Introduction

This introductory chapter discusses how interpretations of Byzantium have been and still are heavily influenced by later cultural and national agendas. Religion is a central issue in relation to Byzantium. Few historians of the west feel confident when faced with the subject of Byzantine Orthodoxy and many prefer to relegate it to a separate sphere. The increased salience of the idea of a Christian Europe, or indeed a western world, confronted by radical Islam only adds to the discomfort surrounding Byzantium and the Orthodox sphere. Moreover, it does not help in resolving the uncertainty over Byzantium's place in historical writing today that so much of the contemporary written source material is the work of a privileged elite, or that so much Byzantine art is religious in character. Byzantium is not merely medieval but also deeply unfamiliar. Thus, valiant efforts are needed to recapture the world of Byzantine society as a whole, and to reveal and emphasize the secular element that also existed in Byzantium. This book then highlights some of the interesting questions that arise if one tries to understand Byzantium and its society.

Hellenism

This chapter explores the persistent idea of Byzantium as a repository of Christianized Hellenism. The interpretation of Byzantium is especially fraught for Greek scholars. One of the most contentious aspects of this problem is the question of historical continuity, especially as it has been posed in relation to the modern Greek state. The idea of Constantinople/Istanbul as the capital of a modern Greek state may seem counterintuitive today. The “great idea” also conflates two conceptions of Byzantium: as the seat of Orthodoxy and as an imperial power. Yet Byzantium still occupies a privileged place in the consciousness of many Greeks. Nor is it surprising—given the role of Greek as the language of government and culture throughout the history of Byzantium, the dependence of its educational system on classical Greek literature and rhetoric, and the ambivalence of Byzantine attitudes to ancient Greek philosophy—to find that “Hellenism” is as fraught a concept within Byzantine studies as the Byzantine tradition is to Greeks today.

Empire

This chapter assesses whether Byzantium was an empire. The characteristics of empires, once they have come into existence by the conquest of territory and established a unified central administrative system, have been expressed by one scholar as consisting of their capacity to administer and exploit diversity; the existence of a transportation system designed to serve the imperial center militarily and economically and of systems of communication allowing administration of the subject areas from the center; the assertion of a monopoly of force within their territories; and an “imperial project” that imposed some type of unity throughout the system. One might add to this list the existence of a legal framework. Byzantium had all of these, even though it grew out of an earlier imperial system, and its territorial extent varied greatly over time. It also demonstrated a remarkable determination to maintain itself, through the continuity of imperial office and ideology, sustained by a learned culture, access to which the emperors themselves sought to control. It maintained this symbolic continuity even in the face of the constant instability of the throne itself. The chapter then addresses how the consideration of Byzantium as an empire has been complicated by the model of a “Byzantine commonwealth,” put forward by Dimitri Obolensky in his well-known book published with that title in 1971.

Epilogue

This epilogue addresses the question of periodization in relation to Byzantium. Several recent writers prefer to see “Byzantium” proper as beginning from ca. 600 or later, and there are good reasons why. Constantinople was formally inaugurated in AD 330, but there was not yet such an entity as “Byzantium,” distinct from the eastern Roman Empire, and it remains the case that the Byzantines thought of themselves as Romans. Nevertheless, adopting a later periodization risks obscuring the fact that what people call Byzantium had a long earlier history; it was not a new state formed only in the medieval period. The chapter then argues that Byzantium belongs to mainstream history. Moreover, Byzantine studies must be rescued from its continuing association with the competing claims of negativity and exoticism. Recent publications have set an encouraging pattern, but now the subject needs to be opened up further, and Byzantium seen against more “normal” and wider perspectives.

The Very Model of Orthodoxy?

This chapter examines whether Byzantium was an “Orthodox society.” Orthodoxy in Byzantium was always vaunted but also always contested. The constant performance of Orthodoxy took many forms: they included imperial ceremonial, liturgical repetition and display, visual representation, public debates, formal anathemas and recantations, declarations of deposition, and the public reading of documents. Yet the actual evidence for the various councils that supported or condemned religious images shows clearly that in Byzantium as elsewhere ecclesiastics changed sides, negotiated their positions, and adapted their views. In many areas under Byzantine rule a practical multiculturalism prevailed, especially where populations had moved or political control fluctuated, and this too is part of the story of Byzantine religion. Yet the very word “orthodoxy” means correct belief, and the articulation of correct doctrine remained a central issue throughout Byzantine history. Indeed, rules and prescriptions characterized Byzantine Orthodoxy.

The Realms of Gold

This chapter focuses on Byzantine art and architecture. Not all Byzantine art was a luxury art. However, the lasting appeal of its use of gold, silver, enamel, and precious stones is evident from the choice of objects in blockbuster exhibitions and in the admiring reactions of their visitors. The latter represent a response to Byzantine art and architecture that also found expression among the Byzantines themselves, who composed many lengthy and detailed literary descriptions of art works or buildings. Light and color, as well as gold and glitter, are key features in these works, and light is the dominant feature in the description of the newly built Justinianic Hagia Sophia by Procopius of Caesarea—when Byzantines described marble, what they emphasized was its sheen and brilliance. Moreover, a high proportion of surviving Byzantine art is religious. This does not mean that the Byzantines were all religious themselves; rather, it reveals something about patronage and how art was commissioned.

Absence

This chapter examines Byzantium's absence from the wider historical discourse. Part of the reason for this absence is that it has been relegated to the sphere of negativity. The very name that people use today—“Byzantium”—was a derogatory coinage of the early modern period, and Byzantium has traditionally been the subject of adverse comparisons with Rome and with everything classical. Autocracy, bureaucracy, deviousness, and a stultifying lack of originality—all still seem to go together with the word “Byzantium,” underpinned by the ever-present awareness that in the end Byzantium “fell.” In general historiography, Byzantium is either nonexistent or in between. In many Anglo-Saxon history departments, Byzantium is regarded as a niche specialization, while among books intended for the general reader, many of the most successful continue to emphasize court intrigue or a romanticized view of Orthodoxy. The chapter then looks at the role played by Orthodoxy in Byzantium. It also studies Byzantine literature.