The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Byzantine alarm (review of the movie "death of the empire. Byzantine lesson". (shopping Mall Russia, 30.01.2008).

ot editorial offices of the magazine



"Will reconcile in awe and fear Who could forget a precept of love... And the third Rome lies in ashes, And to the fourth not to be".

Vl. S. Solovyov

The condition of historical science is characterized by an opi-satelnost trend, melkotemya, decrease in level of conceptual generalizations recently. On this general background by the pleasant historiographic fact an exit on TVC channel of the movie "Death of the empire can be estimated. Byzantine lesson" (TV channel Russia, 30.01.2008). His creator the deputy of Sretensky Monastery Tikhon (Shevkunov) reminds professional historians what functions of historical science consist in.

Since the time of Cicero the understanding of history as tutors of life was reached. The imperative of historical knowledge was defined by a formula — relying on experience of the past, to explain the present, to predict and build the future according to the reached understanding. The main objective seemed, thus, in formation of the historical theory.

The evidence of approach of a classical historiography was called in question originally within positivism, and then and postmodernism. The paradigm of historical knowledge was replaced. Disclosure of history as concepts was replaced by its giving as information. And here chaos of the information historical flow fell upon consciousness of the person. There are obessmyslivany stories. The person more and more loses understanding of the highest purpose. Both coast: initial — the past and total — the future — became covered by a veil of factual short-sightedness.

In this regard the movie by the father Tikhon is valuable, first of all, the attempt of recovery of meanings of historical process. It also caused in the methodological plan the greatest rejection from opponents. As it is possible, they are indignant, to extrapolate a matrix of the Byzantine history in relation to modern Russia. But whether the main objective of history as sciences also consists in this extrapolation just. Through a prism of the Byzantine subject the general consistent patterns imperial, and in essence — and civilization disintegration are determined.

Opponents wonderfully passed by the title of the movie. And meanwhile, in it the research plan was formulated: analysis of a phenomenon of death of empires. Movie about it. The Byzantine plot is secondary here. It is taken as the historical lesson restoring the general scenario paradigm of imperial crash.

There is a question of degree of community of the explanatory model offered by directors of the movie. Whether the Byzantine scenario of imperial disintegration in relation to a phenomenon of death of civilizations in general will be traced? So far, at the level of a working hypothesis, the answer is submitted affirmative.

There is probably an optimum of a combination of civilization traditions and external loans. Byzantium at a certain stage surpassed this optimum. Integration with the West turned back as a result threat for imperial

stability. At derogation from own civilization bases, Byzantium had no place to derive strength for rejection of the next external call. Without having found an internal support, the Byzantine authorities began to look for it in out of that only accelerated and aggravated disintegration process. Precisely so also other great civilizations perished. Excess of an optimum of integration with the external environment led to loss of self-identity, a civilization mutagenesis, growth of dependence on environmental conditions and, finally, in transformation of the people into ethnic substrate for new civilizations.

The movie restores axes of historical coordinates. The person is given an opportunity to look at the life not only in a narrow and individual foreshortening, but also in an allotment of world history. From falling of Constantinople 555 years passed. It would seem, hoary antiquity. However oblivion of history turns, as we know, into accident. So, Rome long time lived a reflection of death of Carthage. Oligarchization of Carthago statehood, the statement of spirit of money-making in it, became one of the most important factors of defeat of Carthaginians in Punic wars. Also military talents of Hannibal did not help. Rome, having gained a victory, became the godfather of former greatness of the Carthago power. Also the Moscow Russia acted as the godfather of Byzantium subsequently. After centuries about historical lessons of Carthage in Rome which wallowed in the abyss of libertinism and material complacency it was forgotten at all. But they were remembered by barbarians. The vandals who founded the kingdom in the territory of the former Carthago power formulated the purpose of the campaign on "the eternal city" as vengeance for Carthage. The revenge took place in 601 year. The history of death of the empire with an accuracy was repeated. Whether also Russia will wait for the same repetition? Or it, having apprehended past lessons, will find forces for internal spiritual revival.

It is surprising, how emotional reaction was caused in public consciousness by plots of medieval history. The liberal swamp began to seethe: "the political order", "Iron Curtain", "self-isolation", "a new autarchy", and even — "reconstruction of the Third Reich". The leader of a television discussion speaks about suggested in

relation of possible murder of the priest. To kill the priest?! For what?! Really for the historical mistakes made by it?! Concerning mistakes of the father Tikhon we will talk still further. But business, obviously, not in them. The movie extremely precisely placed accents on key, going from fight against unitarians (the first Westerners in the Russian history), to issues of disengagement of the public on national and majestic and cosmopolitan parties. The historical image of Byzantium made one of basic archetypes of genesis of public consciousness in Russia. And it is not accidental, the idea of the Byzantine succession formed the diskursivny basis of formation of the Russian civilization. Eliminate these patrimonial roots, and the Russian civilization tree will wither (already withers).

