Cyril Mango argues that Byzantinism was not only related to art or religion, but also to the general self-perception and worldview of Byzantine society. According to him, Byzantinism shaped how people understood their place in history, their religious identity, and their cultural values. It functioned as a broad system of thought that influenced social behavior, political ideas, and artistic traditions. This means that Byzantine heritage continued to live on even after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, especially among Orthodox Christian communities Understanding the Term “Byzantinising” in Anatolian Icons.
Mango explains that this continuity was not accidental. Instead, it was deeply connected to how people saw themselves and their historical roots. The memory of Byzantium remained strong in cultural and religious life, and this memory affected later artistic production, including icon painting and church decoration. Therefore, Byzantinism can be understood as a lasting intellectual and cultural framework rather than a simple historical reference.
The Myth of Romantic Hellenism
Alongside Byzantinism, Mango introduces another important concept: Romantic Hellenism. This idea emerged in Western Europe during the eighteenth century and became very popular among intellectuals and scholars. Many Western thinkers admired ancient Greek culture and saw it as the foundation of European civilization. They focused mainly on classical Greece, including its philosophy, art, and literature, while often ignoring or undervaluing the Byzantine period.
This admiration for ancient Greece created an idealized image that was not always historically accurate. Over time, this romantic view of classical Greece was transferred to modern Greece. As a result, many Greek intellectuals began to emphasize their connection to ancient Greek heritage rather than to their Byzantine past. This process influenced education, national identity, and cultural policies in the newly forming Greek state Private Tour Guide Ephesus .
Rejection and Rediscovery of Byzantium
The rise of Romantic Hellenism also led to criticism and rejection of Byzantine values and culture. Byzantium was sometimes portrayed as a period of decline, stagnation, or excessive religiosity by Enlightenment thinkers. Philosophers of the Enlightenment often had a negative attitude toward Byzantine civilization, seeing it as less rational and less progressive than classical antiquity. For example, the philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel expressed harsh criticism of Byzantium and considered it culturally inferior compared to ancient Greece.
However, this negative view did not remain unchanged. In the early twentieth century, especially during the 1930s, Western Europe began to rediscover Byzantium through a growing academic and artistic interest. New studies of medieval and Gothic art encouraged scholars to re-evaluate Byzantine artistic traditions. As a result, Byzantium started to be seen not as a period of decline, but as a unique and valuable civilization with its own cultural achievements.
The Merging of Two Ideologies
Mango concludes that, over time, Byzantinism and Romantic Hellenism were gradually combined. Although these two ideologies were originally different, they eventually shaped the cultural identity of modern Greeks in the nineteenth century. On one hand, Romantic Hellenism promoted admiration for ancient Greece and classical heritage. On the other hand, Byzantinism preserved the religious and cultural traditions of the Orthodox Byzantine past.
According to Mango, this merging of ideas influenced how Greeks understood themselves in the newly founded Greek state. Their worldview and self-assertion were shaped by both classical and Byzantine legacies. This argument becomes even more convincing when we remember the broader intellectual climate of the Enlightenment, during which many thinkers strongly criticized Byzantine culture.
Intellectual Context and Historical Interpretation
The Enlightenment period played a key role in shaping Western attitudes toward Byzantium. Many philosophers preferred classical antiquity and viewed Byzantium negatively. Their interpretations influenced academic discourse for a long time. Nevertheless, modern scholarship has shown that Byzantine culture was complex, dynamic, and deeply influential in art, religion, and identity.
In conclusion, Mango’s analysis demonstrates that Byzantinism and Romantic Hellenism should not be seen as completely opposing ideas. Instead, they interacted and coexisted in shaping modern Greek identity and cultural memory. This balanced interpretation helps us better understand post-Byzantine art and the persistence of Byzantine traditions in later centuries.
