Download PDF | Byzantium and the Magyars, By Gyula Moravcsik (Author), Hakkert, 1970.
174 Pages
PREFACE
The origins of the present study go back to my early years. | It was in 1920 that I began to study the historical relations between Byzantium and the Magyars. Thus, this short book sums up the results of some fifty years’ research. The first draft was made during the siege of Budapest, in the winter of 1944 — 45, but the work did not come out until 1953, when it was published as the third volume in a series of popular science ' took notice of it, and M. R. Guilland, then professor at the studies, then started by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
The book was published in Hungarian, yet foreign scholars also Sorbonne, expressed his wish to see it translated into some western language.* Recently, Dr. S. R. Rosenbaum (a lawyer of Philadelphia, U.S. A.), who takes especial interest in the English translation of scholarly works, made a suggestion to bring out the present book in English. It is due to his initiative that the plan came to be realized.
Some words should be said of the relation of the original Hungarian text to the English version. The latter is not an | unaltered, word for word translation of the former. As the book | was written more than fifteen years ago, the results of recent ? research, as well as the observations made at the discussion of my work on 18 December 1953, were taken into consideration. Accordingly, additions have been made to both the text and the bibliographical notes, and the order of the chapters has been somewhat changed.
I wish to acknowledge my debt to Mihaly Szegedy-Masz4k } who translated the text into English, to Professor Miklés Szenczi | and Zsigmond Ritoédk, my former students, who revised the English version for both its language and matter.
- Budapest, July 1969 Cyula Morauvesik
BYZANTIUM
The subject of this book is Hunguro-Byzantine relations. Before treating our proper subject, we would like to give, by way of introduction, a short characterization of Byzantium. *
First we must fight a misrepresentation of Byzantium which has become a matter of common knowledge. It is one of the ingrained preconceptions which are the survivals of earlier and superficial pseudo-scientific interpretations of history, such as the idealized picture of antiquity or the idea that modern Greeks are a Slavified people. Those who have this false picture of Byzantium think of it as a degenerate survival of the declining Roman empire, and regard its culture as sterile, dead, formalistic, liféless, fossilized, not capable of further development. According to this false interpretation, the characteristic features of Byzantine people are self-abasement, toadyism, deceit, and pretence, features usually known by the term ‘“‘Byzantinism”’.
This misrepresentation of Byzantium has been launched by the thinkers of the French Enlightenment who cast back their criticism on the corruptness of their own ruling class to Byzantine aristocracy and took its alleged decadence by way of generalization for the decisive characteristic feature of the whole of Byzantine society. Montesquieu in his famous “Considerations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence’’ (1734) considered the history of the Byzantine empire to be “a series of revolts, uprisings, and infamies’’; Voltaire in his work on the philosophy of history (1756) called Byzantium ‘dreadful’ and “disgusting”. The same idea haunts even Hegel’s philosophy of history (1837): he regarded the history of Byzantium as “a, thousand-year-long series of vices, errors, baseness, and dishonesty, ... the most horrible picture, devoid of any interest’’.
As the result of several decades of research by the scholars of Byzantinology (i.e. the study of Byzantium), a principle which appeared and gained independence at the end of the 19th century, old preconceptions and false theories have been ruled out, the fagade of pseudo-scientific ideas has collapsed and obstructs no longer our view of Byzantine reality. First the sources of Byzantine history had been made the subject of detailed investigation, especially by French, German, Russian, and English scholars. These studies have given much useful information for a re-interpretation of our notions of Byzantine state and society. But in the past most attention was paid to the history of the Byzantine “upper” class, which was a natural outcome of the fact that most of the well-known Byzantine source-works had been written by representatives of the court or the Church; whereas Soviet scholarship, carrying on the great tradition of earlier Russian Byzantinology, tried to draw a more real picture of Byzantium by conducting investigations into the deepest social and economic roots of Byzantine culture. Thanks to these researches, we have got to know that Byzantium, in spite of its close relations with antiquity, represented a new economic and social formation, a transition from the slave-holder to the foudalist social system. Thus, it cannot be taken for the withering branch of the moribund tree of antiquity that was agonizing for centuries, but was a new shoot of the old plant. After the fall of the Roman empire Byzantium became independent, and developed characteristic economic conditions and a social setting of its own. The trend of Byzantine history cannot be represented by a line keeping constantly downwards and marking a steady decline; it should be compared to a line of waves, having its ups and downs. Byzantine culture cannot be regarded as either fossilized or sterile; its history shows a characteristically dialectical development.
Having dismissed old prejudices on the concept of Byzantium, let us say something about the origin and meaning of the word.
The Byzantine empire, or shortly “Byzantium”’, inherited its name from Byzantion, a town founded by Doric colonists about 660 B.C. on the European side of the Bosporus, the channel separating Europe from Asia, in the same place where today one finds Stamboul! (Constantinople). According to Greek tradition, the town was named after its founder, king Byzas, son of god Poseidon and the nymph Keroessa. The name is, in all probability, of Thracian origin. Since the Greek colonial town controlled the entrance to the Black Sea, it gained especial significance in antiquity, through its geographical situation and commerce. In the 4th century A.D. it was granted home rule as an ally of Athens, and it kept its privileges even under the Roman rule.
Byzantion (by that time pronounced as “‘Vizandion’”’) rose to importance in world history when, owing to economic, strategic and political reasons, Constantine the Great transferred the centre of the Roman empire from Rome to this Greek town with a long tradition behind it. After the new capital had been inaugurated with great celebration on 11 May 330 A.D., it received a new name from the emperor pronounced ‘‘Konstantinupolis”’ in Greek and ‘‘Constantinopolis” in Latin, meaning ‘‘Constantine’s town’’. The situation of the new capital was similar to that of the old one: the town was built on seven hills, in the same way as Rome. Constantine the Great built an imperial palace, forums, churches, and surrounded the town with walls in order to transfer the functions of Rome to this ‘‘New Rome” (‘‘Nea Rome” in Greek), as it was called in official and above all in ecclesiastical terminology from the 5th century onwards.
The inauguration day of the new imperial centre was the birthday of the Byzantine state. Still, it did not become an independent country until later. Theodosius the Great was the last emperor who had domination over the whole Roman empire. After his death in 395 his sons distributed it among themselves: Honorius became the ruler of the western provinces (Italia, Africa, Gallia, Hispania, Britannia), Arcadius got the eastern parts (Dacia, Macedonia, Thracia, Asia, Pontus, Oriens, Aegyptus). Not much later, in 476 the so-called Western (Roman) Empire dissolved, owing to the slaves’ revolts and the barbarians’ attacks. The East-Roman Empire {also called Byzantine empire after the name of the capital or Greek empire after that of the majority of the population), however, had a firmer economic basis and survived for almost ten centuries, while its culture, an amalgam of Hellenistic, Roman, and oriental elements, developed specifically “Byzantine” characteristics.