The polemic which is traditionally presented as a keynote of a public discourse between Slavophiles and Westerners not fully reflects the nature of the arisen dispute. Among the slavyanofilstvuyushchy intellectuals there were opponents in principle of imperial statehood of the Byzantine type. Some historiographers on this basis enlisted even Slavophiles in the liberal camp. The key Russian question is a question of statehood. From N.M. Karamzin the understanding was established that the history of Russia, first of all, is "the history of the state Russian". And the statehood in Russia, has, by recognition of many historians and philosophers, Byzantine, on the sources, the nature. For turned into a brand polemic of Slavophiles and Westerners another was leveled, perhaps, more basic dispute of "vizantinist" and "antivizantinist". Opponents of the Byzantine state heritage won a result. The negative and nominal value was assigned to the concept "vizantinizm". Byzantium got exclusively negative marking in a historiographic discourse.

The scientific value of the movie of the father Tikhon seems in this regard in rehabilitation of the Byzantine experience. Rehabilitations, but not apologetics of Byzantium. The opponents who immediately attributed to authors of the movie intention to glorify the far from perfect East Roman Empire in all aspects of the existence did not want to understand it. But the criticism of these imperfections also made a substantial outline of the movie. About what

apologetics can there be a speech if the problem of the analysis of objective factors and prerequisites of death of the empire is solved. Another matter — to decide on sources of the Byzantine destructions. Antivizantinista refer them to properties single, immanently inherent in the empire. In the movie they are defined as the introduced elements, deformations of initial model of development.

The reflection on the Byzantine history belonged not only to genesis of the Russian national consciousness, but also civilization self-identification of the people of Western Europe. It is possible even to speak about a latent Byzantine complex of the Western Europeans. This complex is mixed on a question of "primogeniture". The West, is stated in the movie, was the cultural periphery in relation to Byzantium. For modern West centrist outlook it sounds as a sentence. At the heart of the western expansionism the trivial inferiority complex is found. For historical consciousness of North Americans it got even two-layer expression. The complex in the relation to Europe also accumulated on the Byzantine complex of the Western Europeans at Americans.

The state which is traditionally called Byzantium in fact was called the Roman Empire. Adherents of West centrism tried and try to veil this name in every possible way. The Roman Empire, according to a Christian historiosophy, will be the world kingdom, the last in the history, directly preceding establishment of the God's Kingdom. The West was jealous to "empire of Romeev", itself trying on on itself vestments of the world power. The name Byzantium has the Western European origin. It, as we know, is derivative from Byzantium — the Greek country town renamed at will of the emperor Konstantin into Constantinople. Distribution on all empire of this designation had to is obvious to emphasize his provincialism, peripheries-nost. Russians, for comparison (feel a difference) called the imperial capital not Vizanty, and even not Constantinople, but Tsargrad.

Also use of a marker the East Roman Empire is historically incorrect. The world empire cannot be neither east, nor western, it exists in

singular. Without any geographical localizations, the power of the Constantinople basilevs was called as Roman Empire. During the blossoming at Justinian I the Byzantine state extended the power to all former Roman eykumena, having turned the Mediterranean Sea into the inland sea.

Along with other lands Italy also was a part of the empire. Shabby Rome hierarchically submitted to new Rome — to Constantinople. Out of imperial borders in Western Europe there was a zone of resettlement of the German barbarians. Inclusion them in the Byzantine cultural area generated political ambitions. These ambitions were embodied in the act of establishment of own Roman Empire. "We — Germans proclaimed — and not Greeks at all, there are true godfathers of fallen Rome". From this claim the statement, absurd for Christian outlook, about simultaneous existence of two Roman empires — east and western was also produced. One had to be recognized as a result of illegitimate.

Destruction of Constantinople by crusaders in 1204 was a final chord of the political usurpation made by the West. The sacred Roman Empire the German nation (its sanctity, "rimskost" and "imperialness" traditionally raised great doubts) existed, as we know, prior to the beginning of the 19th century and was abolished only by Napoléon I. However on it the history of great usurpation did not come to the end. The subsequent globalization expansion of the West realized, in fact, a former paradigm of creation of the world Roman Empire. The modern globalism illustrates fully the deformed understanding by the western person of essence of the Byzantine heritage. Authors of the movie specify that, having apprehended on the understanding, mainly, material aspect of life of Byzantium, the person of the West started designing of exclusively materialized system of the universe.

