byzantium

Lessons from Byzantium


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Excerpt:

George Ostrogorsky in his magisterial History of the Byzantine State shows how the people of Byzantium rose time and again to create wealth, cultivate their intellectual capital, and achieve military success. Ultimately, though, they could not overcome the bad policy decisions that, made over the course of generations, ran counter to the proven path of political strength, cultural vigor, and economic growth. By the time Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, the empire was but a shell of its former glory. For Orthodox Christians in Europe, it remained a symbol of the church, or religious commonwealth on earth, but the desolated city that greeted Sultan Mehmet II told a more sobering story of squandered wealth and misguided politics.

Source: National Review Online | Michael Auslin

The empire fell but didn’t have to.

The Byzantine Empire’s long run — 1,100 years — may seem remote from the 21st century, but a reading of its history offers at least three timeless lessons. Understanding some of the fatal weaknesses in the Eastern Roman Empire may help clarify the political and economic problems that America faces today and the choices we have in responding to them.

Founded in 330 by the emperor Constantine, the eastern half of the Roman Empire was centered in Constantinople, the New Rome. By the fourth century, the empire had endured more than a century of instability, internecine warfare, and economic decline. In that context Rome’s eastern lands, arcing around Asia Minor, the Levant, and northern Africa, were especially attractive, being richer and more settled than the comparatively backward parts of western Europe. It was in part to assure continued access to these sources of wealth that Constantine relocated his capital. By A.D. 476, Rome had been overrun by barbarian tribes, and before long only Constantinople in the East had a seat for the emperors.

The first lesson for America to take from the history of Byzantium is about individualism and freedom. While it was no democracy, nonetheless Byzantium flourished when it allowed its citizens, and particularly its soldiers, greater individual freedom and responsibility. Beginning in the early 7th century, Emperor Heraclius moved from the traditional reliance on the provinces and their civilian governors and instead established large military zones, or “themes,” in Asia Minor, which was now the backbone of the empire. Centralization was maintained through the appointment of a single official with both civil and military responsibilities, but the real innovation of the themes was how the land was settled by imperial troops.

In essence, the soldiers became permanent farmers who could be called on for military service yet would be self-sustaining. They relieved the empire of the necessity of recruiting and paying expensive and often unreliable foreign mercenaries. Moreover, while becoming the most effective frontier defense the state had ever known, as individual landholders they added enormously to the productive capacity and wealth of the empire by cultivating their tracts of farmland.

Byzantium’s strength was fatally undermined when the government lost control of the countryside and either acquiesced in or abetted the formation of private landed estates. The farmer-soldiers were steadily alienated from their land, often owing to exorbitant government taxes, and became instead tenant farmers under increasingly independent feudal chieftains. This destroyed the effectiveness of the Byzantine army and also led to a drop in productivity and in tax receipts to the central government. In crushing the entrepreneurial spirit and independence of the small farmers, Byzantium weakened its economy and hollowed out its military. Eventually, politics in the Byzantine state became a competition between what we would recognize as private-interest groups, aristocrats and feudal landlords, who reduced state policy to the padding of their pockets and the settling of personal disputes.

The second lesson from Byzantium is monetary. In addition to establishing his new capital, Constantine the Great created a currency of unparalleled stability. The gold solidus, or nomisma, maintained its value and was the primary international currency in Eurasia until the 11th century.

The strength of the nomisma contributed mightily to ensuring that Byzantium was the center of world trade for nearly a millennium. It promoted economic activity within the empire. As a currency of first and last resort, it globalized the medieval world economy. Even in times of economic weakness, the government strove to maintain the value of the nomisma, which redounded to Constantinople’s political influence in moments of crisis. However, as the great feudal lords began to deprive Constantinople of land, taxes, and citizens, the government’s finances began to collapse. By the 1040s, circumstances forced the empire to devalue the nomisma. Over succeeding decades, it increasingly added base metal.

The result was devastating to the economy. Byzantium’s currency quickly lost its value and international status. As inflation flared up throughout the empire, the government introduced new coins in an effort to stabilize the monetary system. Taxes steadily increased, in part to make up for the shortfall from reduced economic activity caused by the worthless money. Merchants and taxpayers alike were gradually impoverished. For the last several hundred years of its life, the Byzantine Empire lacked both a stable fisc and a growing trade sector, which in turn led to greater competition among its increasingly powerful interest groups.

These examples lead to a final political lesson for the United States. Despite the dismissive view of historians such as Edward Gibbon, Byzantine society remained vibrant and capable of reinvigorating itself even after centuries of disorder. What doomed it was decades of bad political decisions. Specific choices by emperors and feudal leaders weakened the economy, undercut the military, and sapped the empire’s cultural energy.

George Ostrogorsky in his magisterial History of the Byzantine State shows how the people of Byzantium rose time and again to create wealth, cultivate their intellectual capital, and achieve military success. Ultimately, though, they could not overcome the bad policy decisions that, made over the course of generations, ran counter to the proven path of political strength, cultural vigor, and economic growth. By the time Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, the empire was but a shell of its former glory. For Orthodox Christians in Europe, it remained a symbol of the church, or religious commonwealth on earth, but the desolated city that greeted Sultan Mehmet II told a more sobering story of squandered wealth and misguided politics.

Michael Auslin is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

EP Fast Track? Homily of Met. Elpidophoros of Proussa at His Ordination


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Readers will remember that Met. Elpidophoros gave the controversial speech at Holy Cross a few years back extolling the virtues of Constantinople and castigating America for ignoring it (see: Ecumenical Patriarchate: American ‘Diaspora’ must submit to Mother Church). It didn’t go over well at all. The next year he was invited to St. Vladimir’s Seminary and while not clarifying his remarks he ameliorated his tone (read .pdf).

The homily contains much Byzantineze, some of it necessary because the social context of old world Orthodoxy demands it. What strikes our ears as excessive deference to the high authority, the Patriarch in this case, functions to show the courtiers gathered at the event that +Elpidophoros is a loyalist and will continue the Phanariot policies. Remember this is medieval practice carried forward. Also, the fact that Met. Hilarion was in attendance shows this was not run of the mill ordination.

Still, you can’t help but sense that the grandeur the language hopes to convey is laced with a sense of something already lost. I’m not sure that’s an entirely fair assessment and it is not meant to be unkind. Take the recounting of the history of Proussa for example. It’s tragic. Still, you wonder what is the meaning behind it all? Is the hope that one day Byzantine will be restored? Do the titular hiearchs represent the diaspora of those exiled from these ancient cities that one day will be organized as such, even in the diaspora? Has Byzantium become spiritualized; a kind of living abstraction held in abeyance in the confines of the Phanar yet at the same time the blueprint of that future hope? Take the last two paragraphs for example:

Finally, as the humble shepherd of an Eparchy of the Throne in Bithynia that presently lies in ruins, allow me convey a fervent greeting and modest hierarchical prayer and blessing to all those in the world that are from Proussa, Triglia and Moudania. And by way of conclusion, let me cite some hopeful lines from the poet George Seferis, composed on the occasion of his sojourn in Proussa:

By striking the salinity night and day
none has changed his fate;
By striking the darkness and light
none has changed the crime-scene.
Yet the light can reappear;
there on the heavy palms
the fruit can fall again.
And the blood can blossom once more.

Source: Hellenic News of America

HOMILY

Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Proussa During his Ordination to the Episcopate (Istanbul, March 20, 2011)

Your All-Holiness,
Your Beatitude,
Your Eminences and Graces,
Representatives of the Orthodox Churches,
Most Reverend choir of Hierarchs,
Your Excellencies Ministers,
Your Excellencies Ambassadors,
Honorable members of the Diplomatic Corps,
Honorable Rector of the University of Thessalonika,
Honorable Dean of the Theological School of Thessaloniki,
Honorable Mayors, Congressmen, Professors,
Beloved fathers, ladies and gentlemen,

By the ineffable divine economy and mercy, through the gracious recommendation of Your All-Holiness, and with the vote and approval of the Holy and Sacred Synod, which I have served over the years, I was unanimously elected Metropolitan of Proussa and today receive the third order of priesthood by the laying on of hands of my venerable Master and President of the First-Throne of Orthodoxy, with the concelebration of an apostolic number of revered hierarchs.

Bewildered and awe-struck, I was at a loss for thoughts and sentiments regarding the entirely sudden and extremely prestigious providence of God on my insignificance through Your All-Holiness, and recalled the customary expression of the memorable phanariot hierarchs, that the Phanar – the Patriarchal Court in general and the Synodal Secretariat in particular – constitute an Academy, a School, a University, wherein the younger clergy of the Mother Church as the future officers of the Ecumenical Patriarchate are formed and instructed, especially since the institutional and natural place for this, the Holy Theological School of Halki, unfortunately still remains closed.

The departure of a clergyman from the Patriarchal Court as a result of elevation is accordingly equivalent to a “graduation” from this School with a passing and perhaps even excellent grade. Therefore, I stand before you, Your All-Holiness, as a “graduate” in order to submit to the final test and give account for that which I have learned and with which I have been entrusted. (2 Tim. 3.14)

Nevertheless, since at this Patriarchal Academy there is only one chancellor and teacher and professor inasmuch as there is only one father and head and abbot, all teaching derives from him and all learning has him as a point of reference for all the fledglings of the phanariot education. Namely, the Patriarch! Our spiritual father, leader and instructor. His teaching adheres to the most efficient paedagogical method: personal example. Learning at the feet of the Patriarch signifies observation of his daily sacrificial service, personal experience of his anguish for the concern of all Churches, and cyrenaean sharing in the bearing of his unceasing burden.

Knowing from whom I have been taught (2 Tim. 3.14), I dare to list all that I have learned from him during the years of my tenure in the Patriarchal Court, beginning with the fundamentals such as the conduct of a younger clergyman, since a clergyman must not only be a good Christian and faithful member of the Church. He should also be adorned with the so-called natural virtues, including honoring one’s parents, teachers and every elder in stature and age; they also include diligence and industriousness, gratitude to all his benefactors, courtesy and affability, and generally a hospitable attitude to every visitor and pilgrim.

Our teacher at the Patriarchate is distinguished for the respect and honor which he reserves for those who have passed away, whether they be his predecessors on the Throne, hierarchs, clergy, parents, teachers, friends, and even janitors that faithfully served him. Wherever he may go, just as he returns with gifts for the living, he never fails to pray for the departed, sometimes also seeking to repatriate the sacred relics and precious remains of his holy predecessors, Patriarchs who died in exile.

Himself a lover of liturgy and of monasticism, he respectfully upholds the typikon and patriarchal order, simultaneously reminding us that the essence assumes priority over the detail, since “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2.27)

My wise teacher taught me to love the Greek language, reading, studies and languages, encouraging us to learn constantly, to receive higher education, at the same time securing scholarships and other resources for travel to centers of learning in the east and west, all the while despite the fact that this implied deprivation for him of necessary clergy for the administration of the Phanar.

As a good shepherd and Bishop of the Most Holy Archdiocese of Constantinople, he knows his rational flock by name, always meeting with leaders of the community and hierarchs of the City for their needs, for the promotion of education, for the smooth operation of parish administration, for the securing and demand of property entrusted to us by our fathers and national benefactors. He provides for the renewal and adornment not only of the Patriarchal Offices and Patriarchal Church, but also for almost every holy Church, sacred Site, and precious Treasure of our Nation found within the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese and the other Metropolitan regions of our land.

As Patriarch, he is concerned with securing persons and staffing positions with individuals capable of responding to the contemporary demands not only of the Sacred Center but also of the Eparchies of the Throne throughout the world, establishing new missions and metropolitan dioceses, while installing select hierarchs for them and not depriving the overseas Institutions of the same attention.