The inhabitants of the East-Roman Empire never called themselves Byzantines but Romans, as the popular name of their descendants, the modern Greeks, is still ‘“Romaioi’’ (today pronounced as “‘Romii’’). In the Middle Ages the use of the term Byzantine was restricted to the inhabitants of the capital; and its more general meaning is a relatively recent development. The Byzantine empire was often referred to as ‘‘Romania” and its emperors always used the title “basileus Romaion’’ (‘the Romans’ emperor’’), thus giving expression to the official view of the Byzantine court that the Roman empire, including its western parts occupied by “barbarians”, was an organic whole. Still, the population of the Byzantine empire was not Roman, that is Latin, but mostly Greek. By transferring the capital of the empire to Byzantion, Constantine the Great actually expres- sed that the centre of gravity had already shifted to the eastern Greek or Hellenized provinces which used to constitute the empire of Alexander the Great, and were later occupied by the Romans and made part of their empire. Yet even if the majority of the Byzantine population was Greek, several other peoples of different ethnic origin and speaking various languages lived under Byzantine rule. Besides Latins there were subjects who had Syrian, Jewish, Coptic, Armenian, etc. for their mothertongue, and during the later centuries even Germanic, Slavonic, Hun, Petcheneg, Cumanian, Varangian, Venetian, Frank, Turkish, etc. elements penetrated into Byzantine territory. Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ statement that Hellas and the Peloponnesus “turned Slavonic and barbaric’? may be an exaggeration, still it is characteristic. Soviet historians, however, have pointed out that the Slavs who settled down in imperial territory infused new blood and helped the regeneration of Byzantium. According to a 12th-century Byzantine writer the population of Constantinople ‘‘is not unilingual, not even originating from one people; but it is a mixture of several languages’’. Several of the emperors came not from Greek but foreign, Syrian or Armenian families; most of the outstanding representatives of Byzantine political and cultural life were of foreign origin; and there were innumerable ‘barbarian’: Hun, Germanic, Slavonic, Khazar, Varangian, etc. soldiers in both the Byzantine army and the imperial guards. Yet the medley of this mixed population were brought together by Byzantine culture and its vehicle, the Greek language, which became the official language of the Byzantine state as early as the beginning of the 7th century, having ousted the Latin originally used in legislation, administration, and the army. In this way Byzantium had really turned into a “Greek” empire, and peoples of other mother-tongues had become, owing to the Greek language and Byzantine culture, really ‘“Byzantines”’. It is relevant to quote here a 12th-century authoress’ comment on an orphanage in Constantinople: “One can see there how Latin children are being educated, Scythians (ie. Petchenegs or Cumans) learn Greek, the Romans (Byzantines) study Hellenic writings, and the uneducated Greeks learn to speak Greek correctly.” As the Soviet Byzantinologist M. Levchenko wrote: “There was neither racial nor linguistic unity in the Byzantine empire, which was Roman only in its name. Being a wholly artificial construction, it united and governed twenty nationalities with the idea ‘one lord, one faith’.”
As the Byzantines’ original name of “Romans” indicated,Byzantium had inherited the basic elements and forms of the social and economic system, as well as the state organization ot the Roman empire, even if later they developed specifically “Byzantine” characteristics.
Some elements of the ancient slave-holder system survived until much later than in the West; they survived even in feudalism whose origins can be traced back to the 7th century in Byzantium. There were slaves in the East until as late as the fall of Constantinople. At the beginning they played an important part in the development of agriculture and industrial production. At the same time, they did domestic service in aristocratic palaces. Slaves in Byzantium lived in more favourable conditions than in the West, for imperial decrees set limits to their exploitation. Side by side with slaves there were, from an early phase, the descendants of Roman coloni; and later, in the transition to feudalism, serfs and the so-called “‘soil-bound” free peasants who contributed most to the production. The small farms of these latter were little by little ousted by the large ecclesiastical and secular estates, of which the latter gained dominance from the llth century onwards.
According to Levchenko “the uniqueness of the Byzantine economic system consisted in a combination of domestic agriculture and handicraft industry”. Beside agriculture, industry and commerce also reached a relatively high level. Towns had an important function in the economic life of Byzantium, where not only prime commodities but also luxury articles were produced in great quantity. All treasures of the East could be found on the markets of the trading centres, and above all on those of the capital. Most of the profit gained from industrial production and commissional business, whose European centre was Byzantium up to the end of the 12th century, fell to the share of the state through various monopolies and duties. Still, the ruling classes, and especially the senators and, later, the civil servants, military aristocrats, and the Church also grew prosperous and possessed large estates. Descriptions by western and Russian pilgrims, as well as. by those of the sack of Constantinople in 1204 emphasize the splendour and prosperity of the capital. At the same time, the lower classes, even scholars and writers, lived in great poverty, according to the testimony of poems written by “mendicant poets”, as they were called. As Marx wrote, Byzantium ‘“‘was the main centre of both luxury and destitution, for the East as well as for the West’’. That is why class conflicts were especially marked, even if class struggle often manifested itself only in some indirect way and took the form of ecclesiastical or dynastic struggles. Owing to the heavy burden put on the lower classes, the excessive oppression and exploitation, uprisings and revolts often broke out, such as the Nikarevolt in 532, the so-called Thomas-revolt in 82] —824 and the “Zealots’ movement” in Thessalonice in the mid-14th century. According to a 6th-century anonymous writer “legislation in the Roman empire served but one purpose: to divert uprisings”. Executive power, which was based on Roman law codified by the emperor Justinian, defended the rights of the ruling classes and tried to suppress revolts by all possible means. And the emperor was absolute possessor of political power in Byzantium.
Marx called Byzantium “the centre of theocratic monarchy”’. As successor of Roman emperors, the Byzantine ruler combined all elements of power which had developed since the principate of Augustus and were re-interpreted by Constantine the Great in Christian terms. According to the prevailing Byzantine view, the emperor was elected by God, as in most of the paintings he was crowned by heavenly powers. Like the person of the ancient divus imperaior, that of the emperor was regarded as “holy” and “equal to the apostles’. He was an absolute monarch, the guardian of law and order, and supreme commander of the army. His domination was not confined to the ‘‘Roman” empire, but included the whole Christian world: this idea served as the basis of the Byzantine emperors’ aspiration for world-hegemony, and explains their attitude towards other rulers who, according to the Byzantine ideology, were regarded as inferior to the emperor and were given honours, titles, dignities, even princely crowns. These titles and the addresses attached to them (e.g. ‘my brother”, “my son”, ‘‘my friend’’) defined their status “‘in the family of rulers’’.
Even the slightest events in the emperor’s life was controlled and accompanied by strictly defined ceremonies. The description of the welcome of foreign delegations in the Byzantine court given by Liudprand, bishop of Cremona, who visited Constantinople several times in the 10th century, may be taken for a characteristic example. On such a festive occasion the illustrious representatives of the court assembled in the presence chamber; whereas those of the people gathered behind the curtain. After the foreign envoy had been ushered into the hall, the emperor, sitting on the throne in his most splendid garments, was raised high by some invisible machine. The organ began to play, the golden lions beside the throne started roaring, and the birds began to sing on the golden tree in front of the throne. The envoy threw himself down before the imperial Majesty three times. Then the audience began, according to strictly prescribed formalities. If the emperor appeared in public, there were cheers, sometimes poems and eulogies were read. When on Easter Monday the emperor returned from the church of the Apostles, the people saluted him with loud cheers: “Hail, mighty emperor, guardian of the world, servant of God, happiness and benefit of Romans... Let God deem you worthy of governing his state for a hundred years!’’ Yet the rebellious forces hidden in the depth of Byzantine society often broke to the apparently smooth surface. A plot was hatched or a revolt broke out, and as a result, the emperor was dethroned. On such occasions the population of the capital made cruel mockery of its ‘omnipotent’ Lord. Having been put on a donkey with his face turned backwards, the animal’s tail in his hands, and a string of onions on his head, the victim was led in the streets of the capital, while satirical songs were sung. At the end of the 12th century Andronicus 1 met such a fate, the only emperor who tried to establish a monarchy that would have relied on the lower classes.
But, as a rule, the emperors had absolute power. The Senate ceased to be more than a mere formali ty at a very early stage of Byzantine history. In the early phase the people’s parties, the so-called demes (demoi), the only sur vivals of ancient democracy had a considerable political function, but from the 9th century onwards their only task was to officiate as a chorus of praise.
Many of the civil servants, whose orders of rank were as strictly defined as those of high functionaries at the court, served as executives of imperial power. Eunuchs were especially important among them; many of them became statesmen, military commanders, even patriarchs. One of the characteristic features of Byzantium was an enormous mania for titles. All emperors introduced dignities of their own; and so titles often became compound words containing various superlatives, e.g. panhyperprotosebastohypertatos, which means approximately ‘‘the supreme one respected most, above all others’. Such imperial officials had in their hands both the civil and the military government of the so-called “themes”, that is the Byzantine military, and administrative units which replaced ancient Roman provinces. Secular and ecclesiastical bureaucracy imposed a heavy burden on the working classes. As Levchenko emphasized, “‘there were more numerous Officials in Byzantium than in any other medi eval country; and these officials were irresponsible and constituted a separate caste. The population was left to their tender mercies”. He referred to a Byzantine source according to which these officials ‘devoured the people, as one eats up bread”. This far too elaborate state machinery verged on etatism, controlled all manifestations of life of the people, exploited all their energies, by means of a cunningly devised and highly developed system of taxation. This monstrous state apparatus imposed on the producers determined the fundamental characteristics of the social and political system in the Byzantine empire. _
The emperor’s power and the state serving the interests of the ruling classes were defended by a strong army against both the attempts of the exploited classes at any sort of uprising and the attacks of the enemies of Byzantium. First the empire had a standing army recruited and organized in the themes, which was supplemented by squads of “allies”, that is soldiers of other nationalities. Later this army was replaced by mercenary troops of the most varied racial origin. Besides a land army, up to the 12th century the empire also had a well-equipped fleet which often drove back “barbarians” besieging the capital, with the help of the so-called Greek fire. During its thousand years’ history Byzantium not only defended its own territory against foreign attacks, but also made numerous military expeditions to other countries. The main purpose of imperial policy was to restore the integrity of the Roman empire and unite all Christian peoples under the Byzantine emperor’s domination.
During its thousand years’ struggle, partly against the attacks of such ‘‘barbarians”’ as the Goth, Hun, Avar, Slavonic, Persian, Arab, Bulgar, Russian, Petcheneg, Uz, Cumanian, Frank, Venetian, Norman, Seljuk and Osmanli Turk peoples, as well as the western crusaders, partly for conquering foreign countries, the imperial territory underwent considerable modifications. Let us mention at least the most important of these. ; ;
The great migrations which the West-Roman Empire fell victim to did not leave Byzantium untouched. The Huns who appeared in the late 4th century on the north-eastern frontiers of the Roman empire drove subdued and fleeing peoples before them towards the West. Among these the.Visi-Goths who moved to the Lower Danube were settled south of the Danube, in imperial territory, by the Romans. Soon they rose and penetrated into Greece; so that the Byzantines were forced to drive them back with western support. Later they moved to Italy. At the beginning of the 5th century the Huns reached the Danube, occupied the Danube—Tisza Interstream Region and Pannonia. From their new home they made many attacks against Byzantium; in 433 they even got near the walls of Constantinople. After his western campaign Attila wished to lead a decisive attack against Byzantium, but his plan came to nothing because of his sudden death. The Ostro-Goths, however, who settled down in Pannonia, constantly plundered imperial territories and in 487 reached the capital. The Byzantine court could get rid of them only by granting them Italy where the Ostro-Goths duly moved. At the turn of the 5— 6th centuries the region along the Danube was threatened by the raids of Slavonic and Bulgarian tribes, and emperor Anastasius had to block roads Jeading to the capital with the so-called ‘‘long walls”.
Having repelled the attacks of the Huns and the Germanic peoples in the 5th century, in the next century Byzantium started wars of conquest. Misjudging the direction of economic and political development, the emperor Justinian (reigned 527 — 565) set himself the task of restoring the unity of the Roman empire. After repeated military expeditions he finally succeeded in putting an end to the Vandals’ rule in Africa; and so regained the possession of the northern littoral. He could also bring to a close the Ostro-Goths’ domination in Italy, and annexed the greater part of Italy to his empire. He also conquered some Hispanian territories; and thus united a considerable part of the ancient: imperium Romanum under his rule. At this time the Byzantine empire included the south-eastern coasts of Hispania, the Balearic Islands, Italy, Corsica, Sicily, Dalmatia nearly up to the Sava, the region of the Balkan peninsula south of the Danube, Asia Minor, parts of Armenia, Syria, Egypt, and the northern coast of Africa; that is almost all territories surrounding the Mediterranean. But Byzantine economy suffered a decline during these wars of conquest, and after Justinian’s death most of the occupied territories were lost. Thus, for instance, Hispania and a considerable part of Italy were occupied by the Vist-Goths and Longobards, respectively. Of the latter country only isolated parts: the so-called Exarchate of Ravenna, some south-Italian territories, and Sicily remained as separate survivals under Byzantine rule.
In the second half of the 6th century the Avars meant a new threat to the empire. First, with the Longobards’ help and Byzantine approbation, they defeated the Gepidae who settled down in the territory of the future Hungary, after the fall of the Hun empire. When the Longobards left this region, the Avars settled down there and soon began to plunder the territory along the Sava and the Danube, as well as northern Byzantine provinces.. Together with them masses of Slavs penetrated into the Balkan peninsula. At the same time, Hunno-Bulgar tribes made raids on Byzantium from the northern coast of the Black Sea, having crossed the Danube. And in 559 the Kutrigurs appeared under the wails of Constantinople.
At the end of the 6th and the beginning of the 7th century wars with the Avars continued. In 626 Constantinople was besieged by the Avars and the Slavs, and, simultaneously, threatened by the Persians who appeared on the Asiatic coasts. With these latter Byzantium had several wars in the 5th and 6th centuries. Having gained strength at the beginning of the 7th century, the Sassanid (new Persian) empire extended its frontiers and annexed eastern and southern Byzantine provinces: Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. But the emperor Heraclius (reigned 610-- 641) led victorious expeditions against the Persians who were forced to evacuate the occupied territories, Egypt among them. During the reign of the same emperor Serb and Croat tribes settled down in the north-western part of the Balkan peninsula,
From the second quarter of the 7th century Byzantium had a new enemy in the Arabs with whom the empire fought a lifeand-death struggle lasting centuries. The Arabs conquered Syria, Egypt, Africa, and other parts of the Byzantine empire. In 673 they appeared under the walls of Constantinople. Owing to the Arab conquests, the territory of the Byzantine empire kept shrinking until it was confined to the Balkan peninsula, Asia Minor, and certain Italian domains. In the meantime Slavs penetrated into Greece and occupied a great part of it; so that the Byzantines could defeat and assimilate them but after a heavy struggle that extended over the next centuries. At the end of the 7th century the Danubian Bulgar state was established, which meant another decrease in the imperial territory.
During the 8th century Byzantium fought hard struggles with the Arabs, who again appeared under the walls of the capital in 717—718 besieging it from the land as well as from the sea. At the same time, Byzantium was in a state of constant warfare with the Bulgars who attacked the empire from the north and finally,-in 813, laid siege to Constantinople. In about the middle of the 8th century the Byzantine provinces in northern Italy were lost. The Exarchate of Ravenna fell into the Longobards’ hands, and only the southern parts of Italy remained in Byzantine possession.
In the second half of the 9th century Byzantium gained strength both in an economic and in a military senso, thanks to the free peasants of Slavonic origin who had settled in imperial territory. The Arabs were, little by little, driven back, and the Bulgars were defeated. But in 860 the Russians appeared under the walls of Tsarigrad* (the Slavonic name of Constantinople), and in 941 laid another siege to it.
At the end of the 10th century, the antagonism reached its climax between Byzantium and the Bulgars who in 924 besieged the imperial capital and expanded their country as far as the Adriatic coast. Having been undermined by the so-called Bogomilism, the religious resistance movement of the oppressed Bulgar peasantry, the Bulgarian state collapsed: first only eastern Bulgaria fell into Byzantine hands, but later emperor Basil Il (reigned 976—1025) overthrew the western Bulgarian empire and occupied the whole country, which became an integral part of the Byzantine empire for a long period. For state reasons, this emperor observed the interests of the small peasantry. During his reign the empire had an extension which it had never attained since the emperor Justinian’s reign. It included Istria, the whole of the Balkan peninsula, Asia Minor, Armenia, northern Syria, Cyprus, Crete, and southern Italy.
In the llth century Byzantium was confronted with still other enemies. Its northern frontiers were plundered by the Petcheneg, Uz, and Cumanian peoples. From the west the Normans started devastating attacks, occupied the last Byzantine possessions in Italy towards the middle of the century, and even gained footing in the Balkan peninsula some fifty years later. From the east the empire was menaced by the Seljuks who conquered almost the whole of Asia Minor for a time. The early crusades were directed against these new enemies of Byzantium, but they also threatened the empire itself. Later the crusaders established a feudal kingdom of the western type in Byzantine territory.
The emperor Manuel Comnenus (reigned 1143 1180) made a last desperate attempt to re-establish the unity of the Roman empire. Led by this outworn conception, he started long but unsuccessful wars in Italy and Hungary. He also engaged in battle with the Seljuks, but was defeated by them. During his reign the empire included Dalmatia, Bosnia, the Balkan penin sula south of the Danube, the western half of Asia Minor, with the northern and southern littoral, the northern corner of Syria, as well as Cyprus and Crete. His wars fought for an antiquated conception undermined Byzantine economy. The imperial trade fell into the privileged hands of Venice and Genoa, whose fleet, in return, was expected to render service to Byzantium. Soon after Manuel’s death the Bulgars rose and established the second Bulgar tsardom, as it was called. In 1204 the crusaders, led mostly by economic interests and colonizing aspirations, occupied Constantinople.
At the beginning of the 13th century numerous smaller feudal states were established in the territory of the former Byzantine empire. The capital, eastern Thrace, and the north-western coast of Asia Minor fell into the hands of western conquerors and constituted the so-called Latin empire. The kingdom of Thessalonice, the princedom of Athens, and the Achaean principality in the Peloponnesus were tributary states of this empire. Crete, Euboea, and several other islands were in Venetian possession ; the western part of northern Greece was, for a while, under the rule of the despot of Epirus. The Greeks who had fled from Byzantium established the Nicaean empire (called so after its centre), the direct successor of the Byzantine empire, in the north-western part of Asia Minor, east of the Latin empire. Simultaneously, another independent Greek state existed, the empire of Trebizond.
The Latin empire was overthrown by Michael Palaeologus, who was supported by the Nicaean empire. In 1261 he reconquered Constantinople and re-established the Byzantine empire. But in the 14th and 15th centuries Constantinople was but the centre of a state with sadly decreased territory and an economy in its final decline which was struggling in vain with feudal disintegration. For at that time its domination was confined to the immediate surroundings of the capital, the Chalcidice peninsula, a few islands, and some parts of central Greece and Peloponnesus.
At the beginning of the 14th century the final and fatal enemies of Byzantium appeared in the Osmanli-Turks who established a new state on the ruins of the Seljuk empire, and occupied almost the whole of Asia Minor by the middle of the century. At the same time the Byzantine empire was being dismembered in the West too, by the conquests of the Serbs whose state had become powerful. In the second half of the 14th century the Osmanli Turks gained a footing in Europe, behind the back of Byzantium. The Mongols’ conquest retarded their advance for a while, but somewhat later they pushed forward irresistibly. In 1422 they Jaid siege to Constantinople, and on 29 May 1453 the troops of sultan Mahomet captured the town which by that time was almost the only territory in Byzantine possession. Eastern Peloponnesus resisted the Turkish attack for another seven years, but in 1460 it was also conquered. One year later the empire of Trebizond, the last territory under Greek rule, fell into Turkish hands. Thus, the last remnant of the once powerful empire disappeared, and the Greeks started their life under a Turkish yoke that lasted for three and a half centuries. The capital received a new name: Istambul* from the Turks, which has been its official name ever since.
But Byzantium used for defence and conquest not only armed force, but also the refined, often cunning, double-dealing means of diplomacy. Besides racial, religious, and cultural differences this was the main reason why such an unfavourable picture was formed of Byzantium in the West. Bishop Liudprand in the above-mentioned description characterized the Byzantine court as “treacherous, avaricious, sly, and mendacious’’. Yet one must not forget that foreigners had had a similar opinion of ancient Greeks, owing to their cleverness, ingenuity, and cunning. One of the traditional and often used methods of Byzantine diplomacy was to pit one people against another and keep one dangerous enemy in check by another. The Byzantine court always knew how to oblige “barbarian” princes by special favours, titles, or presents. Peace was bought by paying annual tribute to peoples threatening imperial frontiers. This annual tax was always called a “present”? in the Byzantine court. The ‘barbarians’, in return for this, not only ceased to attack the empire, but, on many occasions, even defended it as “allies’’ against other peoples’ attacks.
Conversion to Christianity also served the purpose of rendering ‘‘barbarian” peoples harmless, by making them join the community of Christian nations, which was one of the principal and most constant aims of the Byzantine empire. The realization of this purpose was made possible by a most intimate relationship between state and Church whose parallel cannot be found elsewhere. The basis of this relationship had been laid down by Constantine the Great. As we could see, he was already called a divus imperator whose tomb in the Apostles’ church was surrounded by a half-circle of twelve empty sarcophagi, the apostles’ symbolic tombs. This emperor established the above-mentioned theocratic character of the Byzantine state which remained unchanged for centuries. This meant that the emperor was not only the possessor of secular power, but also Christ’s earthly representative, superior to the patriarch and the clergy. It was his right to appoint the patriarch and the bishops, convoke and conduct synods, and confirm decisions made at them. Prelates were regarded as state officials whose hierarchy was settled by the emperor. According to the Byzantine conception, it was impossible for the emperor to humble himself before the Church. The western emperors gave the pope, the representative of supremé spiritual power, the respect of leading his horse. The Byzantine emperor never stooped to such a thing; a 12th-century historian, revolted by the custom, scourged the pope with such words: ‘‘What right have you, good man, to use Roman emperors for your grooms?” The emperor’s particular relationship to the Church is further reflected in Byzantine coronation. Coronation ceremonies in Byzantium had no significance in constitutional law; the possession of power was independent of it. In the West it was the right of the Church to crown somebody, in Byzantium crowning was no more than a link in the chain of ceremonies accompanying the emperor’s life.
This peculiar relationship of Church to state was an outcome of the theocratic character of Byzantine imperial power. The organization of the Church was entirely embedded in that of the state whose head was the emperor. The Western Church united states and peoples of different kinds and considered itself to be superior to all nations. Its aim was to reinforce spiritual with political power, that is, it aspired to world-hegemony. The Byzantine Church, the Church of the Greek-speaking Roman empire which called itself “Orthodox” (‘following the true faith’’) left all ambitions at world-domination in the hands of the state power, the empire. When, as a result of Byzantine missions, other East-European nations were converted to Orthodox Christianity, these nations became independent of Byzantium, established a Ghurch of their own on national grounds, and kept their mother-tongue in liturgy. Thus, the Orthodox Church merged in the state in all countries, and adapted itself to the existing social conditions and local customs.
The struggle between the Byzantine Orthodox Church and the pope leading to the schism concerned, on the face of it, questions of dogmatics, but, in fact, it was fought for questions of supremacy and economic interests; it was connected, on the one hand, with Byzantine aspirations for world-hegemony reflected in the conception of “a New Rome’’, and, on the other, with the ambition of the Roman Church to be universal. First the conflict was confined to the question of ecclesiastical supremacy between Constantinople and Rome. In the 9th century the Patriarch Photius began the struggle with the Pope Nicholas I, defending the interests of the Eastern Church. After the pope had declared him dismissed from his office, he started a general attack on the Western Church, backed by the Byzantine state. In 867 the pope was anathematized at the synod held in Constantinople. Yet the split did not become final until the middle of the 11th century, when on 16 July 1054 Cardinal Humbert, delegate of Pope Leo IX, deposited in the Hagia Sophia the pope’s bull, excommunicating the Patriarch Michael Cerullarius and his followers. Thereupon the synod of Constantinople pronounced anathema on the Church of Rome. Later some emperors tried to restore the unity of the two Churches in the hope of western support and pecuniary assistance, but they met with the resistance of the Byzantine clergy; and so these efforts remained unrealized. The schism proved to be final. A few days before Byzantium saw its final collapse, Lucas Notaras, a leading personality of his time, made the following statement: ‘‘It is far better to see a Turkish turban in the middle of the town than a Latin mitre.’’ And Petrarch’s comment is equally revealing: “The Turks are undoubtedly enemies to us, but the schismatic Greeks are even worse than the enemy.”
Byzantine monks who played an active part in mission, must have been even by their sheer number an important factor in the life of Byzantium; this is proved by the history of the iconoclastic struggle. After the organization of eastern monasticism by St. Basil the Great in the 4th century A.D., its rules became the standard norms for all Orthodox Churches. About a hundred thousand monks lived in the numerous Basilite monasteries, among which the most celebrated were the Studiou and Pantocrator monasteries in Constantinople, the Meteora in Thessaly, the Mega Spelaion in the Peloponnesus, and the monasteries founded on Athos, the ‘‘sacred mountain”’, from the 10th century onwards. Most of these Byzantine monasteries were built on barren, rocky territories, often on unapproachable summits or on some coast or bank, to guarantee the possibility of contemplative life for the inhabitants. If in a few monasteries some sort of intellectual activity (writing and copying of books) was led or charity was organized, these were but of second-rate importance, prescribed not by the norms of monastic life but the founder’s will. Byzantine monasteries ,were so prosperous that some emperors had to limit their possessions. They never used their prosperity for the common good, and, unlike western monasteries, they did not lead cultural and social activity. This is a further manifestation of the more passive and abstract nature of Byzantine Christianity, as contrasted with the more active and practical-minded Western Church. In Byzantium, monasteries were open for laymen, what is more, most of their inhabitants had not been ordained. It was a general custom that high-born people put on the monks’ gown before their death. Sometimes even emperors and empresses did so. A considerable part of the male population hid in monasteries to escape tax burdens and military service. As a result, the number of tax payers and soldiers so much decreased that the emperors were forced to take proventive measures necessitated by the interests of the state.
The theocratic nature of the Byzantine state was also reflected in arts and literature. Art in Byzantium was mainly religious: icons, paintings, and mosaics testify the unrealistic attitude to things which was characteristic of Byzantine religion. They never represented man and his emotions in earthly existence. The individual almost entirely disappeared in the representation of heavenly hierarchy, in the same way as the painters of the icons were anonymous. The stereotyped, stylized, stiff figures which were never represented in perspective and were surrounded by a golden background representing celestial light were but the symbols of ecclesiastical teaching on human existence. The anonymous artist always observed conventions, from which he was not permitted to depart. The fixed pattern and the iconographic arrangement was, in fact, a pictorial representation of liturgy. From the 8th century the iconoclastic struggle put an end to monumental sculpture. As this three-dimensional art which casts a shadow was found too plastic, later Byzantine artists did not cultivate it. Of the innumerable monuments of ecclesiastical architecture, the most imposing is the Hagia Sophia (“sacred wisdom’’) church in Constantinople, rebuilt by the emperor Justinian. A semi-spherica] globe has been laid on a stone cornice resting on arches with four enormous pillars and the spherical sections between them. Light streams into the church through the semi-circular windows situated between the ribs of the dome, so that the dome seems to float lifted up by a luminous halo. Secular art mostly aimed at the celebration of imperial power. Besides architecture, paintings and miniatures should be mentioned which show a definite influence of antiquity. Byzantine ivory works and enamel paintings representing ecclesiastical as well as secular subjects are of an exceptionally refined technique.
Byzantine literature has been described as essentially aristocratic by both the Soviet Levchenko and the French P. Lemerle. This statement is true of that sort of Byzantine literature whose authors and readers belonged either to the court or to the Church. The tradition of ancient Graeco-Roman culture was carried on in these upper strata of Byzantine society. Higher education included a systematic study of the classics. It has been recorded that Michael Psellus, the great 11th-century scholar, knew the whole Iliad by heart at the age of fourteen. The libraries of Byzantium were fully stocked with works by ancient Greek authors, now partly lost; they were read and copied; extracts and anthologies were compiled. Unlike the West, Byzantium was never in need of a re-discovery of these works. That is why one cannot speak of any Byzantine renaissance in the real sense of the word, in spite of the fact that in certain periods there was a great interest in the classics of antiquity, and there were even humanists in Byzantium. They regarded classical literary tradition as a treasure of yore, an invaluable common property, and a mode] to be imitated, but they valued it primarily for its form and as a subject of study. An anonymous writer, for instance, wrote a poem on Christ’s sufferings by joining together lines drawn from various passages in Euripides. Byzantine literary works are full of classical commonplaces, quotations, and mythological allusions which serve but as ornamental elements. Byzantine court literature and, above all, panegyrics and eulogies are formalistic, full of rhetorical devices which make them artificial, reminding one of hothouse plants. The influence of classical models was the strongest in history writing, where the archaizing tendency consisted not only in the stylistic imitation of ancient Greek historians, but also in the substitution of names of contemporary peoples by those of peoples known in antiquity. Thus, the Petchenegs and Magyars were called Scythians and Paeons, respectively. Besides secular literature, Byzantium had an extremely rich religious literature, of whose products hymns and the lives of the saints (hagiographic works) are of especial interest. These latter were written for a wider public and mostly in the popular language; so their function was somewhat similar to that of the later novel and short story.
Those writers who had a good classical education used an archaistic language. They could master it only after thorough studies, for the living Byzantine language, a Jater variant of the koiné (everyday language) which developed in Hellenistic territories from the 3rd century B.C., was much closer to Modern than to Classical Greek. The living popular Greek, whose certain elements appeared relatively early in Byzantine chronicles, hagiographic words, and fragments of popular poetry meant a significant departure from Classical Greek in both accentuation and pronunciation, and had much simpler forms, owing to the analogic development of the language. From the 12th century this living popular language penetrated into literature. As a consequence, ever since that time Byzantine literature was written in two languages: the artificial, archaistic idiom of the upper classes and a spoken popular language which is fairly close to Modern Greek. At present it is the intention of progressiveminded Greeks to unite these two traditions which have been in conflict with each other for so many centuries. This linguistic duality (diglossia) reflects not only the division of Byzantine society, but also indicates how the oppressed classes could assert their claim to use the popular language.
The most notable among the products of popular literature are novels, romances, historical poems, and other kinds of popular poetry, such as the Charos- and Digenes Acritas-songs, the latter constituting a Byzantine national epic on the struggle between Byzantium and the Arabs. Some of these songs breathe the fresh air of Modern Greek popular poetry.
Byzantine culture which combined ancient Graeco-Roman with Christian elements surpassed the culture of contemporary East and West, and had a marked influence on peoples that were in political and economic relations with Byzantium.
Of the eastern peoples, the Armenians got into contact with Byzantium very early, for a part of their country was first, in the 4th and 5th centuries, under Roman, later under Byzantine rule. They became converted to Christianity as early as the end of the 3rd century. At the beginning of the 5th century the Armenian alphabet was constructed by Mesrop; it included Greek as well as Iranian characters. This alphabet was used in the first Arme-nian translation of the Bible. After part of the Armenians fled to Constantinople from the.Persian invasion, a school of translators was established whose members put Greek ecclesiastical and historical works into Armenian. Thus, Armenian literature was inspired by Byzantium from the earliest stage of its development. The relations of Byzantium and Armenia became close especially in the 10th and 11th centuries, during the reign of the Bagratides. The Armenian and Byzantine ruling families becamo related by marriage, and Byzantium extended its political influence to Armenia. Armenians lived in great number in Constantinople, and some of them played an important role in the political and intellectual life of the empire. As it is known, the so-called Macedonian dynasty declared itself of Armenian origin. Armenian princes were often granted titles and presents by Byzantine emperors. In 1197 the Armenian king Leo was given a crown by emperor Alexius III. The Armenian king became the Byzantine emperor’s ‘‘spiritual son” and organized his court after the Byzantine model. Armenian art owed a great deal to Byzantium. Byzantine master builders worked in Armenia as early as the reign of emperor Justinian. The monuments of the great flourishing of Armenian architecture in the 10th and 11th centuries show many Byzantine characteristics, in spite of their originality. ;
The Georgians’ conversion was almost simultancous with that of the Armenians. The alphabet they borrowed through Armenian mediation reveals a Greek influence. The impact of Byzantine art asserted itself in Georgia, especially through mediation of the empire of Trebizond. What is more, traces of the influence of Byzantine culture could be felt as far east as the Sassanides’ Persian empire. The Syrians and Copts whose lands were integral parts of the Byzantine empire for a long time were influenced by Byzantium mainly in their literatures, that is to say, they translated many works of Greek Christian literature into their mother tongue. The latter of these two peoples actually adopted the characters of the Greek alphabet, supplementing them with Egyptian ones. Through Christianity, Byzantine culture radiated its influence as far as Abyssinia.
Byzantium had a great effect on the Arabs who in the 7th century conquered the eastern, deeply Hellenized parts of the empire, where they found Greek schools and a highly developed intellectual life. The caliphs of Damascus and Baghdad had many Greek philosophical and scientific works translated into Arabic, often making use of earlier Syrian translations. As a result of this, some works of Aristotle became known in the West not in the original, but in Arab translation. There must have been Arab students studying in Constantinople, for the 11th-century Michael Psellus mentions some among his own disciples. But the artistic influence was no less remarkable. Byzantine master builders were working in the caliphs’ courts, in Damascus and Baghdad. Both the style of Moslem mosques and the ornaments on buildings in general show a Byzantine influence. Several characteristically Byzantine elements reappear in the caliphs’ court life.
Having conquered the Asiatic part of the Byzantine empire in the 11th century, the Seljuk-Turks also came under the spell of the influence of Byzantine culture and art. The mosques built in Ikonion (the Turkish Konia, centre of the sultanate of Rum whose name is connected with the “Romaioi”’ term meaning “Byzantines”’) show the joint influence of Byzantine and Persian art. Byzantine elements appeared in court and state life, and later these were, at least partly, taken over by the OsmanliTurks who in the 14th century built up their empire on the ruins of the Seljuk empire in Asia Minor. Yet these latter also underwent a more direct Byzantine influence. Although this influence had been overestimated in the past, one must admit that numerous Byzantine elements survived in the general structure and ceremonies of the sultan’s court in Stamboul, as well as in the administrative organization of the empire. The close contact with Byzantium is further proved by several Greek loan-words in Osmanli-Turkish (e.g. “effendi”: “‘sir’’) and, above all, by Turkish architecture. Sultan Mahomet II welcomed Greeks in his court who drew up documents in Greek for him. The mosques in Stamboul were built by Greek master builders (of whom Sinan was the most celebrated), in imitation of the Byzantine Hagia Sophia. The Greek element played an important part even in the later history of the Turkish empire. Some of the Grand Viziers of Christian origin were Greek by birth. The members of ancient and aristocratic Byzantine families who were called Phanariotes after the name of a quarter of Constantinople (‘‘Phanar’’) held important diplomatic posts, and later some of them became hospodars, i.e. princes of Moldavia and Wallachia.
The eastern peoples which came into contact with Byzantium did not borrow more than certain individual elements of culture. Byzantine influence on Slavonic peoples went much deeper. First those tribes got into relations with the empire which from the end of the 6th century A.D. settled in great number in the Balkan peninsula. Not much later the Bulgars established their state in imperial territory. As Bulgaria was the northern neighbour of the empire, the direct influence of Byzantine culture made itself felt there for centuries. At the beginning of the 8th century, prince Terbel received the title of kaisar from Byzantium. The inscriptions engraved in stone for 9th-century Bulgar princes were in Greek and followed Byzantine models; they testify that the Greek language and culture were welcomed in the Bulgar princes’ court. The penetration of Byzantine Christianity soon followed. After prince Krum resettled the inhabitants of the conquered Adrianupolis in Bulgaria (813), a Greek bishop who had been also taken prisoner started to convert the Bulgars to Christianity. In order to facilitate the centralization of power, in 864 prince Boris officially announced the conversion of himself and his people which by that time spoke an almost entirely Slavonic language. The prince was given a Christian name by his “spiritual father’, emperor Michael III. Since Boris-Michael was very anxious about the independence of his country, he hesitated for a while between Rome and Byzantium, but finally joined the Orthodox Church, according to the agreement arrived at the synod of Constantinople (869— 70). The later development and organization of Bulgarian Christianity were greatly advanced by the activities of the Slavonic apostles Cyril and Method whose disciples went into exile to Bulgaria. As a result, an autonomous Bulgarian Church was soon established which adopted the vernacular in its liturgy and was headed by a Bulgar patriarch. The creation of the Cyrillic script modelled on the Greek uncial (capitalized) letters has been attributed to Cyril. Together with Christianity, this script also spread in Bulgaria, and in prince Simeon’s court Old Church Slavonic literature emerged whose earliest products were the translations of the Bible, versions of ecclesiastical and Byzantine historical works translated from the Greek. Byzantine influence, however, was not confined to the ecclesiastical sphere. According to the sources, the “‘halfGreek”’ Simeon, who had been educated in Byzantium, pursued a systematic study of Greek authors and absorbed Byzantine culture at a very early age. Though his ambition to gain the Byzantine throne remained unfulfilled, yet he made much of the experience gained in Byzantium in the organization of the Bulgarian state. He organized his court in Preslav on Byzantine models, made it follow Byzantine etiquette, and had buildings of Byzantine style erected in it. Finally he called himself “the Romans’ emperor’ which title he wished to receive from Byzantium in vain, for it was only the Byzantine emperor’s legal due. His son married a Byzantine princess and carried on his father’s work. A further proof of the important Byzantine influence on Bulgarian culture was the introduction of Byzantine law. At the end of the 12th century Bulgaria became independent, and the Asenids adopted the title of “tsar”, but Byzantine influence was no less strong during their reign. At the beginning of the 13th century Ivan Asen II made an attempt to gain the Byzantine throne. Adopting the proud title of ‘‘the tsar of Bulgaria and autocrator of the Romans’’, he organized his court in Tirnovo on the Byzantine model. In this period several Byzantine princesses came to the Bulgarian throne. In the 14th century tsar Ivan Alexander made a final attempt to renew the tradition set by his predecessors. This was the second great age of Bulgarian literature: a whole school of scholars led by the patriarch Eftimi was employed in making the translations and imitations of Byzantine works. A similarly strong Byzantine influence manifested itself in the field of arts: the churches of Tirnovo and Boiana, the monasteries of Bachkovo and Rila, the paintings in these latter, and even the illuminated manuscripts, followed Byzantine models. The great impact Byzantium made on the Bulyarian upper classes left its mark on the whole of Bulgarian culture.
The Serbs who in the early 7th century settled down in their present country lived under Byzantine domination for a long time. They also received Christianity from Byzantium and were converted about the middle of the 9th century by the emperor Basil I. Having adopted the Cyrillic script, they also joined the Byzantine Old Church Slavonic culture established by the Slavonic apostles. After Serbia had become independent at the end of the 12th century, during the reign of Stephen Nemanja, and his son, St. Sava founded the independent Serbian national Church in 1220, Byzantine influence kept on increasing. It was especially strong in the Serbian monastery of Chilandar built on the Sacred Mountain of Athos. But this influence of Byzantine feudalism was not confined to the Church; it also manifested itself in the life of the Serbian court and state. Serbian rulers often married Byzantine princesses. In 1346 Stephen Dushan, founder of the great Serbian state, was crowned as ‘‘emperor of Serbia and Romania’’, thus indicating the fact that his empire also included Greek territories. He adopted the labarum, the symbol of Byzantine emperors, the flag with Christ’s initials, first used by Constantine the Great. The arms of the Serbian nation borrowed the cross from this flag and the double eagle from the coat-of-arms of the Palaeologus family, one of the Byzantine ruling dynasties. From the above-mentioned period Serbia had a patriarch of its own. Stephen Dushan reorganized his court on Byzantine models and introduced Byzantine titles and ceremonies. Documents were written, at least partly, in Greek, and Stephen Dushan’s code of laws followed Byzantine models. In the 14th century the ownership relations of landed property, and the military service connected with it, were under strong Byzantine influence. Byzantium made a great impact on Serbian literature and art. Most of the paintings in the 13th and 14th-century monasteries of Studenitsa, Grachanitsa, and Dechani were made by Greek artists, and, as such, represent some of the finest monuments and remains of Byzantine art. Even the long Turkish occupation could not wipe out the traces of Byzantine influence in Serbia; elements of folk tradition and popular customs, common to the peoples of the Balkans, may be traced back to Byzantine heritage.
Of all Slavonic peoples it was the Russians on whom Byzantine culture had the greatest effect. The country of this people was relatively far from Byzantium, but it was even much farther from Rome and Western Europe in general. Russian tribes could come into contact by water with the Byzantine towns on the northern coast of the Black Sea at an early period. Having sailed down the rapids of the Dnieper, in the 9th century they reached Constantinople (Tsarigrad). These daring enterprises were partly prompted by commercial considerations, for the Russians had a landing-place of their own in the imperial capita] and signed several trade agreements with the Greeks. But the luxury and pomp of Byzantium was also a temptation to them; and so they led military expeditions against the empire. Undoubtedly, one of the aims of the Byzantine attempts at the Russians’ conversion was to put an end to these wars. The sources indicate that after the great Russian raid of 860 Basil I made such attempt; not much later the Russians had a bishop of their own who must have been the head of a missionary bishopric, directing the Russians’ conversion. In one of his letters the patriarch Photius mentioned the Russians as a people which had entered among the subjects and subsidiary troops of the empire. In 957, Olga, the widow of Igor, Duke of Kiev, visited the Byzantine court. According to one of our sources, she was lifted out of the baptistry by the emporor Constantine Porphyrogenitus himself. Yet the Russian people’s conversion to the new faith did not become officially proclaimed until 989, when Vladimir, the Grand Duke of Kiev who consolidated state power and entered into an alliance with the emperor Basil II was baptized in Korsun (Cherson) and married Anna, the Byzantine emperor's sister. His people followed him in the conversion. The Russo-Byzantine alliance resulted in a joint military expedition that put an end to the Khazar empire in 1016. At the end of this war Byzantium gained a considerable number of Varangian subsidiary troops. Yet Russian raids into Byzantine territory did not stop with this alliance: in 1023—24 Chrysocheir, a relative of Duke Vladimir, crossed the Bosporus and got as far as the isle of Lemnus. Christianity did not take a firm root until the reign of the Grand Duke Yaroslav who established permanently the organization of the Church. From 1037 a Greek metropolitan held his see in Kiev; and so the recently converted country became a Byzantine ecclesiastical province, and the Grand Duke of Kiev was considered to be an imperial vassal in the Byzantine court. But the Russians were not reconciled to this situation. In 1043 Yaroslav started a military expedition against Byzantium which a Byzantine source calls “the Russians’ revolt”. In 1051 thesame Grand Duke refused to acknowledge his ecclesiastical dependence and appointed a Russian priest for the seat of the Metropolitan of Kiev without asking for the consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Nevertheless, in 1053 Russia could arrive at an agreement with Byzantium, and Vsevolod, Yaroslav’s son, married the daughter of the Byzantine emperor Constantine Monomachus. The conversion to Byzantine Christianity and the spread of the new faith were of decisive consequence for the later development of Russian culture. Byzantine priests came to Kiev as early as Vladimir’s reign, when schools, churches, and monasteries were built. By this time Old Church Slavonic literature flourished, and its products (mostly translated from Greek) were taken over, side by side with the Cyrillic script, through the mediation of the Bulgars. When Byzantine Christianity became general, many Greek loan-words entered into the Russian language. Yaroslav made a sort of second ‘‘Tsarigrad’’ of Kiev which was described by western travellers as “the rival of Constantinople”. The Sophia cathedral was modelled after the Hagia Sophia, with Greek inscriptions and mural paintings representing scenes from court life. This was the golden age of the Kiev monasteries, including the famous Petcherskaya Lavra, in which the ways and ideals of the Byzantine monastic life, the adoration of icons and paintings, and a cult of not only religious but also secular literature were introduced. The first Russian chronicles were writI 1 : yzantine customs and ceremonies that ap peared in the court of the dukes of Kiev, the architects of central political power, survived in the later courts of the princes of Moscow and even in those of the Russian tsars.
All this affected the forms of the Russian state and-sociak life,’
as it is clear.from the.Russkaya Pravda, the first Russi
of laws and the admonitions of the Grand Duke Viadimir ioe mach to his children, a work closely following Byzantine models But not only many elements and forms of Byzantine culture but also the Byzantine conception of the state struck root in Russia. Having married Zoe-Sophia, the last Byzantine emperor’s niece, in 1472, the Grand Duke of Moscow, Ivan ITI, introduced imperial customs in his court and adopted the double-eagle from the coat-of-arms of the Palaeologus dynasty. His son was crowned according to Byzantine customs, and not much later a legend arose that the Grand Duke Vladimir Monomach had received his crown from Byzantium. In the early 16th century the idea gained ground that Moscow was a successor of Byzantium, “the third Rome”. “For two Romes had fallen; but the third one survives”, as we can read in a letter written by Filofey of Pskov Thus, Russia inherited the Byzantine variant of the concept of Rome, which was further embodied in the tsarism and the Russian patriarchate established in 1547 and 1589, respectively Russia had taken over the political role of the Byzantine empire and the religious function of orthodoxy. The, Russian tsars traced back their ancestry to Augustus Caesar. Both the autocratic nature of the tsarist régime and the bureaucratic organization consisting of officials who belonged to strictly defined degrees of rank showed the influence of Byzantine models. The Russian tsars regarded the entrance into the Byzantine inheritance and its government for the welfare of humanity as a task set to them by God. From the period of Peter the Great they even considered it their project to re-conquer Tsarigrad for Christian Orthodoxy. The slogan adopted by the representatives of this tendency is well known: Put a cross on the Hagia Sophia.”’ Byzantine orientation was still alive in the middle of the 19th century, when it became an important element in the ideology of the “Slavophiles” who opposed western orientation.
