Is the Byzantine “Symphony” Possible in Our Days

17 Pages·2016·0.174 MB·english

by  Cyril Hovorun

Journal of Church and State Advance Access published January 24, 2016
Is the Byzantine “Symphony”
Possible in Our Days?
CyrilHovorun
Post-SovietSymphonies?
D
Thereturnofreligiontothepublicsquare,whichhasbeencharacter- ow
izedbysomeaspostsecularity1andbyothersasashiftinrelations nlo
a
between religion and other domains of society,2 gives rise to new de
d
models of relations between church and state. New models are fro
m
beingimaginedandconstructedincountrieswherethechurchhad h
beenviolentlyseparatedfromthestateandwaseffectivelyexpelled ttp
fromsocialandpoliticaldomains.Thesemodelsaresometimesinter- ://jc
s
preted in traditional terms such as Byzantine “symphony.” Those .ox
fo
churchesinvoke“symphony”toexplaintheirnewallianceswiththe rd
state,whichconsiderthemselvesheirstoByzantium.This,inpartic- jou
rn
ular,isthecaseinRomania,where,accordingtoLucianLeustean,“fol- a
ls
lowingtheprincipleofsymphonia,membersoftheChurchhierarchy .o
rg
wereofferedpoliticalpositionsinParliament,whilethestatedomi- a/
nated the Church, transforming it into a state institution which t B
ib
serveditspoliticalinterests.”3Anotherexampleofachurchpursuing lio
te
aclosealliancewiththestateistheRussianOrthodoxChurch,which q
u
e
d
e
la
S
o
CYRILHOVORUN(BA,NationalKapodistrianUniversityofAthens;PhD,Durham rbo
n
University,UK)isaseniorlecturerattheStockholmSchoolofTheologyandan n
e
associatedeanatSanktIgnatiosAcademy.HeistheauthorofMeta-Ecclesiology: o
n
ChroniclesonChurchAwareness(2015).HisarticleshaveappearedinTheFirst M
a
Things,TorontoJournalofTheology,TheExpositoryTimes,State,Religion,and rc
Church in Russia and Abroad (Russia), O¨kumenische Rundschau (Germany), h 2
2
Transit:Europa¨ischeRevue(Austria),andChristianTimes(HongKong),among , 2
others.Specialinterestsincludepatristics,ecclesiology,andpublictheology. 01
6
1. SeeJu¨rgenHabermasandJanPhilippReemtsma,GlaubenundWissen:Frieden-
spreisdesdeutschenBuchhandels2001(FrankfurtamMain:Suhrkamp,2001).
2. SeePhilipGorskietal.,eds.,ThePost-SecularinQuestion(NewYork:NYUPress,
2012).
3. Lucian N. Leustean, “Orthodoxy and Political Myths in Balkan National
Identities,”NationalIdentities10,no.4(2008):425.
JournalofChurchandState;doi:10.1093/jcs/csv140
#TheAuthor2016.PublishedbyOxfordUniversityPressonbehalfoftheJ.M.Dawson
InstituteofChurch-StateStudies.Allrightsreserved.Forpermissions,pleasee-mail:
[email protected]
1
JournalofChurchandState
alsoclaimsthatitisrestoringthetraditionalsymphonicpatternof
church–staterelations.4
IllustrativeinthisregardisthemovieTheFallofanEmpire—The
LessonofByzantium,producedin2008byBishopTikhonShevkunov.
Inthismovie,whichstirredmuchdebateinRussiaandbeyond,the
author argues that the formula for the success and longevity of
Byzantiumconsistedofastrongstate,mercilessoppressionofsepa-
ratistmovements,anti-Westernism,andthesymphonyofchurchand
state.HethussetsapoliticalagendaformodernRussia,whichseems
tohavebeenacceptedbytheKremlin.Thus,onOctober14,2014,a D
o
seminar at the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, an important w
n
think tank within the structure of the political regime in modern lo
a
d
Russia,discussedthetopic“TheStateandtheChurch:IsSymphony e
d
betweenThemPossibleToday?”Theconclusionoftheseminarwas fro
m
that some patterns of symphony from the Byzantine or medieval h
Russianpastarepossibleeventoday. ttp
Suchconclusionstendtointerpretsymphonyasimmanenttothe ://jc
s
easternChristiantraditionsasanontologicalcategorythatisperti- .ox
fo
nenttothenatureofthechurchandarebasedonthespeculativecon- rd
jo
structionsofByzantium.Sometimestheauthorsoftheconstructions u
rn
are fully aware that they tailor the Byzantine past to their current als
political expedience, and sometimesthey do not even suspect how .org
wrong they are in their assumptions regarding the patterns of a/
t B
church–state relations in the period, which they consider a golden ib
age for these relations. The modern interpretations of symphony lio
te
thatstandbehindthenewmodelsofchurch–staterelationsinsuch qu
e
countries as Romania and Russia present the relationship between d
e
thechurchandstateasaharmonyofequalpartners.Thus,theofficial la
S
spokesmanfortheRussianChurch,Fr.VsevolodChaplin,articulated orb
o
thevisionoftheleadershipofthischurchregardingsymphonyinthe n
n
e
followingstatement: o
n
M
a
TheChurchfeelsitselfasubjectequaltothestate,withitsownlaws,admin- rc
h
istration,thedecision-makingmechanisms,withthecorrespondingideas 2
2
abouttheequalityofrepresentativesofthechurchandstateintheterms , 2
ofprotocol.Ifaminorofficialcallsabishoptoreporttohim,itshouldbe 01
explainedthathebehavesinanabsolutelywrongway.5 6
4. See ZoeKatrinaKnox, RussianSocietyandtheOrthodoxChurchReligionin
Russia after Communism (London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005);
ThomasBremer,CrossandKremlin:ABriefHistoryoftheOrthodoxChurchin
Russia(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2013).
5. See http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=60905, published on
November11,2015.
2
IstheByzantine“Symphony”PossibleinOurDays?
WasThereaByzantineSymphony?
TheoriginalByzantinesymphony,however,wasquitedifferentfromits
modernimitations.Firstofall,theByzantinesdidnotcalltherelation-
shipbetweentheirchurchandthestateasymphony.Inthemorethan
3,800 occurrences of the word symwvni´aand its variations in the
ThesaurusLinguaeGraecae,6therearealmostnoreferencestotherela-
tionshipbetweenthechurchandthestate.Duringtheentireperiodof
thesupposedsymphonybetweenthechurchandthestate,theirmodus
vivendiwasnotcalledsymphony.Symphonymeantotherthings,such
asagreement,apactorconcord,7aswellasconsentwithinthechurches Do
w
orwithinthepolity,butnotbetweenthem. nlo
Nevertheless,theharmoniousrelationshipbetweenthechurchand ad
e
d
thestateconstitutedthecoreofByzantinepoliticalphilosophyand fro
practice.ThefatheroftheidealByzantinemodelofchurch–staterela- m
tions,EusebiusofCaesarea(263–339),8usedtheword“symphony” http
in his writings more than any other Christian author. Surprisingly, ://jc
s
however, he never applied it to church–state relations. Symphony .o
x
forhimmeantotherthings,suchasconcordbetweenancientGreek fo
rd
wisdomandtheJewishrevelation,9betweentheOldandNewTesta- jo
u
ments,10andbetweenthepassagesoftheNewTestament.11Eusebius rn
a
wrotehowConstantinemadesurethatthebishopshadsymphonyin ls.o
mattersofdoctrine12andthatthepoliticalfiguresoftheempireactin arg/
symphony with each other.13 According to Eusebius, Constantine t B
alsotookcaretoensurethesymphonyofthenations,14butnotthe iblio
symphonybetweenchurchandstate. te
q
u
Eusebius expressed the relationship between church and state in e d
e
othercategories,butnotintermsofasymphony.Afterhavingunited la
withthechurch,theRomanEmpirebecameforhimtheearthlyincarna- So
tionofthedivineKingdom.15Eusebiusinterpretedtheconversionof rbo
n
n
e
o
6. Seehttp://www.tlg.uci.edu/. n M
7. G.W. H.Lampe,A Patristic Greek Lexicon(Oxford: Oxford ClarendonPress, a
rc
1961),1293. h
2
8. SeeStevenRunciman,TheByzantineTheocracy(Cambridge:CambridgeUni- 2
versityPress,2003),24. , 20
1
9. SeePraeparatioevangelicainK.Mras,EusebiusWerke,Band8:DiePraeparatio 6
evangelica(Berlin:AkademieVerlag,1954),14.1.1.2and14.5.3.9.
