Download Download
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Herausgegeben im Auftrag der Karl-Lamprecht-Gesellschaft e. V. (KLG) / European Network in Universal and Global History (ENIUGH) von Matthias Middell und Hannes Siegrist Redaktion Gerald Diesener (Leipzig), Andreas Eckert (Berlin), Hartmut Elsenhans (Leipzig), Ulf Engel (Leipzig), Wolfgang Fach (Leipzig), Eckhardt Fuchs (Braunschweig), Frank Hadler (Leipzig), Katharina Middell (Leipzig), Matthias Middell (Leipzig), Hannes Siegrist (Leipzig), Stefan Troebst (Leipzig), Michael Zeuske (Köln) Anschrift der Redaktion Global and European Studies Institute Universität Leipzig Emil-Fuchs-Str. 1 D – 04105 Leipzig Tel.: +49 / (0)341 / 97 30 230 Fax.: +49 / (0)341 / 960 52 61 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.uni-leipzig.de/zhs/comp/ Redaktionssekretärin: Katja Naumann ([email protected]) Comparativ erscheint sechsmal jährlich mit einem Umfang von jeweils ca. 140 Seiten. Einzelheft: 12.00 €; Doppelheft 22.00€; Jahresabonnement 50.00 €; ermäßigtes Abonnement 25.00 €. Für Mitglieder der KLG / ENIUGH ist das Abonne- ment im Mitgliedsbeitrag enthalten. Zuschriften und Manuskripte senden Sie bitte an die Redaktion. Bestellungen richten Sie an den Buchhandel oder direkt an den Verlag. Ein Bestellformular fi nden Sie unter: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/zhs/comp/ Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Gareth Austin (London), Carlo Marco Belfanti (Brescia), Jerry Bentley (Honolulu), Ida Blom (Bergen), Christophe Charle (Paris), Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch (Paris), Michel Espagne (Paris), Etienne François (Paris / Berlin), Michael Geyer (Chicago), Alberto Gil Novales (Madrid), Giovanni Gozzini (Siena), Regina Grafe (Evanston / Chicago), Marga- rete Grandner (Wien), Frank Hadler (Leipzig), Michael Harbsmeier (Roskilde), Heinz-Gerhard Haupt (Florenz), Stefan Houpt (Madrid), Miroslav Hroch (Prag), Konrad H. Jarausch (Chapel Hill / Potsdam), Hartmut Kaelble (Berlin), Wolfgang Küttler (Berlin), Marcel van der Linden (Amsterdam), Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink (Saarbrücken), Barbara Lüthi (Basel), Attila Melegh (Budapest), Alexey Miller (Moskau / Buda- pest), Patrick O’Brien (London), Diego Olstein (Jerusalem), Horst Pietschmann (Hamburg), Ljudmila A. Pimenova (Moskau), Lluis Roura y Aulinas (Barcelona), Jürgen Schriewer (Berlin), Hagen Schulz-Forberg (Aarhus), Alessandro Stanziani (Paris), Edoardo Tortarolo (Turin), Eric Vanhaute (Gent), Peer Vries (Wien), Susan Zimmermann (Budapest) Leipziger Universitätsverlag GmbH Oststraße 41 D – 04317 Leipzig Tel. / Fax: +49 / (0)341 / 990 04 40 [email protected] www.univerlag-leipzig.de Labeling the Religious Self and Others: Reciprocal Perceptions of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucians in Medieval and Early Modern Times Edited by Hans Martin Krämer, Jenny Oesterle and Ulrike Vordermark Leipziger Universitätsverlag Comparativ. Zeitschrift für Globalgeschichte und vergleichende Gesellschaftsforschung / hrsg. von Matthias Middell und Hannes Siegrist – Leipzig: Leipziger Univ.-Verl. ISSN 0940-3566 Jg. 20, H. 4. Labeling the Religious Self and Others: Reciprocal Perceptions of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucians in Medieval and Early Modern Times – 2010 Labeling the Religious Self and Others: Reciprocal Perceptions of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucians in Medieval and Early Modern Times. Hrsg. von Hans Martin Krämer, Jenny Oesterle, Ulrike Vordermark – Leipzig: Leipziger Univ.-Verl., 2010 (Comparativ; Jg. 20, H. 4) ISBN 978-3-86583-507-9 © Leipziger Universitätsverlag GmbH, Leipzig 2010 Comparativ. Zeitschrift für Globalgeschichte und vergleichende Gesellschaftsforschung 20 (2010) 4 ISSN 0940-3566 ISBN 978-3-86583-507-9 Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufsätze Hans Martin Krämer, Jenny Oesterle, Ulrike Vordermark Labeling the Religious Self and Others: Reciprocal Perceptions of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucians in Medieval and Early Modern Times. Introduction 7 Daniel G. König Muslim Perception(s) of “Latin Christianity”: Methodological Reflections and a Reevaluation 18 Thomas Kaufmann The Christian Perception of Islam in the Late Middle Ages and in the Reformation 43 Antje Flüchter “Religions, Sects, and Heresy” – Religion on the Indian Subcontinent in Early Modern German Texts 58 Hans Martin Krämer “This Deus is a Fool’s Cap Buddha”: ‘The Christian Sect’ as Seen by Early Modern Japanese Buddhists 75 Ya-pei Kuo Before the Term: “Religion” as China’s Cultural Other 98 Forum Francesco Di Palma Faschismusbild und Faschismusinterpretationen: Die Sopade und die Giustizia e Libertà im Vergleich 115 6 | Inhalt Buchbesprechungen Natalie Zemon Davis: Leo Africanus. Ein Reisender zwischen Orient und Okzident, Berlin 2008 Martin C. Wald 134 Jörn Leonhard / Ulrike von Hirschhausen: Empires und Nationalstaaten im 19. Jahrhundert, Göttingen 2009 Roland Ludwig 137 Iris Borowy (Hrsg.): Uneasy Encounters. The Politics of Medicine and Health in China 1900–1937, Frankfurt a. M. 2009 Klaas Dykmann 139 Martin Klimke / Joachim Scharloth (Hrsg.): 1968 in Europe. A History of Protest and Activism, 1956–1977, Basingstoke 2008 Christof Dejung 144 Ronan Deazley: Rethinking Copyright. History, Theory and Language, Cheltenham 2006 Isabella Löhr 147 Matthias Schmoeckel / Werner Schubert (Hrsg.): Handbuch zur Geschichte des Notariats der europäischen Traditionen, Bonn 2009 Daniel Reupke 150 Autorinnen und Autoren 155 Labeling the Religious Self and Others: Reciprocal Perceptions of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucians in Medieval and Early Modern Times.. Introduction1 Hans Martin Krämer, Jenny Oesterle, Ulrike Vordermark 1. Seeing there are no signs nor fruit of religion but in man only, there is no cause to doubt but that the seed of religion is also only in man; and consisteth in some peculiar quality, or at least in some eminent degree thereof, not to be found in other living creatures.2 When Thomas Hobbes thus began his chapter “On Religion” in his seminal 1651 Le- viathan, he made use of the word “religion” in an abstract way that would have been impossible a century earlier. At roughly the same time, “religion,” which as a Latin or vernacular European word had been almost entirely synonymous with “Christianity,” was also for the first time applied to non-European phenomena described by European missionaries.3 To be sure, the conceptual shifts “religion” underwent at the very begin- The contributions to this volume are revised and extended versions of papers first given at the workshop “La- beling Self and Other in Historical Contacts Between Religious Groups” held in Bochum on January 8th and 9th, 200. The workshop was organized as part of the activities of the research consortium “Dynamics in the History of Religions Between Asia and Europe” based at Ruhr University Bochum and many of the insights and ideas reproduced in this volume and especially in the introduction stem from discussions held within the consortium since 2008. The editors express their gratitude to the consortium for the support received for the workshop and this volume. 2 T. Hobbes, Leviathan, First Part, Chapter XII. For an overview of early uses see J.Z. Smith, Religion, Religions, Religious, in: M.C. Taylor (ed.), Critical Terms for Religious Studies, Chicago 998, pp. 269–84, here: p. 270. Comparativ | Zeitschrift für Globalgeschichte und vergleichende Gesellschaftsforschung 20 (2010) Heft 4, S. 7–17. 8 | Hans Martin Krämer, Jenny Oesterle, Ulrike Vordermark ning of the modern period were not simply the outcome of encounters with new (non- European) forms of religiosity. They were also the result of intra-religious, even polemi- cal, differentiations within Christianity following the Reformation. From sociology, we know that “the more differentiated a group is, the easier it is for the group to appropriate foreigners and the foreign,” but that this greater flexibility is paid for by “increasing in- ternal otherness” (Binnenfremdheit).4 Considering that the religious concept of Western provenance is closely tied to the history of Christianity, one must ask whether the experi- ence and assimilation of “internal otherness” in the shaping of the late-Enlightenment concept of religion at the same time enabled the overcoming of religious alterity vis-à-vis groups coming from outside. This is suggested by the fact that the Western Christian term “religion” was transferred onto Islam and Judaism (and later other religions as well). The classification of Judaism and Islam as “religions” happens only in conjunction with an “internal otherness” resulting from the religious schism of the Reformation.5 While one thus might assume that intra-religious internal differentiations – such as are also the case in Islam between Shia and Sunna – are central to the development of religious concepts, this assumption is complicated by considering cases from East Asia. There, a situation of religious plurality without differentiation – at least if we understand this term to have its prototype in a religious schism such as that of the European Reforma- tion – dominated in premodern times. In China, three major traditions (Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism), which self-consciously defined themselves as distinct but dis- played little tendency to engage in competition against each other, by and large coexisted peacefully,6 while in Japan combinatory practices of Buddhism and Shintō proliferated. Religious alterity was certainly easily overcome in East Asia, but it might have been less due to the degree of internal differentiation than to a long-established practice of assimi- lation that was applied