Byzantium and the South Slavs.pdf

8/13/2019 Byzantium and the South Slavs.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/byzantium-and-the-south-slavspdf 1/15

Byzantium and the South Slavs

Author(s): G. OstrogorskySource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 42, No. 98 (Dec., 1963), pp. 1-14Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of

Slavonic and East European Studies

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4205510 .

Accessed: 31/03/2013 00:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East

European Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic and East European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 96.242.60.235 on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:03:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl


http://www.jstor.org/stable/4205510?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/4205510?origin=JSTOR-pdf



http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra



yzantium n d t h S o u t h S l a v s

G. OSTROGORSKY

IT is a well-known fact that the imprint left by the Byzantineempire on the political and cultural development of the South Slavpeoples was extremely strong. An empire with great political tradi-tions and a matureculture, Byzantium radiateda powerful influencein the world surrounding it, attracting neighbouring peoples intoits cultural and political orbit. The secular and ecclesiastical insti-

tutions of the countries bordering on Byzantium, their juridical,political and religious conceptions, their spiritual and materialculture,all bear-to a greateror less extent-the hallmark of Byzan-tine influence.

It is not the present purpose to investigate which elements in thelife of the mediaeval South Slav states had their roots in Byzantineculture, or how and to what extent Byzantium influenced theinstitutions of contemporarySouth Slav countries,their administra-

tion, their military organisationand techniques,theirjuridicalorderand legislation, their political ideas, religious and spiritual life,church-sponsoredand hereticalreligiousmovements,theirliterature,arts, scientific and philosophicalviews. The problemsof Byzantine-South Slav relations will be considered here from a differentangle.

It was impossible indeed for any South Slav or, for that matter,any other European people (particularlyin the south and east ofthe continent) not to yield to the influence of the ancient Byzantine

empire. It was only natural, however, that the effect of thisinfluencevaried considerably from one country to another. Obviously theextent of Byzantine influence was largely determined by the geo-graphical position of a given state. Some regions in the Balkanpeninsula were entirely orientated towardsByzantium,while othersgravitated to the west or wavered between these two spheres ofinfluence. So, also, in some regions Byzantine influence was fullydeployed, direct and irresistible,while in others its infiltration wasless intensive because of the

rival ascendancyof the west. Moreoversome regions, notably the coastal areas,were by virtue of their loca-tion more easily accessible, and thereforemore exposed, than othersto outside influences.

This is not the whole problem, however. The relationships estab-lishedin some South Slav states as a result of theirown internalcourseof development contributed in a varying extent to the degree of

* Text of a lecture delivered at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies on

4 December I962.







2 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

intensity with which these countries absorbed Byzantine influence,

adopted Byzantine patterns of behaviour and institutions. Theintensity of Byzantine influence also depended on political conditions

stemming from the actual course of political developments in theworld. Some South Slav peoples maintained-in peace and war-

permanent ties with Byzantium; others had only sporadic contacts

with the empire. Again, some of these peoples were for long periods

subjected to direct Byzantine rule, others were only Byzantium s

vassals, or merely recognised its more or less formal right

of supremacy.

If Byzantine-South Slav relations are viewed from this angle,

it is possible to grasp many points in the development of the Balkanpeoples more clearly, and to explain some things more precisely,

provided, of course, that a distinction is always made between the

actual domination of a people by the Byzantine empire and the

recognition of its sovereignty-that is between direct and indirect,

often merely formal, dependence.

When they came to settle on the Balkan peninsula, the South Slavs

actually entered the territory of the Byzantine empire and occupied

areas that had for centuries been Byzantine provinces. In theseprovinces, where the Slavs have lived ever since and where Slav

states were formed at a later date, they certainly encountered many

elements of Byzantine spiritual and material culture. The extent of

this cultural inheritance that survived the decline of Byzantine

domination of the Balkans depended on conditions actually pre-

vailing at the time in the relevant part of the peninsula, and on the

extent of the devastation caused by the Slavs. Ravaged by earlier

invasions of Germanic and Hun tribes, the Balkan regions werereduced to complete ruin by the continuous powerful attacks of

Slavonic tribes and of the Avars. The original population that had

survived these invasions withdrew to the mountains and still more to

the coast. The advent of the Slavs-their ever recurring invasions

since the beginning of the 6th century and their final settlement in the

closing years of the 6th and the first decades of the 7th century-

produced a complete ethnical transformation and radically altered

the face of the Balkan peninsula which became almost entirely aSlavonic land. They surged beyond the limits of present day Slavstates in the Balkans and overflowed into parts of contemporaryGreece at the southern end of the peninsula.

