Download PDF | Jarmila Bednaříková, Marek Meško, Anna Žáková (eds.) - On Research Methodology in Ancient and Byzantine History-Masaryk University (2015).
200 Pages
Preface
Each historical period brings specifi c methodological problems. Th e publication entitled “On Research Methodology in Ancient and Byzantine History” published within the project “Employment of graduate students of doctoral programs for scientifi c excellence” would like to start a series of discussions on various problems; their methodological solutions could lead to a bett er understanding and systematization of the course of ancient and Byzantine history, as well as to a new systematization of general history as a whole. In this publication, we try to pose and answer only some of the many questions that the study of ancient and Byzantine history raises.
It is a question of the general defi nition of an ancient state, the institute of sacral chieft aincy and kingship, the characteristics of the so-called barbarian or nomadic states or the characteristics of general features of relations between Byzantium and the “barbarians” – nomads (Authors: J. Bednaříková and M. Meško). Even though the minor contributions writt en by doctorate students of Ancient History do not form a homogeneous unit, their purpose is to help the doctorate students of this fi eld to refl ect more deeply on the methodology they use or will use in their dissertations, and to formulate these principles so that other young researchers will fi nd them useful in the future, too. Th is work is the result of workshops led by Mgr. Marek Meško, M.A., Ph.D., a post-doctoral fellow at the Department of Classical Studies and his mentor and supervisor of doctorate students of Ancient History, Doc. PhDr. Jarmila Bednaříková, CSc., which brought together doctorate students at the Department of Classical Studies at the Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University in Brno.
Marek Meško – Jarmila Bednaříková – Anna Žáková
Jarmila Bednaříková — Contribution to the Basic Methodological Questions (Ancient States and the States in the Transitional Period between Antiquity and the Middle Ages)
Ancient state Generally, ancient state can be characterized as a religious, political and legal unit, regardless of whether it is a state of the so-called ancient Oriental type or the ancient states of Greeks and Romans. It is characteristic of a common cult, which the representatives of the state (the priests of state deities need to be included here, too), as well as its personally free inhabitants are obliged to perform. In Ancient Egypt, a certifi cate of its participation was issued,1 violation of the cult was a capital crime in Greece (off ense against religion), Christians were persecuted in ancient Rome because they refused to off er sacrifi ce to the state gods and worship the deifi ed emperors.
They also needed a certifi cate about participation in sacrifi ces.2 According to ancient ideas, the relevant state deities protect the entity that worships them. For example, in the Mesopotamian mythology, the ends of state entities and disasters that had befallen them are associated with the capture or departure of the main protective gods.3 In Ancient Egypt, a new life cycle always starts with a new pharaoh who is regarded as the god incarnate. In ancient times, sett lements or states represented a bordered sacred space where the residents were safe. Th e best-known example of this bordered space is the Etruscan-Italic pomerium. If a citizen of one Greek polis or the Roman state was exiled, it also meant that he lost the protection of their gods and eo ipso the protection of the divine and human right.4
The unity of the cult is closely related to the fact that the state is a legal unity. In some ancient states, it is evident that law is considered revealed (Mesopotamia, main principles of the Hebrew law), elsewhere (Egypt), it is of divine origin because the ruler is the incarnate god; in the ancient Greece or Rome, there is a close link between the divine and the human law (if e.g. a Roman is not protected by fas, he cannot be protected by ius either, he fi nds himself completely outside legal categories – his life is not protected, he has no family or property rights, etc.). In addition, law is applicable only to personally free residents or citizens of the state, not to slaves and also not to foreigners.
The very close relationship between law and religion is demonstrated by the fact that als o ethical standards of ancient states applied only within particular religious-legal- -political units. Although the basic ethical postulate of ancient states was to protect the vulnerable, the weak and the poor,5 the ethical standards did not apply to slaves, the most defenseless and the poorest, even though (and in this case actually because) they were commanded by certain state gods.6 Despite the fact that the foreigners enjoyed personal protection as well as the protection of their property, it required various special provisions.7 In ancient times, political unity was based mainly on two principles: A community of those who are subject to the same ruler or a community of citizens. Neither ethnicity nor language played a major role in either case. States in the Near East were mostly united politically by the person of the ruling god (e.g. An and Innana in Uruk, Enki in Eridu, Marduk in Babel, Hor-Re in Egypt, solar or lunar deity in the states in the south of the Arabian Peninsula, Haldi in Urartu), who is represented by a high priest or sacral king, or the institution of sacred kingship.
