5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

1/72

the Barnes Review. . . TO BRING HISTORY INTO ACCORD WITH THE FACTS

In the Tradition of the Father of Historical Revisionism, Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes

MAY/JUNE 2001

VOLUMEVII

NUMBER3

Table of Contents5THEDUAL NATURE OF THEBYZANTINEEMPIREEDWARDT. MAYA key part of our Western heritage is too often forgotten: The eastern half of the Roman empire, known to us as theByzantine empire, for more than a millennium protected Christian civilization against the power of Islam. . . .

11WHATTHEYDIDNTTELL YOUABOUTBYZANTIUMDR. M. RAPHAELJOHNSONJohn Julius Norwich has just recently published a concise history of Byzantium that is a veritable treasure house of factsabout the Roman empire in the east, but falls a bit short as a work of true history. A book review. . . .

17 HOMILY ON THEJEWISHQUESTIONST. JOHNCHRYSOSTOMOne of the greatest saints of all time is well remembered by students of the history of Christianity. But a vital portionof his teachings has been dumped into the memory hole, because it is seen as politically incorrect. . . .

23 LITTLE-KNOWNFACTSREGARDINGAFRICANSLAVERYSTEVENA. RAPERThe enslavement of Africans by Africans is an ancient native custom and still continues in the Dark Continent today.Here is a look at some shameful roots the establishment would rather you not know about. . . .

29 THERISE& FALL OF THEZEPPELINSJOHNTIFFANYUntil the mysterious demise of the mightyHindenburg, these giant dirigibles ruled the skies of the planet.Here is the exciting story of how the behemoths of the air came to be and how their reign ended. . . .

35 WASALBERTEINSTEIN A ROCKETSCIENTIST?DR. V.S. HERRELLThe name Einstein has become a synonym for genius. But how many of his ideas were really his own, and how many

did he borrow from other physicists? . . .

41 THELEGEND OFDUNKIRKDEBUNKEDMICHAEL WALSHThe British government took a retreat and by the power of propaganda made it appear to be a victory. Notonly was it a horrible disaster for the British, but Dunkirk also shows the conciliatory intentions of the NationalSocialist German leaders. . . .

45AMERICASRELATIONSHIP WITHJAPAN: 1853-1945MICHAEL CRANEAmerica used a mailed fist in a velvet glove to force Japan to open up its ports and provide concessions to theU.S. government. Commodore Perry even went so far as to try to set up an American colony in the Bonin Islandsjust off the coast of Japan. But the result was the awakening of a sleeping dragon. . . .

51 CRUCIFYING THESAVIOR OFFRANCEHARRYELMERBARNESMarshal Henri Ptain was, on four separate occasions, the savior of France. He even warned his countrymen against the

Nazi German menace. Yet he was sentenced to die by his own countrymen. Why? . . .

61 THEALLIES AWFUL TREATMENT OFPOST-WWII PRISONERSVIVIANBIRDIs it now high time for British, American and other Allied officers from World War II to stand trial as war criminals forthe atrocities they perpetrated on civilians and POWs who happened to be German? . . .

65 THEVIRGINIA DECLARATION OFRIGHTSTONYBLIZZARDIn many ways, this prototype of both the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, though largelyforgotten, was actually superior to either of those sacred American documents. . . .

67 THESAGA OF THESPIRITPONDRUNESTONESJOHNCHAPMANFor decades, four small stones found in coastal Maine and inscribed mysteriously with Viking runes and Keltic ogam

writing baffled scholars. Now at last they have been translated from the Old Icelandic, and tell a tragic and romantictale of early Christian explorers from the Old World, nearly 1,000 years ago. . . .

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

2/72

In the well-known photo on this page, Albert Einstein pokesout his tongue. Is he just clowning around, showing what afunny guy he can be? Or is he showing his contempt for thepublic? Was Einstein one of the greatest

con men of all time? For an explosive viewabout this possibly overrated supergenius,see our article starting on page 35.

Our cover this issue shows Byzantine Em-peror Heraclius defeating the Persian rulerKhosrow II, in A.D. 627. Persia had tempor-arily conquered Jerusalem, only to see ittaken back by the Byzantines. Soon a risingIslam would take the holy city for itself. Thereign of another Byzantine emperor, Justin-ian, was marked by some of the greatest mil-itary achievements of all time, under the gen-erals Belisarius and Narses: reconquering the

key ex-Roman states of Italy, Spain and NorthAfrica. The most important and respectedsource for this period is Procopius of Caes-area. Procopius accompanied Belisarius on some of his great con-quests and wrote some official histories of the wars and of Jus-tinians immense building programs. He ensured that we re-member Justinian as a political and military genius. That wastrue, as far as it went. But Procopius dared not publicly say whatwas really going on in the personal lives of Justinian and his wifeand others of his inner circle. He feared for his life if he did. Sohe wrote another, secret history, with strict instructions that itwas not to be published until after his death. This history was soshocking that many scholars have wanted to believe it a forgery.

Yet its pedigree, and every test that can be made on it, show it isbona fide. For more on the little-remembered history of this keypart of the medieval world, see our symposium of articlestheone by Edward May starting on page 5 of this issue and the relat-ed two articles following it.

The slave trade in Africa (pp. 23 ff.) has been often misused bypolitical factions pursuing their own agendas. Books by whatHarry Elmer Barnes would call the court historians attempt topaint a picture of a Merrie Old Africa. Schoolchildren aretaught that sub-Saharan Africa was like a Garden of Eden beforethe advent of the evil white devils, who oppressed the blacks intheir native land, and carried some of them away to a life of hor-rible servitude. But this establishment history of Africa and of

the slave trade associated with the Dark Continent is complete-ly false, as it is nothing more than propaganda aimed at defam-ing an entire race of people (whites) for a tragic situation notentirely of their own making. Even though the European powersfailed to induce the Africans to learn civilized conduct, as isnoticeable to this day in the way black Africans and Afro-Ameri-cans still treat one another (not to mention they way they treatwhite people and Asiatics), the goal of the European powers wasa lofty one nonetheless.

The real history of slavery in Africa is a history of nativepower and greed.

Even before the arrival of Europeans, the African tribal kingsand tribal elites not only commanded the respect and tribute oftheir subjects, but also abused this respect to aggrandize them-

selves and to increase their own power. Over a period of mthan 400 years, black Africans enslaved about 21 million of thown people. Of these, nearly 12 million died within their fi

year of slavery in Africa, mainly as a result of p

food and little water, or as a result of being saficed, tortured to death for entertainment andbeing eaten.

It should be noted that it was not the Africawho ended the transatlantic slave trade, but ratthe Europeans and Americans. If it had not beenthe heroic mission of the white powers in Africa,there would no doubt be much harsher than itoday. In Africa itself, despite the efforts of the mer colonial powers, chattel slavery has continudown to the present. Overall, the history of Africslavery should be understood as a crime Africaperpetrated against one another; and the liberinspired tirades against white devils should en

And theres lots more great Revisionist matefor you to digest, so turn off the television, seyourself in your favorite easy chair, and enjoy

fascinating material contained within the pages of this issueTHE BARNES REVIEW.

Publisher: W.A. CARTOEditor: JOHNTIFFANY

Associate Editor: M. RAPHAELJOHNSONContributing Editor: FRED BLAHUTContributing Editor: DANIEL MICHAELS

Copy Editor: ANDREWGRAYProduction Director: PAUL T. ANGEL

THE BARNES REVIEW (ISSN 1078-4799) is published bimonthly by TBR Co130 Third Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. Periodical rate postage paid a

Washington, D.C. and additional mailing offices. For credit card orders including subscriptions, call toll-free 1-877-773-9077 and use Visa or MasterCardOther inquiries cannot be handled through the toll free number. For changeof address please call 909-587-6936. All editorial, business or bulk distributioinquiries please call 202-546-1586. All rights reserved except that copies oreprints may be made without permission so long as THE BARNES REVIEWgiven proper credit and no changes are made. All manuscripts submitted mube typewritten and doublespaced. No responsibility can be assumed for unreturned manuscripts. Change of address: Send your old, incorrect mailing labeand your new, correct address neatly printed or typed 30 days before you movto assure delivery. Advertising: MEDIA PLACEMENT SERVICE, Sharon DeWit301-722-1948 or fax 301-722-2810. Website: www.barnesreview.org. Emaibarnesrev@hotmail.com.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to THE BARNES REVIEW,130 Third Street, SE, Washington, D.C. 20003.

Personal from the Editor

U.S.A.Periodica l Rate : 1 year, $46 2 years, $78 3 years, $87

First Class: 1 year, $70 2 years, $124 3 years, $144

Foreign Countries:All payments must be in U.S. dollars.Regular Surface:

1 year, $58 2 years, $102

Foreign Airmail: 1 year 2 years

Canada and Mexico $72 $130Western Hemisphere $80 $144Europe $88 $161

Asia and Africa $95 $176Pacific Rim $96 $178

Quantity Prices 1-3 $12 each (Current issue U.S.A.): 4-7 $11 each

8-19 $10 each 20 and more $9 each

the Barnes review

SUBSCRIPTION RATES (ALL ISSUES MAILED IN CLOSED ENVELOPE)

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

3/72

The history of the eastern Roman empire of Byzantiummight seem a radically esoteric topic for Western read-ers. But Byzantiums influence and importance is vast-ly understated by those who believe that the Roman

empire fell in the fifth century, and that the Western philosophi-cal tradition came to us from the Arabs, through Spain. Much ofour modern knowledge of ancient Greece, her religion and philo-sophical traditions was actually preserved in Byzantium. Thenotion of a Christian empire derives from the Byzantines.Furthermore, the idea of the rule of law was maintained byemperors such as Justinian and his successors in the formereastern part of the Roman world after the fall of the western halfof the empire.

