The New Justinian

I have been writing a history of the Middle Ages, meant for people who are interested, bright but not necessarily well-informed. It's going to have many pictures and maps, selected quotations by famous or interesting medieval people.

But not footnotes. I'm not going to use all the academic structure. I'm lazy, in poor health, and my intended readers wouldn't care.

Just today it occcured tp me that there are more than a few resemblances between the Roman (Byzantine) emperor and Justinian I (527-565 CE) and Donald Trump. Justinian is basically known for his conquest of important provinces that the empire had lost in the previous century and some spectacular official and religious art. Let's have a look at some of these accomplishments, and make some rough comparisons.

Gotta hand up by Dear Old Dad. Actually his predecessor was his UNCLE Justin who has to be accounted a self-made man. It would be ludicrous to attach the same adjective to the older man.

Persecution of heretics and Jews -- admittewly pretty standard activity of Christian and evew some pagan emperors; indulged in by the Persians, too. I'd rate "compiling an enemies list," reasonably comparable to persecution I'll state right at the beginning that I'm not inclined to give monarchs the benefit of the doubt, especially if they have reputations as great comquerors. especially when the ministers of the crown have no evidence and act on malice, to please the monarch.

Reconquest of Italy, Sicily, North Africa (Tunisia and part of Algeria). Justinian had very talented generals, Belisarius and Narses, but when war broke out with Persia resources ran short and Italy was wrecked. Comparison --too many wars?

The Art -- especially the basilica of Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) and the mosaics at Ravenna Justinian claimed credit for the basilica in grandiose terms by asserting his superiority to Solomon, who built the Temple of God at Jerusalem. That statement makes sense, since monuments of this sort are often credited to the people who finance them. Justinian however comes out on top in on taste. We can't be sure about Old Justinian's personal taste or influence on design (but do you really think he didn't have the final word on every aspect of the project?). The new emperor's taste seems to involve breaking old stuff he disapproves of and slapping more gold on things he thinks need it.

Showed contempt for the institutions and precedents of the Roman legal tradition. Sure, it's called the Code of Justinian, but he didn't write it. The lawyers who created it produced a lasting and influential compilation. Justinian's personal contribution to lawmaking included changing the laws of marriage to enable him, a respectable senator (appointed by Justin!), to marry a notorius actress/courtesan (Theodora). During his own reign he abolished the office of consul, the oldest and formerly the highest position in the state ever since the abolition of the kingship.

A contemporary speaks. Procopius, a courtier, wrote three works on the m Justinian regime, a massive book on the wars, a shorter the bbuildings and a third on the Secret History, which told the readers the TRUTH: the emperor was a demon.

Now Procopius in his public works comes across as very educated in the Greek classical tradition; his "secret" (real?) opinions make him look malicious or hysterical. I don't know if any writer or commentator who is part of the current regime, puts a good face on it, but will be revealed as hysterical when his true opinions are revealed in the post-Trump era. There will be a famous work on the current regime, but can it be written by a talented insider? Is there such a person? Hardly seems possible.

LOTS MORE COULD BE SAID.

Value judgments

I was rather taken by this summing-up of Warren Treadgold's review of A Companion to Byzantium (ed. Liz James), at The Medieval Review:

...After a period of decades when "value judgments" were often discarded out of hand, some scholars are again ready to say that some Byzantine art is poorly executed, although few seem to be equally comfortable with saying that some Byzantine literature is poorly written.  While this expansion of the discussion is good for art history, the absence of such an expansion is bad for literary history.
Serious literary criticism is impossible if we cannot consider whether Byzantine authors succeeded in what they set out to do, or whether what they set out to do was worth doing (at least for some purpose besides advancing themselves by vapid praise of the emperor), or whether even they believed that what they were doing was an inferior form of literature (as was the case for most works in "popular" Greek, including hagiography).  This point is obviously related to the question of historical decline: we need to entertain the possibility that in some periods the level of artistic or literary achievement was higher or lower than in others, just as in some periods the level of economic prosperity or military or administrative efficiency was higher or lower than in others.  Even if such conclusions remain controversial, they are apparently becoming harder to dismiss as "outdated" without reflection or discussion.

A clip from Teodora, imperatrice di Bisanzio (1954)

The legends of the Empress Theodora were pretty extreme back in the 6th century, back when she was alive. But you can always count on a modern filmmaker to add more:


Here's another short piece:



The actor playing Theodora was Wilma Aris; I don't know who played Justinian, but he looked the part.

Thanks to Paul Halsall for the tip.