Constructing Justinian: National Memory In Modern Russia
Hughes Liu
13/11/2026
This paper examines how the historical legacy of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I has been selectively reconstructed in modern Russia to support narratives of Orthodox and imperial identity. Justinian’s sixth-century reign was deeply contradictory: his conquests expanded the Roman Empire, his codification of Roman law produced an enduring legal legacy, and his religious policies sought to enforce imperial orthodoxy, while his rule also generated warfare, fiscal strain, political repression, and religious persecution. Rather than treating these competing aspects as a balanced historical record, this paper investigates how modern Russian historiography, popular media, religious institutions, and school textbooks emphasize particular elements of Justinian’s legacy while marginalizing others. This paper compares modern representations with Justinian’s Roman political and cultural identity through close readings of Russian historical scholarship, contemporary media and educational materials, and primary sources from Justinian’s reign, including Procopius, John Malalas, and other contemporary or near-contemporary writers. These sources—largely recognized as the 6th-century historical canon—are crucial for understanding Justinian within his historical context, and the contemporary Russian materials serve as their modern analogues. This paper argues that modern Russian narratives do not simply invent a favorable Justinian; instead, they elevate one strand of a long-contested historical tradition and suppress competing interpretations. Justinian is consequently transformed from a complex Roman emperor into a symbolic predecessor of Orthodox, centralized, and imperial authority. The paper concludes that the political use of Justinian illustrates a broader process through which states reconstruct the classical past to legitimize present-day conceptions of national identity, civilizational continuity, and political authority. While existing scholarship has covered “Russian Byzantinism” extensively, there is virtually no work on the modern Russian reception of Justinian I. This paper fills that hole, but does not contain an in-depth analysis of the influence of Justinianic law on the Russian legal system. Future scholarship could explore Russian civil law to identify more concrete, structural connections to Justinian’s Roman Empire.