Roman Heritage in Byzantium - Rosetta

Malatras, C. (2009) ‘The perception of the Roman heritage in 12th century
Byzantium’
Rosetta 7.5: 1-8.
http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7supp/roman-heritage-in-byzantium/
Rosetta 7.5. http://rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7supp/roman-heritage-in-byzantium/
The perception of the Roman heritage in 12th century Byzantium
Christos Malatras
University of Birmingham
The Byzantine empire was in fact the direct continuation of the Roman
Empire, at least in terms of state structure and political ideology. There was
no visible break of continuity with the past when the capital of the empire was
transferred to Constantinople. The Byzantines themselves never stopped
calling themselves Romans till the very fall of the empire. Nevertheless, since
as early as the Middle Ages, people in the West have systematically denied
the Romaness of Byzantium. After the crowning of Charlemagne as emperor
in 800, they were keen on viewing Byzantium as a Greek empire. But the
Byzantines themselves felt rather angry when they were called Greeks and
not Romans.
But how much did the imperial Roman past matter to the Byzantines
themselves? My research will be limited mostly to the 12th century. It was a
critical time for Byzantium and the Byzantine identity. It precedes the fall of
Constantinople to Latins in 1204, after which the ideological reaction of the
Byzantines was drastic, as this tragic fact promoted a heavy shift towards a
Hellenic “nationalism”. Moreover, the 12th century is far away from the era of
Constantine or Justinian and the reality of universalism. Actually, it is exactly
at this time that the Byzantines are no longer in a position to ignore the West,
and they realize, sometimes rather painfully, that they are just one more
people among the others in the Christian world. Finally, during this period
takes place the realization by Byzantine scholars of the gradual rehabilitation
of cultural Hellenism. Hellenism will figure as one more mark of the Byzantine
identity in the following centuries.
But first of all we should examine the ideology of the Byzantine state itself. Of
course, we generally assume that the Byzantine state was promoting a sense
of continuity with the ancient Roman state. Indeed, this was the case at least
in earlier centuries. For example, in the mid-10th century the emperor
1
Rosetta 7.5. http://rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7supp/roman-heritage-in-byzantium/
Constantine VII identified as a sign of decay the fact that his ‘modern Romans
have dropped their ancestral language (i.e. Latin) and adopted Greek’. But we
are unable to find similar statements in the 12th century. Manuel I (1143-1180)
himself was deeply engaged with the serious problem of the German
emperor’s claims of romanitas. Manuel worked hard diplomatically to be
recognized as the sole Roman emperor in the West. But certainly this claim
did not bring any affinity with the ancient Romans; he made it as the legitimate
heir of Constantine and Justinian. He reinforced his claims by adopting
additionally in his edicts imperial epithets that had not been used since the 7th
century.1
But if this is the situation in the state ideology, if the state did not try to
promote its Latin past and went no further than the claim of direct continuity
with the reign of Constantine the Great, what might we encounter in a more
informal context? How did the Byzantine scholars of the 12th century think
about their Roman past? There are three levels of analysis for this problem: i)
The use of Roman motifs and exempla in their works; ii) fictitious genealogies
with Latin ancestors; and iii) actual statements of continuity with the Latin
past.
For the first level of analysis, we are able to observe Roman motifs only very
occasionally. The only scholar in whose works we can note a rather significant
number of Roman motifs and exempla is Nikephoros Basilakes. In just one of
his speeches he mentions as exempla ten Roman personalities. Moreover, he
refers fairly often to Byzantines by using the classicizing term Ausones (that is
the ancient inhabitants of Italy).2
Another writer who uses a considerable number of Roman motifs in his verses
is Theodoros Prodromos. He almost always calls Constantinople the New
Rome, and he also uses the epithet Ausones often enough. But he hardly
mentions any Romans, apart from Claudius in one of his early poems.3 But
1
Magdalino, The empire of Manuel I Komnenos.
Nikephoros Basilakes, 65.22.
3
Theodoros Prodromos, Ι.126.
2
2
Rosetta 7.5. http://rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7supp/roman-heritage-in-byzantium/
this is an exception, for Prodromos’ verses are full of both ancient Greek and
biblical motifs and quotations to a far greater extent. He was a Hellenist in the
full meaning of the word, as the rest of his works testify.
Roman motifs and exampla are used by some other Byzantine authors, but, at
the most, they are lost in an otherwise profoundly Hellenic and biblical
material. Moreover, this kind of romanitas is conspicuously absent from the
treatises of many prominent authors, among whom are Eustathios of
Thessalonike, Georgios Tornikes and Michael Choniates.
Even fictitious genealogies involving Roman ancestors are very rare in this
period. Only three can be noted: a) Tzetzes’ identification of a certain Servlias
with the ancient Roman family of Servilii;4 b) Nikephoros Bryennios’
identification of the Doukai with the clan of Constantine the Great that had
come to Constantinople from the Elder Rome;5 and c) Nikephoros Basilakes’
connection of the ancestry of the nomophylax Alexios Aristenos with Aineas.6
When moving to the third level of analysis, i.e. statements about continuity
with the Latin past, we will find Ioannes Zonaras, perhaps the most eager
supporter of the ancient Roman heritage, the only one who seems to identify
himself with the ancient Romans. He structures the material of his chronicle in
a manner different from his predecessors. A usual Byzantine chronicle started
with the Creation and Jewish history, continued with a history of the Eastern
Empires till Alexander the Great and then passed to Roman history. Zonaras
devotes a far larger part to pre-Constantine history (about half of his entire
work) and of that part, Roman history comprises about two thirds. He actually
includes
a
large
section
on
Republican
Rome,
whereas
earlier
chronographers passed directly to Caesar after the expulsion of the kingship.
But Zonaras is a rather exceptional case, self-exiled for years in a monastery
on an island, and rather conservative and negative towards the Komnenian
4
Tzetzes, Epistles, 18.31-32.
Nikephoros Bryennios, Prologue, 9.
6
Nikephoros Basilakes, 13 and 18.
5
3
Rosetta 7.5. http://rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7supp/roman-heritage-in-byzantium/
regime and its basic values. He does not miss an opportunity to comment
occasionally on what he considers as a tyrannical rule.7
So, it appears that the Byzantines did not feel themselves so close to their
supposed Latin past. When we look at Kinnamos’ views, one of the main
exponents of Manuel’s international policy, we will be able to understand what
had happened. In one of his digressions about the usurpation of the title of
basileus by the German emperor Conrad, Kinnamos actively defends the
Roman heritage of the Byzantines. He laments the fact that Westerners
consider Constantinople’s rule different from that of Rome. But, actually he
has no answer to give to that claim, leaving it virtually unanswered. What he
does though, is to question the Western claim itself. He declares that the
imperial rule was lost in Rome after Romulus Augustulus, and that the rule of
Rome fell thereafter into barbarian hands.8
The Byzantines could think only in terms of imperial rule in accordance with
Daniel’s Succession of Kingdom. This theory, that we saw in Kinnamos,
distinguishes the two Romes, and is repeated in the writings of other
Byzantines. It could be used as an argument against the primacy of the see of
Rome against Constantinople.9 As Anna Komnene says, the imperial rule has
been transferred, ‘to our own land and our own Imperial City’ and so did the
primacy of the sees: καὶ ταῦτα προκαθηµένου τῆς οἰκουµένης ἁπάσης
γενοµένου, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ οἱ Λατῖνοι λέγουσί τε καὶ οἴονται· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο
τῆς ἀλαζονείας αὐτῶν. Μεταπεπτωκότων γὰρ τῶν σκήπτρων ἐκεῖθεν ἐνθάδε
εἰς τὴν ἡµεδαπήν τε καὶ ἡµετέραν βασιλίδα πόλιν καὶ δὴ καὶ τῆς συγκλήτου καὶ
ἅµα πάσης τῆς τάξεως µεταπέπτωκε καὶ ἡ τῶν θρόνων ἀρχιερατικὴ τάξις.10
Michael Glykas goes even further. Commenting on the deposition of Romulus
Augustulus in 476 by the Ostrogoth Odoacer, he writes: ‘It is exactly then that
the imperial rule of the Romans ended. Note that it had started with a
Romulus and after the passing of 1303 years it ended again in Romulus;
7
Zonaras, epitomae historiarum, libri xviii.
Kinnamos, 218-220.
9
Niketas Sidès, De controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae (recensio A), 1.I.2.
10
Anna Komnenè, A.XIII.4.
8
4
Rosetta 7.5. http://rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7supp/roman-heritage-in-byzantium/
thereafter kings and other local barbarians held sway’: τότε δὴ τότε καὶ ἡ τῶν
Ῥωµαίων παύεται βασιλεία. σηµείωσαι δὲ ὅτι ἀπὸ Ῥωµύλου ἤρξατο αὕτη, καὶ
µετὰ ͵ατʹ καὶ γʹ ἔτη ἐν Ῥωµύλῳ πάλιν πέπαυται, κρατούντων ἐκεῖσε µετὰ ταῦτα
ῥηγῶν µεγιστάνων καὶ ὅσοι τοιοῦτοι χωράρχαι βάρβαροι.11
Furthermore, Manasses, using comments similar to Glykas, writes: ‘So Rome
having the imperial rule for a little longer, she was deprived of it, and she fell
to barbarian kings and rulers of ethne, on whose hands she was humiliated…
Having had Romulus in the start as a legitimate emperor, she lost the imperial
rule again with a Romulus, and then she was not governed by emperors
anymore, as she had fallen and trampled on by barbarians. And these
happened to the Elder Rome, but our own is flourishing, growing, standing’.12
This is the only lament in the 12th century for the fall of Elder Rome, but note
Manasses’ contrast with and the shift to the praise of New Rome. So, Elder
Rome was rather different from New Rome, the Byzantines’ own Rome
‘ἡµετέραν’.
11
Michael Glykas, 490.
Manasses, 2483-2508: Ἡ µὲν οὖν Ῥώµη πρὸς µικρὸν ἔτι βασιλευθεῖσα
τὸ κράτος τὸ βασίλειον εἰς τέλος ἀφῃρέθη
καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων τοῖς ῥηξὶν εἶξε καὶ τοῖς ἐθνάρχαις
καὶ ταῖς παλάµαις δυστυχῶς τούτων ἐταπεινώθη·
ἦρξε µὲν γὰρ ὁ Μάξιµος, ὁ τότε τυραννήσας,
καὶ µετ’ αὐτὸν Ἀνθέµιος, Ὀλύβριος ὁ πάνυ,
µετὰ δὲ τὸν Ὀλύβριον ἐκράτησε Μαΐωρ
καὶ µετ’ αὐτὸν Γλυκέριος καὶ µετὰ τοῦτον πάλιν
Νεπωτιανὸς Ὀρέστης τε, καὶ µετὰ τὸν Ὀρέστην
ὁ παῖς Ῥωµύλος τῆς ἀρχῆς ἥψατο τελευταῖος.
καὶ πόλις µεγαλόπολις, ἡ τῶν Ῥωµαίων πόλις,
Ῥωµύλον σχοῦσα κατ’ ἀρχὰς ἔννοµον βασιλέα
καὶ πάλιν περιστήσασα τὸ κράτος εἰς Ῥωµύλον
οὐκέτι τὴν κυβέρνησιν ἔσχεν ἐκ βασιλέων,
βαρβάροις δ’ ὑποκύψασα καὶ χωροβατηθεῖσα
καὶ τούτοις δυστυχήσασα δορύληπτος γενέσθαι
ῥῆγας κατεῖδεν ἄρχοντας, χωράρχας, σατραπάρχας·
καὶ στερηθεῖσα δυσκλεῶς ὑπάτων καὶ κρατόρων
καὶ δικτατόρων καὶ βουλῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ πατρικίων,
ἐπωµαδίαν ἤνεγκε τὴν ζεύγλην τῶν βαρβάρων
καὶ πρώην χρηµατίζουσα βοῦς ἀγελαῖος, ἄζυξ,
ὑπήκοος ἐγένετο δυνάσταις ἀροτρεῦσι
καὶ γῆς τοῖς αὐλακίσµασι τρύχεσθαι κατεκρίθη.
Καὶ ταῦτα µὲν συµβέβηκε τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ Ῥώµῃ,
ἡ δ’ ἡµετέρα τέθηλεν, αὔξει, κρατεῖ, νεάζει,
καὶ µέχρι τέλους αὔξοιτο, ναί, βασιλεῦ παντάναξ.
12
5
Rosetta 7.5. http://rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7supp/roman-heritage-in-byzantium/
Moreover, whereas the term Romans, as we have already explained, is
mostly used for the Byzantines, in two sources of the 12th century (in John
Tzetzes and in the satiric dialogue Timarion) we encounter a different use: the
term Romans is instead used exclusively for the ancient Romans. They are
referred to as those Italian Romans, the descendants of Aineas (Aineiads) the
Ausonians, the Latins.13 These Latin Romans may even be called barbarians
occasionally.14 Moreover, many empresses who came from the West were
said in encomia to descend from ‘Caesars and Augusti’.15 This did not mean
anything else than that they were descended from a Western king, applying
thus to the Latin West the pre-Constantinian Roman heritage. Soon, Niketas
Choniates would follow the same line by calling the Crusaders that had just
occupied Constantinople ‘Aineiades’, drawing additionally a comparison with
the fall of Troy; it was then that the Aineiades finally took revenge for the fall
of Troy.16
Romanitas however still mattered for much, even though it had no Latin
nuance anymore. For Byzantines, romanitas signified their ancestry, their
state tradition, which was nothing else than that very significant fact of the
transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantion by the emperor
Constantine the Great. But the Byzantines did not understand this as a
transfer of the capital; they conceived it as the transfer of the imperial rule, of
basileia, to their city, to their land, thus actually creating a new state. The
Byzantines believed that they were descended from the East Romans, the
Romans of Constantinople. First and foremost, they considered themselves
as descendants of Constantine the Great and not of Alexander the Great,
David or Augustus.
The void left by the ancient Roman heritage was soon filled by the emergence
of Hellenism, in the 12th century. But this Hellenism was still understood
13
Tzetzes, Chil. IΙΙ.ο΄. and IΧ.σοζ΄.640.
Mannases, 1360-1362 και 1377.
15
e.g. Theodoros Prodromos, VII.5-6 (Eirenè – Bertha).
16
Niketas Choniates, 652.
14
6
Rosetta 7.5. http://rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7supp/roman-heritage-in-byzantium/
mostly as a cultural and rhetorical notion. The claims of Christianity and of the
Roman heritage, it appears, were not enough to differentiate the two peoples
and to raise the Byzantines effectively above the Latins. The Hellenic claim
stood as the barrier dividing the Byzantines from the ‘barbarians’. The
deconstruction of the Latin past and the emergence of Hellenism, two parallel
developments, laid the basis for the emergence of a national Hellenism in the
13th century.
Bibliography
Sources:
Anna Komnenè: B. Leib (ed.), Anna Comnène. Alexiade, 3 vols. Paris:
Les Belles Lettres, 1967.
Kinnamos: A. Meineke (ed.), Ioannis Cinnami epitome rerum ab Ioanne
et Alexio Comnenis gestarum [Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae.
Bonn: Weber, 1836].
Manassès: O. Lampsides, Constantini Manassis Breviarium Chronicum
[Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 36.1. Athens: Academy of Athens,
1996].
Michael Glykas: Bekker I., Michaelis Glycae annales [Corpus scriptorum
historiae Byzantinae. Bonn: Weber, 1836]: 3-457, 460-625.
Nikephoros Basilakes: R. Maisano, Niceforo Basilace. Gli encomî per
l'imperatore e per il patriarca [Byzantina et neo-hellenica neapolitana 5.
Naples, 1977]: 89-125.
Nikephoros Bryennios: P. Gautier (ed.), Nicéphore Bryennios. Histoire
[Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae], Series Bruxellensis 9. Brussels:
Byzantion, 1975.
Niketas Choniates: J. van Dieten (ed.), Nicetae Choniatae historia, pars
prior [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis 11.1.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975].
Niketas Sides: R. Gahbauer, Gegen den Primat des Papstes. Studien zu
Niketas Seides. Munich: Verlag Uni-Druck, 1975.
Theodoros Prodromos: W. Hörandner (ed.), Theodoros Prodromos,
Historische Gedichte [Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 11. Vienna:
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1974].
Zonaras, Epitoma: T. Büttner-Wobst (ed.), Ioannis Zonarae epitomae
historiarum libri xviii, vol. 3 [Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae.
Bonn: Weber, 1897].
7
Rosetta 7.5. http://rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7supp/roman-heritage-in-byzantium/
Secondary material:
Angelov D. “Byzantine ideological reactions to the Latin conquest of
Constantinople”, in Laiou A. (ed.), Urbs Capta: The Fourth Crusade and
its consequences (La IVe Croisade et ses consequences), Paris 2005,
293-310.
Angold M., “Byzantine ‘Nationalism’ and the Nicaean Empire”, Byzantine
and Modern Greek Studies 1 [1975], 49-70.
Beaton R., “Antique nation? ‘Hellenes’ on the eve of Greek
independence and in twelfth – century Byzantium”, Byzantine and
Modern Greek Studies 31 [2007], 76-95.
Kaldellis A., Hellenism in Byzantium: The transformations of Greek
identity and the reception of the classical tradition, Cambridge 2007.
Kazhdan A.P. (ed.), The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium, New YorkOxford 1991.
Koder J., “Griechische identitäten im Mittelalter – Aspekte einer
Entwicklung”, in Βυζάντιο κράτος και κοινωνία: Μνήμη Νίκου Οικονομίδη
(ed. Avramea Α., Laiou Α., Chrysos Ε.), Athens 2003, 297-319.
Macrides R. – Magdalino P., “The Fourth Kingdom and the rhetoric of
Hellenism”, in Magdalino P. (ed.), The Perception of the past in twelfthcentury Europe, London 1992, 117-156.
Magdalino P., “Hellenism and Nationalism in Byzantium”, στο Magdalino
P., Tradition and transformation in medieval Byzantium, Aldershot 1991,
no. XIV. 1-29.
Magdalino P., The empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180,
Cambridge 1993.
8