Canonists
During the crusades the Basilian view of
warfare was challenged by the Canonists Zonaras (12th Century), Aristenos
(Mid 12th Century) and Balsamon (+1199). The pressure of the crusading
movement had forced all parts of society to reevaluate the role of warfare in
Byzantium. The canonist Alexios Aristenos referred back to St Athanasius’
(298-373) letter to Ammun “One is not supposed to kill, but killing the enemy
in battle is both lawful and praiseworthy. For this reason individuals who have
distinguished themselves in war are considered worthy of great honors, and
monuments are put up to celebrate their deeds. Thus, at one particular time,
and under one set of circumstances, an act is not permitted, but when time and
conditions necessitate it, it is both allowed and condoned.” [2]
This letter was repeated and emphasized in order to present a lack of consensus
in the Holy Fathers and specifically with the most influential Saint on this
topic, Basil. Aristenos dishonestly presented the position of Athanasius as
counter to Basil by only referencing the latter's recommendation of a ban on
communion, insinuating that Basil held a contrary and pacifistic view. In
reality both saints agreed on the nature and necessity of warfare. Alexis
Zonaras went further than Aristenos by arguing that the Canon of Basil never
predominated, he very specifically called the appeal to the Basilian canon a
“last resort” suggesting its relative obscurity. “The saint [i.e. Basil of Caesarea]
claims not in a demanding but only counseling manner that those who kill at war
should refrain from the holy communion; it seems though to be a burdensome
counsel the possible consequence of which is that the soldiers will be never in
position to receive the holy gifts, even though they are being courageous and
brave; ... For what reason should the hands of those who fight on behalf of the
state and their brothers in order to avoid captivity or to free those captured
be judged unclean? ... Thinking in that way, the older fathers did not regard
those who killed at war
as
murderers, forgiving them because, as this saint also said, they were defending
prudence and piety; Therefore, I believe that the spiritual legacy of Basil of
Caesarea never predominated; it lasted though through time as an ecclesiastical
tradition…Because they could not convince him (Nikephoros), they used this
canon as a last resort saying: How can we count among the martyrs those who die
in war, whom Basil the Great forbade the receiving of the holy gifts for three
years, because their hands were not clean?” There is no evidence to suggest the active enforcement of the
Basilian canon. The impracticality of its implementation make it unlikely that
it ever was but Zonaras deliberately pairs Basil with Athanasius again in order
to reconsider the traditional Byzantine view of violence as represented by
Basil. It is not clear what Zonaras meant by
Ecclesiastical tradition but the statement suggests that those who held to the
Basilian precepts were separate from the rest of Byzantine society. It also
suggests that those belonging to the ecclesiastical tradition were more
influential in the past because of the rigorous enforcement of punishments for
those who conducted warfare contrary to the traditional Byzantine strictures defined
by Basil and the Tactica. The repetition of Athanasius and the deprecation of
Basil demonstrates that those who in the Twelfth century belonged to the
ecclesiastical tradition of the Byzantine church were sympathetic to the idea
of praiseworthy violence. If the deconstruction of the Byzantine view of
warfare was a conscious effort to motivate an aggressive military resistance or
was influenced by crusade ideology is hard to tell. It is conceivable that the
beliefs of those outside the “ecclesiastical tradition” had spread and were
adopted by a large portion of Byzantine society in a time when rationality and
identity were strained and minimized in comparison to the need for survival.
[2] Swift, L. J., The Early Fathers on War and Military Service. Wilmington, DA:
Michael Glazier, 1983.p.95
Also interesting.
ReplyDelete