There were several fundamental characteristics of the citizens of the Empire which remained stable over the centuries and which gave rise to the inner strength that the Byzantine State needed in order to be reborn every time it seemed to be doomed.

THE TWO GREAT PILLARS

The first great pillar of the Byzantine common man was the idea of belonging to the Roman Empire, the awareness that he was part of a universal Christian Empire.  This relates to the second pillar, which was Orthodox Christianity.

This awareness of belonging to a Christian Roman Empire was a motivation for survival, because it was not necessary for one to belong to a certain race, speak a certain language, or meet any other external requirement. One’s real membership in the Empire was demonstrated by one’s acceptance of the Christian God, participation in the Orthodox liturgy, and recognition of the emperor as the representative of God on earth. We could almost affirm that, for the Byzantines, an end of the Roman Empire, were it ever to occur, would be seen as the end of the world.

What is more, we can also affirm that Byzantine man accepted that the Empire was on earth what the reign of Christ was in heaven, which meant discounting the significance of any fall or defeat at the hands of infidels or barbarians. “Occasional battles lost” were normally looked upon as punishments from God for sins that had been committed, which led to one of the most important popular pastimes: theological debate.

Thus these two pillars, the Roman Empire and Orthodox Christianity, together with the idea that the Empire was the center of the world and could never be defeated because it represented the rule of Christ on earth, blind obedience to the emperor and to religious precepts, and the defense of this way of life in the face of attacks by infidel barbarians, all formed the basis of Byzantine citizenship throughout the existence of the Empire. 

All this is very clearly seen beginning with the era of the emperor Heraclius (610-641) and remained unchanged until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

 Only by understanding these factors can one come to truly understand the long survival of the Byzantine State, the miracles that followed one after another over the centuries which prevented its fall and promoted its later “rebirths.”

 The loyalty the Byzantine man felt to his God and to God’s representative on earth, the emperor, stood above everything else.

EDUCATION AND LOYALTY

 On the other hand, men’s education remained similar over the centuries, with the study of the Greek classics added to that of the Fathers of the Church, which ensured continuity in ways of life and thought, and were true pillars of Byzantine supremacy in this field over anything found in the West and most of the East during the Middle Ages.  The classical authors have, in great part, reached our hands thanks to copies made by Byzantine monks from the 9^th through the 14^th centuries.

 This is why we can say that time is not a factor when dealing with Byzantine literature. As well as dedicatedly studying the classics, Byzantine writers, lay or religious, poets or historians, also wrote in a classic style, sometimes badly, sometimes acceptably, and sometimes well, but always with a unique style that forever identifies them.

 But, we must not think that this was common in Byzantium. Scholars and academics were generally a tiny minority belonging to an elite in the greatest cities of the Empire.

However, what about those who simply knew how to read and write, the soldiers, small farmers, merchants and all the others of different occupations who were not educated but who were literate?   Did they posses the same sense of loyalty?

 The answer is YES, because in Byzantine education, what is written is what regulates your life, and for Byzantine man this meant the Holy Scriptures and the Laws which represented God and his representative on earth, the Emperor. That which is written is authority and tradition, and had, for the Byzantine citizen, a value that was absolute.

 And even if we talk about illiterates, did they place the same value on all this? Here again the answer is in the affirmative.  No matter the degree of education one had, even men who did not know how to read and write were educated in the same obedience to the written law (the sacred books and the decrees of the basileus).

 This was the greatest source of strength on which the Empire could rely. This popular loyalty meant that whole armies could be raised virtually overnight after a fatally lost battle, and it was decisive for tax collections as well.  In Byzantium it was considered a sacred duty for the citizens to pay tribute, and for the emperor to feed the people and fight the barbarians.  And, for those who did not comply…

 In Byzantium one would risk very grave penalties for nonpayment of the tribute (which was sometimes nearly confiscatory), and several emperors suffered for forgetting their duty to the people.

CITY AND COUNTRYSIDE

 When one speaks of the Byzantine Empire one thinks of Constantinople, Thessalonica, Nicea, Antioch, Alexandria and Athens. However, it is necessary to point out that even though these cities were very populous and important, the Empire remained throughout its history primarily rural. The rural population was far greater than the urban, and the countryside was the driving force of the Byzantine economy, just as it was everywhere during the Middle Ages.

 Byzantine rural people formed a social class with great internal differences, ranging from extreme poverty to riches and power, but they were all of vital importance to the Empire, as was recognized by many of the emperors who decreed laws to protect small landholders as an essential part of the imperial economy.

INDIVIDUALISM

 Beginning with the last days of the tragic rule of Heraclius (610-641) when immense territories were lost to Islam, one of the most basic characteristics of the men of the Empire emerged even more strongly: individualism. This period witnessed a virtual collapse of urban life, and consequently a crisis of Byzantine society that plunged the citizens of the Empire into extremes that had never before been imagined. Rural people found themselves alone in the face of Imperial tax collectors.  Administrators found themselves alone in the face of an implacable hierarchical system that demanded blind obedience to superiors, while soldiers answered to an even more strictly hierarchical system and were also alone. Monks fled the world and its temptations, seeking solitude in order to find a life apart from ordinary society. Even the emperor was alone, surrounded by individuals who could betray him and throw him to the people who, when they were angry, could be far crueler than the worst of individuals.

The result of all this was that the ordinary man, citizen of an Empire of past, present and future glories, irrespective of his lifestyle or occupation, found himself overwhelmed by this situation, and responded with a tool that has been used and treasured over the centuries: individualism, which can also be understood as isolation.

 It was individualism which allowed the Byzantine man to survive the worst life could bring, be it in the imperial court, surrounded by plotters and traitors, in the countryside, besieged by cruel tax collectors, or in the monastery, leading the harsh, isolated and aesthetic life of a monk.

 If we think deeply about this, we find that this was in fact the new Roman condition, breaking with all the traditions of social life in previous centuries.

 At the same time, the family, the solidest pillar of society in the Empire, came to reaffirm this very individualism, being transformed into a refuge for the common man just as the monastery was a refuge for the monks.

 Individualism, solitude, isolation and insecurity, along with a constant search for refuge, together formed a characteristic that would distinguish the man of Byzantium from the man of the West, who was drawn to other paths in other, quite different societies. 

The emperor Basil II was a good example of this phenomenon. He took his individualism to an extreme, mistrusting everyone and governing alone and isolated for many years.  

 Rolando Castillo.

 Translated by Silvana Castillo

 Edited by Owen Williamson

Home