Of the Danubian countries not only Bulgaria but Romania too, was drawn into the orbit of Byzantine culture. The Romanians who moved to their present land from the south brought with them the Orthodox faith from the Balkan peninsula. The organization of the Church in Moldavia and Wallachia took place in the 14th century, but the Romanian Church did not gain independence until the middle of the 19th century. The Byzantine influence, which reached Romania mostly through Bulgarian and Serbian mediation, left its mark on the life of both the state and the Church. The oldest monuments of architecture, as e.g. the 14th-century church at Arges, were built after Byzantine models; in the earliest literary remains, as e.g. in the Romanian chronicles, Byzantine influence is clearly noticeable. The Byzantine inheritance survived even after the fall of Byzantium. The Romanian rulers often married Greek princesses and introduced the Greek language in their court. Greek loan-words testify to the influence that the Greek culture of the Phanariot-period had on Romania.
But the Byzantine influence was not confined to Kast-European peoples; some of its elements also appeared in the West. The influence was strongest in Italy which belonged, at least partly, to the Byzantine empire during the 6th—1lth centuries. Yet Byzantine culture reached even territories beyond the Alps, through the mediation of the Holy Roman Empire. The contact between Byzantium and the West became more direct after the crusaders’ troops started their expeditions to the East, at the end of the 11th century and later when western principalities became established in the territory of the Byzantine empire.
Byzantine influence on the West first made itself felt in matters connected with the Church. The thoughts of great Greek theologians like Ioannes Damascenus went into the formation of western theology. The cult of Byzantine saints was transferred to the West. The use of the organ was taken over from the Byzantine Church, and Greek sacred music made a great impact on the development of western music. Medieval literature also drew much of its inspiration from Byzantium: numerous legends, tales, literary motifs were adopted.
A similar influence could be felt on law as it was developing in western countries. Justinian’s collection of Roman law became known in the West through Italian schools, and, above all, through the university of Bologna. The influence of Byzantine law made itself felt. up to recent times in southern Italy which belonged to Byzantium for the longest period. West-European civil Jaw borrowed much from the Roman law which saw its codification and further development in Byzantium. The forms and ceremonies of Byzantine court life also left their mark on the West. Wherever the Roman conception of the state struck root, the Byzantine formalities accompanying it gained ground, too. Otto IIT, son of a Byzantine princess and ruler of the Holy Roman Empire introduced in his palace built in Aventine not only the conception of the Roman state but also the splendour, luxury, customs, and ceremonies of the Byzantine court. Numerous formalities that were already known in Byzantium survived in the courts of the popes, the Habsburgs, or Louis XIV. Even the old Francis Joseph, emperor of Austria-Hungary, washed the feet of beggars on Holy Thursday, in the Byzantine emperors’ traditional manner. All courts followed the Byzantine in the use of dignities and titles, and especially many Byzantine elements survived in the coronation ceremonies. The double-eagle whose heads look westwards and eastwards, the symbol of the Roman empire, was not of Byzantine origin, but reached both Russia and the West through Byzantine mediation. First it appeared on the gold coins of the emperor Frederick II, early in the 13th century. In 1417 it became part of the arms of the German empire and was later on taken over by the Habsburgs.
But the strongest impact of Byzantium was on the arts. Here we do not wish to consider the much-disputed ‘Byzantine question” concerning the importance of Byzantium in the formation of western Christian art. Let us refer only to the fact that works of Byzantine art can be found not only in Italy, but also beyond the Alps. In Italy, where the influence of eastern Christian art made itself felt even before the Byzantine domination, the S. Vitale, S. Apollinare in Classe, and S. Apollinare Nuovo churches from Justinian’s period (all in Ravenna) have mosaic paintings which are among the finest products of 6thcentury Byzantine art. Byzantine elements can be observed in the mosaics of the 7th-century Sant’ Agnese and the 9th-century Santa Prassede, as well as in the mural paintings of the Santa Maria Antiqua, all three in Rome. The Venetian San Marco was built after Byzantine models; Greek artists worked on the monastery of Grotta-Ferrata, near Rome, and on the mosaic ornaments of the churches of Sicily. But traces of Byzantine artistic influence can be found also in northern Italy, particularly in church ornaments and the products of applied arts. Both the Italian trecento and the Caroling renaissance were very much indebted to Byzantium. The Byzantine impact on Germany manifested in the 10th ~ 13th centuries and was especially reflected in the miniatures of 10th—llth-century manuscripts. Traces of Byzantine artistic influence can be found in France and England, too. In the opinion of the French Byzantinologis Ch. Diehl, Byzantine art had a controlling influence on the development of the arts in Europe.
Finally, the part must be mentioned which Byzantium played in the evolution of West-European renaissance literature and humanism. The roots of Italian renaissance were not in Byzantium, but in Italian social development. Still, Byzantium had an important mediatory function in its formation. Very early Petrarch records his yearning for Homer, but the Greek text was not yet available for him. It was due to Byzantium which preserved the works of ancient Greek authors and kept them copying for centuries that western humanists could rediscover them as sources of inspiration. Some Byzantine scholars fled to Italy even before the fall of Constantinople, others followed them after the final collapse of the empire, taking with themselves not only their Greek language but also codices, thereby laying the basis of later celebrated collections of Greek manuscripts, such as Cardinal Bessarion’s collection in the Venetian Marciana library or the Greek collection of the Laurenziana library founded by the Medicis of Florence. The Italian humanists learned Greek from Byzantine scholars, of course, with contemporary Modern Greek pronunciation which remained a standard for western humanists until the age of Erasmus. Petrarch was taught Greek by Barlaam, a Greek from Calabria. In 1397 the Greek Manuel Chrysoloras started his activity in Florence, and was followed by several Byzantine humanists who also settled in Italy, among them Theodore of Gaza, Demetrius Chalcocondyles, Ioannes Argyropulus, Ianus Lascaris. In 1476 the first book in Greek was printed in Milan, a Greek grammar written by Constantinus Lascaris. Thanks to these Byzantine scholars working in Italy, the Western world got acquainted with Greek texts which formed an integral part of the cultural heritage of all later periods. “The manuscripts saved from the fallen Byzantium and the ancient statues discovered below the ruins of Rome revealed a new world to the amazed West: the ancient Greek age whose resplendent shapes dispelled the ghosts of the Middle Ages’’, as Engels wrote. We can add to this a statement made by a Greek scholar, J. Lambakis, which sums up everything that European culture has inherited from Byzantium. ‘““The Greeks re-educated Europe twice: first with the Parthenon, the symbol of Hellenic genius, then with the Hagia Sophia, the symbol of Byzantine culture.”
After this introduction we shall proceed to a discussion of Hungaro-Byzantine relations and the traces Byzantine culture left in Hungary.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق