What were the Byzantines called?

[Abdul Goatherd]

Scribble notes addressing some of the statements

(1) On moving the capital

The Tetrarchy agreement of 293, which placed the empire under four emperors, was quite explicit about Rome being the one, united, joint capital of the entire Roman empire, the seat of the Senate and People, source for the authority of all emperors.

The imperial capitals - Trier, Milan, Sirmium and Nicomedia - were really nothing more than an military HQ for an individual emperor, "royal capitals" if you will. The common capital, Rome, was jointly owned by all, which no emperor could claim as his own.

The site of these imperial HQs changed according to military necessity - Trier flipped with Arles for a while, Milan with Ravenna, Sirmium with Thessalonika, Nicomedia with Byzantium.

But ROME never changed. There was no other capital, no other seat of SPQR.

When Constantine "moved", what he moved was his imperial HQ. When he "abandoned" the west, he didn't abandon Rome. He abandoned his HQ in Milan. He left it to assume the HQ of the eastern prefectures he had just conquered, like so many did before. He just didn't like Nicomedia, and decided to build up a new eastern HQ at Byzantium. That's all there's to it. There was merely a different HQ, or "royal city" (as it was frequently called).

Rome was still the capital of the polity. I know not of a single constitution issued by Constantine that suggested it wasn't, or that renounced the one-and-eternal status confirmed in 293 or moved any Roman institution to the east. The Constantinople senate was little more than a municipal council. It did not substitute or even replicate the authority of the Roman Senate, which remained firmly in Rome.

In short: Rome remained the capital. Constantine never moved the capital. He moved his HQ.

(2) SPQR

The source of imperial power was the Senate and People of Rome (SQPR).

Remember, the emperor is not a monarch. Formally, he is nothing other than the "first citizen" of the Republic (and "first magistrate", and "first priest", etc.) Although it is common to divide the republican and imperial period, it is also a bit misleading. The republican institutions, however weak, were never abolished. The republican constitution was judiciously (even if only ceremonially) observed. The Emperor has no other source for his authority than SQPR.

In the preface (Constitutio Deo Auctore, Dec. 530) of the Digest, Justinian refers to the Lex Regia by which the people of Rome invested their powers in the emperors, thus granting imperial decrees the force of law.

"Cum enim lege antiqua, quae regia nuncupabatur, omne ius omnisque potestas populi romani in imperatoriam translata sunt potestatem"

Meaning, without the SPQR as his constitutional basis, the empreror's decree is not law.

(Note: this is the first explicit mention of the Lex Regia and no one is quite sure exactly what he's referring to; but the scholarly consensus (e.g. Prichard & Nasmith, History of Roman Law, p.292) seems to be that Justinian is referring to nothing more spectacular than the lex curiata discussed by Cicero, the ancient investiture of the magistrates of the republic, which, of course, translates into the similar investiture of the emperor as first magistrate. Regardless of whether the choice was made by his predecessors or his soldiers, Emperors at ascension required confirmation by the Senate (people not so much). Even if only ceremonial, the Senate prepared the decree and the thirty lictores symbolically invested the emperor with his powers by enacting the lex curiata.)]

In short, even if he is hanging around Constantinople, the source of his power, SPQR, is ROME, hence his capital is ROME.

(3) Nova Roma

"Nova Roma", as already discussed, was an ecclesiastical innovation, cooked up in 381, nearly a half-century after Constantine's death and only very slowly gained traction in officialdom

BTW, for those interested in the exact wording of Canon 3 the 381 canon:

"The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is the new Rome"

Or, as the Canon was recorded in 550s (the original was lost):

"Constantinopolitanae civitatis episcopus habeat privilegia honoris post Romanum episcopum, eo quod sit ipsa nova Rome"

Or, in an alternative recording:

"Constintanopolitanus episcopus habeat honoris primatum post Romanum episcopum: propterea quod urbs ips sit junior Roma"

Emperor Justinian I's Corpus Juris Civilis (that is primarily the Code (529, 534), the Digest (533), the Institutes (533) and the Novellae (554)) refers almost uniformly only to Constantinople, with a few superlatives like "our royal capital", "our holy city". Never Nova Roma.

The only place I can where he suggests C-town may be a sort-of-Rome is in a preface to the Digest, where he posits that all cities must follow Rome's example, where he also addends that means not only Rome proper but also Constantinople. (I'll find the exact quote).

(4) Byzantines

Byzantine was most certainly known and used.

Firstly, and most commonly, to denote an inhabitant of the city of Constantinople (which doesn't have a clean demonyn otherwise). For example, from Justinian's Novella 89 (539):

"Sin autem parens naturalis uel Romanus sit uel Byzantius, liceat ei in qua uoluerit metropolitana ciuitate filios suos naturales curiae dare."

(Rough trans: if the father is a Roman or a Byzantine, then he can give his illegitimate children to the officials of that city).

Also, from chap. 2 in
NOVELLAE CONST. 89 another transl.

"aut sub qua villa aut vicus tributa persolvat, aut si quis liber simui et Romanus aut Byzantius fuerit, aut si quis liber simui et alterius cuiuspiam, metropolis tamen." (p.432)

(You will notice that it is in the Greek original, identical: Romaios or Bizantios)

As mentioned before, that demonyn was extended vulgarly to refer to all subjects of that jurisdiction (i.e. the empire ruled from Constantinople). If you don't believe me, how about some evidence from a Byzantine Emperor himself? Take a peek at emperor John VI Kantankuozenos's own History, which he wrote himself in the 1370s, e.g. scroll around here:

John Kantakuozenos's History (1320-1356)

He uses Byzantium, Byzantius, Byzantio, Byzantii APLENTY both in Latin and in Greek (plus uses enough Graecos earlier).

So I don't know where this "Montsqueieu-made-it-up" tale comes from.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

More scribbles:

(4) Romans

As we see it used throughout Justinian's Corpus, the term "Romans" by itself, almost always refers to the inhabitants of the city & district of Rome (on the Tiber) or, most frequently, their historical forbearers.

Others are referred to as Roman citizens or Roman subjects, inhabitants of Roman provinces, of Roman soil, under Roman rule, etc., always in the possessive, hardly ever as demonyn.

By far, usage of the denomyn in Justinian's code is predominantly historical and/or ethnic, "the Romans are our ancestors", "the Romans did this", "Romans had this, so we must too", "the Romans lost Africa, we recovered it", "the Romans constructed an empire", all a bit at arms length.

The institutions, however, are contemporary, so they Code will speak of with Roman as possessive, as in Roman laws, Roman jurisdiction, Roman church, Roman empire, etc.

The only instance I found of "Empire of the Romans" (at least in English translation) is highly ambiguous, specifically (86th Novella)

"God having placed Us over the Empire of the Romans, We are exceedingly desirous to govern the subjects whom He has entrusted to Our care as well as We can"

("Ex que deus nos Romanorum imperio praeposuit, omne studium adhibemus ut omnia semper ad utilitatem subiectorum reipublicae a deo nobes creditae agamus, etc.)

which reads at least to me, more like "I, Justinian, rule over the empire the Romans built" (historical) than as "I rule over Romans".

Finally, for good measure, here's a couple of examples of the ethnic use of the term:

- In the preface (Confirmando) of the Codex (April, 529): "the fortunate race of the Romans obtained power and precedence over all nations in former times and will do so forever, if God be so propitious" ("felix Romanorum genus omnibus anteponi nationibus omnibusque dominari")

- in the preface (Constitution Omnen) to the Digest (December, 533), it is declared to be published "both in the Greek tongue and that of the Romans". ("tam Graeca lingua quam Romanorum")

So, at least in those two instances, it seems that "Romans" are ethnically narrowed to the folks on the Tiber.

(5) Citizens

I've already gone over (in an earlier post) over the definition of a "Roman citizen", that is, someone with full political rights - to participate, vote and stand for election. It is consequently premised on republican institutions.

I have also mentioned the gradations for other subjects: Latins, Pilgrims, Federates, Provincials, Slaves, etc.

During the Republic era, citizenship was tightly constrained, but got loosened with the emperors and, yes, in 212, Caracalla made all the subjects citizens.

Of course, by 212, citizenship meant nothing, since the republican institutions had no real power. But notionally at least it is important.

Surprisingly, there is no explicit definition of "Roman citizen" in the Justinian corpus. And the word is avoided. Everywhere it is "Our subjects", "subjects of the empire", etc.

Where you find the word "citizen" it is almost always one of two cases:

- a reference to an urban-dweller specifically, i.e. a citizen of a town, the citizens of Constantinople, citizens of Antioch, etc. The context usually makes it abundantly clear it is a municipal matter.

- a reference to citizenship in historical context ("the Roman citizens of yore").

