Romaion (not "Byzantine") Coins and Culture
Mike Marotta
http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm
by Clifton R. Fox, Professor of History, Tomball College, Tomball, TX,
USA.
Revised 3/29/96.
The original version of this article appeared in the Celator [Volume
10, Number 3: March 1996]. Portions are also quoted in the book
Ancient Coin Collecting by Wayne G. Sayles, published [June 1996] by
Krause Publications.
The phrase "Byzantine Empire" was coined and popularized by French
scholars such as Montesquieu, an influential figure of eighteenth
century intellectual life.. ... From the obsolete name "Byzantium,"
Montesquieu used the word "Byzantine." The word "Byzantine" denoted
the Empire and connoted its supposed characteristics: dishonesty,
dissimulation and decadence. ...
The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used
the word "Byzantine." They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more
and absolutely nothing less
http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm
See also:
Classical Deception: Counterfeits, Forgeries and Reproductions of
Ancient Coins
reviewed by Oliver D. Hoover
http://ansmagazine.com/winter03/deception.html
Wikipedia -- Pisanello
In 1438 the Council of Basel negotiated with the Byzantine Emperor
John VIII Palaiologos. On this occasion Pisanello struck a
commemorative medal of the emperor. He also made some drawings with
portraits of the emperor and his retinue (on display at the Louvre,
Paris), suggesting he had a commission for a painting or fresco for
the Este residence.
He thus became the inventor of the fields of portrait medals and
related medallic art. During his lifetime Pisanello was best known for
his medals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisanello
If you use Google Images with a searchon Pisnalleo Medals you can find
images of his work of the Roman Emperor, John Paleologos. The medal
clearly states in Greek:
(my transliteration: W for Omega, etc)
O PALAIOLOGOC HOANNHC BACILEYC KAI AYTOKRATWR RWMAIWN
"John Palaiologos, king and emperor of the Romans"
The Venetians and others at the Council of Basel did not know the word
"Byzantine."
Today, in our American vernacular, we interchange England, Britain,
Great Britain and the United Kingdom. They mean very different
things. We call ourselves "Americans" -- not incorrectly, but to the
consternation of people from Peru, Brazil and a lot of other places in
two continents, who also consider themselves "Americans."
Words have meaning. If they do not, then why not just call coins
"real shiny" or "worn" and leave it at that?
gogu
news:eae099da-1826-4f4d...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> The phrase "Byzantine Empire" was coined and popularized by French
> scholars such as Montesquieu, an influential figure of eighteenth
> century intellectual life.. ...
True.
> The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used
> the word "Byzantine." They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more
> and absolutely nothing less
True.
Roman citizens and after the 6th-7th century Greeks by ethnic background
and/or culture.
> If you use Google Images with a searchon Pisnalleo Medals you can find
> images of his work of the Roman Emperor, John Paleologos. The medal
> clearly states in Greek:
> (my transliteration: W for Omega, etc)
> O PALAIOLOGOC HOANNHC BACILEYC KAI AYTOKRATWR RWMAIWN
> "John Palaiologos, king and emperor of the Romans"
Only that by that time the name "Romeos" was used to described the citizens
of the Eastern Roman Empire but of *Greek* ethnic background or at least
conscience or culture!
As a matter of fact the name "Romeos" was altered a little and became
"Romios" as it is still used today by the Greeks to describe them: "Romios
(sing)-Romii (pl)".
Even in the dark years of the Ottoman yoke Greek rebels like Athanassios
Diakos when dying by the Ottoman hand, they were shouting in plain Greek:
"...ego Romios genithika, Romios kai tha pethano", "I was born Romios
(=Greek) and Romios I will die"...
rgrds
Reid Goldsborough
> The phrase "Byzantine Empire" was coined and popularized by French
> scholars such as Montesquieu, an influential figure of eighteenth
> century intellectual life.
Not true. It was used much earlier than that. Again, Hieronymus Wolf
wrote a book titled Corpus Historiae Byzantinae, which mainly was a
collection of ancient sources on Byzantine history, in 1557. He
actually is probably not the source of
the term. "Bezant" as a name was used in the 12th century.
> The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used
> the word "Byzantine." They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more
> and absolutely nothing less.
Means nothing. Again, German rulers during the Middle Ages called
themselves Romans too even though their Holy Roman Empire was also
anything but Roman. Lots of people and peoples latch onto popular
names like this when there's no or little connection -- Romania, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, etc., etc.
The name "Byzantine" serves its purpose well, differentiating the
Latin speaking empire of the Romans whose capital for most of it life
was Rome from the Greek speaking empire that succeeded it whose
capital was Constantinople, formerly Byzantion. As a term "Byzantine"
won't be going away any time soon. Using a difficult to spell and
pronounce Greek word for Roman makes little sense and won't fly. The
Roman empire was centered on Rome, the Byzantine on the former
Byzantion. A case could be made for calling the latter the Constantine
empire or some such, though you could make compelling arguments
against this as well.