Certainly, no-one today thinks-as did the well-known writer

Fallmerayer in his time-that the Greek population in the Middle

Ages underwent complete slavonisation and that its Greek character-

istics were obliterated in the process. Today, it would be quite

unscholarly to support such a paradoxical theory. But it would be







BYZANTIUM AND THE SOUTH SLAVS 3

equally unscholarlyto deny that in the early Middle Ages Slavsrep-resented the prevailing element in southern Greece. The Chronicleof Monemvasia reveals that the Slavs dominated the Peloponnese

from the end of the 6th to the beginning of the gth century whenByzantium finally succeeded in restoring its authority after aninterval of more than 200 years. There is no real reason to questionthe reliability of this statement, which has indeed been confirmedby the most recent research and is supported by linguistic (topo-nymical) and archaeological evidence as well as by documentaryevidence-to mention only the testimonyof ConstantinePorphyro-genitus who wrote of the Peloponnese in the middle of the 8th

century: This land was slavonised and turned barbarian.Little by little Byzantium re-establishedits rule over the Greek

provinces, as is evident from the Chronicle of Monemvasia itself,but it was a lengthy and painful process.The massive settlement ofSlavonic tribes in the Balkans in the beginning of the 7th centuryhad broken up the Byzantine domination of the peninsula. TheByzantine military and administrative mechanism was paralysedover the whole stretch from the Danube to the southernmostpoint of

Greece and was only able to maintain its authorityin some coastaltowns.

Special emphasis should be placed on this total breakdown ofByzantine rule in the Balkans outside a few coastal towns, sinceits importance is often under-estimated. The true impact of thecatastrophe that fell upon Byzantium in the Balkansat that time isnot sufficiently realised. This is largely because Byzantine rule inthe Balkans receded not before the advent of another organised

state but under the pressureof the explosivedrive of Slav expansioninto provinces that had until then been governed by Byzantium.

The Balkan peninsula was now transformedinto a number ofsclavinias ,as the Byzantine sourcesnamed the provincesoccupied

by the Slavs. The term sclavinia (and this has only recentlybecome clear to scholars) indicates a central concept in the earlymediaeval history of the Balkans and characterisesmost aptly thesituation that prevailed between the 7th and the gth centuries.

Sclavinias were regions occupied by the Slavs over which Byzan-tium had lost all control but which did not possessany other admin-istrative system that might have replaced the earlier Byzantineone. The peninsula was in fact lost to Byzantium, but the fiction ofByzantine sovereignty could continue to be maintained. However,this preservation of formal sovereignty over the lost Balkan landsdoes not reflect the real relationshipand the actual state of affairs.

To find out what the real situationwas in the Balkans at that time

it is necessary first to see if there was, under the formal claim of








It is instructiveto considerthe developmentof the theme systemin the Balkan peninsula in the light of these conclusions. The firstBalkan theme came into existence in the ninth decade of the 7th

century and was formed on the territorylying nearestto the Byzan-tine capital.This wasthe Thracian theme .Accordingto ConstantinePorphyrogenitusit was founded when the Bulgarians first crossedthe Danube, somewhere about 68o. An official document dated687 mentions, together with the exarchs of Ravenna and Carthageand the strategiof the four themes in Asia Minor then in existence,the only military governor in the Balkans-the strategusof Thrace.

The Hellenic theme was organised soon after. Its strategus is

not mentionedin the above cited documentof 687; his name appearsfor the first time in sourcesdating from695. The Hellenic theme didnot comprise the whole territory of modern Greece as was untilrecentlysupposed. The latest researchshowsthat it coveredonly thecentral portion of the present-day Greek territory-Attica andBoeotia. Thus, only two themes had been created in the Balkansby the end of the 7th century: Thrace and Hellas. It was only in theimmediateproximityof the capital and in centralGreecethat Byzan-

tium was able to establish its military and administrativeauthority.All other parts of the Balkan peninsula remained beyond its reach.No furtherprogresswith the establishmentof themes in the Balkanswas made for a long time and only much later, after a long andobdurate struggle, was Byzantium able to take the necessarystepsto strengthenits position by introducingthe theme organisation inotherBalkandistricts.Towardsthe end of the 8th century,a hundredyears later, the attempt to restoreByzantine authority in this area

was renewed and began to gain momentum. The Macedoniantheme was created in the closingyearsof the 8th century. It shouldbe stressedhere that the name of this theme may-and often does-provoke confusion. It has little in common with the Macedonia ofclassical times or with the present-day country of that name. TheByzantine theme of that name comprised Western Thrace withAdrianopolis as its main city. The name of Macedonia was assignedto Thrace because at that time the true Macedonia had been

lost to Byzantium: it was held by the Slavs and formed a conglo-merate of sclavinias .At the beginning of the gth century, themes were organised in

