Візантійська імперія в світлі історії ментальностей

Abstract

Історія Візантії є вельми розробленою галуззю, що стало основою виникнення такого напряму як візантиністика або візантологія, яка, подібно до самої цивілізації, здебільшого страждає на традиціоналізм. Настав час оновлення, зокрема через використання інших дослідницьких підходів, зокрема тих, що надає історія ментальностей. В статті характеризуються сутнісні риси ромейського менталітету з метою визначення його впливу на історичний поступ Східно-римської імперії, який закінчився крахом. У сукупності причин, що призвели до такого історичного фіналу, на першому місті слід поставити менталітет, який формується історично і є цементуючим фактором цивілізації.

The history of Byzantium is a well-researched field that laid the groundwork for the branch of Byzantinistics or Byzantology, which, much like the civilization in question, mostly suffers from traditionalism. Time is high for renewal, particularly through applying other research approaches, namely those provided by the history of mentalities. The main thesis of the article is: in determining the specifics of a sociocultural community's historical progress, its mentality must be reviewed in the first place.

The importance of the study is explained not only by the interest in the history of olden times, but also in the ascent of byzantologic issues in present days, as Byzantine heritage keeps influencing the fate of many nations. Russian political technologists, “taking care” of Ukraine after the Revolution of Dignity, emphasize that it's the Byzantine theme that can provide the success factor to Ukraine, opening new horizons in building the future. Proudly proclaiming itself the heiress of the grand empire, Russia follows not the way of modernization, but that of archaization, also suggesting to other nations it desires to bring back under its dominion, that they should mold their new identities on the tenets of Byzantism.

The article analyzes mental constructs and their influence on the historic path of Byzantium, proving them largely accountable of its decay and downfall.

The prevalence of formalities over essence was manifested in daily negligence of the ancient Roman principle “Dura lex, sed lex” in domestic and foreign policies, from the precarious safety of emperors to the intricate Byzantine diplomacy. A characteristic is given to the phenomenon of “Byzantism” in the sociopolitical plane, leading to the analysis of mental structures.

The prime influence on the formation of mentality is exerted by the religious beliefs of its carriers. Eastern Christianity, aimed at harnessing human energy, has put spiritual, prayerly self-immersion above practical activities, even in the time of lethal danger from invaders. Abstinence, prudity, selflessness, meekness, blissful tears, humility, love, patience were proclaimed as core virtues. Patience had great importance for holding the masses in poverty and submission to power. Particularly, Byzantism was characterized by the right of mundane powers to interfere with religious affairs and the subordination of the church to the supreme ruler. The main social product of Byzantism was the type of social conscience prone to thinking outside the framework of natural law, lack of critical attitude to the unlawful acts of the government, susceptibility to the manipulative pressure of the ruling ideologems, submission to authocracy, servilism and adaptability to the requirements of cruel political regimes. Predominant was the type of a “little man”, rightless and irresponsible, unable of self-organization, and hence bound for failure. At the same time, those poor and hapless persons yearned for the salvation of their souls, for which the Orthodox church insisted on fulfilling the strict requirements of the Orthodox ideal. Unattainable in reality, this ideal at large debunks the myth of special Byzantine spirituality and morality.

Byzantine mentality harnessed human activity, fostering passivity instead. It carried no intention towards perfection, evolution, renewal. Essentially traditional, it rejected any change, hence the civilization based thereon was incapable of modernization. Essentially traditional, it rejected any change, thus making a civilization based thereon incapable of modernization. It's the mentality that became a brake to its development and one of the reasons of its failure.