Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
A History of Byzantium Blackwell History of the Ancient World This series provides a new narrative history of the ancient world, from the beginnings of civilization in the ancient Near East and Egypt to the fall of Constantinople. Written by experts in their fields, the books in the series offer authoritative accessible surveys for students and general readers alike. Published A History of Byzantium Timothy E. Gregory A History of the Ancient Near East Marc Van De Mieroop In Preparation A History of Ancient Egypt David O’Connor A History of the Persian Empire Christopher Tuplin A History of the Archaic Greek World Jonathan Hall A History of the Classical Greek World P. J. Rhodes A History of the Hellenistic World Malcolm Errington A History of the Roman Republic John Rich A History of the Roman Empire Michael Peachin A History of the Later Roman Empire, Stephen Mitchell AD 284–622 A History of Byzantium Timothy E. Gregory © 2005 by Timothy E. Gregory BLACKWELL PUBLISHING 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK 550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia The right of Timothy E. Gregory to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. First published 2005 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gregory, Timothy E. A history of Byzantium / Timothy E. Gregory. p. cm. — (Blackwell history of the ancient world) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-631-23512-4 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 0-631-23513-2 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Byzantine Empire—History. I. Title. II. Series. DF552.G68 2005 949.5′02—dc22 2004012925 A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library. Set in 101/2 /121/2 pt Plantin by Graphicraft Limited, Hong Kong Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall The publisher’s policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free practices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board used have met acceptable environmental accreditation standards. For further information on Blackwell Publishing, visit our website: www.blackwellpublishing.com Contents List of Figures vii List of Maps ix List of Boxes x Preface Introduction xii 1 1 The Crisis of the Third Century 21 2 The Revival under Diocletian 33 3 The Age of Constantine the Great 45 4 The Fourth Century: Constantius II to Theodosios I 66 5 The Fifth Century 95 6 The Age of Justinian 119 7 The Byzantine “Dark Ages”: Late Sixth and Seventh Centuries 148 8 The Isaurian Dynasty and Iconoclasm 183 9 Continued Struggle over Ikons 202 10 The Beginnings of the Macedonian Dynasty 217 11 The Apogee of Byzantine Power 237 12 The Komnenoi 257 13 The Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade 282 vi CONTENTS 14 The Beginnings of Decline 298 15 The End of the Empire 325 16 Byzantium after the Fall of the City 340 Glossary 359 General Bibliography 366 A Selection of Primary Sources in English Translation 371 List of Byzantine Emperors 373 Index 378 Figures 2.1 The Tetrarchs 35 2.2 Arch of Galerius 42 3.1 Solidus of Constantine I 51 3.2 Column of Constantine, Constantinople 59 3.3 Isometric view, church of St. John Lateran, Rome 63 4.1 Missorium of Theodosios I 83 5.1 Coin of Theodosios II 100 5.2 Northeast gate, Byzantine fortress at Isthmia (reconstruction) 101 5.3 Coin of Anastasios I 109 5.4 Funeral stele of an abbot 114 5.5 Qu’lat Se’man 118 6.1 The Empress Theodora, San Vitale, Ravenna 124 6.2 Hagia Sophia, plan 130 6.3 Hagia Sophia, interior 131 6.4 Bust of an aristocratic woman, probably Anicia Juliana 133 6.5 Anicia Juliana from the Vienna Dioscorides 134 6.6 Mosaic pavement with a representation of “Apolausis” 144 7.1 Byzantine fortress on the island of Dokos 158 7.2 Gold coin of Justinian II, first reign (692–5) 176 viii FIGURES 7.3 Gold coin of Justinian II, second reign (705–11) 178 8.1 Iconoclasts at work 191 8.2 Gold coin of Constantine V and Leo IV 195 10.1 Plan of the monastery of Osios Meletios 224 10.2 Gold coin of Leo VI 226 10.3 The Mandylion 231 10.4 Ivory of Constantine VII 233 11.1 Megiste Lavra 239 11.2 Plan of the church of the Holy Apostles in Athens 252 11.3 Several cross-in-square churches 253 11.4 Coin of Romanos IV (1068–71) 255 12.1 Graffito of a ship from Korinth 265 12.2 Plan of medieval Korinth 276 12.3 Plan of the “Bema Church” in Korinth 277 12.4 “Little Metropolitan,” Athens 278 13.1 A glazed bowl 286 13.2 Cistercian monastery of Zaraka 287 14.1 Gracanica 302 14.2 St. Merkourios 309 14.3 Presentation of the Virgin 310 14.4 Meteora, the skete of Doupiani 312 14.5 Meteora, church of the Metamorphosis (Transfiguration) in the Great Meteoron 313 14.6 Meteora, the monastery of Rousanou 314 14.7 St. Anastasia the Medicine-healer 317 15.1 Sultan Mehmed II 331 15.2 Siege of Constantinople 335 16.1 Panagia Lactans 347 16.2 Last Judgment from Vatopedi Monastery, Mt. Athos 348 16.3 Detail from the Last Judgment 349 16.4 Modern “Byzantine” fresco 356 Maps The Eastern Mediterranean, showing geographical divisions, ca. 300 4 0.2 The restored Roman Empire, ca. 300 8 3.1 Constantinople in the fourth-fifth century 56 6.1 The Byzantine Empire in the time of Justinian (sixth century ) 122 7.1 Islamic conquests 163 7.2 Themes in the seventh century 179 8.1 Themes in Asia Minor after the seventh century 184 0.1 10.1 Byzantium in the ninth century 221 12.1 The Byzantine Empire of the Komnenoi 259 13.1 The situation after the Fourth Crusade, ca. 1214 283 14.1 Monasteries of Mount Athos 301 Boxes 2.1 Diocletian’s Attempt to Control Prices 41 2.2 The Great Persecution 43 3.1 The Founding of Constantinople 57 3.2 Eusebios of Caesarea’s Opposition to Christian Images 61 3.3 Arrangements for a Church 64 4.1 Constantius II Visits Rome ( 357) 69 4.2 Heretics in Early Byzantium 71 4.3 Destruction of the Serapeum in Alexandria 86 5.1 Women of the House of Theodosios 98 5.2 The Murder of the Philosopher Hypatia 117 6.1 Anthemios of Tralles and Isidore of Miletos 129 6.2 Anicia Juliana 132 6.3 Transvestite Nuns 141 7.1 The Marriage of Maurice and Constantina, 582 152 7.2 Circus Faction Violence under Phokas 155 7.3 The Persistence of Pagan Practice: Canons of the Council in Trullo (691/2) 162 7.4 Theophanes on Muhammad and the Origins of Islam 165 7.5 The Fall of Jerusalem to the Arabs: The Nobility of Umar and the Patriarch Sophronios 167 BOXES xi 7.6 The Miracles of St. Artemios 174 8.1 The Theory of Ikons 186 8.2 The Ekloga and Byzantine Society of the Eighth Century 193 8.3 The Decree of the Second Council of Nicaea (787) 198 9.1 The Poet Kassia (fl. 840) 208 9.2 Digenes Akritas 210 10.1 Byzantine Gold 218 10.2 Decoration of the Kainourgion Palace 220 10.3 The Mandylion 230 10.4 Liudprand of Cremona in Constantinople 234 11.1 Byzantine Houses 241 11.2 The Historian Michael Psellos 244 12.1 The Arrival of the First Crusade in the Byzantine Empire: Anna Komnena, Alexiad 260 12.2 Western-style Tournaments in Byzantium 275 13.1 Destruction of Ancient Art in the Latin Sack of Constantinople 284 13.2 Leon Sgouros, Tyrant of Nauplion 290 13.3 William Villehardouin and the Parliament of Ladies 292 13.4 St. Sava of Serbia 294 14.1 The Condition of Asia Minor at the End of the Fourteenth Century 303 14.2 The Monasteries of Meteora 311 14.3 St. Anastasia the Poison-curer 316 15.1 The Fearful Cannon 333 15.2 Byzantium and the Italian Renaissance 337 16.1 The Emperor Turned to Marble 341 16.2 Kornaros and Erotokritos 352 16.3 Byzantium and The Brothers Karamazov 353 Preface This is a book on the history of the Byzantine Empire, one of the longest-lived and most important cultures in Western civilization, but also one of the least understood. The book is meant to be both concise and comprehensive, and as such it has been necessary to make a variety of decisions and sacrifices. The history of Byzantium is well over a thousand years in duration and any reasonable book on the subject must prepare the ground with consideration of the institutions and the issues of what came before; it must also consider the aftermath of the empire and the ways in which its culture has continued to affect our lives over the past 500 years. Given all that, serious thought had to be devoted to organization and to questions of inclusion and focus. In recent years it has become fashionable to write introductory histories that focus primarily on social, economic, and cultural topics, with heavy doses of everyday life and the mentalité of the societies being studied. While I appreciate such an approach and most of my own research and writing has been concerned with such issues, I feel that this is not appropriate for a book that seeks to provide an introduction to a civilization such as that of Byzantium. Rather, I believe that a “traditional” political narrative is essential, especially for the vast majority of readers who will know little or nothing about Byzantium at the outset. This chronological frame is designed to portray the enormous geographical, chronological, and topical sweep of Byzantine history and to allow readers to see the vast cultural changes that occurred within this same civilization over time. Some readers may criticize such an approach or feel that it is “old-fashioned,” and I can certainly understand such a view. Nonetheless, this is the basis of the organization of the book, and I hope that some readers will find it satisfactory and be encouraged to go on to more specialized texts that treat the art, society, and culture of Byzantium in greater detail. This organization is not meant to imply that imperial policy and the personalities of the individual emperors were necessarily the driving forces in the PREFACE xiii Byzantine period, although the centralized nature of the Byzantine state certainly gave them an importance we might not find in all other states. Rather, as an approach to understanding Byzantine history, these individual reigns form convenient blocks of time against which to view broader developments. This is not to say, then, that this book is essentially about politics and the military: important as these are in their own right, I hope that the reader will see these primarily as a means to “situate” Byzantine history and to allow us to experience something of what life was like for Byzantines of all classes and of both genders. The narrative will, by necessity, focus more on emperors and on men in general, since our written sources tell us more about them. But we shall try throughout to connect the events of war and politics with the lives of all people, and to invite the reader to a personal encounter with the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire. Weaving a narrative that includes culture, daily life, and religion around a basically chronological frame poses serious challenges, not least of which is the reality that not all phenomena change and develop at the same rate. Thus, although the present book uses the reigns of individual emperors as a means of organization, religious issues, philosophical movements, architectural change, and economic trends do not always move in time with changes on the imperial throne. I have, however, tried to discuss these broader issues within the frame of the chronologically based chapters, rather than providing chapters on each of these that would stand alone, essentially outside of time. The result, therefore, may at times seem a little choppy, as we move from the politics of succession to military policy, to religion, society, and the economy. And at times, we have to stand back and look at certain developments that stretch across a broader time frame and thus escape, temporarily at least, from the rigid confines of the chronological organization. I hope the reader will be able to bear with me in these cases, and maintain the basic flow of the book and the broader themes it seeks to address. On many occasions it seemed to me that specific examples – of persons and/ or issues – might be useful to illustrate individual issues, but these examples do not easily fit into the chronological frame. For this reason we have made use of what we here call “boxes.” These sometimes focus on the life and/or work of an individual person or event or they are devoted to the insight provided by specific primary sources. I hope that they will be useful in bringing a little more “life” to the sometimes dry facts of historical narrative. In any case, they are meant to be a kind of “snapshot” into historical questions and aspects of Byzantine life that certainly deserve greater depth of treatment but which the confines of space do not easily allow. Every book on Byzantium must say a word about systems of transliteration, since such a book must constantly refer to names of individuals, places, and institutions that were not originally written in the Latin alphabet. No single system of transliteration is universally acceptable, but for Greek I have generally followed a system that renders the Greek literally, as it would be pronounced today, without Latinization: thus vestiarios and Palaiologos, rather than bestiarius xiv PREFACE and Palaeologus. Exceptions are cases in which names are reasonably enough known in English to make substitution awkward: one thinks of Constantinople (not Konstantinoupolis), Athens (not Athenai or Athena), and (normally) Basil (not Vasileios or Vasili). For Arabic, Slavic, and other non-Greek or non-Latin words, the transliterations of the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium have been preferred. Some inconsistencies inevitably remain, such as ‘Cappadocian Falzers” and “John the Kappadokian.” I would like to take this opportunity to thank various individuals and institutions who have assisted me with this book. The Alexander Onassis Foundation provided me with a fellowship in 2001–2, and much of the first phase of writing was accomplished during that time. The Department of History at Ohio State University has been a good place to work on the book and a succession of Chairs has allowed me considerable flexibility in arranging my teaching schedule. Many years of teaching Byzantine history at Ohio State gave me the incentive to write this book, and the students who have passed through my classes asked the questions I have sought to answer here. Various people kindly helped me locate suitable illustrations for the book; Natalia Teteriatnikov and Brooke Schilling of Dumbarton Oaks deserve special thanks. Angela Cohen and Sandra Raphael patiently provided invaluable editorial help and saved me from many errors. Finally, my wife Lita and our sons Yianni and Panayioti have been understanding and supportive in every way, and they have provided me, probably unbeknownst to themselves, with significant insight into the Byzantine tradition as it continues to live today. Ancient Korinth, 24 May 2004. 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction 250 500 750 1000 306 Constantine I emperor 330 Foundation of Constantinople 1204 Fourth Crusade sacks Constantinople 1250 1500 Medieval and Modern Attitudes toward Byzantium Byzantium was a place of paradox. The inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire called themselves “Romans” and they would not have known themselves as “Byzantines,” a term used by modern historians to distinguish them from the earlier Romans. The Byzantine Empire was a crucial link between the ancient and the modern worlds, but it is far less studied than most other cultures of the Middle Ages and there is very little understanding of Byzantium among the general public. The Byzantine Empire flourished at a time when Western Europe had sunk to a level of barbarism, but the very term “Byzantine” is used in English to denote a system of bizarre and sinister complexity. Byzantium is regarded as a place of mystery, yet its people were Christians and the Byzantine theologians and bishops created the teachings and organizational structure that characterize Christianity today. In a religious context the designation “Byzantine Catholics” is used to describe Christians who acknowledge the supremacy of the pope, while the Orthodox Christians loyal to the Byzantine tradition have generally been regarded in the West as schismatics or even heretics. 2 INTRODUCTION The Byzantine Empire was, in fact, the Roman Empire as it continued to exist for a thousand years after the old Rome had fallen to the barbarians. Even more, it was regarded by its people as an eternal empire, established by God to rule mankind from the coming of Christ until the end of time. It was multi-ethnic and multicultural, although Greek culture and the Greek language were seen as normative; Christianity was the dominant, the “official” religion of the state, although Judaism and Islam were generally tolerated (Christian heretics were not!). The Byzantine Empire was centered on the “new” capital of Constantinople, the city known as Byzantium in antiquity (and hence the term “Byzantine”) and as Istanbul today. Overall, it is fair to say that there is “prejudice” against Byzantium in the West (Western Europe, North America, Australia, etc.), and especially in the English-speaking world. While the culture and history of the western Middle Ages are taken seriously and regarded positively (one thinks of King Arthur, “knights in shining armor,” Robin Hood, and Magna Carta), Byzantium is considered negatively – if at all. Orthodox Christians (mainly Greeks, Slavs, and other Eastern European peoples, in Europe and throughout the world) generally know the names of Byzantine emperors and many saints, but others would hardly recognize a person or an event from Byzantine history, even though these (in fact) played important roles in making the world the way it is today. This attitude toward Byzantium is not something new, but is, rather, derived from ways that westerners viewed Byzantines and the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages. These, as we shall see, were characterized by suspicion, distrust, and a tendency to regard the Byzantines as haughty, dishonest, and not exactly “proper” Christians. Western Europeans could not understand why the Byzantines were so different from themselves, since they were Christians and their own culture was also derived from Greek and Roman antiquity. It is certainly a truism that individuals and cultures generally dislike and go out of their way to distinguish themselves from those whom they most resemble, and this is probably the case with the relations between Byzantium and the West. Although the West has generally admired the cultures of China, India, and places more remote and “exotic,” it has rarely had the same interest in Byzantium, which has commonly been viewed as a “decadent poor relative” to the West. In part this attitude derived from the undeniable tendency of the Byzantines to regard themselves as superior to others – since they saw their culture as more advanced, and they looked upon themselves as the true chosen people of God. In addition, both the Byzantines and medieval westerners regarded their version of Christianity as “correct” and that of their opponents as flawed; both thought that the other’s bishops, priests, and lay people looked and acted strangely and their means of conducting the liturgy seemed foreign and inappropriate. Such attitudes are probably encouraged by an exclusive religion such as Christianity, which regards itself as correct and any deviation as wrong by definition. To be sure, Christianity considers other religions as inherently false, but their adherents can be forgiven since they may not “know better.” Christians who disagree, however, have presumably been exposed to the truth INTRODUCTION 3 and they cannot be excused so easily; this attitude presumably carries over into areas beyond theological belief. Other than the differences in religion, easterners and westerners were, and remain, divided by the historical experience of the Crusades. This phenomenon, of course, had important religious connections, but the Byzantines were never able fully to understand the religious basis of the westerners’ desire to conquer the Holy Land. The Byzantines, as we shall see, always felt that they continued to “own” territories that had once been a part of the empire and, as a result, they believed that the Holy Land rightfully belonged to them and that the Crusades were an intrusion into Byzantine affairs. Thus, when the Crusaders arrived – uninvited – in Byzantine territory, they expected a warm and friendly welcome and full cooperation, but they were greeted with suspicion, a lukewarm reception, and occasional opposition. The westerners regarded this as hostility to the good intentions of the Crusaders, and the mistrust became mutual. Byzantine hostility to the westerners, of course, hardened as a result of the conquest of Constantinople and the partition of the empire by the Fourth Crusade (1204), while westerners regarded the unwillingness of “the Greeks” to accept their rule and religion as perverse and wrongheaded. These attitudes, on both sides, remained for the whole of the Middle Ages and into the modern period. The ideas of the Enlightenment, which were hostile to the Middle Ages in general and to the medieval church in particular, were naturally not well disposed to the Byzantine Empire, where monasticism, miracles, and the organized church played such a large role. Edward Gibbon, one of the foremost historians of the period, devoted much of his multi-volume The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to Byzantium, and his scathing denunciation of the Byzantines and their culture has influenced historical thinking up to the present. In more modern times the Byzantine tradition has been associated with poor peoples who were under Turkish rule and later inhabitants of Balkan countries notorious for murderous divisiveness and political intrigue. The only major power directly associated with Byzantium was Russia, which was regarded as a notorious autocracy on the fringes of Europe and, for most of the twentieth century – in the guise of the Soviet Union – the main enemy of the West. In this book I have tried to move beyond these cultural prejudices against Byzantium and many readers will probably even detect a hint of admiration in the author’s tone. This is not because I think that the Byzantine Empire and Byzantine culture were any “better” than other civilizations, but rather because I think the study of Byzantium has intrinsic interest and that our society loses a great deal by not knowing more about it. The Institutions of the Roman Empire Since the Byzantine Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire, it is crucial that the reader be familiar with the basic political institutions of the Roman state. By the time of Constantine the Great, the old Roman Republic 4 ARMENIA Black Sea PANNONIA DACIA nube Ravenna MOESIA DA LM THRACE ATI A Ad ria tic Constantinople Adrianople BI TH YN IA R. Da PHRYGIA CAPPADOCIA Nicomedia Se a Rome MACEDONIA ITALY IR OS S THE Antioch LYCIA SYRIA ACHA IA Korinth (Corinth) Athens Cyprus Sicily Damascus PALESTINE Crete Jerusalem Mediterranean Sea Alexandria ARABIA EGYPT LIBYA Map 0.1 The Eastern Mediterranean, showing geographical divisions, ca. 300 AD INTRODUCTION EP A CI LI CI ASIA SALY INTRODUCTION 5 had been gone for nearly half a millennium, but some of its institutions lived on, most only in name but a few continuing to fulfill something like their original functions. Many of the old offices of the Roman state (the magistracies) survived into the Byzantine era, most of them with tasks that were completely different from those of the past, and alongside the autocracy of Byzantium there remained, at least among some intellectuals, an admiration of republicanism. The consul continued to exist, appointed now by the emperor (when the emperor did not hold the office himself ) and frequently more than two were appointed each year since the consuls were expected to provide lavish, very expensive public entertainments. The quaestor had emerged as the most important legal adviser of the emperor and he continued to fulfill that task at least through the seventh century. The old Roman Senate, which by the time of the early empire had lost its political power, continued to exist, in Rome until the fall of the West, and in Constantinople until the end of the empire. Members of the Senate (the senatorial order) in Constantinople were, generally speaking, men who had risen in the imperial service, and they were normally the “emperor’s men,” rather than members of a traditional aristocracy. The most important political office of both the Roman and the Byzantine Empires was, of course, the emperor. By the second century , if not before, the emperor had essentially become a monarch, and his word was law. There were still expectations that the emperor would rule fairly and wisely, and philosophical considerations, especially from Stoicism, argued that the emperor had to rule for the benefit of his subjects. These considerations minimized autocratic and arbitrary behavior on the part of the emperor, as did, increasingly as time went by, the moral authority of the Christian church, which could appeal to specific expectations based on Biblical texts and the development of canon law. In addition, the real power behind the throne always was the army, and no emperor could succeed if he did not have a successful military career and the support of the senior officer corps. Despite the enormous power the emperors held, it is interesting that the Romans never developed a consistent “constitutional” means to arrange the succession. Commonly, the reigning emperor would choose his successor, and the election of a new emperor by this means rarely encountered any opposition. Normally, the elder emperor would make his choice of a successor publicly known, and he would “associate” the new ruler with him on public occasions to make the situation clear and give subjects the opportunity to get used to the new emperor. Furthermore, there always existed a tendency for the development of dynasties, with son succeeding father on the throne: undoubtedly this had some connection with Roman culture in general, which seems to have seen such transfers of power in a positive light. There was, nevertheless, no coronation ceremony in the Roman Empire, nor any one moment when it could be said that a private citizen actually came to be emperor. When the succession wasn’t clear and there was no obvious candidate for the imperial throne, the outcome almost always depended on the 6 INTRODUCTION peculiarities of the individual situation and the mix of personalities and power that could be brought to bear at the time. Among the individuals who might have a say in the choice of a new emperor were the administrators, advisers, and personal servants who made up the imperial court. These persons often had direct access to the emperor, his papers, and the instruments of state (such as seals and various symbols) and these could all be useful in the issue of succession. The weakness of the court was that its members were not always individuals of high social standing and their point of view could be simply swept aside by the use of violence. Potentially more important were members of the Senate, who sometimes were also members of the court, but who normally possessed independent wealth and bases of power. There also was a tradition, not always respected, that the Senate as a body might act in cases where the succession to the throne was not clear. The weaknesses of senatorial power were that members of that body did not always agree, nor did they normally act quickly, and a decision at court or elsewhere might catch the senators napping. The third base of power in the choice of an emperor was the army, and this was frequently the most important of the three, especially in cases where an emperor was overthrown. A military revolt was one of the more frequent means for the removal of an unsuccessful emperor and, in such cases, the army might be expected to promote a new candidate for the job. Most favorably placed for such intervention were the Praetorian Guard, theoretically the bodyguard of the emperor, who played the role of “emperor-maker” on many occasions. The legionary troops also could play a role, although the danger here was the threat of civil war, as well as the logistical difficulties involved in bringing troops to a place where they could have an effect. Aside from the lack of provision for the succession, the Roman political system had one other characteristic that distinguished it from most other imperial systems. This was the small size of the staff of provincial governors and the generally low level of governmental involvement in local affairs. The Roman Empire has often been called an “alliance of cities,” and the description is not totally inappropriate. Most of the functions one might normally associate with provincial government – such as police and fire protection, public works, the maintenance of food supplies, and public amenities – were commonly not provided by the Roman state, but rather by the local councils (curiae) of the cities of the empire. Naturally, this allowed Rome to administer the empire at a remarkably low cost. Over the history of the Roman Empire, from Augustus (27 – 14) onward, the machinery of the state did grow and a central administration (as opposed to provincial government) slowly emerged to assist the emperor with the job of running the state. This bureaucracy was to develop considerably in the Byzantine period and became one of the most characteristic features of the Byzantine state. In general, the Roman central government could be broken into three broad areas: the military, the administrative, and the fiscal, although there was INTRODUCTION 7 naturally considerable overlap. One need say little about the military organization, since to a large degree the commanders of the armies were the governors of provinces along the frontier, and military affairs were naturally controlled tightly by the emperor himself. Administrative and fiscal concerns were closely linked and in the first century they tended to be managed by individuals of low standing (sometimes former slaves) who were directly dependent on the emperor. As time went on, into the second and third centuries, emperors came to rely on administrators of higher status, some of them from the senatorial order itself. Legal issues were naturally of primary importance and lawyers came to play an increasingly important role as advisers to the emperor. There was no clear division between the emperor as an individual and the emperor as ruler of the Roman world: the emperor’s private and public wealth were frequently one and the same (at least in practice) and his personal advisers were the most important political figures. No constitutional “council of ministers” emerged, but naturally these advisers frequently met, at the emperor’s pleasure, to help him determine matters of state policy. In social and economic terms the Roman Empire was an interesting contrast. On the one hand, a powerful aristocracy of landowners dominated society at all levels, especially in provincial cities. Trade and the merchants who engaged in it were looked down upon and landowning was thought to be the only “profession” for a gentlemen. There was nothing like a middle class in the Roman Empire and the vast majority of individuals were poor farmers, either engaged in subsistence agriculture or tenant farmers who worked the fields of the large landowners. Slavery was, of course, common and new supplies of slaves were provided by wars and piracy. Some slaves were condemned to especially difficult lives, in the mines or the large farms and ranches of the extraordinarily rich, and few of these survived very long. One should be careful, however, not to overestimate the numbers of slaves, which certainly declined as time went by, or their importance in the overall economy, which continued to be dominated by the poor but free farmer. Thus, on the one hand, society and economy were dominated by age-old systems that had not changed for centuries and in which the majority could not hope for advancement in their position. On the other hand, the power of the emperor, his desire for administrators who could serve him well, and the lack of racial or legal restraints meant that