Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T12:22:20.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Byzantine Kaiserkritik: Two Case Histories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Averil Cameron
Averil Cameron*
Affiliation:
University of London, King’s College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent studies of Byzantine political comment and particularly of opposition to imperial policy the period after Justinian has received a certain amount of space. But the reigns of Justin II and Tiberius II are still neglected by comparison with that of their predecessor, while the spell exercised by Procopius’s Secret History tends to dominate all approaches to contemporary political attitudes. The fascination of the Secret History for modern scholars has, too, inclined them to look only at the negative aspects of political criticism, and to fix their attention on what seem to be ‘mainstream’ writers in the tradition of Procopian history. I want here to try to demonstrate the limitations of such an approach by means of an analysis of the literary sources available for these two reigns. It may be that in the end both reigns must remain imperfectly understood; yet the policies and character of the unhappy Justin II evoked violent excesses of praise and blame and provided an inevitable foil for the well-meaning and amiable Tiberius. Kaiserkritik in East Rome is a concept which needs closer study, and the history of this short period demonstrates that it must be sought in a range of sources which genuinely reflects the spectrum of Byzantine life. There were certain common literary features about the critique of emperors in more formal political works; but political criticism did not confine itself to classical histories, and I suspect that the attitudes revealed by the more popular sources are more interesting and more important. Modern study of Byzantine Kaiserkritik has been neither sufficiently wide-ranging in scope nor sensitive enough to the interaction of genuine opinion with literary form.

Type
Research Article
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 3 , 1977 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1997

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

1. See Tinnefeld, F., Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der byzantinischen Historiographie (Munich, 1971)Google Scholar; Rubin, B., ‘Zur Kaiserkritik Ostroms’, Studi bizantini e neoellenici (Atti dell’ VIII congresso internazionale di studi bizantini, Palermo, 1951), VII (1953), 453ff.Google Scholar; Dos Zeitalter Iustinians, I (Berlin, 1960), pp. 227ff.; Cameron, Averil, Agathias (Oxford, 1970), pp. 124ff.Google Scholar

2. For Justin II see Groh, K., Geschichte des ostrbmischen Kaisers Justin II nebst den Quellen, Diss. Halle (Leipzig, 1889)Google Scholar; Stein, E., Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Reiches, vornehmlich unter Kaisem Justinus II und Tiberius Constantinus (Stuttgart, 1919)Google Scholar; for Tiberius II the best account is still probably Bury, J. B., History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene II (London,1889), pp. 79ffGoogle Scholar. [hereafter LRE].

3. So Tinnefeld and Rubin[n.1].

4. See especially Mazzarino, S., The End of the Ancient World (Eng. trans., London, 1966), pp. 102ffGoogle Scholar. and almost all books on the age of Justinian, from Gibbon on.

5. So conspicuously Tinnefeld [n. 1]; the omission of John of Ephesus from his survey creates a serious imbalance. On Procopian history see Cameron, Agathias [n. 1], pp. 3off. and passim.

6. So Stein, Studien[n. 2], p. 1.

7. See Chabot, J.-B. (ed.), Chronique de Michel le Syrien, I (Paris, 1924), intro. p. xxxi.Google Scholar

8. On Michael’s account of Justin’s policies see Frend, W. H. C., The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 317ff.Google Scholar; Cameron, Averil, ‘The Early Religious Policies of Justin II’, Studies in Church History, XIII (Oxford, 1976), 51–67.Google Scholar

9. Bibliotheca, cod. 64 ( Müller, C., Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, IV [repr. Paris, 1928], 27of.)Google Scholar [hereafter FHG].

10. Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Bidez, J. and Parmentier, L. (London, 1898), V. 24 Google Scholar [hereafter HE].

11. FHG, IV.273.

12. FHG, IV.276.

13. John of Biclar, Chronica (ed. Mommsen, , MGH, auct. ant. XI [1894]), a. 568(?)Google Scholar; Evagrius, HE, V.1-2; Agathias, Hist., IV.32

14. See Cameron, Averil, ‘The Empress Sophia’, B, XLV(1975), 5–21.Google Scholar

15. Evagrius, , HE, V. 11.Google Scholar

16. See Averil, and Cameron, Alan, ‘The Cycle of Agathias’, JHS, LXXXVI (1966), 6ff.; LXXXVII (1967), 131 Google Scholar; Cameron, , Agathias, pp. 12ff.Google Scholar

17. Cameron, , Agathias, pp. 14F.Google Scholar

18. Corippus, , In laudem Iustini, IV. 154F.Google Scholar

19. In laudem Iustini minons I-IV, now edited with introduction, translation and commentary by Averil Cameron (London, 1976).

20. See especially, lust., pref, and II. 147, f., 407F. with my notes.

21. But see below, pp. 6F.

22. Corippus, , lust. II. 249ff.; see Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, XIII (1966), 101ff. and below, p. 10.Google Scholar

23. Tiberius: I.212F., IV.374F.; Callinicus: I.78F., IV.332f. Anastasius: Pan. Anast. 26F.; John Scholasticus: II.159F. For John oF Ephesus, see below, pp. 11ff.

24. I. 1ff, with my notes.

25. II.84ff., with notes.

26. For the date of composition see Cameron [n. 19], intro., (i); ‘Notes on the Sophiae, the Sophianae and die Harbour of Sophia’, B, XXXVII (1967), 15ff. For Corippus’s position in the scrinia see Pan. Anast. 42f., with notes.

27. Heitsch, E., Die griechische Dichterfragmente I2 (1963), XL. 1.Google Scholar

28. App. carm. 2 Ad lustinum et Sophiam Augustos. See Cameron [n. 8].

29. App. carm. 2-39f.

30. Biclar, Joh.., Chron., a. 567(F).Google Scholar

31. App. carm. 2.23f.

32. P. 241 (ed. de Boor); cf. Zonaras, , Epitome Historiarum, XIV. 10.Google Scholar

33. For the interpretation of Theophanes’s remarks see Cameron [n. 19], note on lust. IV. 29of.

34. Loc. cit. [n. 32].

35. See John of Ephesus, Historia Ecclesiastica (ed. Brooks, E. W., CSCO Script. Syri, 3 ser., III [1936]), III.24, and Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum, II, ed. Preger, (1907), 229.4, 220.14, 263.11, 267.8, etc.Google Scholar

36. See Janin, R., La Géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin I. 3: Les Églises et les monastères2 (Paris, 1969), pp. 162f., 237f.Google Scholar

37. Pierce, H. and Tyler, R., L’Art byzantin II (Paris, 1932), pls. 136, 199b Google Scholar; Rice, D. Talbot, The Art of Byzantium (London, 1959), no. 71 Google Scholar; Beckwith, J., The Art of Constantinople2 (London, 1968), pl. 55.Google Scholar

38. See Kitzinger, E., ‘The Cult of Images in the Period before Iconoclasm’, DOP, VIII (1954), 83ff., esp. 121f.Google Scholar

39. Life of St. Symeon the Younger, ed. Delehaye, H. (Subsidia Hagiographica, 14 [1923])Google Scholar, Ven, P. Van den (ibid., 32.1 [1962]), chaps. 202–208 Google Scholar; see also Symeon’s letter to Justin, MPG, LXXXVI, col. 3215.

40. MPG, LXXXVI, col. 2349.

41. HE, II.3, cf. III.35.

42. Ibid., 1.10.

43. Ibid., III.1.

44. Dos Zeitalter lustinians, I, pp. 227f.

45. See Cameron, , Agathias, p. 125.Google Scholar

46. See Agathias, , Hist., pref., p. 10. 19 Google Scholar (CSHB). Agathias did not conceive the idea of writing a history until after the accession of Justin II (Pref., pp. 11.5f) and in his main narrative he only reached the year 559; most probably he died about 580 with the History still unfinished (Cameron, Agathias, pp. 9f.).

47. See Hist. IV.29. Subsidies: Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire, I (Oxford, 1964), p. 307.Google Scholar

48. On Menander see Veh, O., Beitràge zu Menander Protector, Wiss. Beilage zumjahresbericht 1954/5 des Humanistischen Gymnasium Fürth/Bayem (1955)Google Scholar.

49. See frags. 14, 28, 33, 36 (FHG, IV.218ff.).

50. Fr.37.

51. See fr. 1 (Menander’s preface).

52. Ibid.: . The text surely needs emendation: see Müller, ad loc.

53. Fr. 14; cf. Corippus, lust. 111.151 ff.

54. HE, VI, especially 2-6, 10, 14, etc.

55. HE, V1.34.

56. Hist., III.9.

57. Evagrius, HE, VI. 7. On Gregory’s trial see also John of Ephesus, HE, III.28f.; V.17 (gets off by large-scale bribery).

58. John’s sufferings: HE, II.4-7; credentials as an eye-witness: 1.22, 30; II.6, 18.

59. See Cameron, Averil, ‘The Byzantine Sources of Gregory of Tours’, Journal of Theological Studies, XXVI (1975), 421–26.Google Scholar

60. Evagrius, HE, V.1-2, 5 (Justin’s motives for the deposition of Anastasius of Antioch), 11; Gregory, Historia Francorum IV.40 [hereafter HF].

61. Evagrius, HE, V.15; Gregory, HF, IV.40 (=Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum (MGH, Script, rer. Lang. [1878], III.11), V.19, 30 (=Paulus Diaconus, HL, III.11-12), VI.30 (Paulus Diaconus, HL, II.15).

62. Kurth, G. F., ‘De l’autorité de Grégoire de Tours’, Études franques, II (1919), 167 Google Scholar, assumes that it derives from Byzantine ambassadors, but cannot name any suitable candidates. A written source seems to me possible (art. cit., n. 59 and n. 81 below).

63. Corippus, lust. II.249f.; Nov. 148 (a. 566).

64. Stein [n. 2], 3f.

65. HE, III.11, 14, cf. V.20.

66. lust. II.24gf.

67. E.g. III.24; V.20; and for Sophia, III. 10.

68. Kaiserhritik [n. 1], 45f.

69. HE, V.6-11.

70. Evagrius, HE, VI. 17f.; Theophylact Simocatta, Hist., IV.10f., esp. 14.

71. HE, III.28f.; Gregory’s escape in 588—V. 17

72. HE, II.5,7f., 41,50; III.15.

73. E.g. HE, I.5, io, 33, 35, II.8 and passim.

74. See especially HE, 11.25, 29.

75. III.2, 10.

76. III.1.

77. I.30; III.22.

78. I.22, 30;II.6, 18; III.22.

79. II.50: separate leaves of John’s manuscript had to be concealed by his friends in different places for two or three years at a time; the result was that John himself had no copy of what he had written, and so frequently found himself describing the same thing twice or more. He says further diat he was never able to revise and arrange the work at a late stage, and this affecting apology is certainly borne out by the confused arrangement of our text.

80. HE, V.13.

81. HF, V.19, cf. IV.40, VI.30. The Latinized aelimosinis (VI.30) and elimosinarium (IV.40, VI.19) strongly suggest a written, and probably a Greek source.

82. lust. I.212f., IV.253.

83. MPG, LXXXVI. col. 2349; cf. col. 2380.

84. Theophylact, Hut. 1.3; III.16. John of Ephesus, HE, III.21, 25.

85. See Bury, LRE1 II [n. 2], 80.

86. III. 22.

87. Ibid., a passage written in A.D.581.

88. III.9-10, 24.

89. Gregory HF, V.30.

90. John of Ephesus, HE, III.31-33 (though III.30 seems critical of Tiberius).

91. III.21.

92. 92. Ibid.

93. III.25.

94. John, HE, III.11, 14; V.20; cf. Evagrius, HE, V.13.

95. HF, V. 19.

96. Nov. 163 (a. 575).

97. See especially HE, V.20; III.14.

98. III.11.

99. III.14.

100. HF, V.19.

101. John, HE, III.7f.

102. At one point John finds himself defending Tiberius against those who thought him too passive—III.22, and cf. III.30.

103. HF, V.30.

104. Evagrius, HE, VI.24 (A.D. 594); John, HE, V. 14 (A.D. 583).

105. Corippus, lust. I.60-1; Evagrius, HE, V.3: Eustrat., V. Eutych., MPG, LXXXVI, col. 2361.

106. Rubin, B., Prokopios von Kaisareia (Stuttgart, 1954), p. 253 Google Scholar. Evagrius certainly used the Wars extensively, but it is not proven that he knew the Secret History (cf. Rubin, art. cit. [n. 1], 456).

107. Which I hope to give in a forthcoming book.

108. The Oracle of Baalbek, ed. Alexander, P. J. (Washington, 1967), pp. 159–61, trans., p. 27.Google Scholar

109. Ibid., pp. 167-8