What do you think?
Rate this book
The Byzantine Theocracy: The Weil Lectures, Cincinatti
The constitution of the Byzantine Empire was based on the conviction that it was the earthly copy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Just as God ruled in Heaven, so the Emperor, made in his image, should rule on earth and carry out his commandments. This was the theory, but in practice the state was never free from its Roman past, particularly the Roman law, and its heritage of Greek culture. Sir Steven Runciman's Weil lectures trace the various ways in which the Emperor tried to put the theory into practice - and thus the changing relationship between church and state - from the days of the first Constantine to those of the eleventh. The theocratic constitution remained virtually unchanged during those eleven centuries. No other constitution in the Christian era has endured for so long.
208 pages, Paperback
First published June 3, 1977
4 people are currently reading
97 people want to read
About the author
Steven Runciman
45 books238 followersA King's Scholar at Eton College, he was an exact contemporary and close friend of George Orwell. While there, they both studied French under Aldous Huxley. In 1921 he entered Trinity College, Cambridge as a history scholar and studied under J.B. Bury, becoming, as Runciman later commented, "his first, and only, student." At first the reclusive Bury tried to brush him off; then, when Runciman mentioned that he could read Russian, Bury gave him a stack of Bulgarian articles to edit, and so their relationship began. His work on the Byzantine Empire earned him a fellowship at Trinity in 1927.
After receiving a large inheritance from his grandfather, Runciman resigned his fellowship in 1938 and began travelling widely. From 1942 to 1945 he was Professor of Byzantine Art and History at Istanbul University, in Turkey, where he began the research on the Crusades which would lead to his best known work, the History of the Crusades (three volumes appearing in 1951, 1952, and 1954).
Most of Runciman's historical works deal with Byzantium and her medieval neighbours between Sicily and Syria; one exception is The White Rajahs, published in 1960, which tells the story of Sarawak, an independent nation founded on the northern coast of Borneo in 1841 by the Englishman James Brooke, and ruled by the Brooke family for more than a century.
After receiving a large inheritance from his grandfather, Runciman resigned his fellowship in 1938 and began travelling widely. From 1942 to 1945 he was Professor of Byzantine Art and History at Istanbul University, in Turkey, where he began the research on the Crusades which would lead to his best known work, the History of the Crusades (three volumes appearing in 1951, 1952, and 1954).
Most of Runciman's historical works deal with Byzantium and her medieval neighbours between Sicily and Syria; one exception is The White Rajahs, published in 1960, which tells the story of Sarawak, an independent nation founded on the northern coast of Borneo in 1841 by the Englishman James Brooke, and ruled by the Brooke family for more than a century.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 28, 2013
Runciman's book is misleading. One thinks one is about to enter a balanced discussion of Byzantine political theory. After the first chapter one expects nuanced and detailed comparisons and contrasts between Eusebius and Augustine, and perhaps the different trajectories of East and West. It is nothing of the sort. This book is simply a $50 (albeit only 160 pages!) summary of the Byzantine Empire.
Runciman does a good job explaining Byzantine political theory in the first chapter. He anticipates arguments later Royalists would use against democracy: the King is an icon of heaven, and if we are to pray that the Kingdom come on earth as in heaven, we need to see at least a mirror of that on earth. That's how the Byzantine reasoned and Runciman does a good job with it. (Runciman mentions the Cappadocian fathers but oddly avoids discussing how Gregory of Nazianzus's *Monarchy of the Holy Trinity* necessarily implies a political monarchy on earth, a point later theologians--albeit modernist and anti-royalist ones--were to accuse Nazianzus of'; see Third Theological Oration). Runciman also notes the tensions within many of the arguments that would later become contradictions for the Byzantines Of particular interest was the Byzantine definition of the Church and how that played out in "Church/State" politics. All in all, a dazzling first chapter.
And then Runciman's discussion of his thesis disappears for 120 pages. This book feels like the ultimate "bait and switch." At this point Runciman's gives a highly-condense, if well-written, summary of Byzantine history from St Constantine the Great to the Martyr-King Constantine XI Dragases. One does see examples of tensions within Runciman's thesis now and then (the church often opposed the emperor, yet if he were the viceroy of God on earth, how could they get away with it?), but never a protracted discussion of his thesis.
Runciman's concluding chapter, like his original chapter, is very engaging and deals with the topic. One leaves the book keenly aware of many problems in Byzantine political theology, but this is actually good for royalists. The Byzantines developed their political theology within a strongly theological position. Problems were to come, to be sure, but that's true with any political system. The Byzantines were valuable because their system demonstrates the best and worst of absolutism (though as any Byzantine ruler knew, his reign was never absolutist--if he did something the priests and people did not like, his reign would be tumultuous).
Conclusion:
Don't buy this book. I've summarized in two paragraphs all that you need to know concerning the thesis. The rest is simply a history of the Byzantine empire, which one can find in any historical volume at the local library. Do read the book, though, but only borrow it. Ask yourself, "Are you willing to spend $50 on a 160 page book that doesn't deal with the thesis and merely summarizes information you could easily get for free at the local library?"
Runciman does a good job explaining Byzantine political theory in the first chapter. He anticipates arguments later Royalists would use against democracy: the King is an icon of heaven, and if we are to pray that the Kingdom come on earth as in heaven, we need to see at least a mirror of that on earth. That's how the Byzantine reasoned and Runciman does a good job with it. (Runciman mentions the Cappadocian fathers but oddly avoids discussing how Gregory of Nazianzus's *Monarchy of the Holy Trinity* necessarily implies a political monarchy on earth, a point later theologians--albeit modernist and anti-royalist ones--were to accuse Nazianzus of'; see Third Theological Oration). Runciman also notes the tensions within many of the arguments that would later become contradictions for the Byzantines Of particular interest was the Byzantine definition of the Church and how that played out in "Church/State" politics. All in all, a dazzling first chapter.
And then Runciman's discussion of his thesis disappears for 120 pages. This book feels like the ultimate "bait and switch." At this point Runciman's gives a highly-condense, if well-written, summary of Byzantine history from St Constantine the Great to the Martyr-King Constantine XI Dragases. One does see examples of tensions within Runciman's thesis now and then (the church often opposed the emperor, yet if he were the viceroy of God on earth, how could they get away with it?), but never a protracted discussion of his thesis.
Runciman's concluding chapter, like his original chapter, is very engaging and deals with the topic. One leaves the book keenly aware of many problems in Byzantine political theology, but this is actually good for royalists. The Byzantines developed their political theology within a strongly theological position. Problems were to come, to be sure, but that's true with any political system. The Byzantines were valuable because their system demonstrates the best and worst of absolutism (though as any Byzantine ruler knew, his reign was never absolutist--if he did something the priests and people did not like, his reign would be tumultuous).
Conclusion:
Don't buy this book. I've summarized in two paragraphs all that you need to know concerning the thesis. The rest is simply a history of the Byzantine empire, which one can find in any historical volume at the local library. Do read the book, though, but only borrow it. Ask yourself, "Are you willing to spend $50 on a 160 page book that doesn't deal with the thesis and merely summarizes information you could easily get for free at the local library?"
December 15, 2019
“Public opinion approved of the Patriarch acting as the keeper of the Empire’s, and the Emperor’s, conscience; but he must not put himself on a level with the Emperor, nor meddle in lay politics.”
Runciman, in this short book, tells the history of the Byzantine empire through a narration of the relationships between emperors and religious (both patriarchs and monks).
Runciman, in this short book, tells the history of the Byzantine empire through a narration of the relationships between emperors and religious (both patriarchs and monks).
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews