http://www.archive.org/details/romanempireessay02bussuoft
THE ROMAN
EMPIRE
ESSAYS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY FROM THE ACCESSION OF DOMITIAN (81 a.d.) TO THE RETIREMENT OF NICEPHORUS III.
(1081 A.D.)
BY
F. W. BUSSELL
VOLUME II
CONTENTS
PART I
POLITICAL INFLUENCES MOULDING THE NOMINAL AUTOCRACY OF THE CJESARS
(400-1080)
DIVISION A
FROM
PRESIDENT TO DICTATOR—FROM DICTATOR TO DYNAST
CHAP. PAGE
I. The Prince, the Senate, and the Civil
Service in the
Eastern
Empire (400-550) .... 3
II............... The Failure of the
Autocratic Administration (535565) 33
III. The Elements of Opposition under the
Successors of
Justinian
(565-618) 67
IV. Revival of Imperialism and of Military
Prestige
under the
Heraclians: Resentment and Final Triumph of Civilian Oligarchy (620-700) . . 82
V. Period of
Anarchy and Revival of Central Power
under
Armenian and Military Influence . . 98
VI. Character and Aims of the Pretenders and
Military Revolts in the Ninth Century : Gradual Acceptance of Legitimacy
(802-867) . . . .127
DIVISION B
TRIUMPH OF
THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMACY
VII.
Changes in the Administrative Methods of Autocracy and in the Official World
from the Regency (Michael III.) 138
VIII. The Sovereign and the Government under Basil
I.,
Leo VI., and
Alexander (867-912) . . . 178
CHAP. PAGE
IX. The Sovereign and the Government during the
Tenth Century: the Struggle for the Regency and Conflict of the Civil and Military
Factions :
Rise of the
Feudal Families .... 195
X. “Legitimate” Absolutism, or Constantine IX.
and
his
Daughters (1025-1056) 256
DIVISION C
GRADUAL
DISPLACEMENT OF THE CIVIL MONARCHY BY FEUDALISM
XI.............. Conflict of the Two Orders 287
XII. Conflict
of the Three Nicephori: The Misrule of Borilas ; and the Revolt of the Families
of Ducas and Comnenus (1078-1081) .... 317
PART II
ARMENIA AND ITS RELATIONS WITH THE EMPIRE (520-1120)
THE
PREDOMINANCE OF THE ARMENIAN ELEMENT
DIVISION A
GRADUAL ADMITTANCE (540-740)
General
Introduction 335
I. Early History of Armenia down to the First
Period
of
Justinian I. (530-540) 343
II. Relations of Rome and Armenia from Justinian
to
Heraclius
(540-620) . . ... 357
III. The Dynasty of Heraclius and the Eastern
Vassals . 371
IV. Under the
Heracliads and Isaurians . . . -379
DIVISION B
PREDOMINATING
INFLUENCE WITHIN (740-1040)
V. Armenians Within and Without the Empire from
Constantine
V. to Theophilus (c. 740-840) . . 390
chap. pace
VI............. Armenians Within and Without
the Empire from Michael III. (842), to the end of Romanus I. (944)—(840-940) 407
VII,............ Relations of Armenia and
Armenians to the Empire, from the Sole Reign of Constantine VII. (945) to the
Deposition of Michael V. (1042)—(940- 1040) 419
DIVISION C
ANNEXATION,
RIVALRY, AND ALLIANCE WITHOUT (1040-1120)
VIII. Armenia and the Empire from Constantine X. to
the
Abdication of
Michael VI. (1040-1057) . . 437
IX. Armenia and Western Asia from Isaac I. to the
Retirement of
Nicephorus III. (1057-1081) . 450
X. Armenians under the Empire and in Cilicia
during
the Reign of
Alexius I. (1080-1120) . . . 465
APPENDIX
The
Aristocracy and the Provincial Regiments; or Emperor, Senate, and Army during
the Great Anarchy (690-720) 485
INDEX
[It should be noted that the Index is only to Volume II., and that there
is none to Volume I.]
PART I
POLITICAL
INFLUENCES MOULDING THE NOMINAL AUTOCRACY OF THE C.ESARS (400-1080)
DIVISION A
FROM
PRESIDENT TO DICTATOR—FROM DICTATOR TO DYNAST
CHAPTER I
The Prince, the Senate, and the Civil
Service in the Eastern Empire (400-550)
§ 1.
Immobility of the Classical State : Reign of Law.
§ 2. The
Civil Service and routine.
§ 3. Later
decline of Civilian influence (600-800).
§ 4. Civilian
pre-eminence in Vth century.
§ 5. The
Theodosian academy for officials : function of the Senate.
§ 6. Respect
for precedent: autocracy suspicious of itself.
§ 7. The
Russian Czardom : its limitations.
§ 8. Efforts
to control the lesser agents (450-500): wise influence of senior officials in
Senate.
§ 9. Official
responsibility: no demand for popular control.
§ 10. Public
opinion and nationality unknown : the middle-class and the mercantile interest.
§ 11.
Oligarchy under formula of Absolutism : careful training for the Bureaux :
State-service the sole career.
§ 12.
Venality of office; its excuse: legal fiction of Simony: modern conception : “
place of profit: ” failure of monarchical supervision.
CHAPTER II
The Failure of the Autocratic
Administration
(535-565)
§ 1. The
witness of contemporaries: (A) the Notary with a grievance.
§ 2. The
Prefecture degraded successively under (a) Constantine, (/3) Arcadius, (y)
Anastasius, (S) the Dardanians.
§ 3. Lydus as
critic of the imperial policy : the ultimate ruin of the office under John.
§ 4. (B)
Procopius* “ Secret History,” evidence ruined by hyperbole and inconsistency.
§ 5.
Procopius as witness to (i.) domestic disorders: (a) civic riot, (b) religious
schism.
§ 6.
Procopius as witness to (c) fiscal oppression, (d) impoverishment of
realm, (e) penury and strait of the exchequer.
§ 7. (ii.)
External policy: (a) military enterprise and extravagance, prevalent misery
and despair, the reign of Antichrist : (b) defensive system : (i)
invaders bribed : (2) chain of fortresses built: (3) deficient support of Army:
(iii.) internal policy : jealous centralisation and curtailment of franchise:
modern critics at fault: Justinian’s acts ; their excuse and motive : real
character of the emperor emerges clearly from Procopius’ diatribe.
Evidence from the Constitutions of Justinian
(535-565)
The Emperor and his Officials
§ 1. (C)
Justinian judged by himself: (a) his conception of his post; universal
supervision: (/?) difficulties of this claim; the bureaucrats out of hand ;
their insolence and exactions: Justinian reduces fees payable on institution to
office, abolishes Vicars, raises stipend and dignity of governors.
§ 2. (y)
Counterpoise to mutinous hierarchy in (1) Bishops and (2) magnates: (3) popular
supervision never suggested : imperial attitude to the people, cynical but
indulgent: (1) costly displays for gratification of urban mob ; (2) solicitude
for countrymen ; (3) wages of artisan : wisdom of these provisions: striking
analogy with modern Socialism.
§ 3. Special
classes : (1) the Military.
§ 4. (2) The
Monks.
§ 5. (3) The
Senate.
§ 6. (4)
Justinian’s appeal to his people.
CHAPTER III
The Elements of Opposition under the
Successors of Justinian (565-618)
{Being
a continuation of(l The Prince, the Senate, and the Civil Service”)
§ 1.
Opposition of privileged class to Liberal Imperialism.
§ 2. Dying
avowal of Justin II.: reforming zeal powerless.
§ 3.
Conciliation of local authorities : episcopate as a counterpoise.
§ 4.
Isolation of the emperor : no public support.
§ 5. No
desire to restrict titular prerogative : private interest and contempt for law.
§ 6. Complete
failure of Maurice to restore order (6oo): intervention of the demes.
§ 7. Official
tradition extinguished under Phocas.
CHAPTER IV
Revival of Imperialism and of Military
Prestige under the Heraclians: Resentment and Final Triumph of Civilian
Oligarchy (620-700)
§ 1. Position
of Heraclius insecure : officials, army, provinces ; their disaffection.
",
§
2. Senate resumes influence: prerogative reasserted during wars. 7
§ 3.
Dependence of Heracliads on Senate.
§ 4.
Autocracy revived by Constans (650) : armies and priests : the military revolt
(670): armies and priests.
§ 5. Imperial
prestige under Constantine IV. (680): Justinian II. hostile to official class
(690): imperial control of finance.
§ 6. Ministerial
irresponsibility : revolt of magnates: overthrow of central power.
§ 7. Triumph
(700) of the civilian and official oligarchy.
CHAPTER V
Period of Anarchy and Revival of Central
Power under Armenian and Military Influence
A. The Rejected Candidates (695-717)
§ 1. Benefits
conferred by the Isaurians: perils of Elective Monarchy.
§ 2. The
revolutions of 695, 698.
xii ANALYSIS
9
§3. Vengeance
of Justinian (restored 710): revolt of the Armenian Vardan.
§ 4.
Civilian’s profit by shortsight of military conspirators : reprisals of army
under Theodosius III.
§ 5. Striking
success of Leo III.: support of Islam.
§ 6. This
development analogous to earlier revolutions: Roman tradition revived by
plebeians and aliens.
B. Religious Reform and Political Reorganisation
(717-775)
§1. Obscurity
and bias of “Isaurian” Annalists: popular approval at revival of Personal Rule.
§ 2. Some
events in Leo’s reign (717-740).
§ 3.
Rebellion of Artavasdus : conflicting accounts of Constantine V. (750).
§ 4. Summary
of chief events (740-775).
§ 5. Indirect
evidence entirely against this disappointing result.
§ 6. Recovery
due to resumption of direct monarchic control, especially in Finance.
C. The Emperor> the Churchy and the aim of
Government in
the
Period of Iconoclasm (717-802)
§ 1.
Barbarism of the empire after 550: influence of priests.
§ 2. Orthodox
opposition to Iconoclasm : Leo seeks to weaken Church’s influence.
§ 3.
Anti-Clericalism and State-supremacy : value of counterpoise to
State-absolutism.
§ 4. The
Protestants of Armenia against Hellenism : success and reaction under
Constantine VI. (c. 800).
CHAPTER VI
Character and Aims of the Pretenders and
Military Revolts in the Ninth Century : Gradual Acceptance of Legitimacy (802-867)
§ 1.
Suspension of dynastic principle : throne open to Armenian adventurer.
§ 2.
Socialist “ Jacquerie ” in Asia Minor (c. 820),
§ 3. without
definite political aim : intolerant spirit of the age.
§4. Feuds of
monk and soldier: emperors ignorant or heterodox : weakening of regimental
spirit.
§ 5. Revolt
of Persian contingent at Sinope : close of the Era of “ Pronunciamentos.”
§ 6.
Restoration of Image-worship : intolerant dread of heretics.
§ 7.
Paulician persecution largely political: successful revival of central prestige
(c. 840).
DIVISION B TRIUMPH
OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMACY
CHAPTER VII
Changes in the Administrative Methods of
Autocracy and in the Official World from the Regency (Michael III.)
A. Economic and Social Causes determining the
Development
§ 1. A new
departure: Regency and Legitimacy : personal monarchy in abeyance.
§ 2.
Palace-government: the people press the claims of undisguised Autocracy.
§ 3. Obscure
economic causes at work : (i) change in population ;
§ 4. (2)
Agricultural changes ; (a) communal villages : encroachment of the Magnate.
§ 5. (2, b)
Private estates.
§ 6. First
definite reforms (c. 740) democratic in character.
§ 7. Reaction
(c. 850) in interest of Church and Magnate : soldiers’ fiefs absorbed.
§ 8. Estates
of officials: struggle against encroachment of grandees.
§ 9. Attempt
to restrict Monastic property (c. 965).
B. The
Government and the Landed Interest
§ 10.
Economic fallacies of Byzantium ; Bullionism : land, unique investment for
capital.
§ 11.
Lecapenus (c. 930) and the landed gentry : Nicephorus (c. 965).
§ 12. (3)
Legislation of “ Isaurians” against Plutocracy.
§ 13.
Problems of State and Capital : the rich kept aloof from affairs under earlier
empire.
§ 14. Legal
reforms of “ Isaurians” repealed by 900 : mercy in the Code : (4) revival of
Ecclesiastical influence : (5) revival of private wealth.
C. The Sovereign and the Governing Class under
Michael III.
§ 15. Family
of Theodora the Armenian: emperors always wed subjects.
§ 16. The
Regency: character of Michael III.
§ 17. Cynical
enlightenment in Church and State.
§ 18. Murder
of Caesar Bardas and of Michael III.
§ 19.
Accession of Basil further strengthens Armenian influence.
#
CHAPTER VIII
The Sovereign and the Government under
Basil I.,
Leo VI.,
and Alexander
(867-912)
§ 1. Transfer
of throne to the “Arsacid,” 867, supported by official class.
§ 2. Domestic
reforms and foreign policy of Basil.
§ 3. His
family : relaxation of moral restraint: secular and imperial Patriarchs.
§ 4.
Byzantine public service free from conditions of nationality: rise of the great
Eastern families : perils of divided command.
§ 5. Abortive
conspiracies against Basil and his son (870-910).
§ 6. Leo VI.
under Stylian and Samonas : remarkable Saracen favourite.
§ 7. Wasteful
ease of the Court (c. 900): disregard of precedent and due promotion.
§ 8. Defects
and merits of the new pacific Conservatism (Finlay).
CHAPTER IX
The Sovereign and the Government during
the Tenth Century: the Struggle for the Regency and Conflict of the Civil and
Military Factions : Rise of the Feudal Families
A. Ducas and Phocas to Lecapenus (912-920)
§ 1. The
Palace-Ministry under Alexander : the Bulgarian peril and the Council of
Regents.
§ 2. Popular
demand for a strong man : failure and death of Ducas.
§ 3. Zoe’s
Regency and vigorous anti-Bulgarian designs.
§ 4. Zoe’s
policy thwarted by dissensions of military leaders.
§ 5.
Competition of Phocas and Lecapenus.
§ 6. Success
and rapid promotion of Lecapenus : separation of the imperial functions ;
active Regent and legitimate Recluse.
B. Romanus and his Sons (919-945)
§ 1. Family
of Romanus I. : popular Legitimism.
§ 2.
Conspiracies against Romanus I. : public indifference at his overthrow.
§ 3. His
diplomatic conduct of foreign affairs: Bulgarian alliance.
§ 4. Curcuas
and his long control of the Eastern frontier.
§ 5. Parental
supervision of Romanus.
C. The Regency in Abeyance (945-963) and
Restored (963-976)
§ 1. The
Great Chamberlains: Bringas and the two Basils.
§ 2. Literary
culture and amiable character of Constantine VII.
§ 3. His
ministers, cabinet, gifts to officials, diplomacy.
§4. Romanus
II. and his advisers: the new Regency of Theophano.
§ 5. The East
and the family of Phocas.
§ 6. Duel of
Bringas and Nicephorus : Patriarch’s decisive action.
§7.
Nicephorus II. takes personal command of the war: his valour, unpopularity, and
political errors.
§ 8. John
Zimisces and the settlement of Bulgaria.
§ 9. John and
the Eastern campaigns.
§ 10.
Suspicious death of Zimisces (976): hidden conflict in the Roman Empire.
D. Abortive attempts to revive the Regency:
Personal Monarchy triumphs over both Departments, Civil and Military (9901025)
§ 1. The
young Augusti: revolt of Sclerus (976): Asia Minor detached from the empire.
§ 2. Defeats
of the Imperialist forces : Phocas (restored to favour) overthrows Sclerus.
§ 3. Military
annoyance at Basil’s initiative : revolt of Phocas.
§ 4.
Extinction of revolt by sudden death of Phocas : amnesty and high honours to
Sclerus.
§ 5. Personal
government of Basil II. (990-1025): true Caesarian ideal: rare phenomenon ; effective
control of one.
§ 6.
Overthrow of New Bulgaria in the West.
§ 7.
Masterful spirit and reserve of Basil: change in the methods of government.
CHAPTER X
“Legitimate” Absolutism, or Constantine IX.
and his
Daughters (1025-1056)
A. John the Paphlagonian, or the Cabal of the
Upstarts (1025-1056)
§ 1. Reign of
Constantine IX. : his indolent and capricious temper.
§ 2. Romanus
Argyrus and his Paphlagonian bailiff.
§ 3.
Catastrophe and humiliation in the East: lieutenants retrieve imperial failure
(1030).
§ 4. The
hasty marriage of Michael the Paphlagonian.
§ 5. The
anxieties of Michael IV.: adoption of an heir.
§ 6. Loyal
feeling towards dynasty under Michael V. : indignant populace storms the palace
and reinstates princesses.
B. Central Policy and Pretenders’ Aim during
the Reign of Constantine X. (1042-1054)
§ 1. Zoe’s
choice of a third husband : anomalous relations ot Monomachus and Scleraena.
§2. Usual
series of ineffective revolts: Magniac’s attempt: various futile plots.
§ 3.
Rebellion of Thornic and the troops of Macedonia.
§ 4. End of
Thornic : excuses for the military party.
§ 5.
Ludicrous palace-intrigues : clemency of Constantine X.
§ 6. The
Ministers, Lichudes and John : death of Constantine X. (1054.)
§ 7*
Character and scope of Psellus* contemporary chronicler.
§ 8.
Indolence, courage, and favouritism of Constantine X.
§ 9. His
merits underrated.
DIVISION C
GRADUAL
DISPLACEMENT OF THE CIVIL MONARCHY BY FEUDALISM
CHAPTER XI Conflict of the Two
Orders
A. The Military Protest and the
Counter-Revolution: the Peace- Party and the Soldiers {Comnenus and Diogenes),
1057-1067
§ 1. Theodora
and Michael VI. (creature of a faction).
§ 2. The
Warriors slighted by Prince and Premier: retire to Asia Minor (1057).
§ 3. Hasty
insurgence and failure of Bryennius.
§ 4.
Catacalon joins Comnenian mutineers : futile negotiations with Michael VI.
§ 5. Triumph
of the Comneni: origin of the family.
§ 6. Strong
clerical opposition to Isaac I.: his abdication.
§ 7. Civilian
influence predominant under Constantine XI.: misplaced energy and chivalry.
§ 8.
Emperors’ brothers during Xlth cent.: the two Johns : disgrace and sudden
elevation of Diogenes (1067).
B. The Military Regency and the Ccesar John:
Beginnings of Latin Intervention: the Misrule of Nicephoritzes (1067-1078)
§ 1. Novel
influences : Varangians and Latin soldiers of fortune. § 2. Civilian reaction
after defeat of Manzikert: Romanus deposed by Csesar John.
§ 3.
Ministers and generals under Michael VII.: Nicephoritzes : Russell revolts and
captures Cassar John, and proclaims him emperor : seized by Turks, Russell
regains his freedom,
§ 5. But is
reduced by Alexius : movement in the Balkans : disappointment of Bryennius,
who prepares a revolt,
§ 6. And
assumes the purple : the Capital invested and relieved.
§ 7. Strange
situation of the empire in Europe and Asia (1078).
CHAPTER XII
Conflict of the Three Nicephori: the
Misrule of Bori las; and the Revolt of the Families of Ducas and Comnenus (1078-1081)
§ 1. Union of
Alexius with the house of Ducas : insurrection of Eastern troops under
Botaneiates.
§ 2.
Abdication of Michael VII.: Borilas enters the palace and takes vengeance on
Nicephoritzes.
§3. Weakness
and extravagance of Nicephorus III.: Alexius ends the revolt of Bryennius at
Calabrya.
§ 4. Revolt
of Basilacius in Illyria : misgivings of Alexius, once more victorious.
§ 5. Restless
state of European and Asiatic provinces: futile rebellion of Constantine XII.:
like earlier Slavonic immigrants,
§ 6. The
Turks penetrate into Asia Minor : “ Nicephorus V.” founds a Turkoman
principality.
§ 7. Alexius
declines to serve against him : West Asia independent and aggressive.
§ 8. The
Ministers plot against Comnenians : Alexius invested : sack of the capital and
resignation of Botaneiates (1081).
PART II
ARMENIA AND ITS RELATIONS WITH THE EMPIRE (520-1120)
THE
PREDOMINANCE OF THE ARMENIAN ELEMENT
DIVISION A
GRADUAL ADMITTANCE (540-740)
General
Introduction
§ 1. Interest
of viiith century : Eastern Dynasties of Rome and Armenia.
§ 2. Early
Armenian history: Arsacids and conversion of Tiridat (c. 300) : decay of Roman
influence in viith century.
VOL.
II. b
xviii ANALYSIS
»
§3. Armenian
Nonconformity, obstacle to union: not to entry of Armenian into Roman service.
§ 4. Armenian
pretenders and sovereigns (700-850) at Byzantium.
§ 5. Summary
of conclusions.
I
Early History of Armenia down to the
First Period of Justinian I. (530-540)
§ 1. Armenia
in the new expert service of Rome.
§ 2.
Christianity, source both of alliance and of estrangement.
§ 3. Origin
and early history of the Armenians: rivals of Assyria: the Arsacid dynasty (150
B.C.-200 A.D.).
§ 4. Romans
and Persians in Armenia : independence extinguished (385): the religious
difficulty (400-500).
§ 5. Cabades
the Socialist renews the war with Rome.
§ 6. Feudal
policy of Justin (520), and eastern campaigns of Belisarius.
§ 7. Cause of
Justinian’s failure in East and West: fiscal system.
II
Relations of Rome and Armenia from
Justinian to Heraclius (540-6*20)
§ 1. Loyal
service of Armenia to the empire : in the East and Italy: the Vassal State of
Lazic and sub-infeudation.
§ 2. Armenian
valour in Africa : first Armenian plot: recall and conspiracy of Artaban (548).
§ 3.
Persarmenia under religious persecution joins the empire.
§ 4. Doubtful
issue of the quarrel over Persarmenia (575-580).
§ 5.
Tiberius’ offer to resign Roman claims to Persarmenia : mutinous state of
Persian and Roman armies alike.
§ 6. Chosroes
dethroned and restored by Rome in concert with Armenian nobles: welcome peace
broken by the murder of Maurice.
§ 7.
Chosroes’ war of vengeance against Rome: mutinous independence of Taron.
III
The Dynasty of Heraclius and the Eastern Vassals a. To the Death of Cons
tarn III. (620-668)
§ 1.
Heraclius’ attempt to secure religious conformity in Armenia.
§ 2.
Ambiguous position of Armenia between the two powers : advent of the Arabs :
patriotic resistance under the Vahans.
§ 3.
Nationalism ruined by feudal paralysis sack of Dovin (640): steady northward
advance of the Arabs (640:^.).
§4. After the
visits of Constans III. Nationalists aim at autonomy.
§ 5. Waning
of Roman influence : Armenia tributary to caliph.
IV
Under the Heracliads and Isaurians
/9. From
Constantine IV. to the Death of Leo III. (670-740)
§ 1. Revolt
of Armenian princes in East and West: Sapor and Mejej (668).
§ 2. Recovery
of Armenia under suzerainty to caliph: secret compact of Justinian II. and the
caliph : removal of the Mardaites.
§ 3. Troubled
state of Armenia after the visit of Justinian II.: Arab inroads and removal of
the capital.
§ 4. Terrible
vengeance of caliph (700) against Romanising party : Armenian exiles flock into
Roman service.
§ 5. Early
adventures of Conon in the East: two Armenian emperors ; problems (1) of
Armenian settlements and (2) origin of Leo III.
§ 6.
Unqualified submission to the caliph (from 710).
DIVISION B
PREDOMINATING
INFLUENCE WITHIN (740-1040)
V
Armenians Within and Without the Empire from Constantine V. to Theophilus
(c. 740-840)
§ 1. Revolt
of Artavasdus and transplantation of Constantine V.: Armenian monopoly of
military command.
§ 2. Vigorous
policy of Harun ; constant duel at Byzantium between Armenian generals and
Orthodox reaction.
§ 3. Treason
of Tatzates, owing to hate of courtiers: violent Armenian and military
opposition to Images (785): first deposition of Constantine VI. frustrated by
the Armenian troops.
§4.
Constantine VI. estranges his Armenian supporters: his removal; plots of the
sons of Constantine V.: peril of the capital and removal of Irene by the
Stauracian party.
§ 5.
Exceptional post created for Armenian general in Asia : his discontent and
revolt: his Armenian officer Leo joins Nice- phorus: Armenian conspirator only
overcome by Armenian aid.
XX ANALYSIS
9
§ 6. A false
Constantine VI. supported by Harun: Armenian ministers and conspirators:
success and elevation of Leo the Armenian (813).
§ 7. Serious
menaces to the State under Michael II.: Armenian help and alliance
indispensable to Rome.
§ 8. Services
to the empire of Armenia under Theophilus ; Alexis and Theophobus: Armenia
itself attached to caliphate.
VI
Armenians Within and Without the Empire
from Michael
III. (842), to the End of Romanus I. (944)—(840-940)
§ 1. Roman
expeditions to north-east; Bardas and Theoctistus: rise and elevation of Basil
the Armenian: Basil invested by the new Bagratid monarch.
§ 2. Notable Armenian families emerge; Maleinus, Curcuas, Phocas,
Argyrus.
§ 3. Intimate
and tactful relations of Leo VI. with Armenia: expansion of empire towards
East.
§ 4.
Multiplication of petty sovereignties in Armenia in decay of caliphate.
§5. Appeal of
Armenian king to empire (911): consistent Imperialism of Armenian royalty :
nobles and people thwart alliance.
§6.
Submission of the Taronites to the empire (c. 930): extension of Roman
influence by diplomacy and by war.
§7. Universal
suzerainty of Rome in Armenia: exploits and success of Curcuas the Armenian.
VII
Relations of Armenia and Armenians to the
Empire, from the sole Reign of Constantine VII. (945) to the Deposition of
Michael V. (1042)—(940-1040)
§1. Religious
differences separate Armenia from Rome: rise and elevation of Zimisces the
Armenian.
§ 2. Zimisces
and the Crusading Ideal; his eastern exploits and close relations with Armenian
royalty.
§ 3. Armenian
actors and influence in rebellion of Sclerus (976): displeasure of Basil and
outbreak of religious persecution : Armenia suffers from the Moslem and is
reconciled to Basil II.
§ 4. Legend
of Armenian origin of Samuel the Shishmanid: Armenian officers of Basil II.
(990): Ta'ik bequeathed to Rome; Basil II. removes religious disabilities.
§5. The Great
Durbar of 991; Basil II. receives fealty of Armenian kings: valiant resistance
in Vasparacan to Seljuks : Sennacherib of Vasparacan surrenders to the einpire:
feudal fiefs within the empire.
§6.
Discontent and rebellion in Georgia (1022); proposal to surrender kingdom of
Ani to Rome: curious delay in completing the transfer; varying accounts:
anarchy and treason in Ani: Michael IV. (1040) prepares to enforce the claim:
furious resistance of Bahram the Nationalist.
§ 7. Bahram
raises Gagic, last King of Ani (1042): straightforward dealing of the
emperors: relations of the Armenian kingdom to the empire (c. 1042).
§ 8. Close
connection of Iberia with empire under Romanus III. (11034): Armenian governors
for the empire: principality of Tarsus.
DIVISION C
ANNEXATION,
RIVALRY, AND ALLIANCE WITHOUT (1040-1120)
VIII
Armenia and the Empire from Constantine X.
to the
Abdication of Michael VI. (1040-1057)
§ 1.
Voluntary cession of King of Ani (c. 1045); exploits of Catacalon, Roman
governor, against emir of Dovin.
§ 2. The
Seljuk advance: its significance in world-history.
§ 3. First
pillage of Vasparacan: division in the Roman councils ; they wait for Liparit:
(feudal character of Liparit).
§ 4. Defeat
of Liparit; negotiations for peace with Rome: the Patzinaks create a diversion
in Europe ; Eastern armies weakened: strange trio of generals against Patzinaks
(1050).
§ 5. The
courtiers charge Armenian princes of Arkni with disloyalty : curious plot to
annihilate Armenian “ Huguenots” : Normans posted in East, owing to distrust:
attack of Togrul fiercely renewed (1053) but baffled : Catacalon, Duke of
Antioch.
§ 6. Fresh
Seljuk attack; treason of the son of Liparit: pillage of Chaldia: Emir of
Akhlat extinguishes revolt of Hervey the Norman.
IX
Armenia and Western Asia from Isaac I. to
the Retirement of Nicephorus III. (1057-1081)
§ 1.
Catacalon and Armenian military faction again in power (1057): Armenian
influence on Rome: desultory raids of Seljuks with varying success (1057-59).
§ 2.
Religious and political dissensions of Armenia and the empire: Armenian
alliance with infidel and Seljuk advance: fall of the Principalities of Sivas
and Arkni.
xxii ANALYSIS
$
§ 3. Serious
aggressive policy of new Sultan (1062) ; capture and sack of old Armenian
capital, Ani: secret cession of last independent state to Rome: further range
of Seljuks unhindered.
§ 4. Armenian
disaffection : treason of the captain Amerticius: evil effects of civilian
parsimony : no adequate Imperial forces on Eastern frontier.
§5. Lukewarm
support extended to Romanus IV.: his campaigns and Armenian officers:
suspicion of Sivas princes: catastrophe of Manzikert (1071).
§ 6. Scanty
results of Manzikert (1071): Michael VII. still receives cession of land and
awards principalities : Ani, content with Seljuk rule, refuses to restore
royalty : the interval used by Rome for domestic sedition: triumph of the
Military faction over House of Ducas (1078).
§ 7. Revolt
of Armenian Basilacius in Macedonia: revolutions at Antioch : seizure by
Armenian Philaret: events in Armenian kingdom of Cilicia.
§ 8.
Disappearance of natives in Armenia: foundation of independent kingdom of
Cilicia: the Patriarchal Sees.
§ 9. Western
migration of Oriental Christians: Asia Minor overrun: Cilicia an outpost of
Armenian nationality and Imperial tradition.
X
Armenians under the Empire and in Cilicia
during the Reign op Alexius I. (1080-1120)
§ 1.
Anomalous position of Empire under Comnenians: fluctuating success of Seljuks
in Asia Minor, severed from East by Roman territory: strange exploits of
Philaret, Duke of Antioch.
§ 2. Adroit
diplomacy of Alexius ; jealousy and divisions of Seljukids : Armenians high in
the Imperial service.
§ 3. Mild
rule of Malek in Armenia proper: conciliation of Armenians: his wise reign
followed by civil strife (1092-1097).
§ 4. Seljuks
at Nice: Armenian plot against Alexius ; the Duchy of Trebizond: general state
of East on the arrival of the Crusaders.
§ 5.
Reconquest of Nice; Latin replace Armenian principalities: Latins fraternise
with Armenians: their services to the Crusaders.
§ 6. Rivals
to Seljuks : Latins at Antioch and Edessa; the Danishmand: Imperial recovery in
East, expedition to Cilicia, 1103, 1104: curious treatment of the Roman
general.
§ 7. War of
Seljuks and Armenia of Cilicia: amity of Armenia and Tancred of Antioch:
Boemund becomes Vassal of the empire: (changes in Roman administration : the
Duchy).
§ 8. Another
Armenian conspiracy: desultory fighting in East between Franks and Armenians:
difficulties of Rum: Alexius checks an inroad from Khorasan.
§ 9. Armenian
sovereigns and the earthquake: Baldwin of Edessa reduces the Armenian
principalities : state of Asia Minor, 1120, restless policy of Rum : homage to
Alexius ; his death.
APPENDIX
The Aristocracy and the Provincial
Regiments ; or Emperor, Senate, and Army during the Great Anarchy (690-720)
§ 1.
Predominance of the provincial regiments: the empire now Asiatic.
§ 2.
Permanent Thematic armies: revolutions of 695, 698.
§3. Justinian
restored: revolutions of 711, 713: shortsight of military conspirators.
§ 4. Mutinous
troops and revolt under Theodosius III.
§ o. Civilian
capital defenceless before new military concentration.
§ 6.
Armeniacs and Anatolies upset Obsician influence (716,
717)-
INDEX TO VOL. II.
POLITICAL
INFLUENCES MOULDING THE NOMINAL AUTOCRACY OF THE CAESARS (400-1080)
FROM
PRESIDENT TO DICTATOR—FROM DICTATOR TO DYNAST
CHAPTER I
THE PRINCE,
THE SENATE, AND THE CIVIL SERVICE IN THE EASTERN EMPIRE (400-550)
§ 1. We
approach the central problem of this entire Immobility of period in an inquiry
into the function and the aims of the Civil Service under the empire of the
East. 0J Law.
A
supplementary inquiry might indeed discuss (a) the composition and dignities of
the Byzantine Senate, and (b) the strict and well-defined provinces of the
various civil departments. It was the chief endeavour of the princes in the era
of reconstruction to assure the central control over all other branches of the
administration. Constantine, while recognising the independent sanction of the
Church, seeks to preserve its integrity and unanimous belief as a valid
instrument of government in the new State. The profession of arms constituted a
distinct career, and was open to the sturdy foreigner. The Civil Service, the
special creature of the imperial system, looking to Hadrian and Severus
Alexander as its chief patrons, was now still further reduced to order, method,
and routine ; in the education and training of future officials, in the regular
stipend, promotion, and pension, which followed and repaid devoted service in
some field of the administration. It is often remarked that the classical ideal
is a stationary rather than a progressive society. “That State/' says
Aristotle, il is the wisest and best administered
4 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF div. a
9
Immobility
of which gives most to the Law and least to the per- ^taU^Reign sona^
°* ^he ruler-” A religious sanction was of Law. invoked
to secure legislation from the tampering interference of reformers ; the
legendary hero who produced the uniform and consistent code, was himself
divine, or was at least inspired by a god. When the secular and critical spirit
looked with cool inquiry on this pretension, Plato sought by religious fiction
or dogmatic illusion to bind his neophytes to a blind obedience. In effect,
every citizen is to be born in a Hellenic community with a rope round his neck,
such as was worn by the proposer to deliver Salamis. The legislation of Rome
opened and expanded from a narrow tribal code, under the genial influence of
Imperial, Christian, Stoic, and Juristic doctrine. The Ecumenical State could
repose safely on no other foundation but the law of nature and of reason ; and
it was a commonplace of the time (as of many subsequent schools of shallow
enlightenment) that the two were identical. While we are following the
restless wanderings of Hadrian, the ascetic musings of Marcus, the wild
vagaries of Commodus, or the pitiless repression of Severus, we are apt to
forget the quiet but systematic justification for the imperial system, which
the Jurists proposed. The equity, which should be the basis of the world-wide
State, as it realised the idle dream or academic thesis of dialectical and
abstentionist Stoicism, was to be found under the empire, and was the
unalterable pivot of the whole. Some indeed might regret the methods adopted to
secure freedom, and equality,—man's original condition, dictated by the
powerful law of nature and the approving sanction of his own heart ; or might
regard the emperor as the unique means of attaining and preserving a “ golden
age.” The content of this law was constant and inviolable, and could not be
altered when once unfolded before mankind. To it the edicts of princes must
conform, and there was abroad some
vague notion
on the right of insurrection, in case Immobility of the sovereign defied or
contradicted it. The Declamations of the elder Seneca, and a hundred lesser of
Law. passages in first century writers, extol this law of nature above the
partial and transient enactment of princes or peoples.
§ 2. We must
remember that the whole tendency The Civil of the reconstructive age (285—337)
was to save the ^^eand central power from alien
encroachment and its own * weakness. The ideal was not the will of the emperor
for the time being, but the permanent and abiding policy of the State.
Everything hitherto tentative and indecisive in outline, a compromise of
intentional vagueness, was brought forth into open daylight and given sharply
cut features, often rude, blunt, and unsuspected. The autocracy no longer
depended upon Rome ; why then should the empty and misleading pretence be
maintained that from the Senate emanated all power in the State ? The law was
by then made clear and uniform ; and the next three centuries will see the
codifying process at work, which is to place the maxims and principles of
government above the reach of individual caprice.
Similarly,
the agents of government were marshalled in order ; the various characters and
duties set forth in distinct relief, quite as much in the desire for swiftness
and uniformity as in anxious apprehension.
The Civil
Service attains important proportions, and by a curious freak, the sworn
ministers and lieutenants of Caesar are summed up and collected, at least by
the reign of Theodosius II., in the ancient and honourable title of Senators.
Between the ancient house and the imperial agents there had always existed a
standing feud; the aristocrat tended to become an irresponsible amateur, the
praetor or lieutenant of Caesar was careful and business-like as under the eye
of the master. But the centrifugal force was now conquered; there is but one
order of public servants, directly amenable to the emperor.
The
Civil Service and routine.
Later
decline of Civilian influence {600-800).
6 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF div. a
#
We are
dealing in this section only with the Civil Service of the Eastern realm; and
we may here well start with this identification. These officers form a
hierarchy with definite training, precise duties, and regular precedence; the
Senate, still the informal council of assessors which custom rather than law
bade the magistrate consult, was composed of the chief acting and past
ministers of the Crown. And it was the aim and object of the reconstructive age
in adapting the scheme of government to its new and unexpected needs, to make
its method fixed and its procedure certain. This fixity of outline, as we saw,
is a heritage from the past; the Hellenic idealists conceived it possible, like
modern prophets of Utopia, to reach or to recur to a perfect and immobile
condition of society, in which reform and improvement would have no further
use. To us who recognise the helplessness of man’s judgment before inexorable
laws, and the cyclic development which forbids us to cherish hopes of an
eternal equilibrium, it seems incredible that these Illyrian or Pannonian
sovereigns, themselves darting out of nothingness into dazzling light, could
have imagined that it lay within their competence to stereotype and to
crystallise mankind. “A spirit of conservatism/' says Finlay, “ persuaded the
legislators of the Roman Empire that its power could not decline, if each order
and profession of its citizens was fixed irrevocably in the sphere of their own
peculiar duties by hereditary succession.” We are about to examine the
application of this principle in the administrative sphere, and to inquire into
the influence of this new body, as it slowly built up its policy and tradition
to overmaster the moment’s caprice in the ruler, or unhappily succumbed to the
rudimentary instincts of self-seeking and greed.
§ 3. The
needs of the empire were twofold: domestic order and guard against foreign
inroads. Sooner or later the most carefully devised plan for
securing
civil supremacy was destined to fail. The Later decline
artificially
protected area, with its also artificial °f^imlian . f , - it ,
• , . influence
governing
class (never, as in other countries, a domi- (600-800).
nant caste),
frequently had to postpone internal reform to the pressing need of military
defence. I am inclined to believe that the years 400-800, from Theodosius II.
to Nicephorus I., witness the zenith and decline of the civilian spirit, of
that predominance of the bureau, which the sturdy soldier Diocletian
established, in the vain hope that unarmed and peaceful officials would remain
always in dutiful obedience to the sovereign. I would suggest the following
division of years in an attempt to estimate the vicissitudes of its influence.
(a)
From the New University of Theodosius II. to . the end of Justinian (430-565),
during which the collective Civil Service represented by the Senate, acquired
by merit and preserved with success a commanding position in the State. (b)
From Justin II. to the solemn compact of Heraclius (565-618).
Here we see
emerging the elements of opposition to the vigilant control of the prince,—the
interest in most things civilian and the emoluments of the notary and the
advocate have declined, and while society rushes blindly into superstition and
barbarity, the advisers and agents of the sovereign do their best to thwart his
well-meant reforms and exempt themselves (like a feudal “ noblesse ”) from the
uniform operation of law. (c) From Heraclius to the deposition of Justinian
II. (618-695). Here the conflict of the official class with the monarchy takes
a different complexion in an altered age; the old civil hierarchy breaks down,
and in many regions of the empire becomes extinct; for since 618 two new and important
factors have been admitted into partnership, with independent right/ the Church
and the Army : and the official class of “ Senators ” (persecuted, as Bury well
says, in the “ drastic but inept ” measures of this latter sovereign) bear a
different stamp to the
Later
decline disciplined agents of his greater namesake, and have
of
Civilian something of the selfish independence of the feudal
ITltlUSTlCB
(600-800).
nobles, something, too, of the crafty greed of an Eastern vizier, not a little
of the genuine (if misplaced) piety of the devotee. (d) From the elevation of
Leontius to the accession of Leo III. (695-717); a period in which the
permanent armies of Asia Minor combat not indeed with an effective monarch, but
with the officials of the capital, who, like a Venetian oligarchy, attempt to
engross political power and secrete their gains behind the majestic figure of a
puppet Caesar. (e) From the accession of Leo to the downfall of Irene, the
epoch known as Iconoclastic and Isaurian (717-802). Here the personal monarchy
of Constantine again emerges, and the civilian interest has to submit to
military law; a “ state of siege/' as it were, is proclaimed, and sharper and
sterner measures are adopted against the ascetic celibate and the corrupt
functionary : it is the victory of the “Themes,” of the army, and, above all,
of the Asiatic spirit, which, assuming in distant Armenia the austere
lineaments of ancient Rome, revives the falling State and ensures not only
Byzantium but the rest of Europe; the civilian body dwindles in importance and
esteem, the Senate deferentially ratifies the sovereign's decrees in formal “
beds of justice ”; the palace, the camp, the monastery are the centres of
influence and interest.
Civilian
pre-’ § 4. We will confine ourselves at present to the
™™wntuT Per*oc*
(Ct 430_5^5 A*D*)> which
owing to the
* remarkable
change in the energy and fortunes of Justinian's old age might well be
shortened by some dozen years. Here Senate and Emperor co-operate ; the
interest of ruler and subject are identical, and mature merit, passing through
the useful lessons of a private lot, arrives leisurely and by no sudden leap at
sovereign power. There is no definite antiimperial feeling among the ruling
class, though we detect dire presages of the coming conflict. For
the
difficulty of our problem lies in this ; we have abundant evidence of the wise
influence, the continuous policy, the steady pre-eminence of the civilian
element in the fifth century ; and especially in the long and impersonal reign
of Theodosius II. Yet we do not lack traces of selfishness in greater and minor
agents alike, of the resentment roused by imperial firmness, of the claims of
rank to exempt from liabilities. Now in the Roman Empire it is not possible to
fall back upon the facile distinction between a military and feudal nobility,
and the sovereign's agent expressly created to coerce them. Elsewhere we find
the same political development; the king and his band bursting gaily into a
rich and smiling country and dividing the spoils ; the king, drawn over against
himself into popular sympathies, curbing the petty tyrannies of the lords, and
gradually (as Plato saw) assuming the character of a popular champion ; hence
the various offices invented to curtail local power in the common interest of
prince and people, 11 comites ” and “ palatines ” to
watch “ dukes”; <* missi ” and “ gastald ” to stand up for the centre
against the circumference. But, in spite of the long survival and certain
influence of great families in Greece and Rome—in spite of the dynastic
tendency from the very outset underlying the scheme of Augustus—birth never
constitutes by itself a claim to distinction or power among the classic
nations. Nobility was of rank not of blood ; and although nature will again and
again “ recur ” to combat or reinforce civic Idealism, the theory survives to
the end of our period that only standing in the service of the State gave rank,
title, or precedence. Thus we have some of that Teutonic subjectivity, the
feudal baron, sometimes the defender, sometimes the oppressor of the district;
and the commonwealth never surrendered a large measure of its duties to private
enterprise. (For, in passing, it may be explained why England is to the present
Civilian
preeminence in Vth century.
10 CONSTITUTIONAL
HISTORY OF div.
a i
Civilian
pre- moment an aristocratic country : it is because a very
6v™wntury.
Sreat Part
the duties elsewhere exercised by paid functionaries of the centre fall to the
gratuitous discharge of those whose birth summons them to certain office and
functions ; who are trained in that anomalous yet successful school of English
education to be the natural leaders of a great community, or the impartial
rulers of less civilised races. Elsewhere we have intimated that the attitude
of such a class is always largely hostile to the government and loyal to the
titular sovereign; for it cares little for the favours of the former, and for
its standard of public rectitude and devotion it borrows nothing of its
tradition, invokes none of its definite laws ; but it values the lightest
honour which the latter bestows, an ample reward; lastly, it depends, as the
nobility must in modern times, upon the esteem of the people at large, also
animated by a general feeling of distrust of those anonymous central cabinets
where power resides to-day, and by a vague terror of State autocracy, never so
dangerous as when cloaked under democratic forms.) To the bad and to the good
side of feudalism alike the empire was a stranger. The State was impersonal;
subjectivity was ruthlessly crushed or forced in the imperial figures to act an
impersonal role. It was constantly attempting to reduce independent
departments under the central sway ; Diocletian did not rest until he had
secured the submission of army and administration to the central unit, which,
like Schelling’s Absolute, was at the same moment both and neither. It would be
an error to assert that the system strove for logical symmetry like a modern
paper constitution. But it developed, as do all ideal (that is, artificial)
systems, into centralism and uniformity. And indeed there had never been any
doubt of this ; though office might come, like Santa Claus, in the night to the
cradles of slumbering politicians, yet in the end it was office, not the
accident of birth, that bestowed
power and
admittance to the Senate. When we find Civilian pre- some notable fretting
against restraint or common 6y^ie^in
justice, some boasted or claimed immunity, it is no CGntury- feudal
peer; it is a creature of the State who has become, like the 11
monster," stronger than its author.
§ 5. The
Civil Service of China is examined but is The not taught by the State ; the
growth and early train- academyjbr ing are spontaneous, and only the mature
result is officials: taken under its patronage. In Byzantium since thq Junction
of reign of Theodosius II. there existed a college for the 1 eSenate'
discipline of future officials (Cod. Theo., xiv. 9, 3 ;
Just., xi.
18, 1).
A high test
of merit and ability was exacted for a professor's post; the “Senate" were
the examiners ; and the lucky candidate might expect, after a certain term of
service, to enter the official hierarchy with the title of Count. It is to us
not a little singular to see an “emeritus" professor from Germany in the
habiliments of a Privy Councillor, or an honorary Court Chamberlain ; but such
recognition by the monarch, acting in the name of the State, is quite in
keeping with Roman practice and tradition. We may well believe that the Senate
as an advisory as well as an examining body possessed large powers in the reign
of Pulcheria. In spite of the charges of Eunapius that offices were venal, it
is clear that assembly and executive worked well together; and that the
constitution under an amiable hereditary prince, a conscientious empress
sister, and a competent imperial council, resembled later and better forms of
that absolutism which supplanted Feudalism and disorder in Western Europe. Bury
well points out that the early empire steered a doubtful course between Scylla
and Charybdis—a cabinet of imperial freedmen, Dio's Kaicrapeloi, and a sheer
military despotism. Remedies for each peril were discovered in (a) permanent
council and Civil Service ; (b) severance of the civil and military careers.
But the
The
Theodosian
academy for officials : function of the Senate.
12 CONSTITUTIONAL
HISTORY OF div. a $
double danger
recurred in a novel form—the new cabinet of chamberlains and dependents of the
Con- stantinian Court, and the foreign and preponderating element in the
armies. It is impossible not to forecast the secret influences of “aulic
cabals/’ Yet as the earlier princes charged with the responsible government of
a world found it necessary to put trust in faithful domestics, so the later
influence of the Court Chamberlain, however distasteful to the patriot and the
civilian, had some intelligible ground. For the most public-spirited assembly
insensibly alters its tone, and acquires features of individual avarice and
collective resistance to all change however urgent. The tone of civilian
society is not the same under Anastasius as under Theodosius II. Now and again
the “ Senate ” appears by name in some more important relation than a court
ceremony. It seems to have disappointed the hopes of Verina, who in 475 drove
out her son-in-law to place her paramour Patricius on the throne; it elevated
her brother Basiliscus, the unsuccessful admiral of the great expedition to
Carthage. Longinus, Zeno’s brother, is appointed president of the council to
reinforce the Isaurian counterpoise to the German auxiliaries. And when
Anastasius has overcome the peril arising from this dangerous alliance in the
Isaurian mutiny, it is once more the Senate who proclaim Vitalian an enemy of
the State. He is no “ breaker of the king’s peace," no li
comforter of the king's enemies," but aWorpiog Ttjg 7ro\iTelast
a foe to the just and impersonal system of the City State. Once again it is
the Senate who inquire into the conspiracy in Justinian’s last days, when, with
the leniency we come to expect in an emperor, all who seem guilty are pardoned
and set free. It is clear, then, that Justinian gave it a judicial function,
which may have lasted or been from time to time revived down to the final
abrogation of privilege in the latter half of the ninth century.
§ 6. Where
earlier critics saw nothing but unmis- Respect for takable decay under feeble
and capricious princes, modern research has disclosed manifest tokens of
suspicious of recuperation and steadfast policy. Finlay, as he itself
struggles between his evidence and his intuitions, presents no very clear
picture, and is constantly impaling himself on the horns of a dilemma; yet he
does justice to the “ systematic exercise of imperial power,” the identical
interest and common aim of sovereign and subject, and the gradual internal recovery
which followed the clear decision of the Eastern world to tolerate no Teutonic
protectorate.
All these
princes seek to follow precedent dutifully ; and Anastasius is in singular
agreement with Tiberius I. (Cod. J., i. 22, 6), when he writes to the governors
and judges not to allow a private rescript to override the law ; the imperial
will may be disregarded if it does not tally with usage.
Tiberius, it
will be remembered, had likewise attempted to guard autocracy against its
idler or incautious moments: “ minui jura quotiens gliscat potestas, nec
utendum arbitrio cum de legibus agi possit.” Where shall we find the true
critic of an often faulty executive, an often hasty legislature ?
The emperor
is warring against himself; he is attempting to guard against abuse of
prerogative by an exercise of it. In the United States, the Constitution is
sovereign over popular impulse ; the Supreme Court decides if a measure is
consistent with its provisions. It is the standing complaint of liberal
historians that no such safeguard or division of function existed in the empire
; that the executive and legislature and judicature were often at one ; that
the private subject had no redress in the courts against oppression ; that the
governor was also judge in his own cause. It is not easy to see how this system
could be successfully amended while retaining the hypothesis and formula of the
Commonwealth : for this paradox was essential, that which combined with a
minute
Respect
for precedent: autocracy suspicious of itself.
subdivision
of labour and function the most imperious centralism. During an epoch of
comparative peace a respectable civilian body may safely be charged with
imperial duties ; but at a crisis, the single will and its trusty military
retinue must be once more invoked. Such a period of civil rule marks the fifth
century,—marks again the latter portion of the sixth. There was no initiative,
and for the moment no need of initiative, in the Emperor Theodosius II. The
machine could go on very well of itself. There was abroad an honest desire to
reform, retrench, and rule wisely. The groundwork and stability of the next
reigns—Marcian, Leo, Zeno, Anastasius, and Justin—were laid firmly under the
last of the Dynastic series. If the emperor was weak or u
constitutional,” the Senate, a permanent body with continuous traditions,
assumed the control of public business. Of the sovereigns who succeeded Theodosius
(450-578) no less than six hail from those northern parts of the Balkan
peninsula which for centuries supplied Rome not merely with recruits but with
an unbroken line of princes. Whether Illy- ricum or Pannonia, Dardania or
Thrace, it is remarkable that for over three and a quarter centuries (250-578)
these provinces should have so exclusively provided rulers for the world. It
cannot be doubted that Marcian (450-457), in whose nomination Pulcheria, Aspar,
and the Senate seem to unite amicably, was a notable member of that body, who
supported under the last reign the prudent policy that lay behind the fugitive
personality of her brother. The chief aim of this policy was to enthrone law
above caprice, to circumscribe despotic or fitful power by fixed institutions
and uniform procedure ; the motto of these sagacious civilians might well be
the Horatian advice to the playwright, Nec deus intersit.
§ 7. It is
scarcely out of place to remark that there is a similar tendency even among the
professed sup-
porters of
modern autocracy. We cannot forget the The Russian apology which the late M.
Pobyedonostseff made for jklsmifa- his sovereign in the matter of the Kieff
affair. Prince tions. Kropotkin had with much waste of sentimentality objected
to students being sent into the army as a disciplinary measure ; a measure just
suited to the young Russian, which with us would take the form of sending a
spoilt and precocious boy to learn his place in a public school. For this step
the Procurator makes a really needless apology. But when it comes to placing
the responsibility, he is, as Tacitus would say, “ sounding the depths and
publishing the secrets of empire.,, The emperor was not responsible,
it appears ; the action was taken solely by the Ministers of the Interior and
of Education. “The decree/' he writes, “ concerning the military service of
disorderly students was published independently of any initiative on the part
of the emperor. The ministers in a cabinet meeting, summoned in consequence of
these university disorders, deemed it necessary to have recourse to this
punishment, and this resolution was submitted for the emperor’s approval. The
application of this penalty in each case was to depend on a special committee .
. . and its decisions were to be valid in law without needing an imperial
sanction. The Kieff affair was settled in this way, and the will of the emperor
had no share in it. . . . It should be remembered that oar emperor never issues
such orders on his personal responsibility. He contents himself with confirming
the decisions of the various executive councils and the resolutions of his
ministers in cases prescribed by rule. ... I was totally ignorant of the Kieff
affair, which concerned two ministers.”
This must
mean that the emperor, like the ideal sovereign of Laurentius, only confirms
the decisions of his cabinet,and is not responsible for their mistakes.
We need not
sympathise with the pacificist scruples of the prince about the drafting of
disorderly youths into a sphere of much-needed discipline; nor do we
The
Russian Czardom: its limitations.
Efforts
to control the lesser agents (450-500).
exactly agree
with him in seeing here the embryo of constitutional government and responsible
ministries! Indeed, the above seems the very worst system of government the
heart of man could devise! The autocrat is powerless, although in the eyes of
the world solely accountable for every slip or misdeed. The ministers, so far
from being responsible either to him or to the nation, are practically
omnipotent in their several departments ; and do not even trouble to consult the
sovereign, although he has to bear the brunt or odium of their injustice. And,
like the official class in our period, “ they increasingly assume the right
under the shelter of the emperor s signature} of modifying by
mere decrees the fundamental laws of the empire.” But at Byzantium, we notice
the better features only. The age might well be regarded as the triumph of
bureaucratic government. The dignified assembly was well served by trained and
organised officials who had learned not merely general lessons in the
Theodosian academy, but the minute duties of their future career. Nor is it
without significance that just at this time appears the Code as a further
support to a just and uniform administration, of which Finlay well remarks,
“that it afforded the people the means of arraigning the conduct of the ruler
before the fixed principles of law.”
§ 8. The
legislation of the time bears ample witness to a sincere desire for the reform
of abuses in the higher circles, to the prevalence of an unscrupulous or
antinomian spirit in the lesser agents. Marcian found himself besieged by
complaints, u catervas adeuntium infinitas ” of the imperfect
distribution of justice; the judges were neither strict nor impartial (Novella,
i.). There was complete accord between the elderly Senator, called like some
Doge of Venice to be chief among his peers, and the conclave who had ratified
or proposed his election. No fault was found in the pompous phrases in which he
couched
his
sense of imperial responsibility : “ Curce nobis est Efforts to utilitati
humani generis providere ” (Novella, ii.). He control the^ remits the follis,
as somewhat later Anastasius will ^so-500)! abolish the Chrysargyron, beyond
chance of recall; and thus relieved the senatorial class from a heavy burden,
which even the emperor himself paid as a member of the order: for the modern
gulf between the sovereign and the proudest subject, which is a symbol of State
absolutism, did not exist for the Roman emperor. He also lightened those
liturgical offices, like that of the Greek Choragus or our own High Sheriff,
which subjected wealth to certain liabilities for the people’s amusement:
hitherto Senators of the provinces were called up to act as praetors in the
capital and provide games for an idle proletariat. The two original praetors of
the city had been increased to eight, all bound to some costly contribution to
public works or public ceremonies ; for the ancient world, in spite of (or
shall we say because of ?) its plutocratic basis, exacted much from the opulent,
and had no patience with the cynical luxury, the immunity and aloofness of the
wealthy which is so significant a trait of li democratic ”
States. Marcian no doubt reduced the number of exhibitions, and he refused to
summon from a remote district a rich proprietor to squander his means on a
people who scarcely knew his name. Residents alone were in future eligible to
these onerous and archaic posts; and the consuls were invited to share with
the praetors the charge of the public works and buildings, which had pressed
heavily on those who were not required for the less useful expense of the
games. Leo I., following the same wise policy of simplicity and retrenchment,
reduced these ceremonious offices to three ; and Justinian completed the work
of relief in the abolition of the consulate. This act, idly supposed to mark an
ignoble jealousy of antique Roman glory, seems to the dispassionate student to
have been dictated by VOL. II. B
Efforts
to the soundest motives. Emperor and State were
control
the qUj{
Qf a dignity which entailed nothing but a con- lesser
agents ^ . , , , , , • , , , ,
(450-500).
venience for the chronicler and a disorderly “largess "; to the mass of
the people indeed the term vttarela, robbed of its proud associations, bore no
other significance, and we do not hear that even the usual rumblings of
discontent “ inani murmure ademp- tum jus questusfollows this revolutionary
economy. Zeno (474—491) maintained the same attitude ; like Leo the Thracian,
he lightened fiscal burdens in the interest of the landed proprietor ; and the
preoccupation of their sovereigns with this class is not a little significant
of the critical position of agriculture and of economics. It is hazarded that
his dependence on the “official aristocracy” is proved by his refusal to
nominate his brother Longinus as successor ; it may well be that both emperor
and Senate had already come to the same conclusion that he was unfit to rule;
for he had for several years occupied the chair of President of that Assembly.
Wise
influ- The abolition of the Chrysargyron and the curious
eme
of senior approvaj aroused
will demand special notice. We officials m r
j
Senate.
need only note here the consistent policy of moderation and economy shown
alike, no doubt under senatorial guidance, by the elderly palace official from
Dyrrhachium and the mature Guardsman, who succeeded an Isaurian chieftain as
Roman emperors. It must be remarked that this imperial council enabled princes,
chosen almost at hazard, to play a useful and dignified part without any previous
special training; it respected precedent and maintained a continuous and
unbroken policy. Yet in justice to these conscientious rulers, who availed
themselves of their advice, the more liberal and beneficial measures were owed
to the independent thought of the sovereign himself. A wise suppression of
sinecures also marked this era, and a restriction of the excessive influence
of certain high offices.
We do not
know how far these civil reforms were Wise injlu-
due
to the spontaneous action of the monarch ; but en^e of senior
11 i i - officials m
we are well
aware how this judicious retrenchment senate.
was viewed in
the prejudiced eyes of Laurentius or Procopius. Amid vague blame or overt
calumnies, the genuine desire of the emperors (including Justinian) for a wise
check on public expenditure is clearly marked. The unavailing regrets of the
Lydian for the past glories of the prefect’s office and retinue, mark not the
jealous suppression by the monarch of an inconvenient partner or rival, but
rather a natural process, which extinguished with the litigious centralism of
the courts of the capital the effective civilian control of the outlying
provinces.
The Civil
Service indeed has passed its palmiest days. It is subject to an insensible
decline, for which no single actor is responsible. The Senate, when we open the
records of the next period, does not reflect high public spirit, a sense of
duty, a corporate tradition. The “ princes ” of the Court of Justin II. are
stigmatised by him as selfish placemen and dangerous advisers, against whose
influence he warns his successor. By what- gradual and silent steps this
transformation was effected we do not know ; but we may safely infer that the
change was hastened by the despondent lethargy which overtook Justinian in his
later years.
§ 9. The
marvel of the endurance and stability Official of the Eastern realm has
fascinated historians. To responsibility. what can we ascribe the startling
contrast in the fortunes of the two capitals ? It has been well said: “ While
the West crumbled, the East saved not itself only but the world.” These
adoptive emperors organised that system, which being hastily dismissed as
Byzantine, has been so “ unjustly calumniated.” The successors of Diocletian
coquetted with his scheme ; but the real consummation was reserved for the
princes who follow the extinction of the Theodosian house. Constantine
introduced
Official
heredity and favoured the barbarians; the elder
responsibility.
Theodosius endorsed this policy, and left behind him a working scheme which the
feeble stubbornness of his son, or the intrigues of ministers, soon destroyed.
At the best, the Roman constitution in the fifth century is incoherent and
opportunist; a definite system was the merit of the immediate predecessors of
the great Justinian. They laboured for that State or centre-supremacy which was
achieved under his energetic rule, and vanished in his lethargy. Officers of
the civil and military hierarchy were made amenable to “ ministerial departments,"
and thus ultimately all depended on the sovereign, according to the fixed
principle of modern times. The sovereign was safe and inaccessible. The
treasure was guarded against peculation. Conspiracy, rebellion, theft—such are
the dangers of a feudal society ; to a large extent pretexts and opportunities
for these crimes against public peace were withdrawn.
No
demand Finlay, as becomes a Grecian liberator, indicts
^ontrolUl0r Byzantine Government for not placing
some
effective
safeguard in the hands of the people against the malversation or petty
oppression of subalterns. He is convinced that in the highest class the public
opinion was wholesome, and the Senate in its aims and methods patriotic; the
“Illyrian’' emperors whom they supported, vigorous and well-meaning. But a
vigilant watch over the obscurer instruments of the “sacred will and
pleasure" was impossible. And in spite of murmurs, it would not appear
that the people at large demanded control ; and still the overworked princes
struggled in vain with an Atlan- tean load. He well says that “ legislative,
executive, and administrative powers of government were confounded as well as
concentrated in the person of the sovereign ” ; and he remarks with justice
that “ despotism can ill balance the various powers of the State, and is but
ill qualified to study with effect and sympathy the condition of the governed
or the
disorders of
society." But these strictures of nine- No demand teenth-century
liberalism do not suggest any genuine ^n^Alar
alternative to the imperial policy. The whole cul- * ture and ability of the
empire was cleverly gathered together on the side of the government; and there
is no sign whatever of a strong or sullen country opposition, such as silently
thwarted the Whig administration in our own land during the early Hanoverian
reigns. To us who have before our eyes the experience and the lessons of the
post-reformation development in the field of politics, it seems a truism to
assert that it is a profound error (i) to accumulate the wealth of a country in
the coffers of a State (as Constantius Chlorus wisely (Dio C. contin.):
aimeivov irapa toi$ ISioyTaig ty\v
tov /3a(rl\eu)$ eviroplav elvai rj jULiKpa) 7repiKeK\ei(rQcu ytopiw) ;
or (2) to concentrate power without counterpoise and balance elsewhere.
The best
feature in the doubtful success of modern Representation, has been the serious
character and responsibility of the recognised Opposition, of those critics of
a ministry whose work and function they may at any moment be called upon to
undertake.
But in the
fifth century such a method of securing the people against their petty tyrants
was inconceivable; and the sole remedy appeared to be to aggrandise the central
prerogative, as alone equitable and impartial. We praise the attempts of these
sovereigns, from Marcian to Justin I., to control autocracy and supply the
final will in the State with ample precedent and guiding lines not to be
overstepped without danger. It would have been idle to have then suggested to a
statesman or a Senator to elevate a Supreme Tribunal (as in the United States)
over the executive and legislative powers. There is little sign that the
artificial system known as the Roman Empire possessed outside the church and
clergy a body of independent opinion with fixed principles which would act in
this manner. And it would have seemed a cowardly shifting of responsibility
No
demand for popular control.
Public
opinion and nationality unknown.
for a prince
to advocate such a curtailment of his own authority as to render impersonal law
wholly superior to the will of the sovereign and the needs and crises of the
State ! So far as it was possible (as we have seen) the emperors of the sturdy
Illyrian line desired to simplify and to regularise ; the codes of Theodosius
II. and of Justinian were in a sense a kind of constitutional guarantee.
Indeed, like Severus I., the prince frequently professed his obedience to law
and his deference to custom and tradition ; but the attempt was never made to
reduce government to a faultless and mechanical procedure irrespective of
personal vigilance, or to relieve the elected ruler of' the ultimate duty of
deciding on the best course. The widow- woman was right; if the emperor refused
to hear her complaint she could retort with justice, fiaarlXeve.
§ 10. The
modern critic is not to blame in laying down such general maxims as these: “
Patriotism and political honesty can only become national virtues when the
people possess a control over the conduct of their rulers, and when the rulers
themselves publicly announce their political principles.” But the emphasis of
this sentence, quite unsuspected by its author, lies in the word “ national/'
Now the East has never made nationality the basis of public institutions; and
there is no indication in our period of any genuine and homogeneous opinion,
representing that sentiment for country and tradition, which we term
patriotism. It would seem that the empire, like the Russian autocracy to-day,
held together and gave a precarious and artificial unity, to a curious
assortment of interests and to a medley of creeds. It will always be debated on
this side and on that, whether a beneficent hegemony is better than the
restless strife and wrangle of small autonomous districts. Here we have hope,
disorder, and development ; there assured comfort and a stationary, perhaps
a petrified
society. Modern Utopias, often without Public suspecting their sympathy with
archaic ideals, again 0Pl^l0n^d
reinstate the latter conception; and the States-General unknown. of Europe, or
the more poetical “ Federation of Mankind,” really revert in theory to the
Roman Empire, pagan or mediaeval, seamless, one and indivisible. But this
conception, which shall stop the blind strife of democracies and abolish the
competition of trade, is strongly anti-national, as the imperial system was
supra-national. The true tendency of democratic States is to be seen in the
protectionist colonies or commonwealths of the Anglo-Saxons, with their
permanent or spasmodic “ Xenelasia,” or in the curious hesitation which admits
pauper aliens into England and yet finds an apology for the anti-Chinese or
anti-Japanese campaign ; such, for instance, as lately issued in riot and
bloodshed on the west coast of America; in republic and monarchy alike. The
spirit of nationality, indeed, is not liberalism, but its negation ; and we
term the empire liberal because it kept before the eyes of warring sects and
heresies, of disaffected yet helpless provinces, the ideal of a larger Unity,
and did its best to break down the barriers of race, district, and creed. We
may say that the codes realised one condition of sound rule laid down above by
our critical historian; the general lines of policy and administration were
made public ; and as regards the first, we cannot in fairness ask that greater
confidence should be displayed than is shown by Emperor Justin II., who desires
the chief men and clergy of a province to help in choosing their governor. The
critic stands on more secure ground The middle- when he accuses not the rulers
but the unseen tendencies of the age, both physical and economic, interest.
If the
welfare and freedom of a country depend, as we may readily admit, upon its
middle class, thrifty, industrious, and proprietary, it must be confessed that
the Eastern realm was in a parlous state. “The
The
middle- class and the mercantile interest.
State/' says
Hegel {Ph. d. R., 297), “if it has no middle class is still at a low stage of
development. In Russia, for instance, there is a multitude of serfs and a host
of rulers. It is of great concern to the State that a middle class should be
formed.,, “ The middle and upper classes of Society/’ says Finlay,
“were so reduced in numbers that their influence was almost nugatory in the scale
of civilisation.” We approach here a problem alike of ancient and modern times,
the blame of which cannot be set down to the errors or the absence of human
interference. Natural causes and voluntary surrender of rights changed
mediaeval Europe from a federation of free towns, gathered into peace under a
just hegemony, into a vast and desolate country-side, peopled by petty
sovereigns and serfs. It was nobody’s fault. Natural causes again press out today
the small proprietor, the yeoman, and the petty salesman ; and once more seem
to divide society into the two halves, the trust (or the government) and its
dependents. The decay of the intermediate rungs in the social ladder cannot
then be laid at the door of this oligarchic autocracy, which reduced the burdens
of the middle class and sought to include even the “ powerful ” within the
control of law. Indeed, we are tempted to suppose that, in spite of fiscal
exaction, the Byzantine monarchy was throughout its history supported by the
goodwill of a silent but influential mercantile class ; such as in the end
directs most civilised policies, under all kinds of vague and indifferent
formulae of government.
We have
somehow to account for the vitality and recuperative powers shown by the
Eastern empire. Pillaged by Persian and Saracen, drained by the monastic
system, impoverished by erroneous if well- meant finance—it rose again and
again into opulence, such as drew upon it the envious and greedy eyes of
successive invaders. If Octavianus was largely indebted to the knightly class
for his triumph, his
heirs never
forgot this sage alliance. The stability of the realm and its government
depends on its satisfying the conditions of mercantile exchange ; it guarded
property, it kept clear the lines of intercourse between the various centres
of traffic, and it patrolled the seas ; nor do I conceive that the emphatic
words of Constantine VII. are wholly a piece of archaic pedantry or conceit,
when he tells us that the Byzantine ruler is master of the sea to the Pillars
of Hercules.
§ 11. Thus in
this age the constitution tends through Oligarchy a wise oligarchy to the forms
of absolutism. And u^^ula this implies, not caprice
but routine; not perpetual Absolutism. recurrence to a personal will, but a
very infrequent appeal. A civilised State is in the fetters of tradition and
usage; it defers needlessly to precedent. For in spite of the stirrings of
advanced thinkers and noisy politicians, the inert and conservative mass of the
people enter into a semblance of power only to stereotype the conventional.
Under Justinian, the prince as representing the State, mature and sagacious,
maintained control over all departments—the military leaders, the civil
administrators, and the clergy. After the African disaster under Basiliscus
(whose very failure or treason, as elsewhere in Byzantine annals, made him seem
worthy of a throne !) nothing venturesome was attempted for more than fifty
years; efforts were directed solely to domestic reform down to the memorable
“Nika” riots, which closed the door on the classic period and confirmed the
monarch in his bold forward policy and his stern measures of repression. There
was to be no repetition of that dramatic scene of aged and apologetic royalty,
when Anastasius sat discrowned waiting for the people's verdict. In spite of
the odd incident of Vitalian’s rebellion, order and system had been introduced
into the State; in the subordinate ranks of government, discipline; in the
treasury, wealth ; in the highest and most responsible circle, wise
Careful
training for the Bureaux : Stateservice the sole career.
measures and
consistent schemes. The training and the functions of the various grades had
been specialised. State-service was not an episode in the ordinary life of a
citizen ; but an engrossing profession which demanded expert skill. The very
deftness of the adept needed for the intricate details was fatal to any claim
for popular control. The emperor's Council represented a Universal, of which
the several parts, isolated in their local interests, could form no conception.
Nothing could well be conceived more antithetic to the demands of democracy
than this government by the expert. Hegel derides this vain claim for personal
intervention: “ Another assumption {Ph. d. R., 308) found in the prevalent idea
that all should have a share in the business of State, is that all understand
this business. This is as absurd as it is widespread—despite its
absurdity." Once more (315): “ There is widely current the notion that
everybody knows already what is good for the State; and that this general
knowledge is merely given voice and expression in a State- assembly. But indeed
the very reverse is the case." The. Byzantine bureaux were as carefully
organised as the legal profession to-day. The empire depended upon the
employment of tried and trained ability; and stood opposed to the Oriental
despotism, where the influence of favourites, slaves, and aliens is superior to
native forces. To this constant tradition and discipline it owed the singular
duration and recuperative power which it so strikingly displays. A modern
parallel might indeed be found in the Roman priesthood. Taken at an early age
from the middle and lower classes of society, they are imbued with a systematic
educational tradition, a tested and final system of dogma and philosophy, and
just that supranational spirit and sympathy which unites them as a corporation
in an allegiance other than that which birth or country supplies. Neither
system is easily adaptable to novel conditions of society. A
bureaucracy
is almost incapable of reforming itself ; and the venal stagnation of an
official class is perhaps a heavy price to pay for public order. When it is
boasted that the singular merit lies in the supremacy of system to capricious
will, it is forgotten that in human history the impulse to reform is nearly
always supplied by a St. John Baptist, not by a privileged corporation. The
world-spirit stirs first the individual conscience, the Gemeinde only through
it. The record of imperial governments, from Rome to modern China or Russia, is
often the story of unavailing personal effort, against respectful but stubborn
officialism. The supremacy of law, which is to secure the subject against the
arbitrary exercise of the central power, may sometimes become identified with
the interest of a class. It is the tendency of long-dominant bodies to identify
and to confuse in all good faith their own welfare with the general good.
Nothing is gained by recognising the formal proposition, that law should be superior
to the executive, or to the momentary wishes of the prince, unless we
constantly analyse and examine suspiciously what we imply by law. This
dignified term may not seldom connote a thoroughly obsolete code, or the
stealthy manipulation of general maxims for private ends. The supremacy of law,
devised as a remedy against disorder and oppression, may become on occasion the
chief hindrance to much- needed reform. The Roman Government drew to itself and
took under its patronage all that was anywhere excellent ; it admitted of no
rival; everything must enter into its magic circle and serve its end, or
perish. When the pagan crusade against the Church failed, uncompromising
hostility gave place at once to imperial favour and trust. The elements that
could not be overcome must be absorbed or assimilated. There was no independent
or semi- feudal nobility to criticise or to thwart. All titles of nobility were
official. Outside the service of the
Careful
training for the Bureaux : State-service the sole career.
Careful
training for the Bureaux: Stateservice the sole career.
Venality
of office: its excuse.
Commonwealth,
there was no calling open to ambition or to merit; it was part of the imperial
system to see that this was the case. The cultivated ranks of society were
bound to the system by every sentiment of sympathy and self-interest. It has
been well said that the Byzantine bureaucracy formed rather a “ distinct nation
than a privileged class ”; and it is no wonder if the inheritors of great
traditions and a culture then unique should have believed that the safety of
the whole was bound up in their corporate prestige or individual comfort. So in
later times, when the palace has engrossed or engulfed every minor rivulet, the
careful maintenance of State-ceremony will appear a “ divine science” ; and
like the preservation of exact ritual and formula in a primitive tribe, this “
liturgy ” will seem the mysterious and imperishable secret or palladium of the
public welfare.1
§ 12. “
Formerly in France/’ says Hegel (Ph. d. R.f 277), “seats in
Parliament were saleable, and this is still the case with army officers'
positions in the English army below a certain grade. These facts depended or
depend upon the mediceval Constitution of certain States, and are now gradually
disappearing." I am not here concerned with the accuracy or the scope of
this remark ; I am using his phrase as a suitable opening to a short inquiry
into the venality of office. It is clear that such a system has not excited in
the past, even in civilised societies, the odium and contumely directed against
its still surviving vestiges to-day. The most curious and frank provisions are
to be found in the code for the payment to the Emperor Justinian or to his
consort a fee on entering office.2
Now the
horror excited even by the suspicion of paying rather than receiving money for
official
1
Lyd.% ii. 13; C. Theod., vi. 5; C. fust.%
xii. 8: ut dignitatum ordo servetur.
a
Cod. fust., i. 27, 1, 2; Cod. fust.t xii. 24, 7.
rank is
amusingly strong with us to-day; but it must Venality of
not
lead us wilfully to distort the past or to hold up °^ce: lts r • • r™ , excuse.
pious hands
of protesting innocence. The sum demanded might be regarded as a preliminary
deposit, a guarantee of good faith and competence, a fee on registration or
institution, such as with our sensitive yet easily cajoled conscience conceals
much the same practice to-day. A company rightly demands that a director shall
have a certain stake in the enterprise he controls ; and one reads without
alarm the judicious warning that the holding of a prescribed number of shares
qualifies for a seat at the directoral board.
Yet put in
another form, all sorts of respectable scruples would be aroused, if it were to
be publicly announced that these places could be purchased. As regards
political rather than mercantile dignities, it is only the voluntary blindness
of the puritan ostrich that can fail to detect a close parallel in modern
times, and in a State justly renowned for high morality and sense of honour in
its public life. Yet we indulgently tolerate the purchase of official rank and
that very real political and social influence which a peerage conveys. It
should indeed be noticed, in further extenuation of the ancient practice, that
there is no pretence to-day that the State has benefited by . the lavish
contribution to the party-chest; it is cynically acknowledged that the money
has been subscribed to add the sinews of war to a faction, which for the time
may stand for the nation, but at no given moment is strictly representative of
anything but itself. And it must be candidly stated that, however harmlessly
such a recognised venality of title may operate in practice, it is a serious
menace to the genuinely representative character of the sovereign, who is thus
compelled by custom to confer honours not for national but for factious and
factitious services, and to recruit the “ senatorial" order only from the
ranks of prejudice and party. It may be hoped that in the not unlikely
enlargement of the
Legal
fiction of Simony.
Modern
conception :
{place
of profit
direct and
personal sphere of monarchy, some safeguard will be devised for the precious
independence of the sovereign; since it stands above party, and is not merely
the spokesman, but also the best judge of general good. The same lamentable
puritanic confusion of thought has opened one form of practice in
ecclesiastical matters to universal obloquy, while retaining another unnoticed.
It is in vain that the purist or the logician proves that the sin of simony can
strictly be committed only by a prospective member of the episcopal bench, who
has to deposit certain moneys before the State will authorise consecration. It
is clear that in this case such payment is the indispensable condition, or at
least preliminary, before receiving a spiritual gift. No such stigma can possibly
attach to the purchaser of an advowson-right with the intention of presenting
himself to the bishop on a vacancy. A benefice is not a spiritual gift, and no
spiritual gift is purchased. No limit whatever is put upon the judgment and
discretion of the diocesan. Only a right is conveyed to exercise a function
(presumed to be already valid), subject to a prelate’s sanction and
institution, in a particular district. The term simony (a legal fiction which
has imposed on many candid minds) has no application in such a case. As in
other instances, an office is venal, and no doubt in a sphere where such a
premium on wealth ought not to exist; but the opponents of clerical patronage,
one safeguard at least against over-centralisation, should be careful to
discover the really weak parts in the harness, and refrain from setting up
imaginary crimes to tilt against.
The modern
conception of office is in its very nature antagonistic to this practice. The
tendency of political reform is on the surface towards a somewhat watery
democracy, but beneath the current sets strongly towards State-monopoly. There
is a certain prejudice or suspicion abroad against unpaid officials who render
gratuitous service, because such duties
seem the
natural outcome and fitting responsibility Modem con- of their social position.
Of such independent rivals cfep^:0f
the State is jealous, as of a relic of bygone feudalism ; profit.' but it is
apt to forget that this conception of unpaid service as a citizen’s duty is
also an integral notion in the purest forms of republic. The regimen of
Justinian suffered from exactly the same faults as any modern centralised
constitution. The sole paymaster was the State; and in a public career opened
the unique vista to the aspirant. Hegel is at one with the Byzantine rulers and
with modern centralism when he says (Ph. d. R., 294): "The State cannot
rely upon service which is capricious and voluntary ; such, for instance, as
the administration of justice by knights-errant.” But something of the
spontaneous, it must be avowed, is lost in systematising, in surrendering all
public business to paid officials. To find one’s sole means of livelihood or
hope of advance in the State-service, transforms the whole idea of civic duty
from sentiment into self-interest. Progress in u popular ”
government and liberal measures is marked to-day by an increase of
functionaries and of expenditure. The first ** citizen ’’-monarchy enjoyed by
the French, replaced in the time of Louis Philippe, a genuine if slumbering
sense of honour by a desire to procure a place under government ; which to the
present moment combines with Napoleon’s absolutism in checking indefinitely
the emergence of a vigorous and patriotic governing class. The early emissaries
of Caesar were few and conspicuous ; their misdeeds and their penalties
resounded through the empire. But when agents of the sovereign power were
multiplied, directly responsible only to the equally corrupt vicar just above
them in the hierarchy, control of this infinite multitude ceased. Custom gave
them security of tenure ; for the civil servant was a partial judge of faults
and temptations to which he himself was no stranger.
And in
concluding the general survey we cannot
Failure
of monarchical supervision.
forget that
the increase of prerogative and the employment of centralised or absolute
forms did not ensure the imperial control over the lesser agents, who wrought
mischief with his name and reputation by making out of them screens for
wrongdoing. The more remote provinces might drift into practical, autonomy, as
Naples, Venice, Amalfi ; but the more usual fate was to fall into the hands of
some nominal agent of Caesar, who had all the airs and vices of an independent feudal
vassal. In such a condition, then, we leave, for the present, the general
question of the administration under the “ Illyrian ” or adoptive emperors,
from 450-550. The result of the good intentions but inherent weakness of the
system will be seen in the second period, when we consider the merits, the
fortune, and the failure of the successors of Justinian.
THE FAILURE
OF THE AUTOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION (535-565)
§ 1. It must
now be confessed that the ideal of The witness government portrayed in our last
chapter, and especi- °/con- .
ZBTYl'DOYfLVIP
?
ally in the
ninth section, was a dream of perfection which never visited the earth. In this
supplement it will be necessary to examine the testimony of those who lived at
the very time that the central government was enunciating its loftiest aims and
most earnest platitudes; and, without discouraging the general reader by
excessive detail, to survey more closely than is consistent with the plan of
the present task, contemporary witness,—in this age unusually abundant and
strangely at variance.
Three works
are of especial interest—(i) the Novels of Justinian ; (2) the Secret History
of Procopius ;
(3) the
Treatise on Magistrates by John Lauren- tius the Lydian. I will begin with this
last; its wider political interest and historical knowledge entitle it to the
first place. Procopius is a venomous purveyor of scandal and superstition ;
Justinian, a solemn preacher of morality and the duties of a sovereign ; but
Lydus, though a disappointed civil servant with a genuine grievance, has (in
spite of much inaccuracy and questionable matter) both impartiality and
sympathy with the difficulties of a ruler. Chiefly, however, his historical
acumen gives him a right to the first hearing ; for as a student of political
causes he deserves, from the wide range of his learning and the boldness of his
speculation, more credit than can be given to the senile ravings of Procopius’
secret desk. He has a theory of the
The
witness decay, indeed ruin and shipwreck, of the State ; and
of
con- j must carefully
disentangle, from the mass of irre- temporanes. .
. . , . . .. ...
levant
antiquarian lore, his penetrating analysis of
the reasons
for this decline.
(A) The It
must be remembered that the Philadelphian
Notary
with notary
is a learned specialist, biassed in spite of him- a grievance. ^ ^ narrow training and official routine.
He
identifies
the ruin of an advocate’s professional prospects with the overthrow of the
State. He has served forty years (510-550) and lost his pension; therefore the
very foundations of the earth are out of course. He is a representative of that
cultured Neo-Platonic Hellenism, which was out of place in the age of
Justinian; the world could not be ruled by men of uncertain faith and pedantic
archaism. He recognises, while deploring, that the prefect of the East could be
no more a man of polite letters and cultured ease ; he must become an
unscrupulous tax-gatherer. Nor could his chief function lie in dispensing
justice ; in the growing poverty of the realm there were no cases or suits, and
no litigants . pressed with generous fees to secure the services of notary and
advocate.1 Every allowance must be made for the peculiar attitude of
Lydus. He was a survivor from a bygone age, and his political ideal was an
anachronism. Those whom the Great Plague spared had need of a very different
kind of government; and the future lay with the Church which Lydus could not
understand, and with the military officers who had once bent low in homage
before the Prefect.
The
Pre- § 2. He traces back the abasement of
the pre
fecture
fecture (and with it of the empire) to the innova- mccessively ti°ns
of Constantine.2 He has but an imperfect
under
(a) 1 ^fxt) 6vtuv tois v7T7}k6ois (? trouble or material for
LOUS
an 1 , litigation), more fully explained in 14 : ravra rrdvra ira/>cwr6XuXe
. . . r<j> re fify etvai xpdyfiara rots vtt7]k6ois xevlq.
KaTcupdeipofifrots, kt\.
* As to
the chief changes in the conception of magistracy, Lydus is well aware that in
Republican times office was autocratic, but jealously restricted in time (Tac.
Ann. i. 1, ad tempus sumebantur). He quotes from
acquaintance
with the great constitutional changes The Pre- of the fourth century; but he
knows that the officefecture underwent a certain modification,
was confined to successively the Eastern frontier, abandoned the supervision of
under (a) the army, and became exclusively engrossed in legal Con8tantine>
and financial functions. He repeats with solemn emphasis the curious passage
(ii. 10-12 ; iii. 40-42) which describes this change ; and it is perhaps a
unique instance in our age of political theory. The next moment in the
transformation of office and empire falls under Theodosius and Arcadius: when
the sovereign ceases to go out to war, when the now civilian office of the
prefecture becomes tyranny under Ruffinus by the side of legitimate authority.
Had he lived
in the tenth century, he might have said the same about the Regents or
associate- emperors. He tells us that the old theory was that the emperor was
both man of letters and man of war;1 but when he ceased to discharge
any effective duties in person, power fell into the hands of the new vizierate.
After the overthrow of Ruffinus, its (P)Arcadius,
Aurelius {Dig. i. xi.): rots apxatois ... 77 "traaa Trpbs naiphv
i^ovala . . . iiri<TT€\j€To i. 14; and says himself, on the consulate of a
year only, iravraxov "Pu/xaluv rats ivaWayais xox?^VT(i3V^
37* Efficiency demands first the indefinite extension of exceptional
commissions (as with Pompey); next, the duration of office is lengthened to the
term of life; lastly (with more doubtful results), to the term of a dynasty.
All minor offices were merged into the Principate, which thus united and
indefinitely prolonged ; after his fatal war against Senate and Pompey
(6\4dpioj> tt6\e/xov, i. 38)
Csesar became deos, apxicp€i>s, tiiraT0s, p.6vapxos, iirlrpoTros
r&v airavraxov j3afft\4uv, ?7nra/>xos, aTparrjybs, ^>i5Xa£ 7r6Xews,
Trpwros drjpdpxuv. The tendency then (as Lydus recognised), was no longer to
pass office round among the citizens, but to make government an expert
profession, demanding not merely special training but special descent; he has
a curious passage on the early hereditary character of Caesarism (rb iraXai p^
r<£ tvx^vtl dXX& fidvon tois 4k rrjs Kataapos aeipas Kariovaiv
iyxetpl^etv T&
Kpdros, ii. 3).
1 iii. 53. Trajan’s officers ol rots re
\6yois rots re tpyois els T0<rafrr7iv etiicXeiav t^jv TroXtrelap dvfoTyaav.
But after the troubles of Justin’s reign, especially the Persian war, to \onrbv
XoyiKois wdpodos oiK fy iirl ttjv iirapx6T7]Ta. So iii. 33. Constantine iroktis Cjv iv rfi
ircu8et<rei \6yuv k.
<rvva<TK^aet 6tt\o3v {oi>5£ y&/>, el pfy icad’ iKaripav
TraLSeveiv j-rvxt tis Stairpiirwv, (3a<ri\ei>s . . . irpoexeipl&To).
The Prefecture degraded successively under
(j8) Arcadius}
(y) Anastasius,
authority was
reduced1 and matters went on without change until the ill-starred
African expedition in Leo’s reign. To this disaster Lydus attaches the gravest
importance ; and he believed that the Commonwealth never recovered from the
blow.2 He entertained the most sinister opinion of Leo and his
Isaurian son-in-law ; and saw in the unfortunate holders of the once proud
title of Prefect, mere fiscal agents who sought in vain to collect funds from a
ruined people. For Anastasius, under whom he began his public service (510 or
511), he had the liveliest affection and esteem ;3 but he traced to
the influence of Marinus the most disastrous step in further deterioration.
This low-born u deskman,”4 Scriniarius, was raised
to the prefecture in the prevailing indigence ; and it is certain that
Anastasius left a substantial treasure as reserve-fund for future
1 ii. IO: P. rvpauvlSa fxeXeT^aavra ... els
(3apadpov ttjv apxvv KarafipLxpai. AvrUa fikv yhp o fiaaiKeirs
t5)S ck tu>v 6ir\<av icrxvos d<pcupeiTat . . . <pa(3piKGjp
(ottKottouQv) <ppourLdos . . . dTjficxrlov dp6/iov (a charge soon restored
to the Prefect, but under careful supervision). So iii. 7. P. . . . rijp
liiroLpxov apxty KpT}fivl<ravTos. So iii. 23, where the changes of the
terrified Arcadius after R.’s tyranny are set forth.
2 See iii. 43, 44: vavdyiov rijs 8\tjs
TrokireLas. “For neither the public treasury nor the prince’s privy purse
sufficing, all the equipment of war perished at once in that luckless
enterprise ; and after this disaster the exchequer was no longer able to play
its part but long forestalls all its receipts (o$k4ti rd raju.ieToi'
iirripKe<rep eavr$ 6X\a irposdairaptf. . . . irpb Kaipou t& fiT^TTU iv
4\tt18i ... us &ttipavrov etvairty diroptav rod dvjfjioatov). For the sins
of Leo and Zeno (of whom Justinian speaks, rijs eti<re(3ovs X^ews), see 45.
3 [Anastasius] iii. 47: “For this one merit
that he alone after Constantine lightened the burden of taxation (rfy twv
\f/vx&v da<r/j.o\oytav), though death prevented the full
relief, may God forgive all the sins he ever committed; for he was but a man.”
In 51 he has, like Psellus five hundred years later, a very proper judgment of
the dangers of a pacific and civilian regime, which prevailed in the early
years of the sixth century under Anastasius: dpfyij 8£ (3a6eia ttjp iraxrav
ixafoov Trokirelav k. ox>x ijKiara rbv o’TpaTiuTyv, irdvruv dfiov tt}v rijs
av\r)s foardjpijv £rfkofivT<j)v k. 8uok6ptcw ra fiairikius iiriTijSe^fiaTa.
This sentence might well form the text of the whole later period after Basil
II.
* iii. 36.
There was no doubt about the plenary authority of Marinus, tt)v 8\r)v
&vafa<r&ficvos r&v irpayfidrtav diolKr)<rip. The taxes
disappeared and the retinue vanished dia tV tG>v <p6pwv iXdmoaiv els
nrapre\rj &Td>\eia.p rd rijs rd^eus KariaTi). For his enormities, see
iii. 49, 50, 51.
needs.
But the office no longer employed cultured The Prenotaries and dignified
advocates ; it was contented with menial satellites of extortion and
inquisition.1 successively With the advent of the reigning house
from Dar- v^^t^U8 dania (518) the
tempest burst upon the empire. ,
The Persian
war, started by the faithless Chosroes, (8) the called for exceptional
expenditure; the European Dardamans‘ provinces were wasted by
Getae and Antes ; the emperor embarked in colossal and untimely enterprises of
recovery ; and to crown the confusion,
John of
Cappadocia succeeded to the remnants of the degraded office. He gives us those
full and racy details of his scandalous life, transferred to the pages of
modern historians, who neglect the more edifying parts of Lydus. The fragments
contain a description of his successor Phocas, and the attempt of this Prefect
to introduce some order into the hopeless chaos of imperial finance. Finally,
we have the account of the Cappadocian's misdeeds, tempered by a solemn
statement that Justinian knew nothing of them. At the moment when Theodora is
about to depose the too powerful minister, the narrative is interrupted by a lacuna.
It is to the first misrule of the Cappadocian that he traces the revolt of
Nika, costing (as he asserts with some exaggeration) 50,000 lives. It is thus
clear that Lydus confuses the order of time in order to heap all responsibility
for disaster on a single culprit's head. The wars of aggrandisement and the
Persian campaigns were subsequent to the Nika insurrection ; and John enjoyed
his longest tenure of the office some time later.
§ 3. Such is
the criticism passed on two and a Lydus as half centuries of Roman methods of
government c^^r°£ihe
1
iii. 39. Freedom is the distinguishing feature of the Roman P0^-
Commonwealth, and this is now entirely out of favour. The modem official was
ignorant of tradition and precedent, and of the limit and purpose of all civil
authority. Some day they will learn to respect liberty, and cease to injure the
subjects (ipplfav fikv r^v iXevdeplav k. cirapdrreiv robs vTnjKoovs ol t6v 8pov
T7)s dpxvs dyvoovvres ivrpaTr^ffovrat).
Lydus as critic of the imperial policy.
The ultimate ruin oj the office under j John.
(300-55°).
Lydus believes (no doubt rightly) that the want of money was the root of all
evil; that, while municipal franchises were abolished, armies starved, and
costly expeditions lost through careless neglect or inadequate equipment, the
second office in the empire was degraded into a mere robber of the well-to-do.
For this, no imperial demon in human form was responsible, as in the foolish
rodomontade of Procopius. It is plain that Lydus believes the emperor to exert
very little power, to know very little of the true condition of the land, and
to have abandoned, with his warlike skill and eloquence, all real control.1
When Ruffinus and John set up the state, not of a powerful minister but of a
rival emperor, the sole remedy was no doubt to break up the single office and
make of the debris a host of squalid and petty magistracies. Side by side with
the significant statement of Agathias that Justinian was the first genuine
autocrat in fact as well as theory, it is interesting to note the limits on
absolutism which Lydus recognises. He is under no illusions as to the emperor's
power. Since Leo's disaster, the State is bankrupt ; and these “ transient and
embarrassed phantoms," the Prefect-Chancellors of the Exchequer, struggle
vainly against ruin. The emperor can do nothing but throw himself into the
1 He
blames neglect of former princes (seemingly he includes all the successors of
Theodosius), ii. 15, 16: roi)s t/xirpoadev /Je/3a<rtXeikoTas pq.aT&vT]
dii\v<re (cp. ii, where Theodosius, foreseeing his sons’ pq,<TTi!)vr],
legislates (!) against emperor’s personal conduct of war, t^p dvSplap
^XaAfr'w<re). So the emperor was supreme judge in the Court of Final Appeal;
but this good use lapsed into desuetude owing to growth of idleness, just as
Synesius complained before Arcadius (16, <rvPT)ddas els Tpv<p\)v
SiaXvdelffijs k. tup Z/Airpoffdep &/xa rots 8ir\ots k. airryv t^p fxexpl
\6yuv <ppovrl8a tup koipup dTrovTvadpTUp). In spite of several errors, Lydus
is clear (1) that the prefect became a sovereign and irresponsible vizier, and
the emperor a puppet, both in war and judicial duties : (2) when the prefecture
was reduced and broken up, the emperor strove in vain to recover his authority.
The golden days of the empire lasted so long as sovereigns led in battle and
provincial governors were vigilant for justice, not rapine; iii. 10: t&p
flip dfiTrpoadep ^aatKiup iirl rods iro\ifxovs dpfii&PTWP k. tQp t&s
iirapxlas Wvp6ptup rots p6/xois d\X’ 01) rats kXottcus ttposaypvirpovPTUP.
arms of any
unscrupulous scoundrel who promises The ultimate
to supply
funds for the imperial needs. It was of r™nofthe
office li/YidisV
no avail to
elevate a high ideal of State-duty and j0hn. personal service, while resort was had to
torture and oppression, while taxes were collected at the cost of noble lives.
This picture of the necessitous monarchy will explain much that is absurd or unintelligible
in Procopius ; and, while both civil servants (of a bygone age) have each their
grievance, Lydus’ moderation of tone and temperate criticism gains him
credence and puts him on a far higher level among historians.
Such is the
main thesis of Lydus for our purpose. Antiquarian though he be, a personal
motive led him to trace the Roman offices in the periods of kingship,
republic, and empire. And interesting as is the survey of their archaic origin
and use (with all his amusing errors of time or fact), the vigorous part of his
story deals with his own time and his own injuries. As a philosophical
statesman or theorist of government, he has passages of great judgment and
shrewdness, and demands more attention than he has yet received from the
student of constitutional history.
§ 4. With
Procopius the case is altogether different. (B) Proco-
I fully accept the results of Professor
Bury's learned researches, and acknowledge with regret that this vindictive and
foolish fairy-story is the posthumous work of a consummate hypocrite. . . .
Procopius would seem to have borrowed from current Christianity nothing but
its superstition, and to have completely abandoned the temperate judgment which
makes us value his story of Belisarius’ campaign.
Yet the work
is by no means lacking in material for a kinder opinion. We can easily
recognise the lineaments of the same Justinian that Lydus reveals.1
1 M.
Diehl has drawn attention to the amiable weakness of character betrayed in
Justinian’s later portraits ; and it is clear that a careful physiognomist
would detect its presages even in features of the earlier
(B) Proco- Here we find behind the mask of an ogre or bogey, * VHistoryG,Cr6t
an un^r^nS allc*
painstaking ruler of limited capacity, evidence surrounded by men he could not
trust, and finding b^and his unique expedient in
an autocracy which he could inconsistency. n0* maintain. Hampered at
every turn by the want of money, he became the victim and the dupe of any
minister who promised to replenish his coffers. He was unable and unwilling to
inquire too closely into the methods of the fisc. In place of trained servants,
the prefect was surrounded by alien bailiffs and executioners. Even Lydus’
accounts of tyranny, exaction, and torture, both in the capital and in his own
birthplace, Philadelphia, may well be exaggerated. But Procopius defeats his
own end, and while defending a notorious criminal, tries to blame the emperor
for ingratitude in his treatment of John of Cappadocia. It is hopeless to
expect consistency in this venomous attack. Justinian is alternately made out
to be the incarnation of devilish cunning and an amiable and easy-going dupe.
His uncle was like a mule, following any one who grasped the halter, shaking
his ears with a grotesque solemnity. But the nephew is a sheep, at the mercy of
the last speaker, ignorant, weakly affable, and incorrigibly untruthful. Yet he
is also Domitian1 reincarnate for the ruin of the empire, or Satan
himself come to earth to wreak his vengeance on the whole human race and slay
as many as possible, knowing that his time is short. He is the single author of
all the
coins and conquests. Succeeding too hurriedly to enterprises which seemed
past belief, he spent thirty years in a vain attempt to recover his position in
the zenith from which Nemesis deposed him in the very moment of triumph. In
spite of his weakness and (as we cannot doubt) his own sense of his
shortcomings, of the limits to absolute benevolence', he never relinquished the
struggle; he is one of the bravest and most persevering sovereigns in history,
and bears no slight resemblance to another victim of ambition and overwork,
Philip II. of Spain.
1
Proc. insists on the remarkable physical resemblance of the two monarchs. Even
Lydus, ii. 19, seems to compare the two, though without expressly stating it,
icev6do£os yip &v o Ao/xenavbs rots veurepiafioTs 2%(upev' thov Si
rvp&vvov ivaTptireiv ri rdXai Kadear^Kora.
calamities
which befell the State ; and the enlarge- (B) Proco- ment of the realm on which
Lydus dwells with pride p^JrSe>cret
and admiration, is a chief point in the indictment of evidence Procopius. The
reader must sternly disregard the ruined by scandalous account of Theodora's
youth (so dear to ^ncom°£mcy. the odious taste of Gibbon and his age) and the
legends of the imperial goblin, his aims and policy and habits. Yet
notwithstanding, we can extract evidence from the lucid intervals in this
fantastic nightmare, which bears out the witness of other authors and is even
consistent with his own published works. Yet the reckless rancour of the
Anecdota will always prejudice the rare student of a problematic age. It is
hard on a first acquaintance to credit Procopius with any better aim than wilfully
to caricature the characters of men and the events of a period, to which he had
consecrated so much serious pains and literary labour.
§ 5. Wherever
he speaks of the personal initiative P. as witness of Justinian and Theodora,
or of the myriads oi to (i.) domes- mortals sacrificed in war, or plague, or
levy, to satisfy their greed of carnage, we must discount his accuracy. But he
is not at fault on certain features of the time which the unhappy emperor would
have been the first to admit. They may be arranged in the following order. The
State as a whole was full of (a) civic riot and license, and of (/3) religious
mutiny (a) civic riot, and disaffection. Anastasius had been the victim of a
tumult in which the imperial dignity was gravely compromised. The circus
factions in every great city fought and destroyed one another, like a modern
mob at a football match, or a crowd at a race-course when suspicious of unfair
play. The ordinary police i were unable to cope with this wild disorder, in
which, besides the conventional
1
Lydus, ii. 15, deplores the popular tumults which made peace more dangerous
than war (o Stj/jlos derjXdrois dixovolais avairTbiievos . . . 'ivena papvripav
tb 8rjfj.6<Tiop daTrdvrjv {/<f>l<rTctTai irpbs <pv\aK7]v rijs
elp^pt]S r) wpbs &va.XcuTi<r{jLbv tup iro\e/j.Luv), and the maintenance
of domestic order more costly than the repression of foreign foes.
P. as witness to (a) civic riot,
(b) religious schism,
favouritism
of the Colours, there mingled an element of theological enmity and misplaced
metaphysical acumen. These frequent scenes of riot which baffled the vigilance
of the urban prefects grew in intensity throughout the empire, until the fires
of aimless sedition were quenched in the suppression of the Nika; and the last
degraded remnant of ancient classical freedom was abolished.
The
vacillating conduct of the emperor to the partisans, the nervous division of
imperial favour between the two chief factions, bears strong witness to a real
danger and menace to public order. But it also completely disposes of the usual
allegations as to the miserable state of the populace throughout the empire. In
the famous dialogue between the factions and the imperial Mandator, there is
some question of official oppression by a certain Calo- podius, none of general
public grievance or intolerable tax. This licentious leisure and insolent
repletion of the urban mob proves nothing, I am well aware, as to the state of
the country districts or the happiness of the peasant. But it is at least
certain that in the first quarter of the sixth century the town-proletariat,
indulged and feared, relieved from care by a pauperising Church and a Socialist
government, found ample leisure for a tumultuous amusement which shook the
throne and dissolved society.
The empire
was (/3) full of religious disaffection : Justinian is represented as the
persecutor of astrologers, Montanists, Manicheans, Hebrews, and Samaritans
(Anecd., §§ n, 28); and we know that this last body created a serious rising in
Palestine, elected a rival emperor Julian, and sold their lives dearly. It is
then unfair to hold the emperor accountable for a universal feature of the
time, namely, a widespread discontent with Hellenic orthodoxy, which is largely
to blame for the ease of the Arabian conquests just a century later.
§ 6. Another
characteristic of the age was an P. as inarticulate fiscal grievance under a
mistaken system of economy, to which no alternative was ever sug- oppression,
gested. One serious charge in the Anecdota is that Justinian never remitted
arrears of taxation ; it being the custom, both before and after that prince,
to require taxes on an impossible scale and condone those arrears which
necessarily arose, as an act of imperial grace and at regular intervals. The
Byzantine Government might well have listened to the advice given by a
well-known teacher to an ambitious but disappointing youth ; “Take a lower
ideal and live up to it.” Nor can the emperor be blamed for desiring that the
laws should be set in operation (Tiberius’ leges exercendas esse), and the
taxes duly collected unless expressly repealed. It is impossible to defend a
fiscal system, which ruined the poorer owners and made notable victims among
the great.
But it is a
little remarkable that no alternative scale of taxation was proposed ; and
modern critics (as
I have said before) can scarcely complain if
the wealthy were rated that the indigent might be relieved. There is no doubt
that in this period the (d) impover- realm was rapidly impoverished, both in
men, in capital, and in natural resources. The emperor, helplessly confronting
an impracticable task, watched with alarm the growing wastes, attempted to
collect the rates on derelict property from the unhappy neighbours of the
fraudulent fugitive, and was obliged to shut his eyes to the odious means by
which the prefect filled the exchequer. While officials waxed wealthy and the
country poor, the sole method left to the monarch was the Oriental device : a
vizier was permitted to ‘enrich himself at the expense of the subjects that the
State might confiscate and become his sole legatee. Of this there is no lack of
proof at this time.
Justinian is
by turns accused as spendthrift and (e) penury avaricious, wasteful and
hoarding (§§ 5, 8, 19). It tteemtequi.
P. as is
easy to explain this inconsistency by a simple fact,
witness to (e) was ^
hig wits' end to secure money for the
penury and J
strait of the conduct of government, the prosecution
of his aims.1
exchequer. Once embarked on his gigantic schemes of
recovery, which he regarded as a sacred duty, there was for him* no turning
back. He was forced by circumstances to forget in practice his high ideals of
pure justice and official innocence. He sold office as Pulcheria had done a
century before, while forbidding all such civil simony (§§ 20, 21). He
modified the rigid outline of impersonal law to suit the needs (and the purse)
of eager applicants for privilege ; and Leo the Cilician became a trusted
minister because he taught Justinian this easy mode of replenishing the
treasury (§§ 13, 14). This same indigence and thrift crept into every department
of State; he allowed Alexander in Italy and Hephaestus in Alexandria to cut
off the corn-supplies and estrange the poor (§ 26). Although these
distributions of political bread were discontinued without protest under
Heraclius in a still severer crisis, it is clear that only the direst need
would compel an emperor to run counter to the demands of a dangerous urban mob.
(ii.)
External § 7. We have spoken of the civic factions, and of ■ religious
and fiscal troubles, for which the times and enterpriseand no* ^e
administration must be blamed. We come extravagance, now to Justinian's warlike
aggression, and to his system of national defence; both forming serious counts
in Procopius' virulent indictment. We have already dealt with the former ; the
recovery of the ancient limits of the empire seemed not a wanton
aggrandisement, but a plain duty and an obvious task. We have already shown
that there is a reverse side to all imperialism ; for the people in an age of
conquest rarely benefit by their glorious history. The arguments and the common
sense of
1 Lydus, iii. 54, £Set K- ov8h ty Avev airruv wpaxd^vai
twv
SedvTUV , . . Xpvalov oZv dveipov ixpvv
eirofifiplaai t^v brapx&ryTa.
the Little
Englander would be unimpeachable, were (ii.) External it not for a justifiable
fear that without Greater Policy•. Britain there would be no more
Little England. mtwpriseand The party of Quaker protest against ambition and
extravagance, militarism has a constant value; and the general question of the
necessity or merit of Justinian's victories will always be debated. But the
plaintiff destroys his credit, and alienates an impartial jury, prevalent by
his extravagant hyperbole. He regards Justinian ^gp^rand
as the unique cause of all the disasters which befell 9 the world ; he notes his thirst for blood, and estimates at a modest
total of a myriad myriad myriads the number of deaths during his reign. Italy
and Africa are reduced to a desolate wilderness; and he computes among his
victims the Teutonic strangers and persecutors whom he expelled. . But as
planning the deliberate ruin of the entire globe, he is also held responsible
for all deaths by natural catastrophe, by deluge and flood, earthquake and
pestilence. There can be no doubt as to the well-deserved and unhappy renown of
this sixth century. Popes like Gregory the Great, emperors like Tiberius and
Maurice, seem conscious that in such universal disaster the “end of all things
drew near.” The age was dissolving, and all was prepared for the reign of
Anti- the reign of christ. Yet it is strange to find the most serious Antlc}irist'
preacher of this superstitious dread among the dwindling ranks of cultured
Hellenism. For Procopius the reign of Antichrist had already begun ; the devil
himself sat enthroned in the palace, as a holy monk averred and as events
abundantly proved. It is tempting to believe that these absurd accretions to a
charge-list, in itself formidable enough, were the work of a Nonconformist
interpolator, who hated Justinian more for his heterodoxy than for the public
ruin he brought on mankind. But we may take apart the losses of war, the damage
of recovery, and the constant repetitions of far-off conquest which were
entailed by the fiscal system, the disorders of the
(ii.)
External army of occupation, the constant lack of money and
pokey: men. For these Tustinian must in a measure be
held the reign of . J ....... .
Antichrist, to account, yet is it possible for his
ancient or modern critics to suggest an alternative policy ?
(b) Defensive
As to the system of national defence, Justinian soon system: found this a
graver task than chivalrous crusades against Arian usurpers in Africa or Italy.
Here we may note three distinct and deliberate designs, all of which succumb to
the sweeping censure of the
(1) Invaders Anecdotist: (i) Payment to the
barbarians (§§ u, 19, bribed. 30) instead of repressing their inroads.
Justinian (it
was said),
himself a barbarian (§ 14), loved these wild tribes better than his own
subjects (§§ 21, 23); he punished these without mercy for daring to defend
themselves against his darling and privileged marauders ; and (perhaps as a
counterpoise to the citizens who detested him) he filled Byzantium with an incredible
number of aliens.—Now it is quite clear that there were two good reasons for
the attitude of Justinian so absurdly exaggerated in the previous sentence, (a)
Confident in the majesty and the mission of Rome, he believed it possible to
reduce all barbarians into humble vassals of the empire. Evidence of this will
be seen in the division which treats of the Eastern nations : it seemed a
consistent aim of these two reigns (518-565) to infeudate, as it were, those
kings, whose people could never become immediate subjects, and bind them by
titular dignity and costly gifts to a certain loyalty. But a far more serious
reason existed: (/3) he had no forces at his disposal to repel these migrants
and unwelcome visitors. No doubt he overestimated his resources at the opening
of his reign; and it is clear that the capital and the neighbouring district
were inadequately protected ; that the double line of fortress-defence along
the Danube was powerless to keep out intruders.
(2) Chain of For (2) the fortifications on the
frontier were a special
feature of
Justinian's policy. He preferred to guard rather than waste human life; and the
very system
which earned
a warm and apparently sincere approval (ii.) External in Procopius’ official
work on Edifices is held up to de- ^^chain 0f rision in the
Anecdota as a purposeless waste of money, fortresses
(3) He starved the
soldiers (§ 24) and the military built- chest. Here again we can
find a mixture of definite (3) Deficient intention and sheer necessity. He
could neither °f
maintain nor
control the armies which were demanded by his active campaign and national
defence.
The
unrestrained supremacy of the army meant the triumph of the barbarians; and
statesmen had not forgotten Gainas and Tribigild under Arcadius : perhaps some
turned over the cryptic pages of Synesius’ political allegory. The Prefect
controlled the commissariat, dissuaded from ambitious expeditions, and
distrusted the several foreign contingents which obeyed a native captain and
cared little for the policy or the subjects of the empire. The effective forces
of a vast territory shrank to a figure incredibly small; and after the great
reaction which nullified the rapid successes of early years, hasty levies and
private enterprise became the sole resource. The straitness of the exchequer
and the jealousy of the civilians amply accounted for the imperfect system or
the often trumpery make-shifts of national defence.
Here, again,
the prince, with the best intentions in the world, was the helpless creature of
circumstance.
There
is besides one further count in our formid- (iii.) internal able indictment,
tKe centralising tendency which sup- cen_
pressed the
privileges of the Senate, persecuted and tralisation confiscated the persons
and estates of senators, and and curtail- abolished municipal franchise and
the faint remnants franchise. of local spirit. We know that under Justinian the
cleavage between citizen-contributors (yiroreXelg) and the official world
became intensified; and every authority that did not depend directly from the
centre was suspected and curtailed. Thus the Greek garrisons were disbanded;
the populace was disarmed; and (though this point is exceedingly obscure) some
further blow was struck at the freedom of borough
(iii.) Internal policy: Jealous centralisation and curtailment of
franchise•
Modern critics at fault.
J.’s acts: their excuse and motive.
towns already
weakened by the bureaucratic methods of Marinus the prefect of Anastasius. It
is exceedingly difficult to criticise when evidence is both slight and
conflicting. Can we blame the monarch of a State, whose whole aim is
conservation and order, if he confines the use of weapons to a responsible
class of police-sergeants and soldiers ? Is it not conceivable that at no very
distant date the most rudimentary needs of government will oblige the freest
and the most absolute States in the world, England and Russia, to disarm the
great proportion of their subjects under the severest penalties ? Did the behaviour
of the circus-factions justify the prince or his advisers in leaving further
temptations in the hand of turbulent partisans ? It is quite possible to draw
up a damning charge, as Mr. Gladstone did in the very similar case of the
Neapolitan prisons, from the ideal standpoint of a generous but ignorant
Liberalism: Justinian may be represented as the wanton murderer of public
liberty and local franchise, the jealous suppressor of free-thought in the
Platonic Schools, the vindictive tyrant who abolishes the consulate because it
was an abiding witness to long-lost freedom.
But all this
righteous indignation is wide of the mark. Where we know so little of
circumstances and policy, we must withhold our judgment; yet it is easy to
supply a ready and perhaps superficial reply to each of these counts. Local
liberty (whether of assembly or self-defence) was a mere pretext (we may say)
for feudal lawlessness, or municipal corruption, or civic tumult. The
lecture-halls of Damascius at Athens were already silent, and we must pardon
Justinian if he shared a belief common to all governments until quite recent
years, that they are responsible for the souls of their subjects and the
spiritual belief which will save them from perdition. The abolition of the
consulate was a welcome end to unmeaning parade and needless expense: the
proud name
itself, a mere synonym for a lavish dole, J.’sacts:
brought no
tender memories of Brutus or Poplicola t}iei? excJMe
J.1 1
£ n i • and
motive.
to the
populace of Rome or Byzantium.
In
conclusion, we can easily detect the truth Real char-
underlying
this savage attack. Justinian was amiable ^^{rthe
and
conscientious, but vain, easily led, and sadly emerges
ignorant
(like most absolute rulers) of the real state c^arlyfrom
<=> \ ' Procopius
of affairs.
He was an “innovator" (§ 11), because, like diatribe.
Rameses of
Egypt, he wished to see his own name on new institutions or offices, and
desired to leave his own permanent stamp on the Commonwealth for which he
toiled with such unsparing industry. For the Roman world was in a transitional
stage, and the sixth century was marked by a wholesale disappearance of
archaic elements,—of culture, nationality, ideals, methods, and religion. It
is doubtful if any one else could have succeeded better where Justinian failed.
The Teutonic monarchies of Africa and Italy were already doomed when he set out
on his costly enterprise of recovery. He held the Colossus together, whether
for the good of mankind or not, I cannot say ; there are no general principles
acknowledged in the sphere of government and politics to which I can refer, nor
can I plead a moral conviction in a matter where the special needs and
circumstances vary from age to age, and where conscious human effort or wish
has so scanty a result.
But one is
happily permitted to say this much of a great and noble character, with
complete assurance ; he followed the path of duty and conscience and honour,
where these ideals seemed to beckon him ; he bestowed ungrudging personal
service and sleepless vigilance upon a fask that (as he believed)
Heaven itself
had set him ; and he cannot be blamed if the weight and burden of empire
overtaxed his strength and his capacity. No criticism of the closet can deprive
him of the undying honour and the unchallenged place which he occupies and
will always retain in the imperial series.
VOL. II. D
(C) J. judged by himself.
(a) His conception of his post; universal supervision.
EVIDENCE FROM THE CONSTITUTIONS OF JUSTINIAN (535-565)
The Emperor and his Officials
§ 1. We may
now ask what was the ideal of sovereignty and government which floated before
the mind of Justinian, never lost sight of though never to be realised in fact.
His absolute power, by which alone he believed that the general welfare could
be secured, resembled that of the French Bourbons or the monarchy of Frederic
the Great. The State was embodied in his person and his will, but this supreme
majesty was neither mute nor uncommunicative ; it condescended to explain its
motive, as in the humanitarian preambles of French law, and to justify its
authority as the servant of the public, entrusted with the care of ruling by
God's will and the popular choice. Justinian is continually pleading the
greatness of his task, the needs of the State, the distress of his exchequer,
the misrule of his officials. He has no misgivings in his mandate ; he receives
instructions from above and from below. He is the vicegerent of God and the
first magistrate of the people. It will be well to see in what light he regarded
his heavy and responsible duties, and what convictions sustained him in his
arduous task and continual disappointments.
(a) The
Imperial Position.—There is no doubt about the popular character of Caesarism;
the emperor is the people’s delegate or tribune to keep them in peaceful plenty
and save them trouble, Nov. 16 ;1 to watch over the worldly
interests, as the priesthood over the spiritual welfare of the subject-class,
1 Ed.
Leipzig 1881, Zach. von Ling.: “ We watch night and day counselling our
subjects’ good” (8irus &p xpVffT^v TC
api<XKov 0e<£ Trap' rjfiwp rots vttijkSois bodelrj . . . rre robs
rjfxertpovs vtti]k6ovs iv eviraddq, yivcffdai ttdfftjs tppovrldos
&Trr]Wayfdvovs).
N.
12 ;1 to restore the
old paths and keep precedent (a) His con- alive, N. 21, p. 136;2 to
respect the individual 18
citizen
without endangering the general good, N. 21, universal p. 137 ;3 to
carry out Heaven’s will in making men supervision. good, N. 28/ p. 413,6
extirpating heresy and rooting out all occasion of evil or secret sin ; to
keep off false and malignant charges from the innocent, N. 38, p. 230;6
to replace the oversight or carelessness of past emperors, and to meet any
sudden crisis, watchful and prepared, N. 9, p. 17 ;7 to put away any
grievance between army and people, N. 150,8 or (what might be still
more difficult) between taxpayers and collectors, N. 152, p. 280 ; and, most
important of all, to insist on unity of religious
1 “ Two
greatest gifts of the heavenly mercy to man (UpuxrivT} re k.
PcuriXela), the one ministering in things divine,
the other ruling and taking care of human affairs (rwv dvdpuTrlvuv i^dpxomd re k. tirifieXovfiivTj); both issue forth
from the same source to adorn human life (iic puds re k. tt}s aMjs dpxrjs i<aripa Tpotov<ra) ; and no aim is
so dear to sovereigns (T€pL<rTro6daa-Tov pa<riXev<ru') as the holy
dignity of priests. For true harmony will arise in the State, if the one be
always blameless and enjoy free speech to heaven, while the other rule aright
the Commonwealth entrusted to it” {6pdQs re k.
irpoaiiKdvTUS KaraKovfxolr} rfy wapadodei<rav airy iroXireiav.
2 The Mandata Principis (address.
Tribonian) in a Latin preface; nobis reparantibus omnem vetustatem jam
deperditam jam deminutam.
8
&<nrep ydp tois
iSuirrcus ddiicovfitvois porjdov/iev, ourw k.
to dij/xbaiov dveTn]p4a<TTov fiivtiv (HovXbfieda.
4 “It is obvious to all right-minded and
sensible men that our whole end and prayer is, that the subjects whom God has
entrusted to our care may live well, and find favour with Him ” (iraffa ijfuv
<nrovdi] k. ebxh ^b roits
Tiffrevdivras ijpuv irapd tov
0eou /caXws (iiovp k. ttjp
avrov eiipetv eifitveiav).
5 Constit. 66 : the date at which o Qebs tois ‘Po^a/wi'. £7r£o’T7]<r€
wpdyfiaaiv (cf. exord. N. 103, vol. ii. 42).
6 tj/mQp
Sid tovto k. ttovovs {nroffTdvTiov k. ScnrdvTjs /xeydXrjs dvexo^vuv tva firi
Tivi rwv yuer. inrrjicbuv TjS <rvKo<f>avTia k. XPV^drwv ^ ^vxvs
aTn&Xeia.
7 535 A.D. ’T£vi]<rxoXiifx£vois ypZv
ireplrds dird(n]s TroXtrelas <f>povrlSas k. fiLKpbv otibkv alpovp.frois
ivvoeiv dW Situs H4p<rai fikv 7jpep.oL(v BavdlXoi Si ffiiv M.avpovalois
inraicotioiev Kapxybovloi ttjp iraXalav diroXafibvTes tX0lev tXevdeplav Tfavoi re vvv xpGrrov virb ttjv ‘Pw/iaW yevb/xevoi iroXirelav
iv vtt]k6ois reXoiep . . . ivi^piovai k. ISuariKal <j>povrL8es irapd tuv
ijfieT. virtjKbuv.
8 545 A*D* Ilcpi
irapbdov 'ZiTpaTnarCiv . . . etf> <p dfy/xlovs <f>vXdTTe<rdai
roiis tyuer. vttt]k6ovs.
(a) Bis conception
of his post; universal supervision.
belief, the
very foundation of the State, NN. 147,1 129.2 He often
refers to the ample increase of territory which God has given him ; all his
subjects, new as well as old, are a sacred charge in which the purpose of
Heaven is clearly manifest, N. 93, p. 5 x 1 ;3 and it behoves him to
take care of the smallest detail of government, N. 96, p. 529.* The Roman
Commonwealth is not a makeshift or a compromise, but the final form of polity,
approved by God ; he prays that it may be eternal, N. 66, p. 412.5
It throws back its roots into the dim past: he himself is a descendant of ^neas
; the second founders of the kingdom were Romulus and Numa; and the third or
imperial phase was introduced by Augustus, when by a necessary transfer made
with all goodwill, the Senate (N. 80-81), hitherto executive as well as
consulting or advisory body, gave up their accumulated prerogative into a
single hand. It has two chief aims, mercy and freedom ; for all its laws are
directed to kindliness (<pi\av6pto7rla), N. 71, p. 431,6 and
liberty, N. 70, p. 422.7 Under-
1 “ First and greatest blessing to all men
we believe to be the orthodox confession of the true and blameless creed of
Christians {bpdty ofxoKoylav), so that in all ways it may be strengthened, and
that the holy bishops throughout the world should be united in harmony (els
o/xbpoiap ffvpcupdijvcu), and believe and preach the right faith with one voice
(6fio<f>ibvu>s), and that every pretext of the heretic be taken away.”
With these conscientious convictions as to a ruler’s duty Justinian’s Caesaro-
papism needs no further justification.
2 “ We believe hope in God to be the sole
aid for the whole life of our commonwealth and realm, knowing that this gives
salvation of soul and safety of empire, so that it is fitting that all our
legislation should depend on this alone, and look continually to this end; for
this is the beginning, the middle, and the conclusion of our laws.”
3 538 A.D. rots vit7]k6ois ottogovs ijfjuv o debs irpbrepbp re iraptbwKe k. Kara jxiKpbv del TrpoeTidTjai.
4 He begins his Constit. on Alexandrians
and Egyptian prefectures, el k. rot afJUKpbTOLTa, twv irpayfidrtw rijs iavruip
dljiovfiep irpovolas iroWip fiaWov fiiyiara, kt\.
6 r& rplra irpoolfiia . . . rrjs
(3a<ri\elas (Julius and Augustus), oCrw tt)v iroXiTeiav y/xip ££evprj<Tei
rrjv vvv Kparouaav, etij 5’ addvaros, e£ iicetpcw 7TpOLOVffaP.
6 537 A,D* iirelbt} irpbs
(piXavdpuirtap iLwas 7)fiip i) pbfios tfp/xo<rTai.
7 iXevdeplas ydp 6pres epaaral Zpayxos
TedeUajxep pbfiop.
stood
and implicated in all this was the duty of an (a) His con- unceasing vigilance
in controlling the agents of c^°.n °^hls
government ; and it is on this side that Justinian universal has to admit his
failure. supervision.
(/3)
Official Misdemeanours.—The policy of the early (p) Difficulties
fourth
century was (as we have seen) to sever offices, of this claim;
, J v ,. . , . the bureau-
to create a
number of new posts, to divide responsi- Crats out of
bility, and
to interest as large a proportion as possible hand- of the
inhabitants of the empire in the duties and emoluments of government and the
maintenance of public order. This proportion might rival that which exists
to-day in the similar governments of Russia or France, both happy
hunting-grounds for obscure and underpaid officialism, which is the real danger
in the socially democratic Slate. The result had been eminently unsatisfactory.
Each limited command became an area for petty misdemeanours and peculation. It
was impossible to arouse in these low-born and selfish functionaries a sense of
public duty. A hereditary noble (like a national sovereign) has everything to
lose by disregarding the popular will or welfare. The whole system of the early
Roman patronate was built on this sensitiveness of privilege and dignity ;
Lydus deplores the decay of this generous hospitality among the Roman
politicians, and it had without doubt ceased to characterise social
intercourse. The State confronted the unit directly ; and intermediate modes of
benevolent activity vanished. But in aiming at this proud title of Universal
Provider of Happiness, the Republic forgot into what hands the effective control
was falling; and the people at large became the prey of ignoble agents, without
sense of dignity or personal honour, concerned only in spoiling the poor or the
defenceless rich, and courting the favour of the rank immediately above them in
the Hierarchy.
The aim of
Justinian was to retrieve the errors of Their m-
801671C6 (ZTKl
the
Constantinian system, which had reduced the exactions.
Their insolence and exactions.
prince to a
puppet, under pretext of increasing his power, and had zealously extinguished a
nobility either of the sword or of the robe. He desired to enhance the dignity
of office, to make the wearer conspicuous and therefore open to the influence
of public opinion. He was at least well aware of the mockery of the title,
"responsible government.,, He well knew that the emperor alone
was really responsible for all his servants’ faults ; and was held to account
for every miscarriage of justice or inequitable tax. Yet the great body of
administrators formed a privileged corporation, sworn to defend its members, to
deceive the emperor, and to plunder the subjects. To relieve this, Justinian
proposed to raise the position of the provincial governor, and to unite under
his sole authority the various staffs or retinues (<officium, Ta^?), which
had secured impunity for petty pilfering in the envious subdivision of control.
Something analogous to extra-territorial and foreign- consular jurisdiction
would seem to have existed; acrvXov, aSucoi TrpoarTaanai, N. 5 and
6.1 It is clear that
local senators (eiriyodpioi /3ov\evTai) secretly purchased indemnity for
wrongdoing and oppressed lowlier neighbours, N. 6.2 An unjust official as John in the Hellespont could commit
great injuries before justice could be taken, N. 37»3 A vague and impersonal
complaint runs through the Constitutions for the provinces, that magistrates
and officials oppress the people, N. 53, p. 357/ and despise
1 534 A.D. airayopevvai iraxri roh • • .
iirapx&v &pxov<ri \byov &<rv\ta$ iraptxeiv
Srifioalais aMais, but for private purposes only, and then for a strictly
limited period.
2 He calls it their plot (iirtpovXty, and
insolence (dpaair't]s), whereby they retire to sacred places and defy justice,
retaining public moneys in their hands (ret bijfibata ip xeP^
^a/xpdveiv, Haio iepwv xuplw eavrods Karan piirreiv).
3 This official on pretext of
rate-collections (iroXiri/cw^ vbpuv ijrot . . . oro\e/j,vlu)u) went to every
length of robbery (oiSevbs drriffx^ro ruv is apirayi]v i<rxaTty
yubvruv), bringing his wealth to our blessed city and leaving all penury in
Hellespont.
4 536 A.D. He raises the status of the
Arabian Moderator, so that he may defend the subject from the official
exactions of subordinates, dyr£xe<r0ai
justice, N.
89, p. 494/ being themselves the worst Their inoffenders, N. 38, p. 2 2 7,2
and N. 44, p. 264.3 The capital was crowded with litigants, who
despaired of redress before any local tribunal, N. 103 4 (II. 44).
The rule
which obliged a governor to wait in his province fifty days after the expiry of
his term was constantly violated, N. 117 ; and at the very close of
T7)s twv Idiurwv uxpeXelas, /AT] 'ffvyxupciv t<£
Trepi^XiirTtp AovkI fi^re rqj <pv\dpxv (the Saracen chief) /-wjre tlvi rwv
Svvarwv oXkwv dXXd /xijre t<£ delip TraTpi/JLovlcp f) rots detois i]/j,wv
irpifidTOis t) avrip t(£ 6el(p ri/xwv oticcp tt]v ol avovv ivayayeiv rois
rjfieT. inroriXeai fyfxlav, nydt KaTanXlveadai faSlas fJirjdt rptjxeiv dXX’
audpelm tQv {jttijkSuv i^ijyeiadat. In this important passage Justinian asks
him (like the old Defensor) to save the subjects from every oppression,
explicitly naming not merely the military Duke, the Saracen or Bedouin
chieftain, the rich landlords with their strong retinues, but the accredited
agents of the imperial estates themselves, and, if we are right in so
interpreting, even from members of the imperial family : he is to show no
respect of persons but stand up boldly against injustice.
1 538 a.d. “Justice
the unique or basal virtue, without which the others lose their merit,
especially that courage to which our ancestral tongue has given the name virtue
exclusively (Trdrptos <pwv)}). TaiWyv, he continues, iv rats tf/ter.
iirapxlcus bpQsvres ‘irapeupa/tivijv . . . ava/J/Jwcrai . . . (p^drj/xev Xprjv
at.
2 535 a.d.
Wherein he appoints prtztors for the people of the capital.
He restricts the high office (of Stipendiary Magistrate) to the highest
rank and most exemplary probity ; it is to be given gratuitously, and furnished
with a paid assessor (irdpeSpos). We have learned that these officers have
hitherto had most undesirable retinues {vpds virovpylav etvai rdy/iara irovrjpd
XyaToyvibffras re k. (3eve<ptaXlovs (poison-experts)), and a crowd of such
like who deserve to be punished themselves rather than serve the ends of
justice [rendering probably corrupt]. For this class of thief- takers or
recognisers exist for no good purpose at all, but they tell the criminals
(ytvdaKovai rois /cX&rras) for this one purpose, to hunt profit (and
hush-money) for themselves and their officers (who are quite as much to blame).
In effect, they resembled the New York police.
8
T6 fih ydp imTpdiruv k. twv rpaKrevruv 6vo(xa oiid’ elvai TravreXQs Pov\6/j.e8a
(he is remodelling the proconsular government of Cappadocia,
536 A.D.) irpos tcl
tfnrpovdev fiXivovres TrapaSely/xara k.
ttjp iroXXty avrdv iir^petav ty rois ddXiois iirijyov avvriXeaw.
4 His language here
throws a Strange light on the suspicions and dislike shared by prince and
people alike towards the official class ; el trvfiprj nvi t&v rj/xeT.
vTrrjKduv ev viroxf/Lq. 2x€lv T^v &pX0VTa>
the bishop must consult with the governor to arrange matters; to prevent costly
delay in the capital owing to a well-justified distrust in local equity, ha
/*$/ airoXin- irav6p.evoi twv ISluv irarplSuv k. airrol iirl %4v-r)s KaKOiradGxri
k. rd Trpdyfiara airrwv @Xdirrrjrat. A special section is devoted to an appeal
to the bishop if it happened that any of our subjects suffered injury
{adiKrjdrjvai) at the hands of his excellency the governor himself
(XafiirpordTov). •
/. reduces fees payable on institution to office,
abolishes Vicars,
his reign, N.
166 (II. 378)/ Justinian repeats the old indictment of official extortion, and
sadly confesses that his efforts have been of little avail. In order to remove
all excuse for malversation, he corrects the table of fees payable to
court-notaries on promotion, which like the necessary payments before
ecclesiastical preferment in the Anglican Church were a constant source of
friction and complaint. These fees were now statutably fixed, N. 16 ; an oath
against official Simony was to be administered, N. 16, 123,2 and no
one was to purchase a post under government, because places of trust were to be
gratuitously bestowed on merit, and merit alone. No governor might send a vicar
or delegate to exercise his functions, and the emperor wishes to remove and
abolish altogether the hated name of deputy (ro- 7ror*]ptfTtjs), N. 166 (II.
376).3 Where civil and mili-
1 “This too has come to our knowledge (556
a.d.) that some of the governors of provinces are carried along such
sacrilegious paths on the plea of filthy lucre that [without fees] ithey allow
neither testaments to be made or published, nor marriage nor interment to take
place.”
2 The prototype perhaps of our
ecclesiastical oath on Institution to a Benefice: the official swears severally
by the Persons of the Trinity, by the Blessed Virgin, by the four Gospels
“which I hold in my hands,” and by the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, to be a
good official, and send away none of the profits to others: &<nrep
&/ii<rdov TraptXafiov rfy apxty, o&rci) k. nadapbs rrepl to its v-rroreXeis, satisfied with the
stipend apportioned to my office out of public funds.
3 He prohibits all vicars,/SiokwXOtcu, and
Xr/aTodiCoKTai. No political ox. ?nilitary official is to perambulate the
province without urgent cause (xepiiivai rty i-rrapx^av). [These tours or
progresses were clearly an infliction.] They are expressly forbidden to burden
the subject-class with corvies or forced subsidies, \vr\re St ayyapelais ij
rots icaXovfi&ois iTriSTj/MtjriKois ^ irtpq, olq.5rjTrore fyfilq,
/Saptiveiv robs rj/xer. VTroreXeis, fiyjre 5£ cvvrjdeLas dvofi&fciv fj
fyreiv . . . nadbXov y&p oiidiva tG>v apxbvTUv, 7roX. re k.
CTpaTiUTiicQv, £vdr)fj.ovvra Kara, ttju x&Pav %X€LV
ToiroTyprjrty avyxupodfiev. If there must be deputies sometimes, let them at
least never be called by this title ; /iijdk -rrpbara^LV /xtj5’ 6vofxa ToiroT7)pr)Tov. Twenty years before (535
a.d., N. 16 and 21) he had fulminated against the vicars, as we know, to this
effect; o&devl Apxovri . . . itple/xep (whether polit. or milit.)
iKTre/jureiv iv rats ir6Xecri rrjs i-rrapxlas fjs &PXei T°i>*
KaXov/x. TOiroTTjprjrds : those who have the insolence to promote others into
their own rank (els Tty iavrwv t&£iv £fj.pi(3a£eu>), will now assuredly
be deprived of office. N. 21, § 10, TOiroTKipujThs . . . irairiv iirayopefofiev
Tpbirois (here too their
tary offices
are thrown together, and the respective raises stipend, retinues united under a
single head, the full stipend of each separate office is to be paid to the new
and more dignified official, that he may have no occasion to recoup himself by
extortion for a paltry pittance,
N. 16.
Administrators are forbidden to insult the citizens by arrogant pride in rank
or military grade (a£/a, Xwvri); or to sell their favours, N. 16, § 7. He once
or twice sums up the chief duties of a governor ; first, the inoffensive
collection of taxes, next, the maitennance of public order, N. 21,1
pp. 137-8 ; and he enlarges these simple instructions into a veritable
text-book of an administrator, the mandata principis.
His whole aim
is to raise the standard of virtue and the responsible rank of officials; new
titles are invented and old ones revived (NN. 38, 44), and nothing is left
outside the jurisdiction of the unique authority; seeing that independent
commands artfully created, whether of soldier or publican, had proved a
failure, N. 44, p. 270,2 and had either played into each other’s
hands or promoted disorder. All these failings of the provincial executive are
found again in the long series of Constitutions dealing with the changes of
title and power in the chief magistrates of the departments.3
name is coupled with unruly soldiers in the escort, and oppressive tasks,
services, or contributions of the subjects, dcurdvyo-is, ayyapda, and § 11
(\€7j\aT€LP).
1 “ETretra (i.e. next after the supreme
duty of filling the treasury) irposijicdv i<TTi ck trpopoeip tov /xrj roiis
d'fj/xovs tup irbXewv iv aXXiJXots araaid^eip ; but that peace should prevail
everywhere in the cities, from your constantly preserving equal treatment for
all our subjects in this respect also, and neither for gain nor any
predilection showing marked favour to any party (vp6$ tl tup fiepwp
airokXIpup).
2 virb fitap 7dp rb
irpayixa cvvdyo/xep ItI rrjs ^cipas dpxty, fra fit) t<£ dietnraadai x^Xetfo-# (he is speaking of Cappadocia).
3 These Novels form the most interesting
commentary or supplement to the historians whose meagre details we
constantly deplore. At least eighteen are solely devoted to the status of the
governor, N. 23 Pisidia,
24 Lycaonia, 25 Thrace, 26 Isauria, 31 Helenopontus, 32
Paphlagonia,
44 Cappadocia, 45 the Armcnias, 52 and 67 the Isles (Cyclades,
&c.), 53 Arabia, 54 Palestine and Phenice, 79 Sicily, 96 Alexandria and
the Augustal, 158 Pontus, 161 Phrygia and Pisidia. It is not the purpose
of the present work to enter into the details of provincial government
(y) Counterpoise to mutinous hierarchy in (1) Bishops and (2) magnates.
§ 2. (y)
Novel Means to Check the Official Agents.— Justinian sought help from the
bishops and chief inhabitants to restrain the civilian peculation or military
tyranny. When Justin II. (as we must again remark) asked the local notables to
suggest an acceptable governor for their district, he was only following and
extending a scheme of which his uncle had set the example. In the same spirit
Merwings, or rather their powerful premiers, exempted abbeys and their estates
from the direct visit or levy of the Count; and betrayed, like the Roman
emperors, their profound distrust of their own nominees. Constantine had wisely
seen that the new and unworldly corporation of the Episcopate would be a
valuable ally in the difficulties of government, and a useful counterpoise to
the emissaries of the central power. To them Justinian entrusted the
supervision of his lieutenants ; (while he raised their dignity, he showed no
marked belief in their virtue). Bishops possessed the right, indeed the duty,
of formal complaint (N. 103, passim) ; they were to watch and report on the
conduct of the governors ; they confronted the half - barbarian soldiers, and
saw that the peaceful subject suffered no injury, N. 142,1 150 (p.
264, 266),2 N. 164
already well set forth by Professor Bury, H.L.R.E., and by Diehl, in his
excellent chapter on the subject of administrative reforms. I hope also to
prepare very shortly a detailed inquiry into these and kindred matters in a
work dealing with the Literary Critics of the Roman Empire from 300-550 A. D.
1 If a
requisition (elairpa^iv) has to be made, it must be done without annoyance to
the house (fxrjda/ji.(as rots ofoots irapevoxK&v), and soldiers, if they
are indispensable, must be old and seasoned, not raw and insolent recruits
{firj KexpfoOu veoX^Krois <XTpaTi(brais dXXA rots tv irp&ynaaiv
T€Tpip.fxivoii k. ttoXitik^v Ta^iv iiTHTTafitvois). The local bishops must see
that our will is obeyed; tt)v t&v
elprjfxhuiv irdvruv irapatpvXaK^v rots /card t6ttop itnaK6irois re k.
&pxovaiv iiriTpiTrec (that is, the emperor; for the novel survives only in
a summary of its gist. Athan. xx. 5).
2 One aggrieved by soldiers must have his
wrongs righted by governor and by bishop (apparently acting in concert); if no
ruler be found in those parts, he must appeal to the most holy bishop of the
city, or to the Ecdic of those country regions under whom the estate lies (4) .
. . iiriarKdirtp
(559)/ N.
166, 378.2 They had, indeed, to con - (y) Counter- descend to a
serve tables ” : for in Italy a curiously p0lsf.to
assorted committee of Pope and Senate saw to the hierarchy in integrity of
weights and measures ; while, throughout CO Bishops the empire, bishops were
urged to bring to justice magnates. and a sense of their guilt those infamous
merchants who castrated the young for the service of the court and church, a
class which throughout Byzantine history was il always forbidden
and always retained.”
Though
Justinian was sincerely anxious to secure (3) Popular the help of this order of
clerics and notables, supervision
716V6T
he did not
venture to suggest any form of popular suggested, controlj such as we attempt
to-day with indifferent success. He might seem aware that a democracy prefers
to grumble at its petty oppressors, or to laugh enviously at corruption; and in
the chaos of creed and race and faction, to which only the empire lent a
semblance of unity, a people’s painstaking vigilance must have been sought in
vain. Genuine democracy is the most difficult and exacting, as well as the most
elevated, of all forms of government.
1) r$ indltcy
rdv rdirup, kt\). Justinian ends with ordering the prefect to make known to
the bishops and the civil rulers these provisions for the security of the
subject-class (inrtp rrjs adrQv ap\a(3elas diaTVTrwdfrra).
1 This Pragmatic Sanction deals with the
government of Italy (554 A.D.), and entrusts the nominations of local
magistrates to the bishops in conjunction with chief inhabitants (elsewhere
called rots TTpuTetiovai). § 12. Provinciarum . . .
judices ab episcopis et primatibus uniuscujusque regionis idoneos eligendos et
sufficientes ad locorum adminm ex ipsis videlicet jubemus fieri
provinciis quos administraturi sint, sine suffragio (mi)-litis. (The justice must be a native of the district,
,and be guaranteed competent by his chief neighbours, ecclesiastical and
secular; and the soldier must have no share in his appointment (?),—if we
accept the plausible correction of Zacharias.)
2 Traaav
8k dldofiep Adeiav rots /card rbv rbirov oaLuraTois iiruricSTrois K. rots
Trpu)T€ijovcn tQp irdXeup rd
rotaOra ^yxap^/Aara KuXtfetv . . . k.
rd 7repl Totfrwv tj/uv
fuqvieiv. Sometimes the local squire or magnate is told off to spy upon the
civil servant; sometimes the governor is armed with ample powers against these
provincial grandees with their armed followings (5opiJ0opot) and their
insolence and injuries to the poor. But the bishop is always trusted to prevent
wrong and report infringement of rights to the anxious emperor.
(3) Popular supervision never suggested.
Imperial attitude to the people, cynical but
indulgent.
The Roman
Empire was founded in a cynical moment by a master of irony, who saw through
human nature with a keenness given to few. Democratic in aim it certainly was,
in that loose sense current in our own days, which implies that measures are
directed for the public welfare without respect of class or privilege, and aim
especially at the contentment and comfort of the poor. But the empire had no
illusion whatever about democracy, in its high and ideal sense, which in truth
is the only one admissible. It had no belief in the popular capacity for the
long strain and never-ending duties of the republican. The people at large
placed not the slightest value on constitutional privilege. They desired to be
rid of a host of bad masters and incompetent rulers ; but they had no intention
whatever of taking their places. They knew very well what they wanted from
government; and in the long and perhaps surfeited silence of these centuries,
we may well suppose they were satisfied with their bargain. The consideration
of the imperial system for the lower classes is well known. They are to be
amused as well as fed, and delighted by the gorgeous spectacle of circus,
theatre, and court function. The ruined cities of Northern Africa clearly show
that one chief duty of the smallest municipality, founded in defiance of
natural law among the sands, was to provide for the cleanliness and amusement
of the populace. Christianity had not, it would appear, conferred on these
classes a marked aptitude for self-government ; it had, according to some
critics, merely made representative institutions impossible. It might (so they
allege) have been possible to agree on the need of sanitation, public baths,
and public spectacles ; but if the province of government and imperial concern
is to be extended to the problems of the next world, it is clearly out of the
question to allow the voice of the heterodox to be heard or to respect
minorities.
The people’s
part was to trust their supreme ruler (l) Costly
and representative
to do his best for them on pain dlsP}ayf°r
. ,. . , mi i
i i i • f r gratification
of dismissal.
They were not to be deprived of 0f urban mob;
those costly
shows, which since republican times had exhausted noble houses by the vain
parade of a moment: Justinian introduced a welcome thrift into these expensive
dignities, and limited the consular largess, just as a Puritan and Labour
Ministry might curtail the Lord Mayor’s Show. But he was careful not to abolish
these spectacles entirely,
N. 81, p. 468,1
and when the last vestige of republican office disappeared in Byzantium, the
place of the magistrates’ displays was taken by the unceasing liturgy and
ceremonial of the court.
Yet with all
this consideration for the “cockney” (2) solicitude
element,
Justinian does not forget the needs 0{ for country
7 J & men;
the peasant
(N. 123, 139, 148 are devoted to the various problems of agriculture and
ownership 2).
And to all
dependent classes of his empire he ex- (3) wages of plicitly interdicts the use
of arms, N. 108,3 and has artimn- no sympathy with the
higher wages for craftsman and artisan, which they demanded after the Great
1 “ On the Consular LargessHe limits this
scattering of dole to seven occasions of pompous exit, el yhp tovto
iiripevirjrai did, rb rots Bias vpbs xpvxayuylav Ayeip rbv Sijfiov . . .
ovdevos tovtlju o ijfier. aTrecrTepijdrjaeTai Sijfjios.
2 Especially in Novel 29 does he forbid the
seizure of land for debt; and fixes (or attempts to fix) the rate of usury for
advances on landed security.
3 On Arms (539 a.d., addressed to Basilides,
Mag. Off.). The aim is, of course, the prevention of civic tumult, not
suspicion of insurrection (djSXa^ets k. apevrjpedffTovs </>v\&ttcip
k. tcwXtieiv rods Tro\4fiovs, of)s tie ttJs iavT&v a(3ov\las alpo^fievoi
toi>s kclt* ipy&fyvTai
<p6vovs). The manufacture of weapons is a State monopoly which may be
invaded by no private person; and no one £>ut authorised soldiers or
sergeants with license may possess; § 3. &8eia iraPTeX&s otidepi . . .
“ neither to private inhabitants of cities nor husbandmen tilling the country
districts (tois ri Xc'opia yewpyovffip hypbrcus) to use arms against each other
and dare murders, while the exchequer is despoiled of the taxes of those who
cultivate the soil, deserting their livelihood (?) or running away through
panic.” This was no idle fear; the armed households of the great, and
masterless retainers (as in Japan, the lonin or ownerless yaconin) caused
disturbance on the countryside. § 4 gives a list of prohibited weapons;
somewhat in the style of the Philistine edict in the time of Saul.
(3) wages of artisan.
Wisdom of these
provisions.
Striking analogy with modern Socialism.
Plague, N.
146 (544 A.D.) ; just as in Western Europe, after the Black Death, some 800
years later. —The emperor has been sternly rebuked for both these regulations ;
matters, as the unbiassed student can easily see, of strict political
necessity. Circus- frays and the Samaritan revolt had made men familiar with
private feuds and vendetta. It was impossible, with the barbarian at the gate,
to allow mere factious turbulence. The compassion of liberal or nationalist
historians is entirely wasted on a people, or rather a congeries of peoples,
who had long ago resigned the noble duty of self-defence. Justinian, who had no
reason to trust party-spirit, who had manifest proof of religious and tribal
rancour, was in every way justified in this prohibition. Nor can we criticise
from any modern standpoint his (possibly futile) attempt to fix the scale of
wages or the interest on mortgage-loans. Whenever the State is recognised as
omnipotent by popular consent, the Government—Imperial or Socialist—will be
compelled to take cognisance of . such things. Where every class looks to the
State for guidance, aid, and authorisation ; where nothing passes current
without the peculiar stamp of government sanction ; various restrictions on a
perilous liberty must be both expected and tolerated. The hours of labour, the
scale of payment, the price of commodities, the value of land, the assessment
of appreciated estates—all must be submitted to some final control and central
committee. It is not for us to blame the empire for a system which, amid some
misgivings and protest, is being adopted by many statesmen “ as a panacea for
the evils of Freedom.” 1
1 N. 60 (537 A.D.), the emperor is obliged
to limit the number of privileged manufactories in Constantinople to eleven
hundred, and to beg the residue to pay their imposts regularly : he says, not
without reason,
Karh
[iiKpbv k. i<p’ &Tavras ijirXQadai ra riX-rj fipaxb ph tarai rb Trap’
eK&<TT0V SiSb/xevov, fxirpiov di k. Kov<f>ov . . . 5<r<p
irapa Tr\ei6vuv avWeyiv He did not intend to fall into the later Merovingian
dilemma, when the
§ 3. It
remains to speak briefly of a few classes in Special
the State on
which the Novels of Tustinian shed :.....
, , .. t m (1)
The Mill-
perhaps a
gleam of sombre light, (i) The military tary.
element
is set in vivid contrast with the civilians.
The
emperor is much concerned to prevent unfair pressure on the district where
soldiers are quartered; they must be content with the produce of their ,
cantonment,
and not demand exotic luxuries from other provinces ; they must be considerate
to the defenceless citizens whom it is their duty to defend, not to oppress (N.
138, 142, 150). Justinian is aware of the debt which the Commonwealth owes to
its gallant (and often alien) defenders : after heaven, the empire rests on
their loyalty and devotion (cf. the use of the term KaOooo-iw/jLevoi), He is
anxious, too, that his barbarian allies should learn to respect the rights of
civilians, just as Theodoric had to defend the effeminate Roman noble from the
good-humoured contempt of his Gothic “protector" (N. 150, II. 265).1
He does not hesitate to rebuke this dangerous element if it deserves it; he
threatens (N. 96, I. 540)2 some mutinous soldiers with expatriation
to the detested Danubian frontier, or the Crimea, still more remote ; it will
not be forgotten that this punishment precipitated the military revolution
which overthrew Maurice some sixty-four years later.
sovereign,—knowing no means of defending the public except by restricting
his own officers’ jurisdiction, of rewarding his friends except by lavish grant
of practical immunity,—found himself in the end without subjects, taxes, or
kingdom.
1 “ These injunctions we desire to be
carefully observed in the passage, not merely of our own Captains *and their
troops, but of all other forces sent by us into alliance with our Commonwealth
from any nation whatever ” (ig olovd^Tore tdvovs els crvfi/xaxlo-y . . .
ire/JLirofxipuv).
2 “Their splendid tribunes shall suffer
confiscation, and their chief men (let these also beware of decapitation !) and
the whole regiment shall be removed to the furthest limits of the Danubian
district, there to serve their term patiently as guard of the frontier” (rb
irav rdy/xa fieTacrrav iv rots Trofy(t)T4p<i> rod . . . Aapvj3Lov rbirois
.... vapa<f>v\aKTjs tvena irposKap- reprjcrov).
(2) The Monks a
(3) The Senate.
§ 4. The
emperor is frequently engrossed in monastic questions, relating to the order
and discipline of monks in their religious houses. If the monks will pray, the
soldiers will fight well, and the Roman armies will win peace for the world.
There is an especially mediaeval touch here; and we recall the opening chapter
of Lydus (which he does not follow up) dealing with the identity of the magistrate,
the priest, and the soldier in primitive times.
§ 5. There is
frequent reference to the Senatorial class as well as to the Senate of
New Rome. Both in Latin and Greek (N. 8o, 81)1 he explains the
transference to the emperor of the anxious duties of executive, and makes much
of the dignified retirement, which all enjoy but the select emissaries of
Caesar. He takes care that 11
senatorial estates shall remain in senatorial families” (NN. 101, 106, 109). He
gives rules for the release from the duties of this rank (tu^, N. 90), the old
Latin venia ordinis; but he will not allow Jews and Samaritan senators to evade
their responsibility (N. 62), though they might not exercise their privileges.
He is anxious to preserve the deferential distinctions of rank, though he will
not have this carried to an absurd extreme. For example, the illustrious class
(N. 91) were often reduced to poverty and unable to support their dignity; all
but the most exalted were expressly relieved of the duty of employing an
advocate (evroXevg) when sustaining a suit, and might appear and plead in
person, if they could not afford the heavy fees, which, the joy of Lydus’
heart, were a bane and a grievance to a pauper nobility. Yet Justinian is clear
that disorder in a State arises when men overstep the natural limits of caste,
and the due
1 “
In the most ancient days the Senate’s authority shone forth so bravely that by
its guidance at home and abroad the whole world was made subject to the yoke of
Rome ... for by its common counsel all things were carried out. But after that
the prerogative of Roman people and Senate, in a happy moment for the general
welfare (felicitate Rei- publicae) were transferred to the Imperial Majesty,”
&c.
reverence
owing to rank is set at naught (a^iw/jiaTwv (3) The vppfyjuieW). Senate-
§ 6. The
social and administrative condition of the (4)Justinian's empire has already
exhausted more than the space aPPe^110 his
OBQD m
allotted to
it; nor have the various questions of the ’ country magnates, the vindices}
the ecdics, the Defensory been treated adequately. We may well
conclude this section, already over-long, by quoting a direct personal appeal
to his subjects ; wherein he exposes the genuine anxiety with which he attempts
to conciliate two ends, unhappily incompatible—the welfare of the people and
the maintenance of the costly imperial system. (N. 16, § io : “ It is right
that you our subjects and contributories, knowing how great is the care and
forethought we bestow on you, should in all cheerfulness pay your public taxes,
and not need compulsion from the rulers,—and show us by your deeds that you
return due gratitude to us for our loving-kindness. Then shall ye reasonably
enjoy from your rulers all care and consideration for your cheerful service ;
knowing this well, that since on the rulers' shoulder rests the whole peril of
the State,1 and it is admitted that they take office at their
own risk, it is your part therefore to abstain in every way from sullen
churlishness, and not in your disobedience oblige them to have recourse to
their lawful sternness, with which it is but right they should be invested,
seeing that the collection of the public revenue is a necessity which cannot be
gainsaid.
11 Listen then, subjects of mine,
whomsoever God has given to our ancestors or to ourselves (N. 89,
538 A.D.),
that we issue this law to give and provide you with all security: ye shall not
journey long and toilsome ways, ye shall not weep over the injuries of the
great, nor shall ye blame us that we neglect to help you. But each one, seeing
close at hand and under his own eyes due punishment and
1 Or responsibility for the taxes, drj/xda-ta.
VOL. II. E
(4)Justinian's requital waiting for all his wrongs,
will sing aloud (people
t0 ktS £reat
and g°°d God, who enlightened my understanding so as to issue these
wise laws." Such was the aim and such the scope of Justinian’s
legislation: his failure to attain this end must be traced to causes of which
he himself was but dimly conscious, and over which he could exert no effective
control.
THE ELEMENTS OF OPPOSITION UNDER THE SUCCESSORS OF JUSTINIAN (565-618)
{Being a continuation of<c The Princes
the Senate, and the Civil Service ”)
§1. The death of Justinian was a signal, long Opposition of awaited, for
the smouldering discontent to break pJ^et90edj
into flame. It existed no doubt in nearly all classes Liberal of a commonwealth
called upon to give up much Imperialism. for imperialism, and receive perhaps
little in return.
But the chief
seat of the influence which thwarted the central control was now the Senate.
The hindrance to the designs of a benevolent autocrat was found among his own
ministers ; and once more was displayed to the world the peril of a privileged
class, concentrating in itself the whole power and talent of the State. It is a
palpable anachronism to connect this with monarchical institutions. The
history of mankind shows clearly that a monarchy, even as a foreign victor,
gives to a people national self-consciousness, and guarantees them from
servitude to “ many and fierce masters."
“The truth
is," writes Mr. Price in an introduction to Thierry's great work, “that to
the Norman Conquest we owe both our national unity and our national
institutions. . . . England was overcome by the Normans because she possessed
no national unity. ... Had not Anglo-Saxon feudalism been uprooted by the
centralised despotism of the conqueror, England would probably be broken into
independent States, like Germany and Italy ; or like France have been forced,
at the close of the Middle Ages, to exchange anarchy for despotism." The
67
Opposition of committee of Platonic Guardians, the
Knights of Pclm^tod
Rhodes, the Brahmin or Roman hierarchy, the Liberal Russian official, even the
Anglo-Indian civil servant, Imperialism. ancj above all, the secret
influences of a monopolist republic (such as floats as an ideal before the
dreamer’s vision)—these are instances of the temptation which besets the most
conscientious as well as the most unscrupulous of rulers. The pages of Laurence
the Lydian show us the persecution of the rich by the pretorian prefect, the
“war against private wealth,” so conspicuous in political programmes to-day.
But in the later years of Justinian, the rich, identified with the imperial
council and exercising power by right of official dignity as well as private
means, gained in weight (and perhaps in solidarity), and like the republican
senate domineered over a subject world. We are often called upon to record the
grievances of the noble class under the firm control of monarchs; we trace with
regret the mutual suspicions which so often transformed the Senate into the
victim of a persecutor. But when once the stern hand is relaxed, our sympathy
is at once estranged ; and we feel that for the peace and welfare of the world,
the “ feudal ” rule of Senators was neither to be regretted nor recalled. Law
was no longer uniform and supreme ; a large class of higher and lower officials
demanded exemption. Justin II. endeavoured to enforce the law at all hazards ;
and offered himself as the first example, if he deserved censure. “To him,”
says Zonaras, “ came one promising if he were made prefect with power over all
for a fixed time, no sufferer should be found ” (el eirapyos yevoiro k. Kara
7rdvTcov e^ovcria SoOelt] SI topi(Tfjt.evov icaipov fj.r}Tiva evpeOtjvai rov
aSiKov/mevov). The story, it would seem, is clearly apocryphal in its details ;
it finds its original or suspicious parallel in the “Arabian Nights”; and we
may be sure that such a sudden elevation to the prefecture of the city was not
possible with the
careful
routine and rules of methodical promotion Opposition of which then prevailed.
“As he sat in judgment pc^sljet90ed
one came with a charge against a very notable Liberal senator (tcov
eirLarrujLorepoov cruytcXijTiKcov eW), whom Imperialism. he summoned to appear;
but he refused (/xere/caX eararo . . . aXX ovk cnrrjvTtierev)—a second notice
fared no better ; and the accused, scorning it, went off to dine with the
emperor (Sevrepov eOero ixr\vvfka . . . KaTa(ppovrjo-as ei$ to fia<ri\iKov
cnrflci avixirodiov).
When he
learnt this, the prefect went to the palace and found the king sitting with his
guests and spoke:
11 promised, O king, to leave not one
wrong-doer, and my promise I will keep, if thou wilt lend the support; but if
thou dost shield and entertain the unjust, I can do nothing. Give them not
liberty to scorn the law, or take back my charge.' And the king said, 1
If I am he, make me descend from my seat and obey the summons ’ (tovto . . . avv<r6rjom€T(u
el ical Tfjv ck tov Kparovg crov
eiriKovplav e^w k. rr]v poirrfv el
Se fiaXXov avTog roov aSucovvToov avTiiroiii k.
(piXloog avroig SiaKel'juevog crvvecrTioojuLemvg e^eig
avTOis
27 7ravcrov ju.e rtjg apx*l$ 5 K' ® /3a<ri\ev$ el avrog eyco
eljuu, (pqcriv, aSiKwv, e^avda-rrjcrov /me evrevOep). “Then the prefect made
the man accused rise from his place and follow him, and finding him guilty chastised
him with stripes, and to the man aggrieved he gave back out of the other's
estate the exaction many times over. So that the greedy were afraid and came to
terms with those they had wronged" (yvovg aSiKovvra . . . eKoXacre raig
elg crco/ma TrXrjyaig . . . oOev SeicavTeg oig tfv 7rpoalpetrig irXeoveKTiKfj tov aSiKeiv ai>e<JTo\r}<Tav k. roig ySiKrjjuevoig elg
<jvjjL/3a<reig e^ooptjcrav). Such, then, is the story ; it no doubt
reflects the current tradition or the character of Justin II. and his
courtiers. We find a parallel in the story of Butelinus under Heraclius; and
the career of Theophilus offers points of resemblance. The colouring is later
and almost purely Asiatic, but the
of plain facts are credible (Zonaras, xiv. 10). The
, , historian has a favourable opinion of the Illyrian
CICLS 9 10
Liberal emperor (IXXvpiog . . . eig diravra
7repiSe^iog Trjv Imperialism. yp^fjajv ju.6ya\o\j/v^og). Theophanes has tw
yevei Qpaj~ jueyaXoyp-v^og re tc. ewiSej~iog. As we can trace some part at
least of the decline to the old age and relaxed energy of Justinian ; so the
impunity of evil-doers is referred to the seclusion of Justin through ill-
health (vocrepov tv^oov croo/iaTog . . . Sia tovto /ULrj crvveywg nrpoicov . .
. cog nirjSevog ovrog tov €K$iK0vvT0g aSeea-Tepovg eirolrjcre). Once when he
went forth he was much harassed by applicants for redress of wrong (iroTc
irpoe\Qoov ^voo^Krfdri irapa ttoWcov oog aSucovfievcov), whence the avenging of
the oppressed was to him a subject of anxious thought (*/ toov aSiKovfievoov
eKSiKi](rig Sia (ppovrlSog). We are reminded of Marcian’s “ Caiervce adeuntium
infinitce” throngs of applicants with a grievance. The account of Scylitzes of
the same episode agrees in the general outline, and argues a common source; he
particularises the culprit as juLayia-Tpog rig.
Dying avowal § 2. Theophanes, who does not give the
legend of of Justin II.: temporary vizier, gives in full Justin's speech at
zeal power- the adoption of Tiberius Constantine, to which we less. have called attention in the text: it
was taken down
by
shorthand writers (John of Ephesus), and forms a very human document, widely
differing in its naive simplicity from the studied and eloquent orations
usually put into the mouth of princes by classical historians. I will quote
only the more salient points: fiy e7nyapii(s alfiacn. /it]
iiriKOivcovijg (povoov. fit] kclkov avTL KCLtcov airoSoocryg. fit] eig eyQpav
o/uLoiooOyg i/uLoi eyco yap cog av0poo7rog ezrraicra. kcli yap TTTaicrTrjg
iyevoMv, k, cnreXafiov Kara Tag atiapTiag fiov. aWa SiKao-o/JLai TOig
'Troir/crao’i julol tovto €7ri tov /%tiaTog tov Xtou. jut] eiraprj ere tovto to
o"xfjfia wg Kai ovtoo
irpoareye iraa-iv ajg eavTO). yvcoOi Tig r}g k. Tig
vvv el .. . o\oi out01 Teicva aov eicriv k. SovXoi. . . . TOVTOvg ovg /3\e7T6ig
oXovg Ttjg nroXirelag /3\e7reig. irpoge^e toj
crTpuTicoTU crov. fj.*] <pavra$ [crTpanoorag] /mi] Dying avowal
eL7T0)criv
crol rives oti o
irpo crov ovtw Sieyevero.
ravra oj Justin II.: > . , a' 'AJ * » a ' * ’
' reforming
yap
Aeyw jtxaooov a(p wv eirauov. ol eyovre$ ovcrias, zeal power-
airo'kaverwuav
avrwv, roi$ Se jmr] c^ovcri Swprjcrai. The version of Theophylact (iii. n, ed.
de Boor, 133) repeats almost verbatim, but in place of the meaningless
[errpandoras] we read crvKo(pavrag ; he also omits ovg before /SXeVe*?. And the
general sense of the passage ? In these broken words Justin warns Tiberius
against his own errors: “ Be not made like me in the people's hatred (==do not
incur my unpopularity). I have sinned and been led astray, and I will accuse
those who have brought me to this at the Last Day. Do not be elated by your
position; remember what you once were and what you are now; and look at me,
what I have been and what I have become! These before you are your children and
servants. You see them all before you,—all the members of the civil order. Do
not neglect your soldiers ; welcome no informers. Do not be led away by the
guile of those who tell you, 1
His late majesty always did this and that.’ Learn wisdom by my sad failure. Let
those who have wealth continue to enjoy; and give to such as are in need."
Now the
charges are vague, and the melancholy Justin, appeased like Saul with cunning
playing on the harp, must not be held to the letter of a suspicious temperament
conscious of a great opportunity lost. But he blames his advisers for his
faults ; and points with emphasis to the subordinate position of the ministers
and clergy standing round.
The TroXirela
comprises the ranks of the civil hierarchy, just as later 7ro\iriKog is opposed
to cTTpanwTiKo9. One is much tempted to read some “ caution ” into the double
/SXeVez?; beware of, li you do well to look at them.” I
translate <roi in its usual meaning, “to thee," not “of thee" with
Bury; and am inclined to attach considerable weight to the sentence. Can we not
read in the text just that
less.
Dying
avowal insistence on precedent, which is one of the most %/orming1' en^ang^ng
silken meshes cast by bureaucracy zeal power- round the vigorous limbs of a
reforming sovereign ?
Any administrator
will recognise the tone of the permanent Under-Secretary in the words: li
We never did so in Mr. X/s time/' For bureaucrats have a fabulous golden age
(like poor Laurentius), to which standard they coldly refer the proposals of
the new minister, and are apt, with Talleyrand, to discourage zeal. In the
final words we may discover that, where private wealth still existed apart
from the privileged order, it was insecure ; and that Justin had learnt by
bitter experience that the ° government ” was always “ against the people.”
Theophylact supplies us with a sonorous and periphrastic description of the
audience before which this adoption was made. We remember Galba’s hesitation in
a similar case, and the ominous last decision, a iri in
castra placuit.” Here we find Senate, clergy, and patriarch assembled (tjJ?
crvyKX^rov ftovXrjs e? t avrov yevofievrjs rov re iepariKOv KaraXoyov . . .
ajma to) iiricrTaTOvvTt k. tol rtjs €KK\t](rta$ 7njSaXia SuOvvovti). (We may remark that our
author makes a very needless apology for the simplicity of Justin’s words,
which he will leave in all their naked and unpolished rudeness : their heartfelt
sincerity is a very welcome oasis in the desert of his elaborate periods.)
Against this solid phalanx of indurate tradition or individual greed, what
weapons did a comes excubitorum possess, suddenly raised to the throne by one
who made no concealment of his own failure ? It is small wonder that Tiberius
Constantine continued this apologetic and deprecatory tone, and sought to conciliate
favour by gifts, not as Justin advised, to the really poor, but to the powerful
or independent.
§ 3. We may
deal subsequently with the eulogy of Corippus, and the debt that Africa owed to
the Questor Anastasius and the Emperor Justin II. Yet
Conciliation of local authorities.
this keen
interest in a freshly recovered province is Conciliation typical also of his
entire policy ; and I may be allowed °{uf^!ities to
quote the words of Diehl (L’afr. Byz.y 458), because I feel sure that this partial reform in an outlying
district was of a piece with a genuine attempt, at a universal reorganisation:
“ A Tint^rieur du pays, l'adrninistration des finances reorganises s'efforgait
par une meilleure perception de l’impot d’assurer les rentes neces- saires aux
d6penses (Novella, 149, A.D. 569); pour reprimer la cupidity des fonctionnaires
on remettait en honneur les vieilles regies relatives a l’obtention gratuite
des magistratures ; pour arreter leurs insolences, on rappelait a tous les
agents, civils et militaires, le respect du aux privileges de TEglise et a la
personne des eveques; officiellement on invitait les pr£lats a adresser au
prince toutes les observations qui leur sembleraient utiles, ‘ afin (dit le
rescrit imperial) que connaissant la verity nous d£cidions ce qu'il convient de
faire.’ (Zach.,
Nov. iii. 9, 10)
(A.D. 568). Hortamur cujusque provincice sanctissimos episcoposj eos
etiam qui inter possessores et incolas princi- patum tenentt
ut per communem supplicationem adpotentiam nostram eos deferant, quos ad
administrationem provincice suce idoneos existiment.,> I
may also subjoin the admirable words of Bury (ii. 75): “A remarkable law of
Justin (568) is preserved in which he yields to the separatist tendencies of
the provinces to a certain extent; it provides that the governor of each province
should be appointed without cost at the request of the bishops, landowners and
[principal] inhabitants ... it was a considerable concession in the direction
of local government, and its importance will be more fully recognised if it is
remembered that Justinian had introduced in some provinces the practice of
investing the civil governor (who held judicial as well as administrative
power) with military authority also.
It is a
measure which sheds much light on the state Episcopate as
of the
empire, and reminds us of that attempt of a c?unter~
. . r poise.
Honorius to
give representative local government to the
Episcopate as a counterpoise.
cities in the
south of Gaul,—a measure that came too late to cure the political lethargy
which prevailed."
I would only suggest that the word
separatist is perhaps too strong; it is one of Finlay’s beliefs that this
desire for honesty in local administration was disloyal and centrifugal. I
cannot myself be satisfied that there was any desire to detach from the
parent-trunk or set up an independent home-rule. The only safeguard was in
imperial and central control against the abuses of men who, like viceroys of old
time, regarded a post of trust as a prize, and sought a convenient opportunity
for reimbursing the price paid to secure it. We may be sure that this appeal to
local feeling and choice vanished in the gradual collapse of the civil system
up to the time of Heraclius. We have quoted this passage, however, not to
encroach on the interesting problems of local autonomy or prince-bishoprics
under the empire, but to show the earnest desire of Justin II. to maintain the
best side of autocracy. The Novel emphasises the large admixture of the clergy
in the ordinary body of government, as well as its presence on ceremonious
occasions. This influence grew and culminated in the days of Heraclius; and the
patriarchs of Constantinople and of Alexandria seemed to have claimed no small
authority on high politics and finance. But as the Eastern realm had avoided
the dangerous support of a Barbarian protectorate, so it refused to allow the
State to become a mere department of the Church. With all its faults, it
managed to fulfil the modern maxim of all political theorists,—the supremacy of
the civil power against sword and dogma. Both these dangers of western and
mediaeval Europe recur in a variety of forms ; but during our period there is
no concession to the independent claim of priest and soldier. The Iconoclastic
movement was largely a recurrence to a pre- Constantinian policy. And it was
this temporising scheme of Constantine, which, in the age we are now
discussing,
bade fair to overthrow the central fabric. Episcopate as Powerful prelates and
recalcitrant nobles,—here are a c?unter~ two
well-known types of feudalism ; and Justin II., with all his desire for
improvement, had to conciliate and to make use of such agents as he found
ready.
§ 4. The dim
records of the reigns of Tiberius II. isolation of (578—582) and Mauricius
(582—602) (who break the emperor: the line of Illyrian princes)
are fitfully illumined by support. the tropes and similes of Evagrius or
Theophylact.
Tiberius
indeed found a support for the throne in the demes; Maurice reverted to the
help of the nobles pending his struggle with an inefficient and seditious army.
The latter need mean nothing more than that he kept the civilian supremacy
intact, and in the end yielded to their protests, by a rapid return from a
campaign which he proposed to lead in person.
Historians
attempt to give these detached points of disaffection, union and focus in a
legendary public opinion, which is depicted as austere and unanimous.
Finlay
specially oscillates between extremes; he complains of the now limited efficacy
of absolutism, or he represents hostility to the government as widespread,
popular, and deserved. It is, I think, true that this latter never seriously
existed ; when we read of the u threatened conflict between official
privilege and popular feeling/’ or of the 11 hate inspired by the administration,” we are apt to
imagine a concrete and wholesome body of opinion,—born no doubt in the higher
and idealist circles (where all revolutions begin), and filtering down, until
all classes are allied in opposition to the ruling system. It may well be
doubted if such a desirable state of things ever existed. No country has ever
been united against its rulers ; a successful overthrow is the work of just
that small minority which has the courage of its views and a well-defined
programme of attack. The removal of a king, the exile of a noble caste, merely
unveils the seething animosities of classes; and after any change of
government, the larger but silent
Isolation of the emperor: no public support.
No desire to restrict titular prerogative.
portion of
the citizens regret the past. In the curious circumstances of the empire in the
closing years of the sixth century, there is no trace of serious opposition or
of unanimity. Far less are we likely to discover a vestige of a rival
constitution.
§ 5. The
noble party, the “ Senators/' were profoundly interested in the resolute
maintenance of autocracy. Neither then nor in the Twenty Years’ Anarchy
(695-717) is there a sign of later Whig proposal to restrict prerogative. But
they determined that the sovereign should be a creature, and that a still
unlimited prerogative should lie in their hands. Nor were they at one upon the
right method of government. The dominant class had lost that wider interest and
public spirit which marked its councils a century ago. Each member of a disintegrating
order sought his own good at the expense of the whole ; alone the emperor, “
Athanasius contra mundum,” had a policy. This selfish and antinomian individualism
ran through the classes ; and perhaps only among the priests rose to pride in a
corporation, for which they demanded independence. Neither religious dispute
nor the factions of the hippodrome show any serious criticism of the aims or
manner of administration. It is in vain to seek for earnestness of purpose or
combined action. Political interest was soon exhausted in a vague and scornful
discontent, or in personal rancour and petty spite directed against conspicuous
men. Finlay oddly represents the exempt classes of “ monks, charioteers, and
usurers ” as successfully claiming to be above the law. Now the unique
justification of insurgence would lie in this demand, to make the law just and
uniform and to submit the highest power in the land to its requirements. To
oppose (as in Russia to-day) an autocracy, largely guided by precedent and
custom and irregular only in the minor malversations of petty agents, by a complete
anarchy,—is a grotesque ambition, on a par
with the
buccaneering sympathies of delicately nur- Private tured childhood, their
fearful delight in pirate and interest atld
highwayman, but not to be classed with serious iaw, schemes of
political reconstruction. The whole claim of Liberalism (so far indeed as it
makes itself articulate and intelligible) is that the personal whim shall
everywhere yield to the impersonal or general welfare,—that law shall fetter
arbitrary despotism, and calm debate shall fix the lines of government and the
principles of justice. No one is clearer than Finlay himself in making this
demand, in showing the inconsistency of those well-meaning princes, who while
they tried to save autocracy from itself did not provide an “ Ephorate ” or a “
Body of Censors ” to guarantee the supremacy of the impersonal. Now can it for
a moment be maintained that this disinterested deference to law, absolutely
essential in a free State, was in the air at this time ? Is not the sole claim
of each individual, of each class, each district, each sect, to be u
above the law ” ? Is not the emperor struggling in classic and statuesque
isolation for the archaic principles against pure subjectivity ? The green or
blue faction, the monks of a certain community, the citizens or sectaries of a
distant province, might, like the Nihilist to-day, do and suffer loyally in the
supposed interest of a fraction of the State ; but a more comprehensive view of
the whole was for ever denied to them.
When this
particularist spirit had invaded the once catholic sphere of the Senate, the
case of the State became hopeless. Nothing could prevent the splitting into
heterogeneous and unsympathetic groups, social and regional. And this without
any matured plan or purpose of autonomy. For we must again repeat that the
popular interest was confined to an alert criticism of persons, rarely of
measures ; and while it rejoiced in every change of ruler, never elevated
itself to a calm survey or judgment of the whole system.
Complete failure oj Maurice to restore order (600).
§ 6. “
Maurice/' it is said with truth, “ causes a revolution by attempting to
re-establish the ancient authority of the imperial administration." But we
must be careful how we interpret this. The secret of the Augustan
“constitution" (if we give this explicit name to his crafty yet beneficent
compromise) lay in the control of officials : the one perennial difficulty
which meets us under all governments and is quite independent of the form of
constitution.
We do not
mean that the already absolute powers of the administrator were to be increased
; that the helpless autocrat should have a useless addition of formal
prerogative, the subordinate agents supplied with larger authority. Maurice
desired in a corrupt and centrifugal society to restore order and control; and
when law is openly despised or in abeyance, nothing avails but strong personal
power, which for the time is the sole remedy. Limited on all sides by
“rapacious nobles," an idle populace, a turbulent faction, and a “
licentious army," the prince saw no hope but in the energetic exercise of
his theoretical but latent force. A despondent tone rings with dismal monotony
through this period, and finds an echo in the legends of imperial dreams,
warnings, and expiations. The emperor, forced back on the natural supporters of
the throne, found no aid forthcoming. Had he tried, in his endeavour to enlist
his subjects' help in the work of reform, to establish a responsible council or
representative body, as we might suggest to-day, there was no guarantee that
this responsibility, this representative character should be maintained. It was
not to be expected that such a body would be free from the factious
group-spirit, the narrow and religious bitterness, the personal rancour or
self-seeking,—already conspicuous in all ranks of general society. It does not
follow that out of a disorderly and disaffected chaos held artificially
together, like Russia to-day, a sovereign assembly will be more patriotic,
united, or disinter-
ested than
the society it represents. It will rather be Complete the focus of the national
feuds, the quintessence ^Maurice to the national disorder. And it is an
unvarying ex- restore order perience that the tone of parliaments is below the
(600)- average level of public opinion ; and is singularly unfitted
to express the higher and more liberal outlook.
The decisive
factor in the situation turned out to be Intervention the very influence
against which Maurice had reacted, °J[e^s —the
party-spirit of the circus. To those who know human nature (not through
supposed representatives, but directly) there is nothing alarming in this
appeal to the rudimentary judgment of the average man.
The
half-constitutional influence oddly bestowed in the last reign had perhaps a
good effect; the factions were wanting neither in spirit nor in a certain generosity.
But the experiment of making an urban mob the arbiter of national destiny has
proved a signal failure. The turbulence of the capital, easily stirred by a
chance word, a clever epigram, or an imprudent edict, carries off with it as a
reluctant partner of its often sanguinary triumph the silent common sense and
sober judgment of the provinces. Republican Paris has in this matter no
advantage over despotic Byzantium ; and indeed, in spite of religious cruelty,
the annals of the people throughout our epoch contrast favourably with those
of most other European capitals. Their infrequent intervention is generally
creditable and their tumult easily curbed. Yet it was impossible then, as now,
to entrust the business of the State, either in crisis or routine, to average
good-will or boisterous good-nature.
§ 7. The
Senate retires, so far as the annalists Official tell us, into a discreet and
possibly corrupt and powerful obscurity during the twenty years of underPhocas.
Maurice's reign. They emerge only to be grossly deceived. The new factor
decides, and the people are supreme. Senate and Patriarch Cyriac were asked to
come out to the Hebdomon to witness the elevation of Germanus; and to their
dismay behold
Official Phocas crowned! It is the demes who support,
languished intimidate, or
openly insult the imperial centurion, under Phocas. and we are reminded by
their delightful frankness of the genuine if unauthorised influence which a mob
can exercise in a despotic State. Again, it is the demes who welcome the
deliverer from Africa, deprived of political status by Phocas ; and it is the
demes again who join gladly in hewing “ Agag in pieces before the Lord."
We may suspect that, in the savage inquiries into plots and conspiracies, the
Senate, the civil and official class, as the suspected supporters of the
Maurician regime, had suffered most. And perhaps this curious period of
disintegration and delay could not have found a more suitable hero or climax
than in Phocas. He represents, what I believe to have been widely spread, a
mere ignorant and capricious subjectivity ; which so far from demanding the
submission of all classes to law merely seeks to be itself emancipated. Alone
in the fifteen centuries of Roman rule, there is no vestige of policy in palace
or council-chamber. In these years only does the imperial dignity sink to the
level of some malevolent and suspicious monarch of the East, living like a
threatened wild beast in a dim and noisome lair and sending forth only groans
of rage and hatred. His reign is the apotheosis of a rude and blustering
feudalism, without conception of duty, equity, or the trust of office. It is, I
think, possible to extricate out of the scandalous gossip that does duty for
history under the late empire, and even with the earlier Caesars, some thread
of earnest and serious work and deliberate plan in the weakest or most
vindictive of princes. But Phocas, whom we will not salute with Pope Gregory’s
“ Gloria in Excelsis,” stands as the mere accident and transitory emergence of
the subjectivity which had ruined the classical traditions and the empire. And
it may be well to close this section here ; for the official class, cowed but
still haughty, only issues forth
under
Heraclius into the light of day, assumes for a time large powers, takes on it
the airs of a regency, and is once more rightly or wrongly deposed and forced
into that secondary position which it will occupy during the remainder of the
seventh century.
Official tradition extinguished under Phocas.
VOL. II.
F
Position of
Heraclius
insecure.
REVIVAL OF IMPERIALISM AND OF MILITARY PRESTIGE UNDER THE HERACLIANS:
RESENTMENT AND FINAL TRIUMPH OF CIVILIAN OLIGARCHY (620-700)
§ 1. The spectacle of the demes fraternising with a few disorderly
mutineers to overthrow Maurice must have bitterly disheartened any true friend
of the commonwealth who was capable of forming an impartial estimate. It may be
questioned if in truth such a critic existed. Men of all classes seemed to
rejoice at the fall of a conscientious prince, and to have believed that
nothing was needed to restore the State but a change of ruler. It is very well
for historians of our own time to see in this revolution the outcome of a grave
popular hostility, directed against the existing order, the ruling and official
aristocracy, the governing party in the Church. But it seems clear that public
opinion was then incapable of rising to any universal and collective idea.
Definite opposition was never formulated in terms intelligible to modern ears.
There were no solemn deputations urging the emperor to change his ministers, to
lighten taxation, or to redress abuse. The strange sight is afforded to us of a
sovereign, friend and champion of Reform, struggling in vain with a people who
resisted and hated it. The stern lesson, which brought these recalcitrant and
refractory classes once more under discipline, was learnt in the scandalous
disgrace of the new reign, the decimation of the nobles under pretext of conspiracy,
and the menace of the Avar and Persian invasion. Great public events turned
then, as they
rarely do in
history, upon personal character and Position oj
incident. Had
not Phocas murdered Maurice, the ?erachus
. 7 insecure. benefactor of the Shah, war would not again have
broken out
between these ancient and indecisive belligerents. Had Phocas again resembled,
in ever so slight a degree, the usual military pretender, he would have adorned
with strenuous virtues a throne won by crime, and reinforced a nerveless or
moribund civilian rule. Few popular cries have echoed with such wide emphasis
as the words which reminded Phocas he still possessed a rival: jmaOe Trjv
KaTacrTaariv, o MavpiKios ovk aireQavev. For had he or his son Theodosius
escaped to the asylum of the Persian Court, and in the end regained the purple,
is it impossible to conceive a firm alliance against Saracen zealots, and an
impregnable bulwark for the south-east of Europe ? It was an era, like the
tenth century in Rome, of individuals, not of ideas, and the objective trails
heavily behind subjective caprice. The annals of the Heraclian house are scanty
and obscure; yet we need no psychology to fill up in imagination the early
years of the African deliverer. Did not the official class resume, in the new
security, the old habits of dictation ? Was not the encroachment on central
authority, intermitted in the terror of Phocas' suspicious rule, resumed and
extended ? There must have been a il political contest"
of the highest importance between monarchy and civil u
feudalism," which is a worse form than the blunt but straightforward rule
of the strong arm. Heraclius, in his design to shift the seat of government,
desired to remove himself and the il Roman " traditions
(little more was left) from the unpatriotic and costly misrule of the Bureaux,
from the peril of the local militia. Disintegration had already so far set in,
that it did not at first seem to matter whether the fragments of empire were
conveyed or entombed ! Africa had set the example of insurrection; and although
his arrival
Position of
Heraclius
insecure.
Officials, army, provinces: their
disaffection.
was a welcome
relief, it was not forgotten that a “ foreign ” conqueror had occupied the
throne, and brought with him a band of foreign supporters.
Various types
and hints of the mutinous spirit presented themselves ; the Eastern heretical
sects, Egypt, Naples and John Compsa, the Exarchate and Eleutherius, Rome and
the pontiff, even the “ prerogative tribe ” itself, the Carthaginian province.
The armies of Rome were reduced to a dangerous private legion in Cappadocia,
and the African levies which were loyal to Heraclius. Cappadocia, indeed, could
boast of being the native land of both Maurice and his murderer; and the tie
which bound these provincial regiments to Priscus was (as we saw in the text)
feudal and personal. Indeed, we may find in them some parallel to that Isaurian
brigade which under Leo I. and Zeno (467-491) might form a useful counterpoise
to Teutonic predominance, but roused a dangerous civil war under Anastasius.
The ideal ruler of Priscus, their commander, was also the ideal of the now
reviving civilian circles; a gentle and inaccessible sovereign, confined in his
palace like the king of the Mossyni, bearing the whole weight of an autocracy
which he did not exercise, the whole brunt of the odium he had not deserved.
Quite like a mediaeval baron, Priscus bluntly expresses his surprise at the
emperor's visit to his fastness; a he had no business to quit
his capital and visit the outlying detachments of troops." So in modern
China, we can picture the resentment of a viceroy, hitherto a petty sovereign
in his sphere, if a regular system of imperial visit and progress were to be
established. The u Mandarinat ” (if I may continue the
suggestive parallel) of Byzantium equally resented the personal command of the
sovereign in a distant war. With ready foresight they presaged the extinction
of their influence, the suppression of their posts. If the new emperor threw in
his lot with the military element and pur-
sued with
success a vigorous policy, their reign was Officials, over. Heraclius, who in
these strange years of a*^inces- dormant energy had
never relinquished his design their of restoration, recovered control over the
feudal disaffection. retinue of Priscus by guile and an adventurous appeal,
over the civilian bureaux who surrounded and stifled him, by forming a new
alliance,—with the wealth and growing influence of the Church.
§
2. The Senate still treats with the foreign foe Senate as in ancient times. It
had proscribed Vitalian .
under
Anastasius, and it negotiated with the Persian prerogative
general. The
text is to be found in the Paschal reasf^rted
, . , „ ,,
„ during wars.
Chronicle;
and it is clear that in A.D. 618 the Byzantine government was a Venetian
oligarchy, with a Doge first among his peers ; or perhaps a Spartan aristocracy
in a peaceful interlude when the military power of the kings was in abeyance.
It is sent from “rulers” (tw
apyovTuv wav), and it seeks to lay blame on Phocas and exonerate Heraclius. It
preserves a semblance of Roman pride with a significant alloy of religious
pietism; it is not the Persian valour which has robbed the realm of its finest
provinces, but the righteous indignation of Heaven.
Already
appear traces of this triple alliance of Emperor, Church, and Army, which
revives the fainting spirit of the State, gives a loftier sanction to
patriotism, wins back the lost, and strikes the foe in his hiding-place : makes
a soldier’s death the prize of martyrdom (arrefpos \d/3cojui.ev jmapTvpcov),
and tones the military bluntness with metaphysical ideals (Constantine IV. and
the appeal for a trinity of emperors). Reinforced by this potent support,
Heraclius is able in two decisive measures to abolish the “political” bread
(which pauperised a seditious capital), to acquire funds from the one wealthy
corporation that remained, and to proclaim a Holy War.
