HIST308 Final Paper Philip Gajos 301064566

Basileia ton Romaion: Byzantine or Roman?

There has been one endearing question in Byzantine studies that has been argued over by historians and continues to be the subject of current debate; the question is simply, was the empire centered in Constantinople and its citizen Byzantine as the modern term implies, or were they Roman in their continuation of the legacy which they claimed to be the direct successors of? This of course has no straightforward answer in itself and demands a deeper evaluation of the qualities that set the eastern heir of Rome apart from its great predecessor. Though the exact dates of a specific transition into an Eastern Roman Empire are also a matter of debate, whether one recognizes it in Constantine the Greats reign or in the fall of the western half of the empire in 476, by the reign of Justinian it can be agreed that the empire was firmly changing in character and a new Byzantine identity for this eastern half was forming. During Justinians reign, Gaul, parts of Italy, and most of Spain were no longer under Constantinoples authority but the memory of the Roman Empires long standing territorial boundaries were still a fresh reality that Justinian was willing to pursue and restore. Though this never occurred, and shortly after his reign the Empire entered a period of decline losing core provinces forever, the idea of former imperial territory and defensive wars to restore them remained persistent through Byzantiums history. Along with the obvious geographical differences between imperial Rome and the Byzantine Empire, another clear distinguishing feature that set the two apart was religion. Byzantium had been built upon a firm Christian foundation that had begun in the late Roman period and eventually became one of the biggest identifying features of Byzantium. Greek would also supplant another defining Roman feature of the Roman Empire, as the main Latin speaking areas were lost. Though all these things compounded to form the Byzantine

HIST308 Final Paper Philip Gajos 301064566

Empire with a unique identity that set it apart from its predecessor, the idea of Romanitas and Roman-ness persisted throughout the entire Byzantine period, well into and after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans. This is what perhaps most clearly identifies the notion of Byzantine, as the eastern empire continued with its Roman legacy building upon it in an evolving new context, but never forgetting its Roman origins. Early modern scholarship has contributed much to the ostracizing of the Byzantine tradition and its direct connection to Roman history. Having its roots in the crusades and before, Western European thought has shown a trend toward pushing Byzantium away from its Roman past and instead lining it with the idea of the East, something foreign and disconnected from the civilized post-Roman world, almost barbaric and more equal to other infidels like Muslims that formed this oriental identity. This sort of competition for the Roman legacy by the West can be traced back to the empire of Charlemagne, who after claiming the imperial crown laid the foundation for the Holy Roman Empire, which through its very namesake claimed direct succession from the empire of the Romans though it was centered mainly in Germany. The schism between the Eastern and Western churches in 1051 did not help relations for their political counterparts either. Abstaining from the authority of the Popes in Rome, the Orthodox Church and its Patriarch in Constantinople became one of the defining features of the Byzantine Empire that outsiders recognized; well after the Ottoman takeover, Orthodox churches became some of the only physical reminders of the state that had once controlled the eastern Mediterranean. The crusades further created East-West tension as it quickly became clear that Western Crusaders had very different ambitions from the Byzantines who hoped to regain former Roman lands lost to the Arabs. This mounting tension and worsening relations resulted in the sacking of Constantinople and the creation of the Latin Empire which spelt out doom for the

HIST308 Final Paper Philip Gajos 301064566

already weakened Byzantine state. After Byzantiums fall in 1453 the West was able to continue the Roman tradition and classical culture that saw a revival during the Renaissance, while later authors of the Enlightenment period further discredited the Byzantine inheritance of the Roman legacy. A valuable work of one such author comes to us from Edward Gibbon, who wrote his history The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1776 and contributed to modern Western attitudes towards the Byzantines and their connection to the old Roman state. Throughout his work Gibbon exalts the Romans and their achievements, but also reduces their successors to Greeks who did little more than impute the triumphs of Rome.1 He describes the Romans by ambitious design of conquest, political virtues of prudence and courage and sometimes vanquished in battle [but] always victorious in war.2 In his descriptions of the Byzantine Empire he is not as generous with praise. Here he criticizes Byzantiums indifference to the fall of Rome, stating the Byzantine court beheld with indifference, perhaps with pleasure, the disgrace of Rome, the misfortunes of Italy, and the loss of the West.3 Furthermore Gibbon says the schism between the Latin and Greek portions of the empire worsened, spurred by the tardy, doubtful, and ineffectual aid of the Eastern Roman emperors.4 He goes on to talk about the barbarian pressures which greatly contributed to Romes fall and praises the Roman armies which had defeated them for so long, while attacking the Byzantines for allowing this superiority to decline, hiring barbarian mercenaries and arming them through their feeble policies.5 The Western attitudes to the eastern successor of Rome become clear through Gibbons writing,

1 2

Edward Gibbons, The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, Medieval Source book, CP 1. Edward Gibbons, The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, Medieval Source book, CP 1. 3 Edward Gibbons, The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, Medieval Source book, CP 2. 4 Edward Gibbons, The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, Medieval Source book, CP 2. 5 Edward Gibbons, The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, Medieval Source book, CP 4.

