Enstehung und Entwicklung des Nationalismus im islamischen Raum (German Edition)
When he got himself into trouble there, he had to switch to Oriental studies, in the context of which he wrote his contributions on the history of the Middle East; afterwards Biblical studies became again a major focus of his attention. Becker started his academic career at the age of 26 when he became lecturer for Semitic languages. In , at the age of 40, he left his academic position in order to pursue a career at the Prussian ministry of education and culture, which he eventually also headed as minister. Similar to Said's choice of Renan, van Ess chooses two scholars who in their own biographies connect Oriental studies with a wider social, institutional, and cultural context, in order to discern the emergence of the concept of Kulturgeschichte history of culture.
In his study, van Ess presents intellectual history at its very best, but a central question for the concerns of disciplinary history remains unanswered. Is the constitution of a discipline or field determined from its fringes? Put differently: How decisive or representative are Wellhausen's and Becker's concepts for the field? An answer regarding the factual, not the methodological issues involved is given by Baber Johansen in his account of the history of the field Johansen focuses on two issues, namely the question of hegemony, i.
With regard to the former, Johansen argues that the hegemonic position was held by historians and in particular Leopold von Ranke , who excluded scholars of Oriental studies from their ranks As for the relationship between politics and scholarship, Johansen identifies three stages at which politics effected scholarship, two of which are seen as political intervention proper, namely at the beginning, when political authorities established Oriental studies in the early nineteenth century 75 , and during the NS rule when persecution of scholars and a restrictive cultural policy reduced the scope of the field The third stage, which occurred in between, was Becker's cultural-history version of Islamic studies, where Oriental studies did not face politics as just an external force, but actually became part of it, though without gaining a position of hegemony In other words, for most parts of the discipline's history, politics were not a factor.
In this sense, Oriental studies were pure science, and scholars were free do as they please. Thus the question arises why they did not use their freedom, but adhered instead to a very narrow concept of Oriental studies. Johansen is not able Introduction 11 to answer that question within his conceptual framework and therefore resorts to introducing a deus ex machina.
These were indeed numerous, but they were not the majority of German scholars in Middle East studies. Ranke's hegemonic position e.
All that can be said is that Fleischer's work was within the mainstream of the German tradition and that he taught many students at the university of Leipzig, where he was professor of Oriental languages for more than fifty years. Fleischer was undoubtedly a part ofthe German tradition, but he cannot be shown to have shaped it single-handedly.
Johansen's argument rests entirely on its resemblance to the "Ranke" thesis. The weakness is obscured and the resemblance reinforced by placing his discussion of Ranke right after the section on Fleischer In conclusion, it seems that Said's emphasis on colonial politics in his challenge of objectivity in scholarship provides the basis for Johansen's thesis of Middle East studies in the German tradition as free objective science, which for some unexplained reason has not realized the potentials of its freedom.
Thus Said's challenge to objectivity leads to its assertion in the German case. This odd result with regard to German scholarship prompts Georg Stauth in his Islam und westlicher Rationalismus to reject Said's emphasis on politics and to shift the focus on an investigation of mentalities. He argues that colonialism does not only consist in the actual domination over an other society, as Said is thought to suggest, but also in the formation of a notion of the self as one that dominates "the other.
On the basis of that assumption, Stauth investigates the interrelation between the emerging discipline of sociology and Oriental studies in context of the formation of German collective identity. Apart from a linguistic style not conducive to any pleasure of reading and a certain lack of consideration for the sensitivities of historians e. By means of repetition, Stauth postulates rather than investigates the continuous determination of both fields, sociology and Oriental studies, by the German "introvert essence" Innerlichkeit , which is said to draw its life and vigor from romanticism and to provide the most forceful strategy not only to face the hostile modern world, but to rule and dominate it.
Due to the depth of the vision, reaching the innermost corner of the biitin that what is hidden behind the surface, accessible for the initiate only , the Orientalist dissolves into the very essence of 12 Introduction modem German man, in his striving for power. In Stauth's account, Oriental studies and sociology appear as mere simulations-to an extent that those parts of the book in which he investigates actual scholars especially chapters V and VI , which are highly interesting in themselves, are of no consequence or relevance for the argument.
Stauth's study is disappointing. It may be worthwhile considering what his study could have contributed, ifhe had done a better job. Stauth could have shown that the findings of research in Oriental studies and sociology can be integrated into the hegemonic cultural identity project. Such a thesis could challenge scholars who assume that their work in and by itself could be revolutionary in culturalpolitical terms. That may be a self-image widely found among sociologists on the semantics in the self-image of social scientist: e.
