Book Review and response
The Byzantine Republic by Anthony Kaldellis
Harvard University Press. 2015
“The Byzantine Republic” is an excellent work on Byzantine political theory and the relationship of the Emperor to the people in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. The thesis of the book is that that the Empire was in fact a Republic, and not a monarchy. Many examples are provided that make it clear that the Emperor needed the support of the people in order to rule, and even when plots were under way for a seizure of power in Constantinople, the scheme would end in failure if the people did not turn out to give their support to the attempted transfer of power.
The author dismisses the traditional understanding of the role of the Emperor that we have from historians of Byzantium. It has been accepted by historians of Byzantium that the people of the Empire accepted that the Emperor’s rule emanated from God. I respectfully disagree with the author’s dismissal of what we understand to have been the theological basis for the Byzantine Emperors while admiring this book for breaking new ground and successfully demonstrating that Byzantium was indeed a Republic.
In the introduction to his book, the author asks why the Byzantines criticized their Emperors and why they rebelled and revolted against them, killed them, and blinded them. In the same introduction, the author answers his own question when he writes that, “it was not the person that mattered as much as the office”. Indeed, it was in fact the office that mattered much as in the Church it is the office of the clerics that is important and not necessarily the specific person when administering the mysteries.
For example, a footnote in the Rudder under Canon X of the twenty canons of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (D. Cummings published in 1957 page 179) asserts that “God is wont to operate also through unworthy persons, and the grace of baptism is in no respect injuriously affected by the life of the priest.” In other words, the priesthood of a man who was wrongly ordained or is not worthy of being a priest is still valid and functions until he has been officially laicized. The history of Byzantium shows that there have been many unworthy Patriarchs, Bishops, and Priests who were deposed for heresy or moral transgressions but that did not take away from the sacredness of the holy orders and priesthood they once possessed.
Therefore, it was entirely possible for an evil Emperor to be deposed (Justinian II comes to mind) and for each of his successors to serve as the vice regent of God. One is reminded of the Roman Catholic teaching that the Pope of Rome is infallible. In Byzantium, neither the Emperor nor the Patriarch were ever infallible. The concept of the Emperor as “vice regent of God” did not mean that the Emperor could do no wrong or was completely infallible.
Nor did it mean that the people of Constantinople who revolted against Emperors who were heretics and tyrants were revolting against God. If anything, the revolts against certain Emperors cleansed the office of an unworthy person. The concept of a ruler who could or should reign without limits to his authority is a totalitarian concept that did not exist in Byzantium.The Emperor’s power was necessarily constrained by Christianity itself otherwise a cult of personality could have emerged that would have resulted in idolatry.
In chapter two, the author writes that the Emperors “generally did behave in accordance with an ideology of custodianship: they were the stewards of a polity that did not belong to them. They had opportunity to abuse their power, but this had consequences”. The belief by the Emperors that they were custodians is consistent with Christian humility. In my opinion, this strengthens the view that the Emperors in Byzantium were perceived as instruments of God.
One of the most serious causes of the schism between the Latins and the Greek Church was due to the claims of the Papal primacy which claimed authority outside its own sphere and onto the universal Church. Beginning from the time of Saint Photius the Great in the ninth century, the Church of Constantinople gradually challenged the Papacy until the schism was manifested in 1054. Since the Byzantines refused to countenance absolute authority to the Pope who was a Churchman, it should not be surprised that there were in fact limits to the Emperor’s power notwithstanding the honors and responsibilities that were bestowed on his office.
Iconography within the narthex of Hagia Sophia shows the Theotokos with Christ in her lap. On the right side, Constantine is giving his City to Christ as a gift. Justinian on the left is giving the Great Church to Christ as his gift. Both Emperors are prostrating themselves before the incarnate logos.
In Byzantine art, Emperors are frequently seen with Christ who is the center of attention. For example, an image of Emperor Alexios Comnenos shows him being blessed by Christ at his enthronement. The Christian Emperors of Constantinople were indeed conscious of a kingdom greater than theirs, and there was a King far greater than they.
It is to the credit of Byzantium and the office of Emperor that the people would erupt in anger to overthrow a tyrannical or a heretical ruler. Consider the willingness of the faithful in Constantinople to resist the iconoclastic Emperor Leo III and Emperor John Paleologos who signed the Union of Florence. Both of these men were opposed because they betrayed God by embracing heresies and therefore could no longer be considered to be the vice regent of God.
There really is no conflict between the traditional view of historians that the Emperor was an instrument of God with the books thesis that Byzantium was a Republic. Among the Byzantines, Christ was God and came first. The Emperor came after and theological justifications for his reign were valid inso far as he was Orthodox in faith and dogma.
In the sixth chapter, the author cites the traditional historical view. “They (people of Byzantium) believed that the Emperor was appointed to rule by God and that they themselves had the right to depose him without impiety”. This is not a contradiction as is being implied. The implication being that God places the Emperor in power and the people remove him therefore the people inevitably oppose the will of God.
In Christianity we have the teaching on free will. God gave Adam and Eve free will and they chose to sin. An Emperor ascended to the office but he abused his power and/or taught heresy. At this point the Emperor would no longer be favored by God. In addition, consider the enthronement of an Orthodox Bishop. At the enthronement, the laos, or people of God give their approval by shouting AXIOS! If the Bishop is a teacher of heresy or engages in immoral conduct the laos will no longer respect or support him.
So it was with the Emperor. When Leo III began his campaign of burning and destroying icons and in fact became the persecutor of the Church, it was no longer possible for the people to accept him as being appointed by God. The Emperor maintained his standing as long as he was solidly Orthodox and ruled in a just manner.
At the beginning of chapter six, the author writes that “the alleged divine right of the Byzantine emperors is given such weight that some scholars separate the “Roman” and the “Byzantine” periods based on it alone”. Theoretically, it can be said that Byzantium up until 1453 was the Roman Empire but there are a number of important factors that divide Old Rome from “New Rome” and cannot be easily dismissed.
The Roman Empire underwent radical revolutionary upheavals in the fourth century. The legalization of Christianity and Constantine’s conversion changed Rome forever and not in insignificant ways. The abandonment of the city of Rome in the Latin west in favor of the Greek speaking town of Byzantium on the bosporus (renamed Constantinople) was another radical break from the past.
Constantine’s interest in theology and his call for the convening of Bishops at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 AD was the ultimate repudiation of Rome’s pagan past as the Emperor now took full responsibility for settling disputes within the Church and clarifying the truths of Christian faith and dogma. One must ask what would Roman persecutors of the Church such as Nero and Diocletian have thought of Constantine and Justinian? What would those Romans have thought of Nikephoras Phokas, Basil II, and the Comnenos Dynasty?
Finally, the title of this book is not the “Roman” Republic, but the “Byzantine” Republic. The term Byzantium was bestowed on the Empire in the sixteenth century by western Europeans who wanted to make a distinction between old Rome and new Rome. The term came from the name of the old town on the bosporus named for the Greek trader Byzas. Surely there is a reason why historians use the term Byzantine for the Christian Roman Empire.
On the question as to whether Byzantium is the Roman Empire my opinion is both yes and no. Yes in the sense that the Emperors of Byzantium were the successors of the Roman Emperors and Roman traditions. Yes also, in the sense that Mr. Kaldellis has made an excellent case that Byzantium was in fact a Republic in the tradition of the Roman Empire.
No in the sense that the Empire evolved over the course of many centuries. Professor Apostolos Vacolopoulos writing in his “Origins of the Greek Nation” has argued that in the fourteenth century during the occupation of Constantinople and other parts of the Greek world, Greek nationalism was born. This was only one of many changes that occurred by the time the Empire was eradicated in 1453.
