(Continued from the previous issue)
In the first part of the interview, Andrii DOMANOVSKYI, Candidate of Sciences (History), Associate Professor at Vasyl Karazin Kharkiv National University, speaks on the origin of common stereotypes about the Byzantine Empire, differences in the reception of Byzantine culture in various countries, and the state of Byzantine studies in present-day Ukraine (see No. 80, December 27, 2016). This part deals with Kyiv’s influence on Constantinople and examines Ukraine as a North-South crossing point.
Mr. Domanovskyi, the general public seems to continue to believe that, figuratively speaking, “civilization” has always been historically spreading from West to East. What is more, the people who are afraid today of an “expansion from the East” often forget about the enormous influence the Near, Middle, and Far East wielded in such spheres as philosophy, science, medicine, etc., at a time when European civilization was only in the making. Do ordinary Europeans know about the Byzantine roots of their culture?
“At the level of mass awareness, Byzantine culture is neither their own nor alien – it is ‘a different Europe’ of sorts. I think an ordinary Western European’s attitude to the Byzantine Empire is basically the same as to Eastern Europe as a whole.
“For Western Europe, the Byzantine Empire is a longing for a different version of itself. What matters here is the attitude of the intellectuals engaged in Byzantine studies to a certain extent. A leading French Byzantinist, Gilbert Dagron, wrote that if Western Europe refused to recognize the Byzantine Empire as part of itself, this would just turn it into ‘the West’ and cause grave damage to its cultural code.
“As for an ordinary European, s/he usually takes a dim view of the Byzantine Empire owing to, particularly, the lexical meanings recorded in dictionaries. For example, in the German language, ‘Byzantinismus’ means toadyism, servility to bureaucrats, and recognition of fake hierarchic differences. In French, ‘byzantinisme’ means something flamboyant and intricate, too luxuriant, unnatural, and even harmful to a human being. A similar meaning also occurs in English. On the other hand, ‘Byzantinism’ is, above all, art, icon-painting, the grandeur of Byzantine cathedrals, mosaics, etc.
“Therefore, the linguistic-logical and visual dimensions are crucial for the reception of Byzantine culture. It is quite interesting that there is such a contradiction between the two dimensions.”
Academics claim that the Byzantine interpretation of Roman law, including Codex Justinianus, had an impact on the legal tradition of Rus’ and Ukraine (Pravda Rus’ka, Statutes of Lithuania). At the same time, this tradition was cut shot to a large extent in the Russian Empire and after the October Revolution. Can we view, with due account of this, the current lawmaking in Ukraine as direct or indirect reception of Byzantine law?
“I would like to be as cautious as possible in this matter. Roman law, as codified by Justinian, had an impact on the entire Western legal tradition. This laid the groundwork for the standardization of law in the 18th-19th centuries – particularly, a parallel can be drawn with the Napoleonic Code. So, the context is much broader here. Pravda Rus’ka is, after all, a ‘barbarian’ product. You can only see some very indirect Byzantine traces here, if any at all. It is better to recall Kormchiye knigi and some of the translated sources in this context. The standardization of laws in the Russian Empire was mostly associated with Western tradition. Some things may have only been borrowed from Byzantine law indirectly, ‘at second hand.’ The Roman legal tradition was first formed in Europe, and only later, especially under Peter I, it was spread to Russia.”
“BEFORE THE 11th CENTURY, THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE WAS THE EMBODIMENT OF EUROPE”
We are speaking about the Byzantine Empire’s influence on Kyivan Rus’. But was there a reverse influence – of Kyivan Rus’ on the Byzantine Empire? What was it like?
“It is also a difficult question. Is present-day Ukraine influencing the US in any way? Of course, it is to some extent. But the US is having a far stronger impact on the situation in Ukraine and the rest of the world.
