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