|
January 10, 2004
A barbarian victory?
Did the early Christian war against "heresy" help trigger the Dark Ages? Might a little bit of Christian tolerance have even kept ancient Roman culture alive? These questions are still much on my mind, and while I can't provide answers or lay things to rest, my wildest fantasy is that maybe one or more people who know more than I do will be stimulated intellectually to do some serious, original historical research. Please, anyone, if you like any of this, take the ball and run with it! In the early days of this blog, I discussed the Emperor Justinian and Christendom's first sodomy laws, and I pointed out that they did little more than accompany the beginning of the Dark Ages. While I never argued that the sodomy laws themselves led to the Dark Ages, I had not fully explored the role of Justinian. By getting me started on Ostrogoth history, this marvelous post by Michael McNeil provided the catalyst for another attempt to revisit the Fall of Rome, and the birth of the Dark Ages. I am delighted to quote Michael McNeil as a starting point: The Ostrogoths, after first being settled by the East Roman Empire in what used to be called Yugoslavia, towards the end of the 5th century were induced by the East Roman Emperor to invade Italy, ruled by the barbarian king Odoacer, who had lately put an end to the remains of the Roman Empire in the West. The Ostrogoths, under their king Theodoric the Great, defeated Odoacer, and in 493 Theodoric became king of the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy. For most of the next half century Ostrogothic Italy remained relatively prosperous and enlightened amid the darkness taking hold elsewhere. Roman civilization had not yet winked out in Italy; literary works continued to be written in Latin, and Theodoric maintained a benevolent rule over both Italians and Ostrogoths.I am no expert on these matters, and like most of my readers I grew up thinking about the common Ostrogoth stereotype. Usually, when we think of the Ostrogoths, we think of bad people -- barbarians who sacked Rome. Hardly the sort of people who might attempt to preserve Roman culture. Yet that was precisely what they did. (Or rather, what they attempted to do.) The Ostrogoths (Eastern Goths) originally migrated from southern Scandinavia and had settled the Ukraine, eventually being pushed out by the Huns. They came to Italy and, through a series of events (which you can read about in detail here), ended up establishing their capitol in Ravenna, where -- thanks to the efforts of the Goths -- there was a remarkable period which has been called the "first Renaissance" in which original Roman culture was revived, kept alive, and even flourished. Until Justinian, the Eastern Emperor, deposed the enlightened Ostrogoths over a theological dispute. Instead of reuniting the Roman Empire, this created a power vacuum, leading directly to the invasion of the Lombards -- and total destruction of Western Roman culture. Tragedy. Real tragedy. It was an eye-opener for me to realize that what I was taught -- that the "good" Justinian overthrew the "bad" Ostrogoths -- was, simply, wrong. I can't set history straight. But I think it bears close examination, possibly reappraisal. A task of this sort is really beyond the scope of my blog. But I'll do what I can in this. (Pathetically insufficient though that may be.) What sort of people were the Ostrogoths? To get a feel for Ostrogoth culture, let's start with a brief glimpse at their language. Here's the Lord's Prayer Atta unsar thu in himinam,Here are a couple of examples of mosaics which flourished under their rule: Theodoric, the greatest leader the Ostrogoths produced, was as enlightened a man as it was possible to be given his times. Here's the only picture I could find of him -- on the face of a coin. Here's his tomb, which he designed. (That's real Gothic architecture, folks!) (Another view and description.) And here's his widow Amalaswintha, a valiant woman who struggled on against the restive aristocracy. It finally had its way and she was stabbed in her bathtub. Here is an Ostrogoth mosaic picture of the palace of Theodoric in Ravenna -- from the basilica of St Apollinare Nuovo (c. AD 500-520). After Justinian's overthrow of the Ostrogoths, the mosaic was defaced -- and figures of Theoderic and his court removed. Here are some post-capture mosaics of Justinian and his wife Theodora, shown with their entourages. For those interested in more Ravenna stuff, here are some beautiful web sites. For reasons which I suspect involve religion, Justinian seems to have been largely given a pass by historians: Justinian the First, whose murderous and determined onslaught on the West destroyed the two strongest Germanic successor states, Vandals and Ostrogoths, and, more worryingly for the British authorities, seized the gateway to the Atlantic from the Visigoths.Justinian's religiously motivated laws were harsh and intolerant, and in my opinion, did much to embark early Christianity on a collision course with personal freedom, of a distinctly totalitarian anti-sexual, and anti-Semitic character: Justinian's legislation dealt with almost every aspect of the Christian life: entrance into it by conversion and Baptism; administration of the sacraments that marked its several stages; proper conduct of the laity to avoid the wrath God would surely visit upon a sinful people; finally, the standards to be followed by those who lived the particularly holy life of the secular or monastic clergy. Pagans were ordered to attend church and accept Baptism, while a purge thinned their ranks in Constantinople, and masses of them were converted by missionaries in Asia Minor. Only the orthodox wife might enjoy the privileges of her dowry; Jews and Samaritans were denied, in addition to other civil disabilities, the privilege of testamentary inheritance unless they converted. A woman who worked as an actress might better serve God were she to forswear any oath she had taken, even though before God, to remain in that immoral profession. Blasphemy and sacrilege were forbidden, lest famine, earthquake, and pestilence punish the Christian society. Surely God would take vengeance upon Constantinople, as he had upon Sodom and Gomorrah, should the homosexual persist in his "unnatural" ways.To back up a bit, why would the last heirs of the original Roman culture take refuge in Ravenna? Simply put, the core group of Romans who carried with them Rome's cultural traditions had to flee somewhere, and there was safety in the swamps: For a time after the year 404, Ravenna and not Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire in the West. After the extinction of the western empire, Ravenna was the seat of government of Theodoric the Ostrogoth, the court visited by Boethius. Later Ravenna was the capital of a part of Italy ruled by the Byzantines.Anyone who has visited Venice can understand the romance, the hidden allure, of edifices of incomparable artistic beauty built on swampland and water. It has always struck me as poignant and tragic that they had to flee there in a vain attempt to keep Rome's cultural traditions alive. And now it strikes me as supremely ironic that they had more to fear from a religious argument than from barbarians. The trouble came from the more dogmatic Eastern Empire. "Civilized" does not mean tolerant. While it is undeniable that early Christians in Italy had sown the seeds of anti-sexual intolerance, it was under Justinian that the true medieval attitudes were forged. Ultimately they took the form of rigid laws persisting in the West right up until the early 21st Century. I hope readers will forgive my apparent focus on homosexuality, but for whatever reason, this has become a central, driving, highly contentious issue among Christians -- right here in modern America -- and it has by no means been laid to rest. In view of its apparently grave importance, whether I like dealing with it or not I must deal with it. And whether I like it or not, this stuff is a central focus of my blog. If I ignore it, I might as well stop blogging. The first laws in the West dealing with male homosexuality (lesbianism being largely ignored) focused on male prostitution, and were promulgated in 390 AD by the Emperor Theodosius when he was under order of excommunication and under the equivalent of house arrest. 390 AD:Simultaneously, all pagan practices were outlawed. Like paganism, prostitution had been a Roman tradition for many years: Since the Roman Republic, according to Tacitus (Ann. II.85.1-2), male and female prostitutes had been recorded nominally in registers which were kept under the guardianship of the aediles. From the reign of Caligula, prostitutes were taxed (Suet. Cal. 40).An especially emotional history of this period can be found here. (Bear in mind that it seems to have been written by gay activists, who may or may not be professional historians....) Justinian's intolerance, though, extended much further than homosexuals or pagans. The invasion of Italy by Justinian was at its core motivated by a religious disagreement: the Ostrogoths were Arians. That is, they worshiped Jesus as the son of God, but did not believe he had existed forever before he was born. They rejected the Trinity. I have blogged about this before, but I believe the doctrine of the Trinity is an anachronistic vestige of anti-pagan paranoia. Such paranoia included rewriting Ostrogoth history -- and censorship: This effacing done by the Catholics with the aim of cancelling every reference to the period of Gothic domination, was part of a general concern to reinforce the concepts of catholic orthodoxy: at the head of the line of saints, in fact, St. Martin stands out as the proud antagonist of Arianism, whilst the procession of the Virgins is led by Saint Euphemia, the strenuous upholder of the ideas of the Council of Chalcedonia (451), in which the duplex nature of Christ was re-affirmed. The trinitarian dogma, understood in its anti-Arian significance, is also made evident in the figures of the Magi adoring Christ as God.At this point, it seems only fair to ask some basic questions about the so-called "Trinity." After all, it is increasingly clear that it has very little to do with Jesus himself, or Judaism, and more to do with countering the widespread paganism (polytheism) of the soon-to-be-totally-extirpated culture of the ancients. The latter, known to use logic, often sneered at the idea that Christianity was "monotheist" -- for if "God" was seen to have a son, well? Where there's one, might not there be more? A god who reproduces himself seems anything but "monotheist." In previous essays, I have pointed out the basic logical contradiction between the Trinity and Judaism (for the Messiah is a normally-born man, and if Jesus was the Messiah then he was a man). For examples, see these two sites -- which believe passionately that Jesus is the Messiah and condemn the virgin birth as another artifice manufactured to win over pagans and further enshrine the Trinity. In the process, ordinary logic was lost. Crazy as it sounds, in order to make sure that no one could call them pagan, the early Christian theologians laid down the doctrine that there was no period before Jesus Christ -- that he had always existed! (Otherwise, of course, pagans might have said that a deity had been "added" and that Christianity was not monotheist!) Isaac Newton did not believe in the Trinity. Nor did Thomas Jefferson. Muslims, of course, have no such worries. To them Jesus and Muhammad are simply prophets. No lurking "pagan threat" there. But once again, I must ask, what is the problem with polytheism? In light of the silly Trinity (itself denounced as "Pagan"), hasn't it ever occurred to anyone that the conflict between monotheism and polytheism is itself silly? That maybe God (if you want God to be one) could appear in as many forms, in as many places, to as many people, as he might desire? Why the need to control? Ironically, the warfare between "East" and "West" occurred almost a thousand years before the formal schism separated Catholicism from Orthodoxy. There was no "Orthodox" versus "Catholic" church in the time of Justinian and Theodoric. Instead, there was an unending campaign to stamp out "heresy." Christian against Christian. Yet under the enlightened rule of the Ostrogoths, Arian heretics and conventional Catholics had gotten along. Obviously, Justinian found such religious pluralism intolerable, so he had to destroy the Ostrogoths. The "East" ended up conquering the "West." At this point some readers might be asking, "Where the hell was the Pope?" Bear in mind that the papacy had little power when Justinian's war against "heresy" was going on. Both Theodoric and Justinian treated the popes (in truth, the Bishop of Rome) as little more than political pawns, replaceable almost at will: John I who was born in Populania, Italy and elected on August 13, 523. He would die three years later. During this time he crowned the Emperor Justinian in Constantinople. The latter could not help the Pope when the barbaric King Theodoric invaded Italy and imprisoned John where he died in a cell in Ravenna on May 18, 526.None of these people were heroes. However, to see the Ostrogoths as destructive barbarian invaders and Justinian as a good guy savior is to commit a major historical error. Justinian's actions resulted in the destruction what was left of the Romans and their culture, and did much to construct a monolith of Christian intolerance -- despite the fact that this should have seemed oxymoronic. In my opinion, Justinian did more than any single man to plunge Europe into the Dark Ages. Hardly something to be nostalgic about.
UPDATE: Donald Sensing, a leading Christian blogger of impeccable credentials, does not consider this question heretical, nor essential to salvation in the Christian sense. Calling the virgin birth "a vexing topic" and "one of the tenets of Christian fundamentalism," Reverend Sensing concluded that: Affirming the virgin birth does not get us into heaven and denying it does not keep us out. posted by Eric on 01.10.04 at 04:02 PM
Comments
I came to similar conclusions, and asked similar questions when I came across the Schrodinger Cat Theory from Physics Myron · January 15, 2004 03:04 AM P.S. For further exploration of the Papacy vs. royalty feud in the twelfth century, I direct your attention to www.song souponsea.com; klicken sie on the "Promenade the Puzzle" link. Also Philip Kerr recently wrote a novel (whose title I forget) on the subject of Issac Newtons rejection of the Trinity. He says it brought about Western anti-semitism, and the pretext for murdering those of Arian, or other beliefs: classifying those people as heretics, subject to oppression by the church authorities. Also there is " the Hiram Code(?)"., too. Myron · January 15, 2004 03:53 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Wow! Once again, you are a true historian and philosopher. I'm learning so much from you. Thank you.