Download PDF | Warren T. Treadgold - The Byzantine revival, 780-842-Stanford University Press (1988).
524 Pages
Preface
Byzantine historians have a tradition of liking decline. Beginning with the foundation of Constantinople in 324, they have overwhelmingly preferred either the first third of Byzantine history, during which the empire lost most of its land, or the last third, during which the empire disappeared altogether. Though recently they have begun to think that those periods were not as decadent as all that, they still shy away from the middle third of Byzantine history, during which the empire recovered so completely from its earlier reverses that it was able to last through a series of new disasters all the way to its fall in 1453. Edward Gibbon got over this embarrassing lack of decline by racing through it in a single chapter. J. B. Bury published a book on the central part of this period in 1912 in which he managed to overlook the empire’s revival almost entirely, and his has remained the standard work since then. Only recently have scholars begun to realize that the revival did happen, but they have focused on its cultural aspect alone.
This book is the first general history of the beginning of this political, economic, and cultural revival, which I place between 780 and 842. Its intended audience ranges from the reader who is simply curious about Byzantium to the scholar who has a professional interest in it. The history of these years and the story of the revival are so closely intertwined that any complete study of one must be an almost complete study of the other; since the almost-but-not-quite complete survey is misleading to the outsider and annoying to the specialist, I have tried to be as comprehensive as I can. The common knowledge that can be assumed in this field is at best so small that I have chosen to explain practically everything, so as to write for all interested readers. The book’s plan is two parts analysis to four parts narrative. The first and last chapters, which analyze the empire as it was in 780 and as it had become by 842, provide a measure of how much difference the revival made.
The four middle chapters, which correspond to the main changes in government, trace the course of the empire’s development in the meantime. Each chapter covers political, social, economic, and cultural history, all of which are integral parts of the story. For example, Irene’s religious changes established a new political order and stimulated culture; Nicephorus I’s reforms were at once military, institutional, and economic; and Leo V’s and Theophilus’s religious edicts were influenced by religious considerations and had political effects. Scholars who have studied events of only one kind have failed to notice not only these connections but also the gradual advance of the revival as a whole. Since history originally happened in chronological order and in all fields simultaneously, it ought sometimes to be looked at that way. , Although the problem of how a society can emerge from decline plainly arises in modern times as well, in this book, as in my previous work, I have based my conclusions on Byzantine evidence and avoided relying on modern parallels.
This approach to Byzantine history has recently won me the criticism of the prominent medievalist Giles Constable, who has declared that study of the sources “should not prevent scholars from asking new questions and seeking new answers” that show Byzantium’s relevance to the modern world.* Without endorsing the view that the main use of history is to protect us from false historical analogies, I still believe that to be useful historical knowledge must first be accurate. Those who know Byzantine Greek and study Byzantine texts (as Professor Constable does not) have learned that such research cannot be replaced by any amount of comparison with modern societies. In transliterating Byzantine names and terms, I use Anglicized forms when plausible ones can be found (“George,” “‘postal logothete’’) and otherwise Latinized forms (“Constantius,” “‘protovestiarius’’). For describing Byzantium, this method seems preferable to transliterating Greek according to its ancient pronunciation (Georgios, logothetes tou dromou, Konstantios, protobestiarios). Forms of this sort, which I have supplied in the Glossary of technical terms at the end, have the advantage of being readily convertible into the Greek alphabet; but they misrepresent the Byzantine pronunciation, which was approximately as in Modern Greek (Yeoryios, logothetis tou dhromou, Konstandios, protovestiarios). On the other hand, forms that reflect Byzantine pronunciation are often hard for English-speaking readers to recognize and are inappropriate for referring to the medieval Latin West, to the earlier empire in which Latin was the official language, and to ancient Greece.
The forms that I have adopted have earlier English usage on their side and fit most harmoniously into an English text. I have tried to make the text of this book as straightforward as possible and to argue out historical problems in the notes, or even in books and articles that I have published already and merely cited here. If something in the text is doubtful, as it often is, this will be signaled by an “‘apparently,” a “‘probably,” or another such warning; those readers who are willing to accept my judgment can then get on with the story, while others can turn to the notes or to the books and articles. In an effort to make the references as easy to consult as the unfortunate necessity of endnotes allows, I have grouped related references together and numbered all the notes in a single series, not repeating numbers from chapter to chapter. Since the primary sources are what matter for deciding doubtful questions, I have tried to make my references to them exhaustive. My references to modern secondary literature, however, are selective. If there is a problem that calls for and has received attention from modern scholars, I note the source of any complex arguments that I adopt, but otherwise I usually cite only the most recent work that I find valuable and let its citations introduce the rest of the literature. The limited references in my notes consequently understate my debts to many earlier works that have guided me through the sources and influenced my ideas in ways too subtle to be easily acknowledged. In most cases I can simply say that I have treated those works as I hope my own will be treated, as aids to knowledge rather than bibliographical items to be catalogued.
Special mention must be made, however, of two books that between them cover the whole period treated here, and that I have used much more than my notes show: Paul Speck’s Kaiser Konstantin VI for the years before 802 and J. B. Bury’s History of the Eastern Roman Empire for the years afterward. Though their points of view difter from mine, I greatly respect their scholarship. I have also had profitable conversations about this book with many people, but three stand out. Robert Browning made valuable and encouraging comments on the text and helped me to correct various errors and imprecisions. Cyril Mango has kindly shared with me his profound knowledge and his wide-ranging insights into a number of points. The more work I do, the more I realize the magnitude of my debt to my teacher Ihor Sevéenko, both for the rigorous training he gave me and for the manner in which he shaped my ideas about Byzantium and indeed about history. An oracular remark from him encouraged me to make this a much more ambitious book than it would otherwise have been.
I doubt I shall ever outgrow what he taught. me, but I hope I am growing into it. For financial assistance I am happy to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, and the Earhart Foundation, which provided fellowships that allowed me to work on this book at the University of Munich, the Free University of Berlin, Stanford University, the University of Bologna, and Oxford University, and to travel throughout the Balkan and Anatolian peninsulas. The Earhart Foundation also provided a grant to pay for the maps and other illustrations. The maps and diagrams were elegantly and professionally redrawn from my archetypes by Mrs. Jean Dowling of the University of Birmingham. My editor, Paul Psoinos, has improved my text by many intelligent and learned suggestions and never once left it worse than I wrote it. Finally, this book is dedicated to my very favorite Byzantine: my wife. Oxford, J
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق