Imagining Byzantium (Byzanz Zwischen Orient Und Okzident 11
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Aleksandar Ignjatović Negotiating National Prospects by Capturing the Medieval Past: Byzantium in Serbian Architectural History at the Turn of the 20th Century »It is a daughter of Byzantium«, proclaimed Mihailo Valtrović, like »Byzantium’s daughter« for Serbia as well as Byzantium a founding father of Serbian archaeology and architectural as a »Serbia’s mother« 6 abound, but paved a way for the history, on the occasion of the opening the annual »exhibi- entire interpretive tradition which reached its apex the in- tion of architectural, sculptural and pictorial documents« in ter-war period. The words of Milan Kašanin, one of the most Belgrade taken from a study trip to Serbia proper in 1874 1 . respected art historians of his time, are just one example. This widespread notion of a Serbo-Byzantine cultural kinship, Kašanin thought that »perhaps no country but ours was in which was also attributed to Valtrović’s collaborator Dragu- such close and living communication with Byzantium. While tin S. Milutinović 2 , revealed what would become a central not disregarding the infl uence of the West and Orient«, he question of Serbian architectural historiography in decades argued, »one can comfortably conclude that the Byzantine to come: the affi nity, even identity, of Serbian and Byzantine Empire was a country from which we inherited a major part architecture. Born on a tidal wave of the nation’s permanent of our cultural heritage« 7 . obsession with Byzantium, this metaphor of the closest of Even a superfi cial examination of the architecture of medi- family relationships became a model of interpretation that eval Serbia leaves no doubt that it was closely connected with dominated Serbian history in the late nineteenth and early a tradition usually described as Byzantine (fi g. 2). To question 20th century – not only in art and architectural, but also in the premise of the close Serbo-Byzantine cultural relationship cultural and political history. Apart from providing vivid and and the logic of its employment in historiography seems tangible evidence of the cultural and political ties of medieval utterly redundant. It is still believed that it was the apparent Serbia with the Byzantine Empire, Valtrović‘s argument went, Serbo-Byzantine cultural kinship that »naturally« spurred in- Serbian medieval architecture was also a sublime emanation terest in Byzantine art history 8 . »Serbian medieval heritage«, of the »national spirit« 3 closely related to that of Byzantium. a recent account reads, »originated in the Byzantine cultural And it was by these and similar accounts of ancient buildings sphere and consequently infl uenced its reception« 9 . This and scattered throughout the country – neglected and falling to similar statements assume that the interest in studying rela- ruin during the centuries spent under the »Turkish yoke« – tionships between Serbian and Byzantine architecture was that architecture became fundamental to the historical imag- formed and developed as a necessary consequence of histor- ination (fi g. 1). Since Valtrović and Milutinović’s times, these ical realities. Irrespective of the fact that causal relationships dilapidated and vulnerable monuments supposedly »refl ected between certain historical phenomena (such as architecture) the innermost as well as the external life of Serbian people« 4 and the historiographical construction of the past are com- and were deeply entrenched into Byzantine tradition. plex, the fact is that Serbo-Byzantine cultural kinship in the Several years later, Valtrović used the same expression to formative period of Serbian architectural history became a describe a historical process that had left a deep mark on central topic of historical interest. It was consequently con- Serbian national identity: »Serbian art is a daughter of Byz- verted into an unquestionable question of »national« archi- antium; all the monuments yet discovered mainly resemble tecture that still preoccupies Serbian historians. But was the those of the late Byzantine period« 5 . Indeed, the premise of historical »infl uence« of Byzantium on Serbian »national« Serbo-Byzantine cultural kinship was characteristic not only architecture the only reason for such an unyielding insistence of Valtrović‘s and Milutinović‘s writings, in which expressions on Byzantium’s central position in the national narrative? 1 Valtrović, Govor 14. aprila 1874. 342. 6 For the metaphor of Byzantium as a Serbian mother see an unpublished paper 2 Damljanović, Valtrović i Milutinović 14. by Valtrović kept in the Archives of Serbia: MPs, f. IV, p. 9/1880. See: Roter- 3 Valtrović, Govor 14. aprila 1874. 342. – Milutinović, Govor Dragutina Milutinovića Blagojević, Značaj 34. 195-196. – Milutinović / Valtrović, Izvešće Odseku umetničkom 408. 7 Kašanin, Drugi međunarodni 336-337. – Kašanin, Bela crkva 115. 4 Valtrović, Stare srpske crkvene građevine 24. 8 Makuljević, Art History in Serbia 463. 5 Valtrović, Studenica 122. 9 Makuljević, Inventing and Changing 508. Negotiating National Prospects | Aleksandar Ignjatović 109 Fig. 1 D. Milutinović, Church of St Nicholas near Lukavica, water- colour, 1878. – (© Historical Mu- seum of Serbia, Inv. no. 3693). Fig. 2 Church of the Annunci- ation, Gračanica, 14th c. – (After Umetnički pregled 3/1, 1937, 70). 110 Negotiating National Prospects | Aleksandar Ignjatović This paper investigates the problem of how historiograph- tively declared, »Byzantium infl uenced the political and cul- ical accounts of Serbo-Byzantine architectural relationships in tural history of the Serbian people and Serbian lands [sic]«. fi n-de-siècle scholarship dealt more with issues of Byzantium »Moreover«, he added, »despite occasional infl uences from as a value-laden construct than with historical realities in me- the West, particularly in material culture, Byzantium and its dieval Serbia. For between the late nineteenth and the early civilization marked the life of Serbian people, as well as their decades of the 20th century, the attribute »Byzantine« – not lands, so strongly that they far surpassed all other historical only in scholarly discourse but also in wider historical imagina- factors taken together« 14. He then elaborated on the dual tion – expanded well beyond its basic sense of referring to the role of Byzantium as Serbia’s cultural benefactor and principal Eastern Roman Empire. Rather, Byzantium was burdened with political adversary. connotations that defi ned the qualities of medieval Serbia as In this and similar accounts, Byzantium retained a excep- those of Byzantium’s cultural and political heir. tional position in the nation‘s history. On the one hand, me- A principal aim of this paper is to propose that the re- dieval Serbs were portrayed as having the closest of affi nities lationship between Byzantine and Serbian architecture was with Byzantine culture, while on the other hand the Byzantine used as an ideological tool par excellence – i. e. as an integral Empire was seen a constant threat not only to Serbian sover- part of the nation’s historicity and modernity, as well as an eignty over »national« territory, but also to national identity. ideological justifi cation for political formations and frontiers. This ambivalence was framed by historians who expounded In the context of Serbian nation-building in the late 19th and on Byzantium’s relevance »either as a master or enemy«, as early 20th century, which was inextricably linked with the idea a contemporary historian has put it, stressing that, in one of the restoration of medieval »empire«, the image of a past sense or another, it »was always seen as a role model of that would justify the country’s expansion and its eminent kinds« 15. Yet this ambivalence stemmed as much from the status regarding its neighbours needed a strong historical historiographical reconstruction of the past as from a global, justifi cation. Just as the attribute »Serbian« was widely used epistemologically unstable and (for that matter) ideologically among historians to denote not only the people of medieval useful image of the Eastern Roman Empire created by genera- Serbia but also a set of cultural values attached to a »Serbian tions of European historians who wrote after Edward Gibbon. nation«, the term »Byzantine« stood for much more than This was a context in which Serbian architectural history the Byzantine Empire and its civilization 10. Indeed, Byzantium operated: »Byzantium« was included in national architecture in Serbian national historiography was not only a historical by virtue of either closeness or difference, identity or opposi- phenomenon – whose chronological, cultural and even po- tion. On the one hand, Byzantine-Serbian kinship suggested litical frontiers and identities are highly problematic, as Averil not only shared cultural values but also an underlying idea of Cameron demonstrated in her recent study of the »Byzantine political and cultural succession, which was common among problem« 11 – but a set of ideological assets characterized by historians who developed a particularly Serbian variant of complexity and fl uidity 12. And it was this complex image of translatio imperii. They constructed an elaborated narrative Byzantium that became useful for crafting an idea of medi- in which medieval Serbia was to become Byzantium‘s polit- eval Serbia which would, and should, represent a predecessor ical and cultural heir 16. The differences between Byzantine of modern Serbia. and Serbian culture – and, more particularly, between two To investigate the problem of how architectural