We must not
forget that the position which Heraclius was summoned to occupy bore a painful
resemblance to the majestic impotence of a mediaeval
Senate resumes influence: prerogative reasserted
during wars.
Dependence of Heracliads on Senate.
king. There
was no army beyond his own retinue, and a suspected provincial force under a
leader to whom he was too much indebted; there were no funds in the treasury;
and there was no public spirit or opinion. His great stroke of diplomacy
created these three indispensable factors of recovery in a national crisis. The
interested and privileged were terrified by his proposal to sail for Carthage,
and being sobered by the threat lent help; the patriarch, whose influence
depended on imperial choice, not on hallowed associations, became the financier
and banker of the great scheme. After some expostulation, Heraclius was
permitted to head the army in person and revert to the strictly “ imperatorial
” tradition, in abeyance for more than two centuries. He leaves the regency to
the now dutiful Senate, with the Patriarch Serge and the Patrician Bonus. When
we ask for the actual achievement of Heraclius, we are at first in a dilemma:
he seems to lose more than he wins back. But he recovers Asia Minor, and Roman
tradition banished from Illyricum and Pannonia, once fruitful in princes, is to
find a home there. Et m yap fHjoa/cAeio?
ovk av rjv Aecoi/. The solid,
continuous, and opulent territory was formally reunited to the centre; and we
have noticed that Leo's Byzantine monarchy is strictly territorial, and
dismisses distant rights and prerogative, of which the meaning is already
forgotten or obscured in the rising gloom.
§ 3. The few
years after the death of Heraclius I. are the brief Indian summer of senatorial
prestige. This body assumes the arbitrament of affairs and settles the
succession. Martina summons a conclave of Senate and Patriarch to approve the
will of Heraclius, in its way as strange as the testament of Maurice. But the
people, who are also publicly consulted in the Hippodrome, refuse to sanction a
divided throne and a female regency. Before the clamour of the mob Martina has
to yield, like
another
Agrippina. The reign of Heraclius Con- Dependence stantine II. was suspiciously
short, and rumour ofHeracliads accused Martina of poison. At last, with
Heraclius III. °n Senate' and David Tiberius III., she sat on the
throne, only to be soon exiled with tongue slit, in company with her son with
nose cut. This unique and legitimate penalty imposed by a Senate on an emperor
and empress-dowager is veiled in darkness. We may perhaps suspect a strong
religious influence behind the Senate in this matter. Fiery monks made the most
of Heraclius' incestuous alliance with a niece ; and pointed to the little
Constantine (whom we call Constans II. or III.) as “seized" of the sole
right to rule. No doubt his childish hand signed the warrants for this
mutilation, and he professes his gratefulness and allegiance to the Senate in
language which deserves to be cited : “ My father Constantine reigned for a
long time with Heraclius, my grand- sire, but after him for a very brief space.
For a stepmother’s jealousy abruptly severed all this excellent promise, and
dismissed him from life. And this crime she wrought for the sake of her own
son, born in unholy wedlock with Heraclius. But her and her son your most
righteous vote under Heaven has cast from the throne, so that we may not look
upon the empire of the Romans as most villainous and contrary to all law ; for
to prevent this is the especial care of your worshipful and honourable
assembly. Wherefore, I beseech you to lend me your aid as my councillors and
judges of the common weal of the subjects." (}(jotjcrroTaTag eXirlSag o
jULtjTpvlag (pOovog (TuvSiaTjui^ag tov anTrjKXa^ev . . . i)v /uLaXiarra /j.6Ta
tov T6fcvov rj v/merepa crvv \jstj(pog
Trjg fiacriXelag
Sucaloog
e£e{3aXev, 7rpog to /mt] ISeiv iicvojuLooTaTOV t*]v fiacriXelav 'Pco/ialcov.
Tovto julglXcl iyvooKvia % vjueTepa v7rep(pvfjg <TefjLV07rp€7reia.. A to
TrapcucaXw vfxag eyeiv crv/i- BovXovg k. yvco/uLOvag ttjg KOtvtjg tgov
virrjicoadv crcoTtiplag, Theophanes ad ann., 642.) In translating the somewhat
obscure words of the young prince, I am
Dependence inclined to attach more weight than Dr.
Bury to Ini^enate^8 ^erms ^vo/iurraTOV
. . . and jmaXa eyvwKvia. It is recognised (and the old Latin version agrees)
that the maintenance of law and precedent is the true province and function of
the Senate. It was their duty to keep the succession pure, and not allow a
monstrous hybrid to usurp the throne. “ This is the special decision or resolve
of your noble House.” Autocracy § 4. We can only judge of the policy and
success Cmltans* remarkable prince by
indirect evidence. We
(650):
are forced to suppose that before he left the capital armies and to consolidate
his western dominions, he had reduced priests. senatorial
predominance and reorganised Asia,—
in a word,
established a military and “thematic'' administration under personal control.
The Senate as an independent body disappears. The ministers who with individual
or corporate influence controlled his childhood vanish and leave no
successors. It has been noticed that the middle years of the seventh and eighth
century alike are under a strong Constantine, and that both suffer unduly at
the hands of clerical historians. When the “Occiden- tation ” of our Constans
(if I may use the term) sends him on a last pilgrimage of a Roman emperor to
his aged and crumbling capital, he is acting in exact reverse to his greater
namesake of the il Isaurian ” line, who seems careless of the
West and the elder Rome. But Constans is the pioneer, born before his time, of
the Erastian or Iconoclastic movement. His attitude to the dogmatic questions
which agitated that singular society, and gave it a semblance of intellectual
interest, was strangely candid and free from bigotry. His aim was political
rather than religious in attempting to unify and concentrate Church teaching.
In the attainable truth of speculation he was indifferent, if not, like
Constantine V., openly derisive. The struggle is now not with a privileged
class of officials, rather with a body of refined ecclesiastical opinion ;
which having once entered
into alliance
with the sovereign in the Persian wars, Autocracy sought to retain him in
permanent tutelage. Neither the African nor the “ Syrian ” house was
sympathetic (650): towards this belated Hellenism. Finlay may bear™iesand
correct or merely fanciful in suggesting that thepnest8'
11 Roman ” Empire ended in the
fall of the Heracliads, and that Leo III. opens the Byzantine epoch properly
so called. But the spirit of the Iconoclasts is above all things Roman in the
true sense ; and their natural yet practical and worldly piety swept away the
cobwebs of dialectic, and tore the ascetic from his dreamy lair. This hostile
attitude towards orthodoxy marks both Constantines, whose aims seem so unlike,
yet were so much akin. The ecclesiastical influence succeeds civilian or
ministerial control; and issues in strange forms when it reaches the lowest and
most ignorant order in the State. We may believe the mutiny of the “ Anatolies ”
to represent
the new and self-conscious importance of the provincial armies, or a rising
engineered by a crafty priesthood, to thwart by parcelling out the central
authority. It may look backward to the German armies of Vitellius marching
southward to occupy the capital, or forward into the superstition of the Middle
Ages. But in any event the incident is curious, and I venture to note it with
some care as an evidence of both these tendencies,—as a proof of the new
alliance of the soldier and the monk, against a power which demanded the
subordination of Army and Church alike to the impersonal State: for Constantine
IV. is fighting against the clerical feudalism of the West. The story is told
by Theophanes (who copies the lost part of John Malala ?), with the naive and
impressive coolness of the typical chronicler: ol Se tov OefiaTos toov ’
AvcltoXikwv [first reference in Theophanes] tjXOov ev Xpvcro7r6\ei
XeyovTeg otl eig Trjv TpiaSa TTKTTevofiev' tovs rpeis (TTey^/ccjuLev.
’ETapa^Orj
O JtLcWO-TaVTlVOS OTL flOVO? yv €(TT€/ULfJL€VO$ OL
Se CL§eX(pol ovSejulav a^lav €?y(ov} k. airo<TT€t\a$ OeoStopov ttaTpUiov
The military revolt (670): armies and priests.
Imperial prestige under C. IV. (680).
tov
KoXcovelag eTpOTrwcraTO avTOvg, eiraLvecrag avTOvg. Kai e'Aafiev Ta irpcoreia
avrcov tov aveXOeiv ev Ty tto\ei k. fiera Ttjg 2vyK\riT0v /3ov\evcracr0ai k,
7roit}crai to 6e\t]]Uia avTcov. Eu0ea>9 Se o /3aa-i\evg avTovg e(povpKicrev
avTiirepav ev IZvKais, k. tovto eigqXQov ev oSvvrj elg Ta iSia. o avTov
eppLvoKO'7rt](7€v. The narrative of Zonaras is but a classical re-writing of
this simple story. We may notice one or two points of interest: (i) The religious
motive of the sedition ; (2) the guileful policy of the emperor, who can only
get his way by craft, like Heraclius I. in the matter of Butelinus or Priscus,
or like Severus Alexander himself, who can only punish military leaders by a
delusive honour ; (3) the consultation of the Senate, which, whether to decide
of itself or merely ratify a sovereign's decision, is always to the fore in the
matter of disputed succession. We may note that the two brothers were actually
associated with Constantine IV., appear together on coins, and receive jointly
the letter of Pope Agatho. It is therefore not unfair to style them Heraclius
IV. and Tiberius IV.; and thus six rulers of this once detested name held the
honours at least of empire in Byzantium, while usurpers assumed it like the
titles Antoninus or Flavius to secure allegiance.
§ 5. The
attentive enmity which looked askance at the Heraclian family was distracted by
the Mahometan siege of the capital, the success of Constantine IV., the
tributary vassalage of the Caliphate, and the marvellous recovery throughout
East and West alike of imperial prestige. Distant Indian tribes had sent gifts
and felicitations to Heraclius after his Persian triumph ; and now, although
Spain was lost, envoys come with tribute and homage from Lombard and Italian.
Even in that dull age there is clearly some dim recognition of the new and beneficent
role of the empire. The city of Constantine was nearer an acknowledged hegemony
over Western
ISoVTeg
K. K<XTaiO"XyvQ€VT€$ Se fiaarikevs tovg
aSe\(povg
Europe than
she will ever be again. Not yet have Imperial the exploits of Charles Martel
and the alliance of papal ^de^C IV Rome and the Franks turned attention to the
newer (680). champion of Christendom. The loss of Spanish seaports did little
harm to the imperial tradition ; and the historians of Gaul and Spain still
turn loyal and admiring glances Eastwards. Isidorus, writing of the Gothic
monarchy which supplanted the empire, speaks as if the sovereignty, still
belongs to the latter; the kingship is a subordinate lieutenancy; u
fruiturque hactenus inter regis infulas et opes largas Imperii felicitate
secura.” When for the second time under the Herac- liad dynasty the Caliphate
pays rather than receives tribute, and John the Patrician, called Pitzigaudes,
has successfully arranged a lasting peace (apyaioyevris, says Theophanes, rJj?
'iroXiTelag k. iro\vireipo<s . . . irKarelav eip^vtjv (j)iiXaTTecrOcu), the
allegiance of the Occident revives : Tavra juaOovre? oi ra 'J^cnrepia oikovvtg?
jULeptj, o Te Xayayo? tcov ’A/3apcov k. oi eire/cava prjyes efcapyoi re k.
yacrTaXSoi k. oi i^o^coraTOi tcov irpog Tr\v Svcriv iOvcov, Sia Trpecr/3evTcov
Soopa rw fiaaikei crre/X- avTej €ipt]viKtjv Trpo$ avTOvg ayairriv KvpooOrjvai
flTyaravTO;
ouv
o B. ra?? avTcov aiTYjarecriv etcvpooare kcu irpb<s avTOvs SecnroTiKtjv
eip^vrjv. Kaf iyeveTO ajmepijuLvla /neyaXt] iv re 777 ’AvaToXfl k. iv t%
Avarei. In the version of Anas- tasius the last phrases run : u
Annuens itaque postula- tionibus eorum confirmavit etiam circa illos donatoriam
pacem} et facta est securitas magna in Oriente nec non in
Occidente."—Yet the duel was only suspended, not j. n. hostile settled:
the reign of Justinian II. recalls the earlier Caesars in their suspicion and
arbitrary treatment of the higher, that is, the official class. For the first
time we read of bad ministers, like Tigellinus or Cleander, of illegal
penalties, imprisonments, confiscations,—among which, perhaps, the most
notable was the whipping of Anastasia, the empress-mother, by Stephen the
Persian, chief eunuch or Kisla Agha of the palace (tov Se fiaarikecos
cnroSt)jut.r]ardvTO$ /careroX- jmrjarev o aypios 6rjp iK€ivog . . . Tt)V
At)yovcrTav irai-
J. II. hostile to official class (690).
Imperial control of finance.
SiKcog
Sl aftlvoov juLacrTiyajaai, loris vel habenis verberare). This minister is
represented as a truly Egyptian taskmaster for the public works on which the
emperor, true to the tradition of his name, had set his mind (Toy? fJLev
oirepas atKi^eiv ovk tjpiceiTO aXXa k. Xi6o/3oXeiv avTovs re k. Tovg
ema-TaTas;). He incurred the detestation of the “ civil ”
class and made the emperor detested (e*V airav to itoXltlkov irXtjOos iroAAa
kclkol evSeij'dju.evos julictijtov tov BacnAea 7re7rolt]K€v ... SO below of
Theodotus, hryvfyae to /iiaros tov Xaov irpos tov B.). Theodotus, once a
cloistered abbot of Thrace on Propontis (a/3/3a? . . . eyKXeta-Tos . .. ev
tois Gpaicwois tov ottcvov juLepecTi), persecutes the wealthy and official
class; extracts money by suspending over burning straw (TrXelcrTovg t?? iroXiTelag
apyovTa<$ k. e/uHpaveig avSpag . . . ayypou.7 v7roKa7rvll£tov). Two
points are to be noticed in this new and unhappy phase of the imperial “ war against
private wealth ” and independent social influence—the two culprits,
Stephen the chief eunuch and Theodotus the ex-abbot, were Ministers of Finance;
the one 'ZcuceXXdpiog corresponded to the older title, comes rerum privatarum;
and the other was appointed to the general care of the revenues, et? to. tov
yeviicov XoyoOecrlov irpayiJ.aTai answering to the duties of the
comes sacrarum largi- tionum.
Now it would
appear that among the silent changes in official name or function during
Heraclius' reign, the terms Sacellarius and Logothetes supplanted the earlier
forms which had been in use since the days of Constantine. And il
Sacellarius ” is at first an ecclesiastical office; so it is used, e.g., of
Thomas, “ deacon and bursar/' consecrated Patriarch on the death of Cyriac in
the reign of Phocas. Under Heraclius, some twenty-five years later, it is used
without further comment of a certain Theodorus who is despatched with Baanes, il
with great force," against the Arabs at Edessa, and chases them to Damascus.
If we turn to Nicephorus we find this
more explicit
statement: crrpaTriybv 1A.vaTo\rjq £k- Imperial irejUL7rei
GeoScopov tcov fia(riXiK(hv xprj/jLarcov Tajxlav T°v
fi^an^e ewiKXriv TpiOupiov. Suidas (s.v. Justinian) gives him the same title,
and it seems clear that in the growing preoccupation with matters religious and
ecclesiastical, the “Sacred Home" of the emperor borrowed a clerical
designation for his steward. The ordinary revenue and general care of finance
fell to the new office of “ Logothete,” accountant rather than comptroller
(for the Heraclians were their own ministers of the Exchequer and lords of the
Treasury). Both Suidas and Nicephorus call him tcov Stj/nocrtcov Xoyio-Triv ov
to SrjjULwSeg XoyoOeTrjv yeviKbv e7ro/j7<rei/ = appellavit.
Zonaras (who
is clearly engaged in finding an elegant paraphrase for the rude, common
narrative which lies behind all these writers) has of Stephen, aaKeXXapm
TrpoepXr}Or}y and of “ Theodosius ” (as he styles the monk)
yevucov o B. TrpoefiaXeTO.—The other point is the illegal exactions (ebcrj k.
hirpoipaarta’Tco^ a.7raiTweig k. eKTayag k. Stj/mevareig iroiov/ULevos) in
which Theodotus revelled: it is expressly remarked that his victims were the
inhabitants of the capital not the revenue-agents (ovk Ik tcov SioiKtjTcov
/ulovov aXXa k. €K tcov TJ79 TroXecog oiKrjTopcov). Here Nicephorus renders the
latter by rou? vir’ avTov, either his own bailiff who could not make up the proper
amount or, widely, those under his direct jurisdiction. Clearly his authority
was arbitrarily extended to those normally outside its scope.
§ 6. I have
dwelt at length on this remarkable Ministerial illustration of the new methods
of government, and have perhaps unduly encroached on a section set revolt of
apart for considering the ministers or Bureaux of the ^^^owof later empire. But
the whole passage (in the general centralpower. obscurity) sheds a flood of
light upon the unhappy relations of prince and people, which fiscal exaction
and ministerial irresponsibility were creating. We must complete the picture by
disclosing the discreditable duties of the urban prefect: o eirapxog
Ministerial irresponsibility : revolt of magnates:
overthrow of central power.
tii
f3a(Ti\iKij KeXevcrei 7r\ei<7T0u$ avSpag ev elpKTais KarcucXelarag hn
%povovg ( = for many years) rrjpelcrOai 7T€7roir]ice. When Leontius, General of
Greece, opened the Praetorium, released the prisoners, and so overpowered
Justinian (a.d. 695),
this typical “ Bastille ” was found full of notable men and soldiers (rovg
KaOeipy/uLevov? avSpag 1roXkovs k. yevvalovg airo k. oktco yjpovwv
iyK€K\ei(TjUL€vov$, <ttpar hot as Tovg 7r\elova$ TvyyxLvovTas). It seems
evident thatZonaras is led astray when he says, Tag StjjuLoarLag Siapptj^ag
eipKTas. The revolution with its curious watchwords, “All Christians to Saint
Sophia,” “ This is the day which the Lord hath made," was by no means
unpopular; but in origin and plan it was strictly aristocratic. It did not aim,
as in old days, at the abolition of debt, the arming of slaves, the liberation
of common criminals. Indeed, the Praetorium was not the receptacle for ordinary
misdemeanants; nor was lengthy incarceration a favourite penalty either with
ruler or subject. These prisoners confined for six or eight years (Leontius
himself had been detained for three) comprised suspected aristocrats only.—The
nominal cause of the rebellion is significant either of the wildness of popular
rumour or the real madness which had seized the last Heracliad, as it seized
Caius or Caracalla. He had ordered a general massacre of the city population,
beginning from the Patriarch !—that Patriarch Callinicus who had, after a
protest, meekly acquiesced in the demolition of a church with the words, Glory
to God, who is always longsuffering! (aveypiJLevw iravTOTe). Two monks, friends
of Leontius, are prime movers, and Callinicus comes into the baptistery, where
the people had assembled, to give a religious sanction and a Scripture text to
the insurrection. Thus the event of 695, with all its dismal consequence, was a
noble and a clerical movement (though behind it lay the military influence of a
late general of the Anatolies) ; it betrays the unpopularity of the
stern and
wilful emperor. The mob of the capi- Ministerial tal and the official class
were about to throw off ir™sponsi-
oiittv *
the yoke.
Like Jeshurun, they had prospered and revolt of grown comfortable. Twenty-two
years of dis- magnates: order must elapse before they again
acknowledge"*^^!, a ruler; and this episode is important enough to merit
special treatment. We may here dismiss the general political tendencies under
the later Hera- cliads. Justinian II. is loudly accused of upsetting his father's
foreign and domestic policy (Niceph., ra viro tov iraTpos Trj<s
elpr}vrj<$ eveica, k. tjJ? aWy?
7ro\iTucrj$ evTa^las /3pa/3ev6evTa SiecrTpecpe.
Zonaras, avro/3ov\o)$ Tfl Siouctfcrei Ke^prj/aevos ttoXXoi? tt]v *Pto/mala)]/
rjyeiuLovlav kclkois itepiefiaXev, xiv. 22). We will not here discuss the
wisdom of his haughty behaviour to the Caliphate. He certainly estranges the
support of the Church and the nobility (now largely warlike in temper), and
thus a union of the two influences, joined by the fickle mob, was fatal in a
moment to a dynasty which had ruled with glory for eighty- five years. This “
round" in the long encounter ended disastrously for the central power ;
and the work of rebuilding is all to be done anew by the next house.
§ 7* I cannot
leave the Heracliads without noticing Triumph the curious and fanciful
speculations of Finlay upon (1°?) °fthe
ClVllldfl O/fLQj
the “
Extinction of the Roman power." To him, the official Roman Empire really
ends with Justinian II., and oligarchy. the rest of our period is buried in
pure Byzantinism.
Heraclius
must have “ regarded himself as of pure Roman blood ”; and this century
witnesses the gradual decay of the “ few remains of Roman principles of
administration/' The aristocracy lose the memory of former days and a nobler
tradition. A long and violent struggle is carried on between emperor and
nobles, t( representing the last degenerate remains of the
Senate ” ; so “ counsels are distracted and energy paralysed." It began
under Maurice, and underlay the whole history of the
Triumph (700) of the civilian and official
oligarchy.
Heraclian
house. This opposition was more Oriental than Roman in character ; and it was “
imbued with the semi-Hellenic culture, which had grown up during the Macedonian
supremacy.” Both Heraclius and Constans III., in their scheme of removing the
capital to Carthage, Rome, or Syracuse, had endeavoured to curtail its
dangerous and anti-Roman power. They entertained the vain hope of reforming the
republic “ on a purely Roman basis,” so as “ to counteract the power of the
Greek nationality, which was gaining ground in Church and State.” The contest
ended in the “destruction of all influence that was purely Roman.” The result
was to establish a “mere arbitrary despotism,” differing little from the
familiar Eastern type, and to upset all those “ fundamental institutions ” and
that systematic character, which had so often enabled the State to rise
superior to the accident of a Nero or a Phocas. —Such in brief outline is the
view propounded in a retrospect of the seventh century. And the historian
seeking illumination in the darkness can only be grateful for the boldness of
such a venturesome pioneer. But the estimate is coloured, and perhaps
corrupted by an exaggerated meaning attached to the terms Macedonian, Roman,
Greek. He is tempted to give to the Hellenes of the days of Justinian and
Heraclius the same acute self-consciousness and national solidarity, as he was
fain to discover in their descendants during the war of Liberation and under
the Bavarian Protectorate. He is continually whetting our curiosity by hints of
the unanimous and precise public opinion which arrayed itself consciously
against Roman rule. This thesis cannot be maintained ; I need not here repeat
the arguments. It is impossible to see the same irreconcilable and united front
shown to Byzantine monarch as to later Turkish Sultan. I am well aware of the
existence of disaffected and indeed disintegrating elements; but they were not
solid or self-
conscious,
and they were certainly not exclusively Triumph Hellenic. Nor was the Senate of
Byzantine patricians (7.°?) °fthe really imbued with a
tradition of aloofness and Official opposition borrowed from the older Roman
Curia ; oligarchy. nor with a Macedonian culture;—nor finally with a pure
Hellenic orthodoxy in the matter of religious belief.—The empire had created a
ruling and official class, far more open and democratic than exists today in
Western Europe, except perhaps in France ; but rapidly acquiring the features
of a powerful caste, almost of a hereditary noblesse. A period of security
following successful wars will increase the conceit and pretensions of such a
close corporation. And into it was drawn or drained all riches and ability and
all religious influence; for the patriarch and the monk are integral factors in
the situation. Justinian II. had tried unwisely to humble this official pride ;
but the emperor and his immediate and personal executive stood isolated, and he
had lost the early popular affections which had so often supported persecuting
sovereigns against the Senate. The aristocracy, neither Greek nor Macedonian
nor Roman, but just a natural product of an orderly State, triumphs on this
signal occasion ; and the monarchy suffers eclipse for quite a quarter of a
century. One point only need we add ; the new nobility is largely militant, the
profession of arms revives once more, and the Byzantine aristocrat does not
lurk in a Bureau, but serves in the Thematic regiments. Elsewhere we must trace
the vitality of the military element; here we will say in bidding farewell to
an obscure but memorable epoch, that the Heraclians fell before the
machinations of an aristocracy which had drawn to itself the strength of civil
and warlike virtue, and was reinforced by the religious sympathy and active
support of the clerical world.
VOL. II.
G
Benefits conferred by the
Isaurians: perils of Elective Monarchy.
PERIOD OF ANARCHY AND REVIVAL OF CENTRAL POWER UNDER ARMENIAN AND
MILITARY INFLUENCE
A. The Rejected Candidates (695-717)
§ 1. The half-century covered by the reigns of Leo III. and his son
Constantine V. was without doubt the most critical period in Byzantine, perhaps
in European, history. These two princes, standing out clearly from a grey
background as rulers and personalities, deferred for seven centuries the
triumph of Islam in Constantinople. They restored solidity to an incoherent
realm formed of detached patches without continuous tradition or territory.
They gave back dignity to the central authority. Since the death of Justinian
I., this had been helpless or quiescent; or else had struggled against the
forces of separatism, armed with great social influence ; or (as the sole
condition of a temporary power) appealed to a scanty remnant of “ national ”
spirit, and proclaimed a Holy War to save the commonwealth and its creed.
Throughout Byzantine history the home- government takes its colour and temper
from foreign circumstances. Left in peace without, the administration moves
along of itself on the archaic grooves. Like any other civilised society whose
aim it is to preserve the past, not to destroy the present, it was exposed to
the various frailties and abuses which beset peaceful States. Wealth centred in
the hands of a few ; privilege could defy the uniform and equitable action of
law; office became a prize; and the members of the hierarchy protected each
other and set a gulf between the rulers and the ruled.
The sinews of
the State were relaxed; barbarians Benefits fought its battles and the
commonalty became eorferred by pauperised or enslaved. From time to time,
the isaurians: empire was awakened from this corrupt and drowsy
perils of torpor by real peril. It became once more a camp Monarchy. of honest
and hard-working soldiers under a chosen and approved leader. The minor
figures, the irresponsible courtier, the obstinate permanent official, retire
into obscurity; and we once more read of the designs, the exploits, the
failures of the hero. Such a crisis had arisen in the reign of Phocas; such a
revival had occurred under Heraclius and his house.
The State had
no time to sink into a slovenly peace, when the misrule of Justinian II. and
the “twenty years' anarchy " blotted out the beneficial recovery of the
Heraclian age and gave some able soldier the whole task to do over again. On
the extinction of a recognised line, power went back again to its original
source; the people resumed the forfeited right and reissued it. The years of
turmoil between the first dethronement of Justinian and the accession of Leo
were by no means ill-spent. If a State determines that its titular head shall
be also its generalissimo and chief administrator, if it starts with the
curious democratic presumption that any man of any rank ought to be able to
rise to this height, the discovery of this best man must needs be a violent and
a costly process. The leadership of a herd is settled by a combat, brute force,
or craft. The presidency of a republic falls either to a general who “
pronounces'' against a corrupt government of chicanery, or to an obscure and
harmless nominee who is agreed upon by compromise. Or again, as in the United
States, the prize is won by a genuine effort of popular interest, and business
is suspended every five years that the State may choose its premier.
The theory of
elective monarchy is, like many theories, unassailable by logic: if men are
equal and merit alone should be rewarded, tried com-
petence alone
hold sway, the first place, whether c™ferred b!J
of dignity or responsibility, should be thrown open
Isaurians: perils of Elective Monarchy.
to all. No
sacrifice of domestic peace should be grudged if the best man can be secured.
In practice, it is the most abnormal and conspicuously unsuccessful form of
government: it is unintelligible to the vast majority of mankind, who are
patrimonialists, never understanding a divided and impersonal control. It
rouses the fires of envy and jealousy against triumphant merit (which in the
happiest and most virtuous community is always unpopular). Yet at times this
struggle to secure the best man has been an indispensable expedient, especially
where the State is no longer a safe and continuous realm of peace and order,
but an oasis in the desert, an island threatened on all sides by the sea and
often nearly submerged. Uncertainty as to the fundamental character of the
chief office ran through the imperial history of Rome. Was Augustus a military
leader, or the president of a free State ? or was he some untrained youth to
whom rank and power came as a birthright ? No final answer was at any time
forthcoming. No definite status was ever formally allotted to him ; and on his
shoulders the whole weight rested, the credit or discredit, the success or
failure. We can trace without difficulty how the balance swung at different
times in favour of the dictatorship, the civil presidency, the patrimony. But
the three were never expressly discriminated; and this doubtful character marks
the entire record.
§ 2. A prince
born in the purple, like his forefathers for three generations, had been tried
and found wanting. Justinian II. enjoys with Michael V. the rare distinction of
dethronement by the popular voice. It is often difficult in other transfers of
the throne to detect the real feeling of the people, or the inclination of the
still powerful populace of the capital. But as to the downfall of Justinian
there could be no mistake. Leontius (who
The
believed the
emperor's commission as governor of The Hellas was a death-warrant) presented
himself just at the right moment, and was at once a popular ’ favourite. With
consummate ease the bloodless revolution of 695 was effected. Neither the State
prison nor the tyrant's palace was properly guarded.
The
illustrious captives were set free by a transparent ruse; the palace entered
by a few hundred determined men. No resistance was offered and Leontius was
lenient to the prostrate emperor. Once more a general of tried experience had
ousted an effete stock; the rules had been strictly observed in one of the
approved methods of changing sovereigns. The sole event of Leontius' brief
reign was the African war, in which Carthage was captured, recovered, and lost
again. Leontius might well have used the humorous words of an old commander in
the third century: u You have lost a good general and gained a very
indifferent emperor." He had fought bravely in the early years of
Justinian II.; but he could not leave his uncertain throne ; and John, a eunuch
and patrician, after a first success, was forced to retreat in disgrace. In
Crete the troops mutiny, laying their disgrace to their general or the emperor.
Absi- marus, “governor of Cilicia" (Abulpharagius), drun- gaire of the
Cibyraeot Theme (at that time exercising his marine supervision at Corycus), is
saluted emperor, and a Gotho-Greek is seated on the throne of the Caesars.
John is massacred ; the foreign guards at Blachern Wall are bribed; the city is
taken ; Leontius deposed and sent noseless to a monastery, and his partisans
are whipped and exiled. The new emperor began a reign of great promise. He
placed his brother Heraclius in command of all the Asiatic troops, now almost
entirely cavalry; he is fiovoerrpaTriyos TravTcov tu>v KafiaXapiKcov Ge/martov (Theoph.), or (TTparrjyog rod ’AvcltoXikov arparov (Niceph.). He
relies only on his own family, and he is justified in his choice. In a war of
revenge, Heraclius penetrates into Com-
The magene and
slays 200,000 Moslems : later in 703 he
695ll698nS *w*ce
defeats Azar in Cilicia, in the second engagement accounting for 12,000 men.
But in the failure of a direct successor or a recognised line, the throne was
within the grasp of any one, however obscure, who had the hardihood to seize
it. An Armenian Bardanes (or Vardan), son of a patrician Nicephorus, but
otherwise without repute, believed the promise of soothsayers and attempted a
rising. He was shorn and banished to Cephallenia. Justinian II. now returns by
the aid of Terbelis “ Caesar/' king of the Bulgarians; just as later we shall
see this very Bardanes supported by the Khazars, and Leo III. himself saluted
emperor by the infidel troops of Maslema before the walls of Amorium.
Vengeance of § 3. With this unhappy return of a
madman the reStored% recuperative process is
arrested throughout the (710). empire.
Heraclius, the gallant defender of the
eastern
frontier (if such can still be said to exist) is seized in Thrace and hung ;
his death leaves Asia Minor open to assault, and Justinian is too busy with his
personal vengeance to attend to the defence of his realm. It is difficult to
know who supported the mad emperor during his restoration (705—711), after he
had quarrelled with his new and disgraceful allies. Six years are filled with
cruelty at home and defeat abroad. His only enemies were his own subjects. The
capture of Tyana by the Saracens placed all Asia Minor at their mercy. One band
of armed raiders insolently advanced to Chrysopolis and returned scathless
loaded with booty. Justinian was defeated in person (708) by Terbelis, shocked
at the treatment which his insane son-in-law meted to his own subjects. The two
incredible punitive expeditions against Ravenna and Cherson completed the
picture of the reign and filled up the cup of Justinian. Against this latter
city, to which the Roman Empire honourably preserved autonomy till the middle
of the next century, he is said to have despatched
a monstrous
armada of 100,000 men. Elias a Vengeance of
spathaire commands them, and carries with him Bar- Jusjim^n
r ' restored
danes from
Cephallenia to a safer and more distant (710). exile. Summary vengeance is
executed on the chief inhabitants for their treatment of the dethroned
Justinian ; but its comparative mildness exasperated the emperor, who
threatened the returning squadron with the same awful penalties they had been
too timid to inflict. He had now no supporters left; and his end was a mere
matter of time. His doom was perhaps delayed by the terrible storm which burst
over the returning convoys and buried 63,000 (if we can credit the enormous total)
under the waters of the Euxine. At this catastrophe, which must have denuded
the empire of half its troops,
Justinian
exulted, as if over a notable defeat of his enemies. The garrison and citizens
of Cherson, realising their common danger, now revolt: Elias refuses the
purple, Vardan the Armenian exile accepts, Revolt of the and takes the name
Philippicus. The Khazars help them to arrest and imprison a feeble force sent
by the furious prince ; and the expedition sets sail for the capital, and
overcomes a pretence at resistance.
Elias, whose
children Justinian had poniarded himself in their mother’s arms, had the
supreme satisfaction of cutting off his head and despatching the gory trophy to
Italy. Tiberius, the little son of Justinian by his Bulgarian spouse, already
associated in the empire, was cruelly put to death, and the most sanguinary
interlude in the whole of Byzantine history was over.
It cannot be
saidr that Vardan the Armenian justified his election as Philippicus. Of his
brief reign no event is recorded, save the dismal series of raids by Terbelis
on the North, by the Saracens on the East. A facile speaker, he never put his
thoughts or words into practice. Like many another parvenu, he believed the
chief dignity to be a place of pleasure and repose. Immersed in the
Revolt of the
Armenian
Vardan.
Civilians profit by shortsight of military
conspirators.
pleasures of
the circus or the table, he spent the hoards of the Heraclian house in foolish
waste. After seventeen months’ reign he was displaced by the most singular plot
in all Byzantine history.
§ 4. It is
the purpose of our inquiry, while passing lightly over the familiar historical
events and record of fruitless or successful campaigns, to attempt to grasp the
secret motive, the hidden incentive of the conspiracies or revolutionary
movements which from time to time altered the person or the ideal of Caesarism.
Family jealousy, a courtier’s intrigue, a general’s contempt, a people’s
indignation,—these are some of the causes which transferred the throne. But the
conspirators of the year 713 would seem animated by no spirit but righteous
anger at incompetence. They determined to remove the head of the State : they
made no provision, selfish or patriotic, for the appointment of a successor.
The ringleaders in this short-sighted plot were George Buraphus the patrician,
Count of the Obsician Theme, with Theodorus Myacius, also a patrician. With
incredible boldness they seemed to have despatched a sergeant and a few
soldiers to seize the emperor as best they could, and disqualify him for
holding office. With a facility equally incredible, the band entered the palace
unchallenged, found the emperor enjoying a drunken siesta, enveloped him in a
mantle, hurried him off to the changing-room (opvarovpiov) of the Green faction
in the Hippodrome, and deprived him of sight. Their mission over, the party
dispersed: when the unfortunate man was found late in the afternoon bewailing
his fate, neither the official class nor the public betrayed any sympathy,
consternation, elation, or regret. No one thought of insulting the fallen
prince or of defending his cause. He was quietly thrust into the background and
disappears from history. No one appeared to seize the vacant throne ; the city
was utterly unprepared for the plot, the conspirators for
its success.
There ensued a scene singular and Civilians perhaps unique in our history.
People, churchman pJ^l^yht 0f and magnate
meet in solemn conclave at Saint military Sophia’s ; and elect with unanimous
voice the Secre- conspirators. tary of State (irpwToacrriKpriTis) Artemius,
changing his name to an old and meritorious wearer of the purple, Anastasius.
The first act of a brief sovereignty, not altogether devoid of dignity or
merit, was the punishment of George and Theodore, whose amazing folly (or pure
unselfishness) had opened up the way to the throne : they lose their eyes, and
retire into exile at Thessalonica. Like Tiberius III. (Apsimar), Anastasius had
the makings of a capable sovereign. His election represented the triumph of the
civilians ; the military had struck Reprisals of home but could not follow up
the blow, and the ^odoshis fruits of the victory fell to the rival department.
hi.
It is useless
to speculate on the cause of this miscarriage. But for two years the military
leaders looked on and held their peace; and the ephemeral civilian was
overthrown by the same mutiny in the ranks that had overthrown Leontius
seventeen years before. Once more a fleet was despatched against the Saracens ;
this time to the east. Once more a commander named John became unpopular with
his men,—no doubt because being both a deacon and the imperial treasurer (yep.
\oyo6.) he represented in their eyes an enemy of the military caste. The
Obsician soldiers are the chief mutineers ; and it may well be that they had
not forgotten their leader's abortive attempt two years before. Returning to
the capital in disorder and without a captain, they seize on Theodosius, a
harmless tax-collector or revenue-officer, at Adramyttium, and half in sport
and delighted with his obvious shyness and terror, compel him to assume the
purple.
§ 5.
Theodosius had been reluctantly pushed into success which in his heart he
bitterly regretted.
The garrison
at the palace of Blachern had again
Striking success oj Leo III.: support of Islam.
proved venal
and had let in the Obsician malcontents, who were bent on avenging the failure
of 713. Anastasius II. retired to Nice and entrenched himself there ; after a
fight in which 7000 fell in civil war, he abdicates, takes orders, and retires
to Thessalonica. Then ensued a brief reign of pious incompetence ; the clergy
at home and the Bulgarians were propitiated by lavish gifts, the latter even
with some cession of Roman ground ; the Saracens invade under the Caliph's brother,
and advancing with impunity into the heart of Asia Minor, lay siege to Amorium.
Two linesmen from Germanicia in Commagene, Leo (Conon),Artavasdus, general of
the Armeniacs, make a compact to relieve the State. Just a century later there
will be a similar accord between three rough warriors, another Leo, Michael,
and Thomas. The critical state of the realm may be judged from the offer of
surrender to Maslema, which came from the people of the interior provinces ;
uncertain (amid the change of policy and continual forays) of which kingdom
they were subjects, they besought him to accept them as vassals (irapaKaXovvTe9
avrov Xafteiv avrovs). It is true that there is another side to the picture ;
on the institution of the kharidj\ known as capitation tax, among the Moslem,
many are said to have fled into the Roman State still orderly and moderately
rated. But at this time the Roman government was raising revenue from its
subjects without protecting them ; and the current of emigration set in the
other way. The officials of the capital knew that nothing was to be hoped from
the amiable usurper, everything to be feared from a resolute leader of troops.
Leo got rid of the half-friendly, half-hostile overtures of the Caliph's
brother, opened negotiations with the ministers, allowed Theodosius to retire
thankfully into clerical life at Ephesus, and won almost without a blow, a
murder, or a threat, the most important of all the civil wars of Rome.
It was clear
to all that unless a strong hand and a dynastic system came to the rescue, the
commonwealth would become the alternate prize of the wily courtier and the
bluff soldier,—or rather in turn the sport of the civilian and the
undisciplined troops. The strangest alliance in all Roman history decided the
fate of the empire. A Roman imperator is saluted by the Moslem who were
blockading him ; and the cry was caught up by the citizens of Amorium, wafted
to the capital, and echoed (though not without misgiving) in every heart. The
reign of the great Armenian heretics had begun.
§ 6. The
circumstances are singularly like those This
which
attended the elevation of the Flavian house development • r */■•
i - analogous
in the first,
of the African house of Severus at the to earlier
close of the
second, century. In Nero, Commodus, revolutions: Justinian II., we have the
ignorant, highly-strung, tradition overwrought purple-born, whose promising
career revived by ends in horror and ruin. We have the ship of State, Aliens™ ^
its born pilot proved incapable, rolling in the trough of the seas ; timid
hands stretch out to the helm ; and one after another is discarded with more or
less violence and damage. Then the man of the hour comes to the front and
rights the vessel which is nearly foundering. It took less than two years to discover
Vespasian, less than six months to bring in Severus. But the long-drawn agony
of the empire stretched after the first dethronement of Justinian into more
than twenty years. Yet the result in all three cases was the same; a soldier of
simple life, austere and puritan tastes, and fixed purpose, comes to reform a
moribund and useless government.
Caesarism
went back once more to the rudiments; tired of its caricature it sought a
genuine representative among the people. In a feudal country the chief place
would be a prize contended for by patrician families; in the more democratic
atmosphere of the empire, noble birth was perpetually on its trial, and when
it ceased to play its part
™s was ruthlessly ousted. The saviour of
society was
analogous1 a^ways
an upstart and a parvenu, sought out in
to earlier the
lowest ranks and trained in the school of want
rRoman°nS: anc* ac*versity.
The reign and policy of Leo the
tradition Armenian
are familiar to many who know little of
revived by the
obscurer parts of Byzantine history—a military,
7)16061(1718 CLTld
aliens. a
religious, and a legal reorganisation. The Roman memories and traditions were
not yet extinct. It was not too late to rekindle the sacred fires. It was
immaterial by whose hand the pious work was done. Dacian peasants had finished
their task from Maximin and Decius to Diocletian and Justinian. The pure Greek
race had always been excluded from the chief post; admirable bureaucrats (as
the Moslem found) and theologians, they could administer and codify, but could
not initiate or drive. The “ Roman ” government, even under the most religious
and orthodox emperors, was never really in sympathy with the great
ecclesiastical system which in turn supported, coerced, or cringed to it.
Something of the spirit of Diocletian is to be found in Leo; an intense
distrust of an imperium in imperio. He had the simple faith of a mountaineer;
somewhat later he would have been an Albigensian or a Huguenot : debarred from
political action, he might have been a Luther. Some see in him a Jew, a
Mahometan, or a Unitarian; he clearly represents an afterwave of that great
monotheistic revival which spread east and west from Arabia in the seventh
century. Yet he is a convinced and believing Christian, and his legislation
gives adequate proof of his sincerity.
B. Religious Reform and
Political Reorganisation (717-775)
Obscurity and § 1. From a literary point of view the
epoch of h‘Saurian’ Iconoclasts
is a wilderness ; our chief if not our
Annalists. sole authorities are Nicephorus the
patriarch and
that
confessor Theophanes who as a boy under Obscurity and Constantine V. mounted
those stupendous icebergs which enabled men to compute time by the Great
Annalists. Frost. Their tale is told by enemies and perhaps calumniators. It is
hard to reconcile the annals of two fierce yet incapable tyrants, persecuting
their own subjects and flying before the foe, with the actual revival to be
traced somewhat later in every branch of the administration and national life.
Can such a recovery be traced to the initiative of cowardly and cruel monsters,
enemies of all religion, as relentless as any pagan emperor before them in
heaping insult and torment on God's saints ? The legend certainly acquires
strength and circumstantial detail as time goes on : Nicephorus and Theophanes
say nothing of the burning of the Octagon Library ;
Zonaras and
Georgius repeat the story and add the incredible fact that guards stationed at
the doors saw to it that the professors perished with their parchments. Such a
war against the literati recalls a similar crusade by Tsin-Hwang-Ti (c. 212
B.C.), first emperor of united and centralised
China.
It may be
best to neglect the personal history of these two determined princes, to let
events and the later condition of the empire tell its own tale. The scheme to
keep the emperor a respectable nonentity (like a Merovingian or Japanese “
Mikado ” or Nepaulese prince) had broken down.
Bulgars on
one side, Arabs on the other, recalled to the affrighted Senate and
bureaucrats dim legends of the terrible days of Phocas and Heraclius, when
Avars and Persians had looked across the Propontis at each other’s camp-fires.
Anastasius II.
(a
clear-sighted and industrious civilian) had already begun to prepare for the
coming attack from Islam, Popular and no doubt Leo was indebted to his careful
provision, for which, like Solomon, he obtained all persmal the credit. Personal monarchy was restored in obe- Bule-
dience to the popular will; for democracy is a good
Popular approval at revival oj Personal Rule.
monarchist.
There are no ministers, no intrigues, no side-influences to chronicle during
these two reigns. The methods of Iconoclasm were direct; and Leo and
Constantine went straight to their aim. So strong, indeed, were they that they could
afford to despise a rising of many nobles and officials; and so intrepid that
they never hesitated to include them in a religious persecution. The great
Themes were divided out among four or five trusty followers or relatives, who
remained long in office,—exerting the full powers that a viceroy can only enjoy
under a centralised monarchy, feeling its way out of chaos towards a uniform
administration. We have almost complete records (so ironical or tantalising is
the muse of history) of the gradual estrangement and final rupture with the
Papacy and the West ; ample detail of the inconclusive attacks or forays of
Bulgarian and Caliph ; information far too full, minute, yet unconvincing, of
the war instituted against superstition and monkish celibacy. But the legal,
military, financial reforms are obscure,— and in these departments for our
purpose lies the interest of this strange supremacy of Armenia, now become the
heir of Roman tradition. It is very true of the epoch of Iconoclasm that a
special study of its gross facts and events leaves one in utter ignorance of
its real tendency or achievement. As with some faint star we must look away
from the object of vision to detect it at all. We can only know it by examining
the condition of the monarchy (in which Rome to the end recapitulated her own
national story) before and after these important but puzzling reigns. Contrast
the reign of Irene with those of the two usurpers who ruled a century before.
We can see now what forces must have been at work to make this possible ; an
Athenian lady administered the empire by the help of a few household eunuchs,
without question at home and not without credit abroad.
§
2. A rough summary of the events of these Some events reigns may be of help.
The immediate Saracen lm^7Sj^tgn
peril was averted by the defeat of the assailants in ’
the great
siege of Byzantium in 718 ; the 'Caliph died of grief at the miscarriage of the
Armada.
Seven years
pass in comparative security for the Asiatic provinces. In 726 Leo, who had
already begun to persecute Jews and Montanists, turns his attention to the cult
of images. In the next year the Moslem invasions begin again and continue as an
annual border foray : Nice was attacked in vain.
The Octagon
Library was burnt in 730, deliberately or by accident, with or without its
professors, according as we prefer to accept legend or interpret the character
of Leo. For six years (733-739) there is almost no foreign news, save the
tidings of discontent and alienation in Italy,—a part of the Byzantine annals
which is a special study of itself and seems to have little or no connection
with political changes in the east. Still the Saracens overran Asia Minor, and
in 739 both emperors in person led their troops to a successful engagement in
Phrygia. The next year Leo died, followed in 741 by Charles Martel and Gregory
III. The interest of the reign is curiously divided between the circumstances
of the separatist movement in Italy and a more or less avowed persecution of
orthodoxy at home. Once the predominant Armenian influence, military and
protestant, had been defied. Whether a national rising or a religious protest,
the revolt of Cosmas with the Greek insurgents caused some anxiety to the
central government. When the fleet of Agallianus (Tovpixdp^ttwv fEX\a&/caw) was defeated
and its leader drowned, Cosmas and Stephen are taken to the capital and
publicly beheaded ; the reign of Byzantine leniency had not yet begun.
The elevation
by Sergius of a phantom-emperor in Sicily under the now canonised name of
Tiberius belongs to the western history of the empire, but may
Some events be noted as a symptom of the dissolution
which (7i7-7^0^n threatened
the whole. The first years of Leo III.
had been
disquieted by suspicion of Anastasius II., still living in retirement; his
predecessor Philippicus and his successor Theodosius being both alive. We have
another interesting proof of the demoralising effect of civil strife. The last
Heracliad had allied with Bulgarians to regain his throne, and given Terbelis
the title of Caesar. Cherson and Bardanes had invoked the aid of the Khazars ;
and in a later conflict between Leo's son and son-in-law we shall see both
parties soliciting reinforcements from the infidels. Now Anastasius seeks help
from Terbelis, is discovered and beheaded: there is one less in the number of
surviving ex-emperors living in seclusion. By his death ends the most
disastrous period for the Christian monarchy of Rome; at no time before or
since was the imperial person so unsafe. Maurice, it is true, had been murdered
and Phocas had suffered for the crime. The obscure conspiracy of the soap-dish
had ended the mysterious reign of Constans III. But within the first twenty
years of the eighth century, five crowned and anointed sovereigns had perished
by violence. Justinian had celebrated his return by the massacre of the “ lion
and the adder," Leontius and “ Aspimar ” ; he himself with his little son
and colleague Tiberius V. had been cut off in a righteous vengeance; and in 719
the execution of Anastasius as a menace to the commonwealth might plead a
similar justification.
Rebellion of § 3. To what category are we to assign
the notable Conflicting8* anc*
seri°us sedition of Artavasdus the Armenian ? accounts of
Was it the effect of mere personal ambition or did
C. V. (750).
^ conceal a deeper motive ? Was it merely the tentative of a sturdy general who
felt that in the new order of things the throne was open to competition, and
would be the prize not of the highest bidder but of the stoutest combatant ? Was
there a relic of the old, primitive, and puzzling rule in
which
folk-tales abound, which gives the royal sue- Rebellion of cession to the
penniless stranger-pilgrim married to the king's daughter, rather than to the
home-born accounts of son ? or did the partisans of Artavasdus believe v•
(750). themselves to be fighting for some holy cause or principle ? At any
rate, the pretender holds the capital city for perhaps two years (740-743) ;
and even while the pope's legate is bidden observe a punctilious neutrality
until the duel is decided, the pope himself dates his letters by the Armenian
name that intervenes so strangely in the imperial list.
Husband of
Anna, Leo's daughter, Curopalat (a dignity throughout our period, 550-1081, at
least nominally next the throne), count of the turbulent Obsicians,— he no
doubt believed in the justice of his claim.
His
prime-minister was the patrician Baktage, also an Armenian; and when the day
was settled in favour of Constantine V. and the direct succession,
Baktage was at
once condemned to lose his head, whereas Artavasdus and his sons did not lose
their eyes until they had essayed a fresh plot in vain.
Thus
the reign of Leo’s son formally began three years after his father's death
(743) and lasted on thirty-two years. As in his father's reign, a barren table
of events can give a very poor clue to its meaning or importance. It would be
easy to interpret it, by strictly recording facts, as the most disastrous to
the Roman world since the days of Heraclius: he at least shed the lustre of
brilliant if futile heroism on his early days. Within, the unpopular creed of
Iconoclasm, forced against the patient obstinacy of the people by every means
of ruthless violence and martial law ; governors, mere partisans and mockers at
order, justice, and piety ; abroad, Italy lost, the Exarchate overthrown, Rome
and Catholicism irrevocably estranged, the Moslem exulting unpunished in yearly
depredations and slave-raids ; Bulgarians insolent and aggressive ; personally,
a superstitious and cruel tyrant full of VOL. 11. H
Rebellion of magic and lechery, scarcely human in
his abomin- Artavasdus: abie predilections for the odours and
excrements accounts of of the stable, certainly in no conceivable sense a
<7.» V. (750). Christian ; his pastime to yoke holy men with abandoned
women and make the procession slowly parade the circus amidst the jeers of a
time-serving mob. Fitting, indeed, that nature should add her catastrophes to
the hideous tale of horrors in this reign of anti-Christ. The Great Frost
(already spoken of) seemed, as in Norse legend, to herald the end of the world;
the Great Plague swept over the shrunken confines of the empire, halved the
population of the capital and made the Peloponnese a desert. Yet to us who can
read Byzantine annals with a wide survey of the whole span, it is not difficult
to see that the Iconoclastic era was one of undeniable recovery ; and Finlay is
perhaps not wholly wrong in believing it to be the dawn of the modern age, and
incomparably the most important period in Rome's history.
Summary of § 4. On outward showing, indeed, the
record is (740-775f. sufficiently poor and inconclusive. Shortly after the
downfall of Artavasdus (744), Sisinnius, the emperor’s cousin, to whom he owed
the throne, is disgraced and blinded ; in 746, some slight success was gained
in distant Commagen& ; in 747, the pestilence ravaged the empire and
brought back the pitiable days of Justinian just 200 years before. In 750, the
victory of the Abbassides gave new life to the Caliphate, and stirred up a
powerful enemy of Rome: in the following year the Frankish Mayor displaced the
Merovingian king, and Astolf put an end to the Exarchate in the capture of
Ravenna. In 759, the Caliph Almansor seizes Melitene, and next year advances
into Cilicia and Pamphylia and cuts to pieces a Roman army. In 760, the emperor
is personally defeated by Slavs, and loses two great officers in the battle,
the Spojmov XoyoOeTtjg and the commander of the Thracesians. In 763, a welcome
victory
over the Bulgarians is tarnished by unusual Summary of brutality in the
treatment of captives ; they are handed over to the factions of the circus to
kill. *
In 766, the
Bulgarians retrieve their disgrace, and Constantine vents his wrath on his own
subjects, persecuting and deriding the monks, while treating the great
officials with a capricious cruelty, which might find a recent parallel in the
madman Justinian II., but at no other epoch in Byzantine history. He had been
thoroughly aroused by a formidable plot the year previous, in which several
chief and responsible ministers were implicated.
The emperor
in 767 demands Gisela, daughter of Pepin, for his son Leo IV., with the old
Exarchate for her dowry; the proposal is rejected. (Had Constantine succeeded
in his request the course of history might have been altered by a single
marriage ; there would have been no Irene, no pretext for the assumption by
Charles of the imperial title, perhaps instead a reconciliation of conflicting
interest and Church usage.) Asia Minor was divided between three bluff and
trusty henchmen of the emperor to persecute the orthodox as they listed and to
repulse the Moslem; chief among these was Lachanodracon.
After a lull
of some years, tidings arrived (772) of another great reverse; the massed troops
of those Asiatic generals are shamefully defeated at Syce, a maritime fortress
in Pamphylia. In 774, the Moslem again lead in a contemptuous foray for
kidnapping and plunder ; they seize 500 captives, but at Mopsuestia are
attacked in ambush and lose double that number themselves. Constantine himself
in the same year makes a great effort and puts 80,000 men into the field
against the Bulgarians, a last enterprise, as events proved. This was in a
great degree successful, and atoned in a measure for the northern humiliations
and anxieties of his reign He was overtaken by death in 775 while preparing a
second expedition.
Indirect evi- § 5. It is impossible to find here the
record of a daga^tth^y success^ul
reign. Schlosser, Finlay, and to a certain disappointing extent the prudent
Bury, have appeared as apologists result. for the character and
policy of the Iconoclasts. The rancour of the two Church historians, both born
in this reign (758), is quite apparent ; but we do not judge by their wealth of
epithets, but by facts which cannot be gainsaid. Discord within, loss or
disgrace without, one half of the empire abroad, one half of the home
population estranged; provinces given over to a brutal and violent soldiery,
the factions of the capital encouraged to look on the massacre of captives of
war as an afternoon's pastime, insults to religious orders and emblems as the
chief duty of anti-clerical officials: the negative side of a secular
(not an austere) protestantism could go no further. A historian may ignore the
foolish gossip of the palace, which finds poison in every natural death and
moral depravity in every innocent relation. But if we are rather to judge by
the straightforward chronicle, the estimate can hardly be called satisfactory
: the reign of Constantine V. must appear the very nadir of this period,
grossly barbarous and violent, yet ineffective, the least Roman of all reigns.
Indirect evidence, as we have stated, points to a very different conclusion. A
society on the very point of dissolution received new life in every department.
Law, commerce, agriculture, finance, military organisation, religious
practice,—all are carefully revised and adapted to the new circumstances and
the new inmates of the realm. The work of Heraclius, suspended during the
thirty years of the madness of Justinian and its consequences, was resumed and
completed. The loss of northern Italy was a gain ; the attack on idol-worship
and celibacy the obvious duty of a spirited and patriotic monarch ; the
frontier-defence against overwhelming odds a work nobly performed. It is
impossible to do otherwise than to suspend, in this most puzzling reign
and
character, the historical judgment. Against the Indirect evi-
barbarity of
Constantine’s punishments to Scamars, denc.e e™t”r.ely
^ ,
against this
to monks, to
prisoners of war, must be set the disappointing
tenderness
with which, abating his imperial dignity, result. he treated with pirates and
preferred to ransom 2500 Roman subjects rather than imperil their lives;
against the stories of his irreligion and dissolute Court we can adduce the
piety of his daughter Anthemisia, who, nun though she was, lived on the most
affectionate terms with this blasphemous umangeur des moines”
Against the callous brutality of an age (searching fate, for instance, in the
entrails of a new-born infant) can be alleged the deep interest of the imperial
family, and doubtless of a wider society, in the novel foundling-hospitals
which became later a marked feature in this civilised and compassionate world.
The plain fact remains that we cannot reconcile the two series of facts. Somewhere,
historical evidence is wilfully distorted or entirely at fault. We have to deal
with two groups separately, which cannot be brought into harmony.
And the most
equitable method is this (indeed the sole guide for the ofttimes impertinent
criticism of the student)—to give preference to the judgment which comes from
indirect proof.
§ 6. In this
field we forget personalities and deal Recovery due only with broad, social, or
political tendencies. A survey of a great epoch and its unmistakable features
monarchic makes us forget the petty trivialities and bitterness contro of individual human life. We have asserted, and shall find occasion to
repeat, that the empire was rapidly changing in this age; it may claim the
gentler verdict usually passed on a period of transition. The population
shifted ; the lower classes became more and more Slavonic; the upper,
increasingly Armenian. Whatever the apparent insecurity of these two reigns,
confidence was reviving ; stability in trade, tillage, and commerce
reappeared. Property was more safe ; estates and
Recovery due titles were transmitted without anxiety
to de- to resumption SCendants. We
begin to see notable feudal families
of airpct
monarchic of warriors born and bred. The military
and official control, classes show no brilliant meteors out of the void,
coming, none know from whence, and while a spectator looks, vanishing to leave
no trace ; but steady transmission by a fixed routine of training and
discipline, such as had in earlier times brought to unparalleled efficiency the
twin services of Rome. Once more in the stress of the infidel siege and other
perils, the monarchy resumes its direct and especially in emphatic control.
Perhaps (as modern historians Finance. suggest) the chief domain of li
Isaurian " success was neither religion and military reform or frontier defence,
but finance; the internal economy centralised and careful, without which a
Socialistic commonwealth, like the empire its prototype, could not for a
moment endure. I gladly accept Bury's suggestion, or rather inspiration, that
Constans III. (after his senatorial tutelage) drew to himself the management of
the budget and revenue, and that henceforward a Byzantine sovereign was largely
a glorified Chancellor of the Exchequer. Army, Civil Service, ordinary
administration—these could go on smoothly on the well-worn grooves of tradition
; but financial methods and sources of income require (as we know too well
to-day) constant readjustment. The independence of the minister is a thing of
the past; the very title disappears; we meet with no more counts of the sacred
largesses; before 700 the term is obsolete. A logothete is not a minister, but
a secretary, a clerk, like a trusted freedman in those great households of the
later republic on which the imperial rule was modelled. Leo III. is said to
have suddenly increased the taxes (727); it is certain that, like Charles
Martel, he resumed some of the superfluous wealth of the Church, besides
seizing the Petrine patrimonies in the East. I believe that as Tiberius III.
began with the help of his brother
Heraclius to
reorganise the army, so Anastasius II. Recovery due in civil matters attempted
to repair, to provide, and P resumption to retrench. The election of Theodosius
III. the monarchic revenue-officer was a caricature of a real change control,
in the attitude and functions of monarchy. The ^wnce emperor until the days of
spendthrift Michael III. will be once again the business-like head of a household
; keeping careful accounts of profit and loss, of income, expenditure, and
waste, and not delegating the resources of the empire like an idle landlord to
unscrupulous bailiffs.
C. The Emperor, the Church, and the Aim of Government in the Period
of Iconoclasm (717-802)
§ 1. Slight
but certain indications point to the Barbarism of increasing influence of the
clergy in the State during the Heraclian period. If we are venturesome, we
influence of may boldly hazard the conjecture that while the priests. civil
administration was almost extinguished, and in the end supplanted by military
dictators and major- generals, the clergy and bishops found themselves
everywhere charged with such duties as the soldier cannot perform. The infallible
token of lt
medievalism ” is the predominance of the priest and the warrior, the rough
division of society between those who pray and those who fight. Here we have
the two natural extremes of a primitive society. The epicene civilian, neither
brave nor devout, but only orderly and methodical, is a late, and perhaps a degenerate
product, like the bank-clerk. The Byzantine world, after the Great Plague of
Justinian's reign, was fast slipping back into barbarism ; and by this I would
imply a return to the rudiments, a reaction against an artificial culture,
uniform and pacific, and against alien methods of government. Respect for the
State and deference to law give place to a dread of the unseen powers and their
hierophants, to
Barbarism, of admiration for the strong and
relentless hand. tfte^SSO6- HistorY 1S forced once more to
become mere influence of biography. What are the annals of the sixth priests.
century but the personal records of Theodoric and Theodora, Justinian and
Belisarius, Maurice and Phocas ? It is still more true of the seventh century ;
the emperor, an isolated figure, occupies the whole stage. It is a time, too,
of barbarous punishments. The unfortunate slave-girl who without intention
dishonours the passing bier of Heraclius' first wife is burnt alive ; and we
have noticed that this same emperor strives in vain to save a supposed
Marcionite from the flames. While the Shah skins his unsuccessful general,
Phocas kindles the faggots for his victims ; and we have to go back to the
reign of Valentinian I. (364-375) for such Draconian severity. However “ Roman
” in theory the pretensions or ideals of Heraclius, it cannot be doubted that
in his reign new or primitive customs and institutions blotted out in large
tracts of the empire all memories of a strictly “ Roman" tradition. The
priests had not merely (as they hoped) an exact and infallible chart of the
next world, but a scheme of conduct and a i( map of life" for this. Their attitude was not
that of the Justinianean Code ; Leo's legislation acknowledges and ratifies the
subtle change that had taken place in the century preceding his collection. The
orthodox clergy in the East were never so patient with ordinary life as their
brethren in the West; they were not the exclusive repositories of learning. The
monasteries they founded in such reckless abundance (as the certain remedies
for the universal decay) were not centres of active life, but in the main homes
for contemplation and the practice of the most private and intangible virtues.
