Acknowledgments
The sociologist Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy compares innovative intellectual endeavors to the mythical voyage of the Argonauts (Argonautenfahrt). To me, this is a description that seems to be charming and well-fitting to the basic characteristics of the Käte Hamburger Kolleg (KHK) ‘Dynamics in the History of Religions’ and its particular way of cooperation in research.
Before the inhabitants of the rugged Balkan peninsula and the surrounding isles decided to become Greeks or Hellenes with relevance to intellectual history, they set off on voyages of discovery that contributed significantly to their later self-image. The best known of these voyages is the one against Troy, but the most relevant is the one that was later sung about in the so-called Argonaut myth (Argonautica), whereby the Argonauts’ venture seems in many respects to be a counter or at least a complementary project to the war-voyage against Troy.
The Argonautica symbolizes the founding of a culture in seafaring. This is essentially determined by the courage to venture into the foreign and unfamiliar and shows the Argonauts as potential heroes who prove themselves in this situation. The Argonauts are the bold sailors on the ship named Argo. This large, maneuverable, and fast vessel was designed by the goddess of wisdom, Athena, and built by Argos from talking wood consecrated to Athena as the first truly seaworthy ship for Jason. In mythological tradition, the master builder Argos is only identified by his work, the ship. The absence of all other identifying features makes it possible to say that the Argo practically builds itself and thus becomes the most seaworthy ship known to Greek tradition. The success of the voyage depends on the composition of the seafarers. The Argo, which was unusually stable for its time, offered space for a wide variety of sailors. Unlike the more hands-on heroes of the Iliad, the Argonauts prefer negotiation to battle. Diplomacy takes precedence over war; words should explore the path to be taken. It is about mediation that preserves the respective points of view.
In one of Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock’s poems, the Argo is placed in the stars as a symbol of the friendly quests of the most diverse individuals in order to serve as a role model for all to see. The Argonauts represent the multitude of life and different voices. Among them were people of different origins, coming from all parts of the then-known world, with more non-Greeks than Greeks. With a few exceptions, they were not destined to be a community from the outset; they were not related to each other, they did not speak the same language, and they did not worship the same gods. Their community and approach were therefore formed in their common enterprise. Language and ideological reference, therefore, had to be created, if not invented, together in conversation. This process, however, had a symblysmatic result. What they did have in common was the will to set out. They possessed a multitude of abilities, knowledge, and skills, which only became apparent and helpful in the individual unpredictable adventures. And it was precisely this unusual and unplanned gathering of the most diverse forces that equipped them for their task.
The correspondences between this idealized version of the myth to the research idea and the research practice of the KHK are evident. Scholars of different fields of expertise set out and worked together for the sake of a common goal: the examination of the role of contact situations in the history of religions. To do so, a new language and new ways of collaboration had to be found, and unexpected challenges had to be met with a spirit of interdisciplinary teamwork.
However, the overlaps between the Argo and the KHK only partly coincide. In particular, the part of the story that takes place after the Argonauts’ arrival in Colchis should not be the model for the KHK’s story and especially not a preview of its future results. In any case, my own endeavor would not have been possible without the help of the KHK Argonauts and our common vessel. All of the KHK colleagues, fellows, and staff contributed in many different ways to the emergence of this book. In the following, I name only a few of them.
Various colleagues from Ruhr University Bochum accompanied the project from the beginning to the end and were always reliable pilots and beacons with their specific expertise: Alexandra Cuffel, Marion Eggert, Carmen Meinert, Jessie Pons, Linda Simonis, Christian Frevel, Reinhold Glei, Stefan Reichmuth, Heiner Roetz, Peter Wick.
I would especially like to thank my various cabin-mates with whom I was allowed to share an office and exchange ideas there: Matthias Jung, Görge Hasselhoff, Oliver Freiberger, Jan Bremmer (who, as master of provisions, also provided me with plenty of Swedish cookies), Jason (sic!) Ānanda Josephson Storm, Juan Manuel Tebes, Vasco La Salvia, Sebastian Rimestad, Magnus Schlette.
The ship of my monograph sailed rather unsteadily on the sea of a foreign language until a courageous navigator, Hannah Theaker, resolutely took the helm and maneuvered it around the vast majority of linguistic cliffs with enormous empathy. Not only that, her in-depth criticism often showed a clearer path to the author’s intended goal and allowed him to see unexpected shorelines.
Julia Heinig, Alina Krentz, and Ava Asiaii provided invaluable navigational skills in a similar capacity, repairing and supplementing this ship linguistically, factually, and formally during the voyage, thus making it much more seaworthy.
Tim Karis and Kianoosh Rezania took it upon themselves to board the rocking ship during the voyage and guide it into calmer waters, i.e., to read through the entire manuscript and discuss it in detail with me. As their criticism did much to improve the book, both Argonauts deserve my special thanks. I would also like to thank Carmen Meinert for her intense discussion of the TiD chapter and Linda Simonis, Christoph Auffarth, Max Deeg, Georgios Halkias, Adam Knobler, Patrick Krüger, Lars Niehaus, Eduard Iricinschi, Philipp Reichling, Walter Young for their critical reading of individual chapters.
Of course, any remaining errors and ambiguities are not the fault of the persons named but are solely my responsibility.
I would like to thank the editors and the board of the series for including my study in the DHR series, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism of the project and its execution.
My special thanks go to Licia Di Giacinto, a fellow co-traveler on the Argo KHK from the very beginning onwards. Her sinological expertise, lucid criticism of my ideas, and, not least, encouragement to finish the book have proved invaluable.
Most of all, this book and the whole KHK project would not have been possible without Volkhard Krech, the KHK’s founding director, representative of its scholarly virtues, and a never-tiring organizer and inspirator. I dedicate this book to him as an attempt to honor his engagement in promoting contact-based research on the history of religions.
It has been a long and fruitful journey and an exciting adventure of ideas that is, hopefully, not over yet.