As the First Hierarch of Orthodoxy, Your All-Holiness, you are a model of reverence for the synodal system, which you sought to promote and strengthen not only at the Phanar – initially by convening a regular Synaxis of the Hierarchs of the Throne and ultimately by reinstituting the invitation by rotation of all the active Metropolitans and Archbishops, regardless of citizenship, to the Holy and Sacred Synod – but also on a panorthodox level by introducing and establishing the institution of the Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches, which proved most beneficial in responding to matters of panorthodox nature. This boldness of the First Hierarch through these initiatives was rewarded by the granting of Turkish citizenship as well to a number of hierarchs of the Throne. Inside the Synodal Hall of the Phanar, I personally and tangibly experienced the sacred work of synodal consultation in the Holy Spirit.

“Him who comes to me, I will not cast out” (John 6.37) is what my teacher is accustomed to saying, suffering for the division of Christians and not only promoting the official theological dialogues but also cultivating personal relations with leaders and officers of all rank among the non-Orthodox confessions and churches. The same teacher and father of our Nation grieves for the provision of peaceful coexistence and fraternal relations among the faithful of all religions, especially among Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Your All-Holiness,

In full knowledge that I am encroaching upon the modest humility of my venerable Master, permit me to continue a while longer, boasting about my teacher even as I am yet possessed of the violent breathing of the Holy Spirit.

The summit of every thought and concern dominated by the Patriarch’s mind is the Ecumenical Throne, the much-afflicted Phanar, the Great Church of Christ, the Church of Christ’s Poor. His existence, his every intention and effort have as their ultimate aim the benefit of our Patriarchate. Each decision on any dilemma or challenge has as its foremost and exclusive criterion whatever is beneficial for the Mother Church. Above and beyond all lies the good of the Phanar, the projection of the ecumenicity of the Throne. This extremely powerful sense of obligation and duty toward the Ecumenical Throne on the part of my Patriarch, which reaches the point of overlooking his personal health and physical exhaustion, comprises for my insignificant person one of the most invaluable deposits, which I am taking with me from my time in the Patriarchal Court.

These and many others were the lessons that I learned, Your All-Holiness, at the great Academy of the Patriarchal Court. I made every effort to learn and assimilate as much as I possibly could, and I look to your lenient and paternal tolerance for wherever I failed, pledging that, even now outside the Patriarchal Court – although I shall always be within the saving and sacred grounds of the Phanar – I shall continue to serve my Patriarch and the holy Apostolic and Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople with all my strength and with the same spirit of learning.

Despite my shortcomings, I was elevated to Metropolitan of the vacant Eparchy of Proussa, one of the historical satellite cities of Constantinople on the Asian antipodes of Adrianoupolis. The city of Proussa, erected on the foothills of the snow-capped Mt. Olympus of Bithynia, constitutes a sacred city both for Orthodox Christians (inasmuch as it is replete with holy hermitages and monasteries on Olympus) and for Muslim believers (inasmuch as it contains the tombs of the founders of the Ottoman empire, Sultans Osman and Orhan). Many of my predecessor Bishops of Proussa adorn the Church Triumphant as Saints – whether Hieromartyrs, Righteous Ascetics, or god-bearing Fathers of Ecumenical Councils. I invoke the intercessions before the Lord of Saints Alexander, Patricius, George, Timothy and Theoktistos – all of them Bishops of Proussa – as well as of those martyred in Proussa: Acacius, Menander and Polyaenus, both for me and for all the children of the Metropolis of Proussa scattered throughout the world.

The Orthodox Christian population of the city, which thrived spiritually, ecclesiastically and materially, created particular impression on St. Gregory Palamas, whom we celebrate today, while the national benefactors Zarifi and Eustathios Eugenides competed for the establishment and preservation of schools in the region. For reasons known only to the Lord, Proussa, its seaport Moudania, Triglia, Syge and Elegmoi, the principal districts of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Proussa, were forcefully vacated, while those who survived settled in Greece, where they were recreated from the ashes by the grace and support of the holy, miraculous icon of the Virgin Mary of the Visitation. In venerating this renowned icon of the Mother of God and imploring her assistance for my journey henceforth, I bow down before the souls of all those who piously served as hierarchs in Proussa as well as of all the children who, as a result of the wretched turns of history, were painfully uprooted from their birthplace in the Metropolis assigned to me.

And now, Your All-Holiness, in assuming the responsibility of this eminent Eparchy of the Throne, with praises to the Lord who granted me such great mercy, I direct my mind, thought and eyes to you as my Father and Master, to whom – after God – I owe everything, in order that with profound emotion and contrite heart I may express my many filial thanks and gratefully venerate your precious right hand.

Thereafter, I would like to thank His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and All-Greece, who greatly honored my modesty by undertaking such an exceptional journey abroad in order that, by his high presence and paternal prayer, and together with his honorable entourage, he might strengthen me as I begin the sacred ministry that lies before me.

Then, I respectfully turn toward the members of the Holy and Sacred Synod, who have honored me with their unanimous vote, gratefully bowing before them for the kindness and compassion which they demonstrated to my humble person. Moreover, I also thank all the holy Hierarchs who served as members of the Holy and Sacred Synod throughout my tenure as Chief Secretary for their affection toward me, for their sound counsel and for their cherished support in my responsible task.

Finally, I am thankful to many for the honor of their presence:

The Representative and other members of the honorable Greek Government
The Representative of the Opposition Party
The honorable diplomatic authorities
The representatives of the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Georgia and Cyprus
The venerable Hierarchs, who came and concelebrated or prayed with us< The Office of the Chancellor at the University of Thessalonika The Representative of the Roman Catholic Church The Representative of the Syro-Jacobite Church The Representative of the Armenian Church The Patriarchal Court in its entirety, headed by His Eminence Metropolitan Stephanos of Kallioupolis and Madyton The representatives of the Holy Monasteries on Mt. Athos: Great Lavra, Vatopedi, Dionysiou, Pantokratoros, Agiou Pavlou, Xenofontos and Gregoriou, My beloved parents Vasileios and Nadya My brothers Edward, Paul and Xenophon, together with their families My relatives, refugees from Eastern Thrace and Antioch My colleagues, Professors at the Theological School of Thessalonika, together with my students Those representing people from all over the world, who have their origins in Proussa, Triglia and Moudania All the clergy, dear friends, distinguished colleagues at the Patriarchal Offices, teachers, community leaders and every citizen of this City.

Your All-Holiness, upon “graduating” from the School of the Phanar, in closing these words of gratitude, I wish to express my wholehearted prayer that we shall soon be deemed worthy of consecrating new and promising theological graduates of the Church at the Holy Theological School of Halki, whose reopening we hope for and anticipate as the culmination of your tireless efforts.

Finally, as the humble shepherd of an Eparchy of the Throne in Bithynia that presently lies in ruins, allow me convey a fervent greeting and modest hierarchical prayer and blessing to all those in the world that are from Proussa, Triglia and Moudania. And by way of conclusion, let me cite some hopeful lines from the poet George Seferis, composed on the occasion of his sojourn in Proussa:

By striking the salinity night and day
none has changed his fate;
By striking the darkness and light
none has changed the crime-scene.
Yet the light can reappear;
there on the heavy palms
the fruit can fall again.
And the blood can blossom once more.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/genesis/lib/functions/image.php on line 116
class="post-3212 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-blog-archive tag-byzantium tag-caesaropapism tag-church-and-state tag-hagia-sophia tag-history tag-law tag-orthodox-church tag-symphony entry">

Bureaucratic Church and Imperial State


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

In response to comments here on this blog about whether the Byzantines will one day “save” the American Church, the answer to that, as has been observed, is that there are no Byzantines remaining to save us. What’s more, there would be little support among American Orthodox Christians for the sort of deep involvement by the state in Church affairs that was typical of Byzantium. The American Founders, in their wisdom, went to great lengths to make sure that the state would not establish a Church nor would the state control its life.

The following excerpt is from “Church Structures and Administration,” by Michael Angold and Michael Whitby, in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies.

In their broad outlines the administrative structure of the Byzantine Church as systematized under Justinian survived without radical change down to the end of the Byzantine Empire. This was testimony both to Justinian’s administrative and legislative abilities and to the Church’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances.

Justinian saw to it that the structures of the Church were established by imperial legislation (Myendorff 1968). In his famous preamble to Novel VI Justinian enunciated an ideal of harmony between emperor and priesthood, for he singled out prayer for the spiritual well being of Christian society as the latter’s prime duty, while the protection of the Church was the most serious of imperial responsibilities.

This meant in practice that the administrative structures of the Church came under imperial supervision. It is for this reason that the term ‘Caesaropapism’ has been coined to describe the Byzantine emperor’s role in ecclesiastical affairs. This has been the subject of continuing debate between those who reject the notion, because it does not do justice to the spiritual autonomy of the Byzantine Church, and those who defend its validity on the practical grounds that the Byzantine Church was largely regulated through imperial legislation (Dagron 2003).

By the twelfth century the emperors had taken the title of epistemonarches or regulator of the Church. By doing so they made clear that the ultimate responsibility for the organization of the Church lay with them (Angold 1995). The assumption of this title was not a claim to decide matters of faith. This in the end was the work of a council of the Church which, it has to be added, was presided over by the emperor or his representative. As an institution the Byzantine Church enjoyed relatively little autonomy before the fourteenth century. The final choice of a patriarch lay with the emperor, who was able to depose patriarchs as well.

When in the early seventh century the patriarch Sergios (610-38) reorganized the personnel of the patriarchal church, it required imperial approval in the shape of a novel of 612 issued by the emperor Herakleios (610-41). It fixed the staff of Hagia Sophia at 80 priests, 150 deacons, 40 deaconesses, 70 subdeacons, 160 readers, 25 cantors, and 100 ushers. Their main function was to mount the lavish round of church services celebrated at Hagia Sophia. In addition to these there were supernumerary positions, filled by the administrative rank and file, 88 in total. Continue reading

Review: How the Byzantines Saved Europe


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Edited by Elizabeth Jeffreys, John Haldon, Robin Cormack. Oxford University Press (2008)

Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire by Judith Herrin. Princeton University Press (2008)

Ask the average college student to identify the 1,100 year old empire that was, at various points in its history, the political, commercial, artistic and ecclesiastical center of Europe and, indeed, was responsible for the very survival and flourishing of what we know today as Europe and you’re not likely to get the correct answer: Byzantium.

The reasons for this are manifold but not least is that as Western Europe came into its own in the later Middle Ages and Renaissance, Byzantium gradually succumbed piecemeal to the constant conquering pressure of Ottomans and Arabs. When Constantinople finally fell in 1453 (two years after the birth of the Genoese Christopher Columbus), Europe, now cut off from many land routes to Asian trade, was already looking West and South in anticipation of the age of exploration and colonization. Byzantium, and the Christian East, would fall under Muslim domination and dhimmitude for centuries and its history would fade away before the disinterest, or ignorance, of the West.

This “condemnation to oblivion” as the editors of The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, describe it, is “no longer quite so true as it once was.” New exhibitions of Byzantine art in Europe and America have been hugely successful in recent years and travel to cities with Byzantine landmarks and archeological sites in Greece, Turkey and the Balkans is easier than ever. Academic centers throughout western Europe and the United States host Byzantine Studies departments, scholarly journals proliferate, and a new generation of scholars has elevated the field from what once was a narrow specialty.

The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies is a useful, one volume reference work that would well serve both the scholar and general reader with an interest in Byzantine culture. The editors have prefaced the volume with a detailed assessment of the Discipline, the state of scholarly learning on everything from art history to weights and measures. Other sections examine Landscape, Land Use, and the Environment; Institutions and Relationships (including the economy); and The World Around Byzantium. Each of the nearly two dozen subheadings include concise chapters with references and suggestions for further readings.

For those interested in the economic life of Byzantium, the Handbook offers an account in Towns and Cities that describes agricultural, commercial and industrial activity, and charts a decline in these areas during periodic invasions by various waves of Slav, Avar, Persian and Ottoman peoples, or bouts of the plague. Where political and military fortunes turned favorable, as in the 8th and 9th centuries, economic life enjoyed a parallel revival. Regional cities became economic centers, places like Thessalonike, Thebes (silk textiles) and Corinth, where glass, pottery, metals and textiles were produced. In his chapter on the Economy, Alan Harvey relates how Constantinople, in the 12th Century, “was clearly a bustling city with a wide range of skilled craftsmen, merchants, artisans, petty traders. There was also a transient population of various nationalities, in addition to the more settled presence of Italian merchants.”

And, because it was a Christian empire, the Handbook has a lot to say about the Byzantine Church, its relations with the Empire, and its developing rivalry with Rome, especially as the papal reform movement took hold in the 11th century. The Emperor and Court chapter in the Handbook should also go some way toward a better understanding of “late ancient state formation,” a subject the editors say has received “remarkably little attention” by historians and political theorists.

Writing in the Handbook’s summary chapter, Cyril Mango catalogs the achievements of Byzantium but also adds that historians have not “credited [the empire] with any advance in science, philosophy, political theory, or having produced a great literature.” Maybe the Byzantines had other ambitions. James Howard-Johnston asserts that the “ultimate rationale” of Byzantium’s existence was its “Christian imperial mission.”

That conviction, widely shared in a thoroughly Orthodox society, was the shaping influence on its foreign policy. It provides the basic, underlying reason for Byzantium’s tenacious longetivity, for its stubborn resistance in the opening confrontation with Islam, and, even more extraordinary, for the resilience shown in the last three and half centuries of decline.

For the general reader, perhaps a better place to begin to illuminate the “black hole” of Byzantine history is Judith Herrin’s fine book, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire. A senior research fellow in Byzantine Studies at King’s College London, Herrin sets out to trace the period’s “most significant high points as clearly and compellingly as I can; to reveal the structures and mentalities which sustained it.” Her aim is to help the reader understand “how the modern western world, which developed from Europe, could not have existed had it not been shielded and inspired by what happened further to the east in Byzantium. The Muslim world is also an important element of this history, as is the love-hate relationship between Christendom and Islam.”

Byzantium’s ability to conquer, Herrin writes, and “above all, to defend itself and its magnificent capital was to shield the northwestern world of the Mediterranean during the chaotic but creative period that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West. Without Byzantium there would have been no Europe.” Continue reading

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/genesis/lib/functions/image.php on line 116
class="post-3150 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-blog-archive tag-bradley-nassif tag-byzantium tag-culture tag-fall-of-constantinople tag-gospel tag-hellenism-and-orthodoxy tag-orthodox-bishops tag-orthodox-church tag-orthodox-corruption tag-theology entry">

What is the first responsibility of a Bishop? To preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

The Apostolic Mission of Bishops: A Short Reflection

By Bradley Nassif, Ph.D.

The purpose of this brief, and incomplete, reflection is to focus on the centrality of the gospel in the ministry of a bishop. It is not intended to promote a partisan perspective on any issue facing the contemporary Orthodox Church – Antiochian, Greek or O.C.A. It simply spotlights what the calling of a bishop is to be.

I want to be clear that this article is not a response to the recent discussions of the Antiochian bishops or the Holy Synod. It is a timeless reflection — a positive statement — of what the primary work of a bishop should be, regardless of his geographical location or the time of history in which he lives. It is vitally important that we understand the bishop’s calling because the gospel of Jesus Christ lies at the very center of his ministry among us.

The Bishop’s Apostolic Mission

The apostolic mission of a bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church can be summarized in five points.

1. Preach the Gospel. All bishops are to proclaim and interpret the gospel of Christ to the church and to the world.

Bishops should be elected largely on the basis of their knowledge and ability to skillfully communicate the Holy Scriptures. St. John Chrysostom is the prime example of such a bishop.

Continue reading


Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php:58 Stack trace: #0 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include() #1 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #2 /home/aoiusa/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php on line 58