Volume 295, Issue 1 -

It is an established feature in German historiography to talk about the ‚simultaneity of the non-simultaneous‘. At first sight the meaning of this formula seems to be obvious: the simultaneous calendrical presence of phenomena belonging to different historical stages of development. At a second glance this topos reveals some grave problems. It is more than difficult to name the normative basis on which the decision can be made to classify a historical fact as simultaneous or non-simultaneous. After an overview of the actual use of the topos of the ‚simultaneity of the non-simultaneous‘ in German-speaking historiography this article gives an insight into the historical roots of the topos. These insights reveal the topos as fundamentally ‚chronocentric‘: it is based on the partial judgment of different models of timing from the point of view of western modernity. As an alternative the model of a plurality of simultaneities will be discussed. Thus, not only different models of timing can be taken into account but new perspectives for a history of time(s) become visible.

It is impossible to write a world history that includes all aspects of the past and integrates them into a universal interpretation. Wherever world history is written and read today, it is no longer expected to construct meaning in history. Instead, history is seen in the light of the observation that universal communication intensifies and accelerates today and that borders for the movement of people, goods and ideas are disappearing. Global history no longer wants to compare civilisations, but to examine their interactions instead. Methodically, it is less demanding than conventional universal history but also more promising. This also holds true for the Middle Ages, which may encompass a smaller ecumene than does today’s world, but which offers in its European-North African-Asian context countless instances of intercultural entanglements. Recently the „Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft“ (Darmstadt) published a new „World History“.  The volume covering the Middle Ages clearly shows that, from a global perspective, Europe and the Mediterranean are rather marginal regions of the medieval ecumene. In those days, when cultural exchange took place primarily between East and West, the axis of the world lay at the Black Sea and the Levant. Because of their dominance over the waterways between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, Muslim rulers held a key position for the largest span of time in the so-called Middle Ages. Another consequence of this new approach is that nomadic people and civilizations receive equal credit and attention and that Asia’s religious pluralism – as compared to Europe – becomes evident. In addition to the formation of empires and long-distance trade, the inexhaustible field of migration is well-suited for cross-cultural investigation of the medieval millennium. In fact, even research in the field of travelling in the Middle Ages has not yet fully discovered the dimension of „cross-cultural interaction“. Also, a history of diplomacy from the perspective of cultural studies is among the many new tasks for creative minds.

In the most recent scholarship on feudalism, the 12th and 13th centuries are regarded as a key period in the establishment of formalized structures for feudal  law within the Reich. In order to verify or dismiss this claim, first the central question has to be assessed of how feudal relationships were actually practized in pre-12th century society which was principally based on an orally transmitted common law. On this basis, it is then possible to draw conclusions about how the written fixation of various aspects of feudal law transformed the balance of power between a lord and his vassal in the 12th and 13th centuries. The main sources for an analysis of these questions are feudal charters and records, Reichsweistümer , the verdicts of court cases dealing with feudal issues, and law texts. These reveal that both the lord and his vassal could, in fact, profit from the developing written fixation of legal procedures. Additionally, the compilation of law books, the verdicts of feudal court cases, and Reichsweistümer led to an increasing formalisation of the legal status of lord and vassal. Their relationship, however, was still principally defined by the common law practized at the vassal courts. A direct influence on legal pratice of feudal law as fixed in the law books of this time can, on the other hand, not be proven for the 13th century.

Gaetano Filangieri’s „Scienza della legislazione“, published in Naples from 1780 to 1791 and soon translated into many languages, is a fine document of late Enlightenment’s political theory and Neapolitan juridical culture. In 1822/23, Benjamin Constant severely criticized Filangieri’s treatise from a liberal and constitutionalist point of view. Filangieri’s „Scienza“ as well as Constant’s commentary on it were referred to in Rotteck and Welcker’s  „Staatslexikon“, thus finding their way in German liberalism. Vincenzo Ferrone, the editor of Filangieri’s „Scienza“, in a controversial re-interpretation published in 2003, as well as his co-editor Antonio Trampus blame the liberal Constant for having disregarded Filangieri’s republicanism, the constitutionalism of the „Scienza“ as well as its deep foundation in natural law theory.