The Byzantines are known as a proud people who believedthat Constantines reception of Chris-tianity set them apart from the rest ofhumanity. Byzantium saw itself, ra-

ther unabashedly, as the manifesta-tion of a new chosen people, called tobring the benefits of a truly Christiancivilization and moral politics to theworld. The theoretical claim to uni-versal political jurisdiction was neverabandoned by the Byzantine mind,right up until the end, in 1453.

For nearly 1,000 years, Byzantiumwas the first line of defense in Europeagainst Islam. Islamic expansionismwas a fact of its life, and military ex -pansion was central to Islams ownself-image from nearly the moment of

its inception. As both Byzantium andPersia exhausted each other with anendless series of wars in the sixth andseventh centuries, the political vacu-um in the Levant was filled by Mo-hammeds writings and the militaryorganization that formed seeminglyimmediately around him. The Levantas a part of European civilizationwas now in the past. One must re-member that Europe was a far larg-er place previous to the appearance ofIslam. Of the Byzantine empiresmany enemies, whether it be the Franks, the Lombards, the

Avars, the Venetians or even the early Slavs, it was militant andexpansionist Islam that proved Byzantiums undoing in the mid-dle of the 15th century and caused it the most trouble during pre-vious centuries.

The notion of Byzantine identity is a central concept. Empiresare by definition multicultural, for this is what differentiatesthem from nations. But empires, in order to remain such, musthave some notion of their identity, a self-conscious vision of them-selves, in order to articulate a political and social sense of pur-pose that might be able to unify numerous peoples under them.The question of a militant sort of cultural integration was utter-ly beyond the pale. For Byzantium, though its boundaries encom-passed many peoples, remained a Greek state. Eventually, asByzantium shrank, she became largely Greek racially as well as

culturally; she became, in spite of her own self-image, anotnation rather than an empire. Her mission was to continue legacy of western and Latin Rome (and in fact, the early yearthe eastern empire, even under Justinian, saw the continuatof the court usage of the Latin language) under the new banof the Orthodox and Catholic Church.

A strong and proud Byzantine sense of racial identity cainto being as her boundaries encompassed mostly Greeks afmilitary losses to Islam and the west. For example, a manuastatecraft,De Administrando Imperio, written by Constant

VII, reads: For just as each animal mates with its own tribeit is right that each nation should also marry and cohabit with those of another race and tongue, but of the same tribe aspeech. And in another passage:

If any nation of these infidel anddishonorable tribes of the north shallever demand a marriage alliance with

the emperor of the Romans, andeither to take his daughter to wife, orto give a daughter of their own totheirs also you should rebut, sayingConcerning this matter also a dreadand authentic charge and ordinanceof the great and holy Constantine isengraved upon the sacred table of theuniversal church of the Christians, StSophia, that never shall an emperor ofthe Romans ally himself in marriagewith a nation of customs differingfrom and alien to those of the Romanorder . . . unless it be with the Franksalone. (Quoted in Browning, TheByzantine Empire, Notre Dame, 125.)

Regardless of the multi-ethnic ture of the early empire, its laws, ctoms, religion and way of life wthoroughly Greek, or that of a Hellized Rome.

One aspect of Byzantine life apolitics that needs to be understooone is to grasp the reasons why zantium maintained itself for nea1,000 years is the theme systemland tenure. This system was popuin nature and was a response to

numerous enemies on all fronts the Byzantines had to conte

with, even prior to the rise of Islam. The Byzantine empire need to develop a means by which the entire empire might matain the loyalty of its citizens, create a sense of common caand develop a native military system that would avoid always problematic use of foreign mercenaries.

Byzantiums rejection of a hereditary system of rule while sremaining a monarchical regime proves the interest in rulemerit, strength and, most importantly, military prowess. The ctrol of economic life in the cities of the empire by the guilds, hever controlled by the emperor, shows that Byzantium wdeeply committed to a proper standard of living for its skillabor and an interest in excellence, and there was a sort of bance of power system among church, guild, army and emper

M

EditorialBYZANTIUM: THESECONDROME

MESHACH DEPICTED IN ABYZANTINE MOSAIC.

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

4/72

Shown is a floor mosaic from Jerusalem depicting Christ as Orpheus among the animals. Such artistic skiproves the tremendous level of advancement Christian art had achieved in Constantinople and shows an obvous continuity with ancient Roman and Greek traditions.

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

5/72

Geography dictated the Byzantine(Roman) empire would possesssomething of a dual nature.

Straddling the border between Asia andEurope, the empire experienced a tug ofwar between the Latin world and theGreek, between the Occident and theOrient, between Christian and non-Chris-tian. The population was composed of amotley assemblage of peoples.1 Egyptians,Armenians, Jews, Slavs and Greeks werebut some of the ethnic groups in this chaosof peoples.2 Yet the Byzantine empiremaintained a cohesion and continuity overthe course of its existence that is nothingshort of remarkable. That the empire wasable to maintain a political unity of sortsfor 1,000 years is a testament to the admin-istrative ability of the competent emperorssuch as Justinian (born 482/3, ruled 527-565) and Heraclius, and the relative effi-ciency of an extensive bureaucracy thatcompensated for the weak emperors.

Oswald Spengler penned an apt de -scription of the dichotomous nature of theByzantine empire in The Decline of theWest.

In 326 Constantine, rebuilding on theruins of the great city destroyed bySeptimus Severus, created a late classi-cal cosmopolis of the first rank, intowhich presently streamed hoary Apol-linism from the west and youthful Ma-gism from the east. And long afterwardagain, in 1096, it is a late Magian cos-mopolis, confronted in its last autumndays with spring in the shape ofGodfrey of Bouillons crusaders.. . . . Asthe easternmost of the classical west,this city bewitched the Goths; then, amillennium later, as the northernmostof the Arabian world, it enchanted theRussians.3

Some measure of this dual naturebetween the east and west is exemplified inthe person of the Emperor Justinian,arguably the most well known emperor ofthe Byzantine empire. Justinian madeLatin his language of choice, the last of theByzantine emperors to do so. It was alsoone of his greatest ambitions, one mighteven call it an obsession, to wrest control ofthe Western Roman empire from the bar-barians and reunite it with the EasternRoman empire. Yet, despite his devotion tothe old Roman empire, Justinian was not

so thoroughly Latinized that he felt copelled to impose a Roman style of architture on Constantinople. The churchHagia Sophia, perhaps Justinians mfamous contribution to the world of art aarchitecture, did not utilize the plan of Roman basilica. Among other differenthe architects of the church employedtechnique known as pendentive constrtion, a method that apparently was devoped after many years of experiment builders in the Near East and constituthe contribution of Byzantium to archittural engineering.4 The prominent domHagia Sophia is certainly not of Occident either but rather represenusing Spenglers terminology, the Magworld-feeling or spirit. The church furtdeviates from the Roman tradition using brick rather than concrete as a cstruction material.

Not only did Justinian use non-Romaspects of architecture in Constantinohe imported those aspects to the re-cquered lands of the Western Roman empas well. In the church of San VitaleRavenna Light filtered through alabas

THEDUAL NATURE OF THE

BYZANTINEEMPIRE. . . AND THEANECDOTA OF PROCOPIUSBYEDWARDT. MAY

When considering vast events such as the fall of the western Romanempire, the linkage of specific events with exact dates is a dicey propositionat best. One cannot say, for example, that the empire began its demise in a

certain year, or that its absolute collapse occurred on such-and-such a day.With this caveat in mind, we may tentatively suggest the genesis of theByzantine empire as having occurred when Zeno, emperor of the easternportion of the Roman empire, assumed sovereignty over the remains of thatempire in the late 5th century A.D. Thus, the section of the Roman empire thatmanaged to survive the barbarian invasions, and which, as it happened,was centered in Constantinople, became the Byzantine empire, a realm thatsurvived until Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in A.D. 1453.

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

6/72

paned windows plays over the glitteringmosaics and glowing marbles that coverthe buildings complex surfaces, producingan effect of sumptuousness that is notWestern but Oriental. And, indeed, theinspiration for this design is to be found inByzantium rather than Rome.5

Likewise, the art of the Byzantine

empire underwent a noticeable evolution,and it was the Christian religion thatplayed a key role in the transformation.The realism portrayed in art of the Romanempire succumbed to the hieratic6 charac-teristics employed by the Byzantine artists.Paintings and mosaics drastically reducedthe emphasis on the physical by negatingindividuality. Human figures became rigidand stylized while spiritual aspects wereenhanced. In the later Byzantine empire,the straight lines and unforgiving angles ofthe early period eventually gave way to thesoft curves and sweeps of classicHellenistic art, although the religiousmotifs were faithfully retained. The icono-clasts gained ascendancy for a time andartworks were limited to symbols and dec-orative scrollwork. In this respect the artwas definitely Islamic in flavor. When theiconoclasts were overthrown, the paintedicon flourished and became a pedagogicaltool, being used to instruct the illiterate inChristian belief.

In a similar fashion, Justinian did notfeel his allegiance to the ideals of the Latinworld necessitated an adherence to pagan-

ism, and he decreed Christianity to be notsimply the official religion of the empirebut the only lawful religion. Heretics to theChristian religion were dealt with harshly,many finding the Islamic empire more tol-erant than the Byzantine. Christianitymanifested itself to a great degree in therealms of art and literature. Religious trea-tises, hymns, and works delineating thelives of the saints proliferated. AlthoughChristianity eventually supplanted pagan-ism in the empire, it found it could not com-pletely divorce itself from its old opponent,particularly in the field of literature. When

asked why he used non-Christian refer-ences in his writings, St. Jerome admittedthat pagan literature had its place in aChristian society:

[W]ho is there who does not knowthat both in Moses and in the prophetsthere are passages cited from gentilebooks and that Solomon proposed ques-tions to the philosophers of Tyre andanswered others put to him by them. Inthe commencement of the book ofProverbs he charges us to understandprudent maxims and shrewd adages,parables and obscure discourse, thewords of the wise and their dark say-

ings; all of which belong by right to thesphere of the dialectician and thephilosopher. The Apostle Paul also, inwriting to Titus, has used a line of thepoet Epimenidas. . . .7

In one area Justinian did not feelinclined to compromise between the Latinworld and the Greek, that area being thelaw. However, it is interesting to note thatlegislation published after Justiniansdeath was not in Latin but in Greek. WhileGreek became the new language of law inthe Byzantine empire, the law itself re-mained Roman despite the fact some histo-rians feel Justinians corpus juris was infe-rior to early Roman law. In this regardHouston Stewart Chamberlain has re-marked that the Justinian corpus juriswith which we are familiar is only the em-balmed corpse of Roman law.8

One aspect of the Byzantine empirethat changed markedly from that of

the old Roman empire was the art of war-fare. The emperors in the east found thatthe legion, remarkably adept as it was indealing with the barbarians of the west,was unable to compete with the mountedarchers of the east. Adapting to this exi-gency the military planners developed thecataphract,9 an armored rider equippedwith lance, bow, and sword, and mountedon an armored horse. The cataphract be-came the mainstay of the Byzantine army.With his two competent generals, Beli-

sarius and Narses, wielding his militaryforces, Justinian was not only able to keepthe eastern empire intact but also managedto reconquer north Africa, the southern por-tion of Spain, Italy, and Dalmatia. Justin -ian nearly succeeded in turning the Medi-terranean once again into a Roman lake.However, the reconquest reached its zenithunder Justinian, and thereafter the Byzan-tine empire was whittled away by its ene-mies until all that was left was Constan -tinople itself. Not only did the Byzantineempire modify existing military forces tomeet the demands of the moment, it was

also capable of devising new devices in theart of warfare. One such innovation en -abled the Byzantine empire, under the Em-peror Constantine IV, to check the tide ofIslam in the 7th century A.D. The inventionknown as Greek fire proved to be a deci-sive factor in the defense of Constantinople.The Byzantine navy employed Greek fireagainst the Arabs with telling effect.

[A]n incendiary mixture of naphtha,quicklime, sulfur, and pitch; it wasthrown against enemy ships or troopson flaming arrows, or blown againstthem through tubes, or shot on iron

balls bearing flax and tow soaked in oilor it was loaded and fired on small boatswhich were set adrift against the foeThe composition of the mixture was asecret successfully guarded for two cen-turies by the Byzantine government; toreveal any knowledge of it was treasonand sacrilege. . . . Until the invention ofgunpowder it was the most talked-ofweapon in the medieval world.10

Constantinople was located at the fopoint of the trade routes, both laand water, between Europe and Asia. Tbeing the case, it was perhaps inevitathat commerce would become the lifeblof the Byzantine empire. Just as American dollar at one time was preferover local currencies in many part of world, so the Byzantine solidus was uin Asia and Europe until its value wdebased in the latter half of the empiexistence. Customs duties proved to b

dependable and vital source of income the empire. Justinians greatest coup in field of commerce came when he manato break the Far Easts monopoly on sproduction. A resourceful group of Ntorian monks, after smuggling silkwoeggs out of Asia, bestowed on Justinian basis of a moneymaking enterprise. Aresult money no longer flowed outImperial coffers to purchase silk from Cna and, since the production of silk fabwas a state run monopoly, the local sindustry became another conduit of renue for the government.

However, Constantinoples commerprosperity also engendered jealousy on part of her competitors, particularly VenThe Venetians took advantage of the fthat the Byzantine empire had abandonmuch of its European heritage and hgrafted aspects of the Oriental culture iits body politic to incite hostilities betwethe French knights of the Fourth Crusand the Greeks of Constantinople.

In general Greeks got on better withinfidels than with Latins, perhapsbecause they shared a common form ofgovernment. An infidel sultan, like a

Greek emperor, had seized power by hisown efforts; he was maintained on histhrone by a mercenary army; the soleduty of his subjects was to pay taxesand in return he owed his subjects noduty at all. Every Greek was shocked bythe boisterous conduct of Frankishfreemen, who thought nothing of armedresistance to a lord who infringed therights of his men.11

As a result of this intrigue between crusaders and the Venetians, Constantople was sacked in A.D. 1204, and Vensnatched all the commercially profitaharbors and islands in the empire.12

PAGE 6 the barnes review MAY/JU

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

7/72

The moral sphere of existence in theByzantine empire also became a battle-ground between the conflicting world-views of the east and the west. The Romanvirtues had disappeared even before theLatin tongue; Roman and Greek qualitieshad been overwhelmed by a flood of uproot-ed Orientals who had lost their own moral-

ity and had taken on no other except inwords.13 The population, regardless ofclass, while outwardly professing Christi-anity, was fond of engaging in decidedlyunchristian behavior. Brutality and pietytook turns in the same imperial souls; andamong the people intensity of religiousneed could be adjusted to the corruption orviolence of politics and war.14 Once again,the reign of Justinian serves as a primerepresentative of this duality of character.In order to delve further into the moralityof the Byzantine empire we must make theacquaintance of the historian Procopius.

Alarge amount of the information wepossess concerning the Byzantineempire during the reign of Justinian comesfrom the historian Procopius. Procopiuswas born in Caesarea toward the end of the5th century A.D. in the turbulent region ofPalestine.15 He became a lawyer and in 527was designated legal adviser as well as sec-retary to Emperor Justinians famous gen-eral, Belisarius (505-565). Procopius ac-companied Belisarius on his campaignsagainst the Goths in Italy, the Vandals in

North Africa and the Persians. Procopiusdetailed these events, up to the year 554, inhis History of the Wars, compiled in eightbooks. Since Procopius was something of acourt historian (Harry Elmer Barnesnoted: [H]e was a formal apologist for thearistocracy of wealth and official posi-tion16), the narratives reflect rather favor-ably on Belisarius. While the attitude ofProcopius toward the Emperor Justinian inhis History of the Wars is somewhatambivalent, Justinian was heavily praisedby Procopius in a volume titled The Build -ings of Justinian, a six-book panegyric to

the emperor, probably written in 561(according to The Medieval Sourcebook onthe Internet).17

Procopius is generally lauded as one ofthe better historians in Western civi-lization (if Byzantium can be consideredWestern). Will Durant remarked thatProcopius was The one great historian ofthe period. . . . His industry was coura-geous, his arrangement of materials is log-ical, his narrative is absorbing, his Greek isclear and direct, and almost classicallypure.18 Prof. John Barker concedes that

Procopius was the last of the great histori-ans in the classical Greek tradition.19Arnold Toynbee was of the opinion thatProcopius was the last of the great Hel-lenic historians.20 J. Bury was equally im-pressed, stating His writings attest thatProcopius had received an excellent liter-ary education.21Yet in spite of his creden-tials, Procopius is still able to incite contro-versy due to his work known as The Anec -dota. The Anecdota, or Secret History, orUnpublished Memoirs, purports to be asupplement to History of the Wars. Prob -ably written around 550, it recounts the

salacious and disreputable activities of theplayers at the court of the Emperor Jus-tinian and his wife the Empress Theodora(d. 547/8). Procopius, knowing full well theconsequences of discovery, kept the explo-sive material under wraps during his life-time. (He died probably in the 560s orthereabouts.) The following is an exampleof what Procopius had to say concerningJustinian:

[T]his emperor was insincere, crafty,hypocritical, dissembling his anger,double-dealing, clever. . . . He was a fick-le friend, a truceless enemy, an ardent

devotee of assassination and of robbery

quarrelsome and an inveterate innova-tor, easily led astray into wrong, butinfluenced by no counsel to adopt theright, keen to conceive and to executebase designs. . . . Nature seemed to haveremoved all baseness from the rest ofmankind and to have concentrated it inthe soul of this man.22

The Empress Theodora is one of main targets of Procopius. The followinone of the tamer passages concernTheodora referencing her activities priobecoming empress.

Later she was following in the trainof Hecebolus, a Tyrian, who had takenover the administration of Pentapolisserving him in the most shameful capac-ity; but she gave some offense to theman and was driven thence with allspeed; consequently it came about thatshe was at a loss for the necessities oflife, which she proceeded to provide inher usual way, putting her body to workat its unlawful traffic. She first went toAlexandria; later, after making theround of the whole east, she made herway back to Byzantium, plying hertrade in each city (a trade which a mancould not call by name, I think, withoutforfeiting forever the compassion of

MAY/JUNE the barnes review PAGE

This famous mosaic of Empress Theodora and her retinue of ladies in waitingnow located in the church of San Vitale in Ravenna, Italy. Theodora possessereputation for skullduggery and was feared as much as Justinian, if not moreby many people in Constantinople. Plots and intrigues abounded in the cour

Justinian and Theodora. Here the empress appears in her ceremonial robes acrown, against an elegant background that probably represents her rooms in imperial palace.

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

8/72

God), as if Heaven could not bear thatany spot should be unacquainted withthe wantonness of Theodora.23

Antonina, the wife of Belisarius, faresno better.