Dyrrhachium and Thessalonica. This was a particularlyimportantstep in the development of the theme system and in the drive tostrengthen Byzantine power in the Balkans, for Dyrrhachium wasthe main Byzantinecitadel on the Adriatic and Thessalonicaon theAegean Sea. At the same time new themes were formed in the

Greek regions. The Peleponnesian theme was apparently created








at the end of the 8th century. Then, or in the firstyears of the gthcentury, the Cephallonian theme was organisedon the territoryofthe Ionian islands. Later, in the second half of the gth century, a

theme was established in Epirus with its centre in Nicopolis.Finally, about 870, Dalmatia also acquired the status of a theme .In this case also the Byzantine theme does not correspondto the

territoryof modern Dalmatia, still less to the old Roman provinceof that name which had stretchedinland on a broad front as far as

the Drina River. The Byzantine theme of Dalmatia included onlythe islands on the Adriatic Sea and the coastal towns-without the

hinterland which was in the hands of the Slavs. Thus the restoration

of Byzantine rule startedin the firstplace from the urban centresonthe coast.

This survey of the gradual organisation of the Byzantine adminis-trationon the Balkanpeninsulaillustratesa very important process-the gradual restoration of Byzantine rule in several Balkan regionsfrom which it had previously been eliminated by the massive up-surge of Slav colonisation. The gradual re-occupation of certainareas by Byzantium and their cultural re-hellenisation can be

followed in the step-by-step development of the theme system.In the first two centuries following the advent of the Slavs thismovement advanced very slowly. Later, however, it gained mo-

mentum, so that by the middle of the gth century Byzantium wasable to form a belt of themes around almost all the shores of theBalkan peninsula in the east, in the south and in the west. But thiswas all. In these coastal regions, lying open to its sea-faring power,dotted with ancient urbansettlements and ports (to which the former

Greek and Roman population withdrew from the hinterland underthe pressure of the Slav invasions) Byzantium finally restored itsrule and by this means also its maritime supremacy, its thallas-socracy ; the inland areas of the Balkan peninsula, however, re-mained beyond its reach and it is here that Slavonic states werethen beginning to emerge.

This was actually the end of the era of sclavinias . Where Byzan-

tine power was restored,the sclavinias were little by little absorbed

by the Byzantine theme system. In regions beyond the reach ofByzantine administration, sclavinias now merged into the newSlavonic principalities.Thus the balance distorted by the invasionsof the Slavonic tribes was restored on a new basis. At that timecultural zones were created which have continued to exist until thepresent day. The delimitation between the Byzantine and the Slav-onic zones which was established then corresponds very closelywith the cultural zones outlined by Jovan Cvijic, the great Yugoslav

geographer, at the beginning of the 2oth century. He had reached








his conclusions on the basis of studiesof various types of rural settle-

ments and dwellings. The zone to which Cvijic gave the name of

Hellenic Mediterranean Zone more or less falls within the territory

covered in the gth century by the Byzantine theme organisation.The lands of modern Yugoslavia lie largely outside this territory,

and so does present-day Bulgaria which, in the gth century, alsoheld Macedonia after having incorporatedthe Macedonian sclavi-nias . The only exception is presented by Dalmatia, but it should be

rememberedthat the Byzantine theme of Dalmatia included onlycoastal towns (and islands) but not the Dalmatian hinterland.Thus the Byzantine reoccupation stopped on the periphery of the

territoriesheld by the Slavs. But now that these regions were sur-rounded by a chain of Byzantine themes , by a series of Byzantine

strongholds n towns along their borders, Byzantineinfluence began

to radiate inland into the Slavonic countries.

The political strengthening of Byzantium which had begun in

the middle of the gth century created the conditions which enabledit to spread its influence into the contemporarySlav world. FromConstantinople and Thessalonica this influence spread far beyond

the limits of the Balkan peninsula. One has only to remember themission of the ThessalonicansConstantine-Cyriland Methodius to

Moravia, with all its great consequences, and the beginning ofByzantine missionary work in Russia as described by Photius, itschief initiator, as well as the adoption of Christianityby Bulgaria-a development of great portent for Byzantium.It was accompanied

by the sharp conflict between Constantinople and Rome-a hard

strugglefor predominance n the newly-convertedSlavonic countries

-which ended with the triumph of Byzantium.All these events fallwithin a periodlasting only a few very important years in the historyof the relations between Byzantium and the Slavonic world-anepoch marked by great Byzantine achievements, and characterisedby a powerful spread of Byzantine cultural influencein the Slavonicarea.

The same period witnessed a rapid infiltration of Byzantinepolitical and cultural influence in the Serbian regions.The course of

this penetration was both complex and peculiar. A decisive factorin the advance of Byzantine influence into the western parts ofmodern Yugoslavia, and in Serbia proper, was the strengtheningof the Byzantine position on the Dalmatian coast and the establish-ment of Byzantine maritime supremacy on the Adriatic Sea. By-zantine influence in these regions originated more from Byzantinestrongholdsin Dyrrhachium and in various Dalmatian towns thanfrom Constantinople.Its rapid penetration into these regions started

when the Byzantine fleet liberated Dubrovnikfrom the blockade of








an Arab armada in 867, during the reign of Basil I. The Byzantine

Dalmatian towns were then given the status of themes and the

position of Byzantium in southern Italy was further strengthened.

In the wake of such an expansion of hegemony there naturallyfollowed a marked rise of cultural and religious influence. Duringthe reign of Basil I, Christianity triumphed in the remaining South

Slav lands-as it had done somewhat earlier in Bulgaria (includingMacedonia). However, the final consolidationof Christianity n the

South Slav countries was achieved as a result of the activities of

Methodius s disciples in the Balkans, notably the popularisationof the Slavonic church services and sermons and the spreading of

education among the Slav population.It is incidentally worth noting that, when setting out on the path

to Christianity, far-away Moravia approached Byzantium for mis-

sionaries,while Bulgaria,the next doorneighbourof Constantinople,turned to Rome on a similar quest. But as usually happens in thehistory of states, after many difficulties, conflictsand personal trage-

dies, the normal state of affairs was gradually re-established:Moravia, to which Christianity had been brought by Byzantine

missionaries,was later attracted into thesphereoftheRoman Church,a change dictated by its geographicalposition and political environ-

ment; the south-westernportion of the Balkan peninsula (Slovenia,Croatia) also gravitated towards Rome; on the other hand Bulgaria,

togetherwith Macedonia, ultimately entered the Byzantinecultural

sphere.In Bulgaria, which attained the highest point of its development

in the reign of Symeon (893-92 7), Byzantium found a powerful

enemy and rival. Symeonclaimed the title of emperorof the Romans,i.e. a primacy and leadership which had until then belonged toByzantium. The history of south-easternEurope in the second andthird decades of the i oth century was overshadowed by the Bul-garian-Byzantinestruggle for hegemony. The neighbouring SouthSlav countries very soon found themselves drawn into this dramatic

struggle. In Serbia the cross-currentsof influence of the two greatstates overlapped and conflicted; finally, Symeon enforced a

solution by military means as a result of which Serbian resistancewas shattered and the country reduced to ruins. When he made afurther effort to invade Croatia, however, Symeon met with com-plete disaster,the worst defeat in his whole military career.

After Symeon s death in 927, which left Bulgaria exhausted bydecades of incessant wars, Serbia, restored under Prince Caslav,recognisedthe sovereigntyof Byzantium. This was how things stoodwhen Constantine Porphyrogenituswrote his well-known treatise

on foreign policy in which he maintained, far from impartially,








that Serbia and other South Slav lands had always recognisedByzantine sovereigntyand had never acknowledgedthe supremacyof Bulgaria.

Quite a new situation emerged, however, after the annexation ofBulgaria by John Tzimisces in 97I, following upon the risingof theCometopuli and the creation in Macedonia of a new empire underSamuel, which united almost all the Southern Slavs in oppositionto the Byzantine empire. The heroic epic of this empire is well-known. After a protracted and strenuousstruggleByzantiumemergedtriumphant, having won one of the greatestvictories in its history.With the annihilation of Samuel s empire, for the first time since

the Slavonic invasions, Byzantium restored its hold over all theBalkan lands from the shoresof the Sava and Danube rivers to thesouthern tip of Greece.