“Kyivan Rus’ merchants used to visit various cities of the empire, including Constantinople and Chersonesus. Their looks and behavior drew the local population’s attention. But the Byzantines were usually taking a cavalier attitude to them – as to barbarians, faraway neighbors, who could only borrow their world-view and lifestyle in order to eventually become part of an overall cultural space and, hence, more ‘full-fledged’ people.
“On the other hand, Rus’ princes Oleh, Ihor, and Yaroslav the Wise mounted campaigns against Constantinople, while Sviatoslav fought on the Balkans, wishing to move his capital to Pereyaslavets on the Danube, and Volodymyr seized Chersonesus – called Korsun in chronicles – and married Anna, a daughter of Byzantine Emperor Basil II. Naturally, all this affected the situation in the Byzantine Empire.
“Another important aspect was Kyivan princes’ military retinue (druzhyna). This subject is being thoroughly researched by Oleksandr Fylypchuk from Chernivtsi, who has written a Ph.D. dissertation and a book of superb articles. Rus’ druzhynas had a noticeable impact on Byzantine military culture and social relations in the 10th-11th centuries.”
Ukraine is now usually viewed, especially in the political context, through the prism of West-East relations. Do you think it is also possible to view this country as a North-South intersection point? What are the advantages of this optics?
“This is not a new vision. It was formed by, among others, Ivan Lysiak-Rudnytsky and Ihor Shevchenko. Indeed, Constantinople, as the hub of civilization and a center of Western influence (for the Byzantine Empire, as a fragment of the Roman Empire, was a creature of the Western world), came to Kyivan Rus’ from the south. The North-South communication, the way from Scandinavia to Constantinople (‘from the Varangians to the Greeks’), passed through Kyiv.
“But these trends were usually noticeable in the Middle Ages. This influence began to subside at the dawn of modernity owing to the emergence of Turkey, a thing that repelled rather than attracted, and, above all, due to the growing clout of Western Europe. The Byzantine Empire had been Europe’s main embodiment until the 11th century, when Western Europe began to outpace it more and more. As Constantinople was conquered, Western Europe became a new ideological and intellectual center of influence. That period of time saw some great geographical discoveries, including that of America by Columbus, the inception of capitalism, and the end of the Reconquista on the Iberian Peninsula – it was in fact the emergence of the modern world. The Byzantine Empire was just a few years short of seeing those epochal changes. Ukraine thus found itself at the fault line between North and South, West and East. Incidentally, even though the Byzantine Empire was geographically south of Ukraine, it is still being identified as East on Ukrainian mental maps.”
“RETURN TO TSARHOROD IS A PREDICTABLE INTELLECTUAL PROVOCATION”
Therefore, the Byzantine Empire was West, East, and South at the same time. The Den Library book Return to Tsarhorod was our attempt to draw societal attention to the topic of the Byzantine Empire and Byzantine influence on Ukrainian culture and history. What do you think of this project?
“The book Return to Tsarhorod is not only about the Byzantine Empire – it emphasizes continuity of the southern vector in various contexts, which is very important.
“Newspaper articles were gathered under one cover, which let them show in an entirely new light. A newspaper article, even a profound one, is placed among other topical materials and, hence, is not always conducive to lasting reflections. But if you take such a serious publication, you brace yourself for a thorough analysis of this material. This is why the very idea of the Den Library impressed me very much.
“The publication of this book is an outstanding event that hasn’t remained unnoticed both in Ukraine and, I am sure, abroad, particularly in Russia. Russian intellectuals have begun to speak now about a competition between Ukraine and Russia for the Byzantine heritage – sometimes with surprise or even arrogance, – but still they have to admit the Ukrainian factor here. Return to Tsarhorod has shown and emphasized this tendency. It is a predictable intellectual challenge and provocation! It is wonderful that the newspaper Den dared to announce this openly at the top of its voice. I am convinced that the book will encourage further research at various levels, for Byzantine studies are a multidisciplinary segment of knowledge that embraces a wide field of problems from art history to present-day political science and sociology.”
