Change in Byzantine culture in the eleventh and twelfth centuries

by Annabel Jane Wharton

Byzantium, that dark sphere on the periphery of medieval Europe, is commonly regarded as the immutable residue of Rome's decline. In this highly original and provocative work, Alexander Kazhdan and Ann Wharton Epstein revise this traditional image by documenting the dynamic social changes that occurred during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

Genres: History, Greece

287 pages, Hardcover

First published October 1, 1985

Reviews

[Anatolikon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite this work being over twenty-five years old, Kazhdan and Epstein's book has largely stood the test of time. The book begins with a summary of some trends in Byzantine history from the end of antiquity in the seventh century up to the period covered by this book. Following the historical outline, the authors more into more thematic areas. The first is the so-called decentralization of the Byzantine state and the nature of feudalism. This is an important topic, and the authors tackle it quite well. They discuss the return of towns in the increasingly-secure era of the Macedonian emperors and how the return of those towns lessened the authority of Constantinople as an economic and political centre. Their discussion of feudalism, on the other hand, it not as well directed. The authors' conclusions are solid and have been borne out by more recent scholarship (see L. Neville's Authority in Byzantine Provincial Society, 950-1100) but they do not do a particularly good job of describing just what this "feudalism" thing is that they are claiming Byzantium isn't. Feudalism in Europe was a dynamic entity that varied from region to region and from culture to culture, and while their failure to describe it does not weaken what they are saying about Byzantium, it endangers their argument about feudalism itself. They are clearly reacting to earlier works that suggest increasing feudal tendencies destroyed Byzantium, and they do a good job refuting that, but it remains unclear just what their definition of feudalism exactly is and what they mean by using that word.

The next chapter deals with some more physical aspects of culture and how the elites viewed themselves. Dress, diet, and religion are discussed. The section on how the elites viewed themselves and how they wanted to be viewed ("the aristocratization of culture") is a very useful discussion leading of the changes in the culture at this point, and is particularly pertinent in light of the major changes that the regime of the Komnenoi wrought on Byzantium. The authors essentially argue that there was more interest in lineage and military valour at this point. The problem here is the layout of the material. I'm not convinced that Kazhdan pushes quite strongly enough for the idea that many of these changes were part of the Komnenian regime. Perhaps he's reacting against the venerable G. Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State which sees a particularly sharp dichotomy between the civil and military aristocracies at this point. Either way, the discussion here is valuable and seems to have stood the test of time if Paul Magdalino's magisterial The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180 is any indication, but knowing some of the historiographical context around this issue certainly shows how it is not clear cut.

The last three chapters of the book hit a wide variety of topics. The authors first deal with the more intellectual basis behind Byzantine culture, and discuss everything from panegyric and historiography to Byzantine science. The chapter after that discusses Byzantium's attitude towards foreigners, and has some very interesting points on the softening of the Byzantine attitude at the imperial level towards foreigners. If only the reactionary conservatism of Andronikos I had been discussed this section would have been complete. Finally, the book ends off with a discussion of the Byzantines and their interaction with the metaphyiscal world, which while interesting, feels a bit like an addendum to Kazhdan's earlier People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies (Dumbarton Oaks Other Titles in Byzantine Studies). Beyond that is a nice selection of source snippets. Some of these are available elsewhere; I really didn't need a snippet from the 'Alexiad' but there are a number of useful sources that have never been translated into English before. That alone makes having this book on the shelf worth it. In all, this is an excellent and important book on Byzantium in the 11-12th centuries. While, it is absolutely essential reading for the period, it should also be appreciated by those who study the cultures around Byzantium because it gives a particularly good glimpse into the Byzantine world.

[Peter Harrison · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting outline of the changing nature of the Byzantine empire during the 11th and 12th centuries. A good companion piece to John Haldon's "Byzantium in the Seventh Century". Taken together they help to trace the changing nature of the structure and social relations of Byzantium, and their consequential impact on administration, art, and other aspects of the culture. Superb.

[Mete Oguz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a very solid read for anyone wanting to learn more about the High Middle Ages in the Byzantine context, it specifically focuses on the cultural change that takes place, but in doing so it traces this cultural change's origins through economic, political, social and religious means. It is a very good book to read co-written by two amazing Byzantine Historians; Kazhdan and Epstein.

Some intriguing quotes I want to note as examples of the general language and style of the book.
But I recommend reading it in its entirety to gain a decent understanding and a mental picture of the period:

“In general Byzantine technology was extremely conservative. The Byzantine farmers still used the light plow dragged by a pair of oxen, it was made of wood and had a removable iron plowshare; it did not have wheels, so the plow bit rather than cut the soil. The scythe was not in use in Byzantium, and the image of Death with its scythe in hand, so popular in the West, would’ve left the Byzantines unmoved.” (pg 27)

“The spherical image of the universe is preserved in a Byzantine textbook known to be dated vaguely to be sometime after the eighth century. There the cosmos was presented as an egg: the earth formed the yolk, the air was the thin membrane surrounding the yolk, the sky was the albumen or white, and the heavenly spheres were analogous to the shell of the egg.” (pg 151)

“In the early 12th century, Manuel I attempted to defuse religious hostility directed toward the ‘heathen’ Arabs in order to foster military rapprochement. To this end he suggested modifications in the oath of abjuration administered to Muslims converting to Christianity, so they need not anathematize Allah, a God who, according to the Prophet Muhammed, ‘neither had borne nor had been born’. Manuel went so far as to defend the Prophet’s God as being the same omnipotent power worshipped by the Christians. After a long and bitter debate with the clergy of the Great Church, led by Eustathios of Thessaloniki, a compromise solution was found. As long as the convert anathematized Muhammed, his teaching, and his followers, he need not renounce his God.” (pg 186)

On art of 9th and 10th centuries:
"They proclaimed themselves unworthy of their subjects in order to emphasize the objectivity of their productions and depicted themselves as simple vessels of the Holy Spirit, from whom the text flowed.” (pg 216)

[Eileen Iciek · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this some years ago, but learned quite a bit from it. Still have post its in it, marking interesting parts. The author really gets into the weeds, referencing writings by Byzantine authors who are not readily available. I have read Psellus, Atalleiates, Skylitzes, and Anna Comnena, but Kazhdan and his co-author Ann W. Epstein quote from many others.

The book would be fine as a reference, or for someone deeply interested in the Byzantines.

[Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough and interesting. A good text study of a power accepting its diminished influence in a changing world. Sound familiar?