Die Byzantinische Kultur Und Die Slawen: Zum Problem der Rezeption Und Transformation (6. Bis 12. Jahrhundert)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».