Straightway, therefore, she decidedupon being an adulteress from the very

start, but she was very careful to con-ceal this business, not because she wasashamed of her own practices, norbecause she entertained any fear so faras her husband was concerned (for shenever experienced the slightest feelingof shame for any action whatsoever andshe had gained complete control of herhusband by means of many tricks ofmagic), but because she dreaded thepunishment the empress might inflict.24

Belisarius, praised in The History of theWars, does not go unscathed in TheAnecdota. At one point in the narrative

Belisarius was experiencing the disfavor ofJustinian and was relieved of his com-mand. Theodora, returning a favor toAntonina, made it appear that she hadinterceded with Justinian on behalf ofAntonina, restoring Belisarius to a certaindegree. When Belisarius heard the news:

[H]e straightway arose and fell on hisface before the feet of his wife. Andclasping both her knees with eitherhand and constantly shifting his tonguefrom one of the womans ankles to theother, he kept calling her the cause ofhis life and his salvation, and promisingthenceforth to be, not her husband, buther faithful slave.25

Procopius does not spare the justice sys-tem from his deftly aimed barbs. DuringJustinians reign the contention existingbetween the factions competing in the hip-podrome spilled over into the daily life ofConstantinople, and soon became nothingmore than unrestrained criminal behavior.The following describes how the judgeshandled members of the blue faction26 whowere arrested and brought before thecourt.

[A]nd those who sat in judgment, inrendering their decisions on the pointsin dispute, gave their verdicts, not asseemed to them just and lawful, butaccording as each of the disputants hadhostile or friendly relations with thefactions.27

Was the history of Procopius a factualhistory as well as a secret history? ShouldThe Anecdota be completely disregarded asthe rantings of a frustrated court histori-an? The Anecdota has proven itself to besomething of a thorn in the side for histori-ans who find it necessary to employ a cer-

tain amount of rationalization when deal-ing with it. Quite often historians, in afutile attempt to have their cake and eat itas well, will contradict themselves concern-ing The Anecdota. The following is an ex-cellent example of the paradoxical ap-proach historians seem to inevitably adoptregarding The Anecdota.

Untrustworthy as The Secret Historymay be, it provides a fascinating anti-dote to the official panegyrics as well asa useful glimpse into the dark corridorsof the Great Palace. And even in TheSecret History, the comments of the manwho has seen the ravages of war havethe ring of truth.28

In the space of one short paragraph wesee The Anecdota being described in termsas contradictory as untrustworthy anduseful.

Even a scholar of Edward Gibbons emi-

nence seems to be of two minds concerningthis particular work of Procopius. Asregards Belisarius and Antonina, Gibbonstates the following:

The generous reader may cast awaythe libel, but the evidence of facts willadhere to his memory; and he will reluc-tantly confess that the fame and eventhe virtue of Belisarius were polluted bythe lust and cruelty of his wife, and thatthe hero deserved an appellation whichmay not drop from the pen of the decenthistorian.29

Of The Anecdota in general, we havethis statement of Gibbons to ponder:

Of these strange anecdotes, a partmay be true, because probable; and apart true, because improbable. Proco -pius must have known the former, andthe latter he could scarcely invent.30

Yet, when discussing the reason for thetactics employed by Belisarius in thePersian theater of war, Gibbon seems lesssure of the reliability of the informationcontained in The Anecdota. Gibbon says,with some slight exceptions, we may rea-

sonably shut our ears against the malevo-lent whisper of the anecdotes.31John Barker describes The Anecdota as

probably the most infamous and scur-rilous piece of sustained character assassi-nation in all of literature.32 Yet Barkeralso states that used with caution and incareful relation to other materials, evenThe Secret History is of considerable valueto the historian of Justinian.33

Will Durant also formed an opinion con-cerning the reliability of The Anecdota and,like Gibbon and Barker, he feels Procopiusis to be trusted when writing on some sub-

jects and distrusted when writing abother subjects.

It is a fascinating book, like anydenunciation of our neighbors; butthere is something unpleasant in literary attacks upon persons who can nolonger speak in their own defense. Anhistorian who strains his pen to prove a

thesis may be trusted to distort thetruth. Procopius was occasionally inac-curate in matters beyond his own expe-rience; he copied at times the mannerand philosophy of Herodotus, at timesthe speeches and sieges of Thucydideshe shared the superstitions of his ageand darkened his pages with portentsoracles, miracles, and dreams. Butwhere he wrote of what he had seen, hisaccount has stood every test.34

J. Bury as well seems to have struggwith the question of whether or not TAnecdota could be considered as a vahistorical document. Bury states, the s

defeating maliciousness of the whole pformance discredits the work, and has evsuggested doubts whether it could hbeen written at all by the sober and respsible historian of the wars. The authorshhowever, is indisputable.35 However, Btempers this harsh indictment with the lowing words.

. . . [W]e must carefully distinguishbetween the facts which the authorrecords, and the interpretation whichhe places upon them. Malice need notresort to invention. It can serve its pur-pose far more successfully by adhering

to facts, misrepresenting motives, andsuppressing circumstances which pointto a different interpretation. That thiswas the method followed by Procopiusis certain. For we find that in a largenumber of cases his facts are borne outby other contemporary sources, whilein no instance can we convict him of astatement which has no basis in fact.36

Procopius himself seems to have foseen the scholastic shock waves that TAnecdota was sure to generate. He prents an able defense of his work in opening pages.

[I]t was not possible, as long as theactors were still alive, for these thingsto be recorded in the way they shouldhave been. For neither was it possible toelude the vigilance of multitudes ofspies, nor, if detected, to escape a mostcruel death. . . . I find myself stammeringand shrinking as far from it as possibleas I weigh the chances that such thingsare now to be written by me as will seemneither credible nor probable to men ofa later generation; and especially whenthe mighty stream of time renders thestory somewhat ancient, I fear lest Ishall earn the reputation of being evena narrator of myths and shall be ranked

PAGE 8 the barnes review MAY/JU

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

9/72

MAY/JUNE the barnes review PAGE

among the tragic poets. But I shall notflinch from the immensity of my task,basing my confidence on the fact thatmy account will not be without the sup-port of witnesses.37

Significantly, a concrete motive linkingProcopius to a deliberate fabrication offalsehoods seems to have eluded his critics.Bury posited that Procopius was disillu-sioned by the failure of the later Roman

empire to match the accomplishments ofthe Roman empire in its prime, and thenallowed his attitude to spill over onto thepages of The Anecdota. Bury has also con-jectured that Procopius was bitter due to alack of personal recognition.

Any writer who indulges in such anorgy of hatred as that which amazes usin The Secret History, exposes himself tothe fair suspicion that he has personalreasons for spite. We hardly run the riskof doing an injustice to Procopius if weassume that he was a disappointedman.38

Yet Bury contradicts his own hypothesiswith the following.

An amazing change came to pass inthe attitude of Procopius between theyear in which he composed The Secret

History and 10 years later when hewrote his work on The Buildings, inwhich he bestows on the policy and actsof the emperor superlative praise whichwould astonish us as coming from theauthor of The History of the Wars, even ifThe Secret History had been lost or ne -ver written. The victories of Narses hadprobably mitigated the pessimism intowhich he had fallen through the failure

of Belisarius and the long series ofTotilas39 successes; but it is difficult toavoid the conjecture that he hadreceived some preferment or recogni-tion from the emperor.40

It seems a reasonable assumption thatif Procopius had received some prefermentor recognition from the emperor the basisfor his vituperation would have been dis-pelled and he would have mollified in some

manner his harsh words concerning Jus-tinian in The Anecdota, yet we see nothingof the kind taking place.

Logic would seem to dictate that thepublished works of Procopius would con-tain more falsehoods and exaggerationsthan The Anecdota. After all, the publishedworks of Procopius were read by peoplewho held the power of life and death overhim. Procopius even admits, in The Anec-dota, to lying in The History of the Wars.

Belisarius, coming to Italy for thesecond time, departed from there mostignominiously. For during a space of five

years he did not succeed once in settingfoot on any part of the land, as stated byme in the previous narrative. . . .41

The previous narrative to which Pro -copius refers is Book VII of The History ofthe Wars. Another example of Procopius fal -sifying official history can be seen in thefollowing excerpt.

And as he was setting out, the emper-or gave him such instructions as havebeen set forth in the appropriate pas-sage, where, however, it was impossiblefor me, through fear of the empress, toreveal the truth of what took place.42

The appropriate passage mentionefound in Book V of The History of the WIt should be noted that Procopius, ashimself noted, was not alone in detailsome of the events written of in TAnecdota. In the introduction to the LClassical Library version, translated H.B. Dewing, we find that, Procopius ofhas the support of the testimony of otwriters of his time. Two writers may

quoted here in support both of Procopgeneral thesis and of specific statememade by him.43

Was The Anecdota history, libel olittle of both? As with so muchhistorical writings, the interested pamust read the source documents, consithe context of the times, and draw his oconclusions. As Harry Elmer Barnes not[S]uch books as The Secret History wernatural product of the times. In an ablutism such as that of Justinians day, liature of this type tends to flourish, sinc

is one of the few outlets for suppressed asperation.44However, is it not fascinating to spe

late on the reaction of a historian, centurhence, should he uncover a copy of TSecret Life of Bill Clinton? It is not so dcult to imagine him commenting on book in some fashion such as this: Itprobably the most infamous and scurrilpiece of sustained character assassinatin all of literature.

Despite the moral failings of the popution, the Byzantine empire was ableinculcate the moral teachings of Christi

The church (now a mosque) of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (formerly Constantinople), is undoubtedly the most famous a

easily recognizable piece of architecture surviving from the Byzantine empire. The minarets, added after the Turks htaken Constantinople, coupled with the church, exemplify the Asiatic heritage of Turkey. Other than the addition of tminarets, the building is substantially unaltered. Reproduced from an early 19th-century engraving.

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

10/72

ity in the Slavic people, not an insignificantaccomplishment and unquestionably ablessing to European civilization. The By-zantine empire protected Europe for a mil-lennium against the depredations of theArab and Turk. The fact they did so out ofa motive of self-preservation rather thanselfless love for their neighbor is irrelevant,

as is the fact the Turks eventually brokethrough the Byzantine impasse and invad-ed Europe. It is beyond dispute that theEuropean civilization was able to developits inestimable treasures of art, music, lit-erature, and science for a thousand yearsbecause of the defense provided by theByzantine empire. Not only did the By-zantine empire permit the development ofEuropean culture, it actively contributed tothat culture as well. The knowledge of theancient Greeks was hoarded by a faithfulfew in the Byzantine empire who transmit-ted the precious learning they had accu-mulated to Europe, via Italy, in a move-ment known as the Renaissance.

FOOTNOTES1Durant, 114.2Chamberlain, Vol. I, 302.3Spengler, Vol. II, 89.4Tansey and Kleiner, Vol. I, 291 (italics in

the original).5Ibid., Vol. I, 295.6(Sacred, priestly, sacerdotal.Ed.)7Tierney, Vol. I, 33.8Chamberlain, Vol. I, 150.9(Literally, coat of mail, but usually the

word refers to a soldier wearing scale armor ofthe ancient eastern type.Ed.)10Durant, 424, 425.11Duggan, 208.12Ibid., 209.13Durant, 433.14Ibid.15The Medieval Sourcebook, on the Internet,

gives his birthdate at one point as c. 490/507and at another point as c. 490/510.

16Barnes, 59.17(Procopiuss later life is little known,

although he was given the title of illustris in560 and may have been prefect of Constan-tinople in 562-3.Ed.)

18

Durant, 125, 26.19Barker, 76.20Toynbee, Vol. I, 194.21Bury, Vol. II, 419.22Procopius, 99, 101.23Ibid., 111, 13.24Procopius, 9.25Ibid., 51.

26(Emerging under the reign of Justinian,the Blues and the Greens were similar to polit-ical parties. Their colors originally were takenfrom competing chariot teams. Their leaderswere chosen by the state. The Blues represent-ed the old Greco-Roman aristocracy, while theGreens represented trade, industry and thecivil service.Ed.)

27Procopius, 87.28Willis, 275.29Gibbon, Vol. II, 582.30Ibid., Vol. II, 582 (italics in original).31Ibid., Vol. II, 610.32Barker, 68.33Ibid., 78.34Durant, 125, 126.35Bury, Vol. II, 424.36Ibid., 426, 27.37Procopius, 3, 5.38Bury, Vol. II, 421.39(Totila or Baduila was the last king of the

Ostrogoths. He was thoroughly routed byNarses at a battle near Taginae, in the

Apennines west of Ancona, and perished inthat fight in 552.Ed.)

40Bury, Vol. II, 428.41Procopius, 55.42Ibid., 189.43Procopius, xiii.44Barnes, 60.

BIBLIOGRAPHYBarker, John,Justinian and the Later

Roman Empire, The University of WisconsinPress, Madison, Wisconsin, 1966.

Barnes, Harry,A History of HistoricalWriting, University of Oklahoma Press,

Norman, Oklahoma, 1937.Bury, J.B.,History of the Later Roman

Empire (in two volumes), Dover PublicationInc., New York, 1958.

Chamberlain, Houston,Foundations of tNineteenth Century (in two volumes), FlandHall Publishers, New Orleans, 1988.

Duggan, Alfred, The Story of the CrusadeFaber and Faber, London, 1969.

Durant, Will, The Age of Faith (Volume Iin The Story of Civilization), Simon andSchuster, New York, 1950.

Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall ofthe Roman Empire (in two volumes), RandoHouse, New York.

Procopius, The Anecdota (translated by HDewing), Harvard University Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969.

Spengler, Oswald, The Decline of the Wes(in two volumes), Alfred A. Knopf, New York1926-28.

Tansey, Richard and Kleiner, Fred,GardnersArt Through the Ages (in two vol-umes), Harcourt Brace College Publishers,Forth Worth, 1996.

Tierney, Brian, The Middle Ages (in two umes), Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, 1978

Tierney, Brian and Painter, Sidney, WesteEurope in the Middle Ages, 300-1475, AlfredKnopf, Inc., New York, 1978.

Toynbee, Arnold,A Study of History (in tvolumes), Oxford University Press, Oxford,1946.

Willis, F., Western Civilization, An UrbanPerspective (Volume I), D.C. Heath andCompany, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1977.

After approximately 12 years in the engi-neering profession, Edward T. May is cur-rently a substitute teacher. He enjoys writingin his spare time and is an avid student ofhistory. Mr. May lives in Colorado with hiswife and two sons.

PAGE 10 the barnes review MAY/JU

Although not as well known as the church of Hagia Sophia, vast, covered cistelike this one were an important and practical part of Justinians ambitiobuilding program. Procopius, in his book Buildings, appropriately credi

Justinian: Thus the Emperor Justinian made provision that the peopleByzantium should not be in want of fresh water. Water was brought into peninsular city from the small hills to the northwest by underground aquedu

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

11/72

To most Western minds, Byzantiumis often nothing more than a blankspot on European history, some-

thing that maintained itself on the veryfringes of French, Venetian or English life.Its very European-ness seems continuallyopen to question, so alien are its institu-

tions and so esoteric are its practices. Tosome more educated, it might be synony-mous with elaborate court ritual, palaceintrigue and continuous military engage-ments. To those completely dedicated to theWestern cults of the political Enlighten-ment (whether of the utilitarian or rightsbased sort), Byzantium is unintelligible,and often dismissed as Oriental despot-ism. It is positively bizarre to think howfew actually realize that Byzantium wasRome, and perpetuated the Roman empireuntil its fall to Islam in 1453. In the West,Rome, of course, fell in the fifth century.

Rome is synonymous with the westernempire, so myopic has the European mindbeen on this and many other topics.

Byzantium was, foremost, from a politi-cal point of view, the first line of defenseagainst the Muslim invasions, and wasresponsible for domesticating many tribesas yet uncivilized, such as the Huns andPechnegs, and for making them responsiblemembers of European society rather thanviolent nomads. It was the center of apos-tolic eastern Christianity, with liturgicalmusic and art, literature, morality, way oflife and basic spirituality that was fed by

WHATJOHNJULIUSNORWICH

FORGOT TOTELL YOUABOUTTHEBYZANTINEEMPIREBYM. RAPHAELJOHNSON, PH.D.

John Julius Norwich was educated in Canada, at Eton, at the University ofStrasbourg and at Oxford, where he took a degree in French and Russian. His

magnum opus, Byzantium, a massive, three-volume work detailing the historyof the forgotten later Roman empire, set the standard for Byzantine studies. Hisnew edition, a shortened work called A Short History of Byzantium, remains atreasure house of facts about the Roman empire in the east.

C O M M E N T A R Y

Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Justinianus, better known as Justinian the Grelived from 483 to 565 and was Byzantine emperor from 527 until he died. Heshown here as the second man from the left, with a crown and a halo, with soof his retinue. On the death of his uncle, Justinian was elected emperor aalmost immediately launched a policy of recovering the lost territories of old Roman empire. Unfortunately his plans proved to be ruinously costrequiring oppressive taxes, which led to constant internal unrest.

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

12/72

PAGE 12 the barnes review MAY/JU

the writings of saints John Chrysostom,Basil the Great and Ephrem the Syrian. Asthe West sank into near annihilation dur-ing the dark ages after the fall of the west-ern Roman Empire, Byzantium main-tained the standard of Greco-Roman civi-lization, preserving it for ages to come. Thepoverty of Europe would have been im-

measurable without her.John Julius Norwichs book, A Short

History of Byzantium, which is actually anabridgment of an earlier three-volume ser-ies, is a dense journalistic account of thismost complex of historical subjects. This isits greatest weakness, that is, it treatsByzantine history as a mere chronicle, ameaningless series of events, rather than aseries of concepts that come to define a civ-ilization. Journalistic history is mere rawdata; it is necessary, but does not stand byitself when dealing with the nature of sucha great civilization. Raw data needs con-ceptualization as concepts need data ifeither is to make sense. The events of anyspecific civilization need to be conceptual-ized before they speak to us.

History is meant to be written conceptu-ally. That is, historical data is meant to beinterpreted so as to communicate an accu-rate picture of the nature and essence ofthe historical topic at hand. To merelyclaim that Emperor x succeeded Emperor y

and z engaged q in battle on such-and-suchdate is to tell us nothing; it is to give usdata without the necessary conceptualapparatus to provide knowledge, interpre-tation and individual reflection. The con-ceptual apparatus, or the self imagesByzantium had maintained and communi-cated to the world, is necessary to make

sense out of issues of succession, militaryexploits or palace intrigue. Otherwise theseare entertaining soap operas only.Historical events, for the historian at-tempting to take the ancient and medievalworld and make it intelligible to modernreaders, do not occur in a conceptual vacu-um. Concepts inform individual actions asindividual actions continue to inform theconceptual apparatus. In other words, anational or civilizational identity actuallyexists and forms the actions of individualsliving under its sway. Without the former,the latter seems to decay into a series ofrandom events.

Every society that has existed has hadits military victories and defeats, its bril-liant and depraved rulers, its arts and let-ters, its ebbs and flows. To simply repeatthis historical reality in a journalisticaccount of abstract events leads one to theheight of boredom that has, as in highschool history texts, driven thousandsaway from an interest in history. What

makes history interesting is that thevents, all over the globe, at all timreflect a certain national or civilizatioethos in a unique way and had a uniqeffect on a people. Can one visualize a htory text on the American FoundFathers that tells of their legal, merchor farming careers, their incomes a

wives, their children and education, thpersonalities and habits, but refusesdeal with their own self-images: their idof liberty, self-determination, order, rgion; their ideas of rights, duties, and cresponsibilities? Such is the difficulty wNorwichs book.

Areason for the dominance of the jonalistic style in history is the evpernicious influence of modernization thry in politics. In short, this theory, uttedominant within the Anglo-American tablishment in historiography, as welleconomic and political writing, is that seties reflect merely a universal histoThey evolve from primitive forms of stathierarchy and custom, into a rational mitocracy based around free contract anrationalized bureaucracy. Civilizations anations are thus judged to be in some stalong this continuum, with the historyeach being nothing more than a chronof this evolution. As terribly smug as tdominant idea, or meta-idea, is, it almcompletely controls, often subconsciouwriting on history and politics in our a

Thus, traditionalists are reactionardue to the a priori impossibility of stoppthe inevitable march of history. Histitself is saturated with normative meaniaccording to this Modernization school, athe very passing of years (apart frexogenous factors) necessarily means liberalizing of the society. Political eventhen, are merely recounted as either lowing the foreordained pattern of humdevelopment or, through some anombeing in the grip of reactionaries and irtionalists (for a horrific and archetyexample of such ideological historicizi

see James Billingtons The Icon and Axe: An Interpretive History of RussCulture. But certainly, the examples cobe multiplied. On the other hand, focounterexample to such nonsense, Baron and KollmansReligion and Cultin Early Modern Russia and Ukraine).

The domination of modernization theand the journalistic history it engendersWestern societies has not had a small efon historical analysis. As individuals lany sense of themselves, as they becomore alienated from their own civilizatireligion, race, ethnicity, cultural and

Adam on the left and, believe it or not, Eve on the right work in a cereal fieldafter their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. This is a fine example of a

Byzantine ivory plaque from the 11th or 12th century.

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

13/72

tional tradition through the idolof progress, history does indeedappear to them as a mere set ofmeaningless events rather than adevelopment of specific peoples andself-images. Events here consist inabsolutely nothing; they communi-cate nothing and are actually not

worth studying. If one cultures his-tory merely embodies universalprogress, then history is as mean-ingless as the individual.

In reality, there is no such thing asan abstract event (abstractions are cre-ations of the mind only)only eventsembedded in a culture, a nationality, aset of self-images and assumptions,prejudices and attitudes, antecedentsand effects, and so on, all bringing tobear a truly historical understandingof an event. For Norwich, evidently,Byzantine culture, religion, theology,philosophy, military situation, orethnicity had no effect on any politi-cal decision, dynastic ascendancy,political vision or public philosophy.As with so many of the cynical jour-nalists writing history, Byzantiummerely mirrored the universal end ofall human beings: personal self-inter-est. Culture and the public ethos aremeaningless, and, at worst, are noth-ing more than a means whereby thestrong dominate the weak. Now, ignor-ing the legions of other difficulties with

this view, it certainly does nothing tostimulate an interest in history, and, infact, does exactly the opposite.

To make matters worse, one comesout of reading A Short History of By-zantium knowing nothing about By-zantine theology, political theory, mor-ality, economics, military strategy andpolicy and a host of other (conceptual)things that are necessary for a workingknowledge of any society. What one gets isa soap opera script that tells one nothingexcept that Byzantine ruling familiesbehaved no differently from any others and

exhibited all the traits of human familiesin general. Now, if one already has someidea of the nature of Byzantium, that is,what defined the nature of that civilizationand prevented it from becoming merely arandom collection of individuals seekingtheir own utility maximization, one candraw a few ideas out of Norwich that are ofsome use. In general, Robert BrowningsThe Byzantine Empire is a far superiorwork to Norwichs.

It is surprising that so many otherwiseeducated persons claim that Rome fell inthe fifth century. For most, the word

Rome refers to its western component.But of course, Byzantium is also Rome, andlasted until 1453. The Anglo-Americanmind, however, derisively referred to thisgreat civilization, and its Russian succes-sor state, as an Oriental satrapy. This sortof bias has led to, not only a dearth of pub-lished work on the subject, but an incorri-gible bias against the civilization itself. To

most of the West, Byzantium wa backward (a favorite epitof the Modernization school, a

deriving from its assumptiosociety, to be lumped together wthe Persians and Mongols.

But what is the idea of RomRome was meant to be the cen

of global civilization, taking iitself three continentsto be thcrossroads. Rome was also to be center of world religion, placinsingle emperor ruling in tandwith a single bishop or coun

Further, Rome was meant to be etnal, eternal as the God-inspired lection of all wisdom and the cenof culture. Byzantium claimed theoretical right to rule the enworld, or at least the entire Christworld. It is for these vaunted reasthat, for the Russian mind, the concof Rome could not be abandoned aByzantiums fall, but was transfer

to Moscow, the Third Rome, where same idea of civilization was to maintitself. Rome was far from being merelcity; it was a radical idea of social orgazation and historical destiny; it was tothe earthly image and icon of the heav

ly Jerusalem.

One of the most profound and tellideas about Rome, then and nwas its relations with the West. The d

culties lay in politics and theology. Ptically speaking, after the First Rome fthe Byzantine East, reasonably, thoughthemselves as the proper successors to hto the extent she was unable to be resutated in her old location. The theory alwwas to work for a reunified empire; anda short time, in driving the Arians ouSpain (in the form of the Visigoths), it wa reality, but one that was not to last. A problems happened along the way. A perful and particularly divisive issue wracial: the Frankish kingdom under Chlemagne that was erected during the

called western dark ages and christenedthe pope of Rome was no longer Romanwas essentially German and Gallic. Tadvent of the Holy Roman Empire, wviewed by the Byzantines as an absurdthat is, a people with no connections to ancient Roman state (except as the cquerors of its western half) have no rito, merely by the claim to power, call theselves Roman, and, to say the least, their leader to proclaim himself emperseemed a mockery. The Byzantines, neless to say, never accepted these newcoers claims to Roman status and view

MAY/JUNE the barnes review PAGE

This interesting wood carving showsin some detail the Byzantine theoryof imperial rule. The monarch, notabsolute and not legitimized byhereditary succession, is blessed by

the church as the chosen of God.Here, Christ is depicted anointingConstantine VII to the kingship ofConstantinople.

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

14/72

PAGE 14 the barnes review MAY/JU

them as alien interlopers enamored with,but still beneath, the dignity of Rome.

Similarly, theology was affected, or,alternatively, many of the political is-sues were at root theological ones. Theo-logical disputation was central for both theEast and the West, and, according to Nor-

wich, was a specifically Byzantine passion.When the empire was separated into twoparts, the two segments developed differ-ently from each other. The case was alsotrue with regard to theology. But therecame a time where the chasm was toobroad to be easily bridged. Questions overpapal supremacy (rather than primacy,which is rather uncontroversial), the fil-ioque (seemingly rather academic, but con-tains many implications concerning thenature of the trinity), and many otherissues made it extremely difficult toexpress unity. The fraud that was theCouncil of Florence was forced upon theByzantines just a few years before theirfall. That council simply imposed Roman(Western) theology upon Byzantium, whichhad no choice but to comply, for theRomans (of the First Rome) had promisedmilitary assistance if they would give in to

demands that Rome would not havethought of making just a century before.Given that the Second Rome was about tofall, this was a measure of desperation anddone completely under duress.

This, of course, came about 200 yearsafter the ill-fated crusades. These militaryventures, while having a noble purpose,

were not led by noble minds. The crusadesfailed for numerous reasons, largely havingto do with the fact that they were organizedalong lines later immortalized by the ThreeStooges. Furthermore, with the occasionalcomplicity of the pope of Rome, they weredirected as much against the Orthodox asagainst the Muslims. Interestingly, bothsides used the Muslim enemy againsteach other when it suited their interests.This culminated in the Fourth Crusade,which was explicitly aimed at Constantin-ople and not Islam. A weakened easternempire was overwhelmed by the tribes ofthe West, including the Normans, many ofwhom had little firsthand knowledge ofChristianity or civilized government. Whenthese bumpkins came to the gates of themost elaborate and ostentatious city inEuropean history, their lusts led to theslaughter of thousands of eastern Romans:

clergy, women and other non-combatantswell as soldiers. The Latins then occupthe empire, such as it then was, and ruleas their personal satrapy (with the full csent of the Roman pope), holding Romans (i.e., Byzantines) in utter ctempt. The crusaders were able to carve a few small and basically insignificant m

istates in the Levant (a part of Eurunder the Romans, but now Islamicizafter deposing the canonical Byzantprelates. Now, Pope Innocent clearly did sanction the slaughter, in fact, he deploit. On the other hand, he never anathemtized the usurpers of the Byzantine statpunished them in any respect. In fact, athe Latins took the city, the pope recnized, after nearly 900 years, Byzantiustatus as the Second and New Romwhich was solemnly proclaimed at the fecumenical council but resisted by the pof Rome at that time. At this time, taugust title was proper now that the cwas in the hands of the Latins. There canno question that this situation remainsimportant part of the religious estranment between East and West.

This Rape of Constantinople, imptantly, made it impossible for the churcto ever become unified again; only recenhave moves in this direction occurredwas largely because of this seminal crithat the Orthodox Church, in no smpart, still opposes union with Rome, staing from the grass-roots rebellion t

deposed the prelates present at the Cocil of Florence, imposing unity by forAs if, in Norwichs prescient words, uncould ever be achieved by a stroke of a peOf course, after this, Byzantium was nethe same. With some propriety can claim that Byzantium fell in 1204, at lein that she was never able to regain her lective esteem, military power and sensmission ever again. The Holy City had bviolated, and violated in the most vile wby groups of marauders, under orders frthe First Rome, to stamp out heresy. Tsore festers to this day between East a

West. After this, the empire of Byzantiuwas eventually split into four units, most important of which was despotate of Epiurus, along with sebastocrators of Thessaly and the despof Thessalonica, which lasted but a shtime. Then, the Islamicists foundByzantium hopelessly divided and empire with no morale to speak of. Temperor himself died in hand-to-hand cobat with the hordes of Muslims on tfateful day in July of 1453.

Through much of Byzantiums histoshe was the man to beat. Her incredi

This Byzantine miracle of the loaves and fishes is a mosaic from the navewall of Sant Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna and dates from about A.D. 504.

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

15/72

MAY/JUNE the barnes review PAGE

wealth and legendary military might madeher an ever-present target by tribes andgroups who could not hope to understandsuch a civilization. Primitive Serbs, Huns,Mongols and many other tribes and groupslaid siege to the Imperial City. Her fortifi-cations made her rather impregnable, butthey tried nonetheless. Even the vaunted

Attila (ruler of the Huns from 433 to hisdeath in 453)whose military prowess hasbeen exaggerated by historywould neverdare take on a full imperial legion, butrather was satisfied with guerrilla tactics,which succeeded in getting him bought offby emperors who thought of him as a minorirritant rather than the scourge of God. Infact, this was the primary means of pacifi-cation by Byzantium bribery. Enemieswere simply paid to not bother the empireany longer, and often resettled in strategicplaces to act as buffers (such as the Huns).Eventually, many of these people becamecivilized Europeans in the full sense of thatterm.

Furthermore, many competent emper-ors always maintained a store of provisionsthat could last a siege for up to two or threeyears. And, of course, the infamous Greekfire made certain, that, for a thousandyears, the Byzantine navy was invincible.This weapon was the first flame-thrower,sending thousands of enemy ships to thebottom in short order. It became the stuff oflegend, even in its own time, by any navalforce idiotic enough to take on the imperial

navy. Importantly, the Muslims, a militaryforce immediately after the very foundingof that sect, never bothered with a navyuntil very late in the protracted and bloodythousand-year war between Byzantiumand the various Islamic forces arrayedagainst her.

Several other things should be taken outof any introductory reading about theByzantine state. Firstly, she was never gov-erned by a dictator. The emperor was al-ways circumscribed by a code of law, onethat was held as nearly sacred. Few emper-

ors became despots in the true sense of thatterm. The divisions of power within a soci-ety were found in the urban guilds, the mil-itary governors of the external districts(many of them took power themselves in aspecifically vivid portrait of the notion ofchecks and balances), and the patriar-chate, who resisted the more rapaciousdemands of the emperors time and timeagain, as the church was never the docileservant of Byzantine state interests. Therewas no concept, for any length of time, of ahereditary monarchy. The emperor wasoften chosen by the acclaim of army units,

coups where weak Emperors were deposedby military men, or by occasional hereditysuccession. None of these were ever actual-ly enshrined into law, and yet the Byzan -tine system maintained a large empire for1,000 years.

Military leaders who took power in the

Byzantine state received their power basein the provincial themes. The theme sys-tem, as mentioned in this issues editorial,provided soldiers with a plot of land and allnecessary supplies in provincial areas inreturn for military service, training andmilitary equipment. This system createdan entire agricultural base of free laborersas these military families grew and begunto form communities working the land. By-zantium was free from serfdom and slav-ery, unlike western Europe and, later, im-perial Russia. The higher officers weretheme commanders, who, unfortunately, as

time went on, began to appear as feulords. It was the strong emperor Basiwho removed much of their power and lawithout compensation. Nonetheless, theme commander was always in an exlent position, with the support of the aras a whole, to eliminate weak and vacilling emperors in times of crisis, which

Byzantium, militarily speaking, was premuch all the time. Therefore, between urban craft guilds, the voracious trade wArabs, Persians, Latins and others, and free labor of the theme system, Byzantiwas a free, prosperous and secure placelive for the average subject of Guardian of the World.

One of the purposes of Byzantium wthe fusion of church and state. Tis, these two bodies united, but maintainthemselves in separate realms. The mthat the church was a vassal to the stateasily remedied by making mention of endless list of emperors who supported equally endless list of heretical movemethat sprang up in the east before the tof the first millennium. For various polcal reasons (well described by VladimSolovyov in his famous Russia and Universal Church), the state adopted thheresies (Arianism, Monophysitism, Mothelitism, Iconoclasm and so many othewhile, for the most part, the church stfirm (particularly at the level of the montics), eventually triumphing against

state. The power and popularity of church acted as a check against the pretsions of the emperor, while the emperown demand for power and recognition him to forbid the existence of a theocraThis fusion, imperfect though it wbecame the central Orthodox political iuntil this very day.

After the fateful year of 1453, Rusitself building its own outpost of Orthodoadopted the mantle of imperial Roappropriating the famous imperial sthe two-headed eagle, one head represeing the church, and the other the state. O

might say that Byzantium lived onMoscow, and, indeed, many of the earRussian emperors claimed as much, begning with Ivan III and his son, Basil There was indeed a marriage relatbetween Czar Ivan III and the niece of last Byzantine emperor, Constantine Palaeologus, and thus the Russian rofamily has always claimed at least this cnection with imperial Byzantium, and ctainly had almost always claimed her msion.

What is believed to be Emperor Her-aclius (r. 610-41) is depicted here in amenacing statue located in Barletta,

southern Italy. Heraclius, a brilliantmilitary strategist, defeated the

Persian empire in 627, regaining allGreek (Byzantine) territory in the

Middle East.

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

16/72

Originally from Antioch in Syria, John Chrysostomwas deeply immersed in Greek scholarship and rhet-oric. After meeting the saintly bishop Meletiusaround 367, he decided to become an ascetic and to

enter the Orthodox Church (his father was a pagan). He wasordained a priest in 386, and began to write and preach at a

level practically unheard of in the Near East at the time. Hisreputation for brilliance spread throughout both the easternand western realms. He was consecrated as patriarch ofConstantinople in 397, a See that he quickly reformed. His acidpersonality did not make him popular, but few doubted that hisreforms were necessary. He ordered a drastic reduction in theexpenses of the patriarchal house-hold. He confined the wanderingmonks to their monasteries andincreased monastic discipline. Hisharsh language was genera lly di-rected against the wealthy mem-bers of the court circle in Byzantiumwho were not exactly used to beingregularly condemned. It was notlong before he was considered agreat populist in economics.

Chrysostoms popularity alwaysremained high with the middle andlower classes, but continuallywaned among the wealthy. Unfor-tunately, this contempt also spreadto the arrogant and unintelligentempress, Eudoxia, who neverceased to cause the saint much difficulty. In so doing, theempress, always self-indulgent and pompous, made commoncause with the Jews and polytheists against Chrysostom. In

403, Chrysostom delivered a sermon condemning the extrava-gant tastes of Byzantine upper-class women, and the empressthought herself personally alluded to (which she probably was;St. John cared little whom he offended). After much intrigue,Chrysostom was uncanonically deposed. Again reinstated (af-ter Eudoxia thought a recent earthquake was a sign of divinedisfavor for her actions), this fearless saint simply continuedhis speaking and writing against the luxury of the ruling class-es, speculative and pastoral theology,and scripture commentary (the latterfor which he is rightfully the most fa-mous).

After a gaudy silver statue of the empress was erected sus-piciously near theHagia Sophia (the Cathedral of the DivineWisdom, the seat of the patriarchate), the saint railed againstthe pagan and Jewish Dionysian revelry that went on aroundit during its unveiling, timed purposely to coincide with churchservices. At this time, the desperate polytheists who remained

within the Christian empire had formed an alliance of conven-ience with the Jews, whose contempt for Christian ways waswell known.

This homily is an edited version of one of Chrysostomsspeeches against the behavior of the Jews. It is often removedfrom compilations of Chrysostoms work and is a source for

continued Jewish invective against theancient church. It is primarily an at-tack on Jewish contempt for even theirown (or allegedly their own) Torah (OldTestament) traditions, soon to be over-thrown by the developing Talmudic law.This sermons heavy theological naturewas primarily meant to show that theTorahs prophetic condemnations andcriticisms of ancient Israel were stillapplicable in his day. In other words,Chrysostom approached the matter asa theologian. St. John sometimes usesflowery, theologicaland oftentimesextremely harshlanguage that mightbe unfamiliar or upsetting to some ofour readers.

It is republished here for severalreasons. First, it is published to show the mind of the ancientchurch (of which Chrysostom was one of the primary repre-sentatives) concerning the Jews. Second, it is a historical doc-

ument that clearly shows, from a prescient and perceptive eye-witness, the behavior of the Jews in a Christian society thatthey despised. It is published, third, to show that the criticismsof Jewish behavior in recent decades are not different in anymajor respect than that of Chrysostoms day. The saints popu-larity was such as to strongly suggest that the masses ofByzantium supported Johns position. St. John Chrysostomswork is an example of a day when Christianity was truly

orthodox, not tainted and watered downwith liberal ideology, Jewish complaintsand the burning desire to be accepted bythe powerful classes.

WHOWASST. JOHNCHRYSOSTOM?AN INTRODUCTION BYM. RAPHAELJOHNSON, PH.D.

St. John Chrysostom (from Chrysostomos, meaning golden mouthed or,as we would say, golden tongued), who lived within the confines of the

Byzantine empire from c. A.D. 347 to 407, was the patriarch of Constantinopleand one of the greatest theologians of the eastern church. He is a major saintin both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and the eastern churchhas given him the title of ecumenical doctor (along with Saints Gregory theTheologian and Basil the Great), meaning a teacher of the universal church.

Dr. M. Raphael Johnson is the associate

editor of THEBARNESREVIEW.

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

17/72

The festivals of the pitiful and miser-able Jews are soon to march uponus, one after the other and in quick

succession: the feast of trumpets, the feastof tabernacles, the fasts. There are many inour ranks who say they think as we do. Yetsome of these are going to watch the festi-vals, and others will join the Jews in keep-ing their feasts and observing their fasts. Iwish to drive this perverse custom from thechurch right now. [Now] that the Jewish fes-tivals are close by and at the very door, if Ishould fail to cure those who are sick withthe Judaizing disease, I am afraid that,because of their ill-suited association anddeep ignorance, some Christians may par-take in the Jews transgressions. Once theyhave done so, I fear my homilies on thesetransgressions will be in vain. For if theyhear no word from me today, they will thenjoin the Jews in their fasts; once they havecommitted this sin, it will be useless for meto apply the remedy.

[Do] not be surprised that I called theJews pitiable. They really are pitiable andmiserable. When so many blessings from

heaven came into their hands, they thrustthem aside and were at great pains to rejectthem. The morning sun of justice arose forthem, but they thrust aside its rays and stillsit in darkness. We, who were nurtured bydarkness, drew the light to ourselves andwere freed from the gloom of their error.They were the branches of that holy root,but those branches were broken. We had noshare in the root, but we did reap the fruitof godliness. From their childhood they readthe prophets, but they crucified Him Whomthe prophets had foretold. We did not hearthe divine prophecies but we did worship

A HOMILY ON THEROLE OFJUDAISM

IN THECHRISTIANCHURCHBYSAINTJOHN CHRYSOSTOM

The famous St. John Chrysostom, the greatest saint of the EasternChristian world, is least known for his harsh and passionate criticism of theJews and the Judaizers of Constantinople. Here is a sampling of his writings,suppressed by almost every mainstream historical journal in the world.

These churches in the important See of Cappadocia in Turkey are carved inthe peculiar natural rock formations. Although the Middle East was a parEurope previous to the rise of Islam, the Greek-Hellenic-Byzantine influendid not always eliminate more provincial forms of art, such as this unusuarchitectural style. Tensions between Greek civilization and provincnativism caused many difficulties for both church and state in Byzantium.

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

18/72

Him of Whom they prophesied. And so theyare pitiful because they rejected the bless-ings which were sent to them, while othersseized hold of these blessings and drewthem to themselves. Although those Jewshad been called to the adoption of sons, theyfell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogsreceived the strength, through Gods grace,

to put aside the irrational nature which wasours and to rise to the honor of sons. How doI prove this? Christ said: It is not fair totake the childrens bread and to cast it to thedogs. Christ was speaking to the Canaanitewoman when He called the Jews childrenand the Gentiles dogs.

But see how thereafter the order waschanged about: they became dogs, and webecame the children. Paul said of the Jews:Beware of the dogs, beware of the evilworkers, beware of the mutilation. For weare the circumcision. Do you see how thosewho at first were children became dogs? Doyou wish to find out how we, who at firstwere dogs, became children? But to asmany as received him, he gave the power ofbecoming sons of God.

Nothing is more miserable than thosepeople who never failed to attacktheir own salvation. When there was need toobserve the Law, they trampled it underfoot.Now that the Law has ceased to bind, theyobstinately strive to observe it. What couldbe more pitiable that those who provokeGod not only by transgressing the Law but

also by keeping it? On this account Stephensaid: You stiff-necked and uncircumcised inheart, you always resist the Holy Spirit, notonly by transgressing the Law but also bywishing to observe it at the wrong time.

Stephen was right in calling them stiff-necked. For they failed to take up the yokeof Christ, although it was sweet and hadnothing about it which was either burden-some or oppressive. For he said: Learn fromme for I am meek and humble of heart, andTake my yoke upon you, for my yoke issweet and my burden light. Nonethelessthey failed to take up the yoke because of

the stiffness of their necks. Not only didthey fail to take it up but they broke it anddestroyed it. For Jeremiah said: Long agoyou broke your yoke and burst your bonds.It was not Paul who said this but the voiceof the prophet speaking loud and clear.When he spoke of the yoke and the bonds,he meant the symbols of rule, because theJews rejected the rule of Christ when theysaid: We have no king but Caesar. YouJews broke the yoke, you burst the bonds,you cast yourselves out of the kingdom ofheaven, and you made yourselves subject tothe rule of men. Please consider with me

how accurately the prophet hinted thattheir hearts were uncontrolled. He did notsay: You set aside the yoke, but, You brokethe yoke, and this is the crime of untamedbeasts, who are uncontrolled and reject rule.

But what is the source of this hardness?It come from gluttony and drunkenness.Who says so? Moses himself. Israel ate and

was filled, and the darling grew fat andfrisky. When brute animals feed from a fullmanger, they grow plump and become moreobstinate and hard to hold in check; theyendure neither the yoke, the reins nor thehand of the charioteer. Just so the Jewishpeople were driven by their drunkennessand plumpness to the ultimate evil; theykicked about, they failed to accept the yokeof Christ, nor did they pull the plow of histeaching. Another prophet hinted at thiswhen he said: Israel is as obstinate as astubborn heifer. And still another called theJews an untamed calf.

Although such beasts are unfit for work,they are fit for killing. And this is what hap-pened to the Jews: while they were makingthemselves unfit for work, they grew fit forslaughter. This is why Christ said: But asfor these my enemies, who did not want meto be king over them, bring them here andslay them.1

You Jews should have fasted then, whendrunkenness was doing those terriblethings to you, when your gluttony was giv-ing birth to your ungodlinessnot now.Now your fasting is untimely and an abom-

ination. Who said so? Isaiah himself whenhe called out in a loud voice: I did notchoose this fast, say the Lord. Why? Youquarrel and squabble when you fast andstrike those subject to you with your fists.But if your fasting was an abominationwhen you were striking your fellow slaves,does it become acceptable now that youhave slain your Master? How could that beright?

The man who fasts should be properlyrestrained, contrite, humblednot drunkwith anger. But do you strike your fellowslaves? In Isaiahs day they quarreled and

squabbled when they fasted; now whenfast[ing], they go in for excesses and the ul-timate licentiousness, dancing with barefeet in the marketplace. The pretext is thatthey are fasting, but they act like men whoare drunk. Hear how the prophet bid themto fast: Sanctify a fast, he said. He did notsay: Make a parade of your fasting, butcall an assembly; gather together theancients. But these Jews are gathering cho-ruses of effeminates and a great rubbishheap of harlots; they drag into the syna-gogue the whole theater, actors and all. Forthere is no difference between the theater

and the synagogue. I know that some spect me of rashness because I said therno difference between the theater and synagogue; but I suspect them of rashnesthey do not think that this is so. If my dlaration that the two are the same restsmy own authority, then charge me wrashness. But if the words I speak are

words of the prophet, then accept his dsion.

Many, I know, respect the Jews think that their present way of lifa venerable one. This is why I hastenuproot and tear out this deadly opinionsaid that the synagogue is no better thatheater and I bring forward a prophet as witness. Surely the Jews are not mdeserving of belief than their prophets. Yhad a harlots brow; you became shamelbefore all. Where a harlot has set herup, that place is a brothel. But the sygogue is not only a brothel and a theateralso is a den of robbers and a lodging wild beasts. Jeremiah said: Your house become for me the den of a hyena. He dnot simply say of wild beast, but of a filwild beast, and again: I have abandonmy house, I have cast off my inheritanBut when God forsakes a people, what hof salvation is left? When God forsakeplace, that place becomes the dwellingdemons.

But at any rate the Jews say that thtoo, adore God. God forbid that I say th

No Jew adores God. Who says so? The SoGod says so. For he said: If you wereknow my Father, you would also know But you neither know me nor do you knmy Father. Could I produce a witness mtrustworthy than the Son of God?

If, then, the Jews fail to know the Fathif they crucified the Son, if they thrust the help of the Spirit, who should not mbold to declare plainly that the synagogua dwelling of demons? God is not worshipthere. Heaven forbid. From now onremains a place of idolatry. But still sopeople pay it honor as a holy place.

If you see one of your brothers fallinto . . . transgressions, you consider thais someone elses misfortune, not your owyou think you have defended yourselagainst your accusers when you say: Wconcern of mine is it? What do I have in comon with that man?2 When you say thyour words manifest the utmost hatred mankind and a cruelty which benefits devil. What are you saying? You are a mand share the same nature. Why speak ocommon nature when you have but a sinhead, Christ? Do you dare to say you hnothing in common with your own me

PAGE 18 the barnes review MAY/JU

5/24/2018 TBR2001-no3

19/72

bers? In what sense do you admit thatChrist is the head of the church? For cer-tainly it is the function of the head to join allthe limbs together, to order them carefullyto each other, and to bind them into onenature. But if you have nothing in commonwith your members, then you have nothingin common with your brother, nor do you

have Christ as your head.The Jews frighten you as if you were lit-

tle children,