| |
This study is devoted to the analysis of the historical terminology of Byzantine chroniclers as a key to understanding the mentality of the era. The work demonstrates that the conceptual apparatus employed by the authors of chronicles (such as Procopius of Caesarea, Theophanes the Confessor, Nicetas Choniates, and others) not only described events but also shaped the worldview, reflecting the deep ideological, religious, and social attitudes of Byzantine society. The main focus is on how terminology inherited from antiquity (for example, barbarian, polis, tyranny) and enriched with new Christian concepts (heretic, orthodoxy, divine providence) was transformed, acquiring specific meanings conditioned by political realities, theological disputes, and the sacralization of power. Through a detailed analysis of the vocabulary related to key aspects of Byzantine life—imperial authority (basileus, autokrator), perceptions of the external world (barbarians, Latins, heretics), religious practice, social structure (dynatoi, stratioti), and diplomacy—the author reveals a close interconnection between language and mental structures. The research methodology is based on a comparative analysis of terms across a broad corpus of Byzantine chronicles. The results show that these terms served not only as descriptive tools but also as powerful means of ideological legitimation of power, the formation of imperial identity, and the drawing of boundaries between “us” and “them.” It is demonstrated how religious concepts permeated all spheres—including politics, the economy, and military affairs—turning historical narrative into a kind of theological-political discourse. Rhetoric borrowed from classical models but subordinated to the needs of a Christian monarchy played a special role, creating a unique hybrid conceptual framework. The analysis of terms describing internal conflicts, dynastic changes, miracles, and everyday practices reveals the perception of history as an arena of Divine Providence, where success or failure was interpreted as a consequence of piety or sinfulness. The main conclusion of the study is that the historical terminology of Byzantine chroniclers constitutes a direct and integral reflection of the mentality of the era. Each significant term carried a powerful symbolic charge, and the choice of vocabulary was dictated not only by tradition but also by contemporary ideological and political imperatives. Studying this conceptual apparatus makes it possible to reconstruct hidden models of perceiving reality, the hierarchy of values, the specifics of imperial self-consciousness, and the profound unity of religious and secular principles in Byzantine culture, moving beyond a mere recording of events to an understanding of the worldview foundations of Byzantium.
Keywords:Byzantine chroniclers, historical terminology, mentality of the era, conceptual apparatus, religious and political concepts.
|
LEGAL
INFORMATION:
