Overzealously Byzantine, Introduction
For many years, and by many people, the Byzantine Empire received heaps of scorn for petty reasons. From armchair art critics, military historians, to anyone in general who for a moment turned their gaze to the past, people wanted to kick an Empire when it was down. From Vasari to Gibbon and most recently to Babak Lotfinia (resident Gainesville classicist and UES President Emeritus), the Empire and everything related to it is criticized as uninteresting, derivative, or stagnant.
Yup, the Empire was SO stagnant that it managed to survive for well-nigh one millennium. A good primer on the Empire can be found on Wikipedia (as always). If the Empire was so pathetically static, how could it have survived? Is it truly just a 1000 to 1200 yr gap in the history of humanity? Is it the new-minted version of the end of history that we could look forward to in event of nuclear holocaust or middle east hegemony?
Obviously, the Empire did not just hold on to dear life at the behest of forgiving neighbors who hadn't the desire to destroy them. Nor did the citizens just mope around all day looking for food and sustenance like zombies. Believe it or not, they were bona fide human beings!
Some of the little Byzantine colonies such as Serbia, Bulgaria, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, have also gone overlooked and misanalyzed in much the same way and for some of the reasons. One of the reasons has to be this trenchant snobbery on the part of classicists who see God's work in the form of Hellenic and Roman art. Me? I'm not so impressed. I prefer the Byzantine thing.
And in modern days, the B.E. has made a comeback of sorts. The author of Uses of the Past found that holiest of concepts, paradox, in the Hagia Sophia's form and content. Starting his journey into history, Muller writes:
This author's embrace of the Hagia Sophia represents the one of the first steps in grasping an understanding of the B.E. for what it was, what it means, and what it might yet become. Now, for example, we are beginning to understand the Byzantine contribution to Western art of the 12th and 13th centuries-- and that includes foundational elements for the much vaunted and so-called "renaissance."
By finally coming to grips with this missing part of our classical and historical identities, we may come toward a more unified sense of humanity-- once seen as positively Oriental and static, the Byzantine Empire may find a home in the modern day. We should welcome it, and in so doing, transcend our stilted past to become a worthier whole. As a God Whisper of Han Qing-jao says (yes, I know this is a fictional person):
Yup, the Empire was SO stagnant that it managed to survive for well-nigh one millennium. A good primer on the Empire can be found on Wikipedia (as always). If the Empire was so pathetically static, how could it have survived? Is it truly just a 1000 to 1200 yr gap in the history of humanity? Is it the new-minted version of the end of history that we could look forward to in event of nuclear holocaust or middle east hegemony?
Obviously, the Empire did not just hold on to dear life at the behest of forgiving neighbors who hadn't the desire to destroy them. Nor did the citizens just mope around all day looking for food and sustenance like zombies. Believe it or not, they were bona fide human beings!
Some of the little Byzantine colonies such as Serbia, Bulgaria, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, have also gone overlooked and misanalyzed in much the same way and for some of the reasons. One of the reasons has to be this trenchant snobbery on the part of classicists who see God's work in the form of Hellenic and Roman art. Me? I'm not so impressed. I prefer the Byzantine thing.
And in modern days, the B.E. has made a comeback of sorts. The author of Uses of the Past found that holiest of concepts, paradox, in the Hagia Sophia's form and content. Starting his journey into history, Muller writes:
Only, my reflections failed to produce a neat theory of history, or any simple, wholesome moral. Hagia Sophia, or the 'Holy Wisdom,' gave me instead a fuller sense of the complexities, ambiguities, and paradoxes of human history. Nevertheless, I propose to dwell on these messy meanings. They may be, after all, the most wholesome meanings for us today; or so I finally concluded.
This author's embrace of the Hagia Sophia represents the one of the first steps in grasping an understanding of the B.E. for what it was, what it means, and what it might yet become. Now, for example, we are beginning to understand the Byzantine contribution to Western art of the 12th and 13th centuries-- and that includes foundational elements for the much vaunted and so-called "renaissance."
By finally coming to grips with this missing part of our classical and historical identities, we may come toward a more unified sense of humanity-- once seen as positively Oriental and static, the Byzantine Empire may find a home in the modern day. We should welcome it, and in so doing, transcend our stilted past to become a worthier whole. As a God Whisper of Han Qing-jao says (yes, I know this is a fictional person):
"I once heard of a tale of a man
who split himself in two.
The one part never changed at all;
the other grew and grew.
The changeless part was always true,
The growing part was always new,
And I wondered, when the tale was through,
Which part was me, and which was you."
posted by Admiral at
1:52 PM
5 Comments:
Yes, Admiral, the Eastern Empire (I do not deign to call it anything but) was so successful that it spent almost its entire millenium in decline from the heights it inherited from the Western Empire. Beset on all sides from superior Persian forces and then fanatical Arabs, its survival is indeed a triumph of history. And its guardianship of Roman and Greek culture, too, are deserving of praise.
And yes, Eastern Roman art is beautiful, there is no dispute. But it's easy to afford beauty when one court appropriates the wealthiest provinces for itself. The East's inital abandonment, then craven scavneging of the court in Ravenna, and then its inability to maintain its gains leave scant room for further praise. Last I heard, Admiral, mere, wasting survival was not cause for exultation.
Rome conquered and governed the world west of the Jordan. Constantinople was but a shadow of its mother, incapable of maintaining the family silver.
By
monocrat, at 10:39 PM
This is where you're terrifically wrong, and we must make amends in modern scholarship for this. I think past scholarship has been shoddy to say the least, making people think that it held vast territorial integrity (at one point, far larger than your vaunted Roman Empire) against overwhelming odds DESPITE its overwhelming weakness? Or indeed, was it because of its strength?
The people were not zombies, the state was not weak, and it had a series of brilliant military defenders, mostly ably led by Belisarius. The Empire far outlived the pathetic remnants of the "Western" Empire -- the Holy Roman Empire being a mere confederation most of the time. Charlemagne and Barbarossa were nice. But were they infused with Holy Spirit? Compelled by the mystery of God? Did they wonder? Did they laugh? Did they know enough of water to have flowing, elegant metaphors?
As I will point out in later posts, Eastern Europe has similarly gone unaccredited in its modernity, when, in fact, it should have been-- a long time ago. The same could be said of the Ottoman Empire.
Why have incompetent classicists so long neglected reality and truth?
I have no answer.
By
Admiral, at 8:36 PM
"[A]t one point, far larger than your vaunted Roman Empire."
You mean of course the Western Empire, not the whole Imperium Romanorum at its height under Trajan, am I correct? Or are you trying to exemplify the shoddy sholarship you rightly denounce?
Charlemange and Barbarossa certainly are nice. But my attention was always fixed on Rome. Why piffle with barbarian kings or iconophile, parricidic empresses when one can bask in the brazen glory of the consuls and grass-crowned imperatores romanorum?
By
monocrat, at 4:58 PM
Yes, an element of shoddy research.
All you do is bask in the glory of an empire that could never hack it, as time went on and humanity progressed, when the Byzantine Empire and Ottoman Empires did live on. The great Empire DIED before the Byzantine Empire. Also, don't get me started on Trajan, if that really WAS his name.
By
Admiral, at 4:23 PM
And again, Admiral, I point out that it's easier for a court to survive when it appropriates the richer half of a realm. For reasons quite out of control of the Augustulus and his immediate predecessors, Nova Roma held the half of the imperium with far greater physical and human capital. Combined with a smaller defense perimeter than the whole imperium, it is hardly surprising that the Eastern court was able to stretch its resources so far.
And while the imperium romanorum might have failed after half a died in the West, the res publica romana endured for over a millenium in the form of the Roman Senate, which itself was two hundred years old at the found of the res publica. The East had no monopoly on political longevity, Admiral.
By
monocrat, at 9:48 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home