The grand exception to all this is Justinian's
Novella 78, which at seems to reiterate the Caracalla decree in the context of manumission. Here, indeed, we see stated the revulsion of the gradational restrictions (Latin rights et al.) and what seems like a confirmation of the bestowal of the right of citizenship to all subjects, and automatically upon the manumission of a slave. Here, for the first time do we see the use of "Roman citizenship" for all free subjects.

"propterea sancimus, si quis manumittens servum ant ancillam suam cives denuntiaverit romanos (neque enim aliter lecit)"

("we order that if anyone, when manumitting a slave, should declare him or her to be a Roman citizen (and, indeed, he is not allowed to do otherwise)"

(P.S. - What does this citizenship right buy you? Well, Nov. 78 is all about giving freed men the right to wear a gold ring as if he was an original freeborn Roman ("Romanam ingenuitatem"). That's all.).

So, that's the best I have been able to find, the closest I can find to a reference equating subjects with "Romans" or "Roman citizens" in all of the Corpus Juris Civili.

Otherwise, everywhere else, Justinian's corpus avoids the use of the term Romans or Roman citizens. Otherwise, "Romans" are residents of Rome or historical Romans; citizens are urban residents, and everyone else is always "Our subjects", etc.

To be cont'd...

 

[ZhugeKongming]

So I don't know where this "Montsqueieu-made-it-up" tale comes from.

I'm not even going to pretend to be widely-read or knowledgeable about this subject, but I should point out that it's one thing to prove occasional usage in Byzantine sources, and quite another to prove that that's where Westerners got the term (or that Westerners were using it in earlier periods, etc). It's easily possible for Montesquieu to have invented the term on his own, regardless of its prior use.

 

[motiv-8]

Personally, I would be very surprised if Montesqueieu and his contemporaries were unfamiliar with Hieronymous Wolfe's Sixteenth Century Corpus Historiae Byzantinae. This of course needs to be independently verified, but the Wiki entry for the fellow states, In the early 17th century, king Louis XIV of France prompted for the assemblage of all Byzantine works and called several renowned scholars from around the world to participate in this effort. Hieronymus' Corpus would be used to build upon. The result was an immense 34 volume Corpus Historiae Byzantinae with paralleled Greek text and Latin translation in it. This edition popularized the term Byzantine and established it in historical studies.

If that's true, then the term 'Byzantine' would already have been known in French academic circles, long before Montesqueieu. Furthermore, it must be noted that Wolfe's Historiae was in fact not a true historical work, but a collection of chronicles by Greek writers, which leads me to think that he very easily could have received the descriptive Byzantine from one or more of those works. If John VI was writing of Byzantines in the 14th Century, I see no reason to think that later chronicles, lower in class and likely more familiar with vulgar forms, would have used the word as well.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Personally, I would be very surprised if Montesqueieu and his contemporaries were unfamiliar with Hieronymous Wolfe's Sixteenth Century Corpus Historiae Byzantinae. This of course needs to be independently verified, but the Wiki entry for the fellow states, In the early 17th century, king Louis XIV of France prompted for the assemblage of all Byzantine works and called several renowned scholars from around the world to participate in this effort. Hieronymus' Corpus would be used to build upon. The result was an immense 34 volume Corpus Historiae Byzantinae with paralleled Greek text and Latin translation in it. This edition popularized the term Byzantine and established it in historical studies.

If that's true, then the term 'Byzantine' would already have been known in French academic circles, long before Montesqueieu. Furthermore, it must be noted that Wolfe's Historiae was in fact not a true historical work, but a collection of chronicles by Greek writers, which leads me to think that he very easily could have received the descriptive Byzantine from one or more of those works. If John VI was writing of Byzantines in the 14th Century, I see no reason to think that later chronicles, lower in class and likely more familiar with vulgar forms, would have used the word as well.

The higher class ones did the same. No Westerner would have dared write about the Byzantine empire without Procopius's Histories (written mid-6th C., but only discovered in the 16th). And while Procopius is a deliberate classicist in style, and does use "Romans" a lot, he has only one word for Constantinople and its residents: Byzantium & Byzantines.

e.g. Procopius's Historia Arcana

But regardless of what was written, it requires really no great deliberation or mean-spiritedness to be attracted to the term. The residents of the city have no other demonyn ("Constantinopolitans"? I can't say I've come across that clumsy construction much; "Byzantines" is much, much, more frequent.) And to extend that demonym to the kingdom centrally governed from that city is completely natural. Particularly in the west, where "Romans" is itself a demonym of another city, which has a distinctive history and continues to exist and playing an important role in the West.

To say nothing of the confusion that would be introduced in ethnic (Roman language = Greek?) and ecclesiastical (Roman church = Eastern Orthodox?) discussions.

The only reason to call the other guys "Romans" is to flatter their (late) officialdom. Otherwise, it's quite inconvenient. Byzantines is the only natural alternative.

 

[Plushie]

What did the Eastern Emperors refer to themselves as?

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

What did the Eastern Emperors refer to themselves as?

Up to Heraclius, it was Imperator Constantinopolis (in Greek, Autokrator Constantinopolis), for short. In longhand with the addition:

"pius felix inclitus victor ac triumphator semper augustus",

("pious, happy, renowned conqueror and triumpher always augustus")

It's good to know your emperor is happy.

 

[motiv-8]

Abdul, thank you very much for looking into this question beyond just the surface. You have done a great service to your fellow posters.

 

[Plushie]

Up to Heraclius, it was Imperator Constantinopolis (in Greek, Autokrator Constantinopolis), for short. In longhand with the addition:

"pius felix inclitus victor ac triumphator semper augustus",

("pious, happy, renowned conqueror and triumpher always augustus")

It's good to know your emperor is happy.

Yes, because we all know bad things happen when the Emperor isn't happy (*CoughcoughNikaRiotsCoughcough*).

Anyway, I'm all too glad to be proven wrong here. I'm a skeptic at heart so I will always back down in the face of definitive evidence.

 

[unmerged(61606)]

IIRC the Byzantine Empire was known sometimes as the Empire of the Greeks in the western world.

 

[Tunch Khan]

IIRC the Byzantine Empire was known sometimes as the Empire of the Greeks in the western world.

Yes, thanks for the information. I think Abdul has cleared the whole matter for us.

 

[Fornadan]

Exactly who the "Romans" were was apparently open to discussion during the 10th century

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/liudprand1.html

His discourse began as follows: "It would have been right for us, nay, we had wished to receive you kindly and with honor; but the impiety of your master does not permit it since, invading it as an enemy, he has claimed for himself Rome; has taken away, from Berengar and Adalbert their kingdom, contrary to law and right; has slain some of the Romans by the sword, others by hanging, depriving some of their eyes, sending others into exile ; and has tried, moreover, to subject to himself by slaughter or by flame cities of our empire. And, because his wicked endeavour could not take effect, he now has sent you, the instigator and furtherer of this wickedness, to act as a spy upon us while simulating peace."

I answered him:-"My master did not by force or tyrannically invade the city of Rome; but he freed it from a tyrant, nay, from the yoke of tyrants. Did not the slaves of women rule over it; or, which is worse and more disgraceful, harlots themselves? Your power, I fancy, or that of your predecessors, who in name alone are called emperors of the Romans and are it not in reality, was sleeping at that time. If they were powerful, if emperors of the Romans, why did they permit Rome to be in the hands of harlots? Were not some of them most holy popes banished, others so oppressed that they were not able to have their daily supplies or the means of giving alms? Did not Adalbert send scornful letters to the emperors Romanus and Constantine your predecessors? Did he not plunder the churches of the most holy apostles? What one of you emperors, led by zeal for God, took care to avenge so unworthy a crime and to bring back the holy church to its proper conditions You neglected it, my master did not neglect it. For, rising from the ends of the earth and coming to Rome, he removed the impious and gave back to the vicars of the holy apostles their power and all their honor,

When I wished to reply to him and to give forth an answer worthy of his boasting, he did not permit me; but added as if to scoff at me: "You are -not Romans but Lombards." When he wished to speak further and was waving his hand to impose silence upon me, I said in anger: "History, teaches that the fratricide Romulus, from whom also the Romans are named, was born in adultery-; and that he made an asylum for himself in which he received insolvent debtors, fugitive slaves, homicides, and those who were worthy of death for their deeds. And he called to himself a certain number of such and called them Romans. From such nobility those are descended whom you call world-rulers, that is, emperors; whom we, namely the Lombards, Saxons, Franks, Lotharingians, Bavarians, Swabians, Burgundians, so despise, that when angry, we can call our enemies nothing more scornful than Roman-comprehending in this one thing, that is in the name of the Romans, whatever there is of contemptibility, of timidity, of avarice, of luxury, of lying: in a word, of viciousness. But because you do maintain that we are unwarlike and ignorant of horsemanship, if the sins of the Christians shall merit that you shall remain in this hard-heartedness: the next battle will show what you are, and how warlike we."

But, to increase my calamities, on the day of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary the holy mother of God (August 15), there came-an evil augury for me-envoys of the apostolic and universal pope John, through whom he asked Nicephorus ,the emperor of the Greeks " to close an alliance and firm friendship with his beloved and spiritual son Otto "august emperor of the Romans." Before the question as to why- this word, this manner of address, sinful and bold in the eyes of the Greeks, did not cost its bearer his life-why he was not annihilated before it was read, I, who, in other respects, have often shown myself enough of a preacher and with words enough at my command, seem dumb as a fish! The Greeks inveighed against the sea, cursed the waves, and wondered exceedingly how they had been able to transport such an iniquity end why the yawning deep had not swallowed up the ship. " Was it not unpardonable," they said, "to have called the universal emperor of the Romans, the august, great, only Nicephorus: "of the Greeks"';-a barbarian, a pauper: of the Romans'? Oh sky! Oh earth! Oh sea! But what," they said, " shall we do to those scoundrels, those criminals?" They are paupers, and if we kill them we pollute our hands with vile blood; they are ragged, they are slaves, they are peasants; if we beat them we disgrace not them, but ourselves; for they are not worthy of the gilded Roman flail and of such punishments. Oh would that one were a bishop, another a margrave! For sewing them in sacks, after stinging blows with whips, after plucking out their beards or their hair, they would be thrown into the sea. But these," they said, " may continue to live; and, until the holy emperor of the Romans, Nicephorus, learns of this atrocity, they may languish in narrow confinement."

But on the fifteenth day before the Calends of October (Sept. 17), as much dead as alive, I was summoned to the palace. And when I came into the presence of the patrician Christophorus-the eunuch, receiving me kindly, rose to meet me with three others. Their- discourse began as follows The pallor in your face, the emaciation of - your whole body, your long hair, and your beard-flowing, contrary to your custom-show that there is immense grief in your heart because the date of your return to your master has been delayed. But, we pray you, be not angry with the holy emperor nor with us. For we will tell you the cause of the delay. The Roman pope-if indeed he is to be called pope who has held communion and worked together with the son of Alberic the apostate, with an adulterer and unhallowed person-has sent letters to our most holy emperor, worthy of himself, unworthy of Nicephorus, calling him the emperor "of the Greeks," and not "of the Romans." Which thing beyond a doubt has been done by the advice of your master."

"What do I hear?" I said to myself. ,I am lost; there is no doubt but what I shall go by the shortest way to the judgment-seat."

" Now listen," they continued, " we know you will say that the pope is the simplest of men; you will say it, and we acknowledge it." "But," I answered, "I do not say it."

Hear then! The stupid silly pope does not know that the holy Constantine transferred hither the imperial scepter, the senate, and all the Roman knighthood, and left in Rome nothing but vile minion s- fishers, namely, peddlers, bird catchers, bastards, plebeians, slaves. He would never have written this unless at the suggestion of your king; how dangerous this will be to both-the immediate future, unless they come to their senses, will show." "But the pope," I said, "whose simplicity is his title to renown, thought he was writing this to the honor of the emperor, not to his shame. We know, of course, that Constantine, the Roman emperor, came hither with the Roman knighthood, and founded this city in his name; but because you changed your language, your customs, and your dress, the most holy pope thought that the name of the Romans as well as their dress would displease you. He will show this, if he lives, in his future letters ; for they shall be addressed as follows: 'John, the Roman pope, to Nicephorus, Constantine, Basilius, the great and august emperors of the Romans! "

" When I came hither he wished it," I said, " but since, during my long delay, he has received no news; he thinks that you have committed a crime, and that I have been taken and bound; and his whole soul, like that of a lioness bereft of her whelps, is inflamed with a desire through just wrath to take vengeance, and to renounce the marriage and to pour out his anger upon you,"

"If he attempts it," they said, " we will not say Italy but not even the poor Saxony where he was born - where the inhabitants wear the skins of wild beasts-will protect him. With our money, which gives us our power, we will arouse all the nations against him; and we will break him in pieces like a potter's vessel, which, when broken can not be brought into shape again. And as we imagine that Al thou, in his honor, hast bought some costly garments, we order you to bring them before us. What are fit for you shall be marked with a leaden seal and left to you; but those which are prohibited to all nations except to us Romans, shall be taken away and the price returned."