|
![]() |
|||
|
||||
OverviewStamatopoulos undertakes the first systematic comparison of the dominant ethnic historiographic models and divergences elaborated by Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian, Romanian, Turkish, and Russian intellectuals with reference to the ambiguous inheritance of Byzantium. The title alludes to the seminal work of Nicolae Iorga in the 1930s, Byzantium after Byzantium, that argued for the continuity between the Byzantine and the Ottoman empires. Rival Balkan nationalisms engaged in a “war of interpretation” as to the nature of Byzantium, assuming different positions of adoption or rejection of its imperial model and leading to various schemes of continuity in each national historiographic canon. Stamatopoulos discusses what Byzantium represented for nineteenth-, and twentieth-century scholars and how their perceptions related to their treatment of the imperial model: whether a different perception of the medieval Byzantine period prevailed in the Greek national center as opposed to Constantinople; how nineteenth-century Balkan nationalists and Russian scholars used Byzantium to invent their own medieval period (and, by extension, their own antiquity); and finally, whether there exist continuities or discontinuities in these modes of making ideological use of the past. Full Product DetailsAuthor: StamatopoulosPublisher: Central European University Press Imprint: Central European University Press ISBN: 9789633863077ISBN 10: 9633863074 Pages: 410 Publication Date: 10 November 2020 Audience: General/trade , General Format: Hardback Publisher's Status: Active Availability: Out of stock ![]() The supplier is temporarily out of stock of this item. It will be ordered for you on backorder and shipped when it becomes available. Table of ContentsCHAPTER I. Introduction 1. The Discipline of History: Canons and Divergences 2. The Problem of Continuity: Theories of Origin and Political Imperatives 3. In the Shadow of the Empire 4. Describing the Network: The Ottoman Framework and its Collapse CHAPTER II. The Iconoclast Byzantium of Greek Nationalism 1. Manuel Gedeon’s Perception of History 2. A Periodization 3. Zambelios’s Transcendant Byzantium: From Aristotle to Hegel 4. Paparrigopoulos’s Phanariot Byzantium and French Imperial Nationalism 5. France and Russia in Constantinople: Toward an Interpretation of the Great Idea 6. Helleno-Ottomanism: The Response of Constantinople 7. Heretical Byzantium in The History of the Greek Nation 8. Iconoclasm as a Conspiracy of the Monarchy 9. Iconoclasm as Reformation 10. Gedeon’s Medieval HellemismHellenism: The Zambelios–Paparrigopoulos Construct Scheme and the Ottoman Divergence 11. Footnotes: The Denunciation of Helleno-Orthodoxy 12. Byzantium as a Metaphor: Greeks and Slavs 13. The Iconoclast Byzantium and the Break from Greek Historiography 14. Byzantium as a Metonymy: The Church and the Ottoman State 15. Ecumenism as a Romantic Reconstruction 16. Histories of the Ottoman Empire CHAPTER III. The “Medieval Antiquity” of the Bulgarian Historiography 1. The Canon of Bulgarian Historiography: the Origin Model 2. Bulgarians: Vandals, Illyrians, or Macedonians? 3. Drinov’s History: The Slavicisation of the Bulgarians 4. Krâstevič’s Thesis: The Bulgarians are Huns (The Positive Use of Byzantine Chronography) 5. Drinov’s Thesis: The Bulgarians are Slavs (The Negative Use of Byzantine Chronography) 6. Krâstevič’s Response: The Huns are Slavs 7. The Romantic Reconstruction of Imperial Discourse: Some Conclusions 8. Povestnost Instead of Historija: Georgi Rakovski’s Hyper-Hermeneutic Model 9. The Balkans as East: Charilaos Dimopoulos’ History of the Bulgarians CHAPTER IV. Byzantinisms and the Third Rome: Russian Imperial Nationalism 1. Konstantin Leont’ev: On the Edge of Two Epistemological Paradigmes 2. Leont’ev’s Byzantism 3. The Middle Ages as a Canonical Model 4. Byzantism as Imperial Discourse: The Parity of Russians and Ottomans 5. Leont’ev’s Slavism: Greeks/Bulgarians, Germans/Czechs 6. The Three Romes 7. A Romantic Reconstruction of History: the Persians’ Vindication 8. Leont’ev and Marko Balabanov: Byzantism as a Bridge 9. The Meaning of Progress and the Possibility of an Ottoman Nation 10. Byzantium and the “Groundless Accusation of Ethno-Phyletism” 11. Balabanov and Renan: “Balkans Will Turn into a Volcano” 12. Byzantium and Great Idea: The Serbian Perspective 13. Ivan I. Sokolov’s Byzantinism 14. Pan-Orthodox Ecumenism and Byzantinisms: Gedeon’s Two Moments CHAPTER V. The “Roman Byzantium” of the Albanian Historiography 1. Namık Kemal and Renan 2. The Rupture of Pan-Islamic Ecumenism: Şemseddin vs. Sami Frashëri 3. Between Ancient Greeks and Modern Europeans: Islamic Civilization as a Mediator 4. The “De-Arabification” of Islam 5. The Management of Time and Space in Islam 6. From the Islamic Ummah to the Albanian Nation: The Return of the Pelasgians 7. The Problem of Discontinuity in Albanian History 8. Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos and the Pelasgians 9. The De-Islamification of Albanian History 10. Pan-Islamic Ecumenism and Roman Byzantium: The Immanence of Empire CHAPTER VI. Byzantium as Second Rome: Orientalism and Nationalism in the Balkans 1. From the Daco-Getae to the Romanians: In the Shadow of the First Rome 2. A. D. Xenopol: The Slav Middle Ages and Phanariot Modernity 3. Nicolae Iorga’s Byzance après Byzance: Invoking the Second Rome 4. Mehmed Ziya Gökalp’s “Canon”: The Rupture with the Imperial Middle Ages 5. M. Fuad Köprülü’s “Opposition”: The Reappropriation of the Ottoman Middle Ages 6. Nationalism, the Other Face of Orientalism: The Persians’ Return 7. Kemalist Nationalism: The Prevalence of Origin Over Continuity CHAPTER VII. Iconoclasts against Iconolaters: Conclusions 1. Imperial Iconolaters and Nationalist Iconoclasts 2. M. Fuad Köprülü: The Iconoclasts as Muslims 3. Nicolae Iorga: The Iconoclasts as Organizers of National Discourse 4. The Icon as the Hegemon's Representation 5. Historiographical Divergences and Empire’s Memory Bibliography IndexReviewsDimitris Stamatopoulos is the first who achieves the immense feat of writing a comparative historiography of the Balkans, demonstrating how each national history writer needs to stand apart and compete with other historiographers related to the same contested area. The survival of the idea of 'empire' is subject to specific developments in the countries that belong to the Byzantine legacy, in consideration to contemporary positions concerning state and nation. But it is always conditioned by the reference to Western political thinking and to Western scholarship on Byzantium. --Bernard Heyberger Eighty-seven years after the publication of Byzance apres Byzance, Dimitris Stamatopoulos masterfully revisits the afterlife of Byzantium in the Balkans'; national historical constructs of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A monument of erudition and historiographical acuity, Byzantium after the Nation looks into no less than five historiographical traditions: Greek, Bulgarian, and Albanian and of two regional offshoots in the twentieth century, Romanian and Turkish. A monument of erudition and historiographical acuity, Byzantium after the Nation is a most welcome contribution to the field. --Edhem Eldem Stamatopoulos's Byzantium after the Nation was originally published in Greek and was received by the international community of Hellenists as a major scholarly achievement, especially by those in favor of breaking with the traditional nation-centered historiographical canons. This revised English edition finally renders the book accessible to a broader public of Balkanologists. What makes this book an original and significant contribution is not only the solid theoretical foundation and the high relevance of the subject matterthe 'historiographical legacy' of Byzantiumbut also the author's genuinely comparatist and Balkanistic approach (involving the Balkans in its totality). --Raymond Detrez Author InformationDimitris Stamatopoulos is Associate Professor at the Department of Balkan, Slavic and Oriental Studies, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece. Tab Content 6Author Website:Countries AvailableAll regions |