Institutions and the path to the modern economy: lessons from medieval trade

led, in the case of the Abbasids, to an imbalance between centre and periphery, as well as between differentiation and integration of the elites. Again, this is not entirely convincing. As it stands, the argument relies to some degree on a deficit hypothesis: that the absence of a certain set of practices (in this case the Carolingian) is by itself assumed to be problematic. The third main chapter considers the central theological discussions of the period. In Western Christianity, the main one concerned the filioque clause in the creed – that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father. In the Islamic lands, it was the question of the createdness of the Qur’an. This highlights the difference between the religious policies of Charlemagne and al-Ma’m un. After the caliphate had to withdraw from its attempt to impose its authority in the religious field, the dogma of the createdness of the Qur’an had to be dropped as well. This led ultimately to the loss of any independent caliphal authority in the fields of law and belief. Charlemagne, in contrast, was able to promote his addition of the filioque by combining normative tradition and consensual adaptation, and he wisely did not try to impose this on a wider Christianity. In his final chapter, Drews reflects upon the cultural and religious parameters that underlay the strategies of legitimization in the two cases. This is rather risky terrain. Many authors have conducted similar discussions, with the assumption of quasigenetic differences that articulated themselves inevitably in different practices and approaches, and the conclusions of many of these discussions were as predictable as they were useless. The present author, in contrast, conducts his discussion expertly. He strikes a convincing balance between broad lines of development (such as, for instance, the different understandings of traditions from Antiquity) and concrete historical processes. At some points, it is clear that Drews’ main background is not in Middle Eastern history. However, a certain imbalance is inevitable in such a broad project and the isolated inaccuracies do not undermine the main argument. For most of the book, he convincingly integrates the existing scholarship into his argument. In addition, he refers to a wide range of primary sources that go beyond the usual narrative texts, including numismatic evidence. A minor quibble is that the strong reliance on the works of Thomas Nagel and their underlying assumptions of inherent ‘otherness’ is somewhat discomfiting, and may have encouraged rather debatable comments on modern Islamic societies in the final part of the book. In sum, Drews’ aim is ambitious, but he is ultimately successful and he is to be congratulated for having written the standard work on this topic. The comparison provides unique insights and is fascinating for anyone working with comparative approaches, but even scholars who focus on either of the two spheres will profit from the discussion. Most importantly, this is a splendid example of cross-cultural comparison that is of relevance for similar projects, irrespective of the concrete contexts.