Ancient Greek traditions, Byzantine State and Church, and the production of Byzantine literature

Disclaimer

The article below was originally written as an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2004, during a period when the author’s academic skills were still developing. Although the quality of this article does not match that of later examples of the same author’s work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information for students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.

The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academics. Despite the author’s best intentions to present his essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that readers consult the web for additional information on any unfamiliar words or specialised vocabulary.

The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, as required for an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work into English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was studied from translated copies in Greek; therefore, the page numbers suggested in the citations below match the page numbers of the translated copies and not the original volumes.

Introduction

This article discusses the relationship between ancient Greek literary traditions and the Byzantine State and Church. It investigates the impact of ancient traditions on the ideas and texts of Byzantine scholars, and their broader influence on literary production throughout the Byzantine era. On this issue, scholarship is divided. Jenkins (1967) argues that the fear of being accused of idolatry, the awe at the grandeur of Classical writers, and the commitment to the use of an archaic, rigid, and almost foreign language prevented the production of original literature in Byzantium. By contrast, Glykatzi-Ahrweiler (1999, 133) argues that “the persistence in the imitation of Classical prototypes does not always imply a lack of original thought, but forms an element of every Renaissance”.

This article is divided into three sections. The first section investigates the official attitude of the Byzantine State and Church towards ancient Greek literary traditions. The second section discusses the contribution of ancient Greek literary traditions in the production of Byzantine literature. The third section compares the views of Jenkins (1967) and Glykatzi-Ahrweiler (1999) and incorporates the author’s own critique of the subject.

The attitude of the Byzantine State and Church towards ancient Greek literary traditions

The official views of the Byzantine Church towards ancient Greek literary traditions were firmly condemnatory. During the first years of the establishment of Orthodox Christian doctrine, at a time of condemnation of heresy, and even during the Iconoclast period (AD 726-787 and AD 814-842), the Byzantine Church stood firmly against every form of idolatry and immorality represented by ancient Greek art and literature. As most of these ancient Greek traditions were inspired by myths, the Church always condemned ancient Greek mythology as perverse. During the beginnings of Christianity, the Holy Fathers of the Church (Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John the Chrysostom) highlighted the dangers of ancient Greek idolatrous traditions; however, they supported the teaching of the ancient Greek language in order to prepare their flock for a better understanding of Christian texts, which were written in the Hellenistic Koine.

In contrast to the Church’s condemnatory behaviour, the attitude of Byzantine Emperors and the state towards ancient Greek literary tradition was not uniform. Although most Emperors adopted the Church's views, a few did not follow the traditional norm. Constantine II (AD 337-340), the son of Constantine I the Great (AD 306-337), who succeeded him on the Byzantine throne, founded the Royal Library in the state’s capital, which hosted a variety of ancient Greek literature. At the same time, he supported workshops to replicate ancient Greek texts to preserve the cultural heritage of Greek antiquity. Julian I (AD 361-363), later known as the Apostate, attempted to restore idolatry and forbade Christians from preaching in Greek.

Theodosius I (AD 379-395) succumbed to the Orthodox Church’s pressure and condemned ancient Greek tradition by introducing strict laws. He fought against the idolaters; he destroyed almost every known pagan temple, and he abolished the Olympic Games. With two official decrees in AD 380 and AD 381, he imposed Christianity as the sole official and obligatory religion of the Byzantine State and severely punished those who opposed his decision. By contrast, Theodosius II (AD 408-450) followed a different approach. He founded the University (Pandidakterion) of Constantinople in AD 425 to support the education of civil servants, where ancient Greek literature, rhetoric, and philosophy were taught alongside Christian literary traditions. Nearly a century later, the attitude of the Byzantine State towards ancient Greek literature changed again. Justinian I (527-565) shut down the philosophical schools of Athens in AD 529; he persecuted their lecturers, who were accused of spreading idolatrous beliefs; and finally, he burnt a large number of books, which were thought to be pagan (officially named ‘Ethnic’). Finally, the Pandidakterion founded by Theodosius II was shut down during the Iconoclasm period by Leo III the Isaurian (AD 717-741).

A revival of ancient Greek literary traditions took place during the reign of Constantine III Monomachus (AD 1042-1056). With his own initiative, the New University of Constantinople was founded in AD 1054, which included two faculties of rhetoric and philosophy, both teaching Classical Greek texts. During the 11th century AD, the original suggestion by Basil the Great (AD 329/30-379) that ancient Greek was only to prepare Christian scholars for the study of religious texts was gradually abandoned. Christian scholarship in the 4th century AD placed greater emphasis on the grammatical structure of ancient Greek texts rather than their philosophical ideas, which were generally condemned as idolatrous. During the reign of Constantine III Monomachus, however, there was criticism of early Christian scholarship and of the introduction of new ideas into Byzantine literature, which was associated with ancient Greek philosophy. This 11th-century movement is nowadays viewed as an early Eastern Renaissance. The most prominent representatives of this movement were Ioannis Xilifinos and Constantine Psellos.

The Church’s official reaction to this movement came in AD 1082, with the excommunication of the Neoplatonic philosopher John Italos, who held the rank of Supreme of the Philosophers in the University’s hierarchy. Although serving the Byzantine State, he was accused of propagating idolatry through the teaching of ancient Greek philosophy. Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (AD 1081-1118) supported the Church and issued imperial decrees granting the Patriarchate absolute control over the education system. From that period onwards, ancient Greek tradition was condemned by the Orthodox Church and used solely to serve its own interests.

During the Palaeologan period (13th-15th century AD), there was a new interest in ancient Greek literature, which reached its peak just before the final fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans. During this period, the Platonic philosopher Georgios Gemistos (popularly known as ‘Plethon’) openly condemned the Church’s views and proposed a new organisational scheme for the Byzantine State, based on ‘innovations’ inspired by ancient Greek political philosophy.

Finally, despite the different attitudes of Byzantine Emperors towards ancient Greek literary traditions, the Greek language remained in continuous use in the State bureaucracy and in Ecclesiastic affairs. Although this language was archaic in its inspiration and is nowadays called ‘Atticising’ rather than Attic, it was still the official language of both State and Church; therefore, it had the greatest impact on Byzantine thought. As early as the 6th century AD, for example, Emperor Justinian I (AD 527-565), who introduced his Corpus Juris Civilis in Latin, published amendments to his Codex Justinianus, the so-called Novellae Constitutiones, in Attic Greek. Then, during the reign of the Macedonian Dynasty (7th century AD), Atticising Greek became the Empire’s official language.

The contribution of ancient Greek literary traditions to the production of Byzantine literature

The attitude of Byzantine writers towards ancient Greek literary traditions was not uniform over time; it was characterised by opposing views and behaviours, depending on the degree of influence Greek traditions exerted on specific scholars.

A small number of early Byzantine scholars completely severed their ties to Classical Greek traditions, which they heavily critiqued. Two of these scholars were John Malalas (AD c. 491-578) and Romanos the Melodist (AD c. 490-556). In his “Hymn to the Holy Pentecost”, Romanos the Melodist is strongly critical of Pythagoras, Plato and Demosthenes. He suggests that those who have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit do not need the idolatrous ideas of the ancient Greeks.

Another group of early Byzantine scholars were experts in Classical studies and wrote in Greek. These scholars produced religious and non-religious (described as ‘cosmic’) literature by imitating Classical Greek prototypes and by using Atticising conventions. A typical example of such scholarship is the texts of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, which became the official literature of the Byzantine Church and State during the 4th century AD. The three most renowned Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church (Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom) were all educated in Greek and familiarised themselves with ancient Greek philosophy. In their work, they employed the principles of Neo-Platonic philosophy to interpret the Christian doctrine and to argue against the heresies that existed during the early years of Christianity. Both Basil the Great and Eusebius the Bishop of Caesarea proclaimed that a selective study of ancient Greek poetry, history, philosophy and rhetoric can be beneficial for a better understanding of Christian texts; therefore, they believed that the role of ancient Greek was “pre-educational” and preceded the actual education, which was based on formal religious literature. Other Byzantine writers, such as Cyrillos and Leontios Byzantios, followed the Aristotelian approach to establish the Christian doctrine.

Informal religious literature was written mainly in everyday Greek, a descendant of the Hellenistic Koine, and was easily understood by people without formal Atticising education. Despite the general tendency to follow the Koine, there were works of non-official religious literature written in Attic, such as the Biographies of the Saints and Hagiological literature. In other cases, translations from the Hellenistic Koine into the Attic dialect circulated, intended to impart greater formality to the original text. Non-religious literature in the Byzantine period was exclusively in Greek: history, chronography, rhetoric, philosophy, and epistolography were all written in Atticising language.

Some Byzantine scholars who promoted the use of Greek also attempted to combine Christianity and Classical Greek antiquity. These were the most prominent representatives of Byzantine philology, who favoured the spread of Classicism in Byzantium during different chronological periods. More specifically, the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church (Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom), Leontios Byzantios, and the historians Procopios, Agathias, and Theophilactos represented the tradition of the 4th-6th centuries AD. These were followed by scholars of the 7th-10th centuries AD, such as Ioannis Damaskinos, Patriarch Photios I, Arethas and Leo the Mathematician. During the 11th-12th centuries AD, the Classicist tradition was supported by Constantine Psellos, Anna Komnene, Nikitas Haniotis, Ioannis Mauropos and Ioannis Kinnamos. During the Francocracy, the period when Constantinople was under Frankish rule (AD 1204-1261), the Classicism tradition continued in the city of Nicaea, in the province of Bithynia. It was represented by the Emperor Theodore II Laskaris, Georgios Akropolites, Nikephoros Blemmydes, and Georgios Kyprios. These authors were followed by scholars of the Palaeologan Renaissance (AD 1261-1453), such as Theodore Metochites and the Emperors Ioannis VI Kantakouzenos, Manuel II Palaiologos, and Nikephoros Gregoras.

There was also a third fraction of Byzantine scholarship, represented by philologists, who focused on the study and analysis of Classical Greek texts. Such literature began after the end of the iconoclastic period in AD 843, which is nowadays regarded as a period of ‘renaissance’ in literature. During this period, the monks of Orthodox Christian monasteries copied the surviving manuscripts of classical writers while also critiquing and commenting on their work. A well-known workshop that replicated this literature was located at the Monastery of St. John Studios in Constantinople, where systematic copying of ancient texts was carried out under the supervision of Abbot Theodore Studites during the late 9th century AD. Thanks to his own efforts, a great selection of ancient Greek texts survived to lay the background of Classical Greek studies. The main representatives of Byzantine philology were Emperor Leo IV the Philosopher (AD 886-912), Comnena, Patriarch Photios I (AD 858-867 and 877-886), John Tzetzes (c. AD 1110-1180), Eustathios the Thessalonian (c. AD 1115-1196) and Maximos Planoudes (c. AD 1260-1305).

Review of Jenkins (1967) and Glykatzi-Ahrweiler (1999)

Jenkins (1967) argues that any interest of Byzantine scholars in ancient Greek literature was a dead end. Any engagement with such texts risked a scholar being accused of idolatry and pagan beliefs. Such accusations could terminate a scholar’s career in the state’s bureaucracy and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Paradoxically, no scholar could be introduced to such official roles unless they could demonstrate their education and competence in ancient Greek literary traditions.

Jenkins (1967) points out the problematic attitude that existed in the Byzantine State and Church, which, on the one hand, rejected Greek traditions as idolatrous, yet, on the other hand, considered them ideal for the education of its representatives. The scholarly admiration for Classical antiquity led to the imitation of ancient Greek prototypes, both in language and style. The Atticising language of the Byzantine era was an artificial language reserved for the production of religious texts. The tendency to mimic linguistic forms from previous centuries led to a simplistic reproduction of ancient Greek literature, depriving it of originality. When this lack of original thought was combined with the imitation of Classical Greek forms, scholars were unable to fathom the deeper meaning of ancient Greek tradition. As a result, Byzantium could not benefit from Classical antiquity; therefore, a ‘Renaissance’ in the arts and sciences never took place in the East as it did in the West.

Glykatzi-Ahrweiler (1999) argues against the negative consequences of the imitation of ancient Greek texts in Byzantium. She agrees that Byzantine scholars imitated the Attic language in the production of various genres of literature (e.g., hagiological, rhetorical, and epistolographic texts); however, this continued imitation of ancient Greek linguistic forms and styles cannot be interpreted as a lack of original thought. In her views, ancient Greek literary traditions were not perceived as a creative model for Byzantine writers, but rather a source of inspiration for the production of new literature. The necessity to follow an established pattern of expression rooted in Ancient Greek tradition became imperative during times of spiritual crisis, when every attempt to produce new literature was hindered, and there was an obvious fear of spiritual regression. At such times, the ancient Greek prototypes served as solutions to the problem, offering ideas that were imitated, resulting in new and original reproductions. Therefore, the processing and re-use of a standardised tradition from Classical antiquity was an element of every Byzantine spiritual and artistic Renaissance, including the Western one.

Glykatzi-Ahrweiler (1999) offers an example that illustrates her point. Right after the fall of Constantinople to the crusaders in AD 1204, literary production continued in the Kingdom of Nicaea, in the former Roman province of Bithynia, where scholars turned towards ancient Greek literary traditions. The so-called Palaeologan Renaissance, which began during this period, coincided with a series of social and political crises which followed the conquest of the Byzantine capital. Various religious conflicts stemming from the emergence of the Hesychast movement, arguments for the unification of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and the threatening presence of the Turks in the east should surely have favoured a stagnation in the production of Byzantine literature. By contrast, the production of literature not only revived at that time, but was also enriched by a plethora of new texts that characterised the spirit of the Palaeologan Renaissance. Despite her views, Glykatzi-Ahrweiler (1999) admits that the tendency of Byzantine writers towards linguistic archaisms and the use of Atticising conventions constrained their thoughts and expressions within a literary framework that did not favour originality. This is probably why their works appear as replicas of ancient Greek prototypes.

A comparison of the arguments presented by both scholars suggests that, although Glykatzi-Ahrweiler (1999) offers a valid point regarding the Palaeologan Renaissance, this point needs to be combined with Jenkins (1967). In fact, the imitation of ancient Greek (Atticising) prototypes in Byzantine literature occurred across every period and in the production of almost every genre. Of course, one must bear in mind that non-official religious literature was produced in the commonly spoken Greek of the time (e.g., the Lives of the Saints), including a series of counselling books, such as the Strategics of the 10th century AD.

The Atticising language used by the Byzantine scholars and the impact of ancient Greek literary traditions on their work did not limit the production of original literature in Byzantium. Instead, it is more likely that such production was restrained by various theological views imposed by the Church. One cannot overlook that the ideas represented by ancient Greek philosophy and science could not be applied in the Byzantine context, particularly if they challenged the official theological dogma of the time, which held that the essence of human existence was the product of divine intervention. In that sense, it is evident that Byzantine literature production, particularly of the earlier periods, supported the State’s and Church’s official views towards a homogeneous Christian identity. This tendency led to continuous documentation of theological views.

It is highly unlikely that the mimicking of ancient Greek (Atticising) and the use of archaic conventions by Byzantine scholars resulted in a lack of originality in the production of literature, as previously suggested by Jenkins (1967). In support of this point, one must bear in mind that theological literature was a genre that did not exist in ancient Greek tradition and was developed exclusively in the Byzantine Empire under the influence of Christianity. The imitation of Atticising conventions in Byzantine-era theological literature occurred only with regard to its grammatical and stylistic attributes. Furthermore, Byzantine genres such as religious poetry and ecclesiastical music were never characterised by the mimicking of ancient Greek prototypes, although there was a degree of inspiration drawn from ancient Greek traditions.

Finally, one must note that Jenkins (1967) does not thoroughly discuss the presence of intellectual movements in the East that appeared in the same form as the European Renaissance. Innovative tendencies that had the form of Renaissance movements in the Byzantine Empire appear as early as the 11th century AD, during the reign of Constantine IX Monomachus. Of course, the most important movement was the Palaeologan Renaissance during the 14th century AD, which also spread to Italy and the West. Unfortunately, the innovative tendencies that characterised Eastern Renaissance movements were condemned under pressure from the Church and what modern scholarship describes as religious obscurantism. During the 15th century AD, the power of the Church was challenged for the first time in Byzantine history, and there was a genuine attempt to revive the essence of ancient Greek tradition and not just its linguistic and stylistic conventions. This tendency became evident in the work of Plethon Gemistos, who introduced revolutionary ideas taken from ancient Greek philosophy. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, most Byzantine scholars involved in this controversial renaissance moved to the West and introduced ideas that became part of what is now described as the Western European Renaissance of the 16th century.

Conclusions

In conclusion, what is described as the mimicking of ancient Greek literary traditions in the Byzantine Empire was, in reality, limited to the reproduction of an Atticising language and writing style, creating the illusion for modern researchers that original Byzantine literature never existed. In their own ways, Byzantine writers preserved ancient Greek literary traditions by harmonising them with the official political and theological standards of their time. When political and religious conservatism could be bypassed, there were revivals of ancient Greek philosophical ideas that remained in the background of Byzantine thought. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, such ideas were transmitted to the West and became part of the broader Western European Renaissance movement. As a final remark, unlike some modern Greek scholars, this essay does not support that the Western European Renaissance was the continuation of the Paleologan Renaissance. In fact, both movements were contemporary and interconnected through contacts between East and West and through their common attempts to challenge the prevailing theological views of the time, though in two different domains of Christian thought.1999, ‘The Byzantium. Name, cultural importance, The state’, in Vasilou-Papageorgiou, V. (ed.) Introduction to the Greek Civilisation, Vol. 2, Important Moments of the Greek Civilisation, Patra: Greek Open University, 249-70.
Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, H., 1999, ‘The Byzantium’, in Kopidakis, M.Z. (ed.) The History of the Greek Language, Athens: Elliniko Logotechniko kai Istoriko Archeio, 126-35.
Jenkins, R.J.H., 1967, ‘Social life in the Byzantine Empire’, in Hussey, J.M. (ed.) The Cambridge Medieval History: Volume IV, The Byzantine Empire: Part II Government, Church and Civilisation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 79–104.