Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition Robert J. Penella Anthony Kaldellis. Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. xi, 468. $119.00. ISBN 978-0-521-87688-9 Anthony Kaldellis's book is about the problem of Hellenism in Byzantine self-identity. Part 1 ("Greeks, Romans, and Christians in Late Antiquity") looks back to the three foundations of Byzantinism; part 2 looks forward to "Hellenic Revivals in Byzantium" from the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries. The two parts are linked by an "interlude" titled "Hellenism in Limbo: The Middle Years (400–1040)." Offering what he announces as a new definition of Byzantium, Kaldellis explains it as a nation or nation-state, specifically "the nation-state of the Romans, a unified political community held together by a common 'custom' (ethos)" (76). He dismisses as inadequate the notions of Byzantium as an overgrown city-state, a multiethnic empire united by Christianity and loyalty to the emperor, or a universalist polity. He pushes the Roman basis of Byzantine identity to its limit, thereby stepping on the toes both of those who like their Byzantium Greek and of those who prefer to keep their Rome west of Greece. As an amateur of Byzantium—in the etymological as well as the common sense of the term—I shall await the reaction of specialists to Kaldellis's ambitious formulation, but to me it does seem very strongly argued. In passing, he remarks that Byzantium, with its Hellenic, Roman, and Christian foundations, and especially in the encounter it experienced between Hellenism and Christianity, is "the quintessentially western civilization" (2). Yet, as he himself acknowledges, "[t]he reception of the Greek, Roman, and Christian traditions has unfolded in different circumstances and diverse cultures, resulting in a wide array of values and priorities" (2). Most of us will continue to see Occidentalism and Byzantinism as related but different. Where is Hellenism as an identity in all of this? The answer is that, already by late antiquity, it had become problematized in the East by Romanism and especially by Christianity. For eastern Romans—or Byzantines—"Hellenes" came [End Page 554] to mean pagans, elite πεπαιδευμένοι, speakers of Greek (which, however, could also be referred to as the language of the "Romans"), inhabitants of mainland Greece, or the ancient Greeks. None of this was central to a collective Byzantine "Roman" identity. Yet despite the problematization of Hellenism and a fundamentally Roman identity, new Hellenic revivals and identities begin to emerge. Kaldellis looks to three movements, one in the eleventh century (essentially Michael Psellos); one in the twelfth century (especially John Tzetzes and Eustathios of Thessalonike) with its roots in Psellos's legacy; and one in the thirteenth century, following the western conquest of Constantinople in 1204. We must be careful to differentiate an exclusive elite Hellenism from a more collective Hellenic identity that could become ethnic or national. (The two poles of the latter are classical Greece and the modern Greek state.) Much of what Kaldellis calls revived Hellenism was elite. Yet in the twelfth century he sees elite activity that at least contains the seeds of a broader Hellenic identity, and in the thirteenth century the beginnings of an exploration of the idea of a national continuity with classical Greece. A "Greek vs. barbarian" categorizing emerges as an alternative to "Roman vs. barbarian" or "Christian vs. pagan," in which Hellenism is a positive opposite of barbarism rather than a negative opposite of Christianity. Also, a reactive anti-Latin Hellenism comes into play, especially after 1204. The western conquest of Constantinople destabilized eastern Roman identity—without, however, readily overthrowing it, though at least producing a modulated Romanism (cf. 379). If westerners, claiming the mantle of Rome, demeaningly called easterners "Graikoi," easterners began to think of themselves more and more as Hellenes, in a sense that would slowly broaden into something ethnonymic or nation-naming. A problem, to which Kaldellis is sensitive, is how to assess the connotation of an occurrence of the word "Hellene" in an elite text. Another problem is our ignorance of mass self-identity...