Advertisement

Beginnings (324–1071)

  • Philip Longworth

Abstract

The formation of Eastern Europe, the region we recognize today on account of its distinctive mix of characteristics, began after the year 330 when Constantine the Great, unifier of the Roman Empire and the first Emperor to embrace Christianity, inaugurated ‘New Rome’ (also called Byzantium and Constantinople) as the new imperial capital.

Keywords

Ninth Century Eleventh Century Religious Struggle Jewish Merchant Byzantine Empire 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 2 vols (Oxford, 1964); G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, (Oxford, 1980); also S. Runciman, Byzantine Civilization (London, 1961). A useful introduction is P. Whitting, (ed.) Byzantium (Oxford, 1981).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    On Pliska, R. Browning, Byzantium & Bulgaria (London, 1975); on the relevance of the Sarkel digs, A. Bartha, Hungarian Society in the 9th and 10th Centuries (Budapest, 1975) pp. 12–15 and n. 50, p. 33.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See M. Gimbutas, The Slavs (London, 1971) especially pp. 80–97 and 109–30.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.W. Thompson, Novgorod the Great: Excavations at the Medieval City (New York, 1967); A. Mongait, Archaeology in the USSR (Gloucester, Massachusetts, 1970).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.g., Bartha, op. cit., pp. 49–54; and infra, n. 14.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See R.W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (Harmondsworth, 1972) pp. 91–3.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Dvornik, ‘Constantinople and Rome’ in J. Hussey (ed.), The Cambridge Medieval History [hereafter CME], vol. V, pt.1 (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 437–8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ostrogorsky, op. cit., pp. 127–8.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Kazhdan, People and Power in Byzantium (Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, 1982) pp. 34–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Kazhdan and A. Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley, California, 1990) pp. 6 and 79. Realism was revived to an extent in the later middle ages, however.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Teggart, Rome and China: a study of Correlations in Historical Events (Berkeley, California, 1939).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    For convenient account of Slav pre-history, see Gimbutas, op. cit..Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Procopius, Secret History, trans. R. Attwater (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1961), pp. 40–1.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Browning, op. cit., p. 126.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The notion of the genetic ‘purity’ of the Greeks was first challenged by J. Fallmerayer who went too far in the other direction. See A. Bon, Le Peloponeese byzantin jusqu’en 1204 (Paris, 1951) and J. Fine, The Early Medieval Balkans (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1983) pp. 59–64.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See A. Buda et al, Problems of the Formation of the Albanian People, Their Language and Culture (Tirane, 1984).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Gartner, Darstellung der Rumanischer Sprache (Halle, 1904) pp. 121–35.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Cross, The Russian Primary Chronicle (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1953).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Ostrogorsky’s views on the theme (The Cambridge Economic History of Europe [hereafter CEHE], vol. I, Cambridge 1966, pp. 207ff.) has been challenged, see P. Lemerle, The Agrarian History of Byzantium (Galway, 1979) pp. 58–65.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    See the treatments in the works mentioned in note 1 supra; also R. Jenkins, Byzantium: the Imperial Centuries 610–1071 (London, 1966) pp. 74–89.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    For an early formulation of the notion, see Cosmas Indicopleustes, The Christian Topography, trans. J. McGrinde (London, 1897).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See Constantine VII ‘Porphyrogenitos’, Le Livre des Ceremonies, ed. A. Vogt, Paris 1935, 1939–40.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    One speculates that this importance attached to appearance may have been related to the practice of mutilating rivals to the throne (particularly relatives) since, if an emperor, as the mirror of heavenly authority, had to be unblemished, mutilation would disqualify him from the throne — though this evidently did not apply in the case of the ‘noseless Emperor’ Justinian II (685–95 and 705–711). An emperor’s deportment and demeanour were certainly important. Perhaps this led to elite insistence on proper bearing and manners.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    See A. Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom (Cambridge, 1970); D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth (New York, 1971); also Browning, op. cit. and infra.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The origin of the Croats is a subject of contention, but they seem to have been a people of mixed, predominately Iranian-Alan origin: S. Guldescu, History of Medieval Croatia (The Hague, 1964) pp. 40ff..Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Such is the inference to be drawn from Hadrian II’s letter of 868–9 to Rastislav and others, approving the use of Slavonic as a fourth liturgical language after Greek, Latin and Hebrew. See F. Dvornik, Byzantine Missions among the Slavs (New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1970) pp. 102–3.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ibid., pp. 53ff..Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    On Glagolitic, see inter alia, L. Leger in Grand Larousse, vol. 18, pp. 1057–9. Glagolitic was to remain popular in Dalmatia for many centuries though elsewhere it was superceded by Cyrillic or, in the case of the West Slavs, Latin script.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    On the background and the circumstances of the attack, see G. Vernadsky, Ancient Russia (New Haven, Connecticutt, 1944).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    The expression was coined by D. Obolensky, op. cit..Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cyril is said to have learned Hebrew for the mission, but the brothers may already have had some acquaintance of it coming, as they did, from Thessalonika which had a large Jewish community. In any case Hebrew was a canonical language.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Among many accounts see that of Browning, op. cit., who pays attention to the specific problems of state-formation.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dvornik, Byzantine Missions, op. cit., pp. 230ff..Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    See I. Fodor, In Search of a New Homeland: the Prehistory of the Hungarian People and the Conquest (Budapest, 1982).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dvornik, Byzantine-Missions, op. cit., pp. 194–229.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    E.g. Theophlact of Ohrid, see D. Obolensky, Six Byzantine Portraits (Oxford, 1988) pp. 58–61.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reference mislaid.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    F. Dvornik, The Making of Central and Eastern Europe (London, 1949) pp. 25–30 and passim.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    G. Vernadsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven, Connecticutt 1948) pp. 28–46.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cross, op. cit., p. 86.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ibid., p. 111.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vernadsky, Kievan, op. cit., pp. 56–70.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    On the Polish Church prior to 1000 see H. Lowmianski, ‘Baptism and the Early Church Organization’ in J. Kloczowski, The Christian Community of Medieval Poland (Wroclaw, 1981) pp. 27–56.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dvornik, Making, op. cit., pp. 95–135 passim.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    See Z. Kosztolnyik, Five Eleventh Century Hungarian Kings (Boulder, Colorado, 1981) pp. 74–8.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    For the details see H. Gregoire in CME, vol. V, pt. 1, pp. 112–14 and passim; and Jenkins, op. cit., pp. 168ff.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dvornik in CME, loc. cit., pp. 457–8; Jenkins, op. cit., pp. 287–8.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    ‘Liutprandi legatio ad imperatorem’ in A. Bauer et al. (eds.), Quellen zur Geschichte der Sachsischen Kaiserzeit (Darmstadt, 1977) pp. 524–89; see also Southern, op. cit., pp. 68–72.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cerullarius’s epistle to Peter of Antioch, translation adapted from Kazhdan and Epstein, op. cit., Appendix, Ex.48, p. 260.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    J. Szucs, ‘The Three Historical Regions of Europe’, Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 29(2–4) (Budapest, 1983) pp. 132–3.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Even the celebrated Russian mir, or village assembly, did not arise spontaneously, but in response to the state requiring communal responsibility for taxation — see R.E.F. Smith, Peasant Farming in Russia (Cambridge, 1977).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    M. Postan in J. Barraclough (ed.), Eastern and Western Europe in the Middle Ages (London, 1970) p. 170.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    M. Postan in CEHE, vol. II: Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages, (Cambridge, 1987) p. 228.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    See A. Gieysztor, ‘Trade and Industry in Eastern Europe before 1200’, CEHE, vol. II, op. cit., pp. 474–524, especially pp. 474, 505 and 511.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ostrogorsky, op. cit., p. 254.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Baedeker, Russia (Leipzig, 1914) p. xlii.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Philip Longworth 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Longworth
    • 1
  1. 1.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations