Justinian I

Justinian I, Byzantine emperor (A.D. 527-565), born Petrus Sabbatius in 482.

Justinian I was born in a small village called Tauresina in the Balkan peninsula. His uncle [Justin I]?, who rose from the ranks of the army to become emperor, adopted Justinian as his son and ensured that he was educated.

to be incorporated:

Belisarius?

Theodora?

Procopius

Vandals

Ostrogoths

Narses?

[Corpus Juris Civilis]?

Civil law

[Hagia Sophia]?

/Talk

Additional information focusing on Justinian's state religious rule, from Schaff-Herzog Encyc of Religion:

1. Life.

Flavius Anicius Julianus Justinianus was born, probably May 11, 483, at Tauresium (120 m. n.w. of Saloniki); d. at Constantinople Nov. 13 [14], 565. Coming to Constantinople during his youth, he completed the usual course of education, busying himself mainly with jurisprudence and philosophy. His mother being a sister to the highly esteemed General Justin, Justinian's military career was one of rapid advancement, and a great future was opened up for him when, in 518, Justin assumed the government. Consul in 521, later in command of the army of the east, he was virtual regent a long time before Justin made him associate emperor, on Apr. 1, 527. Four months later he became the sole sovereign. His administration was of world-wide moment, constituting a distinct epoch in the history of the Byzantine Empire and the Eastern Church. He was a man of unusual capacity for work, temperate, affable, lively; but also unscrupulous, and crafty. He was the last of the emperors who attempted to restore the Roman Empire to its former glory. For this end were his great wars and his colossal activity in building directed. Starting from the premise that the existence of a commonwealth rested upon arms and laws, he paid particular attention to legislation, and wrought a lasting memorial for himself by codifying the Roman law (Codex Justinianus, Novellae Constitutiones). In this article, however, there will be considered only his participation in religious and ecclesiastical movements, by means of statecraft and legislation.

2. Religious Policy

Justinian's religious policy was upheld by the imperial conviction that the unity of the empire unconditionally presupposed unity of faith; and with him it was a matter of course that this faith could be only the orthodox. Those of a different belief had to recognize that the process which had been begun by imperial legislation from Constantius down was now to be vigorously continued. The Codex contained two statutes (Cod., I., xi. 9 and 10) which decreed the total destruction of Hellenism, even in the civil life; nor were the appertaining provisions to stand merely on paper. The sources (Malalas, Theophanes, John of Ephesus) tell of severe persecutions, even of men in high positions. But what proved of universal historic account, was the ruling whereby the emperor, in 529, abrogated philosophical and juridical instruction at the University of Athens, thus putting an end to this training-school for Hellenism. And the Christian propaganda went hand in hand with the suppression of paganism. In Asia Minor alone, John of Ephesus claimed to have converted 70,000 pagans (cf. F. Nau, in Revue de l'orient chretien, ii., 1897, 482). Christianity was also accepted by the Heruli (Procopius, Bellum Gothicum, ii. 14; Evagrius, Hist. eccl., iv. 20), the Huns dwelling near the Don (Procopius, iv. 4; Evagrius, iv. 23), the Abasgi (Procopius, iv. 3; Evagrius, iv. 22) and the Tzani (Procopius, Bellum Persicum, i. 15) in Caucasia. The worship of Ammon at Augila in the Libyan desert (Procopius, De Aedificiis, vi. 2) was abolished; and so were the remnants of the worship of Isis on the island of Philae, at the first cataract of the Nile (Procopius, Bellum Persicum, i. 19). The Presbyter Julian (DCB, iii. 482) and the Bishop Longinus (John of Ephesus, Hist. eccl., iv. 5 sqq.) conducted a mission among the Nabatteans, and Justinian attempted to strengthen Christianity in Yeman by despatching thither an ecclesiastic of Egypt (Procopius, Bellum Persicum, i. 20; Malalas, ed. Niebuhr, Bonn, 1831, pp. 433 sqq.). The Jews, too, had to suffer; for not only were their civil rights restricted (Cod., I., v. 12), and their religious privileges threatened (Procopius, Historia Arcana, 28); but the emperor interfered too in the internal affairs of the synagogue (Nov., cxlvi., Feb. 8, 553), and forbade, for instance, the use of the Hebrew language in divine worship. The recalcitrant were menaced with corporal penalties, exile and loss of property. The Jews at Borium, not far from Syrtis Major, who resisted Belisarius in his Vandal campaign, had to embrace Christianity; and their synagogue was changed into a church. (Procopius, De Aedificiis, vi. 2). The emperor had much trouble with the Samaritans; refractory to Christianity, as they were, and repeatedly in insurrection. He opposed them with rigorous edicts, but yet could not prevent a fresh outbreak against the Christians from taking place in Samaria toward the close of his reign. It was no less consistent with his policy, that the Manicheans, too, were persecuted severely, both with exile and threat of capital punishment (Cod., I., v. 12). At Constantinople, on one occasion, not a few Manicheans, after strict inquisition, were executed in the emperor's very presence: some by burning, others by drowning (F. Nau, in Revue de l'orient, ii., 1897, p. 481).

3. Ecclesiastical Policy

The like despotism was also shown in the emperor's ecclesiastical policy. He regulated everything, both in religion and in law. At the very beginning of his reign, he deemed it proper to promulgate by law his belief in the Trinity and the incarnation; and to threaten all heretics with the becoming penalties (Cod., I., i. 5); whereas he subsequently declared that he designed to deprive all disturbers of orthodoxy of the opportunity for such offense by due process of law (MPG, lxxxvi. 1, p. 993). He made the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed the sole symbol of the Church (Cod., I., i. 7), and accorded legal force to the canons of the four ecumenical councils (Novellae, cxxxi.). The bishops in attendance at the Synod of Constantinople in 536 recognized that nothing could be done in the Church contrary to the emperor's will and command (Mansi, Concilia, viii. 970B); while, on his side, the emperor, in the case of the Patriarch Anthimus, reinforced the ban of the Church with temporal proscription (Novellae, xlii.). Bishops without number had to feel the tyrant's wrath. On the other hand, it is true, he neglected no opportunity for securing the rights of the Church and clergy, for protecting and extending monasticism. Indeed, were not the despotic character of his measures so glaring, one might be tempted to call him a father of the Church. Both the Codex and the Novellae contain many enactments regarding donations, foundations, and administration of ecclesiastical property; election and rights of bishops, priests and abbots; monastic life, residential obligations of the clergy, conduct of divine service, episcopal jurisdiction, etc.

4. Relations with Rome

From the middle of the fifth century onward increasingly arduous tasks confronted the emperors of the East in the province of ecclesiastical polity. For one thing, the radicals on all sides felt themselves constantly repelled by the creed which had been adopted by the Council of Chalcedon with the design of mediating between the dogmatic parties. The letter of Leo I. to Flavian of Constantinople passed far and wide, in the East, for a document of Satan; so that, here such was the case, nobody cared to hear aught of the Church of Rome. The emperors, however, had to wrestle with a twofold problem. In the first place, the unity between East and West, between Byzantium and Rome, was to be preserved; and this was possible only if they swerved not from the line defined at Chalcedon. In the next place, the factions in the East which had been stirred up and disaffected on account of Chalcedon must be restrained and pacified. This problem was the more difficult because the dissenting groups in the East excelled the party for Chalcedon in the East both in numerical strength and in intellectual ability; and so the course of events showed the two aims to be incompatible: whoever chose Rome and the West most renounce the East, and vice versa. For the progress of affairs under Zeno and Anastasius see Monophysites. Justinian entered the arena of ecclesiastical statecraft shortly after his uncle's accession in 518, and put an end to the schism that had prevailed between Rome and Byzantium since 483. The recognition of the Roman see as the highest ecclesiastical authority (cf. Novellae, cxxxi.) remained the cornerstone of his policy in relation to the West, although he thus grievously offended those of the East, and though he felt himself entirely free to show a despotic front toward the pope (witness his behavior toward Silverius and Vigilius). But the controversies in the East were alone sufficient to keep the emperor busy all through his reign; and he plainly paid much more attention to them than to the external affairs of the realm. Yet his policy bore marks of greatness, and strove with large understanding to satisfy the religious instincts of the devout in the East, a signal proof of which was his attitude in the Theopaschite controversy (see THEOPASCHITES). At the outset he was of the opinion that the question turned on a quibble of words. By degrees, however, he came to understand that the formula at issue was not only orthodox, but might also be used as a conciliatory measure toward the Monophysites, and made a vain attempt to do this in the religious conference with the Severians, in 533. Again, he reviewed the same approvingly in the religious edict of Mar. 15, 533 (Cod., L, i. 6), and congratulated himself that Pope John II. admitted the orthodoxy of the imperial confession (Cod., I., i. 8). The serious blunder that he had made at the beginning by abetting after Justin's accession a severe persecution of the Monophysite bishops and monks and thereby embittering the population of vast regions and provinces, he remedied eventually. His constant aim now was to win the Monophysites, yet not to surrender the Chalcedonian faith. For many at court, he did not go far enough: the Empress Theodora especially would have been glad to see the Monophysites favored unreservedly. Justinian, however, was restrained in that policy by the complications that would have ensued with the West. Neither, for that matter, could he escape these issues; for instance, the Three Chapter Controversy (q.v.; see also VIGILIUS). In the condemnation of the Three Chapters Justinian tried to satisfy both the East and the West, but succeeded in satisfying neither. Although the pope assented to the condemnation, the West believed that the emperor was acting contrary to the decrees of Chalcedon; and though many delegates were found in the East subservient to Justinian, yet there were many, especially the Monophysites, left unsatisfied. So the emperor's efforts were wasted on an impossible task; the more bitter for him because during his last years he took greater interest in theological matters.

5. Writings

It can not be doubted that Justinian also took an actual, personal hand in the theological manifestoes which he put forth as emperor; although, in view of the author's exalted position, it is a difficult matter to ascertain whether the documents current under his name are the direct product of his pen. Apart from letters to the Popes Hormisdas, John II., Agapetus I., and Vigilius, and sundry other compositions (collected in MPL, lxiii., lxvi. and lxix.), the following documents may be noted (all to be found in MPG, lxxxvi. 1, pp. 945-1152):

(1) the edict on Origen's heterodoxies, in 543 or 544;

(2) summons to the bishops assembled at Constantinople on occasion of the council of 553, with reference to their sitting in judgment on errors in circulation among the monastic followers of Origen at Jerusalem;

(3) an edict on the Three Chapters, probably framed in 551;

(4) an address to the council of 553, concerning the Antiochian theology;

(5) a document probably antedating 550, addressed to some unnamed defenders (perhaps Scythians) of the Three Chapters;

(6) writ of excommunication against Anthimus, Severus and companions;

(7) an address to some Egyptian monks, with a refutation of Monophysite errors;

(8) fragment of a document, mentioned in (7), to the Patriarch Zoilus of Alexandria.

The theology upheld in these writings agreed, in general, with that of Leontius of Byzantium (q.v.); that is, it aims at the final solution of the problem by interpreting the Chalcedonian symbol in terms of the theology of Cyril of Alexandria. Two points are worth noting in this connection. First, the clever way in which the emperor, or his representative, contrives to defend the reputation and the theology of Cyril; secondly, his antagonism to Origen: a clear sign of the characteristic disinclination of that age for independent thinking; at least among personages of weight and influence. A word or two should be subjoined on the subject of Aphthartodocetism; a doctrine professed by the emperor toward the close of his life. Evagrius reports (Hist. eccl., iv. 39), and other sources confirm the point, that Justinian promulgated an edict in which he declared Christ's body to be incorruptible and not susceptible to natural suffering, and commanded bishops everywhere to accept this doctrine. The fall of the Patriarch Eutychius (q.v.) is associated with this final phase of the imperial policy. The sources saw a lamentable decline from the right faith in Justinian's latter conduct. The train of thought underlying Aphthartodocetism, however, is not necessarily unorthodox (see JULIAN of HALICARNASSUS); because it need not be opposed to the acceptance of the essential identity of Christ's nature with human nature. Hence it is not necessary to regard Justinian's final theological views as those of an old man, to be disregarded in surveying the aims of his full-bodied activity.