many individuals did, in fact, rise in Roman society, and the phenomenon of the slave who came to be the emperor’s most trusted associate or a wealthy trader in Rome was not at all uncommon. Probably even more important, the army provided a remarkably effective means of social and economic change. New recruits were, not surprisingly, mainly enlisted from the more backward parts of the empire (Spain, the Balkans, the northern frontiers), and cleverness, strength, and bravery often brought rapid advancement. The higher commands in the army were generally reserved for members of the aristocracy, but as time went on soldiers from the lowest ranks were promoted even to these and there was, thus, at the Baltic Sea 8 North Sea BRITAIN Don R. R be El GERMANY per R. Se ine nub R. Da EN SI S Rhone R. S LM AT IA MOESIA THRACE Se Rome Corsica S MACEDONIA Sardinia Mediterranean Sea Sicily ITANIA Korinth (Corinth) Athens ASIA CILICIA Damascus Cyprus Mediterranean Sea SAHARA LIBYA Prefecture of Gaul Antioch SYRIA Crete NUMIDIA PALESTINE Jerusalem Alexandria EGYPT Map 0.2 The restored Roman Empire, ca. 300 (Wadsworth, 2003), map 6.4, p. 153 AD. R. 400 miles Later line of division between East and West le 600 km Ni Prefecture of Illyricum Prefecture of the East PHRYGIA CAPPADOCIA Syracuse NORTH AFRICA Prefecture of Italy BITHYNIA Constantinople Nicomedia Pergamum Carthage MAUR Adrianople Red Sea After Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilizations, fifth edition INTRODUCTION PA IN a ER NEAR Black Sea DA R DACIA tic R CISALPINE GAUL ria NA N BO Ravenna NORICU M PAN NON IA Ad IN PA R. . eR GAUL FA RT HE Dnie . e Rhin Atlantic Ocean INTRODUCTION 9 very highest level of society remarkable mobility and change, not all of it naturally to the liking of the traditional aristocracy. Christianity and the Christian Church The Byzantine Empire was a thoroughly Christian society and the institutions and teachings of the Christian church influenced it in all its aspects. Most readers of this book will be familiar with the Gospel stories and the origins of Christianity, on the one hand, and, on the other, the basic ideas of Christianity as they are accepted today. Most readers will not, however, be fully aware of Christianity as it was practiced for the thousand years of the Byzantine Empire, a period representing more than half of the religion’s existence up to today. This book will naturally not attempt to present all the details of Byzantine theology, nor will it take any position about the validity of various ways of interpreting the Christian message. We should, however, point out that readers of this book should not expect the Christianity of the Byzantines to be identical to that practiced in the West today. In fact, it might be suggested that readers approach the study of Byzantine Christianity with an open mind and a willingness to explore it in the same way one might examine the religion of ancient Greece or China. There will be times when Byzantine Christianity will seem very familiar to most readers, but there will also be times when it will seem very new. By the time of Constantine ( 306–37), when this book begins, Christianity had already moved into a phase characterized by a reasonably complex institutional structure. Although not yet universally accepted, bishops had come generally to dominate the church in an essentially monarchical fashion: each bishop ruled his city (and its hinterland) as a supposedly unquestionable figure who had acquired his authority in a direct line going back to the Apostles of Christ (the idea of apostolic succession). The bishops were essentially independent of all other authority, although a rough ranking of bishops, based largely on the importance of their cities, had emerged. Bishops controlled the increasingly significant wealth of the local churches and they determined the nature of public worship, the disbursement of charity, and the regulation of the increasingly large number of clergy (priests, deacons, and minor clerics) under their control. The bishop was thus emerging as a major figure in society as a whole. By the time of Constantine there was a general agreement among Christians about which books should be considered part of the Bible. There was also a basic agreement that God was a Trinity, made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, it was agreed that Christians should lead a certain kind of life and worship together and in private according to standards that were still set at the local level. Christian authors of the post-apostolic age had begun the development of the principles of Christian theology and it was