12. Byzantine Studies in Turkey 2.0, with Siren Çelik

Welcome to the podcast Byzantium and Friends. I'm Anthony Caldellas, your host. One of the more interesting and promising developments in the field of Byzantine studies during the past generation has been the emergence of first rate Byzantine scholarship in Turkey. If you're active in Byzantine research, you already know this, but it sometimes takes longer for such developments to become known to more general audiences.

And in the meantime, Byzantine studies in Turkey has entered its second generation, a new phase that I'm calling two point o, with younger scholars pursuing a wider set of interests. There are many reasons why I find this development fascinating. I'll mention a few of them here. First, the countries in which Byzantine scholarship has traditionally flourished are currently drastically reducing their investment in historical and humanistic research.

usually through the false pretexts of austerity. So it is entirely a good thing for our field to have a new major player, bringing a number of new universities and research centers into the conversation, along with a new set of perspectives. The second one. The origins and basis of Byzantine studies in Turkey are configured quite differently uh from those in Western Europe and the United States.

In the West, Byzantine studies emerged primarily through extensions of classical philology, that is, editing of text. so forth. Um an interest in Christian theology, especially the early period of Byzantine history when Christian theology uh took its uh final forms.

and also an interest in Christian kingship uh or imperial ideology. And for those reasons the field of Byzantine studies in Western Europe and United States tended to focus more on early Byzantine history, uh which is recently renamed late antiquity. Um in Turkey, by contrast, the historical focus um has been largely on later Byzantine history, um the part where it intersects with uh Seljuk and Ottoman history.

Uh but also far less so stemming from uh philology and theology, um these are sort of underdeveloped fields in Turkey, uh in contrast to um fields such as archaeology, urban topography, studies of trade, landscape and in the monuments, uh the Byzantine monuments that of which Turkey is so full. And so the field is configured in somewhat different ways, and you see that Turkish presence being um asserted more powerfully with greater influence um in in those fields.

A third is one of the main reasons why I wanted to do this episode. Um, and specifically, it's to counter the impression that Western scholars, I mean Western or Northwestern Europe and the United States. To counter the impression that they are in some sense universal scholars, that is where all of knowledge is their proper domain. In a rather imperial sense.

Uh whereas scholar scholars from other countries, uh especially along periphery uh of Europe, especially southeastern Europe and Turkey and elsewhere, that they are working through their local concerns and ideologies when they're trying to engage with certain historical questions. I've actually seen re read these attitudes expressed um, you know, even about Greeks uh working on Byzantine history and so on.

In other words, if you're a scholar in England or the United States, there's no question as to why you might be interested in any part of the world of knowledge. But the perspectives of scholars from what I just call the periphery or They're often framed as resulting from local ideological concerns. And ironically, this imperial perspective is projected onto others.

Both when they are working on the history of their own country or culture, uh, for clearly they're not impartial about it, or when they're not, in which case Western scholars are puzzled, like, why aren't you working on your own tradition? Uh so if if you wanna think about this in a more concrete sense, think about how nobody questions why an American might be studying China, Byzantium, or the Aztec.

But if a Muslim scholar was to work on, say, medieval England or the New Testament, that would raise all kinds of questions, uh or at least eyebrows among some in the West.

My guest today is Siren Shalik, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. She has just submitted a long study of uh manual the second palologus uh to be published um soon and I hope to have a discussion with her about that.

uh when the book appears. But in the meantime I thought it would be fascinating uh to get her perspective on the new generation, the two point oh generation of Turkish scholars who are working on Byzantium. I have met uh a great number of young Byzantinists from Turkey in recent years And my impression is of course that they are interested and motivated on s in studying Byzantium for exactly the same kinds of reasons that we all are, that is intellectual curiosity about

important cultures and events that happened in the past. Um and I thought that her perspective would be worth hearing and um and and projecting to um all the listeners of this podcast. Uh so here then is my conversation with Sidanchalik. Hello Siden and welcome to the podcast. Hi, hello. So I understand that you have just finished your your new biography of Manuel II, Pelologos, and have sent it into the press, so congratulations for that.

Thank you. So let's just uh just start ab at the beginning and give our listeners a sense of how uh about the trajectory that led you to write, well, this new biography and you're working on a range of other interesting topics in Byzantine culture and history. Um so Why don't you just tell us a little bit, you know, what experiences led you to become a Byzantineist and uh and the trajectory of your sort of intellectual think of your thinking and your uh academic

Well, I mean I got interested in history and archaeology at a relatively young age, especially after I uh started primary school. But I didn't know much about Byzantium back then. I was chiefly more interested in ancient Anatolian civilization, especially the Hittites, because I was fascinating with cuneo farm writing, you know, the grammars of these Anatolian civilizations. And as side interests I also read things about medieval Europe.

Renaissance Europe, but the only book I had about Byzantium was a very thin one, and I don't remember being particularly intrigued by it, only by Empress Theodora's clothing. Uh but you know, as time progressed I became a high school student and adults around me told me that uh when I got to the university I shouldn't immediately go for a very specialized field. Because they told me you're a young person. What you want now is not going to be the same a few years later, you will get bored.

to study social and political sciences which is a fairly uh wide ranging you know department and uh we had a core curriculum which necessitated us to study politics, a bit of sociology, philosophy, quantitative methods. And as in the American system we were free to supplement these with electives. And I took my electives mostly in history and artistic

And when I was a sophomore, I realized that I was no longer that interested in Anatolian civilizations or in medieval Europe. I noticed that this wasn't going to keep me satisfied for the life. And as I was searching for alternatives, uh I uh heard a lecture on Aya Sophia by a art history professor, because I was taking a general course on history of art and one week was on Aya Sophia. And I was very intrigued by it and with the mosaics and everything else, so I went to my university's library.

picked up uh random books on Byzantium and started reading and the first book I actually read was Kazdan's People and Power in Byzantium. Uh I know that now some people criticize this approach, but for the time I found it so fascinating. I was so intrigued. And I went to the library, I picked up more books, I went back, I read more and more, and I became more and more fascinated by it.

And I would say after let's say reading intensely for about three months I was really hooked on by And I decided I wanted to become a Byzantine. uh because uh it was so different uh from all the other things I had seen until now. It was so complex. uh it stretched from fourth to fifteenth century so you had plenty of things to do. At one hand you had the late antiquity, on the other hand you had the dawn of the Renaissance. So it was chronologically very inviting.

It was Greek, it was Orthodox, it was Roman, it also had classical heritage. So it was all this amalgamation of different identities, different layers of culture, and I found it fascinating. And as far as languages go, I noticed that if I uh became a Byzantinist I would have to learn many classical and medieval languages, which was very welcome, especially Greek.

So I felt that for some reason this would be a very good opportunity for my future and it would actually make me very happy as a scholar. Uh but my university didn't have a Byzantineist. Our professors mostly focused on Ottoman history, so I couldn't take classes. So I was mostly studying on my own, reading whatever stuff I could find.

And uh that summer I did take one Byzantine course in a uh summer school organized by Harvard. But that was it. Apart from that I didn't have any formal training in Byzantine or late antique studies. And of course the same goes for Greek. Uh as soon as I decided to become a Byzantineist, I knew that nobody was going to admit me into their programmes without knowing Greek.

And since there were no classes I had to learn it on my own. So I self taught Greek. And I uh took private classes in Latin. So I did my best to prepare myself. And simultaneously I started corresponding with my late supervisor, Rutma Kritas. I had read her work and I found her very inspiring, especially on her works on law and literature, and I asked her if I were to be accepted, would she like to work?

as a graduate student and she kindly accepted, and as soon as I finished my undergrad studies I went to Birmingham for an MA to study with Macrites, and the year after that I directly continued with a PhD. and I started working on Manuel because I had already translated him as an undergrad. I worked on one of his letters. And the Ecras is on the tapestry of floor, which gave me a very, very, very hard time, I have to say. But I found this fascinating.

And when I arrived to Birmingham, finally I could access John Barker's wonderful book and read it, because my library back home didn't have it, but I noticed that nobody was really working on Manuel as an author. So it was largely overshadowed by his imperial identity and politics. Uh so for my MA dissertation I produced a study of his letters like network, uh style, uh conceptions, the information he gives us.

and after that it was decided that I should move on to his whole picture as an author, working on the total corpus. So I decided to write a new biography of him and this is what I did for my PhD.

Yes. So Ruth McCreathys was a wonderful person and I'm very happy to hear that she had such a positive impact um on your life. I mean it was a great loss for our field. Um when she passed away w d l last year. Let me go back to something you said. So you said you studied ancient Anatolian civilizations and the Hittites and so on. So had you actually studied the languages like Luvian and Hittite and so forth?

No, I mean I was a child at the time, but I did have a few studies uh given very generously uh to me by my parents about these languages. So I knew a few words how the languages were working as a structure, how were the cases working, what was the relationship to other languages. But of course I didn't know the language. I really wanted to have a hand.

Because I knew that Istanbul University etcetera was teaching these languages, but I wasn't given a grammar book because it was believed I was too young, it was unnecessary, and in hindsight it really was. Sure. So no I don't know.

You're okay, okay. I I I went through a brief phase of reading a lot about the Hittites, um and I which I find a fascinating civilization. And uh y you know, now that now that you mention it So I had read um there's Trevor Bryce I think had a book on the Hittite society or something. And and he says somewhere in it that the Hittite Emperor

were sort of hard working, you know, decent rulers who looked after their subjects. And he said, and I quote, not like the series of monsters who sat on the throne of Byzantium. Right. And that struck me. That was what a odd thing to say. And I I actually wrote to him and said which Series of monsters did he have in mind, right? Because I get the impression that Byzantine emperors were, you know, generally hardworking and okay, you

N not monsters. If you want monsters you look at Julio Claudian emperors and Tacitus and Suetonius or whatever, right? You can also look at the Hittites. I mean there were so many uh, you know, fights between brothers, sons and fathers, the U fetricite. Anyway, he never responded. Yeah, I didn't read this particular book. I was chiefly reading uh Turkish titologies, especially said at Alpsberg, because he also published things were that were more or less accessible to a general public. Right.

Okay. So th your opportunities for sort of accessing uh Byzantium while you were in Turkey, so they were there, maybe a bit limited on the on the linguistic front and so you had to self teach in Greek, which is impressive by the way. And To to jump from that into Manuel's ecrasis of the tapestry and the Louvre that it was a struggle as an answer. Oh, I believe it. It drove me crazy. Yes, that no, I I remember that was a struggle for me.

