From Byzantium came autocracy and the idea of the state as an absolute power and as a totalitarian power, as well as such important applications of these principles as the idea that the state should control thought and religion, that the Church should be a branch of the government, that law is an enactment of the state, and that the ruler is semi-divine. From the Vikings came the idea that the state is a foreign importation, based on militarism and supported by booty and tribute, that economic innovations are the function of the government, that power rather than law is the basis of social life, and that society, with its people and its property, is the private property of a foreign ruler.
Think of this in the context of what you see happening in our country today. This is the origin of the toxic and murderous idea of the will to power that now dominates the outlook of the ruling class. And what are they trying to eliminate? Consider this:
In the West, the Roman Empire (which continued in the East as the Byzantine Empire) disappeared in 476 and, although many efforts were made to revive it, there was clearly a period, about A.D. 900, when there was no empire, no state, and no public authority in the West. The state disappeared, yet society continued. So also, religious and economic life continued. This clearly showed that the state and society were not the same thing, that society was the basic entity, and that the state was a crowning, but not essential, cap to the social structure. This experience had revolutionary effects. It was discovered that man can live without a state; this became the basis of Western liberalism. It was discovered that the state, if it exists, must serve men and that it is incorrect to believe that the purpose of men is to serve the state. It was discovered that economic life, religious life, law, and private property can all exist and function effectively without a state. From this emerged laissez-faire, separation of Church and State, rule of law, and the sanctity of private property. In Rome, in Byzantium, and in Russia, law was regarded as an enactment of a supreme power. In the West, when no supreme power existed, it was discovered that law still existed as the body of rules which govern social life. Thus law was found by observation in the West, not enacted by autocracy as in the East. This meant that authority was established by law and under the law in the West, while authority was established by power and above the law in the East. The West felt that the rules of economic life were found and not enacted; that individuals had rights independent of, and even opposed to, public authority; that groups could exist, as the Church existed, by right and not by privilege, and without the need to have any charter of incorporation entitling them to exist as a group or act as a group; that groups or individuals could own property as a right and not as a privilege and that such property could not be taken by force but must be taken by established process of law.
And as Quigley points out, one of the outcomes was that in the West that the way a thing was done was more important than what was done, while in the East what was done was far more significant than the way in which it was done. I cannot sufficiently emphasize the significance of that difference in outlook. Consider its implications.
Again, take a look around and ask yourself what outlook, what worldview prevails among our so-called ruling class. Consider what must be done to upend it and to eliminate it from our institutions of higher learning, our government, and our pulpits.
Quigley ping.
Great article. It seems to downplay the importance of the Mongol conquest and the subsequent “yoke” imposed on Russian civilization. It furthered Russia’s isolation from the West at a crucial time and reinforced the authoritarianism of the culture by providing both the model and the need for strong centralized leadership. Minimizing the impact of the Mongols on the character of modern Russia is similar to omitting the influence of the Muslim conquests on the subsequent development of Spain and Greece.
The East nevef experienced a Xark Ages?
They did not have fleas, mice, or plague?
I never gave much thought to it. I just assumed they suffered a population implosion like the West.