The CMES Winter 2018 alumni newsletter is out
The MES Spring 2018 course list is now available now
Aga Khan Professor and Director of the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture
Tuesday, April 17, 2018, 4:00pm
HSSB 6020 (IHC McCune Conference Room)
Focusing on the 16th and 17th centuries, this lecture presents comparative reflections on the architectural cultures of the Mediterranean-based Ottomans, the Safavids in Iran, and the Mughals in the Indian subcontinent, with an aim to highlight transregional interactions and intercrossings. From such a perspective, the tri-continental landmass dominated by these three early modern empires can be conceptualized as an interconnected contact zone. The premise of the lecture is that in the realm of architectural culture, the physical, mental, and social spaces interrelate and overlap with one another. The intimate connection between empire building and architectural construction is exemplified by the differing socio-religious and palatial building types favored in each of the three centralizing empires as expressions of distinctive theories of dynastic legitimacy. By emphasizing the deliberateness of these choices, the lecture challenges prevailing assumptions about an unmediated and self-propelled evolution of regional architectural and ornamental forms in the early modern era.
Gülru Necipoğlu has been the Aga Khan Professor and Director of the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvard University's Department of History of Art and Architecture since 1993, where she earned her Ph.D. in 1986. She is an elected member of the American Philosophical Society, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Centro Internazionale di Studi di Archittettura Andrea Palladio in Vicenza.
She specializes in the architectural and urban history of the medieval and early modern periods, with a particular focus on the Ottoman Empire, the Mediterranean basin, and the Eastern Islamic lands. Her publications address artistic exchanges between Byzantium, Renaissance Italy, and the Islamic lands, questions of pre-modern architectural practice, plans and drawings, the aesthetics of abstract ornament and geometric design. Her critical interests encompass methodological and historiographical issues in modern constructions of the field of Islamic art.
She is the editor of Muqarnas: An Annual on the Visual Cultures of the Islamic World and its Supplements. Her books include Architecture, Ceremonial Power: The Topkapi Palace (1991); The Topkapi Scroll, Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture (1995); and The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (2005). Her Topkapi Scroll won the Albert Hourani and the Spiro Kostoff book awards. The Age of Sinan has been awarded the Fuat Köprülü Book Prize.
More recently she edited The Arts of Ornamental Geometry: A Persian Compendium on of Similar and Complementary Interlocking Figures (in Supplements to Muqarnas, 2017). With Barry Flood she co-edited the two-volume reader, A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture, published in 2017 in the Wiley Blackwell Companions to Art History series. In 2016 she co-edited with Alina Payne, Histories of Ornament: From Global to Local (Princeton University Press).
Sponsored by the Center for Middle East Studies,
R. Stephen Humphreys Distinguished Lecture Series
The French Revolution and the Rights of Muslims
Ian Coller, University of California, Irvine
On 24 December 1789, a deputy named Francois de Hell proposed to the National Assembly an explicit decree that would allow Muslims to enjoy "all the rights, honors and advantages enjoyed by French citizens."
Some historians have read this proposition as no more than a feint to appear universalist while seeking to exclude other religious minorities - and Jews in particular - from the enjoyment of equal rights. On the assumption that there were no Muslims in France in this period, they concluded that such a proposal could have no independent content.
This paper will suggest that the question of Muslim rights was both substantive and significant in terms of the direction of the Revolution. It responded to a longer tradition of reciprocal rights guaranteed by treaties between France and the Ottoman Empire. Already during the 1770s and 1780s Muslims in France were beginning to assert these rights. Yet the rights they claimed were not equal rights as citizens, but differentiated rights as subjects.
In this sense, then, rather than an empty gesture of universalism, Hell's proposal was in fact a concrete attempt to institute unequal rights. By offering Muslims equivalent rights, but as Muslims, rather than as citizens, Hell was drawing on the existing precedents to establish differentiated categories - which could offer Jews "rights" as second-class citizens.
Instead, the Assembly voted to abolish the impediments to non-Catholic participation, while retaining the temporary suspension of a decision regarding Jews. In September 1791, when the disqualification of Jews was fully lifted, the precedent of Muslims was cited in support. In the years that followed, this conception of Muslims as citizens would become a key contention of those claiming the Revolution was an affront against Christianity and the Church. It would also set the scene for further struggles over just what role Muslims might play in the Revolution.