The traditional, going in centuries, western rejection of Russia also goes back to a patrimonial trauma of the West, an inferiority complex of the former barbarians. Russia as the direct godfather of Byzantium (the godfather, first of all, concerning the Byzantine Orthodoxy) the fact of the existence serves uka-

a zaniye to the Western world on the usurpation made by it, on illegitimacy of zapadnichesky neoimperial expansion.

"Byzantium — Gleb Pavlovsky corrects authors of the movie — not the Western Europeans, but Turks ruined". About same also other opponents hurry to remind. However in Russia it was considered to be that fall of Byzantium happened not in 1453 — date of capture Fur honey II of Constantinople, and in 1439 when the Constantinople patriarchy adopted the Ferraro-Florentiysky union. Spiritual falling of the empire preceded its physical falling. The second Rome fell, having given up on orthodox belief. With adoption of the union the idea of a special Byzantine civilization mission was lost. After that there was no internal resource left for reflection of the Turkish aggression any more.

Falling of the capital in itself does not mean death of a civilization yet. Another thing is that Byzantium did not have spiritual powers for national release, especially for new construction of the empire. These forces were etched as a result of overdose by zapadnichesky injections.

Opponents saw political involvement of the movie in reasonings on the special system of succession of the higher imperial authority existing in Byzantium and in updating during the periods of crises of a question of the successor. But in that case concerning the Russian authorities it would be possible to accuse of political engagement also André Guillou, the historian of school of "Annals", the author of the book "Byzantine Civilization" picturing the permanent crisis of inheritance of a throne continuing in the empire several centuries. If not date of publication of the book which was issued for the first time for a third of century prior to presidential elections in Russia 2008. "The concept of the emperor elected God — the French historian wrote — in principle excluded any rules of inheritance, but believe that the holder of the absolute power sovereign, could appoint the successor and the co-governor, considering, however, lawful forms of receiving the power, that is having secured with support of the senate and army". (A. Guillou. Byzantine civilization. Yekaterinburg, 2007. Page 103). And in general the question of succession of the power is not the especially Russian and even not Byzantine problem, but a universal paradigm of providing long-term policy.

One more historical extrapolation critics estimated the statement of authors of the movie about value of providing preferences to the foreign trading companies, blasting for Byzantium — to Venetians and genoeses. "Why — G. Rev-zin is perplexed, for example — the rights granted to the western dealers are interpreted in the movie as distribution of bases of richness of the state to foreign businessmen". "It is trade did not bring a large income — the opponent represents the explanations — she was given to foreigners because expenses many times exceeded profit. However, genoeses and Venetians on this trade were quickly enriched — well two wild break-in when their quarters in Constantinople just cut out so as a result followed". Here and all history of foreign business before the same Venetians and genoeses in revenge plundered Constantinople in 1204.

To events of 1453 when Constantinople fell from Turks, it has approximately the same relation as existence of the German settlement at Peter the Great to problems of today's Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization". But here the opinion Byzantine philosophy and the historian of the 14th century Nikifor Grigor, one of first writing a story of Byzantium during the period the subsequent to capture by crusaders of Constantinople in 1204, essentially disperses from G. Revzin's opinion given a doctrine shape. "Quite so — the Byzantine thinker in connection with the decision on decrease in the customs duties concerning merchants of some of the foreign cities wrote — to the latinena dexterously stole not only all riches of Byzantines and almost all income from the sea, but also all riches which went to treasury of the governor". (A. Guillou. Byzantine civilization. Page 148).

Could not do, naturally, without zlosloviya concerning use in the movie of the modernized terminological design — "stabilization fund of Vasily II". Any stabilization fund, critics correct, in the 11th century could not exist. Of course, the term Stabilization Fund in Byzantium was not used. But unless the historical science has to limit the conceptual framework to especially dictionary set of the studied era? Also such concepts as "the Byzantine society" and "the Byzantine civilization" were not used in the 11th century. So, following

logic of opponents, it is necessary to withdraw them from circulation? Functionally stabilization fund, in the form of promptly grown imperial treasury, at Vasily II really existed. "Palace treasury — the contemporary scientist-Encyclopaedist Mikhail Psell wrote about activity of the emperor it — it increased up to two hundred thousand talents... Everything, than ivira and Arabs, Celts and Scythians, all treasures of the pagan countries surrounding the empire owned, he aggregated and enclosed in royal treasury. There he sent and there stored the money taken from those who against it rose and was beaten. When in specially constructed storages there was not enough place, he ordered to dig underground labyrinths, like the Egyptian crypts, and hid a considerable share of collected in them. It, however, did not use the treasures, and the most part of gemstones, white, called pearls, and multi-color, were not inserted into crowns and necklaces, and lay dumped on the earth". (A. Guillou. Byzantine civilization. Page 151). Stored in Constantinople, in the form of gold and gemstones, the stabilization capacity of stabilization fund of Vasily II, was even higher, than in similar structure of modern Russia.

