Wikipedia: History of Justinian I

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Added: 17a18,334

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.

	Revision 6 . . December 7, 2001 8:14 pm by Alan Millar [add'l old encyc text to integrate]
	Revision 5 . . October 13, 2001 8:06 pm by MichaelTinkler [removing 'guided/dominated' sentence, added some more stubs]