mail: Bill Thayer	Italiano	Help	Up	Home
II.3 This text has not yet been proofread. If you find a mistake though, please let me know! III, outline

H. B. Cotterill
Medieval Italy

CHAPTER IV
JUSTINIAN

During the first eight years of his reign Justinian had but little direct connexion with Italy, and although after 535, during a third of a century, the history of that unfortunate country was made principally by the desperate struggles of Goths against Byzantines and by a brief Byzantine supremacy, nevertheless the annals of the Byzantine court have by no means the importance for a writer on Italy that they have for one who is tracing the course of the so‑called Roman Empire from the fall of Rome in 476 to the theoretical extinction of the genuine imperial title on its usurpation by a woman at Constantinople and its theoretical1 revival at Rome in the person of Charles the Great — or for one who is intending to follow the fortunes of the so‑called Byzantine Emperors till the capture of Constantinople by the Turks.

It will therefore suffice if I give a brief account of Justinian's personality and surroundings, and dwell a little longer upon two subjects in connexion with which his influence affected the history of Italy and of European civilization, namely, legislation and architecture.

It will be remembered how Justinian, a Dardanian peasant of obscure race, accompanied as a lad his uncle Justin to Constantinople, and how ultimately Justin was proclaimed Emperor, and left the throne to his nephew. Some six years before he received the imperial diadem Justinian was made Consul by his uncle, now an old man of over seventy years. It was characteristic of the younger man's love of display and his methods of courting popularity that this event was rendered more than usually conspicuous by splendid shows — not of gladiators, for such combats had long been abolished even at Rome, and had never been allowed at Constantinople, but of almost equally disgusting contests of ferocious wild beasts. Henceforth he assumed a large share in the government, and in 527, when at the age of forty-five he was proclaimed an Augusta, Justin gave over the reins entirely into his hands, and died shortly afterwards.

Some years before his election as Consul Justinian had conceived a passionate affection for a woman named Theodora, whose career, as described by Procopius, or whoever may be the author of the Anecdota, offers the most astonishing example of indescribable profligacy combined with qualities that proved capable of permanently securing the devoted affection of a good, if rather purblind and self-satisfied, man, and apparently also the submissive acquiescence, if not the respect, of the people, though that people was called upon to reverence as their Empress one who, as an actress in licentious comedy, had been wont to expose her person with incredible shamelessness to the laughter and applause of the crowded theatre.

If we may believe the author of the Anecdota, Theodora was a daughter of a Cyprian who was 'bear-keeper' to the Byzantine Circus. After a girlhood spent amid such scenes as have been described, and many others that are indescribable, she accompanied some official of high rank to Egypt. Being repudiated by him on account of her immoralities, she spent some years in the East, occupied in no very honourable fashion, and at length returned to Constantinople, where she seems to have adopted a more decent style of life, possibly with the object of securing a husband. This object she successfully attained, for Justinian, then at the prime of life, and as Patrician and perhaps Consul, already the most important man in the Eastern Empire, not merely fell desperately in love with her, but was so determined to make her his wife, and his future Empress, that, after the death of Justin's consort (whose upbringing as a simple Dardanian maiden made her a severe judge,) he persuaded his uncle to pass a law legitimizing such marriages; and soon afterwards he celebrated his nuptials (c. 525). Moreover, when he was crowned as Emperor he not only caused an imperial diadem to be placed on her head by the patriarch, but he 'seated her on the throne,' says Gibbon, 'as an equal and independent colleague in the sovereignty of the Empire; and an oath of allegiance was imposed on the governors of the provinces in the joint names of Justinian and Theodora.' Inspired by this affectionate respect, to which he seems to have remained constant during the twenty-four years of his married life, he even attributed the wisdom of many of his laws2 to the 'sage counsel of his most revered consort, whom he had received as a gift from the Deity.'

On the other hand, she is described, not only by the author of the Anecdota but by various orthodox writers, as a fiend of hell. She is accused of the foulest crimes, such as the murder of her only son3 and of many distinguished persons, not a few of whom are said to have ended their existence in her secret subterranean dungeons and torture-chambers. She is also accused of what was thought far worse — of heretical proclivities and of an insolence so audacious that it allowed her to contradict and otherwise worry even the Pope himself. But it is only fair to add that she is known to have spent money very lavishly for charitable purposes, one of which purposes was the foundation of a large Refuge or Penitentiary for Magdalenes. Monasteries and hospitals received her liberal support, and many churches — among which were S. Vitale at Ravenna and Sta. Sofia at Constantinople — were indebted to her generosity. Moreover, whatever may have been her failings, or even her crimes, we cannot deny that she possessed courage, and that her courage on the occasion of the famous Nika tumult4 saved her lord and master from cowardly flight, and probably from an ignominious death. She bade him flee, if so he wished, but refused to do so herself, vowing she would die rather as an Empress.

As for her personal appearance, the face of Theodora is described in the Anecdota as pale and strikingly handsome, with eyes that flashed 'furious and concentrated' glances (Susan note-GREEK). In stature she was somewhat short (GREEK), but otherwise her figure was of the most exquisite proportions and every movement indescribably graceful. It may be noted in passing that in the Ravenna mosaic (of which more later) her height exceeds that of all her court ladies, and even that of the attendant ecclesiastics.

Whatever glory Justinian may have gained in the opinion of his contemporaries, or in the opinion of such as Dante, by the triumphs of his arms in Africa and Italy — triumphs which owed very little to him, seeing that his really disgraceful neglect and still more disgraceful jealousy again and again ruined the opportunities of his best general — it is unquestionably through his laws, or rather through the codification of Roman law — what Dante calls 'mending the bridle of Italy' (Purg. vi, 58) — that he merits the gratitude of posterity.

In the Paradiso (vii, 6) Dante describes the spirit of Justinian as one on which a twofold light is thrown — i.e. the glory of the warrior and the legislator. In the sixth canto Justinian's spirit gives Dante a magnificent description of the victorious progress of the Roman Eagle from the days of Aeneas to those of Charles the Great, and speaks thus of himself: 'I was Caesar and am now Justinian [i.e. no longer with an earthly title here in heaven], who from the laws took away the useless and redundant. And ere I became intent on this work I believed there to be in Christ one nature, not more [that is, he was a Monophysite, or Eutychian, like Theodora], and with this faith I was content; but blessed Agapetus, who was the supreme pontiff, directed me by his words to the pure faith. As soon as with the Church I moved my feet it seemed good to God in His grace to inspire me with this high task, and I gave myself wholly to it; and arms I left to my Belisarius, whom heaven's right hand so manifestly helped that it was a sign that I should repose.' Repose he certainly did in regard to war, being content to reap where others sowed, but his activities in some other respects were notable.

The Corpus Juris which was compiled by his commissioners is still accepted as the main authority for Roman law as practised in Europe. These commissioners, presided over by a certain Tribonian, a Pamphylian savant of literary accomplishments equal to those of a Pico Mirandola or a Bacon, performed during the years 530‑33 the enormous task of drawing up the CODEX of imperial Constitutiones (edicts, decrees, etc.) in twelve books, the PANDECTAE (' All-containers' — a compendium of some two thousand volumes of the old laws and senatus-consulta of Rome reduced to a digest of fifty books), and a shorter manual in four books called the INSTITUTIONES. In addition to this huge body of law, which was republished much amplified within six years, Justinian, somewhat unfortunately issued in later years (535‑65) very numerous Novellae (New Statutes), supplementing or modifying the laws of his Code — and frequently modifying them so as to legalize his extortions or those of Theodora; and in this he is said to have relied greatly on the co-operation of his Pamphylian president, Tribonian. The three chief works are composed in a silver-age Latin of remarkable quality. The Novellae are mostly in Greek. A manuscript copy of the Pandects that perhaps dates from the reign of Justinian, and certainly not later than the seventh century, is one of the treasures of the Laurentian Library5 at Florence. It is said to be the original from which all the other existing MSS. of the work are derived. In 1127 it was brought from Amalfi by the Pisan fleet, and after Pisa had been taken by the Florentines in 1406 it was transported to Florence. Its rich binding, mentioned by Gibbon, was stolen in 1783 (just about the time when Gibbon was writing his account of the Pandects) by the Grand duke Peter Leopold, who sold it for thirty deniers.

It was, as Dante tells us, while Justinian was occupied with this legislative work that he began to free his mind from heretical errors and to move his feet with the pacings of the orthodox Church. If it was Pope Agapetus through whose influence this was achieved, it must have happened in 535 — the very year in which Ostrogothic Italy was invaded by Justinian's Byzantine troops from the north and by Belisarius and his African veterans from the south. Ere long the busy mind of the Emperor, ever on the alert to formulate, and to impose its formulae on the world, was so wholly engrossed by abstruse doctrinal problems that nothing else was regarded — neither the pitiable state of Italy, devastated by war and famine and pestilence, nor the grievances and miseries of the Byzantine provinces, which were drained of their wealth by the intolerable taxation necessary to cover the lavish expenditure of public money. The supreme legislator whose laws were of so little use to his own people, was now fired by the ambition to become the supreme Christian dogmatist of his age. 'Our chief solicitude,' he says in an epistle written about this time, 'has been turned towards the true dogma of the Faith.'

Applying with special emphasis to his own case the theory of the divine right of monarchs, he regarded his power as directly delegated by heaven and in no wise derived from the suffrage of the army, the Senate, or the people, and as the delegate, or vicar, of the Deity he felt empowered to ignore the decrees of synods and of Popes, and to recognize as alone of any authority a general Council summoned by himself. Such a line of conduct, vigorously imitated by Belisarius, who deposed a Pope, and by Narses, who shipped recalcitrant bishops off to Constantinople, could not but excite the most vehement opposition on the part of the ecclesiastics, and especially on the part of the Roman Church.

Matters were made worse by the discovery, either made by Justinian himself, or imparted to him by some meddling Eastern prelate, that a century before, in the resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon (451), three Oriental bishops had managed to insinuate three distinct affirmations which emitted a perceptible odour of heresy. In his righteous indignation Justinian assumed the powers of excommunication and in the name of the Trinity anathematized these 'Three Clauses,' calling upon the faithful to accept the version proposed by himself. But neither orthodox nor heterodox showed any sign of acquiescing in this appropriation of papal thunderbolts. Finally the incensed Emperor summoned Pope Vigilius to Constantinople. This Pope (after the death of good old Agapetus and the deposition of his successor by Belisarius) had been placed on the chair of St. Peter by the influence of Theodora, who expected much from his professed leanings towards Monophytism, the form of heresy specially favoured by her; but he deceived her hopes, showing an inclination to support the ultra-orthodox zeal of her converted husband, and at Constantinople, which he reached shortly before, or shortly after, her death (July 1, 548), he published a condemnation of these notorious 'Three Clauses.'

But the tempest that abdication of his rights aroused among the Catholics of the West caused him to retract and to oppose the Emperor's claims to spiritual jurisdiction. The result was that he was imprisoned on an island in the Sea of Marmora, and it was not till the sixth year of his exile (554) that, having once more anathematized the heretical clauses, he was allowed to return to Italy. This however he never reached, for he died on his journey thither, at Syracuse. Doubtless the submission of Vigilius and Justinian's friendly feelings towards the next Pope — the 'deacon Pelagius' — exercised for a time of favourable influence on the relations of the Emperor with the Roman Church, and one result of these improved relations was evidently the so‑called Pragmatic Sanction, a decree which was intended to safeguard civil and ecclesiastical authority in Italy against the encroachments of the military power, and which gave the Church some important judicial prerogatives.

These dreary religious discords may seem to have for us very little interest, but, however trivial they may be in themselves, they have historical importance. Even in our own age doctrinal diversity, more perhaps than radical difference of creeds, is sometimes a dangerous solvent of political unity, and in the age of Justinian the problem of government was very largely affected by such influences. The enmity which existed between the various Christian sects was more rancorous and embittered than had been the hostility of the Church against paganism, and no political unity was to be hoped for without uniformity in doctrinal questions. That Justinian's main object was to attain such uniformity cannot be doubted, but, like Zeno with his Henotikon, he only succeeded in widening schisms; and more especially widened was the gulf between the East and the West — a gulf that a few generations later was rendered impassable by the outbreak of the fierce and long-continued quarrel about the cult of images. Moreover, Justinian's religious mania had a most momentous, and perhaps disastrous, effect on the fortunes of Italy, for it caused him to neglect shamefully the well-being and defence of the newly reconquered diocese of his Empire, and thus it was one of the chief influences that prepared the way for the coming of the Lombards.

In a later chapter I shall touch on some of the characteristics of that style in architecture and decorative art the presence of which in Italy is mainly due to the prolonged occupation of some of the country by the Byzantines. Here I shall briefly mention some of the buildings erected by Justinian, or in his reign, and describe a well-known mosaic which offers us his portrait and that of Theodora.

In his book on the buildings of Justinian Procopius describes or mentions a very large number of churches, palaces, aqueducts, hospitals, bridges, and other edifices erected by the Emperor,6 or under his auspices, not only in Constantinople but in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and other parts of Africa. The book was evidently written not long after the death of Theia and the return of Procopius to Constantinople (p. 182) and before Byzantine supremacy had been firmly re‑established in Italy. This probably explains the fact that no Italian buildings are mentioned.

In and around Constantinople Justinian built, or rebuilt, about twenty-five churches, many of which were richly decorated with marbles and mosaics. Most were doubtless in the new 'Byzantine' style, which was superseding the old basilica style, and of these the chief was the great cathedral church dedicated to the Sacred Wisdom (Hagia Sophia) of God and generally known as the church of St. Sophia, or St. Sofia.7 A basilica of the same name had been built by Constantine on the same site. It had been burnt during the tumults caused by the patriarch Chrysostom, and a second edifice, a basilica with a wooden roof, was likewise destroyed by fire during the Nika riots, of which I have lately made mention. The St. Sophia of Justinian still exists — that is, the building as restored by him after an earthquake which caused the collapse of much of its first great dome. The plan of this magnificent church (now — and to remain how long? — a Turkish mosque) was devised, it is said, by Anthemius of Tralles, one of five brothers of equally high renown in their various professions. Its glories, not a few of which are hidden or disfigured by Turkish fanaticism, were graphically intimated by Justinian's exclamation, 'I have vanquished thee, O Solomon!' Its architecture will be discussed when we come to the subject of Byzantine art.

Among the many other churches built by Justinian in Constantinople was a new edifice, in Byzantine style, erected on the site of the ancient Constantinian church of the Holy Apostles. It has disappeared, but its memory is rendered interesting by the fact that it was the model on which was built St. Mark's five-domed cathedral at Venice. To Justinian is due also the Byzantine church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, which, like S. Vitale at Ravenna, has a central octagon, whose eight arches are surmounted by a great dome. This S. Vitale is another very famous, still extant, church connected closely with the name of Justinian. It is of earlier date than St. Sophia (which was begun in 532) and is a Byzantine church of the 'central type,' constructively so like the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus that very possibly the plans for Theoderic's Ravenna church, and perhaps the workmen, were procured from Anthemius, or some other Eastern architect; and it so happens that the very man who, as the mosaics inform us,8 presided over the erection of S. Vitale, namely, Archbishop Ecclesius, was in Constantinople just a year before the church was founded; for, as we have already seen (p. 133), King Theoderic in the year 525 sent envoys to the Eastern court, and among these envoys, besides Pope John, was Ecclesius himself. His conduct at Constantinople evidently satisfied the Arian monarch better than that of the unfortunate Pope, for shortly after his return, and probably before Theoderic's death, he began this splendid Byzantine church, which, despite many restorations, retains something of its original beauty and magnificence. Of especial beauty are its marble columns, with their exquisitely carved capitals, and of indescribable richness are its mosaics.

Some of these magnificent mosaics were evidently put up during the life of Ecclesius (d. 534), for he is represented in them without nimbus — i.e. as still living. Moreover this apse-mosaic, like the groups of angels in S. Apollinare Nuovo (p. 170), distinguishes itself very strongly from most of the others by its simple and impressive grandeur, such as we find in the earlier mosaics both in Ravenna and in Rome. The others are characterized by the gorgeousness of apparel and the inartistic execution that are usual in Byzantine mosaics. These belong to the period following the capture of Ravenna (540) by Belisarius and the Byzantines, and were doubtless paid for by Justinian and Theodora, who are known to have subscribed largely for the decoration of S. Vitale. It is therefore not surprising that among these later mosaics we should have the portraits of the Emperor and the Empress, and from the nimbus with which each is adorned we may infer (though by no means certainly) that the mosaics were finished after 548, the date of Theodora's death, if not after Justinian's death is 565. Justinian is represented as offering a golden casket full of jewels or money to the treasure of the church and is attended by Archbishop Maximian, who consecrated the building in 547. Theodora,9 attended by her ladies, is bringing as her offering a large chalice and is on the point of entering the church door, near which stands the symbolical font.

One more church, S. Apollinare in Classe, may here be mentioned in connexion with Justinian, for, although there may be no certain proof, it is very probable that he was personally interested in its completion, as it was built between the years 535 and 538 by the successor of Ecclesius,10 and was, like S. Vitale, consecrated by Maximian. The town and harbour of Classe have, as has been related in a former chapter, completely disappeared, and this grand basilica of S. Apollinare stands now, like the ancient Greek temples at Paestum, in almost total solitude. Perhaps there is no other building in the world — certainly no ancient Christian church — so impressive.

Externally it has no beauty and grandeur comparable with that of a Greek temple or a Northern cathedral, although the old campanile standing in silent dignity amidst the water‑lily-covered pools and swampy fields of that lonely marshland haunts one's memory; but internally this old basilica (for though it has some Byzantine details it is a genuine basilica) is one of the most majestic and most beautiful in existence.11

---

The Author's Notes:

1 To whatever conclusion theories may lead us, it was the general belief of the Middle Ages that the Roman Empire did still exist. Perhaps that should settle the question for us.

❦

2 Thus in one of his many Novellae, or supplementary laws (viii, I), quoted by Gibbon.

❦

3 The youth, left behind as an infant in the East, presented himself, it is said, at the palace in Constantinople in order to claim relationship, and was never seen again. Gibbon seems to believe the story. A daughter of Justinian and Theodora is said to have died in infancy.

❦

4 For a vivid account of the celebrated four factions, or racing-clubs, of the Roman Circus (white, red, green, and blue) and the exceedingly serious disorders caused by their murderous feuds, see Gibbon, x1, 2, and the commentators on Juvenal, Sat. xi, 193 sq. — a passage which, mutatis mutandis, is wonderfully up to date. The exclamation Nika means 'Conquer!'

❦

5 In connexion with the church of St. Lorenzo, founded by St. Ambrose, rebuilt by Brunelleschi, and famous for Michelangelo's statues.

❦

6 'Cemented by the blood and treasure of his people' is Gibbon's, possibly not altogether fair, comment. Justinian seems not to have built baths or theatres.

❦

7 The Parthenon at Athens had already been dedicated as a church to 'Hagia Sophia.'

❦

8 In the grand mosaic of the apse he is represented with a model of the church in his hand.

❦

9 Her diadem, set with great pearls and precious stones, is evidently of the same profusely decorated type as that of the much later Imperial Crown (see Fig. 19 and explanation). The head-dress with its long pendants and the collar, or rather the broad cape, all thickly bejewelled (such as one sees also in many ivory carvings of the period), follow the newer fashion, which instead of the broad and heavy golden necklace introduced the maniakon — i.e. a textile collar, or cape, profusely set with jewels and fringed with pendants.

❦

10 The archbishops are regarded as the 'builders,' but the person who directed the work (not probably the architect of two such totally different buildings) was Julianus Argentarius ('the Treasurer'?). He perhaps stands behind Justinian in the mosaic.

❦

11 See also Index under 'Churches' and 'Mosaics.'