on modern Saudi history' to which this article is addressed, for the value of some of Philby's studies in this respect and their credibility as historical sources are hampered by four major constraints. Firstly, Philby was captivated by Ibn Saud's personality, whom he considered a man as close to perfection as any he would have ever encountered. His unreserved admiration for and thirty-year friendship with Ibn Saud permeate much of his accounts of the latter's policies and conduct. On more than one occasion, the tenor of Philby's narrative conveys the impression of a writer who feels personally involved in the affairs of his object of writing. In other cases, the opinionated Philby brought his close association with Ibn Saud to bear on his interpretations and analysis, sometimes to the point of outright advocacy of Saudi policies. All in all, the basic demands of historical objectivity and impartiality leave much to be desired in the case of Philby writing the twentieth-century Saudi history. Secondly, despite being so sturdily British, Philby developed throughout