In the times of ancient Greece and Rome, we can fi nd a less prominent function of the main state god or protective deities (such as Athena, Jupiter Capitoline), but the notion of protective heroes is strongly developed (Th eseus in Att ica, Heracles by the Dorian tribes, etc., Romulus in the case of the Romans, there are known the graves of some important heroes with its protective function and so on).8 Leading representatives of these ancient states were obliged to actively participate in sacrifi ces for the state and in the examination of prophetic signs.9 Th e conjunction of all their three distinctive features suggests that the ancient state is also characteristic of linking and blending the sacral and the profane realm on the fi eld of law and politics. The question of sacred kings or kingship10 Th is institution is one of the most widespread in human history and, therefore, it is necessary to examine it from a methodological point of view.11 As regards sacral chieft aincy, we know this institution from the tribal society and it manifested itself also in the early history of our country.12 In ancient times, there was no area where this institution would not exist (even though it could be preceded by the role of a highest priest in the administration of the early state). Sacral kings or kingship are the result of a close link between the sacred and profane spheres in ancient states or in states which, in our opinion, according to chronological defi nition of this period, do not belong to ancient times, but considering the level of development of their society, they are analogical to the ancient ones.13 Several key characteristics of sacred kings or kingship can be defi ned by studying various ancient sources. It is useful to list them mainly because if we fi nd at least some of these features in sources, we can deduct the existence of the sacred rule in the examined society. To the basic characteristics of the sacred rule belong: I.
Th e ruler is seen as: – God incarnate – Ruler chosen by gods – Son of a deity – Special representative of heaven II. Alternatively, there is a belief that the kingship has come down from heaven.14 III. Animals and/or a miraculous salvation of an abandoned or otherwise endangered child play an important role in the birth or upbringing of such a king. IV. He is the guarantor of world order. In this role, he transfers the will of gods to the society, he is the link between gods and men, and his task is to take care of both the rite that maintains the cosmic order and justice that is at the heart of the order of the human society. V. He is one of the main fi gures in the rites which repeat the original acts of gods. Th erefore, the role of the king and the high priest is sometimes connected. VI. Every year, he ensures the harvest and fertility of the land, people and animals in his rites. Th erefore, his important att ributes may include, for example, hoe, ax, plow, etc. VII. He fi ghts the forces of evil, symbolized by demons, dragons, lions, etc. He is oft en portrayed in this role (compare e.g. Gilgamesh and the lion, Heracles and the lion). He triumphs over them and his victories (also over human enemies) evidence his good relationship with gods. VIII. It is his fundamental duty to keep this good relationship. If it lasts, he protects the society from poor harvest, hunger, subjugation to enemies, diseases, and other evils. He is responsible for the well being of all members of the society, which is expressed e.g. in his frequent att ribute “shepherd”.15 IX. If the king does not fulfi ll the above-mentioned duties, the society is threatened with various disasters and the king can be deposed or even sacrifi ced to gods. X. Obedience to him is initially seen as obedience to the gods who put him on the throne and whose will he represents. XI.
There is a certain degree of sacredness around him (from a completely taboo fi gure to the object of worshipping in prayers, temples, and by sacrifi ces, to the man or woman who are endowed with magical power, but are in everyday touch with other members of the society). XII. There may be sacred objects with which the ruling power is connected and which is inherited (vessels, weapons, sacrifi cial tools, farm tools, etc.).16 While there still was the institution of the sacred rule in the ancient states of the so-called Oriental type, in the ancient world of Greece and Rome it was the most prominent in the period before the foundation of the state, then during the Hellenistic Greece (related to the acquisition of a number of elements from the ancient Near East civilizations, too), and in the Roman, especially late, emperorship. Since sacred power is not discussed that oft en in connection with the ancient Greek and Roman world, we will mention some examples – fi rst for the earlier phase of the local sacred rule.
Greece
According to the Greek myths, the goddess Demeter, who fi rst plowed fi eld and also created the fi rst laws,17 gave the plowman Triptolemus cereal grains.18 Triptolemus is here a called up ruler and sacred plowman, responsible for the harvest and fertility.
Th e Greeks oft en talked about marriages of gods and men and of their common children. Greek royal families were headed by similar heroes or by gods. Th e Dorian tribes and the state of Sparta were reportedly ruled by kings of the Heracles lineage (Heracleides).19 Th is hero is a typical hero, defeating evil everywhere on his way of life. Poseidon was to father Theseus, the hero of Att ica, and his earthly father Aigeus left a sword and sandals under a large boulder – things to test whether he was called upon to rule.20 Aft er the death, he became the apotropaic hero – he reportedly helped the Athenians to win the batt le of Marathon in 490 BC.21 Homeric epics bring a whole range of clear references to sacred kings. Kings come from gods and heroes, kingship is given by Zeus, they are called shepherds of their people.22
The title of Athenian archon, who was called archon basileus, points to the sacred basileus from the period before the establishment of the Athenian polis. He held the title of the deposed tribal king and was responsible for what was one of the most important characteristics of sacred rulers – the performance of common cult.23 Lycurgus, the lawgiver of Sparta placed into the 7th century BC, was reportedly named the darling of gods by the Apollo’s prophetess Pythia and a god rather than a man. He had his laws approved by Apollo. (He is att ributed the creation of the Spartan state constitution and the famous Spartan society of equals.) He is worshipped aft er death, too – he reportedly had a temple in Sparta and was off ered sacrifi ces.24 Th us, we have examples of Greek gods-lawgivers or lawgivers inspired by gods, of the revealed law. Justice as a condition for the duration of the cosmic order was connected not only with the honor of the Greek rulers, but also with good harvest and fertility of livestock and prosperity in general; the injustice was connected with various disasters.25 Lycurgus is sometimes considered a half-historical and half-mythical fi gure.
The Spartan Lysandros, the winner of the Peloponnesian war, was the fi rst fully historical statesmen who were built altars on which he was given sacrifi ces as a god.26 Th e images of divinity of a ruler were even more concentrated around the fi gure of Alexander the Great. Also his father Philippos, as evidenced, held numerous ceremonies connected with the sacred rule. Alexander was said to be a descendant of Heracles. Th e conquest of Egypt contributed a lot to his divinity. God Amun worshipped in Wesset allegedly had sex with Alexandros’ mother in the form of a snake.27 Amun’s oracle addressed Alexandros in the temple of this god as the son of Amun, as well as the son of Zeus.
Rome
Aeneas, the mythical forefather of the Roman nation, is in Virgil’s epic the Aeneid called the descendant of Jove, the true descendant of gods. He carries out the purgation of his people and, therefore, also held functions later defi ned as priestly.29 Th e kings of non-Roman tribes of Italy also declared their divine origin. King Latinus was declared to be the grandson of the god of the sun Helios.30 One of Aeneas’ descendants, Romulus, the mythical king of the Romans and the grandson of Numitor, the mythical king of Alba Longa, was of the divine origin aft er his father Mars, and aft er his earthly pilgrimage he was allegedly taken among the gods. Th en, he appeared to the senator Iulius Proculus and declared himself a god named Quirinus.31 Other features of his sacred kingship include: He was nursed by a she-wolf (such as Zeus was nursed by a goat Amaltheia in Crete, Genghis Khan was brought up by a wolf). He ordered to sink a round pit as the center of the newly established sett lement (called mundus) and then he plows a sacred furrow around it, att ached a copper blade to the plow (antiquity of the ceremony) and hitched a cow and a bull to it. Spear that he hurled turned green.32 Livy mentions many of these features, but he does not seem to understand the original symbolism.33
According to the tradition the second, yet actually the fi rst historic Roman king, Numa Pompilius, is depicted by Roman historians as the founder of most Roman clerical colleges and the organizer of the matt ers of Roman cult. In his case, Livy and Plutarch describe the procedure that was to confi rm that the designated Roman king, who held the title rex, was enthroned by the will of gods. Aft er the Romulus’ death, there was no new rex fi rst, interregnum followed and the administration of the Roman society was in the hands of senators. Th is interregnum34 was used for observation of oracular signs. If they were in favor of the new king, a procedure followed in the assembly called comitia curiata. It gave imperium to the king and took the oath of allegiance.35 Numa consulted the ruling matt ers with the goddess (or nymph) Egeria. (Th is way, for example, the Cretan Minos left for the Dictean cave.) A sacred shield fell to his hands from heaven, which was at the beginning of the foundation of the priest college of Mars priests Salii.36 Interesting is Plutarch’s opinion that the temple of goddess Vesta was founded by Numa as an imitation of the universe.37 Already the Roman royal period brought about a certain departure from the original rites, held at the accession of the king, especially because the Etruscans took over the rule of Rome aft er the reign of the third Roman king Ancus Marcius.38
The title rex was adopted by the Republic in the form of a priest sacrifi - cer, bringing sacrifi ces for the state, who was called rex sacrorum. Similarly to the Athenian archon basileus, this priestly function evidences that the Roman rex was a necessary factor of the public cult, the changes of which were not desirable. Otherwise, odium regni governed the Republican Romans, their constitution and laws sought to prevent further accession of kinghood.39 How was it then with the possible sacrality of the Roman Republican magistrates? Undoubtedly, it is evidenced for the tribunes of the plebs, where it was not associated with the sacrality of the rule, but with reasons known to all ancient civilizations; namely, the protection of the weak and the poor members of the society. Tribuni plebis, who were to protect the Roman citizens initially without full civil rights – the plebei from the despotism of patrician magistrates, enjoyed since ca the 440s benefi ts of being the so-called sacrosancti. Th ey were protected by the norms of the divine law (fas). Whoever harmed a tribune was called sacer and was put completely outside the laws of gods as well as humans and, therefore, could be killed with impunity.40 Th e relationship between the richer and socially important patron and his poorer, insignifi cant client that was established already during the royal times was under the same protection. Patron who did harm to his client was also threatened with sacration.41 Like reges before, high-ranking Republican magistrates had to be always confi rmed by oracular signs. Th ey were held in the electoral comitia centuriata, as well as in the curiate assembly, which awarded imperium to the highest magistrates. Th e procedure of electing the representative of the state and his endowment with power to command, judge and punish was separate like in the royal era. Th e curiate assembly was only a relic, dating back to the tribal society, whose functions could be fully replaced by the comitia centuriata. However, the curiate assembly was strongly connected with the Roman rites, religion and, therefore, was not dissolved during the Republic and also during the Principate, perhaps until the rule of Carus (282–283 AD).42 Indeed, the comitia centuriata could be summoned only under good auspices, too.
The right of the high Republican magistrates to perform public sacrifi ces and oracles also evidences, that his political functions maintained some att ributes of the former sacred kingship. Of course, the courts in the Republic era did not make only just judgments, but the Roman awareness that justice is a precondition for good relationships with the gods existed, even in popular awareness. In one of his comedies, Plautus43 says that who act unfairly in court eorum referimus nomina exscripta ad Iovem. Cott idie ille scit, quis hic querat malum. Connection between justice and the gods is directly apparent in some legal provisions: e.g. night robbery of harvest was seen as a crime against the goddess Ceres and punishable by hanging on a tree.44 Already under Caesar, at the turn of the Republic and Principate, the number of elements of sacrality of the representatives of the Roman state signifi cantly increased. He was considered the descendant of Aeneas and, therefore, of Venus, too. Aft er his death, the senate suggested worshipping him as a god and C. Octavianus took care of a temple built for him.45 His apotheosis is celebrated also by the poet Ovid. According to him, the deifi ed ruler can hear prayers.46 Aft er his death, according to Plutarchos, a comet appeared in the sky and the sunshine faded, too.47 Th e motif of the eclipsed sun is probably one of the constants of the thought of mankind that once connected the sun with justice and the immoral behaviour (Caesar was assassinated) with a serious disruption of the world order.48 Th ere is also a motif of special (essentially “royal”) luck that accompanied Caesar.
