Stamatopoulos 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.
- Cover
- Front matter
- Table of Contents
- Transliterations
- Preface to the English Edition
- Chapter 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 Transcendent Byzantium: From Aristotle to Hegel
- 4. Paparrigopoulos’s Phanariot Byzantium and French Imperial Nationalism
- 5. France and Russia in Constantinople: Toward an Interpretationof 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 Hellenism: The Zambelios–Paparrigopoulos 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 Bulgarian Historiography
- 1. The Canon of Bulgarian Historiography: The Origin Model
- 2. Bulgarians: Vandals, Illyrians, or Macedonians?
- 3. Drinov’s History: The Slavicization of Bulgarians
- 4. Krâstevich’s Thesis: The Bulgarians Are Huns (The Positive Useof Byzantine Chronography)
- 5. Drinov’s Thesis: The Bulgarians Are Slavs (The Negative useof Byzantine Chronography)
- 6. Krâstevich’s Response: The Huns Are Slavs
- 7. The Romantic Reconstruction of Imperial Discourse: Some Conclusions
- 8. Povestnost instead of Historiya: Georgi Rakovski’s Hyper-Hermeneutic Model
- 9. The Balkans as East: Charilaos Dimopoulos’s History of the Bulgarians
- Chapter IV. Byzantinisms and the Third Rome: Russian Imperial Nationalism
- 1. Konstantin Leont’ev: On the Edge of Two Epistemological Paradigms
- 2. Leont’ev’s Byzantism
- 3. The Middle Ages as 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 Vindication of the Persians
- 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: “The Balkans Will Turn into a Volcano”
- 12. Byzantium and the 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 Sami 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 Slavic 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 the Organizers of National Discourse
- 4. The Icon as the Hegemon’s Representation
- 5. Historiographical Divergences and the Empire’s Memory
- Bibliography
- Index
- Back cover
Text
Audio
Adobe DRM
Login to your account