Um but nevertheless, I mean I have to say that I have been really impressed by the growth. um of Byzantine studies in Turkey and the really, really impressive work coming out um of a number of uh you know, Turkish publications and scholars. Um I I I this just wasn't the case. I mean when I was a grad student in the nineties

Um one didn't normally come across, you know, Turkish publications or studies by Turkish scholars that were just fundamental to, you know, whatever field you were working on. But now that seems to be fairly common.

Um you so could you just give our listeners a sort of sense of how I mean you're uh obviously a very subjective impression. Um n no one can speak for an entire country or or a field, but just generally how has the study of Byzantium in Turkey changed over the last sort of twenty years or Okay, I mean, but to add another cautionary note to your, you know, remark.

Also I have to say that I haven't witnessed many of these developments firsthand because it happened chiefly in the nineties when I was a child and I was not in the field. whereas many of the other Turkish Byzantine scholars who are let's say in their early or mid careers, uh, they actually witnessed this first hand so they would be in a much, much better and uh position to basically tell about all these.

But I know that. I mean the Byzantine studies in Turkey especially started flowering past the nineteen nineties. Uh before that in the twenties and thirties, yes, there was studies on Byzantium, but only on artistry and archaeology. Because in the early republic, uh areas such as Sumerians or Hittites they were also endorsed by the states because they were looking for basis for the Turkish national identity. and uh Byzantium never became a candidate, so it wasn't given the equal importance.

So mostly this development of Byzantine studies is not something that the state supported or driven, but something that occurred thanks to the efforts of individual scholars. And uh in the fifties and sixties we had of course scholars working on it. uh in Istanbul University, which is one of the cheat state universities. Uh they finally opened a Byzantine chair. In nineteen fifty five we hosted the tenth International Byzantine Congress in Turkey.

But I would say from what I gather and from all the things and all the people that I'm listening to, it really started sort of coming to the foreground in the nineties. then uh individual scholars tried very hard to, you know, gain public interest, uh to engage more students for the study of Byzantium. and in places like let's say Boazice University and later Koch University, we had actual Byzantine scholars.

who were teaching and of course because they were teaching more students got interested and they trained these students, they sent them abroad, and they came back, they contributed. Sutmore, so on and so forth. And for example, at some point I believe uh Boazich University even had a joint PhD program with Sorpon. And I know that they think that uh in the nineties this was more or less facilitated, uh, because the world was becoming more global.

So people were more how to say open to moving beyond the national history paradigm. uh the uh relationships, the political relationships with Greece were becoming more cordial. Whereas previously we had issues, you know, there was the problems over Cyprus. Whereas it seems in the 90s this was sort of starting to die down. And I know that in nineteen ninety nine, forty four years after the International Byzantine Congress, they organized a Byzantine Study.

an international one and this was considered a very big point uh turning point for academics. because it was only then that many academics actually understood the significance of Byzantium for Turkey. You know that um First of all, history is universal, uh anybody can be studying any culture or civilization, and second uh the the Byzantine heritage is a part of modern day Turkey.

because the borders of modern day Turkey are really the hearts of the Byzantine Empire. So in some other ways it is very, very relevant to modern day Turkish Republic. So it is chiefly understood that especially after that point, more and more academics and students and the general public started getting interest. And around the same time I believe RCAC, the research centre for Anatolian civilizations, was founded. You know, it also had Byzantine postdocs and visiting Byzantine scholars.

and around uh twenty fifteen Koch University and Bozic University, Salmussein is more or less established centers for Byzantium specifically. Uh so they started handing out funding to grad students You know, they started offering courses, uh specialized programs on epigraphy, uh on Byzantine Greek. For example, the Boazic University now organizes a Byzantine summer school every year for Greek.

and they were working on conferences. They established the Safe Gigano Symposium starting from two thousand seven onwards and it's take place I believe every three years. uh and the proceedings are published. Court university is also working on other projects like a big photo archive. They are now working on the walls and they are soon, I believe, are going to be launching a website about the walls of Constantinople, interactive map and the article.

So I would say after this point it just became bigger and bigger because also the more developments you have and the more people and the prospective students can have access to Byzantine books, Byzantine classes or Byzantine professors. the more and more they get interested in. Uh, because yeah. It is not only for specific or ideological reasons that historians choose their field. But students also mostly choose whatever is available for them.

I mean back in my own university we didn't have Byzantine coursa. But I had friends who were curious about Byzantium, but they eventually never pursued this path because they never took classes. they never had any professors to whom they could consult, ask opinions, they couldn't learn the languages, so they chose Teoton studies because this is what they're exposed to. They took classes

they found interesting words, they were influenced and inspired by their mentors, so on and so forth. Yeah, uh you know, now that I hear you saying this, um I'm struck by how Similar the situation is becoming in the United in the United States actually, uh though the trajectory is the opposite one because in the humanities here we're um we're losing faculty positions every year. Um and across the country. So every time this year around in the fall

I'm contacted by many stu undergraduate students who who w who want to talk with me about the opportunities for for Byzantine study in the United States. And a I'm noticing every year that there are fewer and fewer programs to which they can apply and those students have had fewer opportunities to interact, you know, with Byzantinists in their home institutions or learn Greek. I mean it's becoming fairly difficult uh even here.

