Christian Identity, Hellenism, and Romanitas in the Relatio Motionis and its Patristic Antecedents

Abstract

This thesis challenges academic claims that the Byzantines did not perceive any distinction between the Christian and Roman imperial traditions. It also attempts to verify why the Byzantine monks opposed excessive interest in the Hellenic cultural legacy, as argued by John Meyendorff. It subsequently explores the complex relation between Christianity, Hellenism, and Romanitas attested to by the Relatio motionis (RM), a largely unexamined martyr act dating from c. 655. This is in addition to its patristic antecedents, namely: Recension B of the Acts of Justin, the Apophthegmata Patrum, the Macarian Homilies and certain writings of St Maximus the Confessor. RM describes how Maximus and his disciple, Anastasius, censured the state’s unwarranted involvement in the Church’s affairs whilst on trial for their rejection of a heterodox edict known as the Typos. It demonstrates that their monothelite accusers were the first to anchor the Eastern empire’s history in the Classical Greek Period, to distinguish themselves from their dyothelite opponents in the old capital. Via its depiction of Maximus and Anastasius, the text illustrates what the orthodox Christians of this time perceived as their identity capital: i.e. virtues defined by martyrial and monastic literature. This investigation commences with an assessment of Recension B of the Acts of Justin. This accounts for a few of Maximus’ responses within the act, and its portrayal of him and Anastasius as the embodiments of Christian virtue. It proceeds with an analysis of Macarius and Maximus’ perceptions of Christian identity – especially its relation to altruistic compassion – and imperial authority. It points out that the homilist and the Confessor’s censures of the state were meant to safeguard the Church’s martyric attitude and curb imperial interference in its affairs. The anonymous author of RM inherited their estimation of Romanitas, as evidenced by assertions they attributed to Maximus numbering emperors with the laity, and their negative descriptions of his chief interrogator. Furthermore, this work examines the experiential epistemology developed by the Desert Fathers and Maximus, in order to uncover their complementary perceptions of Hellenic culture. These ascetics criticised the Greek philosophers in order to refute heterodox intellectualism. The depiction of Maximus as a sage similar to the Desert Fathers within RM suggests that its author adopted their epistemology and otherwise neutral estimation of Hellenism. Nonetheless, the author used the term ‘Greek’ to underscore the pagan-like conduct of the monothelites. Their usage was thus more polemical than that of their monastic predecessors. Contrary to the belief of many scholars, this thesis discloses that the Byzantines generally did not perceive something holy about the emperor. It also indicates that Maximus and his enigmatic follower clearly distinguished Christianity from Hellenism, having defined the former on the basis of theological – rather than cultural and pagan philosophical – categories.