Russia and its history - A Byzantine sermon

Economist ^ | Feb 14th 2008

[Ivan the Terrible]

WHEN Nikolai Patrushev, head of Russia's federal security service (FSB), spoke to his staff to mark the 90th anniversary of the Soviet secret service last year, he made an odd historic diversion. “Those who study history know that security existed before. Sophia Paleologue married Ivan III, and being a niece of the last Byzantine emperor, paid close attention to questions of security.” Few understood what he was talking about.

The mystery was cleared up a few weeks later, when Russia's state television channel aired an hour-long film, “The Destruction of the Empire: a Byzantine Lesson”. It proved so popular that the channel repeated it and added a 45-minute discussion concluding that Russia could exist only as an Orthodox empire. The author and narrator of the film is Father Tikhon Shevkunov, reputedly the confessor of Vladimir Putin. In recent weeks the film has become one of the most talked-about in Moscow.

Russian rulers often appeal to history to justify their actions. Mr Putin revealed his interest in history from the start of his presidency, when he restored Stalin's anthem as a national hymn. Last year he promoted a school textbook justifying Stalin's brutal rule as a necessary evil. When other ex-Soviet republics commemorate Soviet brutalities, Russia treats this as a distortion of history. This week the foreign ministry held a meeting behind closed doors on the subject of “Counteracting the falsification of history aimed against Russia: a task of national importance”.

In the minds and language of the ex-spooks who dominate Russia, history is a powerful tool. The television film seems to be in that genre. In it, Father Tikhon is transported in full attire from a snow-swept church to Istanbul and Venice, where he exposes the West as a “genetic” hater of both Byzantium and its spiritual heir: Russia. The Byzantine empire's rich and cultured capital, Constantinople, was the envy of dark and aggressive barbarians from the West, who looted it during the fourth crusade in 1204. Modern Western capitalism, argues Father Tikhon, is built on Byzantine loot and Jewish usury.

In this version, Byzantium's first mistake was to trust the West (represented in the film by a cloaked figure in a sinister, long-nosed Venetian mask) and surrender the commanding heights of the economy—trading and customs collection—to Western entrepreneurs and greedy oligarchs. Using a term from today's Russia, Father Tikhon talks of some “stabilisation fund” when describing the achievements of one Byzantine emperor, Basil II, godfather to Russia's Prince Vladimir, who crushed separatists and sent oligarchs to prison. But even great emperors could have weak successors. (The film was made before Mr Putin chose Dmitry Medvedev as his successor, to be endorsed by voters in the election on March 2nd.)

The film's usage of modern words and imagery is so conspicuous that the moral cannot escape a Russian viewer. Instead of sticking to its traditions, Byzantium tried to reform and modernise, as the West demanded, and it paid the price. Worst of all, the West infiltrated Byzantium with harmful, individualistic ideas, which destroyed the core values of the empire—so the people lost faith in their rulers.

Sergei Ivanov, Russia's leading scholar on Byzantium, says all this lumps together a 1,000-year history of Byzantium and crudely extrapolates the result to today's Russia. In fact, the film has little to do with the true history of Byzantium. But neither history nor the values of the Orthodox faith are its real object. In the absence of any new ideology, it manipulates a story of Byzantium to justify Russia's anti-Westernism and xenophobia in a 1,000-year history. The film also carries an implicit message to Mr Putin: do not listen to the West, stay in power, close off the country.

It is of little concern to Father Tikhon, or to Russian state television, that the Russian empire gained most when it opened up to the West, not when it fenced itself off. Byzantium was always the source of Orthodox faith for Russia, but few Russian tsars looked to Byzantium as a political model. It was for good reason that they called Moscow a third Rome, not a second Constantinople. It fell to Stalin to revive Byzantine studies, along with the idea of imperialism, says Father Tikhon, approvingly. “He knew whom to learn from.” But the danger of manipulating history in this way is that its tragedies may recur.

[brooklyn dave]

When it comes to politics or espousing a political structure traditional Orthodox are basically living in a never never land. The Byzantine structure of government was quite pathetic (as a whole) although there were some good emperors here and there. In a nutshell, the Emperor and Patriarch are a mutually supportive entity. It’s not exactly a theocracy but definitely a system that espouses a state church having a big say in government. Russia definitely needs to more fully embrace her Christian Orthodox heritage, but embracing a fully Byzantine world view is not the answer.

[tbw2]

What they need is enough Christianity to return to at least sustainable population numbers, but not so much Byzantine politics, with the corruption and weakness it entails.