HIST308 Final Paper Philip Gajos 301064566

which praises the older virtues of the valorous and mighty Romans while underlining the decay that occur and later passed onto Constantine and his successors. These 18th century attitudes towards Byzantium have contributed a great deal to modern perceptions of what was Byzantine as opposed to Roman, and are important to understand when trying to establish whether such a difference ever existed. The views of outsiders are too often the accepted notions of what makes up an identity. In the case of understanding a Byzantine identity existed and what made it or excluded it from being Roman, it becomes crucial to look to the sources of the very people in question, and their own conceptions of who they were and where they came from. As the western half of the empire succumbed to foreign invasions, the east remained as the last vestige of the Roman state in a political form. However, with such a tremendous shift in power centres, from Latin Rome to Greek Constantinople, the evolution of the Roman identity that had existed before in the empire would inevitably change. The Germanic kingdoms that displaced imperial authority would mainly occupy the Latin speaking provinces of the Empire. Spain fell to the Visigoths, Italy to the Ostrogoths, and Gaul to the Franks. North Africa was for a time as well lost to the Vandals. Although Justinian did temporarily reoccupy Italy, parts of Spain and North Africa, the linguistic situation of the empire was changed forever. Greek gradually displaced Latin as the administrative language of the court and state, while the lands that remained under Constantinoples authority now lay firmly in the realm of the world where Greek had extended its influence since the times of Alexander the Great. Nonetheless, though the language that had been cherished for so long by the conquering Romans was no longer dominant in the states new form, the now Greek-speaking Empire did not forget its heritage. The people still called themselves Romaioi, their lands Rhomania, while their offices and institutions came directly

HIST308 Final Paper Philip Gajos 301064566

from those used in Republican and Imperial Rome like the Senate, while titles like douks, augostos, or praitor had been simply Greek translations of their Latin counterparts. By their own reckoning, the Roman Empire never fell and its tradition continued with them. Although the contemporary Byzantines were still connected to their Roman-ness and claimed direct ascendancy, in the changing world around them it was inevitable that their own self-designation of Roman would undergo an evolution as a result of the circumstances the Eastern Roman Empire found itself in. One of the most striking features of the late Roman and Byzantine period writers was their nostalgic attitude towards the old traditions and their frequent criticism of the degradation and corruption that Roman society had been subject to in more recent years. In the 5th century, during the crisis in the West, Roman perceptions of their own identity were beginning to change under the pressures and realities of the barbarian invasions. Writers like Salvian and Priscus provide us with important insight into how the Romans began looking at themselves. Salvian heavily criticizes the behaviour that Romans had allowed themselves to fall into such as oppressing one other and leading fellow citizens to flee to the Barbarians rather than endure the cruel injustice among the Romans.6 Likewise, through cunning rhetoric, Priscus juxtaposes the Roman way of life to that of the barbarians in his conversation with a Greek living among the Huns. The conversation between the two highlights the negative and positive sides to the Romans; The Greek talks of the freedom enjoyed by all Scythians, whereas among the Romans, men are subject to those that rank above them on account of their tyrants, and the laws are regulated by money for the judge and his assessors.7 Priscus does give his own reply defending the just and clearly outlined laws of the founders of

6 7

Salvian, Of Gods Government, Medieval Sourcebook, CP 80. Priscus, An Embassy to Attila and the Huns, CP 107.

HIST308 Final Paper Philip Gajos 301064566

Rome who were wise and good men, but lets the Greek have the last word in the discussion stating that although this was true, the authorities were ruining it by not taking the same thought for it as those of old.8 Using this literary device Priscus conceals his real argument critiquing the contemporary Roman state. Procopius was another author who gave his opinions on the world around him through subtle criticism hidden in his writing. The Secret History contains insights into the reign of Justinian, and provides a good example of early Byzantine attitudes to classical Rome that had gradually evolved from the period of the Wests fall, during which the earlier writers Salvian and Priscus wrote. Procopius points out the self-destructive practices of the racing factions which had come to characterize the unruly behaviour standing among the people of each and every city.9 The general situation of the Empire allowed for unrest, and was fuelled by corrupt and greedy conduct of authorities like John or Tribunianus.10 His stance towards the imperial couple that embodied the state was no fonder, attributing a classical reference to tyranny in Theodoras words to Justinian, royalty is a good burial-shroud, in response to fleeing during the Nika Riot. Justinians tyranny is further expounded in Procopius descriptions of his political actions, squandering very great sums on nomads to keep them away, freeing criminals who gave him their entire fortunes, and using the Senate as a puppet which had no control over its vote and no influence for good.11 Procopius, along with the earlier writers, show us that the new Roman world was responding to the change around it, and this was often characterized by nostalgia for classicism, old traditions, resulting in a critique of the people and elites. This sort of attitude became a common feature of development into a Byzantine identity, but one that in no way
8 9

Priscus, An Embassy to Attila and the Huns, CP 108. H.B. Dewing, Procopius, CP 95. 10 H.B. Dewing, Procopius, CP 96. 11 H.B. Dewing, Procopius, CP 99.

HIST308 Final Paper Philip Gajos 301064566

was detached from its Roman past, but on the contrary, kept looking back to it for meaning and inspiration in its new environment. One of the most defining features that separated the classical Roman world from the later Byzantine one was Christianity. The reign of Constantine, which saw the split between east and west and when the foundation for later Byzantium was being laid, was also incidentally the period when Christianity became the state religion and gained an upper hand over paganism in the empire. From the Eastern Roman Empires very beginnings, Christianity was an integral part of its make-up and structure. It developed alongside the state as the west collapsed and the east remained the last political remnant of Imperial Rome, eventually becoming one of its defining features. Though Christianity was not a major element for most of the pagan era, its melding with classical culture was an important feature in the evolution of a Byzantine identity which still upheld the Roman legacy but in a new Christian context. Tertullian gives a very early example of the relationship between pagan learning and Christianity, lashing out at the philosophers who pretend to know the truth, while only [corrupting] it.12 For Tertullian there had to be a separation of Christian and pagan teaching, doing away with attempts to produce a Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition, with faith being the only requirement.13 Tertullians ideas exemplified a more conservative approach that existed throughout Christianitys history to the classics, but Basil of Caesarea gives insight into a more moderate approach that developed into the early Byzantine period. Basil out rightly claims that pagan learning is not without usefulness and as long as one is properly affirmed in their faith it can even serve to strengthen ones religiosity.14 He states that it is wise to take from the classical
12 13

Tertullian, Medieval Sourcebook, CP 69. Tertullian, Medieval Sourcebook, CP 69. 14 R.J. Deferrari, Saint Basil, the Letters, CP 74.

HIST308 Final Paper Philip Gajos 301064566

literature that which may serve for Christian learning, while [passing] over the remainder[guarding] ourselves against what is harmful.15 For Basil, Christianity could benefit from learning the classics of the ancient pagan writers as long as their students had the wisdom to pick out that which was appropriate and that which could be considered heresy. The works of these Tertullian and Basil offer an interesting juxtapose to religious attitudes of a new Christian state towards its pagan legacy, but they appropriately sum up the nature of Byzantine identity that was evolved around this very meshing of traditions. By the 7th and 8th centuries, the Eastern Roman Empire was very different from its Roman predecessor. However this development from an ancient Roman Empire into a medieval Byzantine one was a natural occurrence that had been dictated by the events of its history. Neither did it mean that Byzantium had become disconnected from its past, but rather that it had developed from previous traditions into a new context. One of these changes occurred under the rise of Christianity which fostered the birth of ecclesiastics as a new group within the society. Their rise to power shows the social transformation that was occurring and creating a new Byzantine identity. Basil of Caesarea shows us that bishops now easily stood up to the nobility, describing prefects with excessive arrogance while demanding their respect for laymen.16 The passages from the Theodosian Code also show that the clergy was growing in power, being granted church properties and receiving a monopoly over all religious matters.17 Economically, the empire also underwent significant change, and the many large cities that had been the economic centers of Imperial Rome fell into decline and the state experienced a demographic shift in which the countryside gained in importance. Byzantine identity also developed under
15 16

R.J. Deferrari, Saint Basil, the Letters, CP 74. C.G. Brown & J.E. Swallow, A Selected Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, CP 45. 17 C. Pharr, Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sismonidan Constitutions, CP 66.

HIST308 Final Paper Philip Gajos 301064566

very different military pressures, and the great triumphant ceremonies of ancient Rome were no longer present. Instead, as shown in Justin IIs actions towards an Avar embassy, Byzantine relations with their enemies relied more upon boasts, shows of power and wealth, as well as diplomatic intrigue.18 In the crisis that occurred in the 6th century, the empire was further stripped of former imperial territory as most of its eastern provinces fell to the Arabs while Dalmatia and much of the Balkans fell to invading Slavs. This world that the Byzantine found himself in was starkly different from the one that the conquering Roman legionary would have known. All this culminated to change the context within which the Empire developed and eventually reached its medieval form. Though the Eastern Roman state of the 8th century was very different from the Roman Empire in 200 AD, it would be false to say there was no connection between the old Roman identity and the new Byzantine one that had developed over a number of centuries. Though Western Europe for most of history has attempted to monopolize on the legacy of Rome and brand the Eastern Empire with the created term Byzantine and therefore other, the connection between the state with Constantinople at its center and that of Rome cannot be discredited. Although Rome fell, its traditions and institutions lived on in its former eastern provinces. Naturally, the context of the Empire developed as the changing situation of the world around it dictated. Greek became the lingua franca of administration, and Christianity permeated every aspect of daily life. The idea of Rome and its classical pagan culture was not forgotten, and in fact was preserved and brought to the west after Constantinoples fall to the Ottomans. To state there was a separate Byzantine identity is false, as it was simply a natural evolution from a Roman one, new but still conscious of its past. Though no longer controlling the city of Rome
18

A. Cameron, Flavius Cresconius Corippus, CP 122-124.

HIST308 Final Paper Philip Gajos 301064566

itself, the Greek heirs who outright called themselves Romans did not forget their inheritance, the Empire of Rome, Basileia ton Romaion.