Yet the relations of thesecountriesto Byzantiumwereby no meansidentical. In some regions the theme organisation was introduced,which meant that they became Byzantine provinces under the im-mediate control of its military and civil administration. In otherareas the theme system was not set up and instead Byzantine

suzeraintywas imposed. The theme system was establishedmainlyin the central regions of Samuel s empire. A large theme wascreated from Macedonia with the adjoining portions of southernSerbia and eastern Bulgaria and was called Bulgaria-after theempire of which it included the central part. Thus the heart ofSamuel s former empire, Macedonia, was incorporated into theByzantine empire and into its administrativesystemas a Byzantineprovince. Another theme was created in the territorybetween the

Danube and the Balkan mountainsin Bulgaria-under the name ofParistrion r Paradunavon,.e. the Danube theme (which might havebeen formed after the annexation of 97I). Further to the westalong the Danube and Sava rivers another frontier theme wasapparentlycreatedwhose centre was Sirmium. No other South Slavlands were included in the theme organisation and consequentlythey did not become Byzantine provinces; they were only vassalsof the Byzantine empire under the rule of their own princes.

The Chronicle of Scylitzes confirms that such was the actualposition of Croatia; it states that the Croatian archontes (thebrothers Kresimir III and Tomislav) went to pay homage to theEmperor Basil II as to their sovereign, submitted their people tohis power and received from him gifts and honorary titles. A per-fectly clear indication of the status of other South Slav countries iscontained in the chronicle of the presbyter of Dioclea. Describingthe rebellion of the Zeta Prince Stefan Vojislav against Byzantium,

the chronicler says that the Byzantine government invited the







IO THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

feudal lords of Raska, Bosnia and Zahumlje to help to subdue the

rebellious Zeta prince and promised them rich gifts as a reward.

Thus the South Slav regions enumerated by the chronicler were

not parts of the empire, they were not Byzantine provinces, butwere governed by their own rulers. These were on the one side theunruly Zeta (Montenegro) which rose against Byzantine rule, andon the other side Raska (Serbia), Bosnia and Zahumlje (the presentHerzegovina).

However strong the influence of Byzantium on these lands had

been in the period immediately following the Byzantine victory,there was a very clear distinction between the vassal lands ruled by

their own princes on the one hand, and Macedonia and Bulgariaon the other, which had been turned into Byzantine provincesgoverned by Byzantine governorsand subordinatedto their bureau-

cratic control. Although Macedonia revolted several times, it re-mained for centuries under Byzantium, developing as a Byzantineprovince under predominantly Byzantineinfluence. Thus the centralBalkan region became the main protagonistof Byzantine culture in

the Balkans. Bulgaria also remained under Byzantine domination

for almost two centuries.In the semi-dependent South Slav countries,however, the process

of emancipation from Byzantine rule set in fairly soon. The first

state to rise against Byzantine overlordship was the Zeta princi-pality. Only a few decades after the fall of the Macedonian empirein the i i th century Zeta freed itself from Byzantine tutelage and

extended its power to the neighbouring regions of Zahumlje andTravunia. At the end of the century, in the reign of King Constan-

tine Bodin, Zeta became a flourishingstate and extended its hege-mony to Raska and Bosnia. As a result the focal point of oppositionagainst Byzantium was transferred rom Zeta to Raska. By the endof the i i th and the beginning of the I2th century Raskabecame thespearhead of all South Slav military action in the struggle againstByzantine domination. But though it was Raska that fought againstByzantium most fiercely, it was Raska that yielded to the influenceof Byzantine culture most completely. The degree of influence is

not determined by the friendliness of relations but rather by theintensity and continuity of contacts. Beginning in the 12th centurythe political aspirationsof Raska were turned towards Byzantium;Serbia s expansion was directed against Byzantine provinces, itsarmies made constant inroads into Byzantine territory, where theycontinually came into contact with, and learned to know, variousaspects of the Byzantine system of government and material andspiritual culture.

