Towards a Common Nucleus? A Brief Review of Almut Höfert’s Book Kaisertum und Kalifat. Der imperiale Monotheismus im Früh- und Hochmittelalter
Studies in Late Antiquity assume that
the ancient Mediterranean was a kind of bottleneck which exerted considerable
influence on all subsequent developments in the region. This basic assumption
is also the basis of Almut Höfert’s study. Being both a scholar of history and
Islamic studies, she uses an interdisciplinary approach and implements a
transcultural comparative perspective in her recent book.
“Kaisertum und Kalifat. Der imperiale
Monotheismus im Früh- und Hochmittelalter” impresses with its theoretical basis
and convinces with a structured, comprehensible analysis. Being the authors’
habilitation thesis, it evaluates a large number of Arab, Greek and Latin
sources. These include texts, coins and inscriptions that are assignable to
four “universal monarchies”. Based on this, Höfert postulates a successively
developing “imperial monotheism” discernible first in the East Roman-Byzantine
Empire and later – slightly different – during the Umayyad and Abbasid
caliphates. Later, this “imperial monotheism” also appeared in the counter-Caliphate
of the Shiite Fatimid state. In an analogous way, the Byzantine Empire was also
confronted with a counter-empire: the Latin Empire that had similar structures from 800
onwards. In summary, all these dominions worked according to the same
principle: one god, one ruler, one empire, one faith. Höfert’s argument is that
the imperial monotheism manifested therein marks the connection between the piety
of the ruler and his political rule in every universal monarchy. It is her aim
to show that the four mentioned universal monarchies are part of a common
historical development, influencing each other and developing a common pattern
between religion and rule characteristic for their time and region. Höfert also
re-evaluates several disciplinary master narratives that aim, among other
things, to portray Europe as a pioneer in the separation of religion and
politics, while in Islam both were merged inseparably from the beginning.
Taking into account the wide scope of this study,
the reader has to accept some constraints. In order to be able to compare such
broad fields, Höfert had to choose quite restrictive categories of comparison. As
a result, many issues remain undiscussed and unresolved. Experts in either of
the fields covered by Höfert’s book will undoubtedly notice an absence of these
issues and may learn little from this study, because her main concern is
precisely to point out the profitable possibilities of a transcultural
comparison without being bound to only one discipline. Even though her study is
vulnerable from that point of view, studies like Höfert’s, which focus on
clearly defined aspects from a new perspective – in this case the transcultural
comparison – are the ones that prepare the field for further individual
studies. That is why one can strongly recommend Höfert’s study, provided that
the reader is willing to plunge into the still young field of transcultural
studies. The study under review shows that it is possible to break out of (and
redefine) apparently clearly defined forms of rule from their predominant
religious-cultural or epochal attributions.
The full-length German-language review by BOAS_insights
editor Florian is part of the FORUM Vormoderne Transkulturalitätsforschung (pre-modern
Transculturality studies) at sehepunkte.de, curated by our advisory board
member Professor Stephan Conermann. You can read it here:
http://www.sehepunkte.de/2017/05/29983.html
