Discussió:Senat de l'Imperi Romà d'Orient

—Leptictidium (digui) 17:56, 16 oct 2019 (CEST)

Terminologia

En català, tant «Imperi Bizantí» com «Imperi Romà d'Orient» són correctes des d'un punt de vista estrictament lingüístic. Això no vol dir que siguin igual de desitjables. La denominació «Imperi Bizantí» és problemàtica per diversos motius:

• Endonímia/exonímia: «The Byzantines called themselves Rhomaioi (Romans) and had no difficulty in maintaining the claims to universal rule which had been energetically proclaimed by Justinian.» / «The Arabs called the remnant of the East Roman Empire 'Rum,' and the 'Osmanlis gave the name 'Rum-ili' ('Romeland') to the territory that they conquered in south-eastern Europe.»
• Anacronisme: Cap text català contemporani l'anomena «Imperi Bizantí». Per exemple, el Tirant lo Blanc es refereix a l'emperador com l'«emperador romà», mentre que l'entitat geopolítica apareix com a «Imperi Romà», «Imperi de Constantinoble» o, a molt estirar, «Imperi Grech», mentre que la Crònica de Ramon Muntaner li diu «Imperi de Roma», «Romania» o «Imperi de Constantinoble».
• Biaix polític: «In the 17th century, scholars in the West began to refer to the period of Roman history after Constantine as something different, designating this 'Byzantine', a reference to Byzantion (Latin, Byzantium), which was the classical predecessor of Constantinople and often a synonym for it. This terminology was influenced by a well-established Western anti-Byzantine bias, whose roots were in the medieval period, which viewed the West as superior. This terminology was useful in the attempt of these scholars to distance Byzantium from this Western heritage.»
• Biaix terminològic: «One could plausibly argue that the problem of decoding Byzantine identity lies in the fact that the term 'Byzantine', commonly used in the present to define the state and the subjects of the Christian Roman Empire (either since the time of Constantine I or alternatively since the post-Justinianic period), is a terminus technicus, a retrospective construct of scholars of the Early Modernity in Western Europe. This terminus technicus removes the spotlight from this society's normative self-designation, i.e. Roman, and thus imposes upon the modern historian a latent bias, namely the bias that this society's collective identity must be called and therefore understood differently from what its name denotes.»
• Falta de transparència: «Continuity between the Greek Roman Empire and the classical heritage needs to be emphasized because it bears on both Christian and Islamic civilizations. However, the word Byzantine hides this continuity. It is a word even less justifiable to designate the inhabitants of the Christian Greek Roman Empire of the Middle Ages than the word Indian is to designate the sixteenth-century inhabitants of the Americas or the word Iberia (now almost universally adopted among specialists in the English-speaking scholarly world) is to designate medieval Spain. The word Indian is an involuntary error resulting from an unavoidable lack of knowledge about an existing continent, but the words Byzantine and Iberia are artificial academic constructions resulting from ideology.»

—Leptictidium (digui) 17:55, 16 oct 2019 (CEST)