At the time when the Comneni dynasty reigned in Byzantium,







BYZANTIUM AND THE SOUTH SLAVS II

Raska offered the typical example of a vassal state. According tocontemporary Byzantine historians (John Cinnamus and NicetasChoniates), the emperorof Byzantiumappointed and removedfrom

office the Zupansof Raska; these princeswere requiredto recognisethe Byzantineemperoralone as their sovereignand to remainfaithfulto him; they were also required to send to Byzantium auxiliarymilitary units; insubordination, although it occurred very often inreality, was consideredtreason and rebellion. The enforced submis-sion was expressed n certain pre-determinedsymbolic acts, to whichthe great Zupan Stefan Nemanja, founder of the Nemanjic dynasty,was also subjected. After his rebellion against Byzantine authority

and his defeat, the future liberator of Serbia was made to presenthimself in the military camp of the Emperor Manuel Comnenusbarefoot,bareheaded,with a length of cord around his neck, holdinghis sword in the left hand, and to prostrate himself on the groundin front of the emperor.

After the reign of Basil II and the downfall of the Macedonianempire at the beginning of the i ith century, the age of ManuelComnenus in the second half of the I2th century represented a

new apogee of Byzantine power in the Balkans: Bulgaria andMacedonia were now entirely in Byzantine hands; large-scalerebellions, which had been frequent in Macedonia in the i ith

century,had ceased;the evertroublesomeRaskawasfinallysubdued;moreover, after victorious wars with Hungary, Byzantium annexedCroatia, Dalmatia, the Sremregion,and Bosnia. This new lease oflife of the Byzantine empire proved, however, of somewhat briefduration: it ended in i i8o with the death of the Emperor Manuel.

This short-lived revival of Byzantine rule did not leave any lastingtracesin those regionsin which Byzantineinfluence was not alreadydeeply rooted.

After a long struggle, Raska definitelyliberated itself from Byzan-tine sovereignty about ii8o. A little later the Bulgariansalso roseagainst the weakened Byzantium and formed the second Bulgarianempire. With the formation of independent Serbian and Bulgarianstates the epoch of Byzantine hegemony in the Balkans was over.

The weakening of Byzantine political control, however, did notby any means imply that Byzantium s cultural influence was alsoon the wane. On the contrary, it expanded in both Bulgaria andSerbia where the developments of the preceding centuries hadcreated favourable conditions. Although the political climateunderwent frequent changes, the Serbia of the period of StefanNemanja and of his heirsremained within the orbit of the ByzantineChurch and the stamp of Byzantine culture became increasingly

evident there.







I2 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

The cultural physiognomy and orientation of a feudal state weremouldedby the church; so waspublic andprivatelife, andeducation,literature and the arts. That great fighter against Byzantine power,

Stefan Nemanja, was a man of Byzantine cultural formation: heended his days as the monk St Symeon in one of the monasteries onMount Athos. His sons were also men of Byzantineviews and ideals:not only Sava, the first archbishop of the autocephalous SerbianChurch, but also Stefan who was crowned as the first Serbian kingwith a crown sent from Rome. Both of them wrote lives of theirfather Stefan Nemanja, which are completely in tune with the spiritof Byzantine hagiography.

The links between Serbia and Byzantium were not severed evenafter the fall of Constantinopleand its occupation by the crusadersin I204. Nicaea replaced Constantinopleas the centre of Byzantineinfluence and close links were maintained with the Epirus-Thessa-lonican empire. St Sava was ordained archbishopof the autocepha-lous Serbian Church in Nicaea. During its apogee the influence ofthe Epirus-Thessalonicanempire on Serbia and on its ruler KingRadoslav, who was half-Greekand the son-in-law of the powerful

EmperorTheodore, was immense.The strengtheningof Serbia at the end of the i3th century was

markedby a continuousstrugglewith the Byzantineempireand wasultimately detrimental to Byzantium. But this only contributedto further consolidation of Byzantine influence in Serbia. Thisinfluence grew still stronger when, under King Milutin, the con-quest of Byzantine lands by Serbia assumed more significant pro-portionsand a number of Byzantinetownsin Macedonia fell into the

hands of the Serbs. It reached its highest point when Stefan Dusanconquered half the Byzantine empire, occupying almost the wholeof Macedonia, Epirus and Thessaly. He subjugated the centre ofByzantine Christianity, Mount Athos, and proclaimed himselfemperor, openly raising a rival claim to that of the Byzantineemperors and founding his own empire of Serbians and Greeks.Inthe newly annexed southern Greek regions where the centre ofgravity of Dusan s empire was located, life preservedits Byzantine

character and this could not remainwithout influenceon the Serbianpart of his realm.

