II. The Religious and Moral Character of the Byzantine Empire from the End of the Eleventh to the Middle of the Fifteenth Centuries

The study of the religious and moral character of Christian society at any time presents great difficulties. Morality and religiosity are facts not so much of the external, as of the internal, innermost life of man. The historian could only justifiably assert that he has sufficiently studied these subjects if he were able to penetrate into the soul and inner disposition of past generations, but as this is impossible, he has to be content only with the study of the external facts noted by the chroniclers, facts that are accidental, scattered, often contradictory, and transmitted by the narrators, perhaps very inaccurately.

One of the difficulties in studying the question is that in stories about the past, dark, unattractive features always come to the fore. This is understandable, for true morality and religiosity, if they are not expressed in high-profile feats, remain invisible, while vices and violations of the requirements of religion, due to the inherent human desire to find faults in others in order to justify one's own shortcomings, are retold in different ways and very often in an exaggerated form. As a result, historians who described the former time more vividly note the religious and moral shortcomings of society than its merits and virtues. This is not enough. The historian of our time has at his disposal many such documents, from which he can extract only information about the unattractive aspects of the life of society in this or that century. Such are the records of the trials. In any such record there are many indications of certain offenses and immoral actions of members of society, but they say nothing, in the very essence of the documents, about virtues and bright phenomena in the sphere of the moral life of society. Neither panegyric speeches nor descriptions of famous ascetics can fill this gap, for panegyric speeches very rarely give a correct assessment of the depicted personalities, and descriptions of ascetics deal with exceptional phenomena.

Even the philosopher Seneca said: "We complain, the ancestors complained, and the descendants will complain that morals have deteriorated and everything sacred has been trampled upon." This is a very correct remark. It is applicable not only to the pagan, but also to the Christian world. With the exception of the first two centuries of Christian history (and even here we must not lose sight of the phenomenon of Montanism, which arises in part from the same causes as later monasticism, from a protest against the moral relaxation of the Christian life), the moralist remains dissatisfied with the life of Christians of all times.

After all this, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the historian who describes the history of Christian morality for the period from the end of the eleventh to the middle of the fifteenth centuries, during the period of the obvious and indisputable decline of the Byzantine state, in almost all respects, on the one hand, cannot but complain about the decline of public morality, and on the other hand, is compelled to paint more sad pictures of moral depravity. than gratifying pictures of moral height and religious perfection.

In any case, the historian in question cannot claim that he has quite correctly understood the side he is describing and has unmistakably revealed it. No historian of the moral relations of this or that age can boast that he has penetrated into the depths of the question and is able to exhaust it. For our part, we shall consider our work to be satisfactorily accomplished, if those who know Byzantine history do not find it possible to reproach us for our lack of impartiality, and recognize our description of the religious-moral character of Byzantine society in these centuries as relatively correct and giving a sufficient idea of the subject matter.

All the light and dark features of religious and moral relations from the end of the eleventh to the middle of the fifteenth centuries are easy to observe in the way of life and behavior of the royal persons of these centuries. Numerous Byzantine historians have preserved for posterity rich materials for familiarization with this side of the issue. One can only regret that they were too stingy in characterizing social or popular morality, but even in this case the historian of our time does not remain helpless: what the Byzantine historians do not say, some other monuments give, although not very complete, but still valuable information, so that the totality of sources makes it possible to form an approximate idea of the religious-moral character of society. People.

A strange sight is presented by the Byzantine emperors of the epoch we are studying in the religious and moral sense. This is some kind of endless kingdom of contrasts. Virtue and piety sometimes ascend to the imperial throne and from there act in their proper spirit, sometimes they seem to leave the royal throne altogether. One Byzantine emperor is pious and exemplary in morals, while the other, next to him, is almost a monster of impiety and vice. The change and mixture of good and evil, the mixture and change elusive and constant — this is the religious-moral character of the royal persons of the period under consideration.

Scripture, but as if only in order to boast of this knowledge, and not in order to fulfill the commandments of God, and so on. In a word, it is a kind of light in the darkness, and the darkness is ready, we must confess, embrace the light...

The series of royal persons of whom we wish to speak is opened by Alexios I Comnenus (1080-1118). Alexius ascended the imperial Byzantine throne not as a legitimate heir, but as a happy usurper. And such an act in itself, of course, does not do honor to this Byzantine emperor; but the unattractiveness of it (the deed) is still greater due to the fact that the troops that helped Alexius to become emperor, as a reward for their zeal in this respect, allowed themselves riots, robbery and other outrages in the capital. [81] Alexei himself felt how far his accomplices had gone beyond the line that separates the permissible and tolerated from the impermissible and intolerable, and therefore, wishing to moderate public rumors, he was forced to take upon himself a purifying penance. [82]

We will report the most important information that can serve to characterize the morality and religiosity of Emperor Alexis. According to the testimony of Zonaras, he was distinguished by the following moral qualities, which determined the general character of his life and behavior. He was of a calm disposition and not haughty, free from greed, discriminating in the imposition of punishments, and open to a sense of leniency in the evaluation of transgressions; he enjoyed pleasures very moderately, was affectionate and approachable in his dealings with those around him who needed him. [83] Alexius was especially able to show a tendency to abstinence and undemanding during military campaigns: like the best generals of antiquity, he shared with the soldiers all the privations and shortcomings. During the wars, and there were many of these wars under him, he was an example instructive for his army. [84] Such was he as a commander. He also spared and even rewarded those people who had the most malicious intentions against the emperor in their hearts, if these people felt remorse for their criminal intentions; [85] the less impressed he was by the blasphemous and insulting remarks which his enemies allowed themselves to make against the emperor; he did not avenge them [86] with that selfish stubbornness and determination of which petty natures are capable. Alexios's rule was to excuse and forgive both open and secret enemies of his reign, if the attempts of the enemies were not combined with the violation of the highest state interests, but were limited to troubles for the sovereign himself. [87] In general, the shedding of blood on such occasions, where others considered it the most natural thing, was alien to the soul of the Emperor Alexios. He also spared the prisoners of war when he saw that beating them would have no purpose. On one occasion, the emperor's confidant, Synesius, suggested that Alexei execute the Pecheneg prisoners of war; But the emperor did not agree to such a proposal, saying beautiful words: "Although they are Scythians, they are still people, although they are enemies, they are still worthy of mercy." True, these Pechenegs were killed the same night, but the narrator claims that this incident occurred without the knowledge of the emperor. [88] During the battles, sparing the lives of his soldiers, Alexius took great care that not a drop of extra blood belonging to his soldiers should be shed; The victory, which cost too much blood, gave him not joy, but sorrow. [89] A very outstanding feature in the moral character of Alexei was the desire to help the poor and unfortunate. Alexius is better known in this respect than many other Byzantine emperors. He wanted the fruits of his philanthropic aspirations to outlive him and become the dear heritage of his descendants and the entire Byzantine people. Historians say the following: in Constantinople, for a long time, there was a house for the poor on the Bosphorus. Alexei improved and expanded this shelter and turned it into a magnificent and huge building. Here, at the same time, there was an orphanage for orphans and an almshouse for the infirm and the elderly. There were departments for men and women in the almshouse. The emperor took special care of the orphans: he wanted to be like a father to them. Orphans, in addition to maintenance, received religious and scientific education. Their education was entrusted to teachers appointed by the will of the emperor. In its vastness and splendor, the institution as a whole resembled a special city located in the midst of the capital. Alexei's philanthropic institution contained 10,000 people. They had almost the same number of doctors, surgeons, teachers, and servants of one sex or the other. There was a Church here, very richly decorated; At the church there was a special numerous church clergy. For the expenses of this humane institution, the emperor released large sums of money. The stewards here were appointed, by Alexei's personal choice, people of proven honesty and distinguished by intelligence; among them we meet persons of senatorial rank, even royal relatives. [90]

About the religiosity of Alexei gives several interesting indications by the historian Anna, his daughter. In the working moments of military enterprises, he placed his hope only in God, which he spoke openly to the persons who made up his retinue. [91] In this respect, the story of how the emperor prepared for battle with the Pechenegs and Cumans is especially noteworthy. The historian says: "Not thinking of postponing the battle any longer, Alexius began to call on God as his helper. At sunset, he was the first to pray with great illumination and the singing of hymns. He did not allow the whole camp to rest, but he advised every prudent person to do the same, and he forced the coarse. The prayerful voices of the soldiers seemed to reach the very firmaments, or, more precisely, ascended to the Lord God Himself. In fact, he did not rely on warriors and horses, nor on the art of war, but attributed everything to the will of the Almighty. And it went on until midnight." [92] On one occasion during a battle, wishing to visually express his faith in God's help, he held a sword in one hand, and in the other a banner – the omophorion of the Mother of God, one of the most sacred relics of the Byzantine [93] (the omophorion here is understood to mean the head veil of the Mother of God). Alexei was well versed in the Holy Scriptures and liked to quote more appropriate passages from the Bible on occasion. [94]

In such traits one can imagine the best sides of Alexei's religious and moral character. Unfortunately, his moral life was not devoid of shortcomings, and his religiosity was not as sincere as one might think. Thus, in relation to his morality, the following should be noted: although Alexius himself was moderate and abstinent in food, drink and pleasure, he was not at all greedy, he cared little about the preservation of public property. His relatives and entourage absorbed a lot of public money, lived in luxury, which affected the interests of the state. [95] Alexei's married life was not distinguished by chastity. At least in his youth, but already on the throne, he often betrayed his wife Irene and thus caused her great torment caused by a feeling of jealousy. [96] The mockery that was inflicted on some persons guilty of a certain conspiracy against Alexei, mockery, of course, at the will of the latter, makes an unpleasant impression. Since the conspiracy was discovered in time, the culprits, Michael Anema and other persons, were not subjected to severe punishments, but among these punishments was the following: the criminals had their hair cut off on their heads and beards, but they were shaved with some vile tool called "dropak". [97] From these facts it is evident that the moral merits of Alexios cannot be placed as high as the historian Anna Comnena does.