Mike Marotta
wrote:
> anything but Roman. Lots of people and peoples latch onto popular
> names like this when there's no or little connection -- Romania, the
> former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, etc., etc.
Funny you should mention it. "Romania" in particular was a label
created by the French to stir sympathy for a revolt against the
"Byzantine" or Ottoman Empire. Dacia, Wallachia and Transylvania were
the placenames before 1878.
As for "Macedonia" that tangled mass of emotional catch-phrases is
impossible to sort out and RCC has seen more than enough of those
flames. Nonetheless, if you knew more about "Macedonia" about the
Alexanders and the Phillips, you would not question the use of that
term by some people from the northern regions.
In our lifetimes, we have changed the names of peoples to align with
political correctness. There is nothing wrong with RE-establishing a
name for historical correctness.
Peter Irwin
>
> Still think "Byzantine Empire" was a term coined in the eighteenth
> century?
I don't know when it was coined, but even in the early 19th century
it was normal to call the empire of Constantinople the "Roman Empire."
I just looked up the article on Constantinople in my 4th ed Britannica,
(1810) and nowhere is the word "Byzantine" found - it was always the
"Roman Empire" right up to the fall of Istampoli to the Turks.
Talking about the collapse of the western empire as if it were the
fall of the Roman Empire gives people a distorted view of
history.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Reid Goldsborough
Terminology serves meaning. As discussed, there's very good reason to
sharply distinguish the Roman and Byzantine empires rather than
lumping them together as the Roman empire or to use a slight variation
of the word "Roman" to refer to the empire that didn't speak the
language of the Romans, didn't worship traditional Roman gods, and
wasn't centered at Rome. The latter may have evolved from the former,
but so did the American empire from the British, with a very similar
overlap.
Mike Marotta
wrote:
> Still think "Byzantine Empire" was a term coined in the eighteenth
In my article on Harlan Berk's _100 Greatest Ancients_ in the current
CELATOR I cite his assertion that the term "Byzantine" was an artifact
of papal politics. It was the wars against the Turks in the 16th and
17th centuries that led to that propaganda. We can search the archives
for earlier or later references (the 4th Britannica was an interesting
point: as late as 1810.) That only goes to reinforce the assertion
that the term Byzantine is not appropropriate.
People who are eye-gnorant ask me if I am Eye-talian. I do not bother
to point out that Eye-taly is a peninsula while Sicily, from whence my
grandparents came, is an island. The distinction is lost on the eye-
gorant who think all Eye-talians are pretty much the same.
So, too, with "Byzantine." The term is an artifact of politics and it
is perpetuated by ignorance, including ignorance of Italian history.
Cite the 16th century or the 18th for this occurrance or some other.
The people of that earlier time and place never called themselves
anything else but Romans or Romaion, Romion: the nuances of accent
over time do not change the core truth.
Also, Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman empire. Latin was its
administrative language. Grafitti in Rome defamed Nero in Greek.
Marcus Aurelius wrote his Meditiations in Greek.
From the Book of John, John 19:19-21 --
19 Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writing
was:
JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus
was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek,
and Latin.
21 Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not
write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘He said, “I am the King of the
Jews.”’”
22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19:19-22;&version=50;
(and again from the Catholics at New Advent)
19 And Pilate wrote a title also: and he put it upon the cross. And
the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 This
title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where
Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city. And it was written in
Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin. 21
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh019.htm
We know that Hebrew was only the local language. However, the use of
both Greek and Latin is significant. Greek was widely used throughout
the Roman Empire. So, the fact that the people of Constantinople used
Greek in preference to Latin, even while calling themselves Romans is
not surprising.
Furthermore, we conflate ROMAN and LATIN but they were two different
people and to their own sensibilties they spoke two mutually
intelligible but distinct languages. After the Romans conquered the
Latins it was a moot point. But do not claim that "Latin" was the
language of the "Roman" empire unless you understand what you are
saying.
Furthermore, you could make a similar claim about ETRUSCAN a language
apparently known to Claudius (Tiberius Claudius, the son of Livia),
and likely to many other upper class Romans. It was not, however, the
language of the empire, any more than Hebrew was. It was known to a
small albeit elite circle. Greek, however, was a language of the
Empire, finally lost to common knowledge in the _West_ only about the
7th Century AD.
Among the great works of the Roman empire written in Greek were
Plutarch's biographies of Romans contrasted with Greeks, That pretty
much says it all.
Anka
wrote:
>
> Terminology serves meaning. As discussed, there's very good reason to
> sharply distinguish the Roman and Byzantine empires rather than
> lumping them together as the Roman empire or to use a slight variation
> of the word "Roman" to refer to the empire that didn't speak the
And just what was the language of the Romans, hmmm?
~Anka
Anka
>
> People who are eye-gnorant ask me if I am Eye-talian. I do not bother
> to point out that Eye-taly is a peninsula while Sicily, from whence my
> grandparents came, is an island. �The distinction is lost on the eye-
> gorant who think all Eye-talians are pretty much the same.
>
I had friends back in the old neighborhood whose surname was
Syracuse. They insisted that they were Italian. I couldn't convince
them that they were Greek. ;-)
~Anka
Reid Goldsborough
> Also, Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman empire.
No, it wasn't. Greek was spoken in the East, and some people
originally from Greece or Asia Minor or Syria or other previously
Hellenistic lands conquered by Alexander the Great who wound up in
Rome. But Greek wasn't spoken in the lands Rome conquered elsewhere,
and it wasn't what the people living in Rome spoke as their everyday
language.
Mike Marotta
wrote:
> No, it wasn't. Greek was spoken in the East, and some people
> But Greek wasn't spoken in the lands Rome conquered elsewhere,
Greek was spoken by Sicilians, about half the island for about 500
years before the Romans showed up.
If you open a book -- I suggest Sear's two-volume work on ancient
Greek coins -- you will see all of the Greek towns around the
Mediterranean.
Naples, (Neopolis) Even today, in Naples, some people nod their heads
to mean "no" in the Greek manner. Tarento, Masillia (Marseilles:
Bouillabaisse being a Greek fish stew, the town founded by Greeks
600BC). Nice (Nikaia = Victory) founded by Greeks from Masillia
(Marseilles). The Greek town of Emporion ("trade") in Spain is known
today as Ampurias, nearly the same name.
At the Crucifixion, Jesus was met by man from Cyrene. Kyrene was an
old Greek town, founded by Dorians from Thera. In the generation
after Jesus, Jews and Greeks from Cyrene went to Rome to petition the
emperor to arbitrate a settlement between them. Cyrene in in North
Africa, near where Benghazi is today in Libya. Tripoli, of course is
the Greek name. Tarabulos is how they pronounce it today.
When you say "people in the streets of Rome" you are, of course,
referring to the nexus of an empire that spanned three continents.
So, you really have to specify which people you mean. Many spoke
Greek while going about town. Your claim reduces to the tautology
that in Rome, people who did not speak Greek did not speak Greek.
"But Caesar, when he reached Pompey's ramparts and saw those of the
enemy who were already lying dead there and those who were still
falling, said with a groan: "They would have it so; they brought me to
such a pass that if I, Caius Caesar, after waging successfully the
greatest wars, had dismissed my forces, I should have been condemned
in their courts."82 2 Asinius Pollio says that these words, which
Caesar afterwards wrote down in Greek, were uttered by him in Latin at
the time..." and again at the Assassination... "At almost the same
instant both cried out, the smitten man in Latin: "Accursed Casca,
what does thou?" and the smiter, in Greek, to his brother: "Brother,
help!" "-- Plutarch's CAESAR.
That the people of the Greek lands continued to speak Greek within the
context of the Roman empire is no surprise and their speaking Greek
does not cast any shadow on their being Romans.
RWF
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgold...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cb71765-2f50-4c9d...@d32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>Yes, because the cities in Magna Graecia -- Greek Italy -- were
founded by Greeks! this and your other examples doesn't support your
ridiculous statement that the lingua franca of Rome was Greek. It was
Latin, again, except in cities that were formerly Greek. More playing
fast and loose with the facts here.<
Shut up, you pompous twit, just shut up.
Anka
wrote:
> On Dec 2, 12:12�am, Mike Marotta <merc...@torchlake.com> wrote:
>
> > Greek was spoken by Sicilians, about half the island for about 500
> > years before the Romans showed up.
>
> founded by Greeks! this and your other examples doesn't support your
> ridiculous statement that the lingua franca of Rome was Greek. It was
> Latin, again, except in cities that were formerly Greek. More playing
> fast and loose with the facts here.
Greek Italy? Surely, you don't mean this to be a literal translation
of Magna Graecia? Even so, your use of the word "Italy" is, shall we
say, something akin to playing fast and loose with the facts. Repeat
after me... Anachronism: a chronological misplacing of persons,
events, objects, or customs in regard to each other.
~Anka
Peter Irwin
>
> Terminology serves meaning. As discussed, there's very good reason to
> sharply distinguish the Roman and Byzantine empires rather than
> lumping them together as the Roman empire or to use a slight variation
> of the word "Roman" to refer to the empire that didn't speak the
> language of the Romans, didn't worship traditional Roman gods, and
> wasn't centered at Rome. The latter may have evolved from the former,
> but so did the American empire from the British, with a very similar
> overlap.
No, the United States "empire" is not a continuation of the
British Empire. The people of the United States do not call
themselves "British." A better analogy would be what would
become of Canada if Quebec separates. You could argue that
"Canada" originally meant a French speaking country on the
St. Lawrence, but if the rest of Canada continued to call
itself and be called by others "Canada" and its inhabitants
"Canadians" then they would still be the owners of the name.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
`