As for the concerns of disciplinary history, the proof that the research findings can be integrated into the cultural identity project does not necessarily entail that the research was undertaken for that purpose. Prima facie this option seems rather unlikely, especially with regard to Oriental studies dealing with "the other. If the motive would have been to assert one's own cultural superiority, it is hard to see why text editions were deemed important, summaries would suffice. Moreover, the proof that specific research findings were integrated in the hegemonic cultural project, does not necessarily entail that if the research findings would have been different ones, they would or could not have been integrated.
Even if one does not agree with his conclusions, Herbert Marcuse can be seen to provide a rather strong argument for the assumption that any findings could be integrated This means that the approach suggested by Stauth cannot contribute to an investigation of disciplinary history that aims at explaining why a research tradition developed in a certain way rather than another. An alternative to Stauth's study, in certain aspects its opposite, can be found in Alexander Haridi's M.
It is a brilliant study pursuing deconstruction rather than integration. In the first part of the study, Becker's writings are investigated in order to discern his basic assumptions and concepts regarding Islamic studies.
In the second part, Becker's work is placed in the context of the historiography at the time historicism, Max Weber, and Ernst Troeltsch. The third part introduces the concept of Becker's rival Martin Hartmann; and the fourth part narrates Becker's victory over Hartmann. Part five documents the very limited reception of Becker's concepts in the German research tradition Richard Hartmann, Jorg Kraemer, and Hans Heinrich Schaeder and thus proves its lack of influence.
Part six consists of a review how Becker's work has been evaluated in the literature. The overall framework of the study is the question whether Becker's approach can provide a basis for Islamic studies today. Introduction 13 Major parts of Haridi's findings are certainly relevant for a study on the history of discipline und contribute to the understanding of a minor current within the field. The matter may be different with regard to the method employed to study Becker's writings, and the results it yields. This is a highly relevant finding with regard to Haridi's overall question.
If one considers using Becker's writings, it is very important to realize what one buys into. From the historian's point of view, the achievement is a minor one. Moreover, Becker's career is exceptional until ; no other scholars in Middle East studies moved from academia to the top layer of the political establishment, or even had close ties to these circles. Though informative and important it may be, Haridi's study cannot contribute much to the history of the discipline.
In her study Die Nachfolger der Exegeten , Ludmila Hanisch provides a comprehensive account of the development of Middle East studies for the first half of the twentieth century, in which she attempts to realize the potential of the various approaches in the historiography of the field. She begins her account with the university reform at the beginning of the nineteenth century, which she attributes to Wilhelm von Humboldt , and an outline of the German mostly Prussian university system.
The field of Oriental studies in the nineteenth century is not defined but discerned by delineation. The fields of neighboring disciplines history, philology, theology, geography, and anthropology circumscribe by exclusion the field of Oriental studies which is further bracketed by German activities in the Middle East politics and archaeology.
The presentation of the field's development from the late nineteenth century onward follows a similar strategy of bracketing. The separate accounts of the developments in the real Orient, of the German policy regarding the Orient, and of Oriental studies outside the university provide a frame or background for the presentation of the development of Middle East studies which combines the local histories at the various universities backed or supported by the biographies of the individual scholars in the appendix.
Hanisch has assembled all the aspects which according to the historiographic literature on Middle East studies are potentially relevant for the understanding of the field. However, each of the numerous chapters stands on its own; the assembly does not integrate into a story. This result accounts for the fact that Hanisch's book has no thesis. Since the theme of exegesis is also part of the title of the book, one might expect a thesis concerning the stubborn adherence to that problematic approach. Hanisch continues, however, by declaring that a study on half a century of disciplinary r I!
Instead, she attempts to contribute to the etiology of the negative and positive profile of Semitic, Arabic and Islamic studies in Germany. Mangold divides her study into six parts. The novel delineation of the main languages is thought to have been established by Sacy and brought by his students to Germany , esp. The second part discusses the next stage of the conceptual development , namely the consolidation of the new discipline as Oriental philology under the lead of Sacy's students and in particular Fleischer.
Hasso Spode: Publikationen / List of Publications
During that period, two "schools" are said to have emerged one at Leizpig Fleischer and another one at Gottingen Heinrich Ewald , while disciplinary differentiation gave rise to Indian studies and Assyriology. In the third part, Mangold shifts the focus of her discussion to the institutional development, which is traced from the initial establishment , through a phase of consolidation , to another phase of expansion In the sixth part, the discussion returns to the conceptual development, namely the trend from Oriental philology towards Islamic studies The interrupted account of the conceptual development and its separation from the institutional development already indicate that there might be a problem with the narrative's consistency and coherence.
Closer inspection of her argument further supports the impression. Mangold not only accepts Johansen's thesis regarding the French origins of the discipline, but she elaborates on it and supports it with reference to two potential sources of Fleischer's influence. Based on statements made in his personal correspondence, Fleischer is seen to have spearheaded the successful creation ofa "de Sacy cult," which entailed that only Sacy's students and their students strictly adhering to Sacy's method, were considered qualified Orientalists , In addition, Fleischer's influence is thought not to have stemmed from his publications, but from his work as teacher Fleischer is seen to have molded his students during personal encounters in such a way that Oriental studies did not become just a profession Beruj , but rather a calling Berufung If all scholars of Oriental studies at Introduction 15 German universities had indeed been members of such an exclusive, homogeneous group, resembling a sect, headed by Fleischer, the discipline's persistent focus and methodological approach could be ascribed to its dogmatic foundation.
Other parts of Mangold's study challenge such an interpretation, however. First of all, her account shows that Fleischer was not the only leading scholar in the field; she even argues that Heinrich Ewald headed a rival "school" 91, Ewald who had not been trained by Sacy in Paris and did not adhere to Sacy's approach, is presented as a very influential scholar in the field, and his students included August Dillmann , Rudolf von Roth , Theodor NOIdeke , and Julius Wellhausen Moreover, Mangold's general thesis explicitly denies the validity of any interpretation which ascribes the formation and development of a discipline to the influence of one leading scholar.
Instead, she claims to base her approach on the concept of the scientific community, which extends beyond the formal confines of the university, and in the case of Oriental studies was primarily represented by the DMG. The development of a discipline is seen not to be determined by its outstanding scholars, but rather by the "ordinary" members ofthat community , The latter appear to have opted for the adoption of the philological model because it endowed their work with the legitimacy of "scientific rigor" Wissenschaftlichkeit.
They were thus able to establish Oriental studies as a discipline geared not towards any practical need, but to the pursuit of pure knowledge and truth , In its specific rendering, the thesis of the scientific community is not without chronological contradictions.
Mangold finds that the legitimization of the new discipline ofOriental studies was questioned until and then again since the s But she also documents that the process of homogenization within the discipline occurred gradually from onwards. Moreover, the DMG's publications are seen to have played a vital role in the process of establishing common scholarly standards, providing a basis for the discipline's academic legitimization , The first forum was the ZDMG, which was published since However great its achievements may have been, they could only have been realized in the course of time.
Thus they could not possibly have been the reason why the discipline's legitimization ceased to be questioned by The contradiction in the argument is obvious. Both the general concept of the scientific community and the well-documented diversity of the group of scholars who specialized in Oriental studies exclude the option of seeing Fleischer as the person who actually determined the delineation of the field and its method. In this case, the story loses its historical actor in the traditional sense, which may be a very suitable perspective for the study of the development of a field within the highly decentralized system of German universities.
But that also means that Fleischer and with him Sacy were only one factor among others that shaped the delineation of the field. The thesis that the scientific community sought academic legitimization by adopting a philological approach in pursuit of pure knowledge and truth is plausible, but it does not explain why the strategy was successful, in the sense that throughout the entire university system, university faculties considered a chair 16 ,t;. U Introduction for Oriental studies a necessity, and state governments were ready to pay for the expenses. Moreover, the resulting conception of the field remains too vague to explain the specific developments which the German research tradition actually underwent.
Mangold states that Arabic, Persian, and Turkish were the main Oriental languages, although many other languages including Sanskrit were also studied , , Various sub-disciplines emerged and became institutionally independent in a process of specialization. For example, Mangold mentions Sanskrit studies and Assyriology , , but does not explain why these arose rather than others-apart from a reference to the "inherent logic of specialization.
An exception is the rise of Islamic studies. Mangold shows the field to have emerged within the context of colonial politics In this case, the study provides an explanation for the emergence of a new trend, which however did not succeed in institutional terms, because the scientific community preferred to uphold the philological framework The reasons for that choice are not explained, nor are they obvious in light of the fact that although philology was the leading discipline in the humanities during the earlier parts of the nineteenth century, it lost this position by the end of the century.
In sum, also Mangold shows Middle East studies to have been rather resistant to change, without explaining the phenomenon. It might seem that an answer can be found in Said's thesis. He argues that a persistent pattern of thought has existed throughout European and by extension: Western history which conceives the East as "the Other" in derogative terms. In the early nineteenth century, Sacy, Renan and Edward Lane, transformed that notion into an academic mold which became, and still is, the basis of all modem Oriental studies Grounded on such a static basis, the academic discipline has not changed, except superficially for reasons of political expediency.
Contrary to French and British academia , 11, 17 , German scholarship on the Middle East is thought to have been purely derivative, adopting the academic stance molded by Sacy and Renan Said's argument might be understood to imply that for lack of substantial colonial interests, the factor of political expediency did not trigger any changes in the appearance of the academic discipline in the German tradition-hence its unchanging format. However, that would take the argument too far. Even if Said could fully achieve his aim, by showing that the French and British academic traditions were determined by their respective colonial politics, it implies only that colonial politics did not play the same role in the German tradition, which is therefore of no interest to Said.
He does not aim at explaining the German tradition. Despite the inherent contradictions in the historical narrative, Mangold states her basic assessment very clearly. As the title of her book also indicates, she holds that throughout the nineteenth century until the First World War, the German tradition of the field was based on and followed a concept of scholarship Wissenschaft Introduction 17 that pursued "pure" knowledge for its own sake, without any practical utility.
By contrast, Ekkehard Ellinger's dissertation Deutsche Orientalistik zur Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, , investigates a period in which all internal developments were overwritten by political factors in their most brute form. Ellinger sets himself the huge task of providing a comprehensive documentation and assessment of the interrelations between Oriental studies in their widest sense and the NS regime.
The first part of his study thus contains sections on individual scholars , ; on non-governmental organizations related to the Orient ; on state institutions including libraries, museums, academies, and universities and government policy in the field of education and internal affairs ; and on foreign policy in the field ofculture, both between and during the war , The second part of his study focuses on scholarly literature in the field of Oriental studies with the intention to show that a fairly coherent ideological system, conforming with basic NS tenets, was established that included the Orient as a potential German ally, though not on an equal footing 2GOO:L9'3':4T8.
Ellinger's study also includes two brief overviews of developments before , which are both meant to establish the subject matter of the study. Drawing on accounts available in the literature not including Hanisch and Mangold , Ellinger's first overview leads to the conclusion that A wide spectrum of German academic Oriental studies had been established by the end of the Weimar Republic.
Moreover, the systematic employment of orientalists in the framework of the colonialist and imperialist foreign policy of the German Empire [Kaiserreich] and during the First World War indicates the compatibility of scholarship, ideology, economy and politics. Comprising Arabic studies, Semitic studies, Turkish studies, Iranian studies, North African studies, research on the Soviet Union, archaeology, philosophy, art history, geography, history, theology, the history of medicine, the history of the sciences and Islamic studies, Oriental studies dealt with the pre-Islamic and Islamic Orient from North Africa via Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula to Iran and Afghanistan from the seventh century until the present.
There is no evidence, however, to support his delineation of the discipline as it developed until the end of the Weimar Republic. Irrespective of whether hegemony in religious, scholarly, cultural, economic, racial, linguistic or national terms was concerned, the interplay of ideology and scholarship was able to create an ever more refined system of categories, that could be combined in a great number of different variations, and thus allowed defining the relations with the Orient either by fundamental and insurmountable differences or by common grounds-depending on the interests pursued.
IS Ellinger Since the historical overview aims at showing that "anything goes" in conceptual terms by , it is not surprising that Ellinger does not focus on the details of actual developments, which is anyhow hardly possible if thirteen centuries are "covered" on fifteen pages of text. The review ofthe literature shows that Middle East studies in the German tradition has received considerable attention in research. Nonetheless, there are still many open questions: What was the reason for establishing Oriental studies at German universities? Was the "French model" adopted?
And if so, why did that happen? And once established, why did the academic pursuit in the German tradition, largely unhampered by colonial politics, not conform to what might be expected from an academic discipline, namely to strive for new horizons and innovations? In other words: Why was the field apparently so conservative?
Especially in light of the very thorough studies undertaken by Hanisch and Mangold, it seems that the lack of explanations is not due to any deficiency on the part of the research, but that it may rather be a result of the approach employed which sees the history of the field as an internal development. Therefore, there may still be room for the alternative approach suggested here.
The history of a minor discipline The present study attempts to investigate the development of Middle East studies as a part of a wider discipline, namely Oriental studies, which was a minor discipline at the faculty of philosophy.
Deutsche Teilung - Deutsche Einheit
Traditionally, disciplinary history consists of an account of the research tradition as it manifests itself in scholarly publications, in form of a narrative. The approach and methods employed place this kind of historiography within the history of ideas and intellectual history. In light of its aim, the present study suggests shifting the focus from the research tradition to the researchers as professional scholars pursuing an academic career at the university.
Introduction 19 The change of focus entails the need for an alternative approach. How can the history of a research tradition in a minor discipline be written? My survey ofthe literature did not lead to any proper answer to the question. The issue of how the history of a research tradition within a minor discipline, or even the history of a minor discipline, should be written has not been addressed in the methodological debate.
Turning to the historiography of major disciplines instead might seem the obvious choice, but not necessarily a fruitful one. The traditional approach to writing disciplinary history has clearly been dominant until the late s. Variations can be found between a history of ideas and intellectual history. In the latter, ideas are connected with "a human face," namely the biographies of individual scholars. In this sense, they are placed into historical context.
The obvious benefits of such contextualization not withstanding, intellectual history still adheres to the narrative framework ofthe history of ideas: the "chain of ideas" connects one individual scholar to the next. The main reason for the dominance of this approach is the function of disciplinary history with regard to the discipline itself. The function is seen to differ depending on whether the field in question belongs to the humanities or the sciences. In other words, the deliberate constitution of a discipline as a discourse defined as a tradition of citation means that disciplinary history is usually written in the form of an expanded version of "a review of the literature" or "the state of the art," with which every research project in the discipline itself begins.
Such disciplinary history shares not only the form of the disciplinary practice, but also its legitimating function. This explains why disciplinary histories tend to be written when the discipline itself is about to undergo major change, i. It also explains why the historiographic approach does not tend to be open to debate, as is still clearly visible in a collection on the Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories Graham et al. Even when disciplinary history in the sciences adopts the same historiographic approach as it is used in the humanities, its relation to the field is thought to be quite different.
In the sciences, it is "preface history" Kuhn In other words, the history of a science discipline is seen as external to the discipline itself. It is written postfactum, not with any programmatic intention. Its legitimating function with regard to the discipline itself is much less crucial for the latter than in the humanities. Moreover, since the model for a history of the field is not available internally, the choice of approach becomes less a matter of course, and potentially one of deliberation.
Since disciplinary history is not a concern of the scientists as such, the choice is likely to be in practice determined by considerations of convenience and just follow the dominant approach of the genre Lepenies and Weingard ix. Sociologists have taken the initiative, instead. Though not without precursors, Karl Mannheim is credited with raising the sociology of knowledge as a major issue, when he published his Ideologie und Utopie The shift from the history of ideas to intellectual history may be seen as a partial answer to that challenge, but it did surely not explore its entire potential e.
The strong emphasis on the question of ideology is likely to have made this sociology of knowledge rather unattractive for historians, in particular in light of the persistent dominance of "political history" which characterized the discipline at German universities Iggers Another option for approaching disciplinary history not only as intellectual history in the strict sense may have emerged indirectly, as the result of developments in a different, though related field ofresearch, namely the history ofeducation including universities.
Since , Friedrich Paulsen, by profession philosopher and educator, published his accounts on the development and state of education Paulsen , , Until today, his concept of education is seen as a comprehensive one, fully including social and cultural history Ungern-Sternberg Despite the early beginning, the history of education became a major field of research only in the second half of the twentieth century e.
For example, in , Christian von Ferber published a first sociological profile of the career patterns of teaching staff at German universities and the changes these underwent from to Ferber's statistics were not very refined, in so far as they did not allow identifying possible differences between universities nor those within each university.
Log in to Wiley Online Library
Nonetheless, his work provided the foundation for the investigation of scholarship as university profession. In , the same year Thomas Kuhn published his study on The Structure ofScientific Revolutions, the connection between the work conditions ofthe profession and research proper was made. Joseph Ben-David and Awraham Zloczower argued that scientific innovations can be seen as a function ofjob opportunities and work conditions at universities-based on research on the development of scientific innovations in the field of medicine at German universities.
As for the latter, they became standard reference within the emerging research tradition on the history of education, which found a major synthesis is the Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte. One of the reasons for the success might have been timing. The field of history at universities in the Federal Republic of Germany was undergoing considerable changes.
In the course of the s and early s, a major wave of retirements and continuous university expansion, including that of teaching positions, provided the opportunity for a generation of young historians to enter the profession, many of whom had a particular leaning towards the social Introduction 21 sciences. The appointments of Hans Ulrich Wehler and Jiirgen Kocka at the University of Bielefeld marked the beginning ofthe formation ofthe "Bielefeld school," a historiographic trend which defined itself as historical social science Historische Sozialwissenschaft focusing in research on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Its growing influence on the field of history throughout the Federal Republic was in no small measure due to its relatively large-scale monograph series, Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft since and its journal Geschichte und Gesellschaft, since Iggers ; Wehler In the first instance, the trend toward research on the history of education following the historical social-science approach focused on the history of the universities as educational, training institutions.
For example, a collection of studies traced the transformation of higher learning on a transnational comparative level Jarausch a. But as already Peter Lundgreen's programmatic essay on a social history of education Sozialgeschichte der Bildung suggested in , the approach was meant to extend its line of inquiry also to educational institutions, including universities, as places of work, which had the potential to open a new perspective for the historiography on disciplinary history.
In , Wolfgang Weber published such a study on the history of history as an academic discipline, combining two major lines of investigation, a prosopographical study of the professors for history at German universities in conjunction with the reconstruction of three teacher-student lineages, namely those of Ranke, Johann Gustav Droysen , and Theodor Mommsen The two parts are held together by Weber's main thesis concerning the explanation for the dominance of Ranke and his students over the discipline, which had usually been attributed to two factors: the attraction of his "product" the Prussian version of German history and his strong ties to the political establishment, in particular the Prussian king e.
Weber's study intended to show the importance of a third factor: Ranke's exclusive control over major research funds in combination with university structures, both as training institution the student's absolute dependence on his teacher and as work place a career path of which at least the first decade after graduation usually required work without salary.
Weber's example has not been adopted for accounts of the history of other disciplines. Three factors might account for that failure. In part this may be due to the fact that Weber's book did not contribute to the joy of reading some small-print pages, containing hardly any narrative to keep the reader in suspense.
Second, and more importantly, one may doubt whether the model would be suitable for the history of other disciplines. In particular, in the second part, the very lengthy tabaqat make sense only in cases with such a dominant figure like Ranke. Weber's publication coincided with two trends, one major and one minor. The former was "the linguistic turn" as a new central current in historiography, in particular in intellectual history e.
For disciplinary history having traditionally followed the approach of intellectual history, this new current may have been 22 Introduction much more attractive. Weber's example of gathering endless amounts of date to produce a kill-joy text full of tables and statistics could hardly compete with the prospect of being at the forefront of the latest fashion. The minor trend was a shift in emphasis from historical social science to social history with a leaning towards cultural history in German historiography e.
The reorientation did not lead to a total break. In the history of education, the shift mainly aimed at redressing the im balance between statistics and narratives. Prosopography, as employed by Weber, had already been a major tool in the historical social science Schroder , which was mostly used to establish ''the facts" of life and work. Hinz was replaced by a specialist in Middle Iranian languages and comparative linguistics, and Roemer and Spuler were succeeded by scholars in the field of Islamic studies and Islamic history, none of whom continued the line of their predecessors.
Kreyenbroek, who deals particularly with modern Iranian languages and dialects. Since , a good number of scholars have been trained in the traditions of these three pioneers. The following section can present only a short selection. Up to the s, the history of events was a main goal of researchers along this line. One of the specific features of this school was its deep interest in administrative and institutional history. A special interest in the Mongol period served as a hallmark for this school and has remained a characteristic feature of historical research on Persia in Germany.
Roemer was particularly interested in diplomatics and paleography , Thanks to his endeavors, a relatively large number of studies on historical documents have been produced for a detailed report on these studies see Fragner, Recently, this specific area of research was expanded in the direction of Central Asia E. Schiewek, Ch. Werner, et al.
He is also preparing a major study on early Qajar provincial administration in Azerbaijan. It is fair to say that, in addition to the efforts of Persian and Soviet scholars, German contributions to Persian diplomatics constitute an important element in historical research on Persia. Economic and social history emerges in some respects from studies on administration. Hinz was a pioneer in this field, too , , Roemer also laid great emphasis on studies concerning chronicles.
Hinz, by means of his aforementioned study on the early Safavids , had opened the gate to Safavid studies, but it was mainly Roemer who fostered the Safavid period as one of the most representative themes in Persian studies in post-World War II Germany.
In addition to studies already mentioned, this interest in Safavid affairs led also to the production of a series of contributions to religious history e. Qajar history has also been treated, albeit somewhat hesitatingly in the beginning, and interest in this field is growing. Studies by Busse , Hoffman , and Migeod have already been mentioned. Fragner analyzed memoirs and autobiographies in order to define their value as sources for the history of 19th-century Persia a.
Outside Germany, we find historians who do not belong to this school. Karl Jahn, an Austrian scholar who was originally from Prague but lived for a long time in the Netherlands, deserves to be mentioned here. He concentrated on the Il-Khanid period 13thth cents. Duda, contributed heavily to our knowledge of Persian historiography from medieval Anatolia. Another outstanding figures in German Oriental studies is Helmut Ritter. He started as a philologist and a scholar of the religion of Islam, but along with his contributions to Arabic and Turkish studies he concentrated particularly on the interface between Persian literature and Sufism.
The specific concern of this academic community, dating back to Ritter, is the thematic ambiguity of Sufism and literature, mostly poetry. The study of Persian rhetoric as a measure to support Sufi reasoning and the transformation of Sufi ideas into literature was one of the basic projects for Ritter and particularly for Meier.
On every page of both books we find incomparable insights into his subjects. Mention should also be made of a three-volume reprint edition of more than thirty articles written by Meier The Swiss Rudolf Gelpke was one of the first German-speaking scholars, at least in the West, to deal with contemporary Persian literature. There was a large number of literary translations e. Lorenz and by W.
Modern Persian literature has remained a subject much studied by German Iranologists. Folk literature has always had a strong attraction for some scholars, notably Roxanne Haag-Higuchi and Ulrich Marzolph The significant History of Iranian Literature edited by Jan Rypka was first published in the Czech language in Prague , and was subsequently translated into German by Rypka himself Iranische Literaturgeschichte , Leipzig, It, however, took another ten years before the English translation, based on the German version, was published under the auspices of the already mentioned Karl Jahn.
Rypka was a Czeck national, but he received his doctorate from the University of Vienna and some of his contributions are in German. Religion including Islamic law. Fritz Meier has already been mentioned with respect to his works on the study of Sufism, and so have the contributions of his student Hermann Landolt. The Persian Revolution of had, in a limited sense, an inspiring impact on Persian studies in Germany. A number of articles dealing with the revolution were published during the early s e. Silvia Tellenbach has made a noteworthy contribution with her study of the constitution of the Islamic Republic There are also some works written by anthropologists and sociologists on religious groups and sectarian movements, among them M.
Political sciences and contemporary history. Since the late s, political science in Germany, as well as in other Western countries, has concentrated more and more on Middle Eastern affairs, but, for a variety of reasons, Turkey and parts of the Arab world have received much more attention than Persia. This reflects the fact that, in traditional Orientalist studies in Germany, Arabic and Turkish studies have customarily predominated over research on Persian themes. In contrast, from the mids to the mids, the German critical intelligentsia, partly under the influence of the so-called New Left movement, was deeply interested in Persia, particularly in its political opposition to the Pahlavi regime.
Therefore, during this time, there was a good deal of publication concerning Persia, which sometimes took place outside the academic circles and failed to meet the standards of critical scholarship but, nevertheless, occasionally served scholarly purposes. In this connection, attention may also be drawn to the interesting study of the Revolution of by the political scientist Dawud Gholamasad.
Two early publications compiled by Jan-Heeren Grevemeyer and Kurt Greussing were, for at least a few years, the two most widely read books in Germany on the Islamic Revolution , The economist and political scientist Asghar Schirazi Berlin published some important analyses concerning land reform and agrarian aspects of the Islamic Republic , Persia in the period during and immediately after World War I was seldom dealt with in the German speaking countries until recently, when Perso-German relations became the subject of a few in-depth studies. Persia in World War I has recently become the main subject of research by the young scholar Oliver Bast , who is preparing a major study on this theme.
Outside of academic structures, there are two institutions that deal more or less regularly with political affairs concerning Persia. Its journal regularly contains contributions on the current political situation in Persia. The other institution is Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, a public foundation now located in Ebenhausen im Isartal near Munich, to be moved to Berlin in near future.
Johannes Reissner at this institute is concerned mainly with research on political issues involving Persia and Central Asia. Other institutions of political research have reduced their activities focusing on Peria during the last twenty years. Social sciences and anthropology.
Persia is not well represented in social science studies in Germany. In contrast, Afghanistan has been a major interest for a group of social scientists during the s and s see below. But, even within these debates, Persia was rarely touched upon. During the s, a number of students, mainly Persian nationals, tried to contribute to this kind of discourse, and some of them were able to publish their theses, among them Susan Sarkhosh , who did an analysis of the concept of AMP in Qajar society.
There was also a study of rulership, economics, and segmented society in Persia by Kurt Greusssing ; see also Fragner, , Among cultural anthropologists working on Persia, Schahnaz Nadjmabadi Heidelberg is a leader at the present time. The Austrian Erika Friedl and Reinhold Loeffler are among the best-known anthropologists working on Persia, but they really belong to the American academic world rather than that of Central Europe.
In clear contrast to the social sciences, geography in the German-speaking countries has a very strong tradition of research concerning Persia. At the present time, the best-known geographer working on Persia is Eckart Ehlers at the University of Bonn. It would take too much space to list all his contributions to geographical research on Persia see his annotated bibliography, a, where most of his own titles are included.
Another book of his on Persia b , however, deserves special notice here as probably the best geographical survey of Persia in any language so far. There is a center for geographical research on the Middle East at the University of Erlangen, and Persia used to be a major focus of research there. For a period of about three decades, down to the s, a theoretical concept, namely rent-capitalism, that had been developed in close connection with research on conditions in Persia was much discussed among geographers in Germany and Austria.
This theory or, better, this model was created by the Austrian scholar Hans Bobek of the University of Vienna. Since the early s, Bobek, like his compatriot and colleague Gustav Stratil-Sauer, had developed a network of fieldwork facilities in Persia that eventually benefited not only his own work but also that of a great number of his pupils and colleagues.
As a result of extensive fieldwork in Persia, Bobek gradually developed his theory on rent-capitalism , , an evaluation of which can be found in Fragner This concept was ultimately picked up by geographers in France Xavier de Planhol and in the United States Michael Bonine , but its attraction has diminished since the end of the s. Materials for teaching Persian at German universities. The intention of this section is not to concentrate on linguistics but to emphasize the remarkable efforts made in producing materials for teaching Persian to German-speaking students.
Manuals of Persian grammar for this purpose were published in German as early as the end of the 19th century, the best-known of which is the grammarby Carl Salemann and Valentin Shukovski, both of whom taught at the University of St. In another teaching book was published by Farhad Sobhani and was followed by two other similar books Amin Madani and Lutz, , and Behrouz, Flower, and Nagel, that, for the first time since Beck, concentrated on the syntactic and idiomatic problems of the everyday language, both spoken and written, and which dealt in detail with specific grammatical questions that were otherwise neglected; both of these books served rather for reference than for teaching.
But, the most practical and successful book for the instruction of Persian over a period of about twenty-five years was the well-known Lehrbuch der persischen Sprache by Bozorg Alavi and Manfred Lorenz, which, in the s and the s, was in use in almost all universities within the realm of the German language. The most recent textbook for teaching Persian as a contemporary living language was produced by the Bamberg experts Faramarz Behzad and Sorayya Divshali This book is meant to serve all pedogogical purposes at an academic and public level as well.
Art, archeology, and music. Even if the share of those who demand a return to the Arabic alphabet is relatively small, points of contention such as neologisms, spelling, and the addition of additional letters to the official alphabet still set the agenda. With the introduction of the Ottoman Turkish language in the school curriculum, the increasing public use of Arabic script and the systematic revival of the Ottoman vocabulary, the debate has taken on a new quality under the Islamic-conservative AKP government.
This article will present the main stages of the Turkish language reform process against the background of the interaction of cultural and linguistic history. Currency and addition of Tax VAT depend on your shipping address. Add to Cart. Have an Access Token? Enter your access token to activate and access content online. Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token. Have Institutional Access? Forgot your password? Table of Contents.