In addition to Byzantine religious and cultural influences whichhad been at work for centuriesbefore, the Byzantine state structurebegan to influence Serbia more and more with the increasingpenetration of the Serbs into the Byzantine provinces in Greece,and their growing familiarity with Byzantine civil administrationand financial and legal systems. Closerknowledge of the Byzantine

institutions and way of life led Serbia to introduce them gradually








into its own lands since they suited the conditionsprevailing nthe Serbian feudal state of that time, the social structureof thecountry,the nature of supremepowerin it, the relationsof the

monarchwith the aristocracyand the church,and the relationsbetweenfeudal lords and serfs.The adoptionof Byzantinenstitu-tions and of manyof their characteristiceatureswas possiblebe-causeof a certainsimilarityn the development f feudalrelation-ships in Byzantiumand Serbiaand becauseof a certainaffinitybetweenthe uppermostand the lowest strata in ByzantineandSerbianfeudal society.Wheresuch affinitydid not exist, as forexamplein neighbouringBosnia,the adoptionof Byzantine nsti-

tutionalformscouldnot be carriedout to the same extent.Thus,theByzantinepronia -the systemof beneficiaryrantingof landedestates-gained great importance n the Serbian state, notablyduringDusan sreign. It was preserved,after the downfallof hisempire,in Serbia,Macedonia, Zeta, in the Greekprovinces, nEpirusand Thessaly,and lived to flourishagain in the period ofthe Serbiandespotate n the I5th century.On the otherhand, itfailedto develop n Bosniawherethe aristocracywas too powerfuland too independentn its relationswith the monarch o allow theintroductionof a kind of conditional and ownershipunder thecontrolof the supremeauthority.

This surveyhas shownhow variedand dissimilarwere the re-lationsbetweenByzantiumand the differentSouthSlav countriesand peoples.The intensityand natureof these relationsdependedon manydifferentactors.The influenceof Byzantiumwasparticu-larly intensive n thosecountrieswhich had remainedunderByzan-tine rule over long periodsand were

incorporateds

provincesnthe Byzantine mpiresuchas forinstanceBulgariaandparticularlyMacedonia.Macedoniawasin factthe channelthroughwhich By-zantine cultural and political influence was disseminatedandoverflowedntothe neighbouring lavcountries.During hegreaterpart of her mediaeval-and also morerecent-history Macedoniawasruled by one of the neighbouring tates.Withthe exceptionoftheheroicperiodof Samuel s mpire,t did nothave theopportunityto develop its own state institutions.But the importanceof thiscentralBalkan area in the historicaldevelopmentof the Balkanpeninsula s extraordinarily reat. It was constantlyclaimedbyeachof its morepowerfulandbetterorganised eighbours nd, as arule,hegemonyover the Balkanswas concentratedn the handsofthatBalkan tatewhichhappened o hold Macedonia t thetime.

Apartfrom Macedonia,no part of present-dayYugoslaviawasdirectlygovernedby Byzantium or any considerableime, or in-corporated n the Byzantineempire. The other regions merely

B







I4 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

recognised-for shorter or longer periods-the sovereignty of theByzantine empire, which in accordance with changing conditionsimplied either actual or merely formal power. Still, Byzantium did

also to some extent influence the developmentof culturaland institu-tional forms in these areas, in some more strongly, in others less so.In the westernparts the influence of Rome predominated; in Serbiathat of Byzantium was more marked, although that of Rome wasfar from negligible. Serbia never constituteda part of the Byzantineempire, never became a Byzantineprovince; and yet it is impossibleto separateits mediaeval historyfrom that of Byzantium.Of course,geography too played a very important role, but this is not the only

consideration. The influence of Byzantium on far-way Russia-onKiev and even Moscow-was extremely great. The intensity of thisinfluence depended, even in one and the same country, at differenttimes, on the historical climate, the actual political situation and,as a result of both these factors, on the duration and closeness ofcontacts that a given country had with Byzantium; it also dependedon the internal conditions in the country itself, on the greater orless degreeof affinityof its internal developmentwith that of Byzan-

tium. Receptivity to external cultural currents is neither an acci-dental nor a passiveact. Culturalinfluences find a good soil in thoseplaces where suitable conditions are present; and such contactshave an active and fruitful effect only when they respond to therequirementsof the milieuwhich is absorbing them.

Byzantium and the South Slavs.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Byzantium and the South Slavs.pdf