And uh anyway, I mean I I would hope that the trajectory in Turkey is the opposite. The opportunities are increased. I would say so, certainly. Yeah. I mean it still needs to increase, so I would say this is only the beginning, but even in the last ten, fifteen years from I get her and from what I can personally witness It has changed dramatically. So now there are many programs, many people to consult with, funding opportunities, language classes.

publications that are published in English, in Turkey, international work being translated into Turkish. So I would say on the contrary, the opportunities are growing. And I know that many of the established scholars who were very, very pivotal in this change want to keep working more and more and expand this phenomenon to other universities, to other cities. So

I would say things are looking very hopeful for Byzantine studies in Turkey. That's very good to hear. So so what sort of subfields of Byzantine studies are more strongly established and which ones where do you think there's more room for growth? I would say in history, Byzantine artistry and archaeology are the top disciplines, which is to some extent is not surprising because all the buildings and the size and the heritage is physically there.

So our art history and archaeology is very well established. We have lots of excavations that are taking place, lots of studies of general artistry on specific buildings, specific cities. So this is I would say perhaps the field that is most vibrant. And many universities actually have specialists in it. History is another writing field that has been rather well developed. We have good historians who are specializing on Byzantium.

especially as far as the relations of the Byzantines with the Ottomans or with Arabs are concerned. These are topics that are especially popular in Turkey, but of course not limited. Uh but I would say that the areas that there is still more growth are areas such as philology, uh Byzantine literature, Byzantine philosophy, theology, and so on and so forth. Now uh classical philology in Turkey is also not a very widespread field.

So I'm we have a few state universities that have very strong classical departments and they do excellent work on classical Greek and Latin tradition. But they are localized. So it is not like every university in Turkey has a classic department. For example, whereas when I was in the UK, I noticed that it is much more common. Many universities have more or less some sort of a classical special.

And that perhaps has to do with the fact that, you know, classical uh philology was established in Europe in the nineteenth century. Uh whereas ours is a more recent development, like the Byzantine studies. All this big flavorment is chiefly the work of the past twenty five years, so it's very very young. So I think uh we need to expand the opportunities for students and specialists to learn Greek. And also for them and historians to learn how to engage with this text.

not only as historical sources, but also as uh pieces of Byzantine literature. whatever that means. So not only let's say reading a history, official documents or letter collections to get information, but also to know how authors work, what are the genre, what are some of the like common Cliches found in this type of literature, how to analyze metaphors, imageries, uh so how to learn that say to work with a literary text, an imperial oration, a work of hagiography, or a history.

I think uh we need to be working more and more on Byzantine literature. Sure, sure. But it is interesting to watch the discipline build itself up in in in Turkey in this case from different foundations in which it happened in Western Europe. I mean in Western Europe

The for a long time people were studying Byzantine materials not as Byzantinists, but the field gradually emerged largely out of uh classical philology and theology. I mean those those were the reasons why someone would, you know, be interested in Byzantium is to for the text Uh you know, German philology always needed more Greek texts to edit, right? And uh and for theological reasons, obviously, all the debates, uh the religious debates in Europe.

And not through archaeology, you know, or you know,'cause the those m materials weren't available. And it's interesting to see in Turkey the field sort of constitute itself um f first through the study of the material remains that are there

Um and in fact uh all of the recent volumes that are coming out about um especially Anatolian archaeology and cities and urban development and all of that, uh there's a lot of good work coming out of Turkey about these sorts of things. So it's a different view of Byzantium.

It's interesting to see to see how it'll happen. Maybe they can get some of those Hittite experts to switch over to Biz Greek. Um so I also wanted to ask you about sort of general perceptions of Byzantium in Turkey these days and

obviously different parts of, you know, Turkish of Turkish life will have different views of Byzantium, um, you know, ranging from, you know, perceptions in national history or official ideology to schools popular culture in movies, newspapers and academia and so on. I'm sure there's just a very wide range

um of of views. Um I'm j just to give you an example, I mean like a a comparable example, like in Greece, um, you know, Byzantium has been fitted into the national story And is considered an essential part of the Greek national story though it is it has a kind of awkward fit there. It was never a very good it wasn't a happy marriage, you know, kind of squeezing it in between the classics and modern Greek.

And there's still this kind of ambivalence about it, but it's nevertheless considered something sort of fundamental for national history. But if you actually become a Byzantinist, in Greece, there's a good chance that people will assume that you're either like some really right wing guy or something or closely associated with the church. Like like That's who you have to be. Uh you know, g why else would you be really interested in Byzantine?

Um and that's just a p peculiar feature of, you know, the the place of the field in Greece and I'm sh it's different in every other country. Um so I was just kinda wondering what you know, where does Byzantium fit into this sort of Turkish percep perception? I mean there are I would say multiple perceptions operating at the same time on by First of all, let's start with I don't know national history. A Byzantium, as far as I know, is not a part of the Turkish historical narrative.

So in high school, in primary school, elementary school, Byzantium is not really studied. It's not a part of the curriculum. At least I wasn't taught it. And I know that the previous generations were not. There are only a few passing sentences about, oh yes, there was the Byzantine Empire, the Seljuks came, they conquered it.

you know, and uh during the Ottoman civil wars uh the Byzantine emperors and rulers were trying to uh make the princes fight amongst each other and divide the Ottoman Empire and and Speak about the conquest of Constantinople, so on and so forth. But Byzantium itself is not an entity that is studied much in text.