Whether Byzantium in the principle minimize trade relationship with the West could? Yes, could. An internal economic need for increase in goods turnover with the Western European states at it was not had. Europe could not give Byzantium anything of that kind, than she did not possess. The Byzantine empire represented a self-sufficient world economic system. Destruction of this self-sufficiency also was strategic activity in Byzantium of the western trade and merchant capital. For withdrawal of charges of bias we will address the book by André Guillou again: "In 1082 Alexis I weakened by war against Turks, cracked by invasion in the Balkans and the attack of Normans in Epirus under the threat of Norman invasion asked financial aid and the fleet for Venice. Ten years after that the emperor paid debts, allowing Venice to pay in some cities 10 percent from profit that attracted to the empire of other dealers. Venetians took in Constantinople the vacant position of Amalfi made after Norman an ox soon -

neniye. In 1111 Pisa acquired the right to pay 4 percent customs fee and to create the trading station in Constantinople. Less than a one century later genoeses, in turn, settle in the Byzantine capital and gradually Venetians try to obtain the same customs privileges, as. Emperors many times tried to cancel the privileges of Italians, but were forced to restore them. So, large trade was let go, in Constantinople the real colonies with the administration appear, but at the same time they pay big collecting, often any which compensate reduction of taxes. Rivalry between the Italian trading stations became the reason of constant disorders in Constantinople which demanded heavy expenses on the maintenance of goods in warehouses. The hostility to latinyana which developed into beating "western" in 1182 and burning of their quarters increased in the capital. Italians in reply ruined the coast of the empire and soon again there were in the Gulf Golden Horn with former privileges and a claim, especially Venetians, to control not only economic activity of the empire, but also the state: capture of Constantinople designated by latinyana in 1204 the new power in trade life of the empire — Venetian". (A. Guillou. Byzantine civilization. Page 310 — 311).

"But all this — G. Revzin specifies — occurred till 1204, and Turks destroyed Byzantium in the 15th century". "Foreign dealers — the French historian answers — floated in the Gulf Golden Horn till 1453 and the Byzantine government gave concessions on the eve of a siege of Constantinople to new foreign trading stations". (A. Guillou. Byzantine civilization. Page 312).

Not less stabilization fund use in it in relation to Byzantium of the term oligarchs revolts critics of the movie. Indignation it is absolutely vain. The term "oligarchs" was used, as we know, even in Platon and Aristotle's works and least of all fits the definition of conceptual modernization. The call of oligarchization of the state historiographically is recognized as one of the most burning issues of internal development of Byzantium. This problem closely coordinated with the successor's question designated above on occupation imperial pre-

table. In Byzantium, the visible German vizantinist H.G. Beck specified, there were whole kliyentela proposing the candidate for the presidency including the emperor's post. Some Byzantine bochag tried to obtain from the authorities of partial and even absolute immunity in relation to the territories, i.e. is right not to submit to all-imperial state institutes and legislative rules. G.G. Litavrin positioned as the patriarch of a domestic vizantini-stika by consideration of a condition of the Byzantine empire in the second half of the VII—XII centuries, reconstructs the content of internal political fight in the state as follows: "The first fema in Asia Minor had the huge sizes. Their strategists, having quickly realized the power, dreamed of mastering a throne or of full independence of Constantinople. Using completeness of the power in the hands, the femny nobility went on the way of creation of large manors. The conflict of two main groups of a ruling class, the military aristocracy and civil nobility, for political prevalence was started in the state. As a matter of fact, it was fight for two various ways of development of the feudal relations: the capital bureaucracy disposing of means of treasury sought to limit growth of large land tenure, to strengthen podatny bends whereas the femny nobility saw the prospects of the strengthening in every possible development of privately owned forms of operation. Rivalry of "commanders" and "bureaucrats" will become for four centuries a core of internal political life of the empire. At this stage it was still only a dangerous episode. Rather easily the "bureaucrats" headed by the emperors coming, by the way, from the femny nobility, i.e. before capture of a throne who were "commanders" won. (Culture of Byzantium (second half of UP-HP of century). Page 23).

However further the priority was more and more displaced from the state bureaucracy to groups of the aristocracy. Already at Komninakh, the historian notes, the main social support of the imperial power was made by the large provincial agricultural nobility. "The era of domination of the high-ranking nobility came to the end — G.G. Litavrin summarized a result of political development of Byzantium of the considered period. — Provincial magna-

you fought not for an empire throne now, and for independence of Constantinople, for separation from the state. Process of registration of the closed estate of the largest feudal lords accelerated. The principle of vertical social mobility lost value: access to strangers to ranks of the highest aristocracy was blocked. There was large family childbirth (clans) of the aristocrats united by family bonds and the whole system of personal and office communications which played a role of an additional factor of unity of forces of the military nobility". (Culture of Byzantium (second half of unitary enterprise — HP of century). Page 32).

The most shocking in anaxial vatelsnosti from all charges brought to authors of the movie was charge of promotion of fascism. The logic of gluing of this label is surprising. Otherwise as thinking pathology stereotypes of antagonistic vision of the world it is impossible to classify it: if you deny a paradigm for-padnocentrizma and the related set of values, therefore, can be carried to the Russian nationalists. In fact, the movie just also warns against etnokra-tichesky hobbies.

The ethnonational principles of the state construction belong to peculiar features of history of the Western European people. In special conditions of Western Europe, at dispersal of the people on the local national apartments, implementation of the doctrine of the state — the nation was possible. Further it began to be presented as the certain universum imposed as a role model for the whole world. However any of existing historically empires was not ethno-kratichnoy. Monoetnizm contradicts the nature of the imperial organization. Polietnichna on the of the internal organization was also Byzantium.

Grekofikation of the empire became one of the most important factors of its disintegration. The civilization mission decreased to the level of understanding of ethnic interests. In response to the amplified Greek prevalence the peripheral people of the empire lift an eretichestvo banner. Religious heresies act in this case as separatism ideology. Turks could not gain a victory if the Byzantine people remained

consolidated. However consolidation by 15th century was already lost. Defeat of 1453 was defeat of Greeks, but not romeev. The Greek nationalism worked for destruction of the romeysky power. Paradoxically of effort of the Byzantine Westerners and Byzantine nationalists had in unison. Fascism for Russia, it was meant in the movie, it is so disastrous, as well as zapadnichesky reforming.

"Death of the empire" is a movie alarm. Its sounding is addressed to Russia. Whether the Russian governments will apprehend the Byzantine lesson? Whether the Russian people will hear an alarm sound? GDP growth, stream of petrodollars, sverkhvy-

the soky electoral ratings of the national political leader — it would seem, nothing portends a trouble. However the internal break, exhaustion of vital potentials is behind external success. The proliferation does not correspond to high-quality development.

Illusion of prosperity ruined historically not one empire. Whether Russia is capable to realize a call of the approaching accident? The answer to a question stays behind scenes. Byzantium died when from the beginning of accession to the throne of Constantine the Great passed 1147. The history of Russia from formation of the Old Russian state contains 1146. Time to think of the Byzantine lessons...



According to the plan of carrying out scientific both academic and research conferences and the order of the rector of the university the Department of psychology of humanitarian faculty held on May 22-23, 2008 an academic and research conference "Creativity psychology: a psychologo - a social discourse", devoted to Day of Slavic writing.

At a conference questions of modern knowledge of the nature and essence of intelligence and creativity as active sphere of psychosocial development, problem of innovative technologies of formation of creativity in educational activity are considered.

On plenary and section sessions 29 reports on the main areas of work of a conference were submitted: teoretiko-methodological problems of development of creativity, a psychologo students have social technologies of formation of ability to creative search and thinking, creativity in the sphere of tourism, service and business. Upon termination of work of sections the resolution of a conference is adopted.


Training of specialists in the field of tourism and service in the conditions of innovative economy puts forward requirement of the maximum approach of education to practice inquiries. Requirements to professional qualities of the personality are supplemented with need of formation of ability of adoption of creative decisions, uses of knowledge, abilities and personal qualities for successful activity in the social environment.

University education promotes formation of the specific properties of a kog-nitivnost directed to the non-standard solution of the set educational tasks. In this regard it is necessary to conduct a research of the questions connected with training in abilities to creative thinking, increases in cognitive activity, level of creative endowments.

Studying ontology of creativity, ability to creativity, intelligence and creativity is one of current problems of theoretical and applied psychology. Basis

Edgar Oliver William?
Other scientific works: