The Renaissance of the Levant. Arabic and Greek Discourses of Reform in the Age of Nationalism

194 Pages·2019·2.506 MB·English

by  Michael Kreutz

Michael Kreutz
The Renaissance of the Levant
Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam – Tension, Transmission,
Transformation
Edited by Patrice Brodeur, Alexandra Cuffel,
Assaad Elias Kattan, and Georges Tamer
Volume 13
Michael Kreutz
The Renaissance
of the Levant
Arabic and Greek Discourses of Reform in the Age
of Nationalism
ISBN 978-3-11-063122-7
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-063400-6
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-063134-0
ISSN 2196-405X
Library of Congress Control Number: 2019931215
Bibliografic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliografic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
www.degruyter.com
Contents
Acknowledgments VII
Introduction 1
 New Ideas, Crumbling Orders 11
. Cultural Entanglements 11
. Enlightenment in Perspective 17
. Theology and Science 26
. Agents of Reform 36
. Napoleon in Egypt 49
 The Mediterranean Dawn 55
. The Greek Rise to Independence 55
. The End of Eastern Decline 63
. A Feminist Revolution 77
. Towards a New Humanism 84
. From Turkey to Japan 99
 Civilizations Drifting Apart 111
. The Past and the Future 111
. Mapping Out New Orders 129
. Eastern anti-Westernism 141
. After Disillusionment 152
 Concluding Thoughts 157
Timeline 160
Sources 165
Literature 167
Index 183

Acknowledgments
I would like to express my warmest thanks to Assaad Kattan (Münster) for his
wonderful intellectual support for my project under the original title “Beyond
the centers: Religion and Enlightenment by the example of Greek and Arab
ChristianityinSoutheastEuropeandtheMiddleEast(JenseitsderZentren:Reli-
gion und Aufklärung am Beispiel von Islam, griechischem und arabischem Chris-
tentum in Südosteuropa und im Vorderen Orient); to the DFG for funding this
book; to the Cluster of Excellence at the Universityof Münster, i.e.the working
platformTransculturalEntanglements,forprovidingaconduciveenvironment;to
themembersofmyprojectgroupTransferbetweenworldreligionsfortheirfeed-
back;toKatharinaLinnemann(Münster)forreviewingandimprovingthemanu-
script; and to David West (Münster) for careful scrutinyof my English. Last but
notleast,Iwouldliketothankmyparentsandfriendsmostheartilyfortheirin-
valuable and strong backing while Iwas writing this book.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110634006-001

Introduction
SincetheMediterraneanconnectscultures,Mediterraneanstudieshavebydefi-
nitionaninterculturalfocus.Thisisavastfieldandrequiresacommandofdif-
ferent languages not necessarily related to each other.Throughout the modern
era,the OttomanEmpirehas hada lastingimpacton theculturesand societies
of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. It is for this reason that it makes
sense to investigate both Greek and Arabic sources – two essential languages
inthatareathatareconnectedbythefactthatOrthodoxChristianshavewritten
inbothofthem.Thisbookwillshedsomelightonthesignificanceofideasinthe
politicaltransitionsoftheirtime,andonhowtheproponentsofthesetransitions
oftenbecamesooverwhelmedbytheeventsthattheyhelpedtriggeradjustments
to their own ideas.
Thebookisthereforebothasurveyofintellectualhistoryfromtheperspec-
tive of mainly Greek and Arabic speakers.Greekand Arabic challenge attempts
tomodernizingculturein theirown specialwaysincetheyarelanguagesbeing
associated with the Bible and the Quran. founding texts of two great civiliza-
tions. Being languages of erudition Greek and Arabic used to connect different
peoplesoveravaststretchofterritorywhichisanotherchallengetopoliticalre-
forms oriented towards an order of nation states where languages no matter
what historical baggage they carry have to be forged into national languages.
On a final note,the discourses in Greek and Arabic reflect the provinces of the
OttomanEmpireand itwillbe interestingtoseetheirdifferences and common-
alities. The discourse which is I examine here is pivoting around religion but
with a secular outlook.
I.
Intellectual history has become a neglected field of research and a nineteenth
century remnant¹ dismissed by historians and political scientists alike for rea-
sonsnotentirelyclear.InGermanyitwasnotproperlyrestoredaftertheSecond
World War,² but has received more academic attentionduringthe last tenyears
 IsaiahBerlinandRaminJahanbegloo,DenIdeendieStimmezurückgeben:Eineintellektuelle
Biographie in Gesprächen (Frankfurt/Main: Fischer, 1994), 118; Wilhelm Schmid, Die Geburt
derPhilosophieimGartenderLüste(Frankfurt/Main:Suhrkamp,[1987]2000),23.
 WilhelmBleek,GeschichtederPolitikwissenschaftinDeutschland(Munich:Beck,2001),16–9;
PaulNolte,TransatlantischeAmbivalenzen:Studien zurSozial-undIdeengeschichte des18.bis
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110634006-002
2 Introduction
or so. In the English-speaking world intellectual history is largely associated
withtheCambridgeSchoolanditsproponents,QuentinSkinnerandJGAPocock.
Skinner’sapproachwasakintothatofLeoStrauss,whodefinedthetaskofany
reader as being to understand the author as he or she understood him or her-
self.³ However, Skinner was criticized by Hans-Georg Gadamer, who argued
that any attempt to reveal the original intention of the author of a source was
boundtofail.⁴ The CambridgeSchool earned its stripeswhenit managedtore-
writepartsofthehistoryofEnglishpoliticalthoughtbasedonitsanalysisofpat-
terns of thought typical of certain strata of society at a certain period of time.⁵
However, its equation of the limits of language with the limits of human action
wasunconvincing,sincelanguagecan adapttothemostdiversepoliticalsitua-
tions,which means that the individual human does not surrender to concepts
that lie beyond his or her influence.There was a similar discussion about the
FrankfurtSchoolwhenJürgenHabermasmadelanguageanineluctableelement
of human understanding, something that was criticized by CS Pierce, who ar-
gued that there existed nothing in this world that warranted its own prerequi-
sites.⁶
AsthepoliticalscientistHannahArendtargued,however,intellectualhisto-
ryiskeytounderstandingthepresent,sincepoliticalideasfunctionasreference
parametersforpoliticalactorstodecideandjudgeintimesofuncertainty.⁷Much
of what intellectual history is able to unearth is the struggle for liberty and its
double sense, both positive and negative,which becomes manifest in political
independence as well as in the rule of law.We often find that both ideas are
20. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014): 391–5; cf. Michael Kreutz, “Ideengeschichte als
Blindstelle historischer Forschung in Deutschland,” in michaelkreutz.net, Aug. 16, 2017,
URL=http://www.michaelkreutz.net/2017/ideengeschichte-als-leerstelle-der-heutigen-forschung/
[Aug.24,2018].
 KlausOehler,BlickeausdemPhilosophenturm:EineRückschau(Hildesheim,ZurichandNew
York:Olms,2007),187;cf.JohnGAPocock,“SpracheundihreImplikationen:DieWendeinder
ErforschungdespolitischenDenkens,”inDieCambridgeSchoolderpolitischenIdeengeschichte,
ed.MartinMulsowandAndreasMahler(Berlin:Suhrkamp,2010):88–126,here113.;Quentin
Skinner,VisionendesPolitischen(Frankfurt/Main:Suhrkamp,2009),81.
 David Harlan, “Der Stand der Geistesgeschichte und die Wiederkehr der Literatur,” in Die
CambridgeSchoolderpolitischenIdeengeschichte,ed.MartinMulsowandAndreasMahler(Ber-
lin:Suhrkamp,2010):155–202,here161,165–7,cf.ibid.189.
 Ibid.,168–9.
 KlausOehler,BlickeausdemPhilosophenturm,op.cit.,382–4.
 GritStraßenberger,“HannahArendt,MichaelWalzerundMarthaCravenNussbaum,”inPo-
litischeIdeengeschichteim20.Jahrhundert:KonzepteundKritik,ed.HaraldBluhmandJürgen
Gebhardt(Baden-Baden:Nomos,2006):155–80,here165.