And uh ironically enough, so as a young student, when I was reading about the Byzantine emperors who were inciting one Ottoman prince against the other, I had no idea who this was, so I was just reading. And later on I realized of course the chief actor is Manuel II, so he was actually there, unnamed, but present. Uh so I would say because it is not really studied in school, etcetera, uh general public is not really well aware of Byzantine.

Uh not because they sometimes consciously choose to uh you know, get rid of it, but simply because they're ignorant. They have never been exposed to. There was uh they have some passing knowledge of let's say Ottoman history, uh a little bit of uh about European history. They have notions about peace, but not so much about Byzantine. And uh I know that uh earlier on in Turkish movie

uh movies, there were lots of like uh cliche characters about Byzantine emperors and Byzantines and generals. So these Turkish movies were about the Turkish heroes, the Ottomans and the Selgios. usually handsome man with good morales and a nice smile. And they would fight against the Byzantines, you know, the the Byzantines, they would save their people. They would sometimes rescue a Byzantine princess who would fall in love with this hero son and so forth.

So when I occasionally come across such movies in T V channel Uh the they are stereotypes, you know. They first of all dress in very interesting fashions, sometimes even like Leopard skins and stuff like that. They drink a lot, they are the Christmas antime bad guys, they have this evil laugh, etc. So I know that in early Ron in the movies they were represented the Byzantines in a a sort of very, very antagonistic fashion.

And even today when they're I don't know, uh initiating new T V series, there was one for example that was very short lived about Mehmed the Conqueror. To some extent I would say the same stereotype is continued. Because aga again of course all the Byzantines were evil, they were drinking, they were making plans, you know, there were loose women walking around in the palace. So this is sometimes how the media and the movie industry portrays the business.

Yeah, I it's it's possible that if the West made movies about Byzantium it wouldn't be any different. Yeah, I suspect so, yeah. Yeah. There was um I I came across I don't know exactly how know how to describe this, but I came across what appeared to be some sort of slapstick comedy sitcom about Byzantium that involved some Amazonian women who had migrated from Brazil or something to the Byzantine Empire. But it was a Turkish show. Had have you ever seen this?

Uh is it called Carpe Byzance? Do you know the name? Uh how would that translate? It's like decadence Byzantium, maybe. Could be, yeah. I'm not sure. I know that there are two movies about Byzantium that were like parodies and satire. But I didn't watch it. Okay. Because they came out when I was young and after that I wasn't particularly interested. But I know that the academic community criticized them a lot.

Because even though they were just having fun mocking, they sort of advocated this kind of understanding of Byzantium. bad, decadent, luxurious, wanton, and so it became a established cliche. Right. But of course that doesn't mean that everyone in Turkey is thinking like that, even from the general, you know, public who are interested in history But I would say these conflicting ideas are very much in existence.

Together and uh many scholars now also appear on TV shows, debate programs, so on and so forth, and they try and explain that why such a perception of Byzantium is wrong. And so I would say more and more people are now gaining an understanding of but Byzantium what uh actually was. Not this sort of like comedy uh characterizations found in movies, but it's different. Yeah, yeah. Um,

Nevertheless, that's still an extraordinary investment uh in terms of uh you know, popular entertainments and media in Byzantium. Like I in the West there's really not much attention paid to it at all, good or bad. Um so that indicates that it's considered, you know, relevant to, you know, uh the heroic ballads of, you know, in the Turkish tradition or to the you know, national story or so.

Yeah, of course, because this is against whom the heroes are fighting, the Seljuks and the Ottomans. They are, yes. Yeah. Um I remember a couple of years ago here, um, there was a T V show about Attila. And um you know Attila interacted

with with both the Western and the Eastern Roman courts, right, in the in the fifth century. And in this show, this is only just a couple of years ago, the Western Roman court in Rome was depicted in traditional Roman a fashion as if it were in the age of Caesar and Cicero. But the Eastern Roman court was depicted like an oriental, you know, fantasy with

um you know, d dark rooms and incense and these d uh you know, black robed figures in the background and nuns and whatever. And even though you know these emperors are like cousins or something. And at the same time, it was just really weird, but anyway, we we have a long way to go in any country in in realistic representations of Azure. I agree, but it's going there. Yeah. We are going to reach that point someday. So another factor

that that's relevant would be of course economic growth in Turkey. Um and this enables more students to you know, study a wider range of topics or to go abroad. I mean if you send a thousand students abroad to study anything in the humanities or history, just by random chance some of them will be intrigued by, I don't know, manual Pelelogos, right? And

Not for any kind of structural or ideological reason, just because, you know, people's interests sort of naturally vary and And you get um um y they get drawn to Byzantine material just even just for the same reasons that anybody anywhere else would. Yeah, exactly. And I think in terms of economic growth, uh one of the things that contributed to the development in Byzantine studies in Turkey is perhaps also the establish of several private universities.

