Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:58:39.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century: Some Different Interpretations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

J. M. Hussey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I was originally provoked into a consideration of this particular problem by reading Ostrogorsky's Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates. A long-needed and courageous attempt to reconstruct the history of the empire and characterized by acute and penetrating analysis, this book is nevertheless marked by a certain unevenness of treatment. Side by side with brilliant sections on the achievements of the tenth century and the complications of the fourteenth (this latter perhaps the finest part of the book) must be set the brief and inadequate account of the years 1025–1081. Ostrogorsky is not alone. Misstatements and omissions continue, and often in unexpected places. Recent much used general histories, as for instance the third volume of the medieval section of the Glotz Histoire générale, still repeat the old emphasis on 1081 as the dividingline between a time of painful disaster and the new era of Comnenian glory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 32 , December 1950 , pp. 71 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1950

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 71 note 1 Ostrogorsky, G., Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (Byzantinisches Handbuch in Rahmen des Handbuchs der Altertumswissenschaft, ed. by Walter, Otto), Pt. i, vol. ii (Munich, 1940).Google Scholar

page 71 note 2 See the reviews of Byzantium, ed. Baynes, N. H. and Moss, H. St. L. B. (Oxford, 1948Google Scholar), in the Journal of Theological Studies, 1 (1949) and in Byzantinoslavica, x (ii).

page 71 note 3 Diehl, C. and Marçais, G., Le monde oriental de 395 à 1081 (Paris, 1944).Google Scholar

page 72 note 1 Ostrogorsky shows something of the difficulties involved and the subtlety of evasive methods, even in the tenth century, in ‘The peasant's pre-emption right: an abortive reform of the Macedonian Emperors’, Journal of Roman Studies, xxxvii (1947), 117–26.

page 72 note 2 Bratianu, G. I., ‘Une expérience d'économie dirigée: le monopole dublé, à Byzance au XIe siécle’, Byzantion, ix (1934), 643–62Google Scholar, and in Études byzantines d'histoire économique et sociale (1938), pp. 141–57.

page 73 note 1 See Der Nersessian, Sirapie, Armenia and the Byzantine Empire: a brief study of Armenian Art and Civilization (Cambridge, Mass., 1945), pp. 11–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 73 note 2 See Vasiliev, A. A., ‘The Foundation of the Empire of Trebizond (1204–1222)’, Speculum, xi (1936), 3–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The Empire of Trebizond in History and Literature’, Byzantion, xv (1941), 317–77.

page 73 note 8 G. Ostrogorsky, op. cit., pp. 260 ff,, who cites Wroth, W., Catalogue of the Imperial Byzantine coins in the British Museum, i (1908), 540Google Scholar ff., pl. lxi and lxii, showing a normal nomisma and 6 variants.

page 73 note 4 Obolensky, D., The Bogomils: a study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism (Cambridge, 1948), pp. 169Google Scholar ff., shows the importance of the Bogomils and Paulicians in organizing resistance to Byzantinization in both the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

page 73 note 5 On this whole question see Wittek, P., ‘Turkish Asia Minor up to the Osmanlis’, in The Rise of the Ottoman Empire (1938).Google Scholar

page 74 note 1 Diehl, op. cit., p. 565.

page 74 note 2 E.g. Bloch, Herbert, ‘Monte Cassino, Byzantium, and the West in the earlier Middle Ages’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Number 3 (Cambridge, Mass., 1946), p. 191Google Scholar, and even worse in A History 0f Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxford, 1949), p. 140, where Dr. Wellesz writes ‘the liturgical controversy between Cerularius and Leo IX in 1054 was the final inducement to a permanent schism’.

page 75 note 1 Cardinal Humbert, Brevis et succincta commemoratio, in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, cxliii, 1001, and in C. Will, Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae graecae et latinae saecula xi composita extant (Leipzig and Marburg, 1861), p. 153.

page 75 note 2 Holtzmann, W., ‘Die Uhionsverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios und Papst Urban II in Jahre 1089’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, xxviii (1928), pp. 38–67.Google Scholar

page 75 note 3 Leib, B., Rome, Kiev et Byzance (1924)Google Scholar; Every, G., The Byzantine Patriarchate, 451–1204 (1947).Google Scholar

page 76 note 1 Grabar, A., L'empereur dans l'art byzantin (1936).Google Scholar

page 76 note 2 W. Ensslin, ‘The emperor and imperial administration’ in Baynes and Moss, Byzantium, pp. 268–307, though he does rather glide over the church and state controversy and follows von Sickel and Dölger (cf. p. 270).

page 76 note 3 Cf. Baynes and Moss, Byzantium, p. 162: ‘the tradition of Caesaropapism which dated back from the earliest days of Byzantium emerged from the Iconoclastic controversy unshaken’—a curious lapse on the part of Delehaye, but corrected by very different statements by Dr. Baynes in the Introduction (p. xxviii) and by Professor Ensslin in his essay (p. 276).

page 77 note 1 Scylitzes, ii. 643 (ed. I. Bekker, Corpus script, hist, byzantinae, Bonn, 1839, and in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, cxxii).

page 77 note 2 Ed. Bréhier, L., Revue des études grecques, xvi (1903), 375–416Google Scholar and xvii (1904), 35–76, and more recently by Kurtz, E. and Drexl, F., Michaeli Pselli Scripta Minora (Milan, 1936), i. 232–328.Google Scholar This document might well be translated into English.

page 77 note 3 For some interesting sidelights on medieval séances see Dodds, E. H. R., ‘Theurgy and its relationship to Neoplatonism’, Journal of Roman Studies, xxxvii (1947). 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 77 note 4 Michael Psellus, Funeral oration for the Patriarch Michael Cerularius (ed. Sathas, Bibliotheca graeca medii aevi, iv (Paris, 1874), 303–87).

page 78 note 1 See Hussey, J. M., Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire 867–1185 (Oxford, 1937), PP. 158Google Scholar ff. John Mauropous in his Vita S. Dorothei shows us something of what a small eleventh century house meant to the villagers in a country district in Asia Minor in much the same way as the Life of St. Theodore of Sykeon does for the seventh century (see Dawes, E. and Baynes, N. H., Three Byzantine Saints, Oxford, 1948).Google Scholar

page 78 note 2 Wellesz, E., A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxford, 1949).Google Scholar This contains a bibliography which lists the more important books and articles by Dr. Wellesz and Dr. H. J. W. Tillyard.

page 78 note 3 Demus, O., Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium (1948).Google Scholar See also below, p. 80, n. 2.

page 78 note 4 Hussey, J. M., ‘The Canons of John Mauropous’, Journal of Roman Studies, xxxvii (1947), 70–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 79 note 1 O. Demus, op. cit., p. 13., See also Diez, E. and Demus, O., Byzantin Mosaics in Greece: Hosios Lucas and Daphni (Cambridge, Mass., 1931).Google Scholar

page 79 note 2 See Wellesz, E., Eastern Elements in Western Chant (Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, Amer. Ser, i, 1947).Google Scholar

page 80 note 1 Wellesz, E., A History of Byzantine Music, and Die Hymnen des Sticherarium für September (Monumenta Musicae Byzanlinae. Transcripta, i, Copenhagen, 1936).Google Scholar

page 80 note 2 Weitzmann, K., ‘Byzantine Art and Scholarship in America’, American Journal of Archaeology, li (1947), 394–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Lemerle's, P. recent bibliography on all aspects of Byzantine art, ‘Bulletin Archéologique 1940–1947’, Revue des études byiantines, vi (1948), 199–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 80 note 3 Comnena, Anna, Alexiad, v. 8 (ed. and trans. Leib, B., ii (Paris, 1943), 33–4).Google Scholar Cf. Sirapie Der Nersessian, op. cit., pp. 26 ff., for the Armenian Gregory Magistros’ somewhat different comment on intellectual life in Constantinople in 1045 and after.

page 80 note 4 Comnena, Anna, op. cit., v. 9, pp. 38–9.Google Scholar I use here the translation of E. Dawes, p. 136.

page 81 note 1 Ostrogorsky's History does not of course profess to deal in detail with all aspects of Byzantine civilization, and certain subjects are reserved for other volumes in the series. But he does nevertheless give some account of learning and of Psellus and in so doing leaves himself open to criticism.

page 81 note 2 C. Neumann, Die Weltstellung des byzantinischen Reiches vor den Kreuzzügen (Leipzig, 1894). French translation by Renauld and Kozlowski in the Revue de l'orient látin, x (1905). My page references are to the French translation.

page 81 note 3 Neumann, op. cit., p. 140.

page 81 note 4 Zervos, C., Un philosophe néoplatonicien du XIa siècle: Michel Psellos (1920)Google Scholar, passim (e.g., p. 59: ‘parmi les savants de cette époque et tous ceux qui viendront après lui dans Byzance, il n'en est pas un qui ait été aussi complètement l'image de son temps que ce philosophe et homme d'Etat’).

page 81 note 5 Ostrogorsky, op. cit., p. 230: ‘In seinem überaus fruchtbaren Wirken auf kulturellem Felde wie auch in seiner unheilvollen politischen Tätigkeit und abgründigen moralischen Verdorbenheit ist Psellos die repräsentivste Gestalt dieser Zeit.’ Ostrogorsky is of course aware of the work of Psellus’ contemporaries, but he seems to me to give an erroneous impression of their activities and their characters.

page 82 note 1 K. F. Mπώνης, ‘ωάννπς & σιøιγīνoς’, Texte und Forsch. zur byz.-neugr. Philol., xxiv (Athens, 1938).

page 82 note 2 Dr. ‘Georgina Buckler's edition of Cecaumenus, delayed by the war, is announced as forthcoming in the Corpus Byuxellense Historiae Byzantinae.

page 82 note 3 It is understood that this is being prepared by Dr. Alice Leroy-Molinghen.

page 82 note 4 R. M. Dawkins, ‘The Greek Language in the Byzantine Period’, in Baynes and Moss, Byzantium, pp. 252–67.

page 82 note 5 This happened for instance in the case of the ninth-century St. Theodora of Thessalonica, whose Life is discussed in a learned and interesting review by Dr. Maas, Paul in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift, xii (1903), 614Google Scholar ff., where he compares the style of the three different versions which we have.

page 82 note 6 Stethatus, Nicetas, Vita Symeonis Jitnioris (ed. Hausherr, I. and Horn, G., Orientalia Christiana, xii, 1928)Google Scholar, cap. 140, pp. 204–6, where Nicetas tells how he came to give Symeon's works to the public. Nicetas describes these writings as kontakia (Vita, cap. 131, p. 190). Perhaps they are more properly called The Loves of the Divine Hymns, cf. Monac. MS. gr. 177, f. 209.

page 83 note 1 J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, cxx. 507 ff. There is a German translation by Kirchhoff, K., Symeon der neue Theologe: Licht vom Licht: Hymnen (Hellèrau, 1930).Google Scholar This is not generally accessible in England, and I hope to publish my own translation of both orationes and hymns which was completed before the war when I was working on the Greek text of Symeon's writings.

page 83 note 2 Cf. Monac. MS. gr. 177, f. 209 ff.

page 83 note 3 Maas, P., ‘Aus der Poesie des Mystikers Symeon’, in Beiträge zur Geschichte des christlichen Altertums und der Byzantinischen Literatur: Festgabe Albert Ehrhard, ed. Koeniger, A. M. (Bonn-Leipzig, 1922), pp. 328–41.Google Scholar

page 83 note 4 K. Holl, Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt beim griechischen Mönchtum. Eine Studie zu Symeon dem Neuen Theologen (Leipzig, 1898). Cf. J. M. Hussey, Church and Learning, pp. 201 ff.

page 83 note 5 See H. Delehaye, ‘Byzantine Monasticism’, in Baynes and Moss, Byzantium, p. 158, and H. Grégoire, ‘The Byzantine Church’, in ibid., pp. 115–16, where the general reader may not realize how great an injustice is done both to Symeon and to hesychasm.

page 84 note 1 This account of John Mauropous is based on work which I have been doing on him for a number of years. Cf. J. M. Hussey, Church and Learning, pp. 39 ff. and 234 ff. and ‘The Canons of John Mauropous’.

page 84 note 2 This is stated in his Office, recently published from Vaticanus MS. Pal. Gr. 138 by S. G. Mercati, ‘Ufficio di Giovanni Mauropode de Euchaita composito dal nepote Teodoro’, in Mémorial Louis Petit (Archives de l'orient chrètien, i, published by the Institut Français d'ètudes byzantines, Bucharest and Paris, 1948), p. 350.

page 84 note 3 A recent instance is E. Wellesz, History of Byzantine Music, p. 207.

page 85 note 1 S. G. Mercati, op. cit., p. 348.

page 85 note 2 E. Wellesz, op. cit., p. 207 (quoting J. M. Neale, Hymns of the Eastern Church, 2nd ed., 1863, p. 160).

page 85 note 3 Weitzmann, K., ‘Byzantine Art and Scholarship in America’, American Journal of Archaeology, li (1947), 418.Google Scholar