The History of Byzantine Literature: from Justinian to the end of the Eastern Roman Empire (527-1453) (2nd ed. Munich: Beck, 1897) By Karl Krumbacher Introductory sections translated by David Jenkins and David Bachrach Copyright: University of Notre Dame 2001 Translators’ Preface Introduction 1. Concept and General History of Byzantine Literature 2. Characteristics 3. International cultural relations First Section: Prose Literature 1. Theology 2. Historians and Chroniclers 3. Geography 4. Philosophy 5. Rhetoric, Sophistry and Epistolography 6. Classical Studies 7. Scientific Specialties a. Law b. Medicine c. Mathematics and Astronomy (including Astrology and Fortune Telling) d. Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy and Alchemy e. Military Science Second Section: Poetic Literature 1. General Characteristics and Introduction 2. Church Poetry 3. Popular Poetry Third Section: Vernacular Greek Literature — Introduction 1. Discussion of terms 2. Historical Overview 3. Language and Meter 1 Translators’ Preface Karl Krumbacher was born on Sept. 23, 1856 in Kempten, Bavaria and died on Dec. 12, 1909 in Munich. He was educated in the classics at the universities of Leipzig and Munich and in 1897 became Professor of medieval and modern Greek at the University of Munich. Arguably the greatest Byzantinist of his generation, his contributions to the field were profound. He both founded the discipline’s leading international journal, the Byzantinische Zeitschrift, and authored its standard reference work, Die Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur (1892; 2nd ed., 1897). Die Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur, The History of Byzantine Literature, is a wealth of general and detailed information. General introductory chapters on particular genres are followed by shorter chapters on individual authors, and detailed bibliographies enrich its more than 1100 pages. It was the most comprehensive achievement of Byzantine scholarship and became a necessary addition to any reference collection. Its contents and bibliographies have now been updated by Hans Georg Beck’s Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich (Munich: Beck, 1959) and by Herbert Hunger’s Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Munich: Beck, 1978). Die Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur has never been translated into English (there is a modern Greek translation). We have translated only the introductory chapters and have not included the footnotes or bibliographies. The bold numbers throughout the text refer to the pagination of its second edition (Munich: Beck, 1897). We hope that these selections serve as an accessible introduction to both Byzantine literature and to the thought and work of Karl Krumbacher. David Jenkins David Bachrach 2 Introduction The Concept and General History of Byzantine Literature. [1] 1. In the literary as well as in the political consideration of history, it has become customary to date the Byzantine period between the years 527 and 1453, i.e., to begin with Justinian’s assumption of the throne (or even with his closing of the university at Athens in 529) and to end with the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. There is no controversy about the end point. The final destruction of the political, literary and cultural life particular to the Byzantines symbolized by the planting of the half-moon on the Hagia Sophia produced a historical moment as powerful and as definite as any in the history of humanity. There are, however, many problems concerning the prevailing view about the beginning of the Byzantine period. This view contradicts the facts and is without any historical foundation. The arbitrary decision to date the beginning of the period around the time of Justinian has significantly clouded the understanding of literary as well as other cultural developments. It is high time to prove and to establish definitively the untenability of this periodization. We must briefly consider not only the literary but also the political, ecclesiastical and cultural history of the later Roman Empire in order to reach a well-founded and lasting judgment. Rather than becoming mired in details, it is important to view the entire development in all areas of life from the first days of the Empire until the last of the Palaiologoi, and to do this from the loftiest standpoint, with a view free of the prejudice of old doctrines. After we have done that, the question, “Where is the origin of this age to be found?” cannot remain in doubt for long. It is the time when ancient paganism was officially replaced by the new world religion, when the nature of the State experienced a deep and [2] lasting transformation, when the Greek element in the Roman Empire began to grow to a politically powerful and exclusive ruling factor through the founding of a new capital city that lay in the Greek cultural sphere, and when fundamental and consequential changes were carried out in Greek language, literature and art. This was the beginning of the fourth century, or, if one demands an exact date, the year 324, when Constantine the Great ascended the Roman imperial throne as its sole ruler. We have placed our conclusion about the origin of the Byzantine period right at the start for the sake of clarity. Nevertheless, it is important to explain at least in general terms the basis for our conclusion since we have not employed any artistic effect and have forgone a well organized and persuasive presentation of the evidence. The greatest political difference between the Byzantine and Roman periods was the transfer of the center of gravity from the West to the East and the consequent gradual supersession of the Latin language by the Greek. The point of departure of this process, which determined the entire later history of the Roman Empire, lies undoubtedly in the founding of the new capital city, Constantinople, (326 A.D.) and in the definite partition of the Empire it into western and eastern halves (395 A.D.) that arose from it. This sealed the permanent separation of the Greek East from the Latin West and was also the fundamental reason for the estrangement that soon followed between the Greeks and the Latins. Over the course of centuries, this estrangement grew to become a deep-seated aversion resulting in open enmity in 3 innumerable political and ecclesiastical squabbles. The linguistic and cultural dualism had already existed before Constantine and Theodosius. However, it was only after the founding of New Rome and the partition of the Empire that it received its official confirmation. It was on this basis that the division could grow unhindered. The contrast was especially promoted and strengthen by the rapid growth of the new capital city, which conferred on the Greek or hellenized half of the Empire a political and geographical, and soon even a religious, social, literary and artistic center. The centralizing tendency and power of Constantinople was noticeable in everything. New Rome triumphed over Alexandria on account of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The ruthless exclusivity of the new capital city expressed itself even in the insignificant area of chronology, when the older eras of Alexandria and Antioch were suppressed by that of Constantinople. The city on the Bosporos was the Paris of the Byzantine Empire — indeed, of the entire eastern world. The truthfulness of this claim is made clear by the countless panegyric speeches of Byzantine writers, who never shrank [3] from the boldest comparisons in order to describe the all encompassing greatness of the marvelous metropolis. It is still expressed in the modern Greek proverb, /Oloj( o ( ko/smoj dw/deka ki h ( Po/li dekape/nte (“The whole world twelve and the City fifteen”). However, the political collapse of the western half of the Empire was even more important for the growth and triumph of the Greek element than was the vibrancy of Constantinople. As a result of the events of the years 455 and 476, the power of the old Imperium Romanum became more and more concentrated in the eastern lands. It was here that for ages the Greek element had dominated in the broad mass of the people, in the society and in the church. While the entire political organism remained both externally and internally Roman, Greek could now take up the struggle for rule with entirely different means than before and with better prospects of success. Certainly, the Greeks considered themselves politically as Romans, and they maintained the name Romaii from the terrible period of Turkish rule until the present day as the living and most comprehensive denomination of the Greek people. By contrast, the occasional appearance of Graikoi/ has little historical significance, and the term /Ellhnej( , which was reintroduced artificially by the government and schools, has hardly any importance at all. The simple fact that even modern Greeks call themselves Romaii reminds us to judge carefully the significance of this name in the Middle Ages. There is no doubt that the original meaning of this name gradually disappeared from the consciousness of the people after the complete hellenization of the Eastern Empire. A Roman was increasingly understood to be a Greek speaking citizen of the Roman Empire, and finally simply a Greek. Although historians made a precise distinction between Romans and Greeks and clearly expressed it until the final days of the Empire (e.g. Kinnamos and Laonikos Chalkokondyles), the word Rwmai( oj= gradually lost its ethnographic and finally even its political significance among the broad masses of the people. That it came to this was a natural consequence of the great numeric superiority of the Greeks over the Romans in the Eastern Empire. Since the founding of New Rome, and even more since the partition of the Empire and the demise of its western half, the Greeks again felt themselves to be the lords of their own house and began immediately to hellenize the state in its head and members with their own forcefulness and energy.