10. SeeDemonstratioevangelicainI.A.Heikel,EusebiusWerke,Band6:DieDem-
onstratioevangelica(Leipzig:Hinrichs,1913),9.1.11.1.
11. See Historia ecclesiastica in G. Bardy, Eus`ebe de C´esar´ee. Histoire
eccl´esiastique,vol.2(Paris:´EditionsduCerf,1955),10.2.2.
12. SeeVitaConstantiniinF.Winkelmann,EusebiusWerke,Band1.1:U¨berdas
LebendesKaisersKonstantin(Berlin:AkademieVerlag,1975),3.23.1.6.
13. SeeDelaudibusConstantiniinI.A.Heikel,EusebiusWerke,vol.1(Leipzig:
Hinrichs,1902),3.4.
14. Ibid.,17.12.
15. Ibid.,3.5;4.4.
3
JournalofChurchandState
the empire as an act of divine providence comparablewiththe most
importanteventsofthesacredhistoryofIsrael.Asaresultofthiscon-
version,thehistoryoftheworldendedinanalmostFukuyamansense.
Thisisbecauseallofthetroublesthatthechurchhadexperiencedwere
relegatedtothepast,andtheKingdompromisedbyChristhadfinally
arrived. The new relationship between the church and the empire,
accordingtoEusebius,becameaneschatologicalcategory.
Eusebius’stheologyofpoliticalpowerwashighlyspeculativeand
more Platonic16 than Aristotelian. He explored political realities
fromaboveasreflectionsofthedivinerealitiesandpaidmoreatten- D
o
tiontowhatthepolit1i´ashouldberatherthanwhatitwas.Hedidnot w
n
describethepoliticalrealitiesofhistimeanddidnotwanttoimprove lo
a
d
thembutattemptedtomakesenseofthemfromtheChristianper- e
d
spective.Hewasmoreanideologuethanahistorian. fro
m
EusebiusdevelopedhispoliticaltheologybydescribingConstantine’s h
reign (306–337) and by deconstructing his intentions. However, his ttp
description is not to be completely trusted. We do not really know ://jc
s
whatConstantineintendedwhenhelegalizedChristianity,transferred .ox
fo
his capital to Byzantion, convened an ecumenical council, and inter- rd
jo
fered in matters of Christian cult and dogma. Eusebius could not u
rn
reallyknowwhatwasgoingonatcourtbecausehewasnotthereand als
probablysawConstantineonlyafewtimesduringhislife.17Hisobser- .org
vationswerethereforethoseofanoutsider.18Thedistancebetweenhim a/
t B
andConstantine’skitchencabinetmadehimimaginethepoliticalpro- ib
cessestakingplaceinthecapitalinsteadofadequatelydescribingthem. lio
te
He compensated for his lack of knowledge with imagination. Thus qu
e
the Eusebian model of church–state relations was rather theoretical d
e
speculation. la
S
UnlikeforEusebius,thehistoryoftheRomanEmpireforConstantine orb
o
continued without disruption. Like his predecessors, Constantine’s n
n
e
main concerns were (1) to preserve control over the empire, (2) to o
n
enhanceitsintegrity,whichwasbeingcontinuouslychallenged,and M
a
(3) to make as many people as possible satisfied with his rule. The rc
h
secondandthirdpointswerepreconditionsforthefirst—theyguaran- 2
2
teedthattheemperorwasendowedwithaheavenlymandate,which , 2
0
1
meantthathisrulewasblessedbyGod.Constantinecertainlybelieved 6
thatChristianitywouldhelphiminhispursuitofthesegoals.
Inlinewithhispredecessors,Constantineconsideredthecultusas
themostsecurewaytoachievetheaforementionedaims.Thecultus
16. SeeMaryCunningham,FaithintheByzantineWorld(DownersGrove,IL:Inter-
VarsityPress,2002),52.
17. See Timothy David Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA:
HarvardUniversityPress,1981),261–75.
18. SeeTimothyDavidBarnes,Constantine:Dynasty,ReligionandPowerinthe
LaterRomanEmpire(Malden,MA:Wiley-Blackwell,2011),10.
4
IstheByzantine“Symphony”PossibleinOurDays?
brought together politics and religion and fosteredboth the public
goodandtheintegrityoftheRomanstate.ThisiswhyConstantine
imposed uniformity in the celebration of Christian holidays and
rites.Inparticular,heordainedthatEasterbecelebratedonthesame
day throughout the entire empire and that Sundays be observed as
major feasts. He converted old basilicas and built new ones to
worshipthetriuneGod.BecauseRomanbasilicaswerepublicspaces,
Christianworshipwentfrombeingafamilyandcommunityaffairto
apublicone.ConstantinetookspecialcareoftheleadersoftheChris-
tiancommunities,whoweretransformedfrompresbytersoftheircon- D
o
gregationsintothesacerdotesofthenewpublicreligion.Hemadethem w
n
as comfortable as possible in exercising the “sacred art” ( ratik lo
a
txnh),19whichhadalsobeenimportantintheRomancult.Thus,sym- de
d
phonyinitsoriginalConstantinianformhadadecidedlyritualdimen- fro
m
sion.Fromhisperspective,itstrengthenedtheintegrityoftheempire h
andenhancedhisownlegitimacy. ttp
TheemperorTheodosius(reigned379–395)combinedtheimagi- ://jc
s
nationofEusebiuswiththetechniquesofConstantine.LikeConstan- .ox
fo
tine,hecaredabouttheprestigeofhisauthority,theintegrityofthe rd
empire, and the welfare of his people.20 However, he took an extra jou
rn
stepforwardinpursuingtheseimperativesbyextendingtheunifor- als
mity of the cultus to the agreement of the opinions of his subjects .org
onmattersoffaith.Heintroducedtheuniformityofdoctrinalformu- a/
las as a criterion of loyalty to the Roman Empire.21 Some scholars t Bib
haveplacedhiminlinewiththeSpanishInquisitors22—ananachro- lio
te
nisticstatementthatisnonethelessnotdevoidofameasureoftruth. qu
e
For Theodosius, unity of doctrine secured his heavenly mandate d
e
andbecameaconditionfortheintegrityoftheempire.Hemadethe la
S
ideathatheresyisdetrimentaltosalvation—anotionthathadbeen orb
o
fullydevelopedbythattime—apartofhispoliticalagenda.Believing n
n
e
intheOrthodoxwaywasasinequanonforaperson’ssalvation.Inthe o
n
eraofTheodosius,thiscametomeanthatfortheempiretobesaved M
a
andpreserved,ithadtomaintainOrthodoxyoffaiththroughoutits rc
h
entireterritory.Justasheresyendangeredthesalvationofaperson, 2
2
so did it also threaten the integrity of the state. The unity of the , 2
0
1
empirewasrecastinsoteriologicalterms,notjustinpoliticalones. 6
Thesalvationoftheempiremeantpreservingitsunityandborders.
19. See Gilbert Dagron, Emperorand Priest: The Imperial Office in Byzantium
(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003),129.
20. SeeJohnMeyendorff,TheByzantineLegacyintheOrthodoxChurch(Crest-
wood,NY:St.Vladimir’sSeminaryPress,1982),44.
21. See Timothy David Barnes, From Eusebius to Augustine: Selected Papers,
1982–1993(Brookfield,VT:Variorum,1994),XXI,161.
22. See H.R.Trevor-Roper, TheRise ofChristianEurope (NewYork:Harcourt,
Brace&World,1965),36.
5
JournalofChurchandState
The very idea of the universality of the Pax Romana changed its
rationale—now it reflected the universal character of Christian
salvation.
Theodosius interpreted church–state symphony as the m´onoia
(like-mindedness) of his subjects on matters of faith. This was a
reduction of the Eusebian vision of the empire and of the very
notion of faith, which was downgraded towhat one believed about
the Trinity and the Incarnation. Under Theodosius, symphony
becameadoctrinalandethicalcategoryandturnedintoaprecondi-
tionforthesalvationofthestateandindividuals. D
o
IfthenameofJustinian(reigned527–565)indeed“hasbecomepro- w
n
verbial, like Joseph, and Judas, and Julius Caesar,” as G. P. Baker lo
a
statedinhispre–WorldWarIIstudyofthisemperor,23itisbecause de
d
hisnamesymbolizesthesymphonicmodelofchurch–staterelations fro
m
inByzantium.ThefamoussixthnovellafromhisCorpusiuriscivilis h
epitomized the concept of symphony as it had developed by the ttp
530s. In particular, it contains the Eusebian idea that the church ://jc
s
andtheempireboth“[proceed]fromoneandthesamesourceand .ox
fo
togetherprovid[e]theorganizingprinciplesofhumanlife.”Together rd
jo
withtheempire,thechurchsecures“abalancedharmony(consonan- u
rn
tiabona[symwvni´a gauh´])toensurewhatevermaybeofvaluetothe als
humanrace.”Thenovellacontainsoneofafewinstancesoftheword .org
“symphony”beingappliedtochurch–staterelations.ItconfirmsJus- a/
t B
tinian’sconcernsabouttheunityofdoctrine,whichprovides“great ib
favors. . .byGod.”24 lio
te
Justinian’sowncontributiontothedevelopmentoftheconceptof qu
e
symphony was that he made it law. From now on, the relationship d
e
between the church and the state was part of the legal corpus. la
S
Becauseofthis,Justiniancausedallimportantaspectsofchurchlife orb
o
toberegulatedbylaw.Ecclesiasticaltraditionsandconciliardecisions n
n
afterJustinianhadnolegalexistencebythemselves25—theyhadtobe e o
n
madelawsbyimperialdecree.Theythusturnedtocanons.Justinian’s M
a
symphony meant that constitutional, administrative, criminal, and rc
h
ecclesiasticallawswerecollectedunderoneroof. 2
2
Within the legal framework of Justinian’s symphony, the church , 2
0
1
receivedaprominentplace,whichwashigherthanthatofthepolitical 6
authorities including the emperor. The laws had to protect and
enhance the harmony between the church and the state. However,
as Steven Runciman remarked, it was “for the Emperor to secure
23. G.P.Baker,Justinian(NewYork:Dodd,Mead,1931),v.
24. W.KrollandR.Scho¨ll,Corpusiuriscivilis,vol.3(Berlin:Weidmann,1895,repr.
1968),36.7;OliverO’DonovanandJoanLockwoodO’Donovan,trans.,FromIre-
naeustoGrotius:ASourcebookinChristianPoliticalThought,100–1625(Grand
Rapids,MI:Eerdmans,1999),194.
25. SeeMeyendorff,TheByzantineLegacyintheOrthodoxChurch,49.
6
IstheByzantine“Symphony”PossibleinOurDays?
and supervise that harmony.”26 The emperors, including Justinian
himself, often interpreted symphony as their right to interfere in
mattersofecclesialadministrationanddoctrine.Theyalsoregarded
themselvesasakindofhieratic,priestlypersons.
SuchaninterpretationofsymphonyculminatedduringtheIsaurian
dynasty(711–802)andbecameembodiediniconoclasm.Unlikeother
imperialdoctrines,includingArianism,neo-Chalcedonianism,27and
monenergism-monothelitism,28 which were constructed by theolo-
gians and then promoted by imperial authority, iconoclasm was
inventedbytheemperors.Itwasdesignedtostrengthentheirprestige. D
o
Thelatentideaofthehieraticcharacterofimperialpower,whichhad w
n
beencommonamongtheByzantines,wasstressedanewbytheIsaur- lo
a
d
ians and brought to the forefront of Byzantine political theology. e
d
Emperor Leo III (717–741) famously claimed that he was both fro
m
“emperorandpriest”(basil1 6ka 1ry´61mi).29 h
Atitspeak,symphonybecamestrictlyhierarchical,withtheemper- ttp
orsatthetopofapyramidthatincludedboththechurchandthestate. ://jc
s
This hierarchism in the relationship between church and state was .ox
fo
justified by the author who hid his identity under the pseudonym rd
jo
of Dionysius Areopagite and was active at the end of the fifth and u
rn
the beginning of the sixth century. His synthesis of Neoplatonic als
ideas with Christianity enjoyed a wide reception in the Christian .org
world.Thissynthesishaddirectpoliticalimplicationsbecauseitjus- a/
t B
tifiedecclesialandpoliticalhierarchiesasreflectingthedivinehierar- ib
chy.Pseudo-DionysiustheAreopagiteeffectivelycontinuedtheline lio
te
of Eusebius, who had applied the Platonic idea of reflection to the qu
e
Roman Empire as mirroring the Kingdom of God. The followers of d
e
the Christian Neoplatonism articulated in the works of Pseudo- la
S
Dionysius presented the structure of the church and the state as orb
o
hierarchical because it reflected the hierarchical structure of the n
n
e
invisible world. Owing to Ps-Dionysius, symphony became inter- o
n
preted in Neoplatonic terms, with the emperor-led primacy over M
a
both the state and the church implementing the primacyof God. It rc
h
isnoteworthythatallmajorNeoplatonicauthors,suchasPlotinus,Por- 2
2
phyrius,Iamblichus,andfinallyProclus,onwhomPs-Dionysiusrelied, , 2
0
1
usedtheword“symphony”lavishly.30AlthoughneitherNeoplatonists 6
26. Runciman,TheByzantineTheocracy,46.
27. SeeCyrilHovorun,“Maximus,aCautiousNeo-Chalcedonian,”inTheOxford
Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, ed. Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil
(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2015),106–26.
28. SeeCyrilHovorun,“ControversyonEnergiesandWillsinChrist:BetweenPol-
iticsandTheology,”StudiaPatristicaXLVIII(2010):217–20.
29. SeeDagron,EmperorandPriest:theImperialOfficeinByzantium,158–66.
30. SeePlotinus,Enneades,inP.HenryandH.-R.Schwyzer,Plotiniopera,vol.1
(Leiden:Brill,1951),1.6.1.46cf;Porphyrius,E6t rmonik Ptolemai´oy p´omnhma,
7
JournalofChurchandState
norPs-Dionysiusappliedittopoliticalmatters,theyopenedadoorfor
thetheologicallegitimizationofthestructuresofpowerinByzantium.
Theyeffectivelyjustifiedtheclaimsoftheemperorstobeabovethe
state and the church and to enjoy some sort of priesthood. Thus,
accordingtoPs-Dionysius,thehigherabeinginthedivinehierarchy
is, the more this being partakes of the divine light and holiness.
According to this logic, it was natural for the emperors to consider
themselves priests and keepers of divine knowledge because they
belongedtothetopofthehierarchicalpyramid.
Suchaninterpretationofsymphonywasreflectedinanumberof D
o
later texts. Theodore Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch from 1185 to w
n
1199,wasoutspokenonthismatter,applyingtheNeoplatonichierar- lo
a
d
chyofbeingstotheByzantinecourt.Theemperorwasatthetopofthe e
d
political structure, and no one stood next to him. On a lower level, fro
m
Theodore placed the patriarchs and empresses. The patriarch’s h
exclusiveresponsibilitywaswhatBalsamoncalledthe“soul,”while ttp
theempress’swasthe“body.”Onlytheemperorhadresponsibility ://jc
s
forbothsoulandbody,asreflectedinthecourt’srituals: .ox
fo
rd
The service ofthe emperors includesthe enlighteningand strengthening jo
u
bothofsoulandbody:thedignityofthepatriarchsislimitedtothebenefit rn
a
ofsouls,andtothatonly(fortheyhavelittleconcernwithbodilywell-being); ls
.o
likewisethecareandthethoughtgiventosubjectsbytheempressissimply rg
directedtothewelfareofthebodyandonlytothat(forwomenaredevoidof a/
thepowerofgivingspiritualsuccour).Sothelampsoftheemperors[i.e.,the t B
ib
torchescarriedbeforethem]areencircledbydoublegoldencrowns;thoseof lio
thepatriarchsandtheempressbyasinglecoronet.31 te
q
u
e
d
InthelateByzantineperiod,symphonywasinterpretedastheconsent e
la
ofthechurchandthestateinrecognizingtheemperorastheirsupreme S
o
head. One of the rare occurrences of the word symwvni´ais in Nike- rb
o
n
phorosBlemmydes’sBasilik6 ndria´6,asithasbeentransmittedby n
e
GeorgesGalesiotes.Galesiotesspeaksaboutthesubjectsoftheking on
M
who praise and inaugurate him, “exclaiming in symwvni´a: this one a
[theking]isthewisest,themostgentle,andmadelikeGod.”32Although rch
2
2
inI.Du¨ring,Porphyrios.KommentarzurHarmonielehredesPtolemaios(Go¨teborg: , 20
1
Elanders,1932),35cf;Iamblichus,Theologoumenaarithmeticae,V.deFalco,[Iam- 6
blichi]theologoumenaarithmeticae,(Leipzig:Teubner,1922),30–31cf;Proclus,In
Platonisrempublicamcommentarii,inW.Kroll,ProcliDiadochiinPlatonisrempub-
licamcommentarii,vol.1(Leipzig:Teubner,1899),213cf.
31. TheodoreBalsamon,M1ltai toi pokri´s1i6,PG138,1070,inErnestBarker,
SocialandPoliticalThoughtinByzantium:FromJustinianItotheLastPalaeologus
(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1957),106.
32. Georgius Galesiotes, Metaphrasis “Regiae statuae,” in H. Hunger and
I.ˇSevˇcenko,DesNikephorosBlemmydesBasilik 6 ndria´6unddessenMetaphrase
von Georgios Galesiotes und Georgios Oinaiotes: Ein weiterer Beitrag zum Ver-
sta¨ndnis der byzantinischen Schrift-Koine (Vienna: O¨sterreichische Akademie
derWissenschaften,1986),37.5.
8
IstheByzantine“Symphony”PossibleinOurDays?
thechurchisnotmentionedhere,itsmembersareimpliedasmaking
theemperorsimilartoGod.
Insum,untiltheByzantinesymphonycollapsedtogetherwiththe
empire,itundertookalongjourneyfromtheeschatologicaldreams
of Eusebius to the absolute dominance of the emperors over the
church justified by Neoplatonic hierarchism. This transformation
wasepitomizedinthelettersentbyPatriarchAnthonyIVofConstan-
tinople (1389–1390, 1391–1397) to Grand Duke Basil I of Moscow
(reigned1389–1425).Theletterwassentin1393,whenthepolitical
authorityoftheByzantineemperorswasweakenedandfragmented D
o
andthenewrealityofachurchdeprivedoftheempirewaslurking. w
n
The patriarch, however, refused to acknowledge this reality. He lo
a
d
triedtoconvincethegranddukeofMoscowthatnothingwasgoing e
d
tochangeinthesymphonythatseemedeternal: fro
m
h
OncemorewithgriefIhaveheardthatyourhighnesshassaidcertainthings ttp
abouttheEmperorinderogation.. . .Thatisbad.TheEmperorisnotlike ://jc
s
localandprovincialrulersandsovereigns.TheEmperorsconvokedtheecu- .o
x
menicalcouncils;bytheirownlawstheysanctionedwhatthedivinecanons fo
saidaboutthecorrectdogmasandtheorderingoftheChristianlife;they rd
jo
determined by their decrees the order of the episcopal sees and set up u
rn
theirboundaries.ThechurchordainedtheEmperor,anointedhim,andcon- a
ls
secratedhimEmperorandAutocratofalltheRomans,thatis,ofallChris- .o
tainadnso.rMthyomdooxstdeexfaelntdederaannddhaovleynaguetroocfratthiescbhyutrhche.g3r3aceofGodtheeternal at Brg/
ib
lio
TheideasofEusebius,Theodosius,Justinian,Balsamon,andothers te
q
havebeencondensedinthisshortstatement,whichwaswrittenby ue
d
apersonwell-versedinthehistoryofByzantinepoliticalphilosophy. e
la
Attheendofthestatement,Anthonyconcludesthatitisimpossible S
o
forthechurchtobewithoutempire.Thisphraseunveilsthecoreof rb
o
n
the Byzantine symphony, which remained unchangeable when the n
e
other features of symphony changed. It is based on the idea of a on
M
singletheopoliticalbodyinwhichthechurchandthestateareinsep-
a
arablefromeachother.34 rch
2
2
, 2
0
1
6
ASingleTheopoliticalEntity
This idea is missing in most modern interpretations of symphony,
which presuppose that the church and the state are two entities
that interact with one another. This presupposition, however, does
notapplytoByzantium.AftertheconversionoftheRomanEmpire
33. RobertLeeWolff,“TheThreeRomes:theMigrationofanIdeologyandthe
MakingofanAutocrat,”Daedalus88,no.2(1959):299.
34. SeeDimitriStr´emooukhoff,“MoscowtheThirdRome:SourcesoftheDoc-
trine,”Speculum28,no.1(1953):86.
9
JournalofChurchandState
toChristianity,thechurchandthestatemergedforthemajorityof
theByzantinesintoasingletheopoliticalentity.Theycametoshare
thesameself-awarenessandwereconflatedintoasingletheopoliti-
cal subject. One of numerous illustrations of this conflation is the
caseofthebishopofAlexandriaCyrus(d.642).DuringtheArabinva-
sion of Egypt (639–642), he was also appointed the prefect of the
province, which meansthat he concentrated in his hands ecclesial,
civil, and military authority. He elaborated theological formulas to
reconcilewiththeanti-Chalcedoniangroups,orderedexecutionsof
thosewhodisagreedtoreconcile,andnegotiatedwiththebesiegers D
of the Egyptian cities.35 The Byzantine state-church continued the ow
n
Greco-Roman tradition of interpreting the state in religious terms lo
a
d
andtheofficialreligioninpoliticalterms.TheByzantineconflation e
d
of religion and politics into a single theopolitical entity can be fro
m
explainednotonlybythetraditionsoftheGreco-Romanpoliticalthe- h
ologybutalsobythesocialrealitiesoftheconvertedempire,where ttp
thesamepeoplefoundthemselvesbelongingsimultaneouslytothe ://jc
s
stateandtothechurch.Theywerenottwoseparategroups,butone .ox
fo
groupofpeoplewhowerecitizensofthestateandmembersofthe rd
jo
churchatthesametime.TheRomantraditionofcitizenship,which u
rn
requiredadherencetothepubliccult,onlyenhancedthesingle,undi- als
videdloyaltyoftheByzantinestothestateandtothechurch. .org
TheJewishideaofthedivinelysanctionedkingship,exemplifiedby a/
t B
suchfiguresasSolomonorDavid,alsoinspiredtheByzantinestocon- ib
sidertheirempireintermsofdivineProvidence.36Forthem,Byzan- lio
te
tiumwasacontinuationandculminationofboththesacredhistory qu
e
ofIsraelandthevenerablehistoryofRome.InChristianity,thetwo d
e
historieswereconflatedandthusbecametrulyuniversal—asuniver- la
S
salasonlytheKingdomofGodcanbe. orb
o
The Byzantines did not separate the church from the state but n
n
e
rather distinguished between them. Distinction is not separation— o
n
itdoesnotdivideasinglethingintopiecesbutpreservesitsintegrity. M
a
TheByzantineslearnedthisfromChristology.Christologicalcontro- rc
h
versiesbecameinspirationalforthepoliticalphilosophyoftheChris- 2
2
tian empire and supplied it with quite a few ideas. In effect, the , 2
0
1
models of church–state relations in the period of Late Antiquity 6
and the early Middle Ages can be articulated in Christological
terms.TheinfluenceofChristologicalcontroversiesonthedevelop-
mentofpoliticalthoughtgoesbacktoPaul’simageofthechurchas
the body of Christ.37 From the image of the church, Paul’s concept
of Christ’s body evolved into the concept of a single theopolitical
35. SeeCyrilHovorun,Will,ActionandFreedom(Leiden:Brill,2008),67–70.
36. SeeDagron,EmperorandPriest:theImperialOfficeinByzantium,98.
37. Eph1:22,1:23,3:10,3:21,5:23,5:24,5:25,5:27,5:29,5:32;Col1:18,1:24.
10