Supposedly, Caesar soothed a terrifi ed helmsman on a boat by saying: “Do not fear, you sail Caesar in your boat, and Caesar’s luck sails with us.“49 A temple was also built to Octavianus, with him the so-called principate began, as well as to the other emperors of the principate aft er their death and aft er their supposed apotheosis, and their cult was cultivated by priests called augustales. Th e temples were built even to the living emperors. Th e deceased emperor was called divinus, divine, which diff ered from the adjective divus, which is translated with the same word, but it denoted the emperor still living. Although he was divine, he was not regarded as a living god. Th e title Augustus, which the Roman senate gave to Octavianus in January 27 BC, meant noble or blessed. Th e idea that the ruler is a living god fi rst appeared with the Claudius family, Caligula and Nero considered themselves living deities.50 A colossal statue of Nero represented this emperor as the god Helios.51 In connection with the tradition of the sacred kings or kingship, these excesses are not inexplicable; nevertheless, the Romans were not prepared for a similar understanding of the emperor yet. Th e emperors not only had their temples and priests, also the residents of the empire could pray to them; even their statues provided asylum to people fl eeing from punishment. Domitianus, the last ruler from the Flavius dynasty, was the fi rst ruler to be called dominus et deus at his court.52 His predecessors from this family were, on the contrary, very moderate considering the divinity of imperial fi gures.53 In the Roman state with its practically modern administration, calling the emperors gods was not as important as in the early development of the states. Th e connection of imperial fi gures with the Roman cult was a diff erent matt er, as even the Romans did not stop believing that the public rites and sacrifi ces were vital for the empire. Th e cult of emperors became an integral part of them, so much strong that its refusal represented a very important cause for bloody persecution of Christians.54 Th e basic title of the emperor during the principate was princeps and denoted emperor only as the fi rst senator and, therefore, the fi rst among all Roman citizens. Th e fi ght between two tendencies, the rational and the civil on the one hand and the religious and monarchistic on the other, is to some extent typical for this era.
The emergence of imperial absolutism, called the dominate by Th . Mommsen, eliminated this hesitation, but a new problem soon appeared – the controversy about emperor’s divinity and Christian monotheism. Th e fi rst known Christian chronicler Eusebios already tried to solve this problem. However, his conception of Emperor Constantinus I does not fundamentally diff er from the understanding of sacral rulers e.g. in the ancient Near East. According to him, the emperor is the God’s favorite, endowed with Logos’ favor. He is the representative of God on earth, God ensures victory over his enemies and his deeds transfer God’s will to earth.55 At the beginning of the dominate, the divinity of emperors was strongly emphasized, the emperor was called dominus et deus and his new conception was now supported by new signs of power and a rite which was held during an audience at the emperor (proskynesis, adoratio purpureae). Th e conception of the emperor as a deity was emphasized by naming everything associated with the emperor sacred. Th e adjective sacer is connected not only with the emperor’s council (sacrum consistorium), but also e.g. with his palace, clothing and bedroom.
The contact between the public and the emperor was greatly reduced. A grateful source of evidence of the sacrality of the dominate rulers are panegyrics which were recited to them on various occasions. Of course, these sources try to fl att er the recipient of the speech as much as possible; however, this is not a problem when determining the sacral status of the emperor. In the edition of 12 Latin Panegyrics including (with exception of the Panegyric in honor of Traianus) the panegyrics on the emperors of dominate56 the oldest is Mamertinus’ panegyric in honor of Maximianus, the co-ruler of the dominate founder, Emperor Diocletianus.