Yet we cannot close our eyes to the wide increase in sacerdotal and patriarchal
influence. The new titles of office are borrowed from the Church; and
so are the
men who wear them. We saw the use Barbarism of of lt Sacellarius” extended from the cathedral to the palace; and we
acknowledge with a sigh that it is influence of derived from “ sacctcs,” not u
sacellum” and implies Wiest8> rather a Bursar than a Sacristan.
We find monks summoned from a cloistered retreat to the management of finance
and budget; and, thus gradually prepared for this curious intermingling or
exchange of function, we can read without surprise that John the Deacon is
first Chancellor of the Exchequer and then Generalissimo against the Arabs. The
priest was plainly ousting the civilian, and even daring to compete with the
soldier.
§ 2. Every
established order, however honourable Orthodox in age or fortune, must find an
opposition. The Senate may have curtailed of set purpose the exercise of
-imperial prerogative; and, as M. Pobyedonest- cheff confesses, reduced to an
almost irreducible minimum the possible moments of its effective intervention.
The imperial line, from the Adoptive or Balkan emperors of the fifth century,
struggled against abuse and corruption in their own agents.
The servants
of despotism regarded with covert jealousy or scorn the supreme authority which
had made them what they were. The orthodox churchmen looked with suspicion on
the religious tolerance or suspected heresy of the sovereign; the patriarch
attempted to make a compact before bestowing the crown. And the armies which
even in the earliest days of discipline had excited now and again the
apprehension of the central power, might once more create disturbance when
restored to order and efficiency. The character of the opposition under the
Isaurians, though we may detect traces of all these secret foes, is mainly
ecclesiastical. But the wide influence of this class, as it penetrated deep
into ordinary life, made the Iconoclastic duel no mere crusade against an
unreformed establishment, but a general contest, in which on one side
Leo seeks to weaken Church’s influence.
or the other
every class in the State was enrolled and marshalled as an eager partisan.
While the patriarch becomes the recognised critic, in some part the creator, on
occasion the dangerous rival, of the monarch, it is probable that could we
penetrate the provincial gloom we should find the bishop occupying a
pre-eminent position in the lesser towns. Had not the Alexandrine pontiff under
Heraclius been also charged with a prefect’s function and empowered to
negotiate a delicate question of diplomacy ? They would act, as in the West, in
default of regular civilian appointments, as administrative officials. The
bishop had become, without effort or ambition, the head of the municipality,
the “ Patron of the Borough.”
Whether he intervened seldom or often, he was in any case the
ultimate arbiter and referee, judge and civil governor in one. In many places
regular intercourse with the capital had completely broken down during the
strange and obscure movements of the seventh century. The Isaurian enactments
show plainly that the once vaunted uniformity of Roman law had disappeared,
giving way to the local usage, which sprang up naturally like the u custom ” of the Western
manor, or was introduced by the countless settlers of alien race,—Slavs,
Gotho-Greeks, Mardaites, welcomed or tolerated by the infinite patience or
extreme need of Rome. Monks are to the fore in revolutions, and the whole
clerical society was in closer sympathy with the people than with the governing
class. Finlay remarks, with his usually correct insight, that the clergy took a more trouble to conciliate
public opinion than official favour ”; “ abbots were often men of wealth and
family" ; and he warns us not to be surprised to see monks “ acting the
part of the demagogue." Leo III., convinced Puritan as he is, does not
seek merely to purify the Church from superstition ; he is concerned to
maintain, like every Roman emperor, the supremacy
of the State
over a rival, to rescue the imperial power Leo seeks to from becoming the tool
of a faction. He is under- lurch's taking the same task and courting the same
disasters influence. as his brothers of the Western line in later days.
There is
indeed not a little of the furor Teutonicus in the severe Ironside soldier and
his Anatolies and Armeniacs, as they descend to rescue New Rome from an
incapable government and the debased religion which had corrupted it.
§ 3. We have
no intention of following closely the Anti-Cleri- phases of the Iconoclastic
controversy. We are and contented with the true statement that its
motive supremacy. was as much political as religious. In the involution or
confusion of the secular and sacred spheres, it is often difficult to find the
real spring of action. In the Reformation, in the Great Rebellion in England,
in the French Revolution, we may seek to discriminate the exact proportion of
the two. We shall no doubt discover in the first a large predominance of the
political; in the second, of the religious ; in the last, a puzzling confusion
of ingredients, a godless but still idealistic religionism upholding political
or rather social and humanitarian claims;—claims which, as we recognise to-day,
can never again be fired with a similar zeal. Interwoven intricately were the
threads of the two under the Isaurians. For good or ill, the empire had taken a
side and become a partisan with Constantine. Never more could it regain the indifferent
and unruffled composure of a Gallio,—the attitude of impartial arbiter among
all warring creeds and principles, because it lacked any of its own.
The Saracen
success was largely due to the misguided attempts to impose religious
uniformity. The motive was political, and the dissentients were justly suspected
of disloyalty. But it was none the less to be regretted that the archaic and
impartial sovereignty, or rather suzerainty, had passed away. Either the State
would be distracted by religious feud and the emperor pulled about between
various factions, or
Anti-Clericalism and State- supremacy.
Value of counterpoise to State- absolutism.
The Protestants of Armenia against Hellenism:
success and reaction under C. VI. (c. 800).
he would
become a humble if majestic puppet secretly controlled by the dominant and
tyrannical Orthodoxy. As with the modern Reformers, Leo's protestantism only
substituted one form of intolerance for another; and the commonwealth was no
nearer unity than before,—or to that good-natured yet not careless “ agreement
to differ" about those serious and personal matters which can never safely
become the concern of the State.—Yet it would be unfair indeed to overlook the
merits of free-speech, and the bold tenacity of purpose in the Eastern Church.
It is true that, in the annals of mankind, in the development and advance of
the free spirit, it can never claim the same gratitude that we give without
grudging to the Church of Rome. But in this age, while we sometimes appear to
regret its influence and to encourage this typical Henry VIII. in his Erastian
work of humbling its pride,—we cannot forget its services to subject and rulers
alike, in providing an organ for constitutional criticism and opposition. We
refer frequently to the dangers of State-monopoly and State-absolutism,—dangers
to which the modern mind seems oddly insensible. Let us not then forget the
part played by the outspokenness of a patriarch, the calm debate of a General
Council, the “ framework of customs, opinions, and convictions" which (as
Finlay so well says) “ could be with difficulty altered and rarely opposed
without danger." Indeed,Constantinople has always seen a religious law or
hierarchy, a theocracy, enthroned above an autocratic sovereign. Both basileus
and “ padishah " have to recognise this restriction on a power otherwise
irresponsible.
§ 4. Just as
religion and political motive are inextricably tangled, so even under
political reasons we can detect the presence of a still simpler cause of
conflict. The religious wars of Europe depend largely on race and nationality ;
and we see clear trace in our Byzantine monarchy of a cleavage of society
depending on this difference of stock. The
eighth
century marks the insurgence of Armenia The Pro-
against
Hellenism and Orthodoxy. And when the testants of r , . , Armenia
victory is
assured, there appears also a severance against
in the
dominant faction. The revolutions in the Hellenism:
“ Twenty Years of Anarchy ” were the work of the
^eactktn^ Asiatic soldier; now sullen, recalcitrant, and un- under C. VI.
patriotic, now stern and determined to undertake the 800^' task of
reorganising the collapsed fragments of a great tradition. The significance of
the two years' contest for the throne after Leo’s death (740-743) may be
exaggerated by the pragmatic historian; but it is impossible not to read in the
rebellion of Arta- vasdus (or rather in the support it enlisted) something more
than a mere sally of disappointed ambition.
The
provincial regiments, now as formerly the umpires of the monarchy, take
different sides in the contest of son and son-in-law ; Armeniacs and Ob-
sicians stand for Artavasdus, Thracensians and the ever-faithful Anatolies, for
the direct heir Constantine V. It cannot be doubted that the effect of the new
and permanent provincial armies was to divide Lesser Asia into as many
divisions as mediaeval Germany ; for “ duchies ” read il themes.” Under Constantine VI. there is the same conflict: the Armeniacs
maintain throughout their irreconcilable enmity to Irene, Hellene, orthodox,
and iconodule. In 790, the Asiatic themes (except this regiment) swear
reluctant allegiance to the successful restorer of images, and then proclaim
her son sole emperor. When in misguided devotion to his mother the young prince
insists on her recognition by the Asiatic troops, the Armeniacs again hold out;
they burst into open mutiny and blind the generals he sends. In 797, he
endeavours to escape to the Anatolies, who are conspicuous for their loyalty to
the direct line of succession. It is difficult to attach any certain political
importance to the persistent attempts to raise the uncles of Constantine VI. to
the throne. It may be easily believed that they were the figure-heads of the
The Protestants of Armenia against Hellenism:
success and reaction under C. VI, (c. 800).
Iconoclastic
party, and were constantly employed by their mischievous friends as a pretext
for rebellion throughout the reign of Leo IV., of Constantine VI., and of Irene
(775-802). So late as 799, the Helladic theme enters the list of conspirators,
and proposes to raise one of these unfortunate princes to a position for which
he had neither aptitude nor desire. Even in the reign of Michael I. (811—813)
the names of these luckless Caesars are whispered in the discontented circles
of the capital; perhaps for the fifth time these innocent victims of others’
treason are discovered, pardoned, and removed to a securer exile. I do not
profess to understand the sudden subsidence of this once redoubtable military
influence. But it is possible—nay, probable—that the eunuch- r£gime of Irene
deliberately starved the army ; and was not content with merely ordering that “
no military leaders should converse with Stau^chis.” It must be remembered that
the Armeniacs had been humbled, decimated, and perhaps disbanded for their
sedition ; one thousand were sent into exile bearing the convict brand, “ This
is an Armenian conspirator." Certain it is that after the comparative
peace of Irene’s sole reign, Nicephorus I. (like most Byzantine sovereigns at
the opening of a new century) is confronted by the imperative need of national
defence ; and earned an undesirable renown by the firmness with which he
pressed its claims and the failure which awaited his efforts.
CHARACTER AND AIMS OF THE PRETENDERS AND MILITARY REVOLTS IN THE NINTH
CENTURY:
GRADUAL ACCEPTANCE OF LEGITIMACY (802-867)
§ 1. From the accession of Leo VI. of ambiguous Suspension of
parentage, or
from the universal acknowledgment of dy?08**?
dvihcidIs *
his strictly
illegitimate son, termed half in irony the throne open “ purple-born/'—public
opinion or its Byzantine to Armenian substitute veers round to
legitimacy. We have adventurer' shown how, in the coming age, the
pretender and supplanter of a feeble or pacific sovereign gives place to the “
Shogun," a vigorous and responsible colleague; who may sometimes forget
his respect for the dynasty, but will never attempt to overthrow it.
I purpose, in
order to explain this seeming paradox, to examine the significant features of
the reigns and the mutinies immediately following the usurpation of Irene, and
the failure of the Hellenic attempt to seize the helm of State. The success of
an Arabian (?) of royal descent again reminded pretenders that the chief post
was open to the adventurer.
Nicephorus I.
has the proud distinction of setting an example of humanitarian leniency, which
he had not inherited from his predecessor, which his followers did not always
imitate. He had to face in the revolt of Bardanes a formidable Armenian cabal.
The pretender
leant on the support of two future emperors, Leo and Michael, and of Thomas the
Slav (who will soon claim our notice); two Armenians, a Phrygian, and a
Slavonic settler; but this last is said to have had one Armenian parent. When
his friends desert him and make terms with the gloomy
but
determined Arabian, Bardanes is allowed to
127
Suspension of become a monk : and we must dissociate
Nicephorus principle • ^rom anY complicity with the ruffians who burst into throne open his monastic
retreat and deprived him of sight. to Armenian Arshavir, also Armenian, in his
rebellion of 808 ' depends on active and aristocratic support in the capital
itself; on the failure of the plot, Nicephorus obliges him to don the monastic
habit, with the same indulgence that afterwards prompts him to confine a
dangerous monk and assassin as a lunatic. The reigns of Michael I. and of Leo
V. belong to the annals of successful conspiracies, and the latter Armenian
takes his place with legitimate sovereigns. It is on his death that the
Armenian faction once more bursts out and causes not merely a serious
disturbance, but a permanent damage to the continent of Asia Minor, now the
chief home of “ Roman ” wealth and stability. Thomas, the son of a Slavonian and
an Armenian, was in Armenia itself on the news of the sudden and violent death
of Leo V. (820). He resents the success of his brother- in-arms, the low-born
Phrygian Michael of Amorium, whom some suspected of gipsy blood, all of heterodoxy
or religious indifference. During the years 820 and 821 he overran all Asia
Minor, and actually controlled the administration and appointed officials in
the themes, with the exception of the Armeniac and Obsician (and we have no
occasion to wonder at the unsympathetic attitude of the former regiment, for we
may suppose that, after Constantine’s severe treatment in 790, and the drafting
of the mutineers into other detachments, or even actual exile, the new legions
were reconstituted without native support; thus Armeniacs ceased at that moment
to represent an Armenian nation).
Socialist § 2.
This serious sedition had a singular character
1 Jacquerie5 in an^
interest. It presents features elsewhere associated
A
Girt
(c. 820), w^h
the rising of a later Jacquerie or the “Bagaudage" of third-century Gaul.
It might be called a social revolution, a definite protest against the whole
system of
imperial
government and class-privilege, against the Socialist fiscal exactions which
the needs of the empire had suggested to Nicephorus I. But we must not hastily
(c. 820), attribute modern motives to ancient
insurrections ; we shall content ourselves with the actual words of the Greek
historians. Theophanes is no longer our trusty guide; and we are dependent on
the Con- tinuators, who completed his work under the direction and
encouragement of Constantine VII. evrevQev k. SovXoi Kara Secnrotcov k. crrpaTKjOTrjg Kara ra^ecorou k.
Xo^ayog Kara crrpaTtiyeTOv rrjv yflpa
(povcoo-av KaOwTrXiQ.1
It is tempting to recognise here the familiar career of a social reformer, of a
“friend of the people." The birth of Thomas was exceedingly obscure, and
he was in every way a fitting rival to the ignorant Phrygian, whom accident and
. audacity had fixed on the throne of the Caesars and made the founder of the
longest and most illustrious dynasty and period in our later annals. He had
lived among the Saracens, and perhaps imbibed some of that democratic idealism
found behind • most movements of fanatical religion. He was currently supposed
to be the long-deposed Constantine VI., and is reported to have negotiated for
an imperial coronation in Syrian Antioch. Since the accession of the lt Isaurians ” the capital
had not been exposed to civil war, and the Arabian peril had united its
inhabitants in a common duty and a religious service. But the old Roman
tradition and precedent demanded that a pretender should march, like Vespasian
or Heraclius, like Tiberius Apsimar or Theodosius III., upon the metropolis;
and perhaps that city has to thank the unwitting Bulgarians for their escape
from Thomas' undisciplined and plundering levies. Reduced by their sudden
attack and taking refuge in Adrinople or Arcadiopolis, he is surrendered to the
Imperialists, and with his son subjected to the most cruel punishment that
stains
1 Genesius.
VOL. II. I
Socialist cJacquerie’ in Asia Minor (c.
820),
without definite ‘political aim.
the record of
Byzantine justice. Yet his death does not extinguish the rising ; like the
Isaurian revolt under Anastasius, the mutiny, whether social or military or
personal, still smouldered in Cabala and Samaria; and we may note with
amusement or dismay that the capitulation of this last stronghold was due to
the treachery of a churchman, who demanded and obtained an archbishopric as the
price of his secret aid.
§ 3. I am not
able to follow Finlay's suggestive musings on the intrinsic character or
political lesson of this revolt; his theory of a large Asiatic population
excluded (for social and religious reasons) from all public and local affairs and
smarting with this indignity, is ingenious but not wholly convincing. Nor can I
entirely endorse the following criticism or prediction : “ Had Thomas been a
man of powerful mind, he might have laid the foundation of a new State of
society in the Eastern empire by lightening the burden of taxation, carrying
out toleration for religious opinions, securing an impartial administration of
justice even to heretics, and giving every class of subjects, without
distinction of nationality or race, equal security for their lives and
property."
I do not see traces in the Asiatic
revolution of anything more serious than a nationalist rising against an
insecure throne usurped from a compatriot, headed by a man of energy but
without political principle and constructive power, calling to itself all the
obscure forces of discontent and disorder, which are borne to the surface in
periods of transition and religious crisis. Nothing so definite was in their
minds as a conscious protest against the forms and methods of the imperial
system: they demanded only (as the Teutons of old) to have their share and to
enjoy, not to overthrow. It may be questioned whether the Asiatic had «taken up
arms against religious intolerance." There appear few
signs of a
religious character; and I am inclined to Intolerant set down this so-called
Socialist ” revolt to much sPirit the the same causes as
divided the continent between age' Artavasdus and Constantine V.
eighty years earlier.
It is idle
even to suggest to the actors in the drama of antique history that they shall
be animated by the same motives that appeal to us in our latter-day
indifference or li
enlightenment.” Only the worst and feeblest of the Roman princes accepted the
principle of religious tolerance; and a 11 new State of society ” on the lines of modern and
modest Liberalism (such as Finlay sketches) would have shortly collapsed in
bankruptcy and disorder before domestic and foreign foes. But I can heartily
applaud the concluding remark, which deserves all praise for its candour and
political sagacity; it is no small concession to truth to abandon the
principles and hopes which elsewhere he upholds, as a
11 popular ” historian. tl
The spirit of the age,” he allows with regret, “ was averse to toleration, and
the sense of justice was so defective that these equitable principles could
only have been upheld by the power of a well-disciplined and mercenary army.”
Indeed, it is
impossible not to see that the faults and abuses of the system lay rather with
the people than with the government. The emperor himself seems always in the
van of progress, and attempts in vain to allay the fierce feuds of the
religious spirit.
Neither
justice nor worship nor finance could have been safely left to the discretion
of these rancorous and vaguely separatist factions or races, which only the
imperial system held together in a semblance of amity. And in the suggestion of
an alien and indifferent army of mercenaries (such as was just about to bear
heavily on the Caliphate) we have an omen of the coming time,—when the national
or provincial legions of the earlier “ Thematic ” system are to be displaced by
the professional militia and the Norman soldier of fortune.
Feuds of monk and soldier.
Emperors ignorant or heterodox.
Weakening of regimental spirit.
§ 4. In this
age there are signs of such undying feud and bitterness between monks and
soldiers as leave little justification for hopes of amicable settlement,
without a central power somewhat indifferent to the whole disturbance. Leo V.
(it has been well said) holds the balance between “ monks who demanded the
persecution of Iconoclasts, and the army who wanted the abolition of images.”
The soldiers were largely rough puritan zealots, like Scotsmen among the
superstitions of Spain. The persecution of Nicephorus might seem to reflect
discredit on Leo ; but the emperor was satisfied with deposing an impossible
colleague, and the kind treatment of the patriarch is only an instance of the
mildness of this second Iconoclast victory. Although his successor was an alien
heretic, and cared nothing for orthodoxy, law, or learning, there came over him
the wonderful change we mark in so many selfish pretenders to the purple when
they have attained their wish. He becomes firm and far-sighted, sincere and
equitable ; and we cannot regret that the lowly dynasty, destined for so great
a renown, was not interrupted in the earliest moment of its life by a “ social
revolution." Michael II. allies himself with the a Isaurian ” house ; and
prevails on the Senate and Patriarch to request formally his union with
Euphrosyne, daughter of Constantine VI. Meantime, the provincial regiments were
weakened by the operation of physical laws and deliberate imperial plans. Since
the middle of the seventh century, they had been the nurseries of a vague
revival in religious and patriotic feeling ; they had taken a serious and
active part in the elevation of sovereigns and the purging of ecclesiastical
abuse. But if they were a safeguard, they were also a menace ; and the
turbulence of the Armeniacs in 790 led, as we have seen, to the disbanding of
the homogeneous battalions,—recruited, we cannot doubt, like an earlier Roman
legion, in the very district
where they
were quartered. Whether distrusted by Weakening the sovereign, divided, weakened,
or diversified by °J regimental introduction of new elements, the thematic
armies8pint' lose that distinctive character which
marked them during the Heraclian and Isaurian reigns. We have hesitated, when
dealing with the unwarlike supineness of the older citizen of Rome, whether to
blame the contented sloth of the subject or the jealous suspicions of their
ruler ; and we may perhaps decide to divide the blame or the responsibility
between the two. Once more, a strong local militia became a source of danger;
and once more, recourse was had to that last expedient of a wealthy and
enervated civilisation,—foreign and mercenary troops.
Native
recruits may have failed ; vast tracts of country during the “ Social War"
of Thomas must have passed into desert and let in the jungle; and we can see
preparing the later accumulation of land in a few hands, which is the most
characteristic feature of the age of the “ Shoguns" (920-1025).
§ 5. We have
to look in an unexpected quarter Revolt of
for
the next mutiny. The motive is neither religious c<m~
. . . t T . . tmgent at
nor
political, nor yet again social. It is purely Sinope.
mediaeval,
and must remind one rather of the temptations of Sir John Hawkwood and of the
“Age of the Condottieri." We find under the valiant and unfortunate
Theophilus (829-842) (a match in the imperial series to Caliph Haroun, as a
hero of romance and chivalry)—a force of 30,000 Persians stationed at Sinope,
under the command of Theophobus. At one time we hear of their valour and good faith,
at another of their dangerous sedition : now at the battle of Dasymon they
alone support the emperor when the native troops desert; now they proclaim
their general, and though once coerced and disbanded, again torment Theophilus
in his last days with the fears of an independent principality, such as many
soldiers of fortune carved out in the West. Once again, the Armeniac theme
Revolt of Persian contingent at Sinope.
Close of the Era of ‘ Pronuncia- mentos.’
Restoration of Image- worship.
became a centre
of disaffection: and the dying commands of the emperor ensured the succession
of his son at the cost of a faithful life.
Whatever the
shortcomings of Michael II. in birth, education, or character ; whatever the
extravagance or the crimes of Theophilus, there can be no doubt that under
their strong personal government the State recovered its strength and
stability. And this recuperation is specially to be noticed in domestic
matters. The age of “ Pronunciamentos,” of rough military insurrections, is past
and over; the theory and principles of legitimacy enter deeply into the
national sentiment; and the sanguinary change of dynasty in 867 must have taken
the appearance, except to a few accomplices, of a peaceful succession of a
legally adopted Caesar. The reign of Michael III. (842-867), his long minority
and unhappy reign, was a period of a sudden and general relaxation of
restraint. Within a month of the death of Theophilus, his widow had made her
peace with the Church (Feb. 19, 842), and the second epoch of Iconoclastic
supremacy came to an end. Orthodoxy and luxury joined hand in hand to celebrate
the new pact between the Church and the Government. Though the image-breakers
had never sanctioned ascetic rigour, yet they were somehow connected in the popular
mind with sternness, precision of conduct, and a simple and puritan worship. A
sublime and dramatic pageant, aided and enhanced by music, colour, and odours,
was once more in fashion ; and as in the very similar period of the English
Restoration, manners seem to throw off control with the revival of the
Orthodox creed and practice.
§ 6. Once
more reappears, with dignity and ceremonious prestige unimpaired, the long
unfamiliar name of the Senate. This ancient assembly of officials, retiring
into discreet obscurity during the personal government of Isaurians and the
disorders of military revolutions, resumes its forgotten rights.
The Council
of State ratifies the will of Theophilus, Restoration and may be expected to
support the pious desire of °f Image- Theodora to restore honour to images. It
solemnly wor8hip' receives and audits the accounts which the
empress makes up towards the close of her regency, with a laudable sense of
responsibility and that conception of office as a public trust and not a private
patrimony, to which in that age every other nation or government was an utter
stranger.—The revival of Orthodox practice and belief is attended by a recourse
to violence in matters spiritual. Yet we must not judge too harshly of the
persecutors of the Paulicians; though we cannot fail to regret that after the
lenient example of the later Iconoclasts, the Church could make no better use
of her recovered pre-eminence than to institute civil war. But when we have
once allowed the fact and principle then prevailing everywhere, of the identity
or closest implication of Church and State, we have gone far to provide an
apology for the saddest feature in Christian annals,—persecution for difference
of creed.
We may indeed
distrust the virulence and bias of those partisans who tell us of the
Antinomian doctrine and anti-social acts of the Cathari in intolerant
Western
Europe. We may class them with the dread oj
hevctics
ancient
slander of the blameless Manichaean, with the pagan calumny of Thyestean
banquets and nocturnal orgies among early Christians, with the undying legend
of the Christian boy, enticed and crucified in some mediaeval ghetto. But,
granting the peculiar view then prevalent alike with reactionary and reformer,
the interdependence of State and Church, and giving ever so slight a foundation
for these vague and dreadful rumours,—we arrive at the conclusion that the
mediaeval heretic could not fail to be considered an enemy of the State,—like
Vitalian, whom the Senate pronounces aWorpiog 7ro\ire[a9, a stranger to the
commonwealth, to the social order. It must be noted that it is the populace
Intolerant dread of heretics.
Paulician
persecution
largely
political.
who display
the greatest rancour and intolerance. The early Christians fell victims not to
the tyranny of provincial governors, but to the spasmodic outbursts of
democratic resentment. We have seen Heraclius pleading with the mob for the
life of a a
Marcionite ” : and we read without surprise the mediaeval chronicler, who tells
us that the people “dreaded the weak indulgence of the clergy" in regard
to some Albigensian suspect. I need not appeal to the strange and horrible
torments which are reserved to-day for certain criminals in America, whom
public opinion places beyond the pale of law and rescues from the official
gaoler to inflict a more cruel and lingering death. Of recent days, the
vindictive displeasure of the mob has demanded in Monaco, in France, in
Switzerland, a more instant and serious penalty than the State had either power
or desire to inflict ; and the rough but summary justice which the people claim
to exert must indeed surprise those humanitarians who would rebuild the body
politic on a fanciful idealisation of average human nature.
§ 7. The
Paulicians were traitors to the commonwealth ; Carbeas their leader has no
scruple in joining the Emir of Melitene, in ravaging “ Roman ” territory, in
establishing a republican stronghold at Tephrice somewhat later, bearing a
certain resemblance to the Assassin’s fortress at Alamut. Whatever the
exasperation which drove them to these extreme measures, the duty of the
central government could contemplate no concession to this faction of disloyal
renegades. Under the Isaurians, the monks of Athos had assumed that curious
autonomy, which still survives to-day, beneath the looser and less exacting
government of the Turks. The restoration of orthodoxy placed these political
dissenters once more among faithful subjects; but a similar licence could not
be extended to the half-Jewish Socialists, who were far nearer Islam than any
current
form of
Gospel-teaching. In the recent conflict of Paulitian England with the Boers, we
have listened to severe pwwcutim attacks on the plain duty of Imperialism; and
the political. thinking world will always be divided between the champions of
centralism and the apostles of nationality, local franchise, and “
partikularismus.” It is Successful possible, even allowing a measure of just
indignation against this half-religious, half-political persecution, to prestige
sum up in very favourable fashion both the policy (c- 84°)- of the imperial regents in the middle of the ninth century and the
whole systematic government of the u Isaurians,” which
had laid the foundation of order and prosperity during the previous century.
The general moral and social condition of the people was incomparably superior
to any other nation or group then existing. The practice of arms and the
manlier virtues had once more become popular among the Byzantine nobles ; and
though discretion tempered valour, they had little to learn even from the later
and more perfect lights of Western chivalry. At the same time, the military
class enjoyed no undue preponderance. By some obscure and sagacious measures,
the prestige of the provincial regiment had been modified ; and the army had
been il
denationalised ” and placed aloof from all civic or local prejudice and
partiality. Equity and law regained their sway and commerce flourished. Wherever
the lesser agents of authority threw off control, the emperor, so far as a
single overseer can prove effective, levelled all, even his own consort, under
iron and inflexible rules which knew 11 no respect of persons.”
A new departure: Regency and\ Legitimacy.
TRIUMPH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMACY
CHAPTER VII
CHANGES IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS OF AUTOCRACY AND IN THE OFFICIAL
WORLD FROM THE REGENCY (MICHAEL III.)
A. Economic
and Social Causes determining the Development
§ 1. It must
be evident to any student of Byzantine annals that from the middle of the ninth
century a change came over the character and administration of the a Romans.’' The methods of
government were profoundly modified. In one direction, sovereignty became
purely Oriental and despotic; in another, the peculiar features of a feudal
society emerged and became strong against the palace and all central control.
The period was one of rapid recovery, increasing confidence, and growing
wealth. The hereditary right of infants was conceded, and (as we have so often
pointed out) side by side with a legitimate heir grew up the double and rival
powers of the premier and the generalissimo. In the long minorities of Michael
III. or of Basil II., in the perpetual tutelage of Leo VI. and Constantine
VII. a situation arises closely resembling Scottish history ; in which, under
nominal respect for claims of birth, the Regency becomes the prize for the
strongest and most adventurous. The Heraclian and Syrian houses had been
remarkable instances of reigning monarchs, who from father to son never relaxed
a personal
138
control of
affairs; who understood the situation, chose a new
their own ministers, did their own task, and hid d^g^y6Jnd
behind no legal fiction that “the king can do no Legitimacy. wrong.” This is
the antique tradition of the empire, that which sets apart the ingenious system
of Augustus from other sovereignties. Accident or real merit conferred on
hereditary princes a rare liking for work and an unrivalled capacity for taking
trouble.
In the middle
of the ninth century, at the moment when the Carolingian house and Caliphate
were both in decay, a new departure was made,—in the regency during Michael
III.’s minority. The four sovereigns, who between them almost account for 170
years (886-1055), Leo, Constantine, Basil, Zoe, were alike born in the purple;
the Augustus retreats into the palace; round him collects a valuable atmosphere
of sentiment and affection ; and the turbulent and free- spoken populace vent
their spleen or discontent on the secondary or derivative regents. Pulcheria
had governed in the name of Theodosius II.; and Irene had guided and at last
supplanted her son, like the late empress in China. But the minority of Michael
had wider and more lasting consequences.
It became the
normal type instead of the exception.
For
a quarter of a century, Basil II. tried to revert Personal to the traditions of
direct and laborious personal m
monarchy. But
this austere example was popular neither with his subjects nor with his
successors.
To the end of
our period, the despot continues to be ignorant and pliable or to struggle at
intervals in vain against the disadvantages of this seclusion.
Few
countries, perhaps, are so unlucky as those where the nominal and responsible
master is a dupe. It was to the interest of the official and the military class
to maintain this illusion. A system like the Roman, without any fixed
principles, in spite of its apparent rigour and routine, was always exposed to
the sudden shock and revolution which expelled a dynasty or imposed a tutor and
guardian upon an
Personal monarchy in abeyance.
Palace-
govemment.
infant or an
imbecile. But the permanent officials knew how to turn these exceptional episodes
to advantage. The new emperor or regent was solitary and his new dignity
precarious. The sudden veering of military favour might displace as it had
exalted him; and if the il
king's government was to be carried on/' the newcomer must invoke the old servants
and familiar methods, rely on their advice and accept their judgment; or throw
himself into the arms of some powerful “ chamberlain ”; or, once again, divide
the chief offices among his own family. The reign of Basil I., an adroit
Armenian who had known the extreme of want and destitution, was no exception.
He is regarded as the consolidator of Byzantine despotism, which up to that
time had known mitigating or rival elements; as the last in a long series of
political reformers from Diocletian and Justinian to Leo III. But it is more
than probable that the measures, commonly supposed to ensure the direct
initiative and personal will of the sovereign, merely implied the transference
of control from the Senate to the palace, and in fact only set the seal upon an
accomplished fact, a silent revolution which had long taken effect.
§ 2. The
Civil Service still lingered, a useful counterpoise to the soldier. But it was
no longer supreme. It had somehow decayed, and its traditions of training,
discipline, and promotion were forgotten. It had lost that initial axiom of a
centralised bureaucracy, that the person of the ultimate authority was
indifferent. It had, in a word, become a partisan. Everywhere else, the notion
of an incorporeal abstract State or Commonwealth was obscured by private ends.
Feudalism, within fifty years, had completely ruined the edifice of Charles.
The Caliph without power or conviction had become a prisoner, the victim of his
servants’ insolence : he is without a mission; he was no longer the vicegerent
of God. When the conception of the State is weak or obscured,
the personal
tie is strong. The loyal affection shown Palace- by the people to Constantine
VII. or to Zoe betrays 9°vernment. a kindly indulgence, in which the real aim
of the empire and the conditions of its strength retreat out of sight. The
patrimony was theirs of right, to deal with as they liked, not a sacred trust.
I decline to believe that the decree removing the Senate from its share in
legislation was a revolution; that it startled a critical society by suddenly
removing the veil of a military absolutism. It was no coup detat, but a formal
recognition of a state of things already existing. The Senate was lost among
the nominees or the slaves of Caesar. Even the laws were a privilege of his
household. We need not be deceived into the belief that Caesar gained by this
promulgation of autocracy. An ignorant and secluded mon- The people arch only
ratifies the lowest or most persuasive voice, is at the mercy of the latest
speaker. It is incon- undisguised ceivable that Basil either desired or claimed
to be Autocracy. solely responsible. The new form of the constitution, the
temper of the age, the limited intelligence of the people, demanded a single
source of authority, a unique claim to obedience. The monarchy (now become a
patrimony) had to be expressed in purely monarchic terms. In procedure, in
influence, in consequences, not the smallest change was to be observed. Only
the terms and phrases were more frank. A monarch is either a general surrounded
by his staff-corps, a president surrounded by his assessors, or a master
surrounded by his slaves; for the government of one is either military,
civilian, or of the household and patriarchal type. The jealous rivalry between
the two first elements did not cease in this age ; but it was held in check by
a universal acknowledgment, neither servile nor hypocritical, that the emperor
was absolute master in his own dominions of life and chattel. This temper it is
difficult for us to realise to-day. Basil I., without effort or talent of his
own, stepped into an unques-
The people press the claims of undisguised
Autocracy.
Obscure economic causes at work.
tioned
heritage of absolute prerogative. It is easy to understand that a ring or a clique
will in their own interests proclaim their pious adherence to autocracy. But
it is not so easy to understand the sincerity of a whole people, outspoken and
intolerant of wrong, bent on denying their own freedom and loading their prince
with an intolerable burden and every predicate of a divine omnipotence. Yet it
is useless to repeat the first axioms of liberalism and to preach a
self-satisfied discourse on the servility of the Greeks. The patrimonial idea
was popular; and in an age of great mildness, amid order and free speech, the
populace (at least in the capital) were more jealous of their sovereign's
rights than of their own. The reigns of Basil and Leo are not explicit as is
the succeeding age. It is not easy to estimate the influences which guided and
transformed the constitution. Obscure currents met and crossed beneath the
surface, leaving grave but anonymous results. But this much we say with
confidence. Not without popular and official consent did the Amorian or
Armenian house settle into the comfortable enjoyment of the chief throne on
earth. The secondary powers in the State (whether civil or military) saw their
own advantage furthered and safeguarded by this acknowledgment of lordship.
Under the pretext of the unique imperial will, personal interest could be
followed. It was no individual merit or ambition which hastened this change.
Under a formal absolutism the emperor ceased to be the effective ruler.
§ 3. I cannot
forbear from quoting the admirable words of Finlay in this connection (ii.,
chap. i.) : “ The government of the Eastern Empire was always
* systematic
and cautious. Reforms were slowly {effected; but
when the necessity was admitted, 1 great changes were gradually completed. Genera- 1 tions, however, passed
away without men noticing 'how far they had quitted the customs of their 1 fathers and entered on new
paths leading to very
* different
habits, thoughts, and institutions. The Obscure
1 reign of no one emperor, if
we except that of Leo [the lc°™e™at 1
Isaurian], embraces a revolution in the institutions work. 'of the State,
completed in a single generation.
‘ Hence it is that Byzantine history loses the in*
terest to be derived from individual biography. It ‘ steps over centuries, marking
rather the movement ‘ of generations of mankind than the acts of indi-
* vidual
emperors and statesmen ; and it became a ‘ didactic essay on political progress
instead of a
* living
picture of man's actions. In the days of the 1
liberty of Athens, the life of each leader embraces
* the
history of many revolutions, and the mind of a ' single individual seems often
to guide and modify ‘ their course. But in the years of Constantinopolitan
* servitude
emperors and people are borne slowly ‘ onward by a current of which we are not
always i certain that we can trace the origin
or follow the 1
direction/’—Now such a current is set in motion by physical, economic, and
social causes ; not by private ambition or deliberate policy. Among these
impersonal influences I am inclined to suggest (i) The replacement of the
population since the plague of Constantine V. (c. 750) : (2) the agricultural
changes to be dimly descried in the legislation of the eighth, ninth, and tenth
centuries : (3) the changes in the Law during the same period : (4) the final
settlement of the Iconoclastic controversy in the triumph of orthodoxy,—the
failure of the Protestant reform-movement: (5) the undoubted influx of wealth
and bullion into the Eastern realm, perhaps frightened away from the moribund
empires of Charles or Harun. On each of these I shall say a few words and pass
on to a tentative estimate of the several influences on the manner, the
methods, and personnel of the government. The critic is largely left in these
matters to conjecture; and the only value of the general student is to propose
with diffidence certain avenues or mines of research, which may
(l) Change in
or may not repay the fuller exploration of the
population; specialist.
(i.) I cannot
claim for the plague of Constantine V. the same far-reaching effects as
attended the pestilence of Justinian and Procopius two centuries before ; but I
believe it finished the disorganisation of the past hundred and fifty years.
The European provinces no longer counted in the administration. The populace
was barbarous and artificial. Emperors deported or decanted at will savage or
troublesome settlers without tradition into waste places. Greece (especially
in its commerce and urban wealth) recovered rapidly from the desolation of the
Heraclian age, without contributing to the life or control of the empire : her
two most conspicuous figures are women, the Empress Irene and the widow
Danielis, benefactress of Basil I. Under the Isaurians, the “ Roman ” Empire became
entirely Asiatic; pretenders, officials, and upper classes were from Lesser
Asia, 01* from Armenia. In Lesser Asia was gradually rising a feudal
aristocracy, exercised in arms, who will one day seize and enslave the capital
to a single family (1181). In spite of the security and “ quiet transmission of
hereditary wealth and position ” which marked the Isaurian reform movement,
the Byzantine population was artificial, easily shifted, and subject to rapid
changes of character. The same is true of any modern capital recruited from the
provinces and draining their surplus, soon to perish in the new environment:
the Berliners have within forty years been almost ousted by a foreign race. But
this is in a singular degree true of the capricious if prudent creation of
Constantine. An old inhabitant returning after an absence of twenty years would
find the personnel of the government, the composition of the crowd,
unrecognisable. The buildings, palace and temple, convent and hippodrome, were
the same; the same liturgy in the one, the same ceremonies, equally sacred and
inviolable, in the'other.
But
Church and State were largely served by those (l) Change in who could found no
families; who left at population;
demise a
place vacant for any chance comer. With the rapid extinction of a former social
order, the welcome extended to exceptional courage, adroitness, or servility,
the pure Asiatic invasion of high places under the Isaurians,—the plague
contributed both in capital and provinces to hasten the changes and transform
the face of the country. In the former the effects were more sudden and more
serious.
§ 4. It will
be as well to treat here the (2) agricul- (2)Agri- tural development in the
eighth and ninth centuries, so c^ltural
cnanap
?
far as we can
form an indistinct outline from the later imperial legislation. The main
features of agrarian tenure from the time of Theodosius II. and Justinian may
have resembled those of most other nations. There was at the outset a broad
distinction between the lordless village-community, and the seigneurial domain.
The yeomen or peasants holding in something like co-parcenage tilled the
former ; serfs and foreigners the latter. The history of East and West alike at
this period enables us to trace the gradual obliteration of distinction between
the status of the freeholder and the villein. Economic circumstances combined
to depress the one ; Christian, legal, and humanitarian influences to improve
the other.
Both met in a
middle lot from which the best and worst features of either were expelled. And
first for (1a) the village community.—The individual and his (a) Communal
rights, private property, testamentary disposition, are Vllla9es• the creation of Roman law and Roman Jurists.
Like all
absolute and 11
egalitarian " governments, the empire preferred to confront atoms and
units, not corporations. And if corporations, municipal, rural, or commercial,
formed a large part of Roman life, it was for the convenience of the
tax-collector. The peculiar mark of the society was the combination of
corporate responsibility with the fullest recognition of private interests. In
the Teutonic “view of
VOL. II. K
(a) Communal frank pledge/' in the rudimentary institutions of villages.
justice and police (for example, among the Chinese), the State depends on the
family or the local community for the discovery and punishment of crime. But
the Roman Empire is frankly fiscal in its legislation. The inhabitants, it
might appear, were singularly law-abiding ; and the serious business of the
governor is not the maintenance of order or the redress of wrong, but the
collection of the revenue. The curial system had arisen (I will not say, had
been invented) to ensure the regular payment of taxes. In like manner, the
village presented a certain solidarity ; all were responsible for the whole,
and each for all. To-day, the loss in rating on an unoccupied house is divided
proportionally among the more fortunate owners. An idle farmer, unable to meet
his quotum, would amerce his neighbours, copartners in the village estate. It
has been found that every system of land-tax must be in some degree inequitable
and oppressive ; and a fixed sum, regulated on a cadastral survey, at the
opening of an indiction, soon presses unequally and becomes out of date. The corporate
or mutual responsibility is not more unfair than other methods; but it caused
distress, excited comment, was extended from the poor yeomen partners
(consortes, o/jLOKtjva-oi) of the defaulter to the neighbouring proprietors
(who were not technically on the consortium register), and was abolished amid
a genuine outburst of rejoicing. (For Basil II., true to the Lecapenian policy,
u war on the rich landowner," spread the
extra amount on the adjacent 'private estates ; and Romanus III. finally swept
away the ’AWtjXeyyvov about 1030, and won the same favour as Anastasius some
five hundred years before, for annulling the 'X.pvaapyvpov.) As in the Russian il Mir," the community
had some interest in the efficiency of each. The Roman village did not perhaps
possess the right to send to Siberia a slovenly farmer or a wastrel; but it
could protest against the
sale of land
to the unworthy or incapable, because (a)Communal all were concerned in the
good tillage of each several mlla9es- holding. So, in Western
feudalism, where the lord embodies, as it were, the impersonal abstraction of
the village commonwealth and concentrates its interests and duties, he
controlled the transfer of land so as to ensure the union of military service
and landed possession. Just as the constant payment of taxes in the eastern, so
in the western empire the supply of sturdy retainers for warfare was the paramount
interest. As the one aimed at filling the coffers of the State, so the other
aimed at securing the person and property of the petty lord. Sales in the Roman
village were forbidden, except to a fellow- member of the township, vicanus;
strangers could not purchase; and it was only natural, if the adjoining
landlords were made responsible for the Encroaeh- township's default or
defalcations, that they should ^^gnate^ claim pre-emption, as chiefly concerned
in the control of the il common ” estate. It may be
suggested that the very means employed to depress the rich owner merely
resulted in exalting him at the expense of his poorer neighbours. It is
short-sighted folly to-day, as under Basil II., to seek to relieve the poor by
taxing the rich. The wealthy have ample means of recouping or indemnifying
themselves for such loss ; and all taxation in the end presses upon the lower classes.
Its pressure has been with justice compared to a stone bounding downstairs and
reposing its whole weight upon the floor below; and to curtail the luxuries of
the rich is often to extinguish the livelihood of the poor. Under cover of
their responsibilities and with much show of justice, the landowners
interfered in the concerns of the village and the disposal of property there.
The independence of the yeoman-community was threatened; the proprietor
obtained a footing inside the communal circle, and must have gradually secured
the chief influence.
The State, in
the West, by abandoning or forgetting
Encroachment of the Magnate.
(2, b) Private estates.
its
functions, drove the poor man into the patronage of the nearest squire ; a
voluntary 11
commendation" bargained away the liberty of thousands. In the East, the
State, in its very praiseworthy concern and parental anxiety for the weaker,
directly hastened the extinction of the freeholder.
§ 5. In (b)
the private estates (ISiocrTaTa), the owner might be a monastery or a church
(as in Turkey the mosques, or our own glebes and estates of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners); the “Crown” (as the Duchy of Lancaster) ; or individuals. The
tenantry who tilled the land were divided exactly as in a Western manor into
the freeholders and the villeins. The former (liberi coloni, /juarOcoToi) paid
rent in kind or coin, and at the end of thirty years could not be removed from
the soil they had cultivated for a generation. It is easy to see how this
privilege or shield against arbitrary notice became later a sign of bondage,
when the serf’s lot was raised and the free tenant was depressed to meet him.
We may suppose that in the most favourable time, their condition differed
little from the freeholder (liberi tenentes) in a modern manor, or a tenant of
a Scottish estate under feu-duties. The free-rent (otherwise high- or
chief-rent) being paid, possession of the estate and the right of transmission
on the same terms were guaranteed. One difference there might be : the
free-rents of a manor in England are fixed according to the value of money
seven centuries back, and bear no imaginable relation to the present value of
the land. We may presume that the Byzantine proprietor was not so strictly tied
by the “ dead hand.”—The (2) villeins or serfs (evairoypatyoi, adscripticii)
correspond to our copyholder, taken in to work an estate, housed and fed, like
the inmate of the earlier Roman barracoons (the rural ergastula). These, too
(and for a doubtful motive), are u bound to the soil,”—whether to secure their tenure or
to safeguard the master against
desertion
(fy)a7reT«a), it is hard to say. Technically (2, b) Private freemen, they seem
to have at first enjoyed this estates' immunity as a unique right—which became
afterwards (like curial privilege) an intolerable bondage.
But in
civilised societies the indigent citizen is always worse off, because of less
value, than the slave (as Abolitionists have discovered): as the humble and
honest ratepayer out of work is worse off than the criminal in his prison, the
unemployable in his workhouse. The status of the two tended to become
identical. Justinian (xi.
48, 21)
professes himself puzzled to discover a distinction. The personal slave was
raised to the condition of the predial serf of later villeinage, the prototype
of the copyholder to-day, as yet on land unenfranchised, and subject, not to
the fixed or nominal relief of the freeholder, but to the “fine arbitrary” of
lord and steward. Yet however much Christian notions of equality, or Juristic
and Stoical views of equity, may have had influence, the chief motive (here as
elsewhere in human improvement) was fiscal. The government wished to be able to
put its hand on a subject at will and with certainty.
There was to
be no evasion of duties once incurred, leaving a status once entered, changing
a career once chosen. Everything was done to stereotype and formulate. A man
took up his father's profession, with his estate, patronymic, and duties. The
peasant was encouraged no less than the curial to consider his cabin and
holding his own. While the emperors transported whole colonies and altered the
dialect of an entire district, the spirit of the Roman government kept the
classes in duress, and the peasant u nailed to the sod.”
§ 6. The
first sign of altered conditions is met in First definite the No/xo? VecopyiKog
of Leo III. And it must be remembered that this reign (717-740) was the first
democratic in breathing-space since the fall of Maurice. In the character.
obscure night of the seventh century, the thematic
First definite system came to birth. Whole tracts of
country ((f°740) ceased to be imperial ; and were filled with wild democratic
in gipsies and settlers of various origin. The Latin law, character. language,
and traditions were gradually superseded by local customs, barbarous, Greek,
and Oriental influences. Within eighty years, an emperor proposes to make his
capital in the West, and a successor surrenders Rome with indifference.
The first
moments of leisure (from struggles for very life) were given to the
reorganisation of the empire on Protestant lines. Leo and Constantine (whose
administrative and legal edifice was complete about 750) do not merely follow
the current; they also initiate, with a vigour and an individuality rare in
Byzantine history. We would gladly know how far the agricultural code
recognises and merely modifies an existing condition, or attempts to enforce an
ideal. Did Leo abolish serfdom and its incidents, or find it gone ? We have no
mention of glebal bondage, no class of evairoypacpoi, no freemen owing suit and
honourable service to a lord. May we hazard a guess that the caste-system of
hereditary status had been swept away in the storms of the seventh century, and
given place to a new freedom of con- tract? In the class of village-communities
(a) a new type of Socialistic “ Mir" had arisen, corporations perhaps
formed to take over land which had gone out of cultivation, like joint-stock
companies with us. It is not difficult to suppose that this method of tenure
was adopted in the Asiatic provinces gradually cleared of Saracens, and in the
European parts (where imperial colonies or voluntary settlements bid fair to
hold Slavs in check). For the age of Leo was no period of decay or lethargy:
the religious crusades put new life and vigour into the motley assortment of
races and peoples known as the “ Romans"; and a general recovery,
financial and economic, took place when the immediate peril of the capital was
averted. On private estates {b) tenants
are
represented as free from service and bounden First definite obligation : the
rent is a matter of agreement between landlord and lessee: (i) sometimes, as
in the democratic in agri decumates near the sources of Rhine and Danube
character. in the first century, the /uLopTirat paid a tenth of the produce;
(2) at others, the landlord equipped his tenant with stock and capital, and as
in the mttayer system, diverted one-half of the profits to cover his outlay and
risk ; the tenant kept the remaining moiety (jJjtuo-e/ao-Tai). The free
covenant or contract supersedes the archaic feudal tie. The Iconoclastic
reform, like its “ extreme Left,” the Paulician movement, hated spiritual
pride and hierarchic pretensions.
The doctrine
of equality was recognised, and a liberty of agreement on equal terms was
taught and encouraged. But the individualist and democratic efforts of Leo and
Constantine were not crowned with conspicuous success.
§ 7. The
Iconoclasts had favoured the honest Reaction yeoman and sturdy independence ;
but the victory of the orthodox, complete by 850, secured (so far as church and
we may judge) the interest of the feudal and spiritual Magnate. peers. An era
of great families begins, reposing in the main no doubt upon hereditary skill
in war, but largely also upon landed estate. While Basil I. may seem to be the
occasional master of the Church, he is in reality its puppet and its pensioner.
Reaction had set in ; the tenants’ advantage was overlooked, and the obscure
legislation shows some resemblance to our own Agricultural Rating Bill, whereby
a certain relief is given to the parson and the proprietor. Once again, free
contract was abolished; and tenants chained to their allotted place, as once
the old curials to their order. The landlords complained that the modest rental
of one-tenth was insufficient; and within our own memory, estates of heavy land
have been left derelict because unable to bear even the first charge of the
tithe. Taxes had increased under the a Isaurians,” and no doubt bore most heavily on the
Reaction (c. 850) in interest of Church and Magnate.
Soldier fiefs absorbed.
opulent. It
was now their turn: they not only relieved themselves, under an upstart and a
usurper, of fiscal burdens, but they encroached on the common lands—just as in
England, we trace the gradual extinction of communal rights and the exclosure
of open spaces—during the time and perhaps in unconscious revenge of the
movement towards a barren political equality (1760-1832). The Byzantine noble
perhaps could show better right ; he had absorbed the neighbouring village-
lands, by purchase (in right of pre-emption), by loan, mortgage, or advance, in
all the well-known methods by which smaller holdings are merged into the great
estate, like streams in the ocean. In spite of imperial favour, the free
element in the rural population had well-nigh disappeared—the yeomen, whose
place can “ never be supplied." The tenth century is the epoch of feudal
aggression and of ineffective attempts to stem the tide. The latifundia (whether
in the age of Pliny, or of Romanus and Basil, or to-day) imply a decreasing and
lethargic population, economic mischief, ruined agriculture, and a reversal to
an archaic and less civilised form of society. These overgrown estates, studded
with the now ruined homesteads of the small occupier, imply another danger,—the
decay of the recruiting-ground of the Army. The recuperative power displayed so
often and in so surprising a manner by the Eastern empire is due to the new
military system, which in the crusading era (620-730) supplanted the foreign
mercenaries of Justinian’s age. The Byzantine army became the most national,
the best equipped, the most perfectly disciplined in the world. The emperors
took part in their parade and exercises in time of peace, and shared their
perils and hardships in the annual campaign. So careful was the general staff
of the lives of its soldiers that taunts have ever since been levelled at their
cowardly and defensive tactics. Their pay was secured, and they
were supported
by allotments. These were supposed Soldiers' fiefs to be inalienable ; but in
some way not very clear absorbed- to the historian, nobles and grandees (ot
Svvaroi) who had formed a dangerous and unpatriotic element under Justin and
Maurice (565-602) absorbed these farms, whether by mortgage or secret transfer.
Heraclius had
once told the semi-feudal levies of Priscus1 that they were now
soldiers of the State, not the men-at-arms of a powerful citizen; the reverse
was now the case. We may suspect that in an age when a Chamberlain of the Court
could arm 3000 domestics and secure for his nominee the throne he could not
occupy himself (963), retired or still active soldiers in the provinces would
feel under especial obligations to the wealthy general in the castles of
Paphlagonia or Cappadocia.
§ 8. About
this time, that is, under Leo VI., a law Estates of
was repealed,
useful in intent, but now out of date
1 ’ 1 struggle
and for long
a dead letter. Under the earlier against
empire, it
was generally understood that a pro- encroachment vincial governor should not
cement alliance or 9ran ees' acquire property within the sphere of his
duties.
The soldier
and the bureaucrat were members of two detached corporations, which were
sedulously kept apart from the ordinary interests of the citizen and the
taxpayer. Under Justinian (c. 530), the high official was directly forbidden to
buy landed property at all: the emperor looked with suspicion on the sympathy
of classes, the concordia ordinum, and desired to make his soldiers and functionaries
as unconcerned and aloof as the ministers of the Church. But in East and West
alike a tendency set in which obliged wealth to find the only outlet for
capital in landed estate, and firmly united power and influence with
territorial possession. The peculiar circumstances of the empire (to which
history offers no precise parallel) might have betrayed to Leo the Wise the im-
1
Niceph. (de Boor, p. 6): vol. i. 282, ii. 84.
Estates of officials: struggle against encroachment
of grandees.
Attempt to restrict Monastic property (c. 965).
prudence of
removing the prohibition. In spite of intermittent methods of autocracy, the
sovereign was nearly sinking into the puppet of noble factions, the Venetian
Doge, or the British monarch in the time of the Georges. But the major domus
became himself the emperor, and was plus royaliste que le rot. The legislation
of the hundred years following the accession of Lecapenus shows the determined
efforts of the State to shake off feudalism and its incidents. The Novels of
Romanus I. (922), of his son-in-law, Constantine VII., 947; Romanus II., 963 ;
Nice- phorus II., 964, 967 (3); Basil II., 988, 996 (2), have a single aim, to
prevent the absorption of the small owners and the dangerous destitution of a
trained soldiery. To the lasting credit of the Byzantine government, these
soldiers never became a menace to the public peace, never dissolved into roving
bands, more dangerous to friend than to foe. But this excellent discipline was
secured by fixed and regular pay and a certain home-pension for old age. In the
recovered provinces the chief beneficiaries were the court-officials : the
story of John Zimisces' complaint and death is one of the best-known incidents
of this period, and is perhaps even more valuable as evidence, if it be but a
legend. It betrays another problem of conflicting aims and interests, which
would one day tear the State apart (<quandoque distrahant Rempublicam, Tac.
Ann. i. 4) and open the way for the barbarian.
§ 9. In
another direction, the victory of the Orthodox was attended with mischievous
results. The fundamental difference of Eastern and Western monachism is well
known. Under the Merovingians (especially in the last century of their nominal
rule) convenience no less than pious respect granted extensive rights to
prelates and abbeys. The tenants of a monastery were better off than the serfs
of the secular neighbour ; and the corporation (like a college to-day) was a
popular landlord. It is needless to repeat the
praise
deservedly bestowed on these early founda- Attempt to tions, custodians of the
remnants of arts, letters, and civilisation, and sole pioneers in the
improvement or property reclaiming of waste land. Such does not appear to (c-
965)* have been the experience of the Eastern
empire.
The
“immaterial" life, “equal to the angels," was here less practical and
operative. The government in Eastern countries is despotic, largely because the
only class able to create or guide public opinion is otherwise engaged, in
meditation, divine studies, or preparation for death. Now it would be unfair to
depreciate the part played by the Greek Church in the political sphere,
according to its lights. I cannot detect the grovelling servility of which it
is constantly accused. The instances of a frank and conscientious opposition
to the Court are at least as frequent. No one would deny that it provided a
valuable counterpoise to that secular centralism which is the goal and bane of
modern States. The tyranny of a government (such as some fondly dream of as an
ideal), in which all the resources of science and administrative machine are
directed relentlessly to the fulfilment of worldly ends,—would prove unbearable.
I have elsewhere noted that the gravest problem of future politicians will lie
not in the academic inquiry, “ Where is sovereignty enthroned ? ” but “ Where
is the counterpoise to its now unlimited power ? ” The Greek Church performed
its duty with courage. It never became wholly secularised or a portion for
cadets. Theophylact (whom in the text I have compared to John XII.) is an
almost unique instance of the common Western type,—the hunting prelate, more at
home in the stable than the church. Imperial influence and caprice may choose
the patriarch; but there are no Marozias or Counts of Tusculum.—It is
impossible always to sympathise with the Church, even while we concede the
value of its frankness. Piety, which in the West was preserving the rudiments
of culture and social life,
Attempt to restrict Monastic property (c. 965).
Economic fallacies of Byzantium ; Bullionism.
well-nigh
ruined the empire in the East. The Iconoclasts struggled for the very
existence of the secular State. The lavish gifts to monasteries, the building
of new houses, had not the same practical value as in the West. Such property
was lost to the State. It might and did become a house of idleness, a scene of
desolation, rather than a smiling oasis in the wilderness of secular
properties. All governments have at one time or another been obliged to confiscate
existing Church revenues, or limit carefully the right of bequeathal. Charles
Martel had in France an aim similar to his Eastern contemporaries, Leo III. and
Constantine V. The Novels of Nicephorus, a century later, betray the same
anxiety to limit the revenues of ecclesiastical establishments, while warmly
commending the erection of new foundations in waste districts. A passion for
the monastic and celibate life was depopulating; and the government had to
strive against other causes than that of war or pestilence in the maintenance
of the census. Nicephorus himself is the last person to be justly accused of
hatred of monks. So far from being a mangeur des moines, he was in sympathy
with their life and aims. He himself helped to build several houses on Mount Athos
; and his daily prayers and ascetic practice estranged his wife, his friends,
and that fickle and luxurious populace in the capital, who looked for other
qualities in an emperor than prowess and sanctity, who while professing
reverence for the monkish habit and ideal, preferred to perform their own
devotions by proxy.
B. The Government and the
Landed Interest
§ 10. The
government, then, during this period (850-1000), whatever the personal
predilection of individual rulers, sought consistently to curtail large
accumulations in private hands or in ecclesiastical
corporations.
But human nature and economic con- Economic ditions were against them. Two
fatal misconceptions^®^ °f. spoilt the beneficence of the imperial system from
Bullionism/ the outset: (i) The belief that the government could only be strong
and secure by keeping individuals poor, by setting watch, like some jealous
dragon of fairy-tale or mythology, over vast treasures of unused bullion; (2)
that the sole wealth of a country lies in the land—we are familiar with this
latter fallacy to-day. Advance of money for commercial enterprise was
dangerous and uncertain ; legislation seems to have been invariably on the side
of the borrower.
There was no
credit-system ; and trade fell into foreign hands, as in Turkey, and largely in
Russia at the present day. The unique outlet and oppor- Land, unique
tunity for
capital lay in the purchase of more landed
J r . . for capital.
property ;
and when this investment had turned out
profitably,
in the purchase of still more.1 On their part, the indigent
neighbours of a successful landlord had no resource but to mortgage or dispose
outright in the bad harvest, the fiscal urgency, or the
1 One
curious outlet for capital must be mentioned, by which a valuable reversion or
immediate dignity and salary were purchased from the State.
It is the practice of the more temperate despotisms to sell office,
partly, no doubt, to enlist as large a number of supporters as possible for the
existing regime, partly to replenish a deficit in the Treasury. The practice
was long continued and defended under the short-lived but glorious centralised
autocracy of the French Bourbons: the purchase of function and nobility was one
among many means adopted to render harmless the privilege of the noble. The
details of such offers among the Byzantines are peculiar and attractive as
investments : the dignity of protospathaire and a salary of 10 per cent, could
be obtained by a single capital payment. Other sinecures, providing both title,
precedence, and income (like the lordship of a manor) produced about a quarter
of this emolument, but could be sold and bequeathed. The residents of the
capital, to whom such tempting offers were open and perhaps (as Bury suggests)
confined, would have every interest in preserving the Constitution, which with
land gave the only secure return on capital outlay. There was discontent and
conspiracy and personal hatred in Byzantine society; there were no disaffected
classes, there were no political reformers; the utmost Radicalism (to except a
possible socialistic movement under Michael II.) was the removal of an
individual who failed to fulfil his part, in a scheme which all considered
ideally perfect and final.
Land, unique investment for capital.
Lecapenus (c. 930) and the landed gentry: Nicephorus
(c. 965).
personal
failure. Jews, growing at this time throughout the world supreme in trade, do
not appear to have turned their attention to the pledging of landed estate ; it
is probable that they were prevented by custom, prejudice, or direct
legislation. Thus piety, economic conditions, or fallacies, and the natural (as
well as spiritual) law, 11 to him who hath shall be given ” combined to
stultify a consistent policy.
§ 11.
Lecapenus forbids further purchase by magnates from the poor, unless they are
related ; and permits a valid and unquestionable title to such new acquirements
only after ten years. (We may ask, whether the former owner was allowed to
resume when he wished, on repayment of the sum he received for the property ?
for this no answer is forthcoming.) But the middle of the reign of this prince
was ruinous to the small holder and the agricultural interest. In the bad
seasons and distressful winters (927—932) the poor were obliged to make over
their farms to their rich neighbours, to become tenants where they had been
owners: it was in this way that the land of Egypt became Pharaoh’s property
when Joseph was premier. The yeomanry or “statesmen” rapidly diminished in
numbers. The stubborn resistance offered by grandee and churchman to the
interference of government was neither purely selfish nor unpatriotic. The
noble could find no other safe investment ; the churchman conscientiously
believed that no hindrance should be put to the gifts of the faithful. It is
the expedient of the puzzled historian to impute events to self-seeking ; but
man is more often an idealist and (unconsciously) an “ altruist ” than the
economist or the theologian is ready to allow. In the end, the great Asiatic
estates and the feudal conditions they produced, led to the downfall of the “
Roman commonwealth ” and the creation of a new State. But the landed gentry had
no deliberate design of upsetting the old order; and the churchman was only
concerned in recovering from the
sacrilegious
the money left to God and his poor; in Lecapenus assuring independence for the
Church in its appoint- ^helandc^ ments, and for the pious laity freedom of
donation or gentry: bequest. Nicephorus, half-monk, incurred the dis- ^tCg^rus pleasure of the Church by his attempt to secure con- ’ *
trol of Church affairs; John, his assassin, purchased immunity for the act by
resigning all such claim;
Basil II.,
unable to struggle against the current, restores the right to accept and hold
property. We are amused at Luitprand’s righteous indignation at the episcopal u annates ” which Nicephorus
exacted from the Bishop of Leucara. But such an instance supplies us with
another warning against a hasty dismissal of human motive as selfish. The
Church fought with a good conscience and a firm resolve in the defence of its
rights. The emperors, whether Leo III. or Nicephorus, or Otto I. or Henry V.,
were equally clear in their own course. The feudal noble who set at naught all
higher control, and wished to be undisputed sovereign in his manor or barony,
was in the same way justified. Even the astute and pacific chamberlains who in
later times starved the army and spent the taxes in State pageants and popular
amusements, believed they were doing the State good service, in repressing the
aggressive and warlike class, in securing civilian supremacy, and in warding
off the perils of disorder and military law. All were right in a measure, yet
all were wrong.
§ 12. We come
now to the changes in the statute- (3) Legisla- book, to the comparison of the
new Codes or revi- fjgaurians* sion
of the Iconoclast and Basilian dynasties, to the against lessons derived from
the final triumph of the spirit plutocracy• and text of Justinian. Roman
Law, individualist and contractual, grew up in the decay of national
distinction and of religious faith. It replaced the sanctions of a
citizen-State and a narrow ancestral religion by a wider outlook, in which the
law of nature held sway, the enemy of custom, privilege, and
(3) Legislation of ‘ Isaurians ’ against Plutocracy.
exclusiveness.
It was a fitting counterpart to an imperial system, which for the first time
upset the barriers of race and creed. It was u humanitarian ”; and where it was not contractual, it
was tinged with emotion and sympathy. Its severest penalties were reserved for
the plotter against the universal peace; that is, treason against the emperor
its embodiment. Nor need we feel astonishment that the system which most
completely subordinated the individual should have been the first to insist on
his rights, his original liberty and equality. For it was by the free choice of
the people and in virtue of their express mandate that the emperor ruled,
fought, administered, and legislated. The words of Justinian are no empty boast
or hypocritical subterfuge; the emperor and his law stand for freedom : u Pro libertate quam et fovere et tueri Romanis legibus et prcecipue
nostro Numini peculiare est.” It tended to represent every relation of life as
the result of free covenant and convention; and under it slavery and the patria
potestas receive the most serious modification. The age of Justinian
did not originate it; and the sovereign merely gathered up the parts into a
kind of working coherence. His code shows scanty traces of Christian
influence; and it is reserved for the Unitarian Leo to endeavour to give
expression to the tenets of the Gospel in the administration of justice, and
the conception of status, of covenant, and of crime. Edited in a foreign
language which became rapidly unintelligible, the work of Justinian was
partially translated and in time everywhere forgotten or misapplied. The
century between the author’s death and the western visit of Constans III.
witnessed a great upheaval in every part of the realm. The invading Slavs
brought with them their primitive habits ; and in the distress of Asia Minor
and the overthrow of the old civil order, local and customary law superseded
the catholic enactments of the Code; while Christian practice and
ecclesiastical canons
gave guidance
in default of any other. By 740, (3) Legisla- when the joint-emperors produced
their ’E/cAo'yi, the l^aurians’ official world, having
respite from danger, enjoyed against a welcome leisure for considering its
heritage. On Plutocracy. all sides, institutions were in ruins ; only memories
and traditions survived. The new order endeavoured to combine existing
practice, largely Christian or canonist, with the almost obsolete text-books.
The Ecloga shows the dangers of the sea, the widespread influence of Christian
principles, the presence of alien elements in the population: it sought to
reconcile civil and canon law. The levelling spirit of Presbyterian Iconoclasm
is detected in the abolition of scales of penalty, determined by the station
and property of the culprit. The plutocratic basis of old Roman society
disappears, at least in theory, and all are equal before the law. The Ecloga
was then a token of a democratic reform.
§ 13. The
treatment of the wealthy is the chief Problems of problem which faces the
ancient and the modern commonwealth. The Athenian democracy ostracised,
intimidated, and perhaps finally destroyed an independent class by the various
methods of the “ super-tax.” An Oriental monarchy encourages the accumulation
of wealth by officials and private persons alike, that the inevitable
forfeiture may be a rich prize, that the government may without ill-feeling
gather in ill-gotten gains, and even with a show of justice confiscate the
estate of the oppressor. The modern State has at present no settled policy. But
it regards the capitalist with increasing suspicion and dislike. Though it
would resent the comparison, if desires to become, like the Eastern potentate,
the heir of his wealth. But to his initiative, his enterprise, his business
methods, it cannot succeed of right; and it is too early to decide the vexed
question whether the impersonal control of bureaucratic government is as
effective as that of a single interested manager. The State (it would
VOL. 11. L
Problems of State and Capital.
The rich kept aloof from affairs under earlier
empire.
appear
to-day) believes its duty to consist in the grudging protection of wealth by
general order and police, that it may penalise any lucky turn, may seize upon
the growing spoils, and find new ways of relieving the adventurous or the
fortunate of their surplus. This is not the best education for those who
profess to be the rightful heirs of these enterprises and industries. One
would hesitate to entrust the practical management of a “going concern” to
those who had hitherto contented themselves with exacting “ arbitrary fines.”
Now the Roman Empire, perhaps the wisest of political institutions, had conferred
on wealth a recognised place of dignity, while by giving publicity and prestige
it had curtailed its mischievous and indirect influence :—for in a modern State
the outlets are many for secret manipulation by a powerful class or indeed
corporation, suffering, as they suppose, from unjust treatment. The rich were
installed in a monopoly of municipal power. The poorer classes were committed
to their care and kindly supervision, and taught to look to them for the
support of religious festivals, corporate banquets, and the public amusements,
which formed the chief business (I will not say, distraction) of urban life. If
the wealthy had obvious privileges, they had heavy duties. They had the burden,
but not the direction, of affairs. The civil service #and the army
were recruited from the needy and ambitious. The supreme place seldom lay
within the timid grasp of the rich noble ; the Gordian family (238-244) is
perhaps the only instance where high birth and fastidious luxury are raised to
the purple. Yet on the whole this division of labour succeeded. Certainly the
classes in their urban centres lived' together on amicable terms ; the dangers
and disabilities of opulence were too conspicuous for envy. The curial system
exposed the perils of the smaller owners ; and the strangely detached order of
Senators (who had never perhaps visited the metropolis or sat
in the Curia)
was without defence against a prefect The rich kept
faced
with a deficit. The reigns, for example, of ^Mffrom TT , . i . j r t x- ■ . / affairs under
Valentiman
I., -f-375, and of Justinian, f505, are earlier
marked by
merciless official raids against private empire, wealth, of which, perhaps, the
emperor himself was culpably ignorant, if not an accomplice. Natural causes and
public calamities extinguished the opulent class during the seventh century.
When the Iconoclasts began to renew and to reconstruct society, the Church and
the official class were alone visible ; and below, at an immense interval, were
the alien factors and elements fermenting in obscurity.
§ 14.
Religious prejudice combined with social Legal reforms
changes to
nullify the legal services of the Iconoclasts.
0 jo repealed by
The Basilian
code (complete c. 900) reverts to the 900. spirit and letter of Justinian ;
warmly accuses the ill-advised efforts of Leo and Constantine; and in reviving
the ancient and Roman text does not even take the trouble to eliminate the
anachronistic clauses, which had reference to a state of society long passed
away. Criminal law becomes more merciful, the death-sentence infrequent,—and we
must compare with shame the Byzantine usage with the careless and savage
sentences of our statute- book down to recent memory,—when “ men must Mercy in
the hang that jurymen may dine." It is suggested, not Code*
without reason, that mutilation, which largely took its place, was founded on
the Scripture precept,
“ Cut it off and cast it from thee." The
tenderness for human life, noticeable in the tactics and practice of Byzantine
war, is now clearly seen in their code; and if this be a test of civilisation,
at least as important as the extended suffrage or a complete system of baths
and wash-houses, we are afraid that England under George III. must fall behind
Russia under Elizabeth or the Eastern empire under John Comnenus. But critics
remind us of occasional lapses into terrible and vindictive penalties ; and are
inclined to refer this respect for life to monkish
Mercy in the superstition (right of asylum or
leisure for a sinner's Code. repentance)
rather than to the truer motives of
compassion or
humanity. In any case, we must in fairness do justice to a notable improvement
in the Roman Empire on an essential matter, at a time when the rest of the
world was reverting to savagery and altogether shaking off the restraints of
law, while rendering its sanctions more severe.—The two last causes
contributing to the altered aspect of the reviving empire I have named (4) the
settlement of the Iconoclastic controversy, and (5) influx of bullion. Both
these may be briefly dismissed ; for
(4) Revival of my conviction of their serious
import is unhappily fnjlwncelCal
independent of any detailed proof. In the eighth century, at least under the
two first u
Isaurians/’ the State, embodied in a masterful personality, was all-powerful. The
official hierarchy were reduced to their true status as obedient servants;
justice was enforced without respect of persons ; and the rivalry of the Church
as an independent order in the State was curtailed. The views of Leo, in the
preface to his Ecloga, somewhat resemble the doctrine of Dante's De Monarchia.
The heavenly calling, the theological and religious responsibilities of the
emperor are clearly recognised. He claims to be above the monkish orders, not
because his aim is secular, but because he is the chief earthly representative
of a theocracy. With the settlement of the conflict, by Irene for a time and
finally by Theodora, the Church won back much of its direct and indirect
influence. It again became a political, social, and territorial force, which
claimed independence of control in other realms besides that of preaching and
theology. We may here repeat, that a unitary State-government, without
counterpoise, must be a necessary if perilous expedient in time of crisis or
dissolution, or among peoples just learning the rudiments of political compromise.
But in a highly complex and civilised
society, in a
nation scattered over a wide tract of (4) Revival of country and exposed to the
errors and inadequacy Ecclesiastical
17171U6TIC6
of centralised
administration, the make-weight of independent classes on the land, or in
commerce, or in letters, or in spiritual affairs, is essential to a wholesome
equilibrium. Let any unhistoric idealist learn from the Roman Empire the evils
of government interference and monopoly, however conscientious and
well-intentioned. The danger of a republic is not anarchy or even class-warfare
(though this most commonly follows any loud announcement of the actual
equality), but a conservative stagnation, the decay of charity, fellow-
feeling, and lofty aim, a cynical indifference to official corruption, and a
unique preoccupation to obtain a place under government. But in the most
centralised period of Byzantine rule, the Church interfered with this unitary
conception of the State and its duties ; set apart a class of men who, living
the il
immaterial ” life of bare need, could not be touched by a government of force;
watched over the orthodoxy of the sovereign and rebuked the errors of princes.
It is a pity that in recovering this independence and noble frankness, the
Church became entangled in worldly concerns. The endowment of new monastic
foundations proved, as we have seen, the impoverishment of the country, and
implied the disappearance of the yeoman-farmer.
(5) The fact
of the economic revival of the empire is (5) Revival of
undoubted ;
but it belongs to the specialist to search
for the
causes and to trace the development. The
vast
treasures left by Theophilus and by Theodora,
or squandered
by Michael III. and Constantine IX.,
seem
incredible. But the whole period from the
accession of
Leo III. to the death of Constantine X.
is marked by
a steady recovery, by an accumulation
of bullion in
the only kingdom which seemed to
provide
security. Bury well points out the fair
distribution
of wealth in the capital under the
(5) Revival of Isaurians ; the later increase of
riches was to the 1wealth advantage of those already well-to-do.
Money seeks its like, and while the government hoarded in default of true
economic insight, the rich proprietors eluded taxation (as in any other feudal
society) and raised up, under a nominal autocracy, an oligarchy of families,
which I might term with Lord Beaconsfield “Venetian," were it not on
closer inspection almost wholly military.
C. The Sovereign and the Governing Class
under Michael III.
Family of § 15. The marriage of Theophilus has been
em-
Arnwrdan^ bashed ky legend, but it was an event of
capital importance to the empire. One Armenian family had a monopoly of office
and captaincy for perhaps thirty-six years, only to be succeeded by another. We
read with surprise the boasts of the ancestry of Basil or of Theophobus ; to
believe myth or the complacent Herald's College of Constantinople, the latter
was a Sassanid, and on the salutation of the 30,000 Persian troops at Sinope,
revived for a moment a legitimate Persian monarchy (cog etc tovtov kcu ra Uepo’cov Kam^ecrOat eOijma) ; the
former, more lucky in his fate, traced descent from the rival family of
Arsacids. But the house of Theodora represented an Armenian origin, and had
settled or obtained a post in Paphlagonia. At this time, the great Armenian
race, preserved (or even reviving) in the wreck of the Persian empire and
maintained in mountainous fastness against the Caliphate, threw themselves into
the arms of Rome. Henceforth the fortunes of our empire are inextricably
interwoven with the remoter East; and fall before the Seljuks just 200 years
later, because the vigilant frontier- defence of the Armenians had been
abandoned, together with their independence. The noble family of the
Mamigonians turned to the empire, and gave
up their
estates for the more lucrative service of Family of the Amorian dynasty.
Theoph. Contin. (who is Armenian!16 under no courtly
obligation to flatter a long extinct house under Constantine VII.) calls
Marinus, the father of Theodora, ovic ao-rjjuios rt? tj iSiu>rtjg rrjv
rv^fjv}
Manuel, his
brother, was brought from his retreat by the emperor’s express orders to take
part in the Saracen war. He appears still to have held the titular office of
Commander of the Guards, which his nephew and lieutenant Antigonus really exercised
; and legend -insists that he preserved the life of Michael, just as his
earlier namesake twice saved Theophilus. This uncle, Manuel, was a capable
general, and is very generally confused with an earlier Manuel, also an
Armenian,2 who had served the unfortunate Michael I. with fidelity
(813) and had proved the mainstay of the forces and the shield of Leo, and of
Theophilus, at cost of his own life.
Theodora,
born at the unknown town of Ebissa in Paphlagonia, brought her family into
still greater prominence. And herein we notice the curiously
consistent
u democracy ”
of the empire in all its Emperors , , ,, . , ,. ,
always wed
seven ages as
opposed to the aristocratic and ex-
elusive basis
of later European society. Any one may enter the service of Caesar, even
Moabites and Hagarenes; any one may become Caesar; to the chief place in the
mighty fabric the gates, like those of Dis, stand wide open day and night. We
are not surprised to find the son of a just vanquished Saracen governor heading
an imperial detachment in Tzimisces' Russian war, and killing one of the three
leaders. The earlier Manuel crosses to and fro between the service of the
Caliph and Theophilus; the one dismisses him with tears, the other welcomes
the traitor (and possibly the renegade), and
1 He held the somewhat indistinct office of
Spovyydpios, or, as some aver, rovp/xApx^t cont. Thph. 55.
2 Cont.
Thph., in tQv 'Apfxevluv
Ka.Tay6fj.evos. According to Genesius, he spread over the East the repute of a
valiant and dreaded warrior (93).
Emperors always wed subjects.
at once gives
him the honorary title of magister and the serious duty of domestic of the
school.— But in one particular, Roman tradition, so generous to capitulation
and appeal, maintains a pride alien to the rest of its institutions. “No
foreign matches for the imperial house/' was a principle rarely departed from
: “ Let the emperors mate with subjects." A daughter of Theophilus was
proposed for a son of Lewis the Debonnair; but nothing came of the betrothal,
and Thecla sought some consolation in transient amours. In the next century,
Constantine VII. hands down among the curiously assorted “ arcana imperii ” a
solemn prohibition of a strange alliance for royal princesses. He dismissed the
marriage of Emperor Christopher’s daughter to a Bulgarian, with the true remark
that he did not strictly belong to a reigning house. Constantine V. may well
have shocked public feeling by his union with a Khazar; and, excepting
Justinian V., we must revert to Gallienus before we meet an alliance with a
barbarian, of deliberate policy. In this age, and still later in the feudal
period, the empire stood outside that network of powerful families in the West,
which in its close and baffling affinities divided the fortunes and settled the
future of Europe. It may be true that wars to-day are not fought for dynastic
motives, and the personal policy of Queen Victoria shows that a clear-sighted
sovereign will postpone family to national interest. But the public attention
centres on this union of first families, watches intently the course of the
love-match or political alliance, and sees in the common children of nations,
differing in character, creed, and aims, one of the firmest guarantees for
peace and easy relations. From this wider and indirect influence the emperors
were debarred, partly by circumstance and the inexorable veto of religious
faith ; partly by that strong public opinion or official rule which so
completely circumscribed their fancied autocracy.
It is idle to
speculate on the effect of a system of Emperors
alliances
with distant but reverential princes in the alv^y8 wed
r subjects.
West. When an
empty title could so powerfully
appeal to
Clovis in the fifth, to a Venetian doge in the ninth century, what might not
have been the harmonious union of related Christendom against Islam ? It is
sufficient for us that it was not so, and that, at least to the end of our
period, the emperors seek wives and sons-in-law in the household of subjects,
refuse their princesses even to friendly and Christian potentates, and bury in
the convent those who might have been bearers of civilisation and piety.1
§ 16. This
was the family which obtained the chief The Regency. places under Theophilus :—
Michael II., t 829.
. I I
Theoctiste
= Marinus. Manuel
(7rarpi/cta, (Regent). Scylitza).
Theophobus =
Helena. (“Persian king ”).
Thho- = Theo
PHILUS,
t 842.
I
Bardas dora. Caesar
(862-866).
Petronas
hia.
4 daughters.
(?) Thecla (affianced (?) to a son of Lewis I.).
I
Michael III., t 867.
Eudocia = Basi- Ingerina. I liusI.
! t 886.
d. of Myro,
\oy. Spofj.: general and domestic (850).
I
. I
Anti- ?
gonus, ixo vo- Colonel a-rpartj-
Of VO? TtOJ'
Guards. Svtikuv.
Sop!
Const. Ba-
boutzic, magister (uncle of Photius, patriarch); his father (?) Theodosius sent
envoy to Lewis I.
839-
Maria.
Irene.:
Arsabir (an
Armen, envoy to Rome to Pope Nicolas II:
Anast.)
Sergius
(patric.), brother of patriarch Photius.
Stephen
(patric.)
Bardas
(patric.)
Alexius Musel Leo VI &c
Caesar (Armenian).
Symbatius
(Sempad), Armen, and patric., AoyoOeVrjs Spofiov.
Manuel
secures his great-nephew’s throne by refusing the title of emperor; and
recalling soldiers and people in the circus to their allegiance to an infant.
(Had the Armenians introduced greater respect for these rights than prevailed
before ?) But the first
1 It
is without surprise that we read of the doubts on the marriage of Otto II. and
Theophano: yet could it be seriously believed, or indeed boasted, that the
empress of the West was a Byzantine changeling ?
The Regency: place in the Council of Regency after
Theophilus' death was held by a eunuch-chamberlain and patrician (this title is
sown broadcast and ceases to bear any distinctive meaning). Theoctistus (who
may possibly have been connected with Theodora's mother) had been XoyoOerrjg tov Spo/jiov, or Postmaster. We may
note that he was envious of a military renown, and took command in three unsuccessful
campaigns in 843, 844, 845. Calumny removes Manuel; Theoctistus is removed by
Bardas’ intrigue and by a scene of unusual violence, in which even the emperor
and his uncle are disobeyed. We read of Damianus, a chamberlain, probably
TrapaKoijuLcofjLevos, and an evil tutor, whose advancement, pleaded by Michael
III. with boyish zeal, is sternly refused by Theodora, who promotes according
to old Roman tradition by merit and noble birth, not the servile and base-born.
Bardas, as XoyoOerr79, now wielding uncontrolled influence over his nephew,
reforms his ways and governs the empire well. Theodora is induced to retire by
her ungrateful son; first insisting on an inventory of the treasures she left,
so soon to be squandered by him. Damianus slips from favour and is replaced by
Basil, the Macedonian-Slav or Armenian, whose romantic story dominates this
period. Basil is further promoted. He gave the usual largess with great
splendour (viraTeva-e). Bardas receives the rank KovpoTraXaTrjs, and at last is
granted that of Caesar, a title dormant for some time previous to the brief
enjoyment of the dignity by Alexius Musel Character of under the jealous
Theophilus.—The private life of Michael III. Mjchaei
III. and his personal character need not concern us; it were well to remember
the words of the judicious Finlay. He seems to have emulated some of the
earlier Caesars, Nero, Vitellius, Com- modus, in his vigorous patronage of the
circus and his intemperance. He forced senators to take part in his favourite
pastime ; stopped the beacons because
they
interfered with the serious business of his Character of life; and seized with
delirium, ordered at table the Michael
11L deaths of prominent
men. It is notable, first, that his orders were rarely executed, unless they
happened to agree with the wishes of the courtiers; second, that on the morrow
the emperor was heartily relieved to find his commands disobeyed and expressed
his gratitude. Yet while each night brought a renewal of the coarse pleasures
which ruined his life, he was not wanting in spirit or valour. He would
sometimes recast the edicts and question the arrangements of Bardas, with whom
rested the real work of administration. He constantly appeared at the head of
his troops ; and we must deplore in his case, as well as in that of Constantine
VI., that under a pious mother's care a youth not without promise or ability
became the most unsuccessful sovereign in this age. It is difficult to trace
the exact analogy, but the reign of Michael III. with the return of Orthodoxy
shows a sudden moral dissolution of society, comparable to the reign of Charles
II. after the overthrow of Puritanism. As a rule, the personal behaviour of
the sovereign in his palace had not been of great importance ; it was little
known; and few Roman emperors were without striking official virtues or
competence, which hid, or at least atoned for, private scandals, largely
exaggerated by gossiping biographies. But the genial good-nature of Michael
III. was popular: he mixed freely with all classes; visited and supped with the
poorest, stood godfather to his trainers' and jockeys’ children ; and did not
even estrange the vulgar by his utter contempt for the Church in a
superstitious age.
Gryllus the
Pig was his mock patriarch, whose unseemly revels, mass in masquerade, and
vulgar indecency towards the empress (if we may credit an idle legend), were
the talk of the capital. The private unbelief of a sovereign may be without influence
; but the drunken processions of Michael’s
Character of patriarch and his choice companions
were notorious. Michael III. Theophilus, a man of stern and austere character,
had built a hospital where once had been licensed houses of ill-fame. Society
seemed (with the return of the mediating power of images) to have thrown off
the fetters of restraint. Bardas lived in open concubinage with a
daughter-in-law. Thecla (a sister rather of Michael III. than of Basil)
surpassed the daughters of Charlemagne in the facility of her attachments.
Basil himself assumed, with deep astuteness, a levity and an intemperance which
were far from congenial to him ; and he threw off the disguise of vice when it
had served his turn. He accepts the cast-off mistress of Michael III., Eudocia
Ingerina, and communicated to others his own suspicions of the parentage of
Leo the Wise. It is not a little peculiar that the principle of legitimacy
should have taken firm root among the Byzantines at a time when of two
sovereigns one, Leo, was of doubtful origin ; and the other, his own son,
Constantine VII., had been born out of lawful wedlock.
Cynical §
17. Bardas Caesar stands out with a Caliph and
In Church6^ a Patriarch
(Almamun and Photius) as the most en- and State. lightened ruler in a dark age.
He encourages justice, law, and letters : he founds a university in Magnaura
and entrusts it to Leo, who had acquired notoriety in the last reign. He
succeeded in supplanting the pious Ignatius as patriarch by the lay statesman
Photius, great-nephew of Tarasius, a previous occupant of the see, raised with
the same suddenness from the official first-secretariat ('TrpwToaartjKprjrig)
to the archiepiscopal throne. Photius was the son of a spatharius, and seems to
have succeeded Basil as Chief Equerry or Master of the Horse. The ruse by which
Bardas secured the acquiescence of the bishops in Ignatius’ deposition has a
curious significance, in view of the known relaxation of discipline, morals,
and religious conviction which followed the settlement of this Iconoclastic
controversy. He secretly promised
the reversion
of the vacant see to each several Cynical bishop, begging him to show a decent
reluctance G^l^^ent to obey the
imperial summons; and it must be and State. confessed that their unanimous
acceptance of this proposal is exceptional in the annals of the Eastern Church.
Another incident of imperial and (as we must presume) of ecclesiastical policy
throws light upon the sinister aspect of the time ; I mean the persecution of
the Paulicians. Did society compound for loose morals and the Church for
self-seeking by religious intolerance ? Under a government, largely dominated
by Armenian influence, the frontier-vassals or sentinels of the East
(countenanced since the days of Constantine V., perhaps in secret sympathy)
were not merely discouraged but turned into rebels.
Actively
disloyal, the Paulicians sought refuge with the principal foe of the empire,
the Emir of Melitene ; for example, Carbeas, whose father suffered the horrible
penalty of crucifixion for his religious views.
The
persecution of the Cathari, of the Albigenses, had some excuse in the ignorant
suspicion of the age and the anti-social character of their views and practice.
But the persecution of the Paulicians must be classed with the revocation of
the Edict of Nantes and the expulsion of Moriscoes from Spain,—a political
error of serious importance.
§ 18. The
reign of Michael III. in its jealousies, Murder of palace-cabals, and murders,
betrays features happily uncommon in Byzantine history. Bardas, in spite of his
capacity and learning, was a man without principle or moral conviction. He
sought to preserve the influence of his family by retaining the chief military
offices for its members, the chief civil, for its creatures. Petronas,
Theodora’s own brother, flogged by Theophilus with impartial but Oriental
justice, is called from Ephesus, whence he governed the Buccellarian Theme, to
the supreme command on the Saracen frontier. Did the Caesar fear to confide
forces to a stranger ? Did he contem-
Murder of
Coesar
Bardas
and of Michael III.
plate the
deposition of Michael III.? He was assassinated in the emperor's presence; and
the plot was conceived and executed by the new favourite, Basil. The populace,
usually indifferent to the removal of its viziers, protected a monk who
publicly reproached Michael with the murder.—For a short time a genuine civil
war formed an almost welcome contrast to the intrigues of the palace around the
childless emperor. Basil succeeded to Bardas' vacant dignity, but Symbatius
(Sembat), his partner, won no advantage from the crime. Sembat leagued with the
Obsician governor: they raise a standard of revolt in the name of the emperor,
plunder and pillage. Against the two is despatched an Armenian, Maleinus, one
of the territorial noble families, which in another line produces Nicephorus
Phocas and John Tzimisces; and the revolt is crushed and its authors cruelly
put to death. Michael now betrays the same jealousy of Basil as he had shown to
his own uncle. With an autocratic caprice and neglect of form, infrequent in
the Eastern empire, he suddenly invests Basiliskianus (or Basilicinus) with the
purple buskins of a colleague at table, asking Basil whether he had not still
the same prerogative that raised him to the rank of Caesar ? Reports do not
agree as to the status and origin of the new imperial partner. He is called a
rower in the imperial trireme, but he is also represented as the brother of Constantine
Caballinus, prefect of the city (who seems to have borne as a genuine name the
odious epithet of the son of Leo III.); he was presented to the silent and
astonished senators the next day. Basil had reason to fear for his life; his
murder was attempted in vain. Like Bardas he had taken a serious view of his
responsibilities, as colleague of a madman ; whom he had alienated by his
virtues and diligence. He was neither a soldier nor a civilian,—merely a palace
favourite who developed a sudden aptitude for affairs, and with all his
timely
complaisance to Michael's follies, maintained Murder of a just view of the duty
and dignity becoming an Vardas emperor. The death of Michael, one of the most
and of pitiful and tragic episodes in our history, was an Michael III. unhappy
necessity. Both self-defence and the needs of the State might urge Basil to
lose no time and to overcome all scruples. The people heard without interest or
commotion of the transference of complete sovereignty to the Caesar, and it is
probable that the murder was not more public than the circumstance of Emperor
Paul’s assassination in 1801. If we reproach the Byzantine people at large with
a callous disloyalty and indifference, we must remember the secrecy of the
imperial tradition, the mystery of the palace, the discreetness of those
permanent attendants and officials, to whom any change of sovereign was of
slight moment. No telegraph then made known to a horrified society the minute
details, as in the murder of Alexander and Draga of Servia, or the King and
Crown-prince of Portugal. With all our boasted advance in humanity the
nineteenth century will remain pre-eminently the Age of Regicide ; singular
irony, when we remember that kings were invited to lay down a burdensome
prerogative that they might divert to others the invidia of bad government, and
becoming sacrosanct reign secure but superfluous in the hearts of their people.
§ 19. Thus
fell the direct dynasty of Amorium; Accession of for it is more than probable
that Leo the Wise s^nfthm^ continues the obscure lineage. It had arisen under
Armenian very similar circumstances; an old friend and mfluence- colleague suspected and imprisoned; a sudden massacre
in the grey dawn; and a hasty salutation.
Michael II.
was low-born, ignorant, and unorthodox; but his family soon acquired the
weakness and the culture of a long-established family. Theophilus was
magnificent without losing simplicity in personal life and character; he had
known the dangers and
Accession oj Basil further strengthens Armenian
influence.
vicissitudes
of a private station. Michael III. is the true type of the young heir born in
the purple. He is no nonentity like Honorius ; but his upbringing has spoilt
him, and he lacks the first requisite of a Roman emperor, application to
business, personal contact with affairs. His reign bears a curious resemblance
to that of Commodus; viziers, forced into rivalry with the emperor, do the hard
work; and he enjoys high office as a means to gratify the not unmanly and still
regal tastes of a sportsman. When Xiphilin was transcribing Dio Cassius and his
contemporary account of Rome under the son of Aurelius, he could not fail to
detect the likeness. During this nominal autocracy, the machine of government
went on of its own secular momentum. The regents were able and considerate, but
the treasury was exhausted by Michael’s constant extravagance. This, indeed,
in the eyes of his subjects, was his chief demerit. Yet may we ask, without
shocking the economist, whether a reckless profusion does not circulate the
precious metals more profitably than the bullionist policy which hoards the
whole surplus capital of the State ? Certainly at no time did the empire more
ostentatiously display its marvellous capacity for recuperation. Basil found an
almost empty treasury; but after twenty years he bequeathed to a dubious and
suspected heir the same wealth and opportunity of enjoyment that Theodora had
transmitted to Michael on retiring from the regency.—The Amorians had allied
with an Armenian family as yet without permanent surname.1 And the
change of dynasty in 867, after so many sanguinary intrigues, only gave greater
power to the Armenian interest. The conspirators who removed
1 We
may indeed trace the beginnings of this new practice ; under Leo VI. a valiant
general is styled o tov <£w/ca; Constantine VII. writes {de Adm.) explicitly
of a certain general of the Peloponnesian Theme, o5 t6 €7tikXV o rwv
Bpoievvlup,—where later custom treats both Phocas and Bryennius as family
names. Is not even Gibbon misled as to the meaning of the term Monomachus ?
Bardas, the
regicides who shed the blood of their Accession oj sovereign, are undeniably
Armenian. The precise Basil further origin of Basil the “ Arsacid/' the Slav,
the Mace- Armenian donian, the Armenian,—we shall never know; nor is influence.
the birth of this bold but isolated figure a serious matter. But he depended on
Armenian support, and received a crown with gratitude from an Armenian
sovereign! There is something strange and even startling in the Byzantine
empire at this time.
There is a
fixed social order enjoying a security of life and property unknown elsewhere;
a bureaucratic service still imbued with the administrative methods and
traditions of the age of Constantine; a Church representing Hellenic culture
and abstention under the cover of Christian theology and monasticism; a course
of justice, at least for the ordinary man, incomparably more equitable than any
that prevailed till centuries later in other countries; an army efficient and
devoted, whose failures were due rather to bad leadership than want of spirit
or training; and, at the apex, a strange foreign family, whether of Michael the
Amorian or Basil the “ Arsacid,” not educated either in the church or the civil
service, alien to the doctrine and letters of this “ Roman ” society, and yet
able to seize at will by two obscure murders the most dazzling prize that earth
could offer to human ambition.
VOL. II.
M
Transfer of throne to the ‘ Arsacid 867, supported
by official class.
THE SOVEREIGN AND THE GOVERNMENT UNDER BASIL I., LEO VI., AND ALEXANDER
(867-912)
§ 1. A period of some
forty-five years is covered by the reigns of Basil and his two sons. We reserve
the indecisive space of the regency which governed under the nominal rule of
Constantine for the next section, before the appearance of Romanus I. and the
inauguration of a new family. These are years of quiet and steady recovery,
vigilant and systematic business at home and abroad, relapsing in the latter half
into that short-sighted conservatism and enjoyment of resources, which seems
to follow every restoration of central control in Byzantine history. There are
plots, conspiracies, and intrigues ; but the period cannot be termed one of
anxiety or unrest. No general attempt was made or contemplated to change the
family or the form of government; and we may well wonder if these emperors
regarded such episodes as serious matters, so striking is the leniency shown to
traitors and would-be regicides, with one remarkable exception of barbarous
cruelty, which shall be noted in due course. In spite of the historical
resemblance, Basil was no peasant Maximin (235), who merely excelled in bodily
strength and killed a benefactor. It is true that his records are composed by
those who wrote under his grandson's partial eye ; but it is clear that his “
usurpation " was popular and his government well supported by the official
class, whose quiet but obstinate opposition had proved disastrous to more
reigns than one. It seems, at the outset, abundantly clear that the mysterious
Senate had moved in the matter of the
transfer of
the throne. Like their ancient prototype, Transfer oj without executive power,
perhaps without corporate tJirone the privilege,
the f3ouAtjt <TvyKAr}Togy or yepovaia exercised a 867, sup- certain
but indefinable control. It was in the pre- P°*te.dby
sence of this body of high officials that Theodora m ca*s' and Basil opened the treasury:
the one at the close of her regency, to display its wealth ; the other, at the
first moment of his monarchy, to show its emptiness. Basil was sufficiently
tactful and astute to secure their support from the first ; and the abolition
of a supposed privilege of legislation was certainly not the act of an absolute
or capricious Caesar, who despised a rival and insulted this last remnant of
the Dyarchy. The natural and legitimate successor of an incapable prince, he
was welcomed by clergy and civilians alike; and owing to some admirable secret
of the Byzantine military system, no distant prefect or general hastened to the
capital, like Galba or Vespasian or Constantine, to claim the vacant place by
force. It is a moot question whether the general welfare of the realm suffered
or gained by this exchange, when palace- intrigue replaced the military “
pronunciamento.”
Public
opinion was less shocked, no doubt; the greatest secrecy prevailed as to the
interior of the palace, the veritable 11 Forbidden City '' of the Byzantines. The technical
forms were carefully preserved; even Basilicinus, the nominee of a debauch, was
presented to the silent ranks of senators by the now sober Michael; and Basil,
solemnly inaugurated, well tested by a year's association, succeeded without
protest, receiving his crown over again from the altar, through the patriarch's
hands, as a sacred trust from God.
§ 2. It would
be difficult and perhaps unfair to Domestic estimate the position of this
sovereign without inquiring into the administration which made his reign 0f Basil. ' acceptable and his family popular. He had good ability, a
natural desire for the happiness of his
Domestic reforms and foreign policy of Basil.
subjects
(whose lot he had known and tested in his youthful poverty), and he was well
served. Nature and willing human effort combined to help him in his task. First
and foremost came the reform of finance and the replenishing of the treasury;
unworthy pensions were halved, not entirely abolished; even the needs of the
State under an absolute prince recognised something like “ vested interests."
The expenses of the Court were curtailed; imposts were diminished and perhaps
more carefully distributed; the cost of government was simplified; proposals to
increase the scale of taxation were declined, though warmly recommended by the
official class; and (best of all) the steady and equitable administration of
the law was secured by payment of a fixed and regular salary to the justices.
This was one of the chief boasts of the later empire, that amid the storms of a
turbulent age and the rapid shipwreck of neighbouring powers, this ideal at
least of l<rovofj.la had been
preserved; the law-books might be forgotten, but the traditions of Roman equity
remained inviolate. The poor suitors, forced under any centralised government
to resort to the capital, were maintained during their sojourn at the State
expense; and it would be interesting to know how long this unique and
thoughtful provision lasted. Basil revived the old practice of sitting as
assessor or interested auditor in the Courts, to give dignity to the judges as
well as to guide their decisions. He sat in Chalet, having rebuilt a
judgment-hall in the vestibule of the palace; and in the Treasury (to yeviKov) he was a constant attendant in the
most important branch of Byzantine administration—the assessment,
apportionment, and collection of the revenue, and chiefly of the
land-tax. Basil, or his wise counsellors (and an absolute monarch who dares
employ and listen to such deserves the credit for their sagacity), took care to
have these cadastral assessments written up clearly and in full, so that every
one
might read. He encouraged appeal, protest, Domestic and grievance against the
exactors,—those necessary an^
evils in a
State which employs the vexatious method 0f Basil. of direct
taxation; and when he found no cases of complaint he suspected fraud or
intimidation, and wept tears of joy on discovering through trusty spies that
there really was no one to complain. The law was once more codified; and this
bold and systematic task, bringing an incoherent mass to order, and reacting
against the brief and hated Iconoclastic redaction, was completed, and should
properly be noticed, under the reign of Leo VI. The disorganisation of the
army during Michael’s sole reign has no doubt been exaggerated ; but Basil
introduced a new element of strength, by distributing mature soldiers among the
younger recruits and by making the duties of military service somewhat more continuous.
He secured the submission of the Slavs, already “ completely seized ” of the
greater part of the Balkan peninsula ; and exercising a rare discretion and
reversing the precedent of Theophilus, who extinguished the autonomy of
Cherson, he allowed these scattered tribes to choose their own rulers (while in
the last reign such places had been, it was said, sold to the highest bidder).
The chief warlike events of Basil are found in the constant and indecisive
border-forays in the East, on the Cilician frontier ; in the regrettable
overthrow of the Paulicians under Chrysochir at Tephrice ; in the naval
expeditions, which with varying success protected the Roman shores from the
Saracen corsairs ; and in the kaleidoscopic changes in the map, the policy, and
the fortunes of Southern Italy. It is on the Eastern limit that the chief interest
lies, where the chief obscurity conceals. We are informed significantly enough
that on the fall of Tephrice, the resolute Protestant citadel of the saints,
Tarsus and its emir revived and raided the empire's land ; that private
enterprise, not imperial policy, founded two
Domestic new themes—Lycandus, where Melias the
Armenian
reforms and actecj
as some' Anglo-Saxon pioneer of a lethargic
foreign policy & r
of Basil central government ; Mesopotamia, where
three
brothers,
nobles of Armenian descent, surrendered (without doubt to resume in fee) their
estates to the emperor. Greater Armenia, recruiting-ground for the soundest
stock and the best warriors, was divided between several great princes, and
perhaps the chief bore the honourable but unmeaning title of Curo- palat. Yet
we cannot doubt that the Eastern frontier suffered severely ; large tracts were
depeopled either by civil war, which made a desert of the interior and
compelled the vanquished to join the Saracens, or by those fruitless expeditions
in Melitene or Cilicia, where Byzantine tradition seemed to insist that the
sovereign shall appear at the head of his troops.
His family: § 3. The family and ministers of Basil
consisted of rnwr<dl°n ^our
daughters who, according to the custom of the restraint. Court and the time,
followed the religious life; and four sons—Constantine, by his first marriage,
who predeceased him, and appeared (as he believed) in the spirit by the clever
jugglery of the Santabarene ; Leo, who continued this dynasty, born of
uncertain origin in September 866 ; Alexander, who reigned for a brief period
of thirteen months, 911-912 ; and Stephanus, born in 870, raised at the age of
sixteen to the patriarchal throne, dying in seven years of the severity of his
ascetic practice, and providing a precedent for the elevation of the young
Theophylact by his father Lecapenus in the next century. It is said that Basil
had reason to complain of Ingerina's conduct, and that Thecla (whom Theophilus
had crowned and Michael her brother indulged) continued her vagaries into the
more decent, or at least more pious, atmosphere of the new reign. Basil's
clemency imposed upon Nicetas, the empress's cicisbeo, and on Neatocomites,
Thecla's paramour, the somewhat peculiar penalty of the monastic life: the
former was permitted under Leo to become oeconomus
of Saint
Sophia. It can scarcely be denied that a Secular and certain secular air
invaded the high places of the %^^^!chs Church, though not to the
same extent as in Rome in the following century. Princes of the blood- royal
take orders ; Ignatius is the son of Michael Rhangabus (811-813) anc*
the grandson of the “Arabian" Nicephorus; Gregory, the son of Leo the
Armenian, is Bishop of Ephesus ; Stephen and Theophylact are the brother and
the son of a reigning emperor. But the episcopate was never a mere appanage for
the cadets of some powerful family; and whereas in the West the holder
secularised the office, as John XII. in the tenth, and Benedict IX. in the
eleventh century, in the East the mitre (powerless only over the son of Leca-
penus) insensibly transformed its wearer into a spiritual person. Photius
himself is a statesman and an intriguer, as well as a vindictive partisan ; but
he brought to the throne deep learning and capacity for practical business, not
often seen in a patriarch. He compassed his restoration under Basil by a
pamphlet, possibly ironical, in which he displayed the Arsacid descent of the
emperor. His brother-in-law, Leo Kara/caAwi/, is captain of the guard; he
himself had been an ambassador to the caliph ; and his friend, Theodore the
Santa- barene (who played the imposture on the superstitious Basil), was an
accomplished hypocrite, ordained to the see of Patras: which the witty
Byzantines called ’AcpavroTroXis, the courtly bishop being both an intruder and
an absentee. We cannot discern the motive for the plot of Photius and
Santabaren against Leo after Constantine's early death, grudgingly acknowledged
as sole heir. It was a curious and obscure political manoeuvre, conspicuously
imprudent and unsuccessful. The last days of Basil were tormented by suspicion
and perhaps by remorse ; he grew moody and irritable ; a servant who saved his
life while hunting was
punished with
death for baring his sword before the emperor, and his last words warned his
successor against the priestly machinations which had embittered the closing
years of his life. At this critical moment he complained, like Justin II., of
the helplessness of an emperor among servants banded together to deceive him.
§ 4. The
officials, ministers, and generals in the public service service
0f the State under Basil prove the same
TYBB
TV07TI
conditions of complete superiority to national
spirit or exclusive- nationality. ness, which we have so often remarked.
Andrew, Governor of the Hellespont, is a Scythian of the West (in contrast to
the Tauroscyths or Russians). He succeeds in one of the many expeditions
against Tarsus ; is superseded in a palace-cabal by Stypiotes, a sort of later
Cleon ; but is again replaced and becomes Commander-in-chief. The period is
chiefly worthy of notice for the emergence of those great families, mostly of
Asiatic or Armenian origin, with whom arms became a hereditary profession, the
defence, as distinct from the administration, of the State, a peculiar duty and
privilege.1 The great Admiral Nicetas was
an effective if stern disciplinarian (not to be confounded with the
chamberlain who found favour with Ingerina, nor with a courtier who assisted
the return of Photius, nor again with a later confidante of Leo VI.). An
indolent general in Italy, Stephen Maxentius, of Rise of the the untrustworthy
race of Cappadocia, gives way to 9familiestern
Nicephorus Phocas, grandfather of the emperor a century later. Phocas is sent
against the Saracens in 886, and against the Bulgarians; he becomes
i We read now of the first family of Ducas, which was almost blotted out
in the next century, in a treasonable attempt to seize the throne. Andronicus
and his son Constantine will be noticed in connection with the favourite
Samonas; and we here only call attention to the gradual formation of the
surname. In Basil’s life (Bonn, 369) it is rbv iK tov Aovicbs ; also
’AvSpbviicos 0 Aovicbs vibs—very soon lapsing into the brief Aouitas. Dindorff
in Zonaras gives dovicbs simply as if a title. Thph. Cont. 165, 0 tov ’Apyvpov
k. 0 tov Aou/cds, and of Theodotus, 6 Karb. rbv hleXiaarjvbV'
Secular and
imperial
Patriarchs.
Byzantine
So/tiecTTiKos tgov (ryoXwv, or Commander-in-chief,
on the Rise of the demise of the “ Scythian ” Andrew ; he refuses to 9J^ii^tern
become the nominal husband of the emperor’s mistress, Zoe I.; and being
removed to comparative exile as Governor of Lydia, achieves a brilliant victory
over the Saracens, and obtains honourable mention in the “ Tactic ” of Leo, for
a mastery of strategic art. Leo KaTdKaXibv succeeds to his European command,
coupled with a palace - dignitary, Theodosius the 7rpwTofieo-Ttdpios; both are
defeated with terrible loss by Symeon, throughout this reign of ease a perpetual
thorn and menace,—Angyrines, the Armeniany being killed with his
troop ; and his squire Melias finding renown (as we saw) by the establishment
of the Theme Lycandus, peopled with a colony of his fellow-countrymen. Alexius,
an Armenian (so Constantine VII. tells us), also recovered Cyprus for the
empire for seven years, after which it was again lost to the Saracens. It
cannot be asserted that excessive control by the State had as yet extinguished
private enterprise. Curticius, another Armenian, falls in the Bulgarian war in
889. Nicetas Sclerus is sent in the same year as envoy to obtain the dangerous
aid of the Hungarians against the determined Symeon; and henceforward the
perplexing fewness and similarity of Christian names begins to be made clear
by the adoption of the surname, which serves a double purpose; the historian is
enabled to trace the fortunes of families 1 and the continuity of their tradition,
no longer puzzled by the sudden emergence of some isolated and unique figure,
without father, without mother. We are thus enabled to judge the
•
1
Another link is given by Theophylact Abastact (or the Unbearable?), who saved
the Emperor Basil’s life in war, and is given as the father of Lecapenus, who
forty years later shared the purple with his “ grandson,”
Constantine. In this time, too, we hear of another surname of renown;
Eustathius Argyrus is the son of a general under Michael III. at Teph-
ric£, is the representative of a Charsian house in Cappadocia, and becomes the
ancestor of Romanus III. (1028-1034), first husband of Zoe (C. vii. 374).
Perils of
divided
command.
Abortive conspiracies against Basil\ and Ms son
(870-910).
effect of the
Iconoclastic revival, which enabled titles, estates, and a sense of family
honour to be transmitted with a security infrequent if indeed ever found in
Oriental monarchies. The most painful episode in Basil’s reign is the
treacherous conduct of a Leo during an Italian campaign, as the colleague of
Procopius, the ttpun-ofieo-Tiapiov. This
practice of joining an official of the palace with a professional soldier has
been noticed before ; and after all, is no novelty to the historian who
remembers the astonishing success of Narses under Justinian. Not yet had the
military class claimed supremacy or even independence of the civilian’s
administration ; but we may trace in this a half-conscious suspicion of a sole
command. At any rate, the usual quarrel arose between the two ; Leo deserts
Procopius, leaves him to perish, himself obtains a victory and returns to
claim the credit. On discovery of his crime, heinous and without hope of
forgiveness in the military code of honour, Leo was punished by the loss of an
eye and his right hand (the same punishment which excited civilised people of
late against the Moorish Sultan). Perhaps the government scarcely ventured to
avenge the murder of a palace functionary by the execution of a successful
captain ; but other proofs are not wanting of the exceptional clemency and
humane prejudices of Byzantine society at this time. Those who see in the Greek
chronicles nothing but hideous penalties, parricide, and hypocrisy, should
remember the gradual improvement in our own prison system and our penal code,
and should compare the treatment of Lord Balmerino and Admiral Byng in the
eighteenth century.
§ 5. We are
brought, then, to the conspiracies and plots which disturbed the rest of Basil
and Leo without rendering them cruel or vindictive. Romanus Curcuas, captain
of the 'hcavaroi, was the father of a general sometime compared to Belisarius,
and was the great - grandfather of an illustrious
emperor,
Zimisces (1*976). Sixty-six senators were Abortive
implicated
in an obscure plot, of which Curcuas was consPzrac™s
r against Bas
the author.
He is deprived of sight, but his accom- and his son
plices are
only banished and their estates confiscated. (870-910). It is permissible to
see in this plot the discontent of a rich official class who had lost the
chance of gain by the new methods adopted to secure their integrity.
The
conspiracy of Santabaren against the young prince Leo was punished on Leo’s
accession by the loss of sight; but it is remarked that the tender-hearted
emperor repented of this sentence, recalled his old enemy to the capital, and
settled a pension on him, charged on Church-revenues ; this he enjoyed with the
noted longevity of State pensioners, and died in the reign of Constantine VII.
at an advanced age.
The mild
control of Leo gave the inmates of his household opportunity to show their
disloyalty. Tzaoutzes Stylianus was once the governor of the three imperial
princes under Basil. He had allowed his daughter Zoe to become the mistress of
Leo, afterwards raised for brief space to the lawful rank of empress, and fit
(if legend is to be believed) to associate with the Marchioness of
Brinvilliers. Loaded with favours, dignities, and new-created titles, Stylianus
conspired against Leo when absent from the capital in a villa of pleasure on
the Bosporus. His son, Tautzes, captain of the guard, is in the plot, together
with Basil Tpy/cri? (the Harper ?). Zoe discovers and thwarts the unnatural
and foolish intrigue, and sends back the emperor out of harm’s way to the
palace. Leo contents himself with withdrawing the commission of Stylianus'
son, and conferring the important post on Pardus, son of Nicolas, commander of
the Foreign Legion ; but it would appear that the new colonel was himself a
grandson * of Stylian ! Basil, his brother, actually attempted to make himself
emperor, and laid the foundations of the remarkable influence of Samonas the
Saracen by taking him into his confidence. Samonas told Leo of
Abortive the enterprise; and the kindly monarch,
convinced of
conspiracies gUiit
burnt off his hair, and exiled him to Greece. against Basil ,
and his son In 902 occurred an attack on Leo during
a solemn (870-910). procession which bears a closer likeness to the modern
dangers of royalty. A candelabrum saved the emperor's life, but he was severely
wounded in the head, and the nameless and perhaps insane assassin underwent a
terrible and Chinese punishment; he was tortured in vain to reveal his
accomplices, and after he had lost hands and feet he was burnt alive.
Leo VI. §
6. The personal reign of Leo is the history of a
under Styhan ^jn(j anc|
ease-loving sovereign, but little acquainted Samonas: with affairs,
and completely under the influence of remarkable his wives and attendants. We
have noticed the long
ScLVfLCfiTl
favourite. predominance of Stylian, hurried through
the inferior ranks of the hierarchy to the most exalted posts, master of the
offices, logothete or grand treasurer, and “ parent of the Emperor,"
jSaa-iXeoTtdrcop—a title invented for the occasion by the pedantic emperor. But
if the Tzaoutzes dominated over Leo, he was himself the victim of his own
servants, who in every despotic State enjoy the chief influence. The greed of
Musicus (Mousegh) and Stauracius precipitated the Bulgarian war by re-establishing
for their private benefit a monopoly in the commerce. And after Zoe’s death
(“unhappy daughter of Babylon," as some one wrote on her coffin), Stylian
owed his final and irrevocable disgrace to the personal discovery of the
emperor ; who, on a visit to the logothete’s house, detected Stauracius armed
with a sheaf of corrupt requests and offers. Leo, left in unaccustomed and
miserable loneliness, looked round for some one to be his master. Samonas the
Saracen succeeded to the Tzaoutzes as the director of the sovereign’s
conscience and policy. It is doubtful if his romantic and unscrupulous career
can find a parallel in the annals of court favourites. Such influences may at
times be paramount in a State centralised in the cabinets of the palace (like
Spain after Philip II.), and inured by
native sloth
or superstition to traditions of loyalty Leo VI. and passive obedience :
Farinelli, an Italian soprano, under Styhan exercised unbounded but honourable
power over the Samonas: melancholy Philip V. The chamberlains of Constan-
remarkable tius II. are notorious in the pages of Ammianus. favourite. Eunuchs
had governed the empire under Irene, and would again appear as the chief rulers
in the reign of the aged Theodora (1054-1056), gathering in a court, as Constantine
VII. wittily says, “thick as flies over a sheepfold.” But in the annals of Rome
there is no precise parallel to Samonas the Hagaren favourite.
It is very
doubtful if he formally renounced his religion : it is certain that he built
monasteries at his own expense without convincing any one of the sincerity of
his conversion, and that he boldly counselled his Moslem father during a visit
not to accept the emperor's offer or give up Islam. He made no secret of his
purpose to return ultimately to the dominions of the infidel laden with
Christian spoils.
Once, wearied
by a tedious spell of power, he fled to Asia, and was with difficulty prevailed
on to return by the emperor, grieved rather than indignant. Yet this influence
over a weak monarch of an unbelieving eunuch was not resented by Byzantine
society, certainly not at that time servile or hopelessly corrupt.
Basil, a poor
hermit, alone among the Romans, had the courage to taunt him with his race and
creed, whatever the dignities by which despotism might attempt to conceal
them. For fifteen years (c. 895-910), he was the abjectly trusted adviser and
chamberlain.
A singular
episode is found in the adventures of the earliest Ducas in Byzantine history.
Samonas had taken flight, and Constantine Ducas had been sent to bring him
back. He overtook him at Cabala, near Iconium, and returned with him. Leo,
anxious that his favourite should be cleared of any treasonable charge,
prompted Constantine on oath to explain the sudden journey of Samonas as the
result of a religious vow ; he was on a pilgrimage to a shrine in
Leo VI. Cappadocia. Losing his presence of mind
before under Stylian stern demands
of the court of inquiry, Constan- Samonas: tine let slip the truth, that the
real destination was remarkable Meliten&, where resided the chief Moslem
foe of favourite. the empire. After a nominal captivity of a few months, Leo
restored the chamberlain to favour, and made him godfather to the young
Constantine, the long-expected heir.1 The Saracen cherished hatred
against the man who had betrayed him. His father, Andronicus Ducas, not long
afterwards was invested by Leo, who knew how to choose his generals, if not his
favourites, with a joint command against the Saracens. Himerius, or Homerius,
logothete of the imperial port, was his colleague. The chamberlain sends
secretly, warning Andronicus that the appointment was a ruse to cover his
arrest; and urging instant flight to a place of safety. Andronicus believes the
lie, and takes refuge with the caliph. The emperor, unable to understand the
motive of this treachery, sends a message with a secret missive concealed in a
candle begging him to return. Samonas tampers with the bearer, and has it
delivered to the vizier; and the caliph, believing him to be a traitor to one sovereign
and perhaps to both, puts the unhappy general to death. The last exploit of
this alien satellite was the composition, in collaboration with other worthies
of the palace, of a virulent and anonymous satire on the emperor himself. He
had been piqued by the favour shown to a servant of his own by the imperial
pair (910). Leo, kindly himself, and sensitive to ridicule, suffered greatly
from this poisonous attack, and not less when he discovered the author. But
with culpable leniency he contented himself with depriving him of office,
confiscation, and imprisonment; the servant who had been the cause of the
rupture took Samonas'
1 Son of his fourth wife, Zoe II. Carbonopsina, a
great-niece of Theophanes, historian and confessor, married and crowned after
the birth of an heir. She succeeded the short-lived Eudocia the Phrygian in the
affections of the uxorious Leo.
vacant place.
Such is the whole remarkable story Leo VI. in brief outline—a story without
parallel in the later under Stylian empire. No favourite exercised so long and
so Samonas. inexplicable a sway over an emperor.
§ 7- The
chief argument against despotism is not Wasteful ease its severity but its
laxity and waywardness. Absolute ^t^^urt
rulers seldom resemble Ivan the Terrible in cruelty,
Peter or
Napoleon in vigilant supervision. The influences which sway the mind of a lover
of ease are anonymous and irresponsible. The customary complaint of the people
blames not the interference but the indifference of a ruler. We hear nothing of
popular grievance or discontent under Leo the Wise, but it is easy to see that
effective personal control is a thing of the past, that the nominal master has
no will of his own and little voice in his own household.
Where he
takes the trouble to interfere, good-nature and not policy seems to direct his
judgment. He vastly increased the cost and sumptuous outlay of the palace; his
son remarks on the magnificence of the royal galley.
Basil's
simple ways were out of date in a capital bent on enjoyment. To Finlay, Leo “
typifies the idle spirit of conservatism ”; and he remarks, with some show of
truth, that under him the “ last traces of the Roman constitution were
suppressed."
Yet we do not
chronicle in this reign the 11
extinction of the Roman Empire and the consolidation of Byzantine
despotism." Allowing for the difference of age, society, and religious
belief, Leo is but the echo of Claudius and the prototype of James I., as Basil
of Maximin. He may have technically abolished the decrees of the Senate and put
an end to independent municipal life. But it is hard to believe that any
deliberate attack was made, under a prince so kindly and in a society so
contented with its peculiar institutions, upon any genuine survival of
republican or at least responsible government. It is easy to see that the
spirit of the age was comfortably fatalistic, and
Wasteful ease quite willing to concede to the ruler
the same arbi- %t^0G)Wrt traiT Power
which it recognised in God, who made the harvest plentiful without man’s
labour. Con- Disregardof stantine VII., also a learned and an industrious man, Pdue6pr^and admits the disorder which
crept into the services motion. under his father. The rules of promotion,
hitherto inexorable for the lower posts up to the permanent secretariats, were
disregarded. A certain “ Sancho Panza” was appointed judge-admiral (admin,
imp., § 50), and the reports or verdicts of this illiterate man were dictated
by his deputy ; as a clerk prompts the decisions of the country bench, or as
the sublime detachment of the nominal ministers under the Japanese Shogunate
was brought down to earthly business by the whispers of assiduous valets. It is
also clear that the careful supervision exercised over the collectors of
revenue was relaxed ; and that local exaction became again an abuse without
ready redress. But it is difficult to see any great degree of corruptness in
the purchase of court office; for example, a certain cleric, Ctenas, desired to
become a prolospathaire, and for the title and a yearly salary of one pound of
gold offered forty. The court had become an insurance office, returning a very
poor terminable annuity on a large outlay ; or, as has been suggested, the
State was groping its way towards the institution of a National Debt. This
proposed step outside the routine of caste was unwelcome to the emperor, who
seems to have found time for such minutiae by neglect of weightier matters. But
when the ambitious clerk raised his offer to sixty lbs., the imperial scruples
disappeared and the patent or commission was issued ; we may pardon the quiet
humour of Constantine who tells the story and points out that Ctenas only lived
two years to enjoy his place and salary. Round Leo collected an atmosphere of
eulogy and incense; to Genesius, the earliest historian of the post-iconoclastic
emperors, moderate in his praises of Basil, he is 7ravcro<po9 and
aelfivtja'Tog ava^t TrepiwwiuLog and
TravevK\ir}$ and
aol$ifJLO$ /SaariXevs. He was undoubtedly Disregard of popular ; and the sole
acts of his reign which can be pJ^ed^t°nd
called arbitrary are connected with his frequent motion. nuptials and the
rebukes of the patriarchs. His own irregular life did not prevent him from a
moral interest in the meanest of his subjects. Like Theodora in the sixth,
like Theophilus in his own century, he pulls down evil houses of resort and
builds in their place an asylum for aged pensioners (ytjpoKojmeiov). Thph.
Cont. 370 (Bonn).
§ 8. With the joint salutation of “ long life to
Defects and Alexander and Constantine/' we shall enter upon v^ts^i^e
a new period; and I cannot do better than borrow con- from Finlay a few
sentences in which this sympa- seryatism thetic historian contrives (rather by
intuition than use of slender material) to seize the fugitive characteristics
of an era of transition :—{i Leo VI. had
undermined the Byzantine system of administration which Leo III. had
(re)modelled on the traditions of imperial Rome. He had used his absolute power
to confer offices of the highest trust on court favourites notoriously
incapable of performing the duties entrusted to them. The systematic rules of
promotion in the service of the government ; the administrative usages which
were consecrated into laws; the professional education which had preserved the
science of government from degenerating with the literature and language of
the empire,—were for the first time habitually neglected and violated. The
administration and the court were confounded in the same mass ; and an emperor
called the Philosopher is characterised in history for having reduced the
Eastern empire to the degraded rate of an Oriental and arbitrary despotism. ...
It is difficult in the period now before us to select facts that convey a
correct impression of the condition, both of the government and the people. The
calamities and crimes we are compelled to mention, tend to create an opinion
that the government was worse, and the vol. 11. N
Defects and merits oj the new pacific Conservatism
(Finlay).
condition
of the inhabitants of the empire more miserable, than was really the case. The
ravages of war and the incursions of pirates wasted only a small portion of the
Byzantine territory; and ample time was afforded by the long intervals of tranquillity
to repair the depopulation and desolation caused by foreign enemies. The
central government still retained institutions that enabled it to encounter
many political storms that ruined neighbouring nations. Yet the weakness of the
administration, the vices of the court and the corruptions of the people during
the reigns of Constantine Porphyro- genitus and his father-in-law Romanus I.,
seemed to indicate a rapid decay in the strength of the empire ; and they form
a heterogeneous combination with the institutions which still guaranteed
security for life and property to an extent unknown in every other portion of
the world, whether under Christian or Mohammedan sway. The merits and defects
of the Byzantine government are not found in combination in any other portion
of history, until we approach modern times.” •
THE SOVEREIGN AND THE GOVERNMENT DURING THE TENTH CENTURY: THE STRUGGLE
FOR THE REGENCY AND CONFLICT OF THE CIVIL AND MILITARY FACTIONS : RISE OF THE
FEUDAL FAMILIES
A. DtfCAS
AND Phocas TO Lecapenus (912-920)
§ 1. It would
be a serious error to judge of the The Palace- general state of the empire in
the light of the dis- ^mier^ tressing cabals and personal rivalries which
solely Alexander. engage the attention of authors and students in the space of
thirty-three years. It will be necessary for our especial purpose to examine
the events which led to the singular spectacle of the tenth century, the
regency ;—however tedious and unprofitable these circumstances may appear. For
underneath an unedifying display of selfishness and hypocrisy or violence,
there are real principles at stake, and the chief agents are not merely
fighting each for his own hand. Each great party in the State service and each
unscrupulous competitor represent a certain ideal of government; and these are
defensible not only by arms or conspiracy but by argument and sound reasoning.
Alexander had long enjoyed the empty title of emperor"; he exercised its
function after long waiting for a year and a month. Dissolute and slothful at
public business, he had vigour only for hunting and tennis; and the question
arose (to the populace of the capital a long familiar inquiry),
“ Who was to
be the emperor’s master ? ” The reign of Alexander bears some points of
resemblance to the Orleans regency in the youth of Louis XV. A certain
195
The Palace- Ministry under Alexander.
The
Bulgarian peril and the Council of Regents.
cleric, who
reminds us of Abb6 Dubois, became the secret confidant; and two Slavonians,
Gabrielopulus and Basilitza, were chief ministers, under the invariable title
of patrician. It was even whispered that a design was on foot to castrate
Constantine VII., to leave Basilitza heir to the throne. Surrounded by a crew
of soothsayers and charlatans, Alexander preserved a complete detachment from
public affairs. He chased Zoe the empress-mother from the palace, disgraced
Admiral Himerius, and reinstated the late Patriarch Nicolas (with needless
insult to the inoffensive intruder Euthymius). Yet the emperor himself would
have held the solemn renewal and consecration of his totem ((rrov^lov), the circus
wild boar, to be the chief event in his reign. Basil I. believed in a barefaced
hoax, and was expecting a summons from Elijah the Tishbite to ascend into
heaven in a fiery chariot; but his son reverted to a rude and primitive belief,
for which we have a parallel in the Germania of Tacitus (where the boar is a
talisman and an amulet), and in the ancient superstitions of the close
affinity of the life and fortunes of an individual with some material object or
animal kin. A single public event is recorded: the insulting answer given to
the envoys of Symeon the Bulgarian king (893-927), who after a peace of ten
years was about to try the temper of the new ruler. Before the certain
retribution could fall on Alexander’s head, he expired of a complication of
disorders, brought about by temulence and over-exertion in the tennis- court.
Before his death he appointed a new Council of Regency, and we find ourselves
back in the exact circumstances of the minority of Michael III., seventy years
previous. But there is a momentous and significant difference in the person and
character of their imperial tutors. First comes the restless and vindictive
patriarch, bold enough to rebuke the inertness of Leo and to bear the
consequences, but a firebrand, cruel and unforgiving: three unknown,
Stephen,
master of the palace, John Eladas, master of The
the offices,
and a certain Euthymius, all base-born or Bul?artan
* ji , * t i ^ i • peril and the alien menials named above ; and the “
Abbe Dubois, Council of
John Lazarus,
who soon followed his master to the Regents.
grave, and
will trouble us no more. It seems clear
that the
populace, so far from believing themselves
governed by
an irresponsible despot, deemed it their
mission to
criticise, to protest, and to intimidate—cries
of
dissatisfaction were raised not merely among the
generals but
in the common talk of the city. “The
Bulgarian
army of vengeance was at hand ; was the
fate of the
Empire to be entrusted to the nerveless
and untried
hands of courtiers ? Let the military
caste provide
a champion.” Alexander may have
dreamt of
rendering his nephew incapable of ruling.
Romanus later
certainly excluded his sovereign from
the business
or dignity of the monarchy, and perhaps
desired to
supplant him altogether in the succession.
But the
official classes, and the soldiers, and the
commonalty
seem never to have wavered in their
allegiance.
Pretenders arise, but only to deliver the
rightful
prince ; letters written by him, or in his name,
have
marvellous effect; and the army of the most
popular
general of the time melted away like snow
when a single
audacious messenger impeaches him in
the emperor's
name for turbulence and treason.
§ 2. The name
of Constantine Ducas was in every Popular
one's
mouth. Disgraced and restored to favour under demand for a ° strong man :
Leo VI., he
was now defending the Eastern frontier failure and
with success.
So strong and frank was the expression death of of public feeling that the regents intimated to him
in ' vaguest terms that he should accept the burden, and sent him the most
sacred pledges of good faith.
Ducas is
unwilling to consent to the invitation, from a fear of this uncertain status, a
military respect for law and usage, and a genuine attachment to the young
emperor. Now follows a tragedy, happily exceptional in Byzantine history,
though common enough in Western records down to recent times. He comes
Popular demand for a strong man: failure and death
of Ducas.
Zoe’8 Regency and vigorous anti-Bulgarian designs.
to the
capital with a small retinue, and lodges with Gregoras, a senator. The news of
his arrival spreads. Before break of day a crowd collects, senators assemble ;
he is proclaimed emperor, and marching with flambeaux attempts to enter the
circus, and at last turns to the palace. The regents have kept an unaccountable
silence instead of sending to welcome him. He lays siege to the palace and is
repulsed and slain. Three thousand are killed, and the carnage of the Nika
riots finds a parallel. Secure in this quick triumph, the Council takes summary
vengeance on the malcontents. Some senators are hung, some beheaded in public ;
Gregoras and Ela- dicus, a patrician, receive the tonsure. The wife of Ducas is
shorn and sent to reside on her estates in Paphlagonia ; a son Stephen is made
a eunuch ; and of the whole family one son alone survives, Nicolas, guiltless
of his father's treason, like Piso the Younger under Tiberius, and destined to
win a noble death against the Bulgarians. It would not appear that their
estates were at once confiscated. We may remark. on the pitiless rancour of
his namesake the patriarch, who would seem not merely to condone, but to
encourage this severity. Thus ended the first attempt of one of the military
leaders (ol apyovres of Psellus) to establish himself as working colleague of a
minor. This time the civilian regency got the mastery, by trick and perjury.
But their days were already numbered. King Symeon appears before the walls and
is induced to retire. The immediate crisis past, matters for a time rested.
§ 3. In 914,
the young emperor insists on his mother’s recall; Zoe returns, and at once
alters the whole face of affairs, no doubt for the better. The patriarch is
desired to restrict his interest to spiritual things ; Eladas is retained as
Master of the Offices, but soon dies ; and the other regents lose their posts.
Three servants of Zoe receive high place in the palace, Constantine (as
chamberlain) and two brothers, Con-
stantine and
Anastasius Gongyles. The important Zoe's Regency captaincy of the Foreign
Legion (eTaipeidpx/i?) is bestowed first on Dominicus, and on his removal, on
garian John Garidas ; and the title first found in Symeon’s desi9ns• account of Michael's reign (850) will acquire increasing
significance as the years pass. Finally, a eunuch, Damianus (a name he shares
with a chamberlain under ^Michael III. and an emir of Tyre about this time),
is given the function of Drungaire of the Watch (Sp. filyXr]?). Thus the
ministry was reconstructed, and once more, as under Constantine VI., a female
regent was supreme. Gossip has played with the character of Zoe, but her
administration was competent, her conception of imperial policy clear and
straightforward. She it was who first pronounced (as it were) the watchword “
Delenda est Bulgaria ” and with this motto the consistent principles which .
swayed the second Basil. On this single aim she concentrated the whole force
of-the empire ; and for this purpose she humbled herself to gain an honourable
peace with the Saracens. The caliph received the envoys with a mighty and
brilliant display of his troops ; but the superior valour and success of the
Greeks in the past campaigns were attested by a singular fact—in the exchange
of captives the Moslem in duress so far outnumbered the Christians that the
empress received 120,000 lbs. of gold.
This may
dispose of the foolish calumny that the empire was exposed during the reigns of
such pacific emperors as Leo VI. to the harassing raids of the Moslem, and that
it bore the insults helpless to avenge them. We may well surmise that Ducas,
the unfortunate pretender, carried the war into the enemies' country, and that
the caliph’s realm, in spite of outward magnificence already hastening to
decay, was unable to retaliate. The empress, to make her position doubly sure,
accepted the offer of a defensive alliance with an Armenian prince ; Ashot, son
of the king of Vasparacan, coming as envoy to arrange terms.
Zotfs Regency Should the infidel neglect or violate
his engagement,
and vigorous Armenians were to attack them in the
Roman anti-Bui- .
garian interest. A similar method was pursued in
Europe. designs. The Patzinaks were engaged to fall on the rear of the
Bulgarians, at their first movement against the empire ; and the wisdom of this
astute policy is extolled by Zoe's grateful son in an early chapter of his “
Administration." Three small incidents happening about this time (915) may
be recorded as significant of the general or exceptional conditions : Chazes,
an oppressive governor of Achaea, was assassinated by a popular rising in an
Athenian church: the son of a Venetian Doge, decorated with the coveted honour
of protospathaire, was seized on the Croat frontier by Michael, “ Duke of
Sclabinia,” and sent a captive to the Bulgarians : Adrinople was surrendered
for gold to Symeon by an Armenian commandant, Pancra- toucas, and seemingly
recovered for the empire by the same means. It is obviously unfair to pass a
sweeping indictment on the loyalty or justice of the officials, or the safety
of the frontier, from the slender evidence which the chroniclers afford. I am
disposed to believe that at this time military and civil governors had a high
sense of duty, whether towards the foreigner or their own fellow-subjects,—placed
by the envious socialistic conception of government and its functions, so
immeasurably beneath the official hierarchy.
Zoe's policy § 4. The whole forces of the empire
were now thwarted by concentrated against the Bulgarians; the court
CLiSSG71S1071S OT
military cannot at least be accused of vacillation.
Zoe began leaders. that firm and resentful policy which, interrupted for a time
by the Eastern conquests of Basil I I/s regents, was resumed by him and brought
to a final conclusion. The treasury was able to make liberal presents and
promises to the troops ; the Church could bless a pious enterprise; and one of
the most perfectly equipped armies that had ever left the capital set forth
with the brightest auspices. All the heads of the well-known families of
military
specialists
were there : Leo Phocas, son of Nicephorus, Zoes policy was in chief command :
Bardas, his brother, fifty t^arted ty years later Caesar
during his son's reign; Romanus military and Leo, sons of Eustathius
Argyrus, already men- leaders. tioned; and Nicolas, son of the pretender Ducas,
who had been generously pronounced guiltless of his father's adventure and
retained at his post. Melias, the Armenian, feudal governor for the empire of
the Theme Lycandus which he had himself created, came at the head of his own
Armenian levies,—colonists and settlers from the shores of the Caspian, tenants
and men-at-arms of their captain and landlord. We must not fail to do justice
to the trustful and patriotic spirit of the empress and her advisers.
A great and
important point of policy is determined; the overthrow of the Bulgarian Empire.
The safety of this concentrating movement is assured by adroit and yet
honourable diplomacy. The military leaders assuming, as it is easy to detect,
the familiar feature of half-independent il wardens of the marches," great proprietors in
Cappadocia or Paphlagonia, are sent forward without suspicion on a notable
enterprise certain of success. Gibbon, who but ill conceals his ignorance and
impatience of the whole period, falls into error about the site and the
significance of the battle, or rather series of battles, which ensued.
Achelous is a
castle on the Danube, not the classic stream; and the real lesson of the
failure of a splendid effort is not national cowardice, but the peril of the
competition of professional soldiers. Everything had been assured that came
within the province of the home' administration. The equipment was perfect,
the commissariat unimpeachable, the courage of the troops beyond dispute, the
Patzinak allies were waiting to do their part. But the example of Ducas had
kindled the secret fires of ambition in many souls; every marshal carried a
diadem in his knapsack. Lecapenus, son of Theo- phylact the Unbearable, a man
of humble origin
Zotfs policy (iStarrw K- aypd/nnaroi,
according to his son-in-law ^dissawiom ofand colleague)
had been Admiral of the Fleet since military the last year of Leo VI. He was
stationed at the leaders. Danube’s mouth, to co-operate with the land forces at
the fitting moment. During his singularly long command he had gained the
affections of the sailors. Leo Phocas was more intent on discovering the
intentions of Lecapenus than on securing the easy victory which lay within his
grasp. A first engagement was successful; but the commander is found
unaccountably missing; he had gone in secret to reconnoitre, not the movements
of the foe, but the designs of the High Admiral. A pause ensues; the army flies
helpless and demoralised; and the total and irretrievable defeat that followed
has not many precedents in the records of the empire. Military honour suffered
a deep stain; and the reproach was only wiped out with the success of Basil
Bulgaroctonus. The Patzinak allies, tired of the quarrels of Romanus with John
Bogas, who had conducted Zoe’s negotiations with them, refused to wait longer,
and returned to their own haunts. The shattered remnants of the army regain the
capital; Leo Phocas impeaches Romanus of high- treason, and he is sentenced to
be blinded. Zoe, like Eudocia Macrembolitissa a century and a half later,
spares the disgraced admiral, as Romanus Diogenes was spared. Meantime, with
the fury of shame and despair, the forces repulse Symeon's bold attack on the
capital itself. A spirit is displayed which at an earlier moment might have
broken for ever the Bulgars’ power. Leo Phocas performs prodigies of valour ;
Nicolas dies bravely in the fight. The danger is over, and domestic intrigue
may again occupy public attention.
Competition § 5. Men were generally agreed that a
woman and of Phocas and a child could
no longer bear the entire burden of
JsBCCL'D&Tl'llS
empire; and
the times were ripe for a revolution. A Pretender arises, in obedience to
popular ex-
pectancy,
claiming to be Constantine Ducas. He Competition
collects a few
followers, fails, and suffers one of °fphocasand
1 \ Lecapenus.
those cruel
deaths which sometimes startle us in this
lenient
period, and remind the reader that we are still in the dark ages and the tenth
century. The two protagonists are now left jealously confronting : the stage
is clear for the commander of the troops and the admiral of the fleet. On the
advice of Theodorus, Constantine’s tutor, Zoe throws in her fortunes with the
latter, and excludes from the imperial dignity the powerful family of Phocas
for more than forty years. Secret messages pass and repass between the flagship
and the palace; the emperor himself, now fourteen years old, personally indited
a letter,—doubtless in an elegant style and handwriting which astonished the
rough sailor. All Constantinople takes sides in the duel of the two champions
; and waits for the inevitable declaration of open hostilities. This is
precipitated by Constantine, chief of the palace-eunuchs and brother-in-law of
Leo.
He comes,
haughty and unattended, to pay the men of the fleet. He is seized by Romanus'
orders. In the palace, Theodorus explains to the affrighted empress that the
rising is aimed at Leo, the corrupter of the troops, at Constantine, the
intriguer of the palace. Young Constantine claims to reign alone, and his
ministers banish his mother and boldly cashier Leo from the colonelcy of the
Guards; Garidas, already mentioned, succeeds. At the same time a son, Symeon,
and a brother-in-law, Theodorus, are permitted to retain the joint-command of
the Foreign Legion. When he dutifully retires without a word, they too are
dismissed ; and with singular lack of penetration, Leo approaches with his tale
of grievances the very last person in the world who could listen with
sympathy—Romanus, the High Admiral.
Foolishly
satisfied that he can leave his interest safe in the hands of his rival, Leo
retires to his Cappa- docian estates. On Lady Day, 919, the fleet in
Competition
o/Phocasand
Lecapenus.
Success and rapid
promotion of Lecapenus.
full array appears
before the palace. Constantine consents to interview the admiral, and after
mighty oaths invests him in the imperial chapel with the office of Grand
Hetceriarch, command of those foreign mercenaries who since the reign of
Michael III. have become increasingly important to the safety of the reigning
emperor. Constantine the eunuch, now set at liberty, writes a reassuring letter
to Phocas, and pacifies his doubts and anxiety. Towards the end of April, the
emperor marries Helena, daughter of Romanus ; and the proud title
/3acnXeo7rdr(iop is revived to give him precedence (in the punctilious court)
over all officials and ministers. Christopher, afterwards associate-emperor for
some ten years, succeeds to the foreign command.
§ 6. The
wrath of Leo Phocas knew no bounds ; he had been miserably tricked. Constantine
the eunuch escapes from the dangerous and uncongenial atmosphere of the palace
where he no longer ruled, and sought his relative in Cappadocia. He finds him
caballing with three other great lords of the province. Soon all the scanty
troops in Asia Minor are aroused ; for, secure against the Moslem by Zoe's
diplomacy, it had been denuded of most of its native forces for the Bulgarian
war. The watchword is the loyal cry, 11 Forward to
Constantinople to save our young emperor ! " But into the forces,
assembling opposite the capital, there penetrates a clever emissary Symeon. He
persuades the soldiers of Leo’s treason, and displays a violent letter written
by the hand of the imperial calligraphist. The loyal troops desert; Leo, left
almost alone, is taken and blinded; and Romanus expresses with doubtful
sincerity the greatest grief at this summary penalty without orders. The wily
admiral was now convinced that for him there was no safety, for the empire no
stability, unless he assumed the diadem and the inviolable purple buskins.
Attempts were made to assassinate him It was reported that Zoe had mingled a
deadly potion*
only escaped
by accident; the empress-mother was Success and conducted, at least on this
pretext, into a convent, out ™^otion of a public career which she had honourably
filled, Lecapenus. whatever in the low gossip of the time may have been her
private failings. One by one the former friends and associates of Romanus are
removed ; with great and perhaps needless ingratitude, he arrests Theodorus,
the founder of his fortunes, at table, by the hands of John Curcuas, and
despatches him to solitude on his Hellespont estates. The steps now are easy to
the supreme place. On September 24 he becomes Caesar; and emperor and colleague
on December 17.
Amidst the
greatest tranquillity of the empire within and without, an almost bloodless
revolution has been effected. A new family, unknown to fame twenty years
before, has seized the throne ; and in a short time three sons will further
strengthen (or imperil?) its fortunes. But the legitimate heir will be reduced
to the fifth place in this strange imperial corporation. I have dwelt, it may
be objected, with disproportionate care and superfluous detail on the events of
a brief period of nine years,—events which display merely the weakness of the
empire, the corruption of the court, the odious and contemptible character of
the “ Romans." I am of another Separation of opinion. In these events,
related without under-^ictiom^ standing by the chroniclers, read by us to-day
as mere romantic tales of adventure and lawless ambition, far weightier issues
are concerned than personal self-seeking, than the natural rivalry of a soldier
and a chamberlain. These few years are the preparation for that anomalous
expedient which secured to the empire some of her most brilliant triumphs, the
military regency side by side with a respected sovereign of older lineage,
residing almost like a deity in the sacred recesses of a palace-temple.
But they
teach more than this: here first clearly emerges the conflict between two
intelligible ideals,
—of a pacific
and conservative civilian state, of a
Separation of strenuous and aggressive military
monarchy. The fanrttin™1 nex* centui7 following Basil I I/s assumption of real control (c. 985) witnesses the
fatal steps by which the empire was ruined by the incompatible claims of these
two principles ; the suspicion of the central government, defenceless like the
Roman Senate against a determined proconsul leading devoted troops ; the
jealous retrenchment of needful military subsidies, the hoarding or thriftless
policy which either stored useless ingots or spent the entire revenue, the
surplus resources of the realm, on palace extravagance and the amusements of an
idle populace: on the other hand, the dangerous rivalries of a landed feudal
class that had grown up to the expert use of arms in the long internal security
and active foreign policy of the Iconoclasts,—their impatience of civilian
dictation, an impatience shared by every soldier of every age and a standing
menace in our own time to the stability of France,—and their distrust of each
other.1 Active Regent Of all this later development the
earliest years of RMlusetim°te the tenth century give
unmistakable premonitions.
Respect for
human life, reverence for a hereditary line; the retirement of the reigning
sovereign into a seclusion where he becomes the puppet of anonymous influences
; the vigour of a female regency, and the capable policy adopted to consolidate
the European themes; the dangerous rivalry not merely of the two services,
civil and military, but of marine and soldier ; and the haughty or apprehensive
abstention of generals who sulk like Achilles in their tent and will not win an
easy victory for fear that others may reap the reward: these are some of the
features or lessons shown in this brief period. The next century and a half
will trace the further progress of the great duel ; I can perhaps justify
1 For
possessing a genuine class solidarity thevApxoi'res would fight for
the honour of their order, but dissolve into hostile units when once the hated
and unpatriotic government of chamberlains had been displaced.
both
combatants. For the empire needed valiant Active Regent soldiers, if only they
were true patriots. It de- a^c^ftmate pended no
less upon the perfect civilian machinery of control and supply, which, in the
Byzantine as in every monarchy, must find its centre in the cabinet of the
Prince. But this once unique and indivisible figure was split into two halves.
Before, the emperor was ubiquitous, omniscient, and master of all the arts of
peace and war. Specialism has invaded high places ; an amicable division of
sphere has taken place. For the next sixty years we have a Mikado and a Shogun.
B. Romanus
and his Sons (920-945)
§ I. The
following table will display more lucidly Family of than an express account the
family and connections R°mojnus I- of the new regent-emperor,
and the means adopted Legitimism. to strengthen a precarious position.
Theophylact
(a/SaoraKTO?),
“saved
Basil’s life.”
Nicetas
(cryaSopociSrjs).
Theodora
Augusta.
I
Romanus (ano Trjr
AaKanTjs), Admiral, 911 ; Caesar and Emperor, 919.
Leo VI. = (4) Zoe
Car- bonopsina.
Christopher, = Sophy.
Agatha, t 93i<
Leo
|
|
Argyrus.
= tine VIII.
Patriarch |
|
|
Anne,
= in 933. |
|
|
dau.
of (1) Helen, |
|
|
Patr.
dau. of Patr. |
|
|
Adrian. |
|
|
(2)
Theo |
|
|
phano. |
tine VII. t 959-
Peter, = Mary Romanus Marianus
King of (Irene). Michael. Argyrus. Bulg.
Theophano. = Romanus II.
‘ t 963-
Daught. :John I. t 976.
Basil II.
Constantine IX.
t 1025. I
Theophano. = Otto II.
Zoe. Theodora,
t 1052. t 1056.
Anne. = Vladimir
of Russia.
Otto III.
t X003.
The general
verdict passed on the rule of this upstart must be entirely favourable. The
empire
Family of Romanus I.: popular Legitimism.
was in sore
need of a strong hand at the centre, acknowledged by all. A regent-colleague
united power and responsibility, too long separated in the secret and
accidental influences of the last thirty years. It is true that Romanus behaved
unfairly to his ward: he reduced him beneath Christopher, Stephen, and
Constantine VIII., and even proposed to give the infant Romanus precedence of
the legitimate sovereign, whose servant and champion he had ever professed himself.
It is also true that, like Eli (to whom the frank monks and confessors compared
the contrite emperor), he overlooked the failings of his sons. But he was a
sedulous and business-like administrator ; a kind and charitable dispenser of
the imperial stores to the distressed ; a mild and indulgent judge towards the
treasonable conspirator; and, above all, a capable master of those jealous and
unruly services which the empire employed and feared. At last there was an
emperor with the dignity of Caesar, who was at the same time a man of affairs,
and gave close attention to the public welfare. For a whole generation
(886-919) this idea of the imperial function had been entirely in abeyance. The
position was an inheritance which, like landed property, the owner at once made
over to agents and factors, while he enjoyed the fruits of their labours. The
populace of the capital, so far from resenting this easy partition of duties
and profit, regarded it as the normal and proper state. It would be wrong to
suppose that over an indigent, ignorant, and servile mass domineered a few
proud palace officials or feudal captains from Lesser Asia ; that the throne
was handed about according to secret intrigues of the noble and seditious. I
believe it possible to trace a very clear understanding in the people’s mind of
the rights and limits of their interference. This intervention was neither
tumultuous nor arbitrary. It would seem as if the mob, divided into guilds of
handicraftsmen and factions of the
circus
(untroubled by the new modern curse of un- Family of employment) held the
scales of the constitution, and s L
were the
final arbiters of affairs. They were faithful Legitimism. to Constantine VII.
and grumbled at his retirement, while they acknowledged the ability and the
charity of his regent. They upheld the throne of his son and grandsons by their
silent loyalty, which put the unique dignity out of reach of the ambitious
Phocas or Zimisces. They endured the brief irritability of Constantine IX. as
they had borne the long and exacting government of Basil II. They acquiesced in
the female right, which for thirty years bestowed upon the lucky (or unlucky)
husband of Zoe the most exalted dignity in the world. They heard without murmur
or regret of the death of Romanus Argyrus (1034), and beheld with indifference
the sudden elevation of the handsome epileptic who succeeded him. But under
this seeming inattention or carelessness, they watched with profound solicitude
the fortunes of the two princesses. A suspicion of rudeness or neglect ensured
the unpopularity of the regents, who during this epoch never once attracted the
loyal regard or affection of the people.
They regarded
them with cold and critical gaze, or on occasion burst out into loud and
scornful insult.
As the redoubtable
premier of a modern State, armed with a democratic mandate and supported by a
solid phalanx of silent voters, can never occupy in the public gaze the same
place which is given to a scion of the royal house ; so the Byzantine populace,
much like our own people to-day, had a rough but clear outline of the
respective duties of royalty, regency, and democracy. The regents were
something like paid servants after all, stewards of a great estate, which, when
all was said and done, only changed hands three times in 145 years, at the
death of the seventh and ninth Constantine and at the death of Theodora (1056).
Gibbon represents these astute, affectionate, and equitable citizens as a mob
of
Family of slaves, or rather a herd of cattle. But
the verdict poplar*1 1S suPerficial
an<3 unfair, like his entire treatment of
Legitimism, later Roman history. It might be adroitly turned against the whole
system of female sovereignty, in which some modern thinkers have seen realised
the ideal of constitutional government—that strange yet necessary compromise
between the sacrosanct dignity and kingship, and the business function which
makes the temporary wielder of authority responsible both to his lord and to
the nation.
Conspiracies § 2. Neither the family of Romanus nor
the house aRomanusI • °* Ph°cas
obtained a hold upon the popular mind. public in- Men heard with equanimity of
a new plot against
difference at regent-emperor,
and the lenient justice meted his overthrow. . . ,
out to the
seditious ; and under Romanus conspiracies were frequent. Leo Argyrus, a
son-in-law of Romanus, combined with Stephen, master of the palace, and Paul
the Orphanotrophus (a title still more conspicuous in the next century) : all
are banished. At a review of the household (or the household troops), Arsenius
the Patrician and the captain of the Manglabites, conspire to seize Romanus and
the young Constantine: betrayed by a slave, they are blinded, and their estates
are forfeited. A third cabal, also composed of officials near the throne, is
detected and punished ; the culprits are beaten, tonsured, and exiled. In 924
occurred a sedition of a different sort; a centrifugal, separatist, or feudal
rising, rather than a personal quarrel with Romanus, which will throw some
light on that most interesting problem of the time—the relations with the
Armenian kings, vassals, and peers. Bardas Boilas, a patrician, unites with
potent nobles of the frontiers of Pontus and Armenia, Adrian and Tazates,
aiming at the erection of a separate and local principality. Curcuas, who is
the permanent and impassable sentinel of the East, comes up from Cappadocian
Caesarea, and speedily defeats the plot; he puts out the eyes of Adrian as
the most
culpable, takes Tazates into the corps of Conspiracies Imperial Manglabites (a
place he lost later on a a^^im j . renewal of treason), and
sends Boilas into a monas- public in- tery. The soldiers of the rebels receive
a complete difference at amnesty. The next attempt was confined to the tsoverthrow-
palace. John, a minister, had married the daughter of Cosmas the Postmaster
(koyoO. Spo/ut..). He conceives the design of ousting the usurper and taking
his place. His father-in-law and Constantine, grand master of the palace, spur
on his ambition. Romanus, tired, negligent, or contemptuous of these fruitless
cabals, for long refuses to believe or to take action ; at last he is convinced
of their guilt, gives the two chief criminals time to escape to the inviolable
retreat of the cloister, and merely flogs the patrician Cosmas. The idle
discontent of courtiers now spreads to the immediate circle of the regent himself.
Nicetas, a firm supporter of Romanus during the crisis of 919, plots against
him in 931, probably in conjunction with Christopher, who married his daughter:
he is made a monk, and Sophy, on the death of her husband, being still under
suspicion, is removed from the palace. There is a welcome interval of some ten
years during which Romanus had leisure for an anxious and diligent administration,
the reform of the land laws, the relief of distress, the liberation of
creditors, the repulse of Hungarians and Russians, and contrite penance for his
own moral lapses. Becoming (like Michael IV.) severe and ascetic, abandoning in
pious exercises some of his grasp of affairs, Basil the Bird (a faithful
servant of Constantine now grown to middle age) unites with Manuel Curtice, the
Armenian, to excite the conceit and ambition of the two younger Augusti,
Stephen and Constantine VIII. Stephen yields and Constantine refuses. Romanus
is easily seized, covered with a mantle, taken to an adjoining island, and
tonsured, during the last days of 944.
The two
brothers (for Constantine is willing to share
Conspiracies against Rom anus I.: public in-
difference at his overthrow.
His diplomatic conduct of foreign affairs:
Bulgarian alliance.
the fruits if
not the danger of crime) discover to their chagrin that the profits of the
revolution have fallen to the rightful heir. The will of Lecapenus (with the
mournful foresight of a disappointed parent) gives back the chief place in the
Augustan college to the seventh Constantine. The joy of the people at this
revival of legitimacy is unbounded ; and it requires no great audacity for the
new monarch or the new ministers to ship off the superfluous regents first to
their father’s retreat, and then to their several prisons (wherein Stephen
survives nineteen and Constantine but two years).
§ 3. The
foreign wars and the heroes who conducted them cannot be alien to our subject,
for the military power is a momentum in the constitutional changes which we are
attempting to estimate. The Bulgarian war engages a trio of generals (921), two
closely connected with Romanus and members of the feudal aristocracy of birth
and arms—Leo Argyrus and Pothus his brother, and John pabcTwp (a title found
also during Zoe’s regency, 911). The new Admiral of the Fleet recalls the
memory and name of the Armenian Caesar under Theophilus, Alexius Musel. A total
and disgraceful defeat ensues, perhaps due to the same jealous division of command
which had doomed the splendid promise of the earlier campaign under Leo Phocas
in 919. A summer palace of the emperor is pillaged and burnt; and the whole
shore ravaged within an alarming distance from the capital. In 923, Symeon
conducts a second insulting attack on Byzantium, but is repulsed by the
valiant conduct of Sacticius, captain of the watch . . . (Spovyy. fiiyk.), who
died gloriously in the moment of success. In the next move of the restless
enemy, Romanus scores a distinct diplomatic victory. The African Sultan is
approached by Symeon with a view to an alliance against the empire, but the
envoys are seized in Calabria and sent to the capital. The compliments of
Romanus
win the
caliph ; he remits one-half of a tribute, Hisdiplo- which we acknowledge with
shame was owing, to conduct
. .. r t
x i • i j of foreign
secure the
immunity of Italian shores, and re- affairs: nounced the proposed alliance with
the Bulgarians. Bulgarian In 925, Adrinople was again seized, and soon *
regained by the empire ; but the next year, Symeon obtains an interview with
Romanus, who expostulates with him and wins a great diplomatic triumph. The
king returns home highly pleased with the modesty and judgment of the emperor,
and it is many years before Bulgaria becomes again a formidable or vindictive
foe. The same mild and considerate bearing secured the affection of the Serbs,
who, after seeing their country ravaged by Bulgaria, place themselves under the
protection of the empire and continue its vassals. A wise and clement policy in
Greece secured the allegiance or quiescence of the Mainotes, still
half-autonomous, as they continued to be until the fall of the Turkish
dominion; and the Slav (who refused levies and tribute fixed under Michael
III.) was pacified and relieved of burden.
Romanus no
doubt welcomed the chance of completing this general policy of conciliation.
In 927,
Symeon died,
and the glory of Bulgaria was past. Hungarians, Croats, and Patzinaks pressed
round the headless nation, but no enemy was so dreaded as the empire. Byzantine
tradition was set aside in the marriage of Christopher's daughter Mary to the
new King Peter, who visited the capital to take away his bride, deeply
impressed by its stately order and wealth. The alliance, unlike some sudden
political connexions, was of deep and lasting value;
Mary, renamed
Irene, journeyed to and fro between the two courts as emissary and guarantee of
peace.
Romanus now
turns his attention to the desolate cities of Thrace and Macedonia, and
rebuilds and colonises them. In 934, he finds that the Bulgarian sway in the
Balkans has only been reduced to open the road to more dangerous neighbours,
the Hun-
His diplomatic conduct of foreign affairs :
Bulgarian alliance.
Curcuas and his long control of the eastern
frontier.
garians :
these press to the capital, but are induced to retire by the tact (and no doubt
the generosity) of the emperor. Six years of peace ensue, broken only by the
distant rumours of troubles in Italy, and a terrible Russian invasion in 941
takes the government and the capital entirely unprepared. Of the imperial
fleet but fifteen disabled or superannuated galleys lay near, the rest were
guarding the southern Asiatic shores from Saracen raids. These, Romanus equips
and mans. Theophanes disperses the invaders with Greek fire. Other vagrant
bands of Russian marauders are cut off on the north coast of Asia by Bardas
Phocas, and Curcuas, the hero of the Eastern frontier, rapidly mobilises and
comes up in time to share in the overthrow. The expedition was a complete
failure. The wife of Inger, the Russian chief, adopts Christianity, but we
shall find their son, Swiatoslaf (2<£ei/<W0Aa/3o?) among the enemies of
the empire some thirty years later. So far as a steadfast policy was possible
in the shifting tribal quarrels of the North Balkans, Romanus adopted and
pursued it. It was no longer an aggressive war to the death, as under the
regency of Zoe. The veteran admiral was entirely pacific and preferred to
triumph by compliments and discussion, rather than by arms. We cannot doubt
that the peninsula recovered much in this quarter of a century, in spite of the
vulnerable capital, exposed to any pirate from the north by land or sea. The
wide battleground of the rival empires becomes more settled and peaceful, and
what a central government could do to rebuild and to secure was efficiently
done.
§ 4. The life
of John Curcuas by Manuel, in eight books, is unhappily lost, but the scanty
records in the annalists leave no doubt as to the vigour and skill with which
he defended the Eastern frontier. For over twenty-two years he was in supreme
command of the oriental troops, and with his brother Theophilus, Duke of
Chaldia, the chief guardian of
the empire.
It would appearrthat Romanus, himself Gurcuasand
no active
warrior, knew how to select and to trust hlslon9
control oj the
his officers.
The two brothers Curcuas belonged to eastern the new warlike nobility, that was
recruited chiefly frontier. from Armenian families and settled in true feudal
fashion, with retainers, peasants, and men-at-arms in the rich land of the
Armeniac and Anatolic Themes.
John was born
in Little Armenia, and was the son of a captain of fIKavarot, found
conspiring against Basil in 879. His son Romanus will be seen among the staff of
Nicephorus Phocas ; and his brother, whose just fame he eclipsed, is the
grandfather of John Zimisces, the third of the capable and patriotic regents of
this century. The Saracen danger dwindled and disappeared: Melitene passed
again under Roman sovereignty ; the Euphrates was once more a Roman stream; and
the frontiers were extended from the Halys to the valley of the Tigris.
The
caliphate, passing under the same inexorable law of royal impotence and
military dictatorship, showed no consistent policy, and wasted its force in
internal disorders. Curcuas was no mere valiant commander like Leo Phocas. He
was astute and conciliatory ; on his first capture of Meliten£, home of the
most dreaded Eastern neighbour of the empire, his tact and clemency converted two
emirs into friends and vassals of Rome ; they joined his expeditions and fought
in the imperial service. On their death in 934, the town was recovered by the
Saracens ; but Curcuas, with the aid of Melissenus, of the Lycandus Theme again
assaulted it, and razed it to the ground. It ceased to be an infidel centre,
and the open territory round it was joined to the prosperous new theme.
Phasiane and Theodosio- polis had been regained under Leo VI. by Catacalon, and
the Saracens evicted ; but the king of Iberia had somehow seized the region,
alleging a just claim.
Romanus (no
doubt on the advice of John Curcuas) preferred rather to abate the imperial
pretensions than
Curcuas and his long control of the eastern
frontier.
Parental supervision of Romanus.
to make an
enemy of an Eastern Christian: he concedes to the king all land north of the
Araxes, and he acquires Akhlat and Bitlis, near Lake Van. The conclusion of
this brilliant and useful career shows a sinister light on the anonymous
influence which made and unmade generals and set a bound to the mercy or
competence of the autocrat. A court faction stirred up suspicion of his
loyalty, and Romanus after inquiry was convinced of his innocence. To show his
whole-hearted confidence, he proposed an alliance between Euphrosyne, daughter
of Curcuas, and Romanus, son of Constantine VIII. The emperor was unable to
carry out his design, or save his friend from the storm of indignation and
envy. The high officials triumphed—jealous of a hero’s renown. Curcuas bowed his
head to the storm, retired after continuous toils of twenty-two years, and
doubtless listened to the regrets of the emperor, who had to confess his own
helplessness. Powers indeed had arisen in the group of families who sustained
the dignity of the empire, in the satellites of the palace, in the civil
bureaucracy, that put an effective restraint on the free-will of a sovereign
still nominally absolute.
§ 5. We are
not concerned as a rule with the private character of the emperors, on which
such valuable time and space has been wasted. History should be a record of
public service, not of secret and unwarranted scandal. But it would be unfair
to pass over the democratic sympathies and kindliness which secured the
support of the people, by no means servile, to a despotic system. The
indulgence of the regent to conspirators is known ; but in his care for popular
distress he gratuitously outstripped the demands made on a modern premier or a
modern sovereign ; and we must not forget that he combined both offices. The
hard winter of 932, followed by bad seasons, and their retinue, pestilence and
famine, brought out the good qualities
of a kindly
man of business. He remits taxa- Parental tion, builds orphanages and
almshouses, constructs public gardens for the people, and, in one moment of
generosity, freed all the petty debtors of the capital, not by abolishing the
debt but by satisfying the creditor. It is easy to turn to ridicule the
parental and tutelary instinct which prompted this • minute and untiring care. But
it is well to remember (i) that Romanus lived in an age when, outside the
empire, office and kingship had almost no functions, and government was
parcelled out among a herd of unauthorised and violent agents :
(2) that the
present age, with its foolishly exalted belief in the duty and scope of rulers,
can say nothing to disparage the well-meant but excessive interference of the
Byzantines. It is clear that the emperor, as popular representative against
aristocracy, occupied, or was expected to occupy, the same position as Julius,
Augustus, or Trajan. He alone, in an age when the current set steadily towards
feudalism, was the sole guarantee of justice, or the sole asylum for the
oppressed. Romanus had to contend with palace cabals, robbing the empire of its
best defenders, with the dangers of a precarious position, with the
encroachments of a landed and military oligarchy. These threatened to control
not merely the whims of monarchy but the ordinary course of justice, the
success of arms, the welfare of the provincial poor. He broke his oath, it is
true, to Constantine VII., and made tardy amends in his last testament. But he
fully justified his usurpation.
No mere
vulgar ambition exalted and sustained him in an unenviable dignity. Kindly,
charitable, politic, and vigilant, he made possible the later extension of the
empire. He left the Balkan peninsula in peace, the Eastern frontier secure ;
and he may well have carried into the sometimes penitent, sometimes cheerful
seclusion of his convent the natural satisfaction of a heavy burden well and
honourably borne.
The Great Chamberlains :
Bringas and the two Basils.
C. The Regency in Abeyance (945-963) and Restored (963-976).
§ 1.
Constantine VII. emerged from a refined seclusion to become at once a popular favourite.
This affection supported the dynasty continuously for over one hundred years,
forgave the exactions of Basil, condoned the suspicious indolence of his
brother, and upheld Zoe and Theodora through evil and good report. Under
Constantine and his son the office of regent, or acting colleague to the sovereign,
was left in abeyance. It was only revived when another long minority threatened
to impair the vitality of a State which always took its tone from its chief
citizen, and expected him both to initiate and to complete. The reign of
Constantine, in its fullest extent (911-959), was a period of marked
recuperative power and steady policy. The realm suffered nothing from the
control of Romanus, and the same wary and defensive principles were maintained
under his son-in-law. At the close of his reign the empire, now ready to
sustain the burden of wars of aggrandisement, burst into that Chauvinist
enthusiasm which fills the rest of the century with heroic exploits. The
military spirit carries off the legitimate and purple-born as well as the
regents ; and the regret and fatigued exhaustion which follow all wars, whether
successful or adverse, only set in when Basil, like Justinian or Lewis XIV.,
lived too long for his reputation, if not for his vigour.—The bloodless
revolution which dispossessed the family of Lecapenus had been the work of
Basil the Bird (o 7rereivos).1
His influence, sometimes obscured, was never wanting till the moment of his mad
venture and tragic penalty (962). Under his adroit suggestion, the personnel
of the ministry was entirely changed: he himself assumed an office of growing
importance, the command of the Foreign Legion, eTaipeidpxw;
1 Or
the Cock, see C. vii., i. 78, 3.
six-and-twenty
years before, Romanus had begun his The Great
ambitious
career with the same title. Bardas Phocas Ch?mher-
. . tains:
becomes
Commander-in-chief, Domestic of the Schools, Bringas and
a name to
which was often prefixed the term great, the two Basils. a use maintained down
to the last days of the empire. Nicephorus, his son, the future emperor, is
prefect of the East; Leo Phocas (afterwards Curopalat) is governor of
Cappadocia ; a third brother of this all- important family, Constantine, is
entrusted with the prefecture of Seleucia. Marianus Argyrus, grandson of
Romanus, but throughout faithful to the legitimate line, becomes Count of the
Stable (KOfifjg o-rafiXov) ;
Manuel
Curtice, colonel of the night-watch (Spovyy. ftiyX.) ; and the regency of Zoe
is faintly recalled by the elevation of a Constantine Gongyles to be High
Admiral of the Fleet. It is not difficult to see what influence provides the
moving weight that decided the crisis ; the Phocas family played General Monk
to the Restoration. On January 27, 945, the two puzzled sons of Romanus, who
had reaped nothing from their unfilial ingratitude, were quietly removed from
the palace; Constantine VIII., the more spirited of the two, killing his gaoler
two years later, and in turn slain by the attendant, was accorded an imperial
funeral ; Stephen survived nineteen years, and was (according to legend)
poisoned by Theophano.1 Romanus died in June 948, peaceful and
penitent, and men forgot the Lecapenian regency, which had not been an
inglorious epoch for the empire. But the secret and commanding influence of
Basil the chamberlain, natural son of Romanus by a Bulgarian captive, will be
found to dominate the next forty-two years; for the sole reign of Basil II. can
scarcely be said to begin before the disgrace in 987 of his namesake, who had
confronted Bringas and overcome him, who had raised Phocas and rid himself of
Zimisces. When we remember the power wielded
1 An unfortunate princess, who had the
credit of all notable deaths at a later period which were not due to obvious
violence.
The Great Chamberlains :
Bringas and the two Basils.
Literary culture and amiable character of C. VII
by Empress
Helen, and her general understanding with her base-born brother, we are
justified in saying that the heirs of Romanus, recognised or unacknowledged,
continued to sway the fortunes of Rome.
§ 2. First,
as to the character of the new monarch, who has passed out of the hands of
tutors and governors and come into his own at last. Just a century after Bardas
the Caesar he applies himself to the task of reviving letters and science, once
more well-nigh extinct. He is typical of the Byzantine spirit; of the careful
encyclopaedic work of students without originality. He collected and preserved
the remnants of learning or of the arts ; amassed a library, and threw it open
for public use. He set needy scholars, in quest of a Maecenas, to work upon
agriculture (yeooiroviKa), the veterinary art (liririaTpLKri) ; and engaged
them to excerpt the notable and edifying recitals of antiquity in the
“Historic Pandects” of which we possess the valuable uEmbassies” and the less profitable u Virtue and Vice.” Upon
the philosopher, scholar, and grammarian he showered favours; introduced into
the still dignified Senate and placed on the episcopal bench. He was no mean
painter and architect, and was unusually skilled in music and a fine singer. He
may have learnt in adversity a genuine sympathy with the distressed, and he
never appears so ignorant and indulgent as his father. Where he intervened in
person he did right; and he had a long arm for wrongdoers : Theo- dorus
Crinitas, governor of Calabria, bought corn at easy prices from the “ Roman ”
subjects, and retailed at great profit to the Saracens; he is discovered and
punished. His chief solicitude was for justice; and significantly enough, we
are enabled to trace at this time two chief authors of mischief, the landed proprietors
and the men-at-arms. In the provinces, the usual encroachment of the capitalist
had followed the hard winter of 932. The reign of Romanus I. had witnessed the eviction
of the yeoman under legal
forms. In
rare cases the small adjacent properties Literary were seized by force : far
more often by plausible cult?'reand
G/THtdOlS
chicanery, or
under the guise of a charitable mort- character of gage and reluctant foreclosure.
Constantine and his G- vn- counsellors, with remarkable
intrepidity and patience, revised all titles to landed estate for the last
forty years ; all unjust or questionable bargains were annulled and the land
given back to the small occupier free of cost and embarrassment. It is possible
that, like the imperial edicts of China, the imperial novels of Constantine
were more honoured in the spirit than in the letter; but however imperfectly
realised, such a design is a lasting testimony to the democratic and tribunal
basis of Roman sovereignty, to a systematic defence of the poorer citizens
against corrupt officials, powerful country neighbours, or overbearing
soldiers. Constantine waged war with all three classes: the men-at-arms had
oppressed the common people under Romanus, who, stay-at- home though he was,
represented the ascendancy of the military party. But the restored emperor was
emphatically a civilian. He restored the balance in an empire which still, amid
the hopeless disorders of the time, maintained the supremacy of law, as the
foundation of a civilised State. So far as an emperor can, he made ordinary
justice cheap and incorruptible ; like many of his distinguished predecessors
from Tiberius onwards, he sat in the courts as assessor, to guide and encourage
the judges and stop the eternal and interested delays of the attorneys.
He made
himself readily accessible to all who came with grievance or complaint. It was
noticed that whereas the charity of Romanus had been content with alleviating immediate
scenes of distress in the capital, Constantine was equally solicitous of the
welfare of the provinces, too often neglected by a centralised monarchy. He
revived a practice something like the Caroline institution of the imperial
mtssi. Patricians whom he could trust were de-
Literary culture and amiable character of C. VII.
His ministers, cabinet, gifts to officials,
diplomacy.
spatched to
the outlying districts as commissioners to inquire into the behaviour of
officials or the insults of the military. Curcuas, once more restored to
favour, was despatched to ransom captives ; but the emperor reserved to
himself, as a personal duty, the visitation of the prisons. He rebuilt at his
own expense the houses consumed by a great fire, and handed over the new
buildings to the grateful proprietors. It is clear that Constantine VII. had a
noble and exalted view of the great administrative office which he held. It is
easy to detect the weakness of a government which, instead of educating public
opinion or sharing the burden of control with the nation, sets a single
individual to watch the behaviour of the multitudinous petty kings, feudal or
bureaucratic, that prey upon the Commons. It is the Chinese conception of the
supreme authority, which believes that a secluded and ignorant youth, carefully
kept even from the light of day and shrouded in impersonality and gloom, can
control the official world. Yet the public, in modern as well as in ancient
times, still secretly believes this world of salaried place-men or
place-hunters to be irretrievably corrupt: from time to time it has armed a
born sovereign or a chosen dictator with a popular mandate to sweep away the
evil, quod semper veta- bitur semper retinebitur. And Constantine lived in a
complicated age, when modern abuses pressed close on the heels of the older
mischief; when the privileges of soldiers, landlords, and hierarchs were used
to coerce and despoil the poor.
§ 3. Basil
the Bird was at first all in all; but the real prime minister of Constantine
and his son Romanus was Joseph Bringas, who retained his authority till 963 :
he was treasurer and admiral, and we may perhaps notice a growing laxity in the
old pedantic rule which, except on rare occasions, kept such offices apart.
There are rumours that this universal supervision broke down in the increasing
complexity of
the duties and problems of govern- Hi* ministers, ment. Helena and Basil were
accused of intruding incompetent favourites and of putting responsible
diplomacy. posts to auction;—a charge like that of poison, easy to make and
difficult to refute.—The happy family life of the palace makes it hard to
credit the subsequent stories about Romanus and Theophano.
The court was
neither niggardly nor profuse ; it was neither dissolute nor austere: Constantine
loved good cheer and social intercourse. It is said that he employed his
accomplished daughter, Agatha, as intermediary (/xecTLTig) between the
imperial closet and the cabinets of the various ministers. No abuse of this
curious usage is noted; and indeed it was the peculiar tact of the emperor
which made him treat his subjects as his children and transformed the realm
into a single and a contented household—The prefect of the city enjoyed a grave
and responsible charge ; he was head of the police department as well as chief
stipendiary magistrate. Theophilus, after an earthquake, was desired to
recover the buried effects and furniture, and restore them to their owners; he
appropriated to his own use the greater part. Constantine was more ready to
notice and to punish than Justinian ; public indignation (never far from the
surface in “ despotic and servile ” States) was aroused and satisfied.
Theophilus yielded his post to Constantine, a spathaire, and he in turn to
Theodorus Belonas, both of whom receive the praise of the historians. Luitprand
has left us some curious details of one of those solemn distributions of gifts
to the official class (poya) which marked the policy of the later empire: it is
useful in establishing an order of precedence not always very clear.
The three
chief offices, master of the palace, grand domestic, and grand admiral, receive
alike a costly box and 4 robes; the 24 jmaylarrpoL, 24 gold pounds and 2
mantles ; the patricians, 12 and 1.—In foreign matters, Constantine followed
the conciliatory policy of his father-in-law; he wooed an alliance with the
Hisministers, Cordovan caliph, Abdurrahman, to
divide the Moslem a^ack
in East and West; and secured his friendship diplomacy, by a gift of 150
columns of choice marble,—once more a proof that the OaXacrcroKpaTla (of which
the emperor speaks in his works) was neither an archaism nor an empty boast.
Constantine welcomes to his court a Hungarian prince, Bulagud, who adopts the
Christian faith along with rich gifts and the title of patrician. The old
habits and instincts were too potent; the convert resumes his brigand raids
with his paganism, and seems to have met a shameful death in Germany.
Constantine had better success with Gylas, another Hungarian catechumen, whose
sincerity was attested by his sparing the lands of the empire.—The Argyrus
family were still in favour, and Marianus was successful in punishing a strange
revolt of the usually loyal city of Naples ; and later will be found (962)
driving the Hungarians from Thrace, with the command of prefect of the West.
Pothus Argyrus, his brother, hastily wards off a still closer attack of the
Hungarians (958), as colonel of the guard, like Belisarius at the close of
Justinian's reign.
Romanus II. § 4. The death of Constantine, the
handsome and acMsers amiable prince, was widely deplored. Romanus II.
dutifully
followed his dying advice, and retained Joseph Bringas as chief minister
throughout his reign. But he added a renegade cleric of his own choosing to the
small conclave in the closet,—a eunuch-monk, John Cherina, who secured the
coveted post of eraipeidpxtjs. Sisinnius was made prefect of the city, and rose
to be grand logothete, when his urban magistracy was filled by Theodorus
Daphno- pates. The vicarious glory of Romanus was only tarnished by the
sedition of Basil the Bird, the sole conspiracy of the brief reign.
Discontented with the circle of new favourites from which he had been excluded,
he proposes to murder Romanus as he issues from the palace to the hippodrome.
His
accomplices
apparently saw nothing absurd in his Romanus II. suggestion that he should be
the new monarch. But a Saracen named Joannitza or Joannicius informs Bringas.
So far from setting a stern precedent to put an end to these futile and
dangerous plots, Romanus merely makes the accused senators li run the gauntlet ” of the
popular derision (eirofjurevcrev); and reduced to a short period their exile in
a cloister. The fate of the Bird was tragic and exemplary ; on the discovery
of his plot he lost his reason, and died soon after, a dangerous madman.—The
chief interest of the new reign is not domestic intrigue but foreign
aggrandisement; and its glory, belonging wholly to the lieutenants of the
emperor, will be recorded when we have reason to tell the story of their
elevation.
The vigorous
youth of Romanus, unexercised in political business or warlike cares, was spent
and exhausted in hunting, athletics, and the wine-cup.
There is no
need to seek in darker vices the cause of the sudden break-down of one who
always overtaxed his forces in the pursuit of these strenuous pleasures, which
were to him the serious occupation of life.
He died on
March 15, 963, and once more two purple-born heirs succeeded to an unquestioned
sceptre under a female regency. Martina in 641, The new
Irene
in 780, Theodora in 842, Zoe in 911, Theo. Regency of 1 - xi ,, \u u Theophano.
phano in 959
: these are the empress-mothers who
reigned over
the Romans during a son’s minority.
Martina was
expelled with ignominy by the Senate ;
Irene succeeded
her own son by deposing him ;
Theodora
maintained the dignity of court and empire
in a lax age
; and we have attempted to do some
justice to
the firm policy and administration of Zoe.
Once more two
children and a woman represent the
majesty of the
commonwealth ; and as a necessary
result, once
again the eyes of the military leaders are
raised to the
prize at which Fortune pointed. At
the close of
our period, the same situation will recur :
Eudocia
Macrembolitissa (long supposed to be the
VOL. 11. p
The new Regency of Theophano.
The East and the family of Phocas.
elegant
authoress of the Violarium) is left guardian and regent for Michael VII. and
his brothers in 1067. It will be noted that in all these three later cases, a
military dictator is the inevitable sequel. Lecapenus succeeds not so much by
native ability as by public choice; Theophano soon comes to an agreement with
Phocas; and Eudocia chooses the luckless Romanus Diogenes to be the protector
of her children. —But before I treat of the revolution of 963 and trench upon
that historical domain which has been so brilliantly filled by the works of
Schlumberger and Rambaud, I must devote a section to the dry recital of the
Eastern exploits of Nicephorus, which marked him out beyond question as the
future associate- emperor.
§ 5. In 950,
the Emir of Aleppo and Emesa, whom the Greeks call Hamdan, plunged through the
Roman lines into Cappadocia, is reported to have slain the quite incredible
number of 30,000, and lost all captives and booty by a swift reprisal of the
Roman forces at the “pass of Cicero” in Mount Amanus. An odd story reaches us
about a renegade priest near Tarsus, who was unfrocked for boldly repelling a
Saracen inroad during divine service: annoyed at this evil return for his patriotism,
he passed over to the Saracen faith and service, and seems to have done some
mischief to his former friends. Meantime, Bardas Phocas, commander of the East,
had become unpopular ; his troops refuse to obey him on account of his greed,
and in one engagement with Hamdan he is deserted by all but his own satellites
or a gladiators.”
The kindly emperor removes the veteran by an honourable superannuation, and
appoints Nicephorus, his son, to the place in 954: Leo, a brother, is named
governor of Cappadocia ; and Constantine, already prefect of Seleucia, is made
lieutenant of the two. Almost the whole of Eastern Asia is thus within the
control of the single family of Phocas. The first attempts of Nicephorus were
unsuccessful:
he was
severely defeated by Hamdan. It seems clear The East and that, like Heraclius,
he discovered his first and perhaps heaviest task in efforts to restore Roman
discipline. * Under the timid control of Romanus (as we learn elsewhere) the
military element had oppressed and insulted the Commons ; the avarice of Bardas
had turned the soldiers loose to find spoil or bare nourishment among the
citizens, whom they were engaged to protect. Like the later Janissaries, they
had become the terror of their fellow-subjects and the scorn of the enemy. This
necessary work went on silently while others gained laurels. Basil, drungaire
of the Cibyrrhaeot theme, a native of the Thracian Chersonese, attacked and
sunk a great Saracen fleet from Tarsus in southern waters with the few ships
which belonged to his maritime province. Leo marches on Samosata and takes the
city ; but the chief credit lay with a palace official, Basil the chamberlain,
despatched to share the solicitude and perhaps watch the movements of the
professional soldier. In this assault, too, John Zimisces first emerges into
the light of history; he convoyed 1700 Saracen knights, well- mounted and
well-equipped, to the capital, as a living trophy of a prosperous campaign.
Meantime, the eyes of statesmen and soldiers were fixed on Crete, quasi
rebellibus vires ministrantem. This had been in Saracen possession since the
reign of Michael II. (820—829) I the inhabitants had been slain, expelled, or
forced to embrace Islam; and while this island remained a harbour and refuge
for the miscreant pirates, the sea-supremacy of the R6mans and the commerce it
protected were alike unsafe. The first expedition was confided to a courtier,
and proved a disastrous failure; Constantine Gongyles, the Paphlagonian, was
perhaps the son of one of Zoe's early favourites and ministers; it is difficult
to identify him with his namesake of nearly fifty years before. It was reserved
for the reign of Romanus II. (961) to see Crete once again Roman. In that year
Candia fell;
Duel of Bringas and Nicephorus: Patriarch’s decisive
action.
The East and the Emir Curupas becomes an honoured
pensioner %hocastly Ryzantine
court; receiving lands and the offer
of the
senatorial dignity, if he would renounce Islam. This he refused, and one
chronicler gravely informs us that he was a KovpoiraXari79, by an obvious
misreading of the true name. His son (Anemas) serves faithfully under the
empire against the Russians; and kills one of their three leaders. While Leo
Phocas, decorated with the title General of the West, obtains a great victory
over the Saracens at Andrassus in Galatia, Nicephorus marches east and takes
Hierapolis, Anazarbus, and Aleppo. Such was the situation of affairs when
Romanus died.
§ 6. The
caste-system of Byzantine society recognised three great official orders—the
Church, the Army and the Civil Service, sometimes sharply distinguished as the
Senate. We find as early as the Arcana of Procopius—that is, about the middle
of the sixth century—a clear line drawn between them ; and in subsequent
writers or annalists no account of a unanimous choice is complete unless they
are all expressly mentioned, in conjunction with the irresponsible populace,
their factions and gilds. The See of Byzantium had regained its spiritual power
and independence; the patriarchate was no longer a provision like an English
rectory for a younger son. In this very year John XII. in Rome was superseded
by Leo VIII., under the control of Otho I.; and Polyeuctus in New Rome held a
recognised position in the State, and would appear, at least during the regency
of Theophano, to have enjoyed the right of summoning the Senate. He was
friendly to Nicephorus, while Bringas, chief of the palace hierarchy, dreaded
as a civilian the military influence. Nicephorus celebrated a formal triumph
in the circus ; and to disarm the suspicions of the minister, talked with him
about the religious life which he soon intended to adopt. But he induces
Polyeuctus to take this remarkable step of convoking the Senate and
inducing
Bringas to obey. There the evils or dangers Duel of of the rule of females and
minors were exposed with frankness ; and a new office is proposed for the most
Patriarch’s efficient general. An extraordinary situation is re- decisive
vealed: Theophano and her two sons are not con- ‘ suited. The civilians merely
come to terms with the military leader. The Senate entrusts to him alone the
appointment, promotion, and removal of all chief affairs of state ; and engages
to settle nothing about the conduct of the Eastern war except in agreement with
him. But in the Roman Empire, any exceptional authority tended insensibly to
monarchy; and the history of the republic is full of the various essays made to
create great posts and commissions which should be in theory dependent on the
civil assembly ; and is full also of the failure of such a compromise.
It is
doubtful if Nicephorus was ambitious of the purple ; he was probably quite
contented with the formal sanction of his great war, and more than satisfied as
Commander-in-chief with unlimited powers for the conduct of the Asiatic
campaign. But fortune and the jealousy of Bringas hurried him up the steps of
the throne. While he exercises his new recruits and restores ancient discipline
in Cappadocia, while he prepares against Tarsus the whole force of his troops,
Bringas writes secretly to John Zimisces and to Romanus Curcuas, his cousin,
bidding them rid him of the turbulent general. They show the letters to
Nicephorus, and incite him to find safety in the purple. He is saluted emperor
on July 2, quite in the old Roman fashion, and is perhaps the first prince
since Leo III. to owe his dignity to the shouts of the soldiers. At the news
Bringas wavers, and shows none of his usual firmness. The son of Romanus I.,
Basil the
chamberlain, becomes by an audacious device complete master of the situation.
Arming his household, 3000 strong, he attacks the supporters of the minister
with success. Bringas enters Saint Sophia by one door as a suppliant, while
Bardas
Duel of Bringas and Nicephorus: Patriarch's decisive
action.
Nicephorus II. takes personal command of the war.
Phocas leaves
by another to greet his victorious son. On August 16, Polyeuctus solemnly
crowns his nominee: and the usual family compact of the Phocae amicably
distributes the chief places of profit or command. Leo Phocas is made
KovpoiraXdrrj^, an office which had by no means become a sinecure or an empty
title; the command of the Eastern troops goes to Zimisces, who had merited the
promotion ; the venerable Bardas is named Caesar ; while a certain Manuel,
natural son of Leo Phocas, the emperor's uncle, is found without credit in
command in Sicily. Bringas was banished to Paphlagonia, then immured in a
cloister, and died not long after the loss of an authority which he had wielded
without a peer for nearly twenty years. The first achievement of the new reign
and the new family, at last, after some imperial disappointment, was the
gratifying success of Zimisces over the Saracens near Cilician Adana ; the
carnage was so great that the site long retained the title, “ Hill of
Blood."
§ 7. But
Nicephorus was quite indisposed to entrust the war to his cousins or
lieutenants. His elevation did not change his character or his conduct. Like
-^Emilianus (253), he believed in a certain straightforward division of labour.
He carries off the Empress Theophano, now his wife (964), with her two sons to
Cilicia ; safely bestowing them out of reach of intrigue at home or foreign
danger, he turns to his serious purpose. His army is now reinforced by a
special troop of Armenians and Iberians, who form, as it were, the private
bodyguard of the militant emperor. In 965, he recovers Anazarbus (which had
relapsed), Mopsuestia, Tarsus ; and in the same year Cyprus is reunited to the
empire. In 966, he forces the Syrian pashaliks (or other emirates) to become
tributary,— Aleppo, Tripoli, and Damascus ; and lays siege without success to
Antioch. He leaves behind him Burtzes to watch the blockade, and Leo Phocas, a
eunuch, son of the new Curopalaty with strict orders
not to move
during his absence. But the temptation Nicephorus is too strong; Antioch is
reduced; and the two gallant officers cashiered for serious breach of
discipline, command, of Nicephorus at once loses by this untimely severity the war' that respect which the Byzantines always paid to the strong leader.
Other causes contributed to ruin his His valour, popularity. He allowed his
soldiers the same licence unpopularity, they had enjoyed and abused under
Lecapenus ; in errors. each resumption of the regency, it would appear that the
men assumed the overbearing airs of a military ascendancy. The war was costly ;
new charges had to be imposed ; money, hitherto spent in lavish doles to the
nobility or public spectacles for the people, was directed to the urgent needs
of the camp. The revenues of the Church were laid under contribution, and
during the vacancy of a See, needlessly prolonged, a steward was sent to
administer the revenue, while putting by a large surplus for the
State-treasury.
Every class
felt itself aggrieved. Prophecies were rife as to the violent end in store for
the gloomy emperor ; the palace, under his orders, was transformed into a
fortress. The empress was neglected and indignant; and the warriors (ap^ovTe?)
no longer trusted the emperor. As for the people, they loaded him with abuse,
and even pelted him with stones.
A breach
which could not be healed grew daily wider between the regent and his subjects.
His brother's administration was unpopular ; like Crinitas in Calabria he had
profited by a scarcity in wheat (968), and retailed at a private profit that
commodity which, to Byzantine socialists, the State held and distributed for
the people’s benefit.—Foreign policy was diverted into new and dangerous
channels ; the later “ Roman ” device of quelling one foe by calling in another
was resorted to with mischievous effect. Calocyres the patrician had been sent
(967) to invoke the growing power of the Norse princes in Russia against the
Bulgarians. This country, which had gone rapidly backwards since the death of
Symeon, was in no mood
Bis valour, unpopularity, and political errors.
John Zimisces and the settlement of Bulgaria.
to offer a
stout resistance. The Russians overran Bulgaria. Nicephorus, to support the
failing dynasty, suggests to King Peter a double marriage to the two youthful
heirs of the empire ; he joyfully accepts, but dies of grief at the invasion of
his country and loss of his power. By the end of this reign the Norsemen
possessed the open land, and had secured the capital Peristhlaba.—Only the
partial historian can pretend to see in Nicephorus Phocas a successful monarch
and statesman. The Roman emperor had two main duties ; to preserve domestic
peace, defend the people from encroachments of wealth or official arrogance,
and support the lower ranks in that mistaken socialist policy of tutelage which
was far too firmly rooted to yield to reform; outside, to protect the frontier.
A thoroughly capable general, he was unable to give time to civil matters; his
chief concern was to procure funds somehow for his campaigns. Abroad, the
Eastern frontier has been secured and extended; but the Balkan policy was both
treacherous and mistaken. A once hostile and now friendly power was brought to
ruin ; and the restored Bulgarian monarchs under Basil II. will be animated by
a not unnatural hate of the Romans. The populace forgot the respect due to
sovereigns; their open affronts might have been serious to the monarchical
prestige, had not the innocent children of Romanus won their affection and
sympathy. The Church justly felt aggrieved at the usurpation of Phocas ; and
tidings of his savage murder (gradually published or whispered in the closing
days of 969) were received with profound indifference or intense relief. It was
just over a century since a similar massacre had ended the reign of a very
different man.
§ 8. Basil
the son of Romanus, for whom Nicephorus had discovered a new title UpoeSpos,
at once turned towards the rising sun, and to the end of the reign of Zimisces
maintained a firm control of domestic affairs. Indeed, it is suspected that the
emperor was
suffered to reign and live only so long JohnZimisces as he pleased the powerful
minister ; and it is clear that important tracts of public business were
Bulgaria. wholly abandoned to civilian control by an emperor genuinely
interested in war alone. Under the reformed empire of Diocletian, Constantine,
and Justinian, the civilian was always a match for the military element. While
the historian depicts on a large and glowing canvas the valour of a hero, the
romantic details of a campaign, the ordinary life of a people (still
nine-tenths of a nation's history) remains without a chronicler. Only a
Napoleon, perhaps, has ever strictly fulfilled the imperial promise, personal
control over both departments of State, unrelaxed vigilance, and military
enterprise. We can only conjecture dimly amid the tumult and flash of arms,
what the early government was like during these chivalrous exploits. For twenty
years Basil will retain unquestioned his grasp on public business ; for twenty
years there will be seen the same ambition of generals under the cover of a
weak but respected legitimacy, the same cabinet-rule of an irresponsible chief
minister. But for the masterful spirit of Basil II., the personal control of a
Byzantine sovereign might never have reappeared ; and after all, this was what
a Roman emperor pledged, what the government needed for efficiency and the
people for security.—The Phocas circle was broken up; the Curopalat Leo was
banished to Lesbos; Nicephorus, his son, nrptdTofieo-Tiapios, to Imbros ;
Bardas Phocas, the second son, governor of Chaldia and Colonea, was closely
confined in Amasia; Peter the eunuch was spared from the general disgrace.—The
death of Nicephorus was the signal for a widespread movement among the enemies
of Rome. The Russians, now lords of the Balkans, threatened to overrun the
European territory of the empire: there was no reason why the Bulgarian people,
mainly Slavonic, should not accept the leadership of the Norse princes
JohnZimisces as their cousins had in Russia; the
revolution had m'mtof eUle~ keen purely dynastic. The Moslem powers
forgot Bulgaria. their differences, and closed in round an army without a
head, as they supposed. But the defensive methods were still vigorous ;
Nicetas, a patrician and a eunuch, contrives to overthrow this imposing confederacy
of unbelievers ; Bardas Sclerus, Zimisces' brother-in-law, stationed at
Adrinople against the Russians, issues forth and inflicts a crushing defeat, in
which 20,000 are slain. He is recalled in haste by the news of a fresh danger,
the invariable conspiracy of the Phocas family so recently disinherited. Leo
and his two sons are discovered, judicially examined, and (an infrequent
sentence for high-treason) condemned to death. John modifies the penalty to
loss of sight, and gives directions that it shall be only formally performed.
(Two years later (971) they are found again conspiring, are again betrayed, and
this time the sentence is really executed, and their goods are confiscated to
the State.) In 970 Sclerus, another conspicuous figure in the military caste,
was sent to Asia Minor, where at Cappadocian Caesarea he assembles his forces.
In 971 John marches in command to the Russian war by way of Dristra (AopoorroXov);
Peristhlaba he captures, and lays siege to Dristra, where two terrible
engagements take place; in the latter conflict 15,500 Russians are slain, while
the Romans lose but 350. Zimisces brings with him a special corps of devoted
Armenian troops, who defend his person and assure the victory (we already know
from Abulpharagius the value attached to these reinforcements of Armenian
infantry, during the late Syrian wars of Nicephorus). After the famous
interview of the two sovereigns, embellished by historians, peace is made ; and
duly supplied with provisions and safe conduct the Russian invaders, remnants
of a great host, take their homeward path. Wenceslas is killed on the way ; and
his son Vladimir marries Anne, sister of the young emperor, and
begins that
long, peaceful influence of church and JohnZimisces court on the receptive
Russians, which is seen sur- settlement of viving, strongly marked and
unmistakable in our own Bulgaria. day. John triumphs with one of those
spectacular processions so familiar of late to the citizens of the capital; he
divests Boris of his kingship, and transforms him into a docile, imperial
official with the harmless title magisler militice. About this time is
abolished a vexatious impost, the smoke-tax, reinstated by an emperor of evil
memory, Nicephorus I., in the early days of the ninth century, which excited
perhaps much the same resentment as our similar window-tax.
§ 9. The next
three years are devoted to the East. John and thet The Great Domestic was nobly continuing the tradi- l^mpaigns tion,
called by Armenian writers Mleh demeslikos, in which we must surely recognise
Melias, the governor of Lycandus, or more probably his son.1
He ravages Edessa, and takes Nisibis and Amida ; after seven centuries the
fortified towns of the debatable border are just as they were in the time of
Constantius II.
John now came
up, having concluded an alliance with the Armenian kings, Ashot III. and the
Prince, of Vasparacan, and received reinforcements: there had been an anxious
moment of uncertainty when he found the frontier menaced by 80,000 troops, who
at first seemed reluctant to admit the Romans.
The combined
forces are directed against the central citadel of Islam. In Bagdad the feudal
forces, everywhere prevalent in Europe and West Asia, had substituted for a
direct ^theocratic rule centralised in the Caliph or Vicar of God, the
turbulent rivalry of emirs. The acting “ Shogun/' Bakhtiar, of the impotent
captive, had himself resigned to others the business of government and the
defence of the country. The people, never voiceless at a crisis
1 Mleh, Melias, and Melissenus are perhaps the stages
in the development of this patronymic.
John and the in so-called despotic States, rise in
sedition against
eastern doubie
indifference. Bakhtiar was alarmed,
campaigns. .
gave up his
hunting and pleasures, robbed the unfortunate caliph, in spite of his protest,
of his household furniture for the expenses of the war, and took the field. It
would appear that this vigorous effort surprised and baffled the Romans; Mleh
or Melias is defeated and captured, and the results of his brilliant enterprise
are lost. In 974, John passes by Nisibis and Amida, proposes to sack “ Ecbatana
'' (Bagdad), most inviolable and opulent city on earth ; and after an obscure
but successful raid, forces the caliph into a tributary alliance, which is
operative some thirteen years later. He returns home laden with booty, and
after a brief rest again proceeds to Syria in 975. He rapidly seizes Membig (or
Hierapolis), Apamea, Emesa, Baalbec. He makes Damascus pay tribute, and leaves
part of his army for the siege of Tripoli, part, under Burtzes, for the
blockade of Antioch, which again capitulated to this successful leader after
the death of Zimisces. If we can credit Armenian authorities, he wrote from
Jerusalem itself to Ashot III., sending a present of 2000 slaves and 1000
horse; and honours the king's envoys with titular dignities, one Leo (a clerk)
as u
rabounapet" and philosopher, the layman Sempad as magister or
protospathaire. It is clear that John Zimisces valued both the soldiers and the
monarchs of Armenia. Sprung from a native stock, he felt in sympathy with the
race rising gloriously from centuries of obscure oppression. The Armenian
influence perhaps reached its height in these two regencies ; and although it
declines somewhat in the following legitimist reaction (989-1056), yet the
fortunes of this warlike people were closely bound up with the destiny of Rome
; and the short-sighted policy of Constantine X. (c. 1050) finally broke up an
important bulwark of the empire.
§ 10. But in the moment of triumph and
in the Suspicious prime of life, Zimisces was attacked by deadly though
lingering illness. In the autumn of 975 he turns (976). his face homewards, and
moves slowly through the now peaceful and fertile regions, which his family and
his countrymen had once more annexed to the empire. The chronicler suddenly
lifts the veil from the secret conflict of the rivals, which the din of arms
allows us to forget. Passing through Cilicia, by Longias and Dryze,he inquires
for the owner of the prosperous but thinly inhabited country. It is Basil the
chamberlain, and the soldier is indignant that the fruit of his toil and the
lands won by the lives of brave men fall to menials of the palace. At the
Asiatic Mount Olympus he lodges with a noble, Romanus, whom some affirm to be a
grandson of Romanus Lecapenus. But there is little need of the story of a
poisoned cup. Mortally ill he reached the capital, and just lived into the new
year. On the 10th of January he died, leaving the young princes to the care of
the minister suspected of his own murder. A strange version of the story comes
from the East; Matthew of Edessa tells us that he abdicated in deep repentance
at the massacre of Nicephorus, assembled the grandees (aeyia-rai/eg to the
Greeks), and placed the crown on the rightful head of Basil. Retiring into a
convent, he was poisoned by his butler and chamberlain ; whom we scarcely
expect to meet with in that austere simplicity of the cloister, for which
several Roman princes had gladly exchanged a throne.—We have now Hidden
reached the
assigned limits of an important period. conflict m
the Roman
We see the
Eastern frontiers immensely strengthened, Empire. as they had not been since
Heraclius' reign. There is a firm alliance with the great Bagratid house of
Armenia. Bulgaria, humbled to the dust, is a vassal of the empire; the Russians
are no longer a menace, but are receiving gladly creed, customs, and even forms
of government from imperial Rome.
Hidden conflict in the Roman Empire.
The young Augusti: revolt of Sclerus (976).
The Byzantine
State is the only one in Europe that deserves the names of monarchy or commonwealth.
But under the surface of this prosperity are working tendencies and influences
whose conflict will hasten the downfall of the empire. On the one hand,
ambitious feudal captains, whose unique business and interest is war, who know
nothing and feel nothing of the cost of military expenditure and the people's
suffering; on the other, trained officials or palace favourites, whose ideal is
a pacific and unadventurous state, who cannot realise the danger of a soft and
vulnerable civilisation in the midst of hardy neighbours, and whose protests
against the costliness of war are upraised in the interests not so much of the
people as their own.
D, Abortive Attempts to revive the Regency: Personal
Monarchy triumphs over both Departments, Civil and Military (9901025)
§ 1. Public
opinion without doubt, whenever it could be said to exist, predicted a serious
conflict between the cabinet and the army-leaders. The death of Zimisces left
every ambitious pretender in either sphere free to follow his inclinations
under cover of service to the State and to the youthful emperors. The first act
in the drama recalls the main features of the revolution of 963. Once more a
minister, Basil, holding the place of Bringas (whom he had supplanted),
attempts to remove a dangerous and popular commander ; in place of Nicephorus
we find the old rival of the house of Phocas, Bardas Sclerus. He was the
obvious successor of Zimisces, as guardian of the princes and the empire ; his
elevation to partnership seemed a mere matter of time. The emperors had now
reached the age of eighteen and fifteen, without learning any of the duties of
their station. Basil the chamberlain sue-
ceeded in
permanently imprisoning Constantine IX. The young in a charmed circle of
palace-pleasures and illusions ;
Basil II.
broke through this restraint and respectful Sclerus (976). mockery ; he learnt
life's lessons by bitter experience, shook off his sloth, startled the rival
hierarchy by acting for himself, issued commands to his subalterns, and reigned
in an inaccessible and perhaps joyless solitude.—The year 976, beginning early
(Jan. 10) Asia Minor with a new reign, was destined to have more than detached
from
tn6 ($7Ylip%7*(i•
its share of
exciting incident. The Minister recalled Theophano to the palace, where she
sank into silence and inaction; honoured Bardas Sclerus with the (now
favourite) title of Duke of Mesopotamia, but detached him from the immediate
command of the Oriental armies and the society of his faithful friends ; sent
Burtzes, with a similar title, Duke of Antioch, to govern the city he had
recovered ; and gave a captaincy to Peter Phocas, the eunuch, nephew of the
late emperor. At this shower of favours upon the hated and powerful house,
Bardas broke into open protest. Basil the chamberlain lets it be known among
the friends of Sclerus, that if he had a grievance in the office to which he
was appointed, he might retire and live quietly on his estates. Sclerus
revolts, and openly seizes the regency. His son,
Romanus, who
might have become a valuable hostage for his good conduct, is adroitly convoyed
from the capital and joins his father. With the help of Armenian cavaliers he
is saluted emperor by the troops, and passes into the district of Meliten&,
so recently regained. The revolt took on an entirely Oriental character ; it
was chiefly supported (as the Greeks indignantly realised) with Armenian contingents
; and at one time it seemed likely that two pretenders at the head of equal
armies might avoid the horrors of civil war by splitting up the integrity of
the empire. Sclerus seized the public taxes and local resources. But he held
the richer inhabitants to exorbitant ransom, and prevailed on some of
Asia Minor the wealthy proprietors to hand over
their whole
detachedfrom fortunes. He was now established in
Mesopotamia.
the empire. ,
and thought
it no disgrace to parley with the infidel
and obtain
their succour. The Emirs of Diarbekir and of Miafarekin join his cause, finding
nothing singular in another ebullition of selfish separatism, which was then
everywhere rife through the caliph’s dominions. Three hundred picked Arabian
horsemen join the rebel standard; and the camp of Sclerus is the haunt of
bandits, and the centre and asylum for all the discontented. The Armenian auxiliaries
include some notable princes—the brother, Romanus, and the sons, Gregory and
Bagrat, of Ashot, Prince of Taron. The utmost fear prevailed in the civil
councils of the Ministry; Legitimist generals who could be trusted were not
numerous. At last Peter Phocas was sent to Caesarea, where all available troops
were assembled in the interest which we must call, by a stretch of fancy, the
Imperialist cause. A first engagement ended in his success, and special enmity
was shown to the Armenian allies, who were believed to be the motive and the
backbone of the rebellion. Bardas loses a firm friend in Anthes; and finds the
captain of the Saracen contingent openly advocating desertion. It is a curious
comment on the times and on the character of the regent, that the band murders
its “ believing ” commander and throws in its lot with the Christian general. A
certain Saraces conducts Bardas safely through the passes watched by Phocas'
troops; and a second engagement takes place at Lapara on the Armenian frontier,
or, as some aver, at Lycandus. Peter, deceived by the ruse of a mock jbanquet
and simulated doles to the rebel troops, is caught unawares and suffers heavy
loss ; while shortly after, Burtzes, the Duke of Antioch, declares for his old
friend and ally, Sclerus. As his viceroy in a semi-independent duchy, he leaves
a Moslem, Abdallah Muntasir, who acts with feudal loyalty (typical of the age)
towards his friend,
but on the
collapse of Sclerus' rebellion refuses to Asia Minor
restore
the city to the empire.1 Andronicus Ducas ^tached/rom J r . the empire.
(who may be a
member of the ancient house by
Nicolas, the
one surviving scion after Constantine's
abortive
attempt) also declares for Sclerus; and the
insurgent
sailors of the port of Attalia seem to
have joined
with the townsfolk in putting their
admiral in
irons and hoisting the black flag. But
this mutinous
fleet added little to the cause of
Sclerus or
the interest of the war. Commanded by
Manuel
Curtice, it sailed to attack the imperial
galleys,
still loyal, stationed off the Cibyrrhaeot
Theme. Thence it made for the Hellespont, seized
Abydos as its
headquarters, terrorised the capital,
and
interrupted its supplies. But the next news we
have is the
tidings that Theodorus Carantenus has
annihilated
the rebel squadron.
§ 2. Against
this powerful confederation of the Defeats of the
land forces
the minister Basil despatched Leo
, . . forces.
(TTpooTopecrTiapLog) and John the patrician. Constantinople
had not known such a panic since the reign of Theodosius III. All kinds of
authority were hastily heaped on the generals, not perhaps without the secret
misgivings of the cabinet. They were armed with the fullest powers of treating
with the rebels, or bribing them into submission ; and at their disposal lay
all offices and captaincies without reference to the ministry at home. The
Imperialists reach Cotyaeum in Phrygia. Leo fails in his efforts to detach the
partisans of Sclerus, and succeeds better by an audacious manoeuvre. Slipping
past their lines he leads his men eastward, as if to retaliate (like Heraclius)
on the homesteads and fields of the chief supporters of the war. Seeing their
homes threatened, the army, Cappadocian or
1 He is only won over to become an imperial officer
by the clever special pleading of the Bishop of Aleppo (rewarded for this
service with the Patriarchal See of Antioch, and losing his promotion and his
liberty , by ungrateful treason towards Basil II. twelve years later).
VOL. II. Q
Defeats oj the Armenian, deserts to the imperial
cause. Leo follows Imperialist Up this skilful ruse by a third engagement, in which
Burtzes and Romanus, son of the pretender, are defeated ; we shall find the
repentant or renegade Burtzes, along with Eustathius Maleinus, among the
Imperialists. Once again the special bitterness against the Armenians was
displayed ; no quarter was given to those who were perhaps unfairly regarded
as the prime-movers in the sedition. A fourth battle resulted in an entire
change of fortune : Bardas Sclerus with his brother Constantine falls with his
Eastern cavalry on Leo. An utter rout ensues; of the three generals, Peter
Phocas and John are slain, and Leo is taken prisoner. Elated with this overwhelming
success, the rebels march towards the Bithynian frontier, everywhere welcomed
by the fickle crowds; the days of Thomas the Socialist have come back again.
The government sends out Manuel Comnenus, first of the famous house to find a
place in Roman annals, as commander of the garrison at Nice ; at that moment he
held the title of Prefect of the East. Feigning plenty by sand- heaps lightly
covered with grain, he capitulates and retires to the capital with his soldiers
and the honours of war, leaving behind an almost empty and famine- stricken
town to Sclerus. There was now no general who could command the shattered remnants
of u Im- Phocas perialism.” Driven to
extremities, the government favour) Jver- draws from his convent-retreat in
Chios Bardas throws Phocas, disgraced some six years previously. The Sclerus. par{ 0f tw0 chief actors was now oddly changed
—a Phocas was now the loyalist, a Sclerus the defaulter. So low had the
fortunes of the central government ebbed that it was by stealth that the new
leader effected a secret journey to Caesarea, long prevented by the vigilance
of young Romanus Sclerus from passing into Asia Minor. Placing himself at the
head of the army Phocas retreats to Amorium, and is there met by Sclerus. The
Imperialists are
again
defeated ; and nothing but the brilliant strategy Phocas
of
a capable and humane general saved the flying i^estored to . r ° J& favour) over-
and dismayed
troops. In turn retreating and facing throws
again to
confront the pursuing rebels, Phocas pre- Sclerus. served his men at serious
personal risk from utter annihilation, with that respect for human life that is
so marked a feature in this Byzantine age. Gathering together his humiliated
forces he again offers battle, and again is driven to flight. In yet a third
engagement Phocas fought with the courage of despair ; the armies watch the
single combat of the heroic leaders. Sclerus is hurled from his horse, and the
riderless steed spreads the false tidings of his defeat and death. The rebel
army, hitherto victorious, but depending only upon the personal influence of an
individual, was seized with unreasoning panic and dispersed in all directions.
Sclerus fled to Miafarekin and thence to the caliph in Bagdad. So ends the
first scene in the contest for the regency. His followers continue to harass
the provinces of Asia Minor, like the Carlists after legitimate war in Spain.
Lydia,
Phrygia, and Caria suffer from their raids, and it is not till 980 that peace
is restored throughout the peninsula. Before the second act opens, certain
events had taken place in the palace and the capital which altered the
complexion of affairs and shifted the balance of parties.
§ 3. A new
and unexpected factor had appeared: Military Basil II. in 986 goes in person to
the Bulgarian a^^ance at war, in spite of the
remonstrance of the chamberlain initiative. and the open disapproval or
ridicule of the military leaders. At first unsuccessful, he had not been
deterred from continuing an active policy. No “ legitimate ” sovereign had
commanded the troops since his namesake; and even Romanus became a recluse when
he assumed the purple. We shall again allude to this remarkable decision and
the adverse criticism it aroused ; here we will only add that Basil scorned the
interested advice of those
Military
annoyance
Basits
initiative.
Revolt of Phocas.
who would
have kept the titular emperor a puppet. Issuing from his obscurity he learnt to
command respect and even fear. While the sovereign was engaged in his Bulgarian
campaign, Bardas Phocas had, in 986, crossed the Euphrates and seized Dara ;
the caliph retaliates on the region of Antioch with that familiar and
purposeless foray which since Sapor and Chosroes was the favourite method of
Eastern aggression. But Phocas must so far have succeeded, for we find the Emir
of Aleppo paying tribute again to the empire with the caliph's consent. The
news was brought to the camp that the emperor, not content with invading the
province of the soldier, had disgraced the minister ; Basil, on suspicion of a
plot, was removed from office, sent across the Bosphorus, and had the
bitterness of seeing all his public acts and decisions annulled by imperial
edict. Personal control had once more appeared in camp and cabinet (987).
Phocas had been annoyed that his aid had not been sought for the Bulgarian war
; he believed himself indispensable. The military caste met at the castle of Eustathius
Maleinus, at Charsiane, in Cappadocia ; and on August 15 saluted Phocas
emperor, under the same circumstances and with the same motives that attended
or impelled the pro-- clamation of Isaac Comnenus just seventy years later.
Almost simultaneously there arrived the disconcerting news that Sclerus, the
former pretender, had escaped from the confinement into which the caliph had
thrown him! For this baffled fugitive, taking shelter with his soldiers, 3000
in number, in Bagdad, had been first welcomed, then distrusted and disarmed ;
but had obtained the caliph's permission to attack the rebel Persians, and had
succeeded. Instead of returning to a suspicious hospitality, he turned his
cavalcade towards the Roman frontier in Melitene, and was now preparing to
renew his claim to the regency. The situation closely resembled the military
anarchy of the third century. There
were the same
well-trained army-corps, the same Revolt of ambitious leaders or turbulent
troops, the same Phoca8' honest and patriotic endeavour to do
service to the State. Once more a Gallienus in the capital was confronted by
rival claimants, who had first to decide with each other in open fight, and
then seize the defenceless prize of victory. Sclerus got possession of Malatiya
from Basiliscus, the patrician in command, seized the valuable equipment and
resources of the provincial capital, assumed the imperial title, and began to
negotiate both with the emperor and with Phocas. To secure a safe retreat in
either event, he despatched his son Romanus Sclerus to Basil II., with a
feigned distaste for his father's treasonable schemes and a warm desire to
serve the genuine sovereign. Basil's nature was, at the outset of his public
life, open, confiding, and clement; the young renegade (as was supposed)
received a hearty welcome, and even became a principal minister and adviser. To
Phocas, Sclerus suggested a partition of the empire : so far had feudal views
prevailed in undermining the ideal of a single empire “one and
indivisible."
Phocas pretends
to agree to this compromise, and suggests that Sclerus should occupy the
further East, taking as his share Antioch, Phenice, Ccelesyria,
Palestine,
and Mesopotamia, leaving the larger part of Asia Minor and all Europe to him.
But a real understanding between these ancient rivals was inconceivable ; at
no moment was Phocas sincere in agreeing to such an accommodation. Inviting
Sclerus to an amicable interview lie seizes and despoils him ; and thus does
him the best possible service by removing him against his will from the
dangerous competition.
§ 4. The
curtain rises on the final scene in the Extinction of
drama
of the pretenders. Phocas is seen marching rev°lf bV,
, ry xx- i ^ o \ TTiri- • i sudden death
on
Constantinople (989). Half his army is sent on 0f Phocas.
ahead to
Chrysopolis, under the patrician Calocyres
Delphinas.
Basil II. at the head of the Russian con-
Extinction o/tingent falls on them, inflicts a
crushing defeat, and
mdden'death anc*
^ere hangs Calocyr as a warning to
oj Phocas. traitors. In the camp is found the old,
restless Nicephorus Phocas, blinded by Zimisces after a second conspiracy.
Meantime Phocas himself is attacking Abydos ; and Basil II. and Constantine IX.
(his unique appearance in war) reach Lampsacus and offer battle. Once more the
fight assumes something of the aspect of a duel in a tournament of chivalry.
On his way to meet Basil in single combat Phocas suddenly turns aside,
dismounts or falls from his horse, and instantly expires. His forces, held
together by no principle but the precarious cement of personal loyalty,
disband in confusion and receive a general amnesty. The principal accomplices
are submitted to the painless indignity of a mock procession on asses, seated
facing the tail; and in this lenient treatment it is worthy of notice and
approval that Basil relieved Leo Melissenus from this light penalty, because he
had in the rebel camp refused to allow injurious abuse against the rightful
emperors. Basil had now triumphed over his most serious rival; but the fires of
sedition still smouldered. Once again, for a third time, the aged and gouty
Sclerus becomes the unwilling centre and focus of the malcontents. The wife of
Phocas releases him from confinement in the castle of Tyropaeum, and urges him
to succeed to the undying feud with Legitimacy.
Ammsty and But Sclerus was tired of the cares and
perils of
to9Ltorw!rS a Pretender's
life. His son Romanus was high in favour with the emperor. Basil, generous to a
fault, offers him the second title in the kingdom, the coveted Kovpo7ra\drrjgf if he will resign all
independent claims and resume his allegiance. The details of the interview are
well known ; and the whole episode of the civil war (disastrous though it was
in its results to a wealthy and pacific State) leaves a most pleasing
impression of the age, its humanity, considerateness,
respect for
life, and good faith. But the mischief Amnesty and wrought on the real home of
imperial power, Asia tyhto™™r8 Minor, and on the provincials, was very
great ; perhaps it never really recovered. Feudal armies, warring for purely
personal ends and in service to some great captain, are rarely bitter, and
seldom fight to the death. The actual loss of life may have been slight. But the
civil order and tranquil course of justice, on which the empire could
especially pride itself, was thrown into confusion. Great feudal castles became
not merely the meeting-place of the disaffected and mutinous, but the asylum of
the fugitive villager. Vast territories held by magnates supported ten thousand
head of cattle, but few independent yeomen or honest husbandmen. The horrors
of civil war were experienced by the neutral inhabitants of the lower class ;
the conflict, half an exciting tournament to the partisans or “
Imperialists," wrought real and lasting havoc on the resources and the
population of the peninsula. Yet it must best be forgotten that such contests
and crises are inseparable accompaniments of the Caesarian ideal. The best man
must be discovered and loaded with plenary powers, not as titular monarch, but
as ubiquitous general, as personal administrator^ as embodied High Court of
Appeal. We have tried to justify from this point of view the incessant turmoil
and wanton confusion of the third century, which Bardas and Phocas seem
anxious to revive. They acted within their right, and according to their
conscience. But the triumph of Legitimacy was a real benefit to the
commonwealth. The wish to be ruled by the ideally best and most competent leads
into hopeless chaos. It may well be doubted if the most able and virtuous would
be the better for unlimited power or confidence ; and it is certainly not worth
while for a nation to take steps to discover this shy and lurking genius.
Neither China, with her studious and democratic tests of literary aptitude,
nor Rome and Latin
Amnesty and high honours to Sclerus.
Personal government of Basil II. (j990-1025): true
Ccesarian
ideal.
America, with
the brusque arbitrament of the sword, provide that order, guarantee that
security, which a government ought to bestow on its subjects. The hereditary
principle reasserted itself at the close of the tenth century in Byzantium. Men
were glad to obey a prince whose ancestors had reigned, at least in name, for a
century and a quarter, and as some men whispered, longer. Basil crowned the
public relief and approval by his generous treatment of the partisans; not
merely did he decorate the ringleader with the coveted distinction, but he
took his followers into favour and preserved for them the titles which Sclerus
had bestowed ; this latter indulgence became a precedent for the next century.
§ 5. Imperial
magnanimity could go no further. Basil at this epoch in his long reign kept all
his vindictive truculence for the foes of the empire. A last echo of the
regency conflict disturbed the oppressive silence of his later years without
awakening his thirst for vengeance. In 1022, he had left at Constantinople
Nicephorus Phocas (son of the pretender Bardas) and a certain Nicephorus
Xiphias, both valiant commanders, while he is absent. Both retire in agreement
to Cappadocia and revolt. An Armenian king Sennacherib appears to have assisted
them, with that eager help always forthcoming for the house of Phocas from that
nation. Basil will not waste the forces of the empire on a contemptible
domestic brawl. He writes to each, promising pardon if he will rid him of his
rival. Xiphias, already regretting his step, lures his companion to an
interview and murders him. This is perhaps the only violent death by perfidy or
judicial sentence that marks this age, if we except the summary penalty of
Calocyr on the field of battle. The history of Byzantium is in this respect a
welcome contrast to the cruel series of deaths which East or West of this
humane area forms the staple interest of the historian.—We have no intention of
closely following Basil II. in his Bulgarian
campaigns of
nearly forty years. That task has Personal already been performed by competent
historians, and 90^^ejj is well within the scope and power of any pains-
(990-1025): taking military chronicler and tactician. Still it . would be
unfair for the constitutional theorist to pass ideai. it by
altogether, like Psellus, who devotes much space to a lengthy account of the
pretenders and dismisses the military achievement of the legitimate prince with
an airy periphrasis. For the Bulgarian wars account both for the success and
the failure of the “ Macedonian ” dynasty.
It was the
costliness of these expeditions which Rarepheno- forced Basil II., now the “
government,” into an oppressive fiscal policy, which provoked a strong control
of one. resentment and at a fitting moment produced violent reaction. Among the
later emperors, he stands out as a unique and masterful spirit, accepting
seriously the impracticable r6le of Caesarism, as “ earthly providence ” or
“present deity" to subject millions.
The
autocratic power of a generalissimo he learnt to exercise in his tireless
campaigns ; and he transported the peremptory tone and methods of the camp
into the cabinet. We shall have occasion to inquire what were the changes in
civil and military administration under this longest of Byzantine reigns ; and
it will be impossible to separate the austere lessons of foreign warfare from
the modification of system and principles in both these departments.
An effective
personal monarchy is the rarest phenomenon in all history ; there being but
one still rarer and more miraculous, an efficient and harmonious democracy. The
line of Roman emperors supplies by far the greater number of instances. The
whole temper and tradition of the Orient hinders the realisation of this ideal
; and except in the early days of a military dynasty and under the eyes of its
founder, no one is so ignorant or innocent of affairs as the master of all
lives and all estates. Feudalism and the modern expedient of constitutional
compromise
Rarepheno- has hitherto always tempered the direct
authority
menon; 0f central
ruler or government by a number of
BlTCCttVG
control of one. jealous rivals; political life
becomes a resultant of many forces not easy to predict; it is always safe to
reduce by one-half the nominal power enjoyed by a military dictator or a
premier with an unparalleled majority. The Teutonic spirit (which has alone
made progress in the ideal of politics) is usually “ against the government,”
and popular nominees are the last people in the world to enjoy the full
confidence of the nation. The dignified and spec-r
tacular side of a Byzantine sovereign’s life and duties detracted much from his
vigour and vitality. He moved in a world of glitter and illusion, dressed and
decorated for public display by obsequious hands, minutely regulated by custom
and the bond-slave of precedent. Yet how many shook off the sloth and futility
of this laborious splendour! Basil II. quitted the court; and surrendered its
fancied pleasures to Constantine. His aim was to realise the Caesarian ideal.
He would be sole master ; for to this office was he born. He may have owed his
clemency toward traitors to an absolute and fatalistic trust in Providence,
which had so often overthrown his domestic foes. He did not believe it would
fail him; and he could afford to be generous, where a Tiberius or a Domitian
was filled with alarm. But * the genuine claims of Basil II. to the autocrat's
title were deceptive and transitory; even he was sometimes the victim of the
obscure guile of his nameless ministers ; and on his death the court came to a
silent but resolute decision to limit sovereign power by every possible means.
The history of the remaining fifty-six years within our prescribed period will
prove a striking comment on the vanity of human will. It will teach us this
lesson,—according to our temperament and creed, a comfort or a disappointment,—
that no one has less real power than an absolute ruler.
§ 6. On the
death of the dreaded Zimisces, the Overthrow of Bulgarian race took heart. Four
leaders presented themselves as champions of the nationalist move- in the West.
ment,—sons of a late dignitary who had stood very near the throne. Of these
David and Moses are soon killed ; and Aaron is murdered by Samuel, sole
survivor of this strangely scriptural family, together with all his children
except Ladislas and Alusianus.
Samuel, the
Shishmanid, unlike his Old Testament namesake, becomes king, and on occasion of
the civil war (976-981) is found established in South Macedonia and in
Thessaly, the hapless regions open throughout Byzantine history to any herd of
adventurous savages. He penetrates to Dalmatia on the west, and to Peloponnesus
on the south, where he occupies the important station of Larissa.
Basil takes
the field in person and lays siege to Sardica (Triaditza). He is induced to
return hurriedly by the slanderous rumour that Leo Melis- senus was meditating
defection. Samuel falls upon his line in retreat, inflicts serious loss and
captures the baggage. Basil found Leo entirely innocent of the charge, and
waiting quietly at his post. Conto- stephanus, his informer, tried to brazen
out the accusation ; and Basil, losing all patience, attacked him with brutal
vigour, but beyond this imperial chastisement inflicts no further penalty on
the author of a calumnious slander and a disgraceful defeat.—
The second
expedition was undertaken in 995 or 996. The Bulgarians were still ravaging
Thrace and Macedonia. Basil fixed the headquarters of the war in Thessalonica ;
repairing the defences of this second city in Europe, now fully recovered from
its capture and sack in the reign of Leo VI. The command of the garrison was
given to Gregory the Taronite, a member of that loyal Armenian nobility who
surrendered lands to the empire in exchange for official title and dignity at
court. Indeed, the prominence of this nationality gave rise to a singular
Overthrow oj New
Bulgaria in the West
and
incredible legend, to be found in Asolik,— that Samuel the Bulgarian leader was
in truth an Armenian prince, accepted by the rebels as their king on the defeat
and capture of Curt. The third campaign (996) was mostly conducted by
lieutenants; the fourth, in 999, found the emperor in person at Philippopolis;
in 1000, his general, Theodorocanus, penetrated into Old Bulgaria and reduced
Pliscova and Peristhlaba; Xiphias, who accompanied him, was the same as the conspirator
two-and-twenty years later. From 1001 to 1014 the war languished ; and the
emperor was continually at the front in the east. It was during the stubborn
resistance of the despairing Bulgarians that the lonely emperor became stern
and reticent, parsimonious and autocratic. The details of the fifth, sixth, and
seventh campaigns belong to the historian: Samuel died in 1014; opposition
under Ladislas was finally broken in 1018; and Basil II. celebrated perhaps the
last of ancient Roman triumphs in 1019. The recovery of the Danubian frontier
had been gained at tremendous cost of happiness, civilisation, and human life.
The wars of Belisarius had made Italy a scene of desolation ; and Justinian
had exhausted his rich Oriental provinces to reign over a desert in the West.
For the relentless policy of his successor there is more excuse. No vanity or
mere political sentiment prompted an emperor to consolidate that broken and
incoherent territory, which from the time of Heraclius to the present day
presents us with a variegated spectacle, and a political problem of unceasing
anxiety. He attempted an impossible task. The Balkan and the Italian peninsulas
are natural outlets into which the vagrant nomads drained. Teuton, Slav, Finn,
Magyar settled in the latter, not in the compact and solid mass of an invading
host, but in intermittent forays, and built up gradually and without purpose or
design the several strata of race and nationality. The unifying and
centralising
policy of
Basil II. had been anticipated in sheer Overthrow of self-defence under the
regency of Zoe ; her great- g™aria
in grandson preferred
safety and uniformity at home the West. to all the Asiatic triumphs of the
knight-errants.
Yet the
Byzantine system of government and taxation was unsuitable either to the
Italians under Narses, or to the Bulgars and Serbs under governors sent out by
Basil and his successors. It is vain perhaps to waste regrets on past political
mistakes ; and still more is it impertinent to offer advice from the study to
statesmen and warriors, acting under stress of necessity and without knowledge
of the future. Yet an absolute and uniform centralisation was never an integral
part of the early imperial ideal. We ask if the complete overthrow of the
dynasty of Theodoric or of Samuel was demanded by the State's welfare, if
vassal kingdoms might not have maintained that pleasant federal diversity and
local privilege and autonomy, which, for example, is to be seen to-day in
different measures in the United States, in India, and in Germany.
§ 7. We come
now to the last and gravest Masterful question—the place and influence of Basil
II. in the development of political theory and practice. What Basil: changes
did he effect in the civil or military order ?
What legacy
of strength or weakness did he be- government.
queath to his
house, destined still to reign for over
thirty years
? Character, early training, and the
sharp lessons
of political experience, made Basil
what he was.
Forced into the background and
kept in
tutelage, he hadr broken his fetters by sheer
force of
will, and triumphed over all competitors.
He
stood absolutely alone ; he trusted no one; his ■
counsels were
his own ; and his word was law. He won this commanding and isolated
vantage-ground by success in war. He was a great captain, and his subjects
feared and respected his unflagging work and joyless life. He had secured the
mastery in his own house by the removal of his namesake, long
Masterful recognised as holding an official position
second TeservT^f' on^ emperors’, and far surpassing theirs in
Basil: weight. The chamberlain had no successor ;
Basil, ^thodTof16 un^ke many great
rulers, rarely fell under the government, insidious intrigue of valets and
placemen. Rough, loyal, and often quite unintelligent emissaries carried abroad
the abrupt mandates of the emperor. He had no confederates in the art or
conspiracy of government. He never lost control or vigilant watch over himself.
Constantine IX. after one valorous appearance in the field against a pretender,
sank into the not unmanly ease of a Byzantine gentleman. Basil never forgot
that he was the emperor; his were no pleasant intervals of leisure, when among
friends and equals the sovereign could forget his cares and dignity. For forty
years he worked alone ; and the brief and precise military orders become the
model of all cabinet instruction in the eleventh century.
The Policy of Basil II.
According to Psellus (whose work deserves, and I hope may receive, from
me a more detailed treatment than is possible here), Sclerus published to the
emperor the secret of absolute monarchy, how the central power may be kept free
from sedition (o7tg>s av dcrrao-tWros thf)—“ Abolish the great appointments
(vvepoyKovs a/>x®s) and keep the supplies down during
the campaigns ” (fir)8eva rtov iv a-Tpareiais lav 7roA,A.a>v eviropeiv). The
other wonderful secrets are more apocryphal: (i) To wear men down by unjust
exactions that they may devote all their anxious time to their own households;
(2) not to marry a wife or bring a woman to the palace; (3) not to be open to
any counsellor, but allow very few to know of the imperial projects. From this
moment, it was said, Basil changed his policy. He reigned alone, and drew the
plan of the campaigns: the political class he ruled not according to precedent
and written law, but his own will; to men of letters (the Chinese Literati of
Tsin-Hwang-Ti) he paid no heed, and altogether despised them (rb IIoAmKdv ov
irpbs tovs yeypa/i/uvovs vofiovs aXXa Trpbs tovs aypd(f>ov<s rrjs avrov
ev<f>v€(TTdTY]s knvfikpva fox^s). When the
barbarian was tamed, Masterful he then began to reduce his own subjects,
destroy feudal spirit and inequality and privilege (to, irpovyovra twv ytvtov
KaOeXwv k. €i<s l<tov Tots aAAois Karao-r^o-as). He surrounded himself change
in the with a faithful band of servitors, neither clever nor well- methods of
born, who alone shared his secrets: (jiva XoyaSa 7repl avrbv government.
7r€7TOl7]K(j)S dv8pu)v, OVT€ T7)V Jv6[ir]v
\a(l7Tp£)V OVT€ fJLY)V €7Tl(njp(i)V
rb ykvos . . . tovtols ras f3a(ri\eiovs €7ricrTo\as
kvtyzipicrt k. rwv d7ropprjT(i)v kolv(i)vQv StcTeXct). (Cf. Constantine IX., §
3;
Romanus III., § 18; Constantine X., §§ 29 (a good
passage),
80, 134 (the famous phrase: “Our political rulers are not Pericles or
Themistocles, but some miserable Spartacus of the household ”); Theodora, § 1.)
Cf. in Michael V., § 36 : to /xev yevos ovx "EXA^va, which explains a good
deal of the feeling against the new official class. I may perhaps be pardoned
for dismissing in somewhat summary fashion the great exploits of Basil II., on
which a flood of new light has lately been thrown by a more careful inquiry
into the oriental authorities; for (1) I am preparing a history of this reign
in detail under the kind encouragement of Professor Bury; and (2) for our
present purpose, which is mainly constitutional, this new evidence does not
alter the general aspect of affairs or the relation of parties in the State.
Reign of Constantine IX.: his indolent and
capricious temper.
“LEGITIMATE” ABSOLUTISM, OR CONSTANTINE IX.
AND HIS DAUGHTERS (1025-1056)
A. John the
Paphlagonian, or the Cabal of the Upstarts (1025-1042)
§ 1. With the death of Basil the obscurity lifts ; the history of the
next half-century is voluble and explicit. The revived Attic of Psellus gives
us the record of an eye-witness, and indeed an agent. After Basil's masterful
consolidation there is a certain lull in foreign affairs, which allows us to
catch the whispers of court-intrigues and trace the secret motives of revolution.
The personal monarchy he bequeathed with unabated prerogative to his brother.
Who were the ministers or satellites of Basil ? History is silent as to their
virtues or their influence. He preferred dutiful subalterns to frank partners
or wise counsellors. With the turn into the eleventh century the atmosphere
changes ; old titles disappear. Constantine IX., like Claudius of old, brings
to the administration of an empire the servants of his household. Three valets
compose his cabinet. Nicolas is Great Chamberlain and captain of the guard ;
Nicephorus is Master of the Robes (irpoiSTofie<TTidpio<s); Symeon, a
third, commander of the night-watch—all three decorated with the title
irpoeSpos, which Nicephorus II. had invented some sixty years before for Basil,
son of Romanus. Eustathius took charge of the Foreign Legion : the recent
honour of a dukedom was given to Spondylas, a eunuch, at Antioch ; to Nicetas,
a Pisidian, in Iberia. We have little knowledge of the ordinary
officials,
captains, or judges, who may have held Reign of
functions of
defence or administration in the themes: Constantine
. IX.:
his
but it is
clear that this division was dwindling in indolent and
interest,
whether as basis of military defence or civil capricious jurisdiction. To the
short reign of Constantine temper’ belong all the familiar features of a
thriftless and dissolute reaction against militarism. For sixty years actual
civil war or foreign campaigns had monopolised attention. The arts or
enjoyments of peace were forgotten. Yet Constantine was too old to enjoy, too
ignorant to be the Maecenas of a brilliant and pacific reign. He was determined
not to engage the empire in conflict; he had the same nervous aversion to the
sight of arms as James I.
He
had been despised by the rough followers of his brother ; and he hastened to
retaliate on every real or fancied affront. Taxes he collected twice by an .
unfair
method of reckoning; peace he purchased from the barbarians, rather than risk
the peril of a popular general; the treasury he exhausted by pensions and
palace-waste. He was as fond of ordering hasty punishments as Michael III.: he
sometimes listened to protest at the moment, was grateful afterwards for such
interference, and often wept over the blind victims of his suspicions. Constantine,
son of Burtzes, the hero of Antioch, lost his sight. Nicephorus Comnenus,
governor of Vas- puracan, suffered the same on a charge of treason, because he
had bound his mutinous troops by oath not to desert him. The same treatment
befell the scions of the old turbulent families—Bardas Phocas, a patrician ;
and Basil, son of Romanus Sclerus, both grandsons of the old pretenders. The
latter was a type of the new feudal nobility, who are by turns a defence and
menace to a free State. He had married the sister of Romanus Argyrus,
afterwards emperor, and he challenged the governor of Galatia to the first duel
or single combat in Byzantine history. It is difficult to believe that the
actors in VOL. II. R
Reign of Constantine IX.: his indolent and capricious
temper.
this strange
scene still called themselves Romans. Prusianus, a Roman governor, is also a
son of a Bulgarian king Ladislas, the late enemy of the empire : Sclerus is a
rich and independent nobleman, member of an attainted family, which in any other
kingdom or people would have been wiped out or reduced to poverty: the emperor
is an old dotard of long descent but doubtful race, who may have been a Slav, a
Macedonian, or an Armenian. Still his action in this instance is modern and
commendable; he forbade the duel, and confined the two in different isles of
the Propontis until their bellicose temper cooled. Sclerus was blinded soon
after. The general control of the empire seems to have been held in firm hands
; it was long before the ignorance or trivial preoccupations of the palace
corrupted the imperial tradition. A revolt in Naupactus, which closed by the
murder of the governor Morogeorge, was summarily punished, and the bishop lost
his sight, though he loudly protested his innocence. Diogenes, governor
(perhaps duke) of Sirmium, compelled the invading Patzinaks to repass the
boundary-river. The two governors of Chios and Samos, and George Theodorocanus,
assail a marauding fleet of Saracen privateers in the Cyclades, capture twelve
vessels, and scatter the rest. Such is the brief and scanty tale of public
events in the reign of Constantine IX. His chief anxiety was to secure a
partner for his heiress. Eudocia, marked with the small-pox, had concealed her
infirmity in a convent ; though she could look back on the romantic alliance
proposed with Otto III., her first cousin: Zoe had reached the mature age of
forty- eight without a husband, through the neglect of Basil II., her stern
uncle; and Theodora was in every way better suited for the conventual life,
whence she issued in dignified majesty at any crisis in the State, to assume
control of the Roman world.
§ 2. The
choice of Constantine fell upon a member Romanus of the distinguished family of
Argyrus. The first envoys had been despatched to the East. Constan- gonian
bailiff. tine Dalassenus ( = of Thalassa), a typical country magnate on the
confines of Armenia, was the first candidate for the hand of a princess
bringing an empire as her dowry; but Symeon, third in rank of the powerful
valets, took hasty measures to stop the envoys or to delay the departure of
Dalassenus by a peremptory message. The wife of Romanus retired to make room
for a nobler alliance; and Theodora having declined a marriage with the husband
of a living and blameless wife, gave way to her sister Zoe. For the next thirty
years the centre of the stage is occupied by the three husbands of this
princess. It is worthy of note that the courtiers grumbled at this step, and
tried to discover canonical reasons, more valid in the eyes of the Greek Church
than the survival of the first wife, why the ceremony should not be solemnised.
Their objections were overruled ; the marriage of Zoe and Romanus took place;
and Constantine expired on November 19,
1028, having
ruled alone less than three years.—
Romanus
Argyrus, sprung from a family illustrious since the reign of Michael III. (c.
850), was a typical Byzantine noble in an age when orderly government, regular
training, and civilised institutions were perhaps strictly confined to the
empire and the emirate of Cordova. He desired that the subject- class should
enjoy the blessings of security which the conquests of Basil II. seemed to
guarantee.
The
accumulated stores of treasure were now opened for the benefit of all. Fiscal
burdens were lightened without any impoverishment of central resources, and for
forty years the commonwealth was luxurious without being weak. Romanus III.
reduced the impost of aWtjXeyyvov, and extended the alleviation to every part
of the vast realm. He released debtors, and paid off from the privy purse not
Romanus merely their arrears to the State, but their
private hisPapMa^ obligations. His own brother-in-law, Basil Sclerus, gonian
bailiff, received the office or title of Curopalat, and lost his dignity and is
punished with exile on account of a plot some time later. The new emperor
recalled Xiphias, the rebel of 1022, from his conventual retreat; but
accustomed to the peace of the cloister, he goes to the monastery of Studium of
his own free-will. The invariable conspiracy soon broke the monotony of court
life. Prusianus, the duellist of the preceding reign, suffers the penalty of
blindness, like his rival, and Mary, his mother, is expelled from the palace.
Constantine Diogenes, nephew of Romanus by marriage, was suspected of
treasonable designs. He had been removed from command at Sirmium to the duchy
of Thessalonica, which made him general of all European forces. So powerful a
man had to be treated with caution. He was sent to Lydia with a similar title
and rank; but soon arrested, examined, and sent to the Studium, now the
fashionable resort of penitent or futile pretenders. The following accomplices
were chastised and sent into exile: two grandsons of Burtzes of Antioch, the
governor of Achaea, and the Syncellus John. Within the palace a new and
paramount authority was rising,—the influence of John the Paphlagonian. Psellus
has drawn for us with fairness and probability the portrait of this remarkable
man. For fourteen years an empire of hoary antiquity and immemorial
institutions became the plaything of an obscure family of valets and eunuchs.
The foundations of the power of John Orphano- trophus were laid firmly during
the principate of Romanus III.; though the brothers only divided out the
dignities of the State with scornful arrogance during the reign of Michael IV.
It is a truism that the favourite ministers of a despot are the alien and the
slave ; but nowhere but in New Rome could such a sudden exaltation of a whole
family be seen,
among
powerful feudal interests and the not less Romanus important routine of the
hierarchy. John, with Constantine and George, had been castrated in boy-
gonianbailiff hood; a condition of preferment in the Church and in certain
civilian offices. This condition formed no barrier to military command ; and at
this very time the eunuch Spondylas is Duke of Antioch.
Michael, the
future emperor, and Nicetas, were known as false coiners. John had been at
first a monk, then private servant of Romanus, and on his master's sudden
elevation extended his influence from the management of a household to the
control of an empire. He became chief minister and confidante ; retaining his
monkish habit in a proud humility. Gradually he collected round him his four
brothers ; introduced Michael, the handsomest, to the Empress Zoe, connived at
an intrigue, and in the sequel hurried on the marriage and the salutation of “
Michael IV.," which gave a dull surprise to the indifferent populace of
the capital. It is necessary to remember the careful steps by which an obscure
Asiatic factor or agent secured sovereign power for himself, and the imperial
crown for his brother and his nephew. An attempt was made by this gloomy but
capable man to convert the titular emperor, no less than the rightful empress,
into an automaton, as in China during the last half-century.
There
were thus three nominal or actual wielders of power : Zoe, in the people’s eyes
sole legitimate ruler, from whom all secondary dignities derived their
credentials; Romanus III. (and later, Michael IV.), who enjoyed a transient
supremacy in virtue of a lucky alliance with an heiress ; and the real ruler,
the “ power behind the throne." a^dhlmilia-
§ 3. The
policy, the character, the fate of Romanus tioninthe
III.,
were settled in the East. The fleet of the Duke ^antl^ of Antioch had been
beaten by the Saracens in retrieve October 1029. Spondylas had before suffered
a serious reverse at the hands of the Emir of Aleppo, (ioso).
Catastrophe and humiliation in the east: lieutenants
retrieve imperial failure {1030).
and was
completely deceived by the transparently hostile offer of Musaraph to build a
fort on a commanding site near Antioch and assume control of the garrison
himself. The fort was indeed built, but the Emir of Tripoli was invited to
occupy it. In 1030 matters in Northern Syria were so unsatisfactory that
Romanus decided to move in person against his recalcitrant vassals. Constantine
Carantenus, his brother-in-law, went in advance; and when the emperor reached
Philomelium in Phrygia, Roman pride was gratified by the humble offers of the
infidel to resume payment of the tribute as fixed under Nicephorus II. Against
the unanimous advice of civilians and soldiers, the emperor decides to continue
the expedition which had already secured its object without a blow or the loss
of a single life. An ignominious defeat was the result of this obstinacy.
Baggage and imperial furniture fell into infidel hands ; and after a long
interval a Roman emperor was seen to beat a hasty and disorderly retreat. It
may be doubted whether this reverse was retrieved in his eyes, or rendered
still more galling, by the news of the brilliant successes of Maniaces or
Magniac, and Theoctistus. The former recovered the larger part of the booty ;
and the adroit tact of the latter once more secured the suzerainty of the
empire in Syria, and won over to a tribute and friendly alliance the powerful
Pinzarich, Emir of Tripoli. The successes of his lieutenants completely
re-established the Roman authority; but the prestige and the self-confidence of
Romanus III. had received a severe shock, from which he never recovered.
Abandoning to others the charge of affairs when he no longer trusted his own
judgment, he became an austere and monk- ridden builder of superfluous convents
and churches, ceaselessly pulling down and reconstructing on a new plan.
Building may be an unmistakable witness to national wealth and prosperity ; or
(as with Nero, or Lewis of Bavaria in our own day) a sign of a
restless and
unbalanced mind. Taxes once remitted Catastrophe to the subject had to be again
imposed ; and forced ^^nlhe^ labour (something of a novelty in the empire) took
east: Heu- the place of levies with the indigent class. Nature tenants
7*6t7*t 6V6
and the
enemies of the empire seem to have com- imperial bined to
throw discredit on the administration oi failure Romanus. The heart of Asia
Minor was desolated (10S0)- by a greedy horde of locusts, which (if
we may believe the story) rose again to life after a feigned death or slumber
of two years, and once more began their depredations. Mcesia was overrun by the
Pat- zinaks; the new Mesopotamian provinces by the Saracens ; the Peloponnesian
coast and the islands by African corsairs. Nicephorus Carantenus (of a family
allied to the emperor) defeats this latter fleet.
Such was the
state of Lydia and Phrygia that the inhabitants fly to Europe to escape the
horrors of famine. Romanus, with the uniform readiness of an emperor to become
relieving-officer in general, gives to each fugitive a sum of money for the present
distress ; but refuses to allow a settlement in Macedonia, and encourages them
to return to their deserted homesteads. When the capital was shaken or
shattered by an earthquake, Romanus hails an occasion for the exercise of his
favourite art; and rebuilds afresh the lazar-houses and hospitals. Yet it
cannot be said the empire suffered serious hurt in this reign, either by
rashness or neglect. The emperor chose his servants well, and in the remoter
East rather recovered their lost ground. Magniac seizes Edessa, and imposes a
yearly tribute of 50 lbs. of gold.1 Theoctistus is able to win the
gratitude of the Emir of Tripoli, by aiding him to recover his dignity, and in
alliance, wins a great victory over the Egyptian fleet. In Bagdad the caliph
trembled.
1 Under the Chrysargyron, a “tax on
industry” (abolished c. 500 by Anastasius I.), Edessa paid 140 lbs. of gold in
four years : the sum, derived 500 years later, might speak therefore of
increased commercial prosperity, if we did not remember that under the new
feudal method the whole tribute or revenue was paid in a single sum.
Catastrophe and humiliation in the east: lieutenants
retrieve imperial failure (1030).
The hasty marriage of Michael the Paphlagonian.
In Percrin, a
semi-independent emirate near Babylon, Alim the governor capitulates
voluntarily ; and when, repenting of his bargain, or wounded in his vanity by
some slight, he endeavours to withdraw, the place was taken by assault and
attached to the empire. Alda, widow of a king of Abasgia, gives up her realm
(at least its defence) to Rome, like Attalus of old. The castle of Anakuph is
made over to a Roman garrison ; and in this case (as with the recent alliance
with Tripoli) the goodwill is confirmed by the