Die Byzantinische Kultur Und Die Slawen: Zum Problem der Rezeption Und Transformation (6. Bis 12. Jahrhundert)

Alexander Avenarius. Die byzantinische Kultur and die Slawen: Zum Problem der Rezeption and Transformation (6. bis 12. Jahrhundert). Veroffentlichungen des Instituts fir Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung, Bd. 35. Vienna: R. Oldenbourg, 2000. 263 pp. Illustrations. Bibliography. Index. Paper. Alexander Avenarius offers a survey of the cultural relations between Byzantium and the Slavic populations, which since the sixth century settled either on the Byzantine territory or at its borders. The higher (p. 14) developed Byzantine culture is regarded as the pattern for the development of Slavic culture, but Avenarius tries to transform in Hegelian (p. 13) manner the sterile opposition between an active giver (Byzantium) and a passive taker (the Slavs) into a typological (p. 18) process, pointing out that the Slavs actively transfigured the Byzantine culture according to their needs. This process of is to be described in relation to regionally specified conditions: acculturation in a region temporarily diplomatically attached to Byzantium (Middle Europe, above all Moravia), in militarily and administratively controlled regions (the Balkans, above all Bulgaria) and in a relatively independent region (Old Russia). Looking for signs of Slavic transformation of Byzantine cultural influence, Avenarius concentrates on the transformation of Byzantine texts in Slavic translations. This decision limits his study to those Slavic cultures that, since their very beginning, show acculturation primarily by literal means. Considering the very beginnings of Byzantine-Slavic acculturation until the middle of the ninth century, Avenarius is forced to make general statements, due to the lack of Slavic written sources. Avenarius describes how Byzantium tried to acquire influence over the emerging Slavic principalities by sending gifts to their leaders, and comes to the conclusion that the lower the development of a Slavic culture, the lower its ability to incorporate Byzantine elements. Regarding the Middle European regions from ninth to the twelfth centuries, Avenarius focuses on the role of the Slavic apostle Konstantin-Kyrill. Avenarius shows that Konstantin was orientated towards theological positions that Rome and Byzantium had in common, and did not try to integrate Moravia into the Byzantine administrative hierarchy, so as not to provoke Rome. The use of the Orthodox liturgy in Moravia seems to have lasted until 885. Although Avenarius credits Western missionaries with only a rudimentary knowledge of the Slavic language, K. Hengst has recently been shown that, on the contrary, Western missionaries were skilled not only in understanding, but also writing in the Slavic language. These newer studies show that the language question was not really a problem in the times of Konstantin. Political influence by means of missionary activity was the Byzantine strategy towards regions, which could not be military controlled. In describing Byzantine-Slavic acculturation in the Balkans, Avenarius passes over the Slovenian, Serbian, and Croatian culture-forcing us to say something about this issue. He justifies his ignoring of Serbia by pointing to the delayed development of the Serbian state, arguing that nothing substantial can be said about earlier times. Such an argument can only be understood as a consequence of Avenarius's method, based upon investigation of written documents (although he does refer to archaeological findings in the chapter about the Western Slavic regions). On the contrary, Serbian architecture and painting of the 13th century (Studenica was built between 1183 and 1196, in the twelfth century!) is not the beginning, but a developed stage of Serbian-Byzantine acculturation. In the same way Avenarius passes over the Croatian-Byzantine acculturation, only pointing to the transformation of the formerly Orthodox Croatian liturgy into a Roman liturgy. He does not mention the Croatian glagiolism, which right up to today remains a literal (! …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.