Th e title “the most holy Emperor” is very common here as well as in other panegyrics.57 Maximianus is a divine personality, emperors are of divine origin and come from Jove (augusti), the caesares from his son and hero Hercules. Th e emperor is a god, present among people.58 An important att ribute of imperial power of the dominate rulers was Fortuna, i.e. the famous “royal” luck. She accompanied their reign and granted them victory in wars.59 According to a panegyrist, during the reign of the fi rst dominate emperors, the empire enjoyed good harvest and good health returned (there had been plague before).60 Th erefore, the emperors guaranteed their country fertility and good health of their inhabitants. We can fi nd similar att ributes in the panegyric in honor of Emperor Constantius Chlorus (as caesar). It reminiscences of the divinity and fortune of emperors; the panegyrist says, that the emperors send light to earth to redeem people and that their divine power acts wherever their portraits and banners are worshipped.61
The anonymous panegyrics62 in honor of Emperor Constantinus I called this ruler numen tuum, sacratissimus, praesentissimus deus, god is: quasi maiestatis of Constantinus comes et socius.63 Nazarius’ panegyric in honor of Emperor Constantine I shows a certain Christian shift . God is behind Constantine’s deeds, divine force helps him and he constantly serves God. Th ese statements, as well as the emphasis on Constantine divine courage, glory and compassion are well compatible with Christian ideas, including the heavenly host that comes to rescue Constantinus. Th is army, however, is led by his deceased father, divus Constantius.64
Th e panegyrics writt en in honor of the Christian (even though not bigot) emperor Valentianus I by one of the greatest defenders of the old Roman polytheism and one of the greatest scholars of Late Antiquity Q. Aurelius Symmachus are interesting, too. Only emperor’s fortune appears in the fi rst one.65 Th e second one has more examples we are looking for. It contains denotation of emperors as divine fi gures, but, at the same time, the emperor is characterized as “a creature closest to god”.66 In a panegyric, Ausonius, a famous Late Antiquity poet from Gallia, thanked emperor Gratian, who two years later as the fi rst Roman ruler rejected the title of Supreme Pontiff (pontifex maximus) and thus completely broke up with the old Roman polytheism, for att aining the consulship.
The panegyric is partly characteristic of the traditional indecisiveness in views typical of the period. Th e father of the emperor achieved the divine honors,67 but Gratianus has talents for which he owes to god, god proposes and emperor performs, god is the originator of his power and his decisions.68 Te ruler is not deus, but proximus deo. Journey towards the image of the emperor as a mere ruler by the grace of God has not been fi nished by far. It is evidenced in Pacatus’ panegyric in honor of Emperor Th eodosius I, who was the fi rst to ban the performance of “pagan” religion completely. According to the author, Th eodosius is “equal to god”, divine being, god is his partner in reign. He shows himself to people; therefore, people have the opportunity to look at the deity. His visits in houses of private persons are commented by saying that “… his divine steps also hallowed the houses of private persons”.69
The discomfi ture of ideas which were to reconcile the new Christian view of the empire and the emperor’s divinity is in the late Latin panegyrics great. Obviously, when speaking of panegyrics we must bear in mind their above-mentioned purpose, which is adulation. However, the image of a Christian emperor as a being quite diff erent than ordinary mortals can be confi rmed by the words of a military expert Flavius Vegetius Renatus, too, who writes that to the emperor belongs the faithful devotion as to the incarnate God on the Earth (but he also rules according to the will of God).70 A similar att itude to Emperor Th eodosius II, the ruler of the eastern part of the Roman Empire from 408, is evidenced by the historian Priscus; Roman Bigilas spoke of the emperor as god at the feast in Serdica (Sofi a).71 In the period aft er deposing the last West Roman Emperor Romulus Agustulus, when even the center of the empire, Italy, was dominated by barbarian rulers, the tradition of sacral power of the former dominate emperors continued.
Theodoric the Great, king of the Ostrogoths, who ruled in Italy from 493 to 526,72 was honored with a panegyric by Ennodius, the bishop of Pavia. Th e Christian dignitary speaks here of his divinity (numen tuum); his heir is called “holy child”.73 However, Ennodius also points out that the king knows that the result of his exertions is in the hands of God, and behaves accordingly.74 Of course, it would be possible to include also other evidence concerning the sacred rule in Antiquity. However, this would be a task for an independent study.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق