Will the Real Roman Emperor Please Stand Up? Frankish, German, and Byzantine Claims to Rome's Legacy

Otto III striking a very Roman pose...more on that later. If you can make out the text above the gold-clad Woman with the football(it's a dish), It says Roma. The personification of Rome is...deferring...to a Saxon? Hwæt?!? Stay tuned...

Those whom we call Byzantines knew themselves as Romaioi. The dichotomy inherent in this, a Greek word for Roman people, mirrored that of the Byzantine Empire itself. If the Byzantines were Roman, why was Greek, not Latin spoken in the heartland? Even the official language of the court after 620 was Greek, when the Emperor Heraclius proclaimed it so. If the Byzantines were Roman, why was ‘Roman’ being used to describe the brand of Christianity which ever steadily made itself distinct from the other four patriarchates in the East?

However, a question even more obvious, more nagging, and more embarrassing was this: If the Byzantines were Roman, how come Rome wasn’t Byzantine?

It was a question with a complicated answer and a long history, which I have attempted to condense into a narrative which you may find here, assuming I am ever bothered to finish it. If this isn't good enough, check out the podcast in the 'Further Reading' section at the end.

In short, while the West frankly (heh) didn’t see how the Byzantines could call themselves Roman without Rome, the Byzantines felt that they were the continuation of the Roman Empire because

a)      Their emperor was the legal successor to the title of Roman Emperor, and thus they were the Roman Empire—they were at first the only ones using the title (until 800—the Ostrogoths and Lombards were using ‘King of Italy’), and they never stopped using, it was never vacant it in their own minds, so anybody who wanted to be Roman Emperor would have to take it from their Emperor’s cold, dead body.

b)      The fact that the transfer of the capital under Constantine in 330 from Rome to Constantinople also meant that the possession of Rome was not as important to the title of Roman Empire as the possession of Constantinople.

c)       As Justinian proved in briefly controlling Rome (the Lombard threat essentially made Byzantine Rome secure in name only. It held out to be sure, but there's a reason the Pope began to seek aid from without) after the Gothic Wars ended in 554, though Rome was at times not firmly in the possession of the Byzantines, it could always be taken again some day.

d)      Only the Byzantine Empire had the flair and the ceremony enough to be worthy of the legacy of the Romans. Their art and architecture and opulence outdid others around, some of it actually Roman antiquary or based on Roman designs, further legitimising their Roman connexion.

Of course such justifications could be countered, and they were.

Though the capital had been moved to Constintanople, Rome remained the spiritual capital, and the namesake of the Roman Empire. It had, in short, the precedence of an older brother in the minds of many, or even a father. Rome may have been declining and Constantinople rising in population and wealth, but Rome simply had clout. It also had the Pope, who was still trying to establish his office as the most important among the five Christian patriarchs—after all, he held the keys of St Peter.

Secondly, though Byzantines could have taken Rome, they didn't, being too busy fighting Arab invaders or, more often, amongst themselves in succession disputes or over religious matters. Meanwhile, their supposed holding in Rome was beset upon by German invaders who practised Arianism, a Christian heresy. If the Byzantines wouldn't help, by golly, it was the Pope’s right to find somebody who would!

Still, the Empire did have panache that was undeniable. And there was the problem of the title of Roman Emperor being technically filled.

But upon the ambitious ascension to the throne by the Empress Irene of Athens in 797, who was not content to rule as merely a regent for her son, the West got its chance to at least counter Byzantium’s claim that the title to Emperor was already taken.

A modern icon of Saint Irene of Athens. Not too shabby for an Empress who practically ruined Byzantine's foreign policy

Irene was not very popular in the Eastern provinces of her empire, where iconoclasm, the belief that religious icons were idolatrous, was in vogue. She herself was an iconodule, and an active one at that, so there was conflict there. But even the iconodules were hard pressed to stomach her brutal blinding of her own son, who, you know, died. And there just happened to be an eclipse just after that so that everybody could see what was clearly God's way of telling Irene "party foul".

What was really useful, though, was that she was a woman.

Pope Leo III, the pope at the time, upon realising this, and in eye trouble of his own back at the Rome-home—apparently some Roman people tried to blind him (what's with all these blindings?! Haven't these people heard of Gandhi?!? He didn't live until almost a thousand years later?!? Oh, well I suppose that would explain it)—sought help by dropping by his old pal Charlemagne, whose Frankish predecessors were very near and dear to the Pope for a) not being Arian and b) sometimes kind of helping out, which was frankly (heh) more than anybody else did, especially the Byzantines (don't worry Papacy, you'll get your moment in just a few centuries).

In any case, Charlemagne went with Leo to Rome, reinstated the Pope and went to Christmas mass (bit of a tautology there, eh?) in 800, so the legend goes, oblivious as to what would happen: in the middle of the service, Leo crowned him Emperor of the Romans, which was the same title the Byzantines employed. 

How could he do this? He reasoned that because Irene was not a man, and had essentially usurped her son, she was not a legitimate Emperor. The title was vacant. Importantly, he did not reason that the title Charlemagne had was some resurgence of the Western part of the Empire. He crowned him as 

Wow, was this a bold, unprecedented declaration by the Pope, and a hearty "forget you" to his heretofore Byzantine superiors. 

Of course, the Byzantines had had enough with their disaster of an Empress, and soon deposed her, especially when Charlemagne began to court her hand to really seal the deal. But the damage had been done. Now there were two Roman Emperors again, only now they didn't recognise each other as such. The West called the East the Greek Empire, and the Byzantines simply refused to acknowledge the new Roman Empire's existence.

All of Byzantium's claims to Roman heritage had been countered by the west save one: outperforming the Byzantines at their own specialty; to wit, splendour. If two men are claiming to be the emperor, the stage is set for the greatest

Roman Emperor Constantine (r. 306-337)

The Byzantine Emperors Leo IV and Constantine VI (r. 780-797), Irene's son

The Byzantine Empress Irene (r. 797-802)

Emperor Charlemagne (r. 800-814 as emperor)

Notice anything? Charlemagne is supposedly the direct successor of the Byzantine Emperor, Constantine VI, who was int the eyes of the pope unlawfully deposed by an usurper, Irene. Charlemagne is not supposed to be a new Western Emperor, but simply the Imperator of the Romans, as the above coin in oversized letters declares. He looks like the logo for a pizza chain for heaven's sake, he's not playing around here. He's trying to be Constantine the Great, the Roman Emperor, not a Byzantine Emperor. He is dressed in the Latin toga, which we know from Einhard, his biographer, that in actuality he detested to wear and did it only for show in Rome, as well as the imperial laurels, just as Constantine wears them in his coin, in profile. He too is profile, in line with the Roman coin, in contrast to the frontal orientation of the Byzantine coinage. A statement here is made that the true heir to Rome has arrived on the scene. There were two Roman Emperors in the world, but only one actually owned Rome (technically the Pope's, but surrounded by Charlemagne's northern Italian lands. Byzantium itself had a foothold in Italy's boot--the southern coast as well as Italy, soon to be lost to Arab pirates). Only one actually went to toga parties.

Interestingly, Byzantine coinage does not react to this threat by using their own antique symbols. They coolly continue to mint coins one after the other with the same orb and cross, the same frontal orientation, only occasionally initiating new types with portraits of Christ or two co-emperors holding together a cross. Always frontal, though. Always in the same non-Classical garb. The Byzantines aren't just yet bringing the boombox to Rome, playing "Baby Come Back". They've been dumped by the pope, and their response? Meh, the whole thing will blow over.

Which, surprisingly, it did. Temporarily. Traditional Carolingian succession laws were, how to put this, not particularly conducive to maintaining an empire. Namely, every son, brother, and their royal pet of the King expected to be in part an heir to his deceased relative's land holdings, such that kingdoms were split among siblings and cadet relations with each death. Attempts to change the succession law usually ended in factions and civil war. Eventually, by 924, there was no Emperor of the Romans at all in the west. The title had gone. The Byzantines seemingly had won by doing absolutely nothing!

Unfortunately for them, the son of the German King Henry the Fowler, Otto, would reverse the situation.

Aside from being assailed from the east by Magyars (just as Arabs assailed the Byzantine Empire), Otto had many internal revolts owing to the fact that he was a Saxon among duchies originally Carolingian and the fact that he had brothers and relations for whom his father had declined to dvide his land after his death. Consolidating his strength against both internal and external foes made Otto into an effective authority figure who knew that centralisation was the future for Germany. And what was more centralised in Europe's collective memory than the Roman Empire? Or the Byzantines, for that matter? Turning his fractured feudal kingdom into a powerful monarchy proved challenging, but rewarding, especially when particularly troublesome vassals like, say, Berengar, King of Italy, whose conduct offered no recourse but to come sweeping in with an army, declare oneself the King of Italy in addition to the King of Germany, and in doing so create a Holy Roman Empire. Ah,  a new impostor for Constantinople to have to deal with, tell off, and grudgingly redirect errant letters to, which had been sent to the wrong Roman Empire.

And Otto's empire didn't crumble. His son, Otto II, managed to be just as competent. But could they rightly call themselves a Roman Empire? Forsooth, Italy was theirs, but they still had the problem of panache which Charlemagne had. They had to make sure that the Holy Roman Empire was as awe-inspiring or more so than the Byzantine Empire.

Otto's plan? Take from the Byzantines. Take their court ceremony, their pomp, their art styles. He even married his son Otto II to a Byzantine princess, Theophanu, whose entrance into the court shocked and amazed onlookers and brought a sense of legitimacy to this rabble of Germans. I have no doubt that she took with her Byzantine treasures, and we can images of Empire and Authority directly taken from Byzantine motifs in the Ottonian court.

To the left we see an ivory of a Byzantine Emperor, Romanos, and Empress, Eudoxia, being annointed by Christ himself, made within Romanos' reign from 948-963. To the right, an Ottonian ivory depicting Otto II and his Byzantine bride Theophanu in the exact same setting!

We also have a number of works in which Rome is clearly and focally subject to an Ottonian emperor, just as Charlemagne's coin declares in large font Imperator.

Otto I (r. as emperor 962-973) from manuscript c. 1200

Here Otto I accepts the surrender of Berengar of Italy, Why Berengar in particular? Because he symbolised both a subjected Italy and the birth of Otto's Roman Empire. This is later than Otto's actual reign, and should not be viewed as propaganda, but as a developed understanding and persistence in the identification of the Holy Roman Empire with the Roman predecessor.

Depiction of Otto III (r. 996-1002) from the Gospels of Otto c.1000

This illuminated page from a Gospel Book, howver, is contemporary with the Ottonian dynasty. It was commissioned by the emperor, and depicts the Emperor in a regal pose with the Imperial Orb and sceptre. Four personifications bring him gifts: Sclavia (the recently subjugated Slavs), Germania (the homeland of the Saxon Ottonian dynasty), Gallia (the realm of the Franks), and, importantly, in the lead of them all, prepared to give Otto the Eucharist Bowl to Otto, bowed in deference, is Roma, clad in gold, the pride and key of the empire, but subject also.

His father, Otto II (r. 967-983), commanded a similarly regal figure--at least in the works commissioned by him or his family (including that Byzantine wife of his!), like this from the Registrum Gregorii, c. 983

Do you notice something about the seated, frontal, kingly pose in all of these works? It's quite familiar in Roman works of art...

The Missorium of Theodosius I, c. 388

...and was also found reiterated in Byzantine Art

Proclamation of Leo V (r. 813-820) as Emperor from the 11th Century Madrid Sklitzes 

A later Byzantine depiction of Theophilus (r. 829-842) from a Chronicle made in the later 11th Century

So you see that the Ottonians utilised Byzantine traditions in order to legitimise themselves and showcase their equal, if rival, power. If the Byzantines had the most magnificent art, the idea was to start with their motifs and build from there. Of course, these images are from contemporary or later eras than the Ottonian one; however, they were part of a tradition stemming back to Rome.

As the Holy Roman Empire wore on, the Byzantines were forced to recognise unofficially that it was there to stay, their own attentions being forced to turn to other problems in the East and at home. The schism between the Eastern and Western churches in 1054 signaled the end of an era where the Byzantines meddled much in Italian affairs; the crusading era, where the West would instead invade the East, was on the horizon. There were actually some scuffles on Italy that didn't amount to much between the two Empires, but in the end, the Byzantines simply had other problems to worry about. Besides, a very pompous and empowered Pope in Rome proved to be more a nuisance to the Holy Roman emperors than they ever were to the Byzantines.


Sources and Further Reading:

12 Byzantine Rulers Podcast: An incredibly informative podcast by Lars Bromsworth. For this week’s web-log post, I listened to 11 – Irene, 12 – Basil I, and 13 – Basil II.

Princess Theophanu and the Introduction of the Fork: A look at Ottonian German/Byzantine relations and synthesis in the person of Theophanu, the Byzantine bride of Otto II.

Medieval Images of Power: I’d like to say for the record that I saw the seated Ottos and the Missorium of Theodosius independently, even if this site explains the connexion better. As for the Ottonian copy of the Byzantine ivory, I first encountered that at this site.

Roman Heritage in Byzantium A more in depth look at how the Byzantines, *ahem*, I mean Romaioi, perceived themselves

Wild Winds-Byzantine Coin Index : If you're into Byzantine coins

Wikipedia has some comprehensive accounts of the Ottonian rulers which aren’t to be missed.

A Mutual Introduction to the Macedonian Rennaisance

And Witt said unto him, "Can there any good thing come out of Macedonia?" Basil saith unto him, "Come and see". 

The Renaissance?

Unless you're an artless knave, you've heard of the Renaissance, that glorious period during which the light of antiquity was rekindled, forever banishing the darkness of the Middle Ages into memory. Or, if you don't subscribe to that rubbish, the period which emerged from and built upon the brilliant Medieval civilisation which had, through contact with its neighbours, flowered into its own, only to be devastated by the disasters of the mid 14th century: famine and plague. I mean, you can build cathedrals, found the first universities, create beautiful illuminated manuscripts, invent new forms of music and music notation, but just one population-shattering plague spread by rats and fleas, and *sigh* there goes the millennium...

Right, we've all heard of that Renaissance, but if you look around space and time, you may encounter other renaissances, often quite regional in nature, and limited to a concentrated period of time brimming with creative energy. You can take them as prefigurations and successors of the Renaissance if you like. Or you can see them all as equal renaissances. The Renaissance—the Italian Renaissance—after all, was a development in Western history, dependent on previous developments just as the whole of subsequent Western history was dependent on it. So perhaps the Italian Renaissance should always wear the modifier 'Italian', even if that, in other contexts, would be a fate worse than death. What? I can't editorialise? This is a weblog, after all. But perhaps you're right in condemning my hasty (and kind of stupid, etymology considered) conclusion. Historians may throw the word 'renaissance' around and devalue it in trying to emphasise the achievements of their own precious area of study. Medievalists, especially, have something to prove: might they be more prone to such error?

At practically any time during the middle ages there is somewhere a retroactive 'renaissance'. I reckon those who christen such renaissances, though, are trying to equate such periods with creativity, energy, and sights aimed at antiquity, usually in the arts. Different proposed renaissances gain different amounts of clout. Among some of the accepted renaissances I've encountered are the (my personal favourite) Northumbrian Renaissance , the Carolingian Renaissance, the Ottonian Renaissance, the 12th-century Renaissance, not to mention the much later Harlem Renaissance, and the rock band: Renaissance (who definitely deserve at least one album of your time). In short, lots of renaissances.

However, there is apparently one which I hadn't encountered until doing research for this post...

The "Macedonian Renaissance"

There is a Macedonian Renaissance? Apparently! And we're going to explore the very basics of it together, before coming to a conclusion as to whether or not it deserves its illustrious title.

The Macedonian Renaissance is called such because it occurred during the reign of the Macedonian Dynasty over the Byzantine Empire. In this way, it is similar to the Ottonian and Carolingian Renaissances of medieval historiography. Incidentally, it overlaps with both of these dynasties, stretching from the coronation of Basil I in 867 to the death of the Empress Theodora (not that Empress Theodore) in 1056. To put that in perspective, Charlemagne became Emperor in the west (sort of) in 800, and the last Ottonian died in 1024. Already we're dealing with a much larger time frame than either of the other two renaissances. Of course, the Italian Renaissance went for 200 years or so by some reckonings.

In 867, when Basil I ascended to the purple, the Empire was at a low point. For essentially 200 years, its borders had been chiseled at, sometimes overrun outright, by Arab forces. Lombards had overrun Italy, Charlemagne after them, and the Slavs were taking the Balkans. This was naturally not exactly the empire's finest hour, but its shrinking borders were now much more manageable and ripe for consolidation in the hands of an able ruler. Basil I happened to be more than able, and after usurping the throne and beginning a new dynasty, seems to have also initiated a new era. The Macedonian dynasty reigned in an era of relative peace and of growth. It was cushioned on one side by the aforementioned Arab, German, and Slavic troubles, and by the growth of the Seljuk Turks, Italian City-States, Slavic kingdoms, and Crusader states on the other, after Theodora's death ended the dynasty. Naturally, this prolonged eye of the storm yielded the perfect conditions for artistic and intellectual pursuits.

Whether or not we admit that renaissance is an apt term, we must admit that the artwork of the Macedonian period is outstanding among Byzantine art.

The Paris Psalter seems to be one of the showcase pieces for the period, just as the Lindisfarne Gospels is a key work of the Northumbrian Renaissance. What strikes people at first glance is the seeming Greek-ness of the figures and animals: their poses are a little less rigid, their costumes a little more antique. Could this possibly be a movement among Byzantine illuminators to return to the style that their Greek forbears utilised? Maguire (see sources) is incredibly hesitant to arrive at this conclusion, though not unwilling. Using poetry from the Macedonian period, he demonstrates that Byzantines of the time borrowed from Greek poetry, but he argues that this was because the lines were usefully poetic, not necessarily because the Byzantines were fascinated with or emulated the Antique era. Still, the presence of classical motifs which is so evident in the Paris psalter is indicative of rediscovery at least. What also strikes me is what looks like experimental poses, though they are probably copies: of what, though? Rigid iconography? Probably not. My guess is Greek art. But then again my guess isn't very educated.


I, unfortunately, am much too tired to continue this introduction, as paltry as that is. I also have not time before I have to turn in this assignment. Tat being said, I'll redirect you to some better sources below, and you can tell me what you think. I for one am unsure about the renaissance debacle. 

Sources and Further Reading

"Epigrams, Art, and the 'Macedonian Renaissance", by Henry Maguire

Maguire more carefully dwells on the connexion between Macedonian poetry/art, and its antique predecessors as an important criterion for renaissance. He seems to have long held the same suspicions concerning 'renaissance' as a misnomer. He concludes rather ambivalently about the term . See pp. 111-2, 114-5 for conclusions

The glory of Byzantium : art and culture of the Middle Byzantine era, A.D. 843-1261 edited by Helen C. Evans and William D. Wixom

I read the Preface beginning, pp. 16-7. From p. 34, the floodgate opens and a tidal wave of information issues forth. I confess, I only read so far--if you are more a scholar than I (not an incredibly difficult thing to be), this is where I think you could get an impressive knowledge of the times.

The Paris Psalter: write-up by Jeremy Norman

Good information on the Psalter specifically

Byzantine Treasures at Sutton Hoo: Chronology

What? An icon of Bede? A Byzantine representation of an Anglo-Saxon saint? Verily, 'tis doubly topical!

Hopefully this may help orient you to the the information within the main blog post.

Chronology

410- Rome abandons Britain

450- The traditional, but by no means the only or earliest, adventus Saxonum: the coming of the       Anglo-Saxons to Britain, as reckoned by the monk Bede in the early-8th century.

476- The so-called fall of the Western Roman Empire, as Odoacer deposes the Western Emperor.

The 6th century proves a Dark Age indeed: our sources for Britain are few. We must infer that a period of Anglo-Saxon settlement and migration, probably along river systems, occurred throughout the century. At some point, a period of kingdom formation began. By the end of the century at least, Kent was formed, since it was here that the Roman mission landed and recorded information about. It probably had geographic origin in a Roman administrative unit.

535-The start of the Gothic War in Italy, waged by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I

552: The general Narses recaptures Rome for the Byzantines. Rome will remain generally Byzantine in its orientation.

550s: The later books of The Wars and The Secret History are written by Procopius

560: Alboin leads the Lombards, a Germanic tribe, into Italy. Rome and Ravenna remain under Byzantine control. Rome thus answers to Constantinople, but warily looks for other allies, should the Eastern Roman Empire fail to protect it.

The period from the Gothic Wars, c. 540, until the iconoclasm movement in Constantinople, c. 730, which caused a break between the Roman Pope/patriarch and the Eastern Patriarchs, is thus referred to as the Byzantine Papacy. All Roman popes, though elected by cardinals, submit themselves to the confirmation of the Emperor in Constantinople. It is of the utmost importance not to think too diametrically of Rome and Constantinople within this period (c. 540 - c. 730)

597- Pope Gregory I of Rome sends the Benedictine monk Augustine on a mission of conversion to the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Kent. The King of Kent, Æthelbert soon after is baptised a Christian.

616- According to Bede, Rædwald of the East Angles assumes an imperium over the Anglo-Saxons. Bede says he is ostensibly baptised, while maintaining many of his heathen beliefs.The Sutton Hoo site lies well within the boundaries of his homeland.

620s- This is the earliest possible date of the Sutton Hoo mound 1 burial, as indicated by the dating of fairly worn (thus the date confusion) Merovingian coins therein. Rædwald's death is recorded as occurring in 624 by Bede. Many researchers identify mound 1 as Rædwald's tomb accordingly.

(Note the 100 year difference!)

c. 735: Bede writes The Ecclesiastic History of the English People

Byzantine Treasures at Sutton Hoo

A crafting anew of the Sutton Hoo grave as it might have looked when Rædwald still had skin, let alone anything of a body whatsoever. Naysayers: I'm calling him Rædwald, because I like the notion, I'm sorry.  Everybody else: take heed of the silver dish at Rædwald's feet, that's one of the Byzantine objects I will talk about.

I understand. It's almost shameful how quickly I used this "Byzantine Art" weblog for my own nefarious purposes; to wit, ranting about Anglo-Saxons. However, before you condemn the whole weblog as a hopeless farce, and go back to whatever you were doing before you came hither, think about it! Sutton Hoo is, forsooth, an Anglo-Saxon site, but it contains a wealth of Byzantine goods, particularly things wrought of silver, which must be of at least some interest to the Byzantine art historian, armchair-enthusiast and scholar alike.

If you're willing to carry on, let's begin with what Sutton Hoo is, just in case you're unfamiliar. Sutton Hoo is an ancient Anglo-Saxon burial site in the county of Suffolk, in the east of England. Mound 1, the most famous and the only grave I will look at today, consists of a great ship lowered into the ground and covered by an earthen barrow. Over the centuries, the roof of the grave collapsed damaging many of the grave-goods, and the acidic, sandy East Anglian soil further corroded the contents, such that no organic material remains. I trust you can seek out any further information you may require. Now, let's turn to the specifically Byzantine content.

Pray forgive the tab-switching I'm requiring of you. The following hyperlinks redirect you to the objects' respective pages from the British Museum's online index, but I'm fairly assured that these images are not in the public domain; thus your woes. Here's a friendly reminder that pushing a link with the mouse-wheel button opens the link in a new tab. This can also be done by holding ctrl before clicking a link with the left mouse button.

Chronology

Lest you lose your head: here's a rather sporadic chronology I made with this post in mind

Survey of Byzantine Objects

The extant grave-goods which are usually identified as Byzantine-made are a silver cup, the so-called Anastasius Dish, a Coptic bowl made of brass, silver spoons labeled Paulos and (perhaps) Saulos respectively, a silver ladle with some gilding, and 10 silver bowls, to which I have assigned numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. 

The Silver Cup and the Ladle

All of the Byzantine items have at some point been hypothesised to have been Ecclesiastical items. It only makes sense, seeing that we have a heathen nobleman, perhaps Rædwald, whom we know was converted only partially to Christianity: would not a mission from Rome try to shower gifts of silver to sweeten the deal, particularly if the gifts were quite Christian in nature? Well? Um. Yes. Yes is what I was not so clandestinely trying to hint at. In any case, the cup is either more worn, or distinguished among the Byzantine silver by its lack of engraving. The ladle, too, is simple, though its gilding makes it particularly valuable. Perhaps they served some sort of practical purpose, though the silver alone is ground enough to consider it ostentation. The liturgical explanation makes a lot of sense here. Perhaps the cup held the consecrated wine. Perhaps it was used in the baptismal font; we know Rædwald to have been baptised in his early reign. We cannot tell for certain, but I am fairly convinced of a religious purpose.

We know that the head of the monks sent by Pope Gregory as missionaries to the Anglo-Saxons in 597, Augustine, wrote back to Rome asking for liturgical equipment. Perhaps the cup, the ladle, or any of the Byzantine objects were answers to his requests.

The Anastasius Dish

The Anastasius Dish is so named because 1) it is a dish, and 2) it has four imperial stamps on the bottom indicating that it was made in the reign of Anastasius I, who was Byzantine Emperor from 491-518. This presents something of a riddle, since the Mound 1 burial is dated to at least the 620s on account of the date found on coins. The dish could then be an heirloom of the Wuffing dynasty, to which Rædwald belonged, kept for a century before finally being buried with its most illustrious owner. Doubtful, since no kings before Rædwald are attested historically. In addition, why would it have been kept for so long just to be promptly buried? Then it may also have been received as a gift, a sort of hand-me-down from the Empire through its Roman missionaries to Kent and East Anglia. This makes more sense. Alternatively, it could have been traded around for a century before finally ending up in the court of Rædwald. Some scholars favour this in light of the crudeness of some of the engraving on the dish. Though the silver is of fine quality, and stamped, some of the designs seem to have been crudely added: some of the circles are off-centre. Perhaps the unadulterated silver dish found its way to a German artisan, who proceeded to leave his mark on it?

The Coptic Bowl

This apparently hailed from Alexandria, and was made more recently than the Anastasius Dish. The Coptic bowl is recognised as such due to its similarity to, waddayaknow, other Coptic bowls (like this one, also found in the grave of an Anglo-Saxon nobleman). Evidently, the particular raised style of the rim is the identifier. The Coptic bowl is also the only major Sutton Hoo object from the Mediterranean world out of brass rather than silver. What strikes me as especially interesting is the animal design, which, to me at least, reminds me of later Anglo-Saxon drawings (as we see in, say, this 10th century drawing of a horse in the Winchester Style, I believe...here is a detail of the inside of the Coptic bowl for comparison. I understand that, this is a layman's comparison. The styles are probably quite different, but to my untrained eye, I see continuity). We see, then, that the influx of Mediterranean luxury goods had an effect on native production over generations. Which is probably rather self-evident.

The Spoons

Like the rest of the Byzantine silver, the spoons are thought to have a liturgical nature about them. The Greek name Paulos on one of the spoons is not much contested. Whether the other spoon has Saulos inscribed on it or if it is an engraving error of Paulos is not agreed upon. Nobody has been able to come up with a satisfactory way that the Saulos spoon would have been used. Presumably, if the names are read correctly, their use would have to do with conversion: from Saul to Paul. But why would the Saul one be so hallowed? Liturgical spoons used in Communion are attested, but not so early without a shadow of a doubt. I can personally see the spoons as a Baptismal gift, celebrating conversion, and I'm fairly certain that *actual* scholars have also put forth this idea: it's only a matter of when the tradition of giving Christening Spoons became current.

Many (read: at least one) have suggested that the Saulos spoon is actually a poorly copied twin of the Paulos spoon. Evidently, the script is indicative of Merovingian engraving. They could have fooled me, if this is so: clearly Byzantine art was held as an example and being copied by Germanic smiths, if not in Britain, in neighbouring Gaul.

Compare the above spoons from Sutton Hoo to this roughly contemporary one, also purportedly Byzantine. The actual spoon part has the Latin word meaning 'purity' inscribed, but on the handle, the name Matteus is written, in an analogous location to the Paulos/Saulos inscription of the Sutton Hoo spoons. Christian names, perhaps? Or maybe patron saints?

The Bowls

The bowls all have elaborate cross designs through their middles, save 'bowl 1', which is engraved with the head of a woman in profile. This bowl also has handles, extant but detached, which the other bowls seem not to have had. In addition, it is at 40 cm in diameter fairly larger than the others which average at around 22 cm. Clearly its purpose would have been different. I personally think the woman to be a saint. I don't see any indication of royalty, but I don't know Byzantine practice in depicting Empresses, other than Theodora, who apparently broke convention anyway. Furthermore, though, I see the designs in the ring encircling the portrait to be the haloed heads of saints.

In any case, the other bowls all have similar designs: crosses composed of intricate designs, emanating from the centre, whether a six-pointed star or shell-like.

Historical Context and Interpretation

Illustration from A Chronicle of England (illustrated by Arthur Conan Doyle's uncle, J.W.E. Doyle) depicting Augustine ministering to King Æthelbert of Kent and his Frankish (and already Christian) wife, Bertha. The icon which one of the monks holds gives this depiction I think a realistically 'Byzantine' flavour: though at the time, this distinction between Rome and Byzantium wouldn't have been so stark (I mean, stark, but not too stark. I don't know, fly casual!)

Byzantine Notions of Britain

The Island of Britain was simply put, distant in the minds of Byzantines. Even at the Empire's furthest extent under the reign of Justinian I, a great breadth of foreign territory separated Anglo-Saxons from Byzantines, notably that of the Franks under the Merovingians, who seem to have facilitated many of the few instances of contact between their two neighbours. As such, the island of Britain was often cast in a mysterious, if not an outright fantastical light. 

Even though Britain had been a Roman province, it was one of the first to be abandoned, and, for many complicated reasons elaborated elsewhere, became the most un-Roman land of the former Western Empire, both in nature and custom. Suffice to say, the invasion of the Germanic peoples we deem Anglo-Saxons, who mostly emigrated from lands beyond any immediacy with the Roman frontier, played a major part, but there was a parallel reversion to Celtic kingship and a de-urbanisation in British parts of the island. Note that while 'Celtic' Gaul developed a Romance language, the British retained a Gaelic tongue, or else reverted back to it. 

Misty Britain, then, really did experience something of a Dark Age, and one of the only extant sources we have to cast light into the gloom of British history during this period is the Byzantine historian Procopius, writing around 550. As I have said, much of his knowledge is legend. In The Wars, he recounts the tale of an Anglian princess. A king of the Varni betrothed his heir to this princess, but later changed his mind in the interest of securing an alliance with the more imminent Franks. The calculation proved misguided, though, as the princess and her brother headed an army to force the Varni prince to honour his betrothal, which he did. The history here is clearly shrouded in legend, even to an otherwise lucid and highly perceptive author such as Procopius. If this sort of hearsay was what the learned Byzantines thought of Britain, imagine the commoner's sense of this fairyland! I can't help but gloat at this reverse-Orientalism! Occidentalism?

Even his geography was askew. Procopius interestingly describes two islands of Britain. Britannia and Brittia, to the east of the former. The latter is the realm of the Angles, Frisians, and Britons. The most convincing explanation I encountered for the mix-up is that Procopius was making sense of the traditions concerning the Roman province of Britain and the new hearsay concerning the Anglo-Saxon invaders. The point is, clearly Byzantines weren't going to Britain.

However, Saxons may have been a part of a Frankish retinue which came to Constantinople. The other time the inhabitants of Britain are mentioned is in The Secret history, a piece of invective directed against Justinian. Owing to the polemic nature of the work, their appearance may be seen as hyperbole, considering the Byzantine sense of the Anglo-Saxons as  utterly foreign and distant. Procopius says that Justnian loves to lavishly give to barbarians, even as far away as Britain. Hyperbole? Or could Justinian have given Anglo-Saxon guests gifts of silver he had no use for anymore, some passe dish made in the reign of his forbear, perhaps? Then in the next 50 years it could have made its way to the East Anglian court.

Clearly, some trade was involved for Byzantine goods to crop up in Britain, though the number and nature of the links in the trade are obviously hotly-contested, indeed, impossible to ascertain. 

The 'Roman' Mission

If it was at all a gift, rather than a traded item, I think the Byzantine silver of Sutton Hoo seems likeliest to have been a baptismal gift, rather than the gift of the emperor. They could have been gifts to Rædwald by the Roman mission in Kent, or by the Kentish king, who was Rædwald's overlord, but the timing only makes sense. The overtly heathen ship-burial, wherein lie silver bowls from Byzantium. The stark contrast befits Rædwald's description as a lukewarm convert.

In 597, the Romans first made renewed contact with Britain, as directed by the Roman Pope Gregory I, who was, in turn, under the influence of the Byzantine Emperor, Maurice in 597. The classic depiction of Britain during this period of English conversion as the conflict and fusion of Celtic and Roman Christianity, while accurate, may be a bit misleading. A 'Roman mission', for me at least, brings up the anachronistic East/West dichotomy of Constantinople and Rome. Yes ,there were cultural distinctions even as early as the 7th century: The Greek/Latin language divide, for instance. But, more importantly, this was perhaps the one time when Rome and Constantinople got along the most. So a Roman mission sent by Gregory from a Rome under Byzantine control would have been furnished by Byzantine wares and Byzantine sensibilities.

Perhaps I rambled a bit too much, but that's what happens when Anglo-Saxons get brought up. I suppose I brought them up myself, though, so there's not really any excuse.

Sources/Further Reading

'The Anglo-Saxons' by James Campbell, pp. 32, 38

The British Museum

'The Secret History' by Procopius

'The Silver Spoons of Sutton Hoo" by R. E. Kaske <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2851097>

"Voyage to the Other World: The Legacy of Sutton Hoo" by Calvin B. Kendall, Peter S Weils

"Procopius and the Sixth Century" by Averil Cameron