A Byzantine Argument for the Equivalence of All Religions: Michael Attaleiates on Ancient and Modern Romans*

Abstract

This paper examines a comparison made by the eleventh-century Byzantine historian Michael Attaleiates between the ancient Romans of the Republic and their descendants, the Byzantines of Attaleiates' own time. In an effort to explain, during the course of a theological argument, why the ancients were victorious despite being pagans while the Byzantines were losing despite being Christians, Attaleiates draws surprising conclusions. Arguing "between the lines," he suggests that all religions are equivalent in certain fundamental respects. It is in human virtue that one must trust for victory, and God does not care about our exact theological beliefs. The paper also considers one aspect of the reception of the Roman tradition in Byzantium (a civilization usually cast in terms of its Greek and Christian legacy), arguing that the Republic remained an important source of inspiration.H ad a western writer of the eleventh century -or for that matter of any period between Augustine and Pomponazzi -argued seriously with reference to the events of his own time that there is no fundamental difference among religions, whether Islam, paganism, Christianity, or other, with respect to having a good life, there would have been a small library's worth of scholarly discussion of his thought and historical background. Had he, in addition, been a legal scholar and classically educated writer, a high official of a Christian empire and advisor to its rulers, and a sober and exacting historian of contemporary events who was read and imitated by many and whose work drew upon a knowledge of the history of Republican Rome to propose a cor-* I thank Warren Treadgold, Wolfgang Haase, and the journal's readers for suggestions that improved my argument on many points.