I've read a lot of historians who have the best reputations, who've
written over the course of the past 2,500 years, in Greek, Latin,
Hebrew, Arabic, French, German, English and some other languages, and
the one who has impressed me the most, by far, is Steven Runciman, born
1903, died 2001. (The historians wrote in those languages. In the case of Greek, Hebrew, Arabic and some other languages, I've read them in translation.) At the beginning of Chapter I of his first book, The
Emperor Romanus Lecapenus & His Reign, published in 1929, Runciman lays
out a lot of what his career is going to be about. He begins:
"In
the battles between truth and prejudice, waged on the field of history
books, it must be confessed that the latter usually wins."So right away, he admits that he's fighting an uphill battle which he doesn't expect to win.
Also
right at the beginning of his first book, he lays out the field of battle
where he's going to struggle to put the facts across and defeat
prejudice. It's a field my brother and I have often discussed recently: the image, in the West, of
the Eastern Roman Empire (usually referred to in the West as Byzantium),
after the Western Empire fell. Runciman describes how crude, warlike Westerners, the
Crusaders, came into contact with Byzantium and found
"[...]a society where everyone read and wrote, ate food with forks and preferred diplomacy to war."
Runciman states flatly, here at the beginning of his first book, that up until shortly before his own time, prejudice had trounced truth even in the best history written in the West when it came to Byzantium. And then he spent a very long and brilliant career backing up this flat statement. Rather than admit that Byzantine society was more advanced in many ways than their own, Western historians made "byzantine" an adjective meaning decadent, flabby, lazy, cowardly, cunning, etc, etc. Runciman's mentor JB Bury (1861-1927), a pioneer in bucking this pervasive trend, went so far as to refuse to even use the term "Byzantium" to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire after the Western Empire had fallen.
Bury, Runciman and some like-minded Western historians have made some headway in changing the attitudes of historians, and somewhat less, so far, in the consciousness of the general public. It's still quite common to encounter very well-educated Westerners who talk of the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476, who refer to the Catholic Church before the Reformation, and Catholicism plus Protestantism since then, as "the whole of Christendom," completely ignoring Greek Orthodoxy, not to mention the Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian and Nestorian churches who never acknowledged Catholic or orthodox supremacy.
It seems to me, now, simple enough to recognize that, for example, the Romans who were represented at Jerusalem by Pontius Pilate and a garrison of soldiers in the time of Christ did not go anywhere in AD 476, and to grasp why Christians who already had their own written languages were not inclined to accept either a Latin or a Greek spiritual overlordship.
But did I see any of this before people like Runciman and Bury pointed it out to me? No, of course I didn't, any more than I saw how obviously Gothic cathedral towers, all built after the Crusades began, mimic Muslim minarets, before that was pointed out to me.
You have to see a truth first. Then it can become obvious. Not the other way around. Which usually means that someone else has to point it out to you.
