Arutyunova-Fidanyan Viada

Exchange of ideologemes in an intercivilisational dialogue: armeno-byzantine contact zone

Abstract

Contact zones emerging between civilisations are a distinctive geopolitical, historical and cultural phenomenon with explicit conceptual and discourse-related characteristics. They occur at an intersection of real-life and mental dimensions. Between Armenia and Byzantium, there were two stages of proximity. The fi rst can be defined as an incomplete model of a contact zone of the 6th — 7th centuries, in which the ideological component did not play a prominent role. The second is a fusional zone of the 10th — 11th centuries, the emergence of which had been prepared since the mid- 10th century through an active exchange of ideologemes of the contacting parts. The array of ideological notions that had developed by the 10th — 11th centuries in Byzantium, had a significant impact on the social and political theory of Armenians, namely the acknowledgment of the “family of rulers and nations”, the political orthodoxy, i. e. a symphony of the church and the state, the correlation between the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, as well as a set of ideological and political beliefs (Constantinople as the Second Rome, Romania as the East Roman Empire, the Rhomaioi as its citizens). It should be noted that Armenian ideologemes came to be incorporated in the narrative of Byzantine historiographers, i.e. the axiom of preeminent position of Shirak’s Bagratides among Caucasian rulers, acknowledgment of Byzantine sovereignty and of Byzantium’s image as a great Christian state which is a natural ally to Armenia in its struggle against the Muslim world. During the period of civilisational alignment, there took place an integration of the dynastic idea into the system of the supreme power of Byzantium, i.e. the “family” found a place in the political system of the empire that had not initially been provided for it. The Armenian nobility that belonged to a dynastic type of society and was included in the “Komnenoi’s clan” benefi ted the establishment of the role of the “family” in ruling the empire.

Keywords

Armeno-Byzantine contact zone (10th — 11th centuries), exchange of Byzantine and Armenian ideologemes, concept of “political orthodoxy”, correlation between earthly and heavenly kingdoms, ethno-political ideas of Byzantium, empire as an alley of Christian Armenia, aristocratisation of Byzantine social thought in 11th century, image of a knight-king, dynastic principle, dynasty of Komnenoi

References

1. Ahrweiler H. (1975) L’idéologie politique de l’Empire byzantin. Paris.
2. Arutyunova-Fidanyan V. (1994) Armiano-vizantiiskaia kontaktnaia zona (X–XI vv.): Rezul’taty vzaimodeistviia kul’tur [Armenian-Byzantine contact zone (10th — 11th centuries): results of an interaction of cultures]. Мoscow (in Russian).
3. Arutyunova-Fidanyan V. (2004) “Povestvovanie o delakh armianskih” (VII v.): Istochnik i vremia [The “Narrative of the Armenian Matters” (7th century): its source and time]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Arutyunova-Fidanyan V. (2012) “Armiano-khalkidonitskaia aristokratiia na sluzhbe imperii: polkovodtsy i diplomaticheskie agenty Konstantina VII Bagrianorodnogo” [Armeno- Chalсedonian aristocracy at the service of the empire: military leaders and diplomatic agents of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia III: Filologiia, 3 (29), p. 7–17 (in Russian).
5. Arutyunova-Fidanyan V. (2014) “Istoki genezisa armiano-vizantiiskoi kontaktnoi zony X–XI vv.: “Kavkazskoe dos’ie” Konstantina Bagrianorodnogo” [Origins of the Armeno-Byzantine Contact Zone in the 10th — 11th centuries: Constantine’s Porphyrogenitus ‘Caucasian Dossier’”]. Vizantiiskii vremenik, 73 (98), p. 13–52 (in Russian).
6. Arutyunova-Fidanyan V. (2016) “Khristianizatsiia na tsivilizatsionnom puti Armenii” [Christianisation in the civilisational path of Armenia]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia III: Filologiia, 4 (49), p. 9–23 (in Russian).
7. Dagron G. (1986) Imperator i sviashchennik: Etiud o vizantiiskom “tsezarepapizme” [The emperor and the priest. A sketch of the Byzantine “Caesaropapacy”]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
8. Darbinyan-Melikyan M. (ed.) (1986) Iovannes Draskhanakertci. Istoriia Armenii [History or Armenia]. Yerevan (in Russian).
9. Dvornik F. et al. (eds) (1962) Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De administrando imperio, vol. 2. London.
10. Gimon G. (2016) “K probleme zarozhdeniia istoriopisaniia v Drevnei Rusi” [On the origin of writing history in Ancient Rus’], in Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy, 2013 [Earliest states of Eastern Europe 2013]. Moscow. P. 748–800 (in Russian).
11. Howard-Jonston J. (2000) “The ‘De administrando imperio’: A reexamination of the text and a re-evaluation about the Rus”. Actes du Colloque International tenu au Collège de France en octobre 1997, p. 301–336.
12. Khvostova K. (2009) Vizantiiskaia tsivilizatsiia kak istoricheskaia paradigma [The Byzantine civilisation as an historical paradigm]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
13. Kazhdan А. (1968) Vizantiiskaia kul’tura (X–XII vv.) [The Byzantine culture (10th — 12th centuries)]. Мoscow (in Russian).
14. Kazhdan А. (1975) Rev. of: Joannis Sсylitzae Synopsis historiarum. I. Thurn (red.). Berolini et Novi Eboraci, 1973. Istoriko-filologicheskii zhurnal AN Armianskoi SSR, 1, p. 207–208 (in Russian).
15. Litavrin G. (ed.) (2003) Kekavmen. Sovety i rasskazy: Pouchenie vizantiiskogo polkovodtsa XI v. [Advice and narrations: Teachings of a Byzantine military leader of the 11th century]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
16. Liubarskii Ia. (ed.) (1996) Anna Komnena. Aleksiada. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Mirumyan K. (2016) Kul’turnaia samobytnost’ v kontekste natsional’nogo bytiia [Cultural identity in the context of national existence]. Yerevan (in Russian).
18. Moravcsik G., Jenkins R. J. H. (eds) (1967) Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De administrando imperio, vol. 1. Washington.
19. Pertusi A. (ed.) (1952) Constantino Porfirogénito de Thematibus. Vatican.
20. Thomson R. W. (1982) “The formation of the Armenian literary tradition”, in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the formative period (Dumbarton Oaks Symposium 1980). Washington. P. 136–150.
21. Toynbee A. (2016) Vyzovy i otvety [Challenges and responses]. Мoscow (Russian translation).

Information about the author

Arutyunova-Fidanyan Viada

Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Institute of World History, Russian Academy of Sciences; 32A Leninsky Prospekt, 119334, Moscow, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0003-4900-1736;
Email: asya1pobednaya25@gmail.com.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.