9. Early Church: Byzantium - Part II (Remastered)

The Early Church: Byzantium - Part II

R.J. Rushdoony

This is from a contemporary account now, 

"In summer when attacked they had to disappear like frogs into the water or into the woods; in winter they had to take refuge behind the shelter of their numerous stockades." "They dive under water and, lying on their backs on the bottom, they breathe through a long reed and thus escape destruction, for the inexperienced take these projecting reeds for natural. But the experienced recognize them by their cut and pierce the body through with them, or pull them out, so that the diver must come to the surface if he will not be stifled.

It was this people, of such unpromising origin, who multiplied into the mighty millions of Slavic peoples covering eastern and southeastern Europe today. Their expansion is exactly parallel to the German expansion southward from the shores of the Baltic; but whereas "the Germanic migration was eruptive Eke a volcano, the Slavonic was a gradual percolation like that of a flood rolling slowly forward." From their very nature and experience the Slavs could not expand by conquest, but they moved noiselessly into unclaimed territory or areas vacated by the emigration of Germans. To the northeast of their original homeland stretched the empty regions of Russia; to the north, the valleys of the upper Niemen and the Dvina; to the northwest, the valleys of the Vistula and the old, now abandoned, German homeland of the Oder, extending west to the Elbe and the Saale; to the southwest, the northern slopes of the Carpathians and the abandoned homeland of the Marcomanni and the Quadi, modern Czechoslovakia; to the south, the steppes of southern Russia, for a while the home of the Ostrogoths but now filled by a regular succession of Mongolian nomads from Asia." ²

And if that wasn’t bad enough, then the next pressure, both on these peoples and on Byzantium, was Attila the Hun. And just a few accounts of their character from the period because it gives us something of the flavor of history when we get the words of men of the day telling us what they were like. 

Yes, now the Huns, under Attila. 

“They subdued the Alans also, wearing out in constant warfare a race which was equal to them in war but unlike them in civilization, mode of life and appearance. Those men, whom they perhaps in no wise surpassed in war, they put to flight by terror of their looks, inspiring them with no little horror by their awful aspect and by their horribly swarthy appearance. They have a sort of shapeless lump, if I may say so, not a face, and pinholes rather than eyes. Their wild appearance gives evidence of the hardihood of their spirits, for they are cruel even to their children on the first day they are born. They cut the cheeks of the males with a sword so that before they receive the nourishment of milk they are compelled to learn to endure a wound. They grow old without beards, and the youths are without good looks, because a face furrowed by a sword spoils by its scars the natural grace of a beard. Somewhat short in stature, they are trained to quick bodily movement and are very alert in horsemanship and ready with bow and arrow; they have broad shoulders, thickset necks, and are always erect and proud. These men, in short, live in the form of humans but with the savagery of beasts.” ³

Then these men are an embassy from Byzantium to Attila.

“At the villages food was supplied to us generously, millet instead of wheat and mead—as it is called in the native tongue—instead of wine. The attendants following us were also supplied with millet and a drink made of barley was provided; the barbarians call this ‘kamon.’ Having completed a long journey, late in the afternoon we camped by a certain lake which had fresh water and whence the inhabitants of the nearby village drew their water. A wind and a storm arose on a sudden, accompanied by thunder and frequent lightning flashes and a heavy downpour of rain, and not only overturned our tent but also rolled all our gear into the water of the lake. Terrified by the tumult which ruled the air and by what had happened, we left the place and were separated from one another as, in the dark and the rain, each of us took whatever road he thought would be easy for himself. When we came to the huts of the village —for we returned to it, all by different routes—we met in the same place and searched, shouting for the things we needed. The Scythians [who were ruled by the Huns and were under them - RJR] leapt out at the tumult and lit the reeds which they used for fire, and, having made a light, they asked why we raised such an outcry. The barbarians with us answered that we had been thrown into confusion by the storm, and so they summoned us to their own huts and, burning a great many reeds, furnished us shelter.

A woman rules in the village—she had been one of Bleda's wives—and she sent us provisions and good-looking women to comfort us. This is a Scythian compliment, but we, when the eatables had been laid out, showed them kindness but refused intercourse with them [these are Christian men - RJR]. We remained in the huts until daylight and then turned to search for our baggage. We found it all, some in the place where we had chanced to halt, some on the bank of the lake, and some in the water itself. We spent that day in the village drying out all our things, for the storm had stopped and the sun was shining.” ⁴

He then describes their visit with Attila, and then they meet someone from Byzantium who had been taken captive and now was living amongst the Huns and the Scythians, and they speak to him:

“Having greeted him in turn I asked who he was and from where he had come into this barbaric land and taken up a Scythian life. He in turn asked why I was so eager to know this. I answered that the reason for my curiosity was his Hellenic speech. Then laughing, he said that he was a Greek by race and that he had gone for trade to Viminacium, the city of Moesia on the Danube River, and had lived in it for a long time and had married a very rich woman. But when the city came under the barbarians he had been stripped of his prosperity, and on account of the wealth belonging to him had been assigned to Onegesius in the distribution of the spoils—for the elite of the Scythians, after Attila, took the captives selected from among the well-to-do because they sold for the most money. He had fought bravely in the later battles with the Romans and the nation of the Akatiri, and, having given his barbarian master, according to the law of the Scythians, what he had gained for himself in the war, he had obtained his freedom. He had married a barbarian woman and had children; he was a partaker of the table of Onegesius [one of the leaders] and led a better life at present than he had formerly. 

Among the Scythians, said he, men are accustomed to live at ease after a war, each enjoying what he has, causing very little or no trouble and not being troubled. Among the Romans, however, men are easily destroyed in war, in the first place because they put their hopes of safety in others, since on account of their tyrants all men are not allowed to use arms.” ⁵

Sounds quite modern, doesn’t it? This was Rome and Italy that he’s talking about. 

Then perhaps just one more about Attila’s death, the great Hun had not long to live, and a few weeks or months later the time of his death, as the historian Priscus reports, and these are Priscus’ words:

“[Attila] took in marriage a very beautiful girl named Ildico, after countless other wives, as was the custom of his race. He had given himself up to excessive joy at his wedding, and as he lay on his back, heavy with wine and sleep, a rush of superfluous blood, which would ordinarily have flowed from his nose, streamed in deadly course down his throat and killed him, since it was hindered in the usual passages. Thus did drunkenness put a disgraceful end to a king renowned in war.” ⁶

“On the following day, when a great part of the morning was spent, the royal attendants suspected some ill and, after a great uproar, broke in the doors. There they found the death of Attila accomplished by an effusion of blood, without any wound, and the girl with downcast face weeping beneath her veil. Then, as is the custom of that race, they plucked out the hair of their heads and made their faces hideous with deep wounds, that the renowned warrior might be mourned, not by effeminate wailings and tears, but by the blood of men.” ⁷

“For so terrible was Attila thought to be to great empires that the gods announced his death to rulers as a special boon.” ⁸

“For so terrible was Attila thought to be to great empires that the gods announced his death to rulers as a special boon. The best horsemen of the entire tribe of the Huns rode around in circles, after the manner of circus games, in the place to which he had been brought and told of his deeds in a funeral dirge in the following manner: "The chief of the Huns, King Attila, born of his sire Mundiuch, lord of bravest tribes, sole possessor of the Scythian and German realms — powers unknown before — captured cities and terrified both empires of the Roman world and, appeased by their prayers, took annual tribute to save the rest from plunder. And when he had accomplished all this by the favor of fortune, he fell, not by wound of the foe, nor by treachery of friends, but in the midst of his nation at peace, happy in his joy and without sense of pain. Who can rate this as death, when none believes it calls for vengeance?" When they had mourned him with such lamentations, a strava, as they call it, was celebrated over his tomb with great revelling. They gave way in turn to the extremes of feeling and displayed funereal grief alternating with joy. Then in the secrecy of night, they buried his body in the earth. They bound his coffins, the first with gold, the second with silver, and the third with the strength of iron, showing by such means that these three things suited the mightiest of kings; iron because he subdued the nations, gold and silver because he received the honors of both empires. They also added the arms of foemen won in the fight, trappings of rare worth, sparkling with various gems, and ornaments of all sorts whereby princely state is maintained. And that so great riches might be kept from human curiosity, they slew those appointed to the work — a dreadful pay for their labor; and thus sudden death was the lot of those who buried him as well as of him who was buried” ⁹

Attila the Hun; when he died, the Hunnic empire fell apart, and the Huns disintegrated, and they merged with various peoples. The Scythians moved across Northern Europe and settled here and there, and some of them finally wound up and settled in Scotland. Very interesting. They’ve left their mark on Scotland in various relics as well as in certain words that have survived to this day. 

Now, one item more, and again I’m going to read because it’s very interesting. I’m taking a little longer, but we’ve got to cover a great deal of ground tonight about Byzantium. 

Now I’ve had gone into great length in our chapter about the nature of Byzantium. and I’d like to read a few pages of René Guerdan’s book, Byzantium: Its Triumphs and Tragedy. And the title of this chapter, of which I’ll read just a little is, “A State With a Gospel For Constitution.” Now, their conception of Christianity was very defective, very wrong at points, but all the same because they took even their defective version as the constitution they were able to create the greatest state, the greatest Empire of all history. Guerdan writes:

“What could be the constitution of a State that had Christ as its sovereign? There can only be one answer: the Gospel. In Byzantium, then, it was the Gospel that determined die structure of society and the position of the individual. From this it follows that the Byzantine Empire was essentially a democracy, an authoritarian one doubtless, but a democracy in the sense that the regime was equalitarian. 

Firstly, there were no class or caste prejudices. The highest positions were open to all. Entry to the administration, the best ladder to success, was wide open to everyone. Advancement in it did not depend upon age or birth, but upon merit and ability.” ¹⁰

And then he goes on to cite how many ordinary people, stevedores and peasants became very powerful. 

“In the struggle for life anyone might emerge with wealth and power; the poor and destitute were not forgotten in Byzantium; the town was full of homes for old people, shelters, charitable institutions, cheap boarding houses and, above all, hospitals. 

The hospital founded in 372 by Bishop Basil was the size of a small town. Doctors and priests were there in large numbers. Orphans were taken in and taught a trade; even lepers were not turned away. 

The community which Alexius Comnenus founded on the Golden Horn consisted of a number of institutions: an orphanage, a home for the blind and a military hospital. Together they cared for about 7,000 people.” ¹¹

All this with charity! 

“The most representative was that of the Pantocrator, which was organized down to the last detail. Each sick person had a separate room, a bed-side rug, a pillow, a mattress, an eiderdown—double thickness in winter —a comb, a chamber pot, .sponge, basin and slop pail. Baths were twice a week. In addition, each person was issued with two bath towels, two face towels, two bath-robes and, at Easter, a special allowance to buy soap. The cleanliness of the rooms was ensured by frequent sweeping out and the use of sawdust. Every morning inspectors made their rounds, asking about the quality of the food, for example, and listening attentively to complaints. [now, these are charity hospitals! - RJR] The women were looked after in a separate wing by women doctors. Infectious cases were segregated and, thanks to an ingenious system of heating, enjoyed the most suitable temperature. New doctors were taught by qualified herbalists and a professor. A unique machine, of which everyone was very proud, cleaned the surgical instruments. The community was served by numerous kitchens, a dispensary, a bakery and a laundry.

….

To be a failure here below was no shame; for shall not the humblest here on earth be the most exalted in heaven? So Byzantium knew nothing of social arrogance.

The Basileus [that is king or emperor - RJR] frequently entertained tramps at his table and  his door was never closed to anyone who wanted to enter. The following two stories illustrate this point.

One Sunday, as the Emperor Theophilus was leading a solemn procession, a working woman broke through the crowd and flung herself at the bridle of his horse. 'This horse belongs to me!' she cried. ‘Your agents requisitioned it unjustly. Give it back to me!' She was not flung in prison; on the contrary, the Basileus dismounted, handed over the horse and continued his way on foot. From that time onwards, however, the ceremonial was slightly changed; as a precautionary measure the Emperor was accompanied henceforth by several changes of mount.” ¹²

He didn’t trust his officials. 

“One day at the Circus two clowns appeared before the Emperor's box. They had some toy boats and were shouting at one another: ‘Come on, try hard! Just swallow this boat.’—‘It's no good, I can't do it.'—'Can't do it? The other day the palace prefect swallowed a huge galley, complete with cargo!' 

The Emperor smiled and understood. He asked for details, summoned the accused man, confronted him with the plaintiffs and summoned witnesses. As soon as he was convinced of the official's guilt he ordered him to be burnt alive in full uniform. To everyone's delight this was done immediately in the Hippodrome. 

Moreover, what reason had the Emperors for pride? So many of them were of the lowest origin. For in Byzantium anyone could become Basileus, regardless of rank, fortune and ancestry. 

Leo I had been a butcher; people in Constantinople used to point out to one another the stall where he and his wife used to sell meat. Justin I was a poor swineherd from the Bederiana, who first appeared in the capital with bare feet and a pack on his back; one day, his nephew, haggard and in rags, also left the family village to join him; his name was Justinian. Phocas was a simple centurion, and Leo III the Isaurian was an odd job man. The parents of Leo V lived in the greatest poverty. Michael III was a servant, Basil I a peasant, Romanus Lecapenus one of the lowest in rank of petty officers in the navy.

All that was necessary for coronation was to be elected by Senate, army and people; and this procedure was never changed, even when in the course of time the need for a dynastic succession made itself felt. A system was then worked out which made some show of respect to democratic principles: during his own lifetime the Emperor elected his son. Thus for 24 years Leo III had for colleague his son, Copronymus, who had been crowned when one year old [The name, Copronymus, was a name he carried all his life. I won’t translate it, but I’ll tell you what it meant. When he was being baptized in the church as a baby he dirtied himself and the baptismal fount, so the rest of this life he carried the name that described what he did - Copronymus - even when he was emperor! So, he never lived down that name - RJR]. 

The Basilissa, too, could be of humble origin; but she was expected to be beautiful. Hence the number of strange creatures who, one after the other, wore the purple gown: Khazars, singers, prostitutes, peasants from the Danube valley like Lupicina the cook and Theodora the bear-leader. How many humble workers became father- in-law to the Emperor!” ¹³

And it goes on to describe incidents connected with them, in this fact: 

“As all creatures are equal in the sight of God, strict equality between the sexes existed in Byzantium. While a girl, doubtless, led a rather sheltered life, and was not always free to choose her own husband, the married woman shared completely the life of her menfolk. Often, indeed, women dominated the family circle. The authority of Anna Dalassena, the mother of Alexius I, was notorious. At mealtimes Digenes Akritas respectfully awaited his mother and gave her the seat of honour, a chair, that is, while he was content to recline on a couch. To hold one's wife in seclusion was unpardonable.” ¹⁴

And it goes on to describe how any man who beat his wife was very savagely treated; he was a contemptible character. 

“Very revealing as regards this emancipation of women was the status of the Empress. She was the equal of her husband, she exercised absolute sovereignty, the incarnation of almighty God. And this quality did not come to her by virtue of her marriage, as a reflection, but of her own nature, from a true inner emanation. Ceremony bore this out.” ¹⁵

Then it goes on to cite examples of this and perhaps just a little more:

“Byzantium’s democracy, however, was not of a secular nature; the Gospel was adopted as the constitution not from philosophical convictions, but because the City of God was believed to be organized along such lines. For, just as the Byzantines wanted their monarch to be the incarnation of the Son of God, they wanted their State to be the replica of the Kingdom of God. Consequently their entire political, social and economic structure was impregnated with divine significance. Divine was their law and order, and anyone who broke it was guilty of sacrilege. A law of Theophilus illustrates this point well; it said, in substance: ‘He who assumes a rank which is not his, or lays false claim to an office, or assumes a dignity which is not due to him, may not put forward error as an excuse. Having blasphemed against the divine order, he will be punished for the crime of high treason.’” ¹⁶

And therefore anyone who offended against this law was very savagely treated. 

Well, our time is more than up and we have very little time for questions, but I did want to deal at some length with Byzantium because today it is very commonly despised and we’re told that it was an empire that was stagnant, and there’s very little about it in the history books. And yet when you consider that here was an empire of tremendous wealth, tremendous power, with a thousand-year history, falling only shortly before Columbus discovered America, and having been founded in the early 300’s, eleven hundred years. It would have lasted longer but for the fact of the Crusades. I point out in the chapter, the Crusaders were the ones who destroyed it. It had many faults; its theology was very, very bad at many points. They saw the emperor as a kind of new incarnation of Christ, very, very faulty, terrible, heretical. But the fact that to a degree they did make it the Kingdom of God on earth and the Law of God to be the law of the state, gave them a stability and a power that no other nation and all of history has had. And yet where is it in the history books? 

All you get in the history books are its errors and its evils, nothing about its accomplishments because, of course, its accomplishments sprang from faith, and this they will not acknowledge. They give a great deal of attention to the Roman Empire, but the Roman Empire never was the equal of Byzantium. You read a great deal about the Greeks but the achievement of the Greeks was next to nothing. We read a great deal about modern nations but Byzantium is bypassed. History has been falsified. 

What Byzantium did with a very bad theology could be done with a sound theology. And of course, precisely what Byzantium did the Puritans, when they came to America, made their purpose. They came here with the same purpose, and they wrote back and sent pamphlets to England summoning others to come, and they said: “Come, for we will here build Zion the city of our God.” America, thus, had a glorious beginning, deliberately, twice in history, men set out to establish Zion on earth, once in Byzantium and once in this country. We gained our greatness from that purpose; we will not return to it unless we return to that purpose. Byzantium had a noble purpose, but a very faulty obedience to it in their theology. Ours was sound. How much greater is our offense that we have departed from it? 

Let us pray.

* * *

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we thank thee that thou hast given us so glorious a heritage in Jesus Christ, and thou hast made us a people highly favored, but, O Lord God of Hosts, we have sinned, we have gone astray from thy ways, and we have departed from thy Word, and we have turned our backs on thy only begotten Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, our King, our Savior. O Lord, our God, recall us as a people again to thee, and grant that again we be faithful to thee and that thy Word prevail in our schools and the councils of state, in homes and in business and in churches that we cast out the unbelief, the Arianism and the Pelagianism in our midst and become a people whose joy it is to obey and to honor thee. Grant us this we beseech thee. In Jesus’s name. Amen. 

* * *

I think we can take about two minutes for questions because we do want to maintain strictly our nine o’clock closing time,

Yes?

[Audience member] Could you comment further on what you said about the great tribulation? ¹⁷

[Rushdoony] Very good point. Until the premillennials came along the belief was that the tribulation was that which the Early Church went through. Now, right up until almost World War I you found great American theologians like Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, one of the greatest men of God this country has seen, teaching that. That was the Great Tribulation, it was past. But with Scofield, you see, this was changed and projected into the future.

[Audience Member] What, then, of the contemporary Communist persecutions? ¹⁸

[Rushdoony] The Communist persecutions have been fearful of the communists that have perhaps killed more people than anyone else in history, but not Christians to the same degree. Christians have never been persecuted as savagely and as totally as during the two and half centuries… Remember it was aimed at total extermination and again and again they would just mow them down and new converts would spring up. The old saying ‘the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.’ And the worst part of it is that today people act as though this is all a myth, the persecution and the martyrdom. It’s actually so written in some of the newer histories, and I have been told that guides now when they take you to the coliseum in Rome they say, “Here according to legends Christians were thrown to the lions.”

Yes?

[Audience Member] So, they were killed everywhere? ¹⁹

[Rushdoony] They were killed everywhere, yes. They were killed everywhere. Well, our time is up, next week read chapters twelve and thirteen. We will meet two weeks from now and chapters twelve and thirteen.

1. James Westfall Thompson and Edgar Nathaniel Johnson. An Introdution to Medieval Europe 300-1500. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1937, p. 124.

2. James Westfall Thompson and Edgar Nathaniel Johnson. An Introdution to Medieval Europe 300-1500. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1937, p. 124, 125.

3. Jordanes, Romana et Getica, ed. Th. Mommsen, MGH AA, 5, 1 (1882), De origine actibusque Getarum sive Gothorum, pp. 123 ff. [chap. 24]. Cited in: Oksana Minerva. From Paganism to Christianity: Formation of Medieval Bulgarian Art (681-972). Peter Lang, 1996, p. 62.

4. C.D. Gordon. The Age of Attila. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1961, pp. 81, 82.

5. C.D. Gordon. The Age of Attila. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1961, p. 86.

6. Johannes and Charles C. Mierrow. The Origin and Deeds of the Goths in the English Version, 1908, p. 79, 80.

7. Johannes and Charles C. Mierrow. The Origin and Deeds of the Goths in the English Version, 1908, p. 80.

8. Johannes and Charles C. Mierrow. The Origin and Deeds of the Goths in the English Version, 1908, p. 80.

9. Johannes and Charles C. Mierrow. The Origin and Deeds of the Goths in the English Version, 1908, p. 80, 81.

10. René Guerdan. Byzantium: Its Triumps and Tragedy. Translated by D.L.B. Hartley. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1956, p. 29.

11. René Guerdan. Byzantium: Its Triumps and Tragedy. Translated by D.L.B. Hartley. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1956, p. 29, 30.

12. René Guerdan. Byzantium: Its Triumps and Tragedy. Translated by D.L.B. Hartley. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1956, p. 30, 31.

13. René Guerdan. Byzantium: Its Triumps and Tragedy. Translated by D.L.B. Hartley. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1956, pp. 31,32.

14. René Guerdan. Byzantium: Its Triumps and Tragedy. Translated by D.L.B. Hartley. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1956, p. 34.

15. René Guerdan. Byzantium: Its Triumps and Tragedy. Translated by D.L.B. Hartley. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1956, p. 34.

16. René Guerdan. Byzantium: Its Triumps and Tragedy. Translated by D.L.B. Hartley. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1956, p. 38.

17. Question modified due to poor audio.

18. Question modified due to poor audio.

19. Question modified due to poor audio.