They were established and in turn they set up these Byzantine centers. So people actually supported our scholars who were trying to revive the Byzantine studies and funded them. So you're right. Now we have these centers which can organize conferences, you know, have lectures, publish books and also to financially support prospective students. So this in itself is of course very important. Yeah, how do how do private universities work exactly in Turkey? So are they they're non profit

Uh they're basically nonprofits set up for uh philanthropic uh purposes or how how exactly do they work? Do do you know? I mean perhaps I'm not the real the right person to speak about this because I don't know if I don't have any administrative experience but from what I gather more or less this is the situation. So it is non profit.

and uh big industrial families or like very wealthy individuals set up these universities uh pay for the buildings and everything and once it is established uh and when you have the students who also pay for their tuition, it is more or less like uh self running. And of course periodically I get they are supplemented by funds from the family or the individual who founded this university.

But uh none of them uh for example get only students who pay. They also give a large number of scholarships. Sometimes even more than fifty percent of a private university can be uh students who are fully funded. So this is the idea I get. Okay. So very much like the American model of the private endow endowed university. Okay. Yeah, yeah. Um so

Uh another factor that I think bears some discussion is um the fact that so Turkey would now be the largest cu predominantly Muslim country that's involved in Byzantine studies international. Um I think it's probably fair. And at the same time, um Byzantine studies in especially in Europe have traditionally had you know a very strong sort of Christian bias in in how it's written and um also with the kinds of expertise that scholars bring to it.

Um they either have a backgrounds in theology or New Testament studies and you know, the liturgy or you know, Christian art and and devotion. Um and you know it's it's fair to say that a great deal of the literature has a Christian, if not specifically Orthodox bias. So um I find it very interesting um to talk with um Turkish or any other scholars from a Muslim background.

as to, you know, whether this poses any particular kinds of either challenges or opportunities. That is is is do you see things about the field that y you think should be could be done differently or can be improved? Um or do you see something in Byzantium that you know, Western scholars or scholars coming from more Christian background don't necessarily see that easily? Um I mean just very generally I'm asking if there if you have any perceptions along those

I mean the one thing I think we should emphasize is that uh whether you're a Christian or a Muslim scholar, whether you come from Europe, United States or Turkey, it doesn't or maybe shouldn't really impact the reasons and the manner in which you study Byzantium. So abroad I sometimes encounter this assumption that if a Turkish scholar identifies himself or herself as a Muslim, then it is a big shock that they should be studying Byzantine studies at all, because it's a Christian Empire.

I mean uh Muslims can also study Byzantium because history is universal. You don't only have to study cultures and civilizations that share your religion, exact ethnicity, Uh, otherwise uh global history would be a very, very different thing. Everybody would just study uh whatever religion they believe in, only specifically to their national countries.

This is not like that. So uh there are sometimes assumptions that if you're a Turkish Byzantineist probably you don't identify yourself as a Muslim, you're an eightist, so on and so forth. But I would like people to know that there are many people who think themselves as Muslims and as, you know, normal scholars who are, you know, studying history as a universal product of humanity.

They are interested in this as scholars and they have no problems whatsoever studying a Christian Empire because they think this is normal. I mean if we really need to have a strong justification, it is a part of now Turkish national heritage. Previously maybe this wasn't understood so much. But now more and more awareness is growing about this topic because if you tour Anatolia, if you take a stroll in Istanbul's old city parts.

all you see are Byzantine monuments, so they even wonder who lived there before, you know, the Turkish Republic and the Ottoman Empire. So I think that this is actually a very natural thing. And when you emphasize too much, oh you're a Muslim, you're a Turk, how come you study Byzantium? I sometimes feel like is it also accentuating a bit the other

Because I understand that perhaps some thirty years ago, okay, the ratio of the Turkish Byzantineist is much smaller. But now uh I mean it is almost twenty twenty and things have changed a lot.

As you say, there are lots of Turkish scholars out there, Turkish publications, so uh I don't think that we need to explain ourselves and justify our notions of choosing by Some people indeed uh choose to s uh become Byzantineists because they say, Ah, in uh high school I wasn't taught about Byzantine history, I got curious. I saw that Byzantium was part of the Turkish national heritage.

But some people, like me, choose Byzantium for the same reasons that they would choose to specialise on medieval England or medieval China. They simply find it of scholarly interest.

Yeah, I think it's very important that you emphasize these points. Um I I agree and I agree entirely. Uh especially this whole idea of, you know, scholarly choices through affinity. Yeah, right? In other words, ah, you're Orthodox, so that's why you work on Byzantium or or, you know, y that each each group should work on its own, you know, territory or something like that. I mean that is it's first of all it's not

True. It doesn't actually describe what people are doing. For one thing, in the West there's been a long tradition of Marxist interests in Byzantium. And yeah, I mean I and and sometimes I actually do get these kinds of questions in the sense like, well, you know, what you're saying right now sounds rather sort of left wing. Why are you working on Byzantium if you have those kinds of ideas? Like what I just I it's hard to understand how you get from point A to point B.

But have you actually gotten questions like, Well, I you know, you you you come from a Muslim country, why are you working on Byzantium as opposed to, I don't know, whatever is more proper to you or something? Do you do you get those kinds of questions? I do. And I still get them.

times not even when I first started my studies but even three years after my PhD. Not always and not by everybody, but I still do encounter these questions and people sometimes seem to be expecting me to sort of attempt to justify this choice.

Uh thereas first, as I said, history is universal. You know, you can pick on any identity, any culture, civilization you may wish to because of some unknown reason. You just feel interested in that. And also to me now Perhaps because I saw haven't, you know, uh witnessed the first hand the development of Byzantine studies and how uh the lack of interest in Byzantium To me nowadays it seems very natural that a Turkish scholar could be drawn to Byzantium because

uh the you know territory of the modern day Turkish Republic covers the heart of Byzantium. So I say, ah this is so natural. Now I understand that uh before the nineteenth this is not the case.

and there is a lack of interest in Byzantium in Turkey. Some people associate it with a nationalistic Greek history and try to stay away from it. And I get that but To me at least, as somebody who sort of grew outside these developments and came to the field way after these had been established, I now think that perhaps this question is no longer that relevant.

I mean nobody is questioning a Bulgarian or an Egyptian or an Italian with the same fervor. Yeah, I I think that uh that fields in you know, benefit um from having, you know, as many people from as many different backgrounds working in the

um as possible. And and I think that I and I hope that Byzantium will become increasingly appealing, um, to, you know, people all around the world and that they will bring different perspectives to the field, you know, be in a certain sense, you know, Byzantine studies has been dominated by scholars from a very small number of countries who sort of set the agenda and set the terms of, you know, how we understand it.

Um and you know, some of those countries, you know, and it generally goes with, you know, which ones had the resources to establish universities and libraries and things like this, but also, especially in the sort of imperial Western countries That collected the histories of other parts of the world, right? And you know, especially in the 19th century. And there's this kind of idea that.

You know, a proper scholar has this kind of imp you know, the the Western imperial uh perspective. That's a the true scholar if you're like, you know, I don't know, in Paris or Oxford or something like that. But if you're from one of the other countries, like even Greece and presumably Turkey and so on, you must be working through some kind of issue.

Right. Yeah. Right. That that you're not you're not drawn to a particular field for intellectual reasons or aesthetic reasons or personal reasons or whatever, but there's some kind of of national narrative that's driving you to do it and there's some sort of formula that if you tell someone, you know, they'll un then they'll understand it. And and I've I've seen this is even applied to to Greeks and so on. Ah well they're just working through their Greek

It's like, well, no, you know, but there's these problems in these texts that are far more interesting than, you know, modern Greek issues. I mean anyway, I mean the modern countries have existed for a century, maybe two centuries. But Byzantium existed for eleven hundred century eleven centuries or or more, depending, and and its issues are just valid. Just in their own sake. So um and and and this is in part why I wanted to talk with you about this, because you just seem to be

you know, past any point of having that kind of um, you know, either ideological motivation or anything like that. You're just, you know, you um at attracted to Byzantium for the same reasons as anyone else. Yeah, but I ha again have to emphasise, I mean this is a personal thing. and you know, if I were let's say ten or fifteen years older, I would have probably encountered more resistance to Byzantium as a scholar

uh there would be no scholars around to consult with or fewer at least there would be no conferences. Uh when I decided to become a Byzantineist, Byzantine studies in Turkey were already flourishing. And there was a growing interest. So I never had to really struggle, you know, find finding funding, try to justify my choice.

to people I never really experienced these struggles so maybe this also influenced my outlook on the topic. That's that that's great to hear. I mean that um I I and I hope that that That's the case in more and more countries as we move forward. Uh because as I said earlier, I'm I'm not entirely optimistic about how the funding situation for our field is going to look in in the Western European countries for very much longer. And so it's good to actually have scholars come in

really necessary. Anyway, um So I wanted to talk to you also about the the way in which Byzantium is sometimes configured as Greek. um and and whether this is an issue. And um so so one of these ironies in history that I that I point out to people sometimes is that that modern Greece and the modern Turkish Republic

define their national independence in relation to each other. And I think it's it's the only case that I know in history, right, w w where that's happened. I'm there could be others, but I I just couldn't think of Um so th you know the Greeks have the revolution of eighteen twenties and the uh modern Turkey has the the um the creation of the modern Turkish state in in uh a century later, uh defending against a Greek uh attempt to take over, you know West.

Um so Given how Byzantium is is so often identified with Greece or with Greek things and and by extension that's linked sometimes to you know the modern uh Greek, you know, state. Um so I I wonder if those kinds of issues have come up in your experience of Byzantium at all? Uh not me personally, because as I told you, I came to the field much later and more or less these issues were solved.

But I know that in previous decades, yes, sometimes Byzantium was overlooked by academics because it was predominantly perceived as a Greek history. So it was like let Greek scholars work on Byzantium and let the Turks work on the Ottoman Empire. I didn't encounter this first stance because as I told you it was already established as a feel. But I know that the earlier generation of scholars had these kind of attack.

And yeah, they said this is a Greek empire, you know, it's not part of the Turkish history, really, so on and so forth. But uh now of course the world is becoming more global, uh stances are changing, and I think politically Greece and Turkey are now also uh having a much more cordial relationship than in the past. and uh more or more people are now drawn to history for scholarly purposes. So they understand that Byzantium is not just Greek history, but it is part of the Turkish heritage.

and it is also a y a universal empire that, you know, uh had a global impact because as you said, it lasted for more than one thousand years. At least initially it had huge territories, interacted with different cultures, so in order to really understand many developments that took place globally you need to understand Byzantium. So I think that now more people are aware of it and they ascribe less importance to the Greekness.

Yeah, and as a matter of principle we should say that that history should not be regarded as the possession um of any Modern country. Right. And and not just I mean obviously ancient and medieval history. Absolutely not be deemed the property of any of any modern state or modern ideology, but should be open to everybody.

And but I I would make the same case for, you know, modern history too. We we we simply can't have this siloed um state where everybody just kinda works on their own national history and and um unfortunately that's Still the case in in in in many places, including in Western medieval studies, which as a field it seems to be a sort of conglomeration of siloed national narratives. You know, we study France, we study England, we study Italy. Um and and I hope that Byzantium is harder to

um pigeonhole in that way and and to be made. And and you know, to to some degree there are there are Greek things about about Byzantium, but there are also other things too. And as you know, I I've tried to highlight the Roman um which I think was, you know, just as important and m crucially for this question, unrelated to any modern national narrative. That is, no one today is going to claim Byzantium on the basis of its Roman identity.

Um and I think that that potentially might, you know, make it uh easier to be studied in other places, not linked to some particular modern Anyway, I I don't know if that's going to um you know, h help with any kind of framework developing in Turkey um just to see it as Roman rather than Greek as a as a way of acting.

It might and it might not. I mean, first of all, yes now there is a growing interest and understanding about Byzantium also in the general public, but there are still people who are just purely ignorant. You know, they don't know whether it's Greek or Roman, they have no idea what Byzantium is. Just something that was around Istanbul and Anatolia at some.

Uh but uh the you know, this growing interest in the Romanness of Byzantium Mats I think might make it even more interesting, because they get to see how identity can be renegotiated it might also make Byzantium more interesting for people who are interested in the Roman Empire. If they perceive Byzantium more as a direct continuation of Roman history, this might by Byzantine studies a more intriguing field for them. Okay, well let's see how that plays out. Um I think that

Um I was recently informed um so one of my books is being translated into Turkish, but I can't remember which one now. Um but anyway, I'll definitely let you know when I uh when that seems to be gaining momentum.

All right. Uh so I have a a closing question um that I ask all of my guests, um, and that is if you couldn't uh recommend two books, uh just for our listeners to read. Not necessarily about Byzantium, anything that you've read that you think is great. Okay, first is going to be a scholarly publication. It is The Categories of Medieval Culture by Aaron Gurevich. It's a relatively oldish book, but I find it very thought provoking and interesting.

And the second is going to be a fun read. It's called Twenty Four Hours an Incient Each. They also have its uh counterpart in twenty four hours in ancient Rome, in ancient uh Greece and I believe one on China is also going to come out. Uh I mean it is not a scholarly publication, but it is a fun read. So uh basically each book covers twenty-four hours in one of these places. and it is told by the point of view from a different person every time.

So the first hour, let's say, is told by a Greek general, the second by a Greek housewife, the third by somebody who's in the Senate and so on and so forth. and you get to see a panorama of the society, the city and also how these lives interact. And I find it a very, very entertaining thing to read. Is this written in a novelistic format, like with dialogue? Yes, there it is on novelistic format.

But of course it has uh historical information that is embedded in it. So you get to learn let's say how the ancient Greek economy works, how are the messengers communicat uh commuting between cities. what is it like to be a woman in ancient Egypt? But it is like a novel, so I find it it very pleasurable to read. And you also get to see the own thoughts and emotions of each individual. So how are they feeling or what are they thinking?

Now we don't have a book like that uh about Byzantium. Uh you interested in writing these? I was just thinking about that, yeah. You interested in writing it? Yes. I'm Okay. Well uh who publishes these books? I don't know the publisher I'm afraid. I look them up. And I know that the ones on Egypt and China are authored by separate people and the same author wrote the one on Greece and Russia.

Okay. I'll look them up. Thank you. And could you just say a few words about your f your own forthcoming book? Um j just looking forward. I hope we can discuss it again when it comes out, uh whenever that is, but just could you tell our listeners what to expect? Okay, I think it is supposed to come towards the end of twenty twenty with Cambridge University Press and it is a new biography of Manuel the Second.

And uh unlike John Barker's book on Manuel, uh it is not only about politics But it is chiefly a literary and a personal biography. So I have for the first time uh worked on Monel's total corpus of literary philosophical theological work. So I discussed the issues of his self representation, the political messages he embedded into his writing. I trace some tr basically uh developments in his philosophical and theological outlook.

I look at some aspects of his literary style and also his personal life, his pastimes, relationships with his family, friends, his travels, and also I try to add some new insights into his governance and rulership. So that's um The end of twenty twenty.

probably be around it it'll be published by the time I get to that period uh in the history I'm writing. You know I'm I'm I'm trying to write a new history of Byzantium. Okay. But that'll be so and a book like this will absolutely be um necessary uh when I reach that That period. And b but but I I think it'll be out by the time I do that. Well I yes, yeah, I know what you mean. It'll be so long you know, by the time that book comes out you will have moved on to something else and

Oh that thing is still around. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Anyway. Um All right. Well no, I very much look forward to it and thank you C D for speaking with me again. It was a great pleasure and uh let's do it again when the book comes out. Thank you for the invitation and it was a real pleasure talking to you.