 Section 23 of the Byzantine Empire, this is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org, recording by Diana Meilinger. The Byzantine Empire, the rearguard of European civilization by Edward Ford. Section 23 Byzantine Society, the Empire's Place in History Upon the whole, it may be said that the Society of the Late Roman Empire has received more unmixed and misplaced condemnation than that of any other state of which we possess the records. Voltaire called it a worthless repertory of miracles, degrading to the human mind. Given, as anti-Christian as Voltaire, practically echoes him, though more guardedly. Lacky is more blameworthy than either, since he not only launches a series of unfounded charges, but makes an appeal to a non-existent universal verdict of history in support of them. A common fault among historians, as the writer sees them, is to study and describe court society under the impression that it is a reflex of that of a nation. Nothing can be further from the truth. Court life neither reflects that of the people, nor does it influence it, except in a very slight degree. It was, and is, and will be, apart from it. Courtiers live in a little world of their own. Court society in the Byzantine Empire was, we are frequently assured, corrupt and vicious. That may well be the case. Satan always finds mischief for idle hands, and the average court is very idle, busy doing nothing. No doubt Byzantine courtiers were as idle, corrupt and vicious as the courtiers of every age, not accepting our own, are likely to be. A good deal of abuse is often leveled at the court ceremonial and the employment of eunuchs. The latter feature is one peculiarly repulsive to the modern European mind, but the eunuchs as a class seem to have been good public servants. As regards to court ceremonial, there is no reason to think that the emperors usually insisted upon its observance, except on state occasions, and, after all, the difference between it and that of modern England or Germany is only in degree. I doubt very much whether Constantinopolitan newswriters were more fulsomely idolatry of their emperors than journalists today, speaking of personages who have little of kingship about them save their sounding titles, often are. Be this as it may, the Byzantine court society was no worse and often better than many of which I have read and heard, I consider it utterly dissociated from that of the people. Nor do I see that the Eastern Empire had a taint of weakness derived from its oriental origin. Its peoples as a whole were not by any means weak or degenerate. The elaborate and gorgeous court, with its degrading ceremonial, was the outcome of the ideas of a western Roman emperor of peasant birth. It is highly probable that Constantinopolitan court life was far from being unmitigatedly bad. The nobles who surrounded and often influenced the emperor were for the most part busy public men, statesmen, soldiers, administrators. They might often be intrigers. Doubtless there were many bad men among them, but they were not the ideal debutis who surrounded Charles II of England or Louis XV of France. However exaggerated, and as regards monarchism ill-founded, their religious ideas might be, they were usually sincere. Both iconoclasts and iconodules were ready to suffer for their belief. More than one Byzantine noble laid down his life rather than abjure his faith. Religious spirit was certainly strong. The church, despite its faults and errors, rendered human service in holding together the many races of the empire. Religious controversy may have filled a disproportionate part of the East Roman's intellectual horizon, but seeing that it was the one theme which could be discussed freely with full knowledge, this was inevitable. Probably religious dogma is fully as elevating a subject for discussion as the poultry party political squabbles, which are the chief topic of conversation in England today. So, too, with sport. True, the British factions have never named themselves ruggers and sockers, but as a matter of taste it might be as well, since Tory signifies a brigand and wig a way-face. And otherwise party politicians find it convenient to pander to the craze for watching football matches. Perhaps the chariot races of the hippodrome occupied too large a part of the Constantinopolitan citizens' time, but it is doubtful, and no one born in horse racing, price fighting, cock fighting, bear baiting England can for shame cast stones at them. Englishmen do not, as a whole, take delight in witnessing savage sports, though this was not the case in the past, but they are not in essence very much above the Roman of the 4th century who, very likely in most cases after a hard day's work, went to see a score or so of slaves kill each other, since they flocked by tens of thousands to see twenty-two hired men creak a ball about. Patriotism, in the modern sense of the word, hardly existed. The races of the empire were so various that it was impossible that it should be otherwise. Religious feeling compensated for it in some respect, but on the whole it consisted only in local attachment. The general tone of society was democratic. Ability was the one necessary passport to office and court society. It is also worthy of notice that the people commonly had the last word, a fact strange to those who regard the government as a mere crushing despotism. On several occasions we hear of them interfering in public affairs, generally with success, and on the whole very much to their credit. When the issue was plain, the so-called weak, degenerate, servile populace of Constantinople expressed itself with great decision and was very ready to shed its blood liberally for a popular sovereign. The infrequency of popular rebellion is a testimony to general well-being and good government, not to servility. The idea that the populations of the empire were weak and degenerate is flatly contradicted by the general character of its rulers, of whom a large majority were of humble origin, and whose general level of ability, energy and public spirit, as well as morality, was high. From 395 to 1204 a great crisis never failed to produce the requisite strong man, a convincing proof that there was plenty of good material in the people and the public services. Treachery, cowardice, luxury, frivolity, immorality and cruelty are commonly supposed to be the characteristic Byzantine vices. Treachery, after all, was attributed by Romans to Greeks and Phoenicians, but the record of the supposedly honest Roman is so that his testimony is worthless, and treachery and bad deceit must, I fear, be attributed, more or less, to every diplomatist since diplomatists were. Probably, in dealing with foreign powers, the Byzantine government was neither better nor worse than governments usually are, that is to say, of course, very bad and contemptible. But whether Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Phrygians and Isorians were generally treacherous is another matter. As to cowardice, I have certainly written to small purpose if I have not shown that it was decidedly not a besetting Byzantine vice. The charges of luxury and frivolity are the easiest of all to bring. Frivolity was doubtless as common in the empire as it is everywhere. There was much luxury, no doubt, often vulgar and tasteless, among those who could afford it. Romanian, these respects, much resembled modern England, France, Germany or America. John Chrysostom had much to save on the wickedness of his times, but one finds that it showed itself mainly insufficiently trifling fashion. The writer fears that, if all his female acquaintances who make the best of their natural advantages be bad, he hardly knows a single estimable woman, but he is quite prepared to set his judgment on this point against Christensoms. That there was much immorality in the cities is probable. Constantinople and her humbler sisters resembled great modern cities in this respect, but there is not the smallest reason to believe that the people at large were otherwise than moral, sober and industrious. The charge of cruelty is often brought against the imperial administration. There were a good many isolated acts of barbarity, and more than one emperor employed grim methods of terrorizing or cursing rebels. But then, only two centuries ago, criminals in England were cut down half strungled from the gibbet to be disemboweled and dismembered, and women were burnt alive for witchcraft. On the continent, up to a much later date, punishments were far more barbarous even than this, the horrible torture of breaking on the wheel being common in France and Germany. The nations of modern Europe are the Pharisees of history, but even they can hardly venture to cast dirt at the eastern empire on this charge. To gain a proper impression of Byzantine society, it must be compared with those existing contemporarily with it. As we make our way through its troubled history, we cannot but feel that we are dealing with a civilized community. There is a highly elaborated governmental system, a complex and intricate social order. Commerce and industry flourish, and are ordinarily and generally pursued as a means of livelihood. Life and property are secure and carefully protected. Whatever forms of vice be secretly indulged in, immorality is stringently legislated against, and it is condemned by the popular voice. Many of the worst features of pagan society, infanticide for example, have disappeared, others, notably slavery, have enormously diminished. Though the state is commonly and indeed incessantly fighting for existence, militarism is not rampant. The bully of his boots does not hide the march of men from us. War is carried on in an astonishingly humane fashion. Not merely are the troops cared for as troops have not been in Europe down to the 19th century, but cruelty to enemies is the exception, not the rule. There is a regular cartel for exchange of prisoners. The latter are indeed often reduced to slavery, but facilities are given for redemption. Instruction, in the cities at least, is common. There are institutions for higher education. If there are too many monasteries, and an ecclesiastic tone often pervades society, there are hospitals and orphanages everywhere. When we find a postmaster general and a minister of charitable institutions among the officials, we feel that we are indeed in a state which, with all its faults, is civilized in the true sense of the word. The one state of Byzantine times, which, like it, was founded upon several ancient civilizations, was the Ceresan Caliphate. And no one who compares the two can doubt for a moment that, for all its ephemeral and merititious splendor, the empire was greatly its superior. The Omayyad and Abbasid Caliphs showed all the characteristics of barbarism. The best of them could not maintain order in their dominions. Their satesmanship and administration were crude and ineffective. Their culture was distinctly superficial. It is more than probable that they owned much of it to the despised Greeks of New Rome. The Caliphate stood for war, and even in war it was not successful in the long run against the Eastern Empire. To compare Byzantine society with the chaotic barbarism of Western Europe is merely absurd. A morality of a kind which was warred against at Constantinople was rife among the upper classes of the West, whose ignorance of all things save war, repine and hunting was profound and pitiable. Female drunkenness was common. Charles the Great, a man far in advance of his times in most things, lived openly with several concubines at one time. His court was full of gross licentuousness. Kings like Alfred the Great of England were rare. The chivalry of which so much is made shows itself on examination to have been a very paltry thing after all, chiefly class prejudice in fact. No one and nothing were safe against feudal violence. In the thirteenth century in England a body of gentlemen rode forth and deliberately sacked Boston during a great fair. Trade and commerce hardly existed. The utmost efforts could not wring a modest revenue from the miserable population. Prosperity in the West would have been the depth of wretchedness in the Eastern Empire. Even when the administration of the law was best it was fearfully barbarous. As a rule anarchy reigned with slight check. The task accomplished by the much maligned Eastern Empire was the most vitally important, the most glorious and the most thankless that a nation could achieve. For two centuries while the old majestic order crumbled away in the West it remained a center of peaceful culture. For eight hundred years it was the shield of Europe. Heraclius beat back the great westward advance of the new Persian Empire, an advance not less dangerous than that of the old. His descendants made good the defense of Europe's Eastern Gate against the raging torrent of Mohammedanism. Leo III hurled it back beyond Taurus and gained five centuries wherein the European states might make some small progress towards strength and solidity. Much is said today of the splendor of European civilization. Some, the writer among them, believe that it is largely material and superficial and out of all proportion to the actual moral progress made. But such as it is, it owes its existence to the desperate fight waged by Rome's Eastern Empire against the barbarian hordes which were pressing from the East. In an age of utter darkness the Empire preserved the traditions of science, art and literature and seeing how badly its works have suffered at barbarian hands and that its best blood was needed for the vital tasks of defense and administration. We are not justified in stating that they were of slight merit. For many centuries it provided for the security and well-being of its people in a manner that has not been equaled in Western Europe until very late times. During the whole period of its existence it waged a bitter struggle against the enemies of all that is best in the world. And when at last its time came, when its realm had almost dwindled to the walls of its capital it died as it had lived, deserted and betrayed, but in its last agony as in the days of its splendor and glory the rearguard of Christian civilization. End of section 23 and end of the Byzantine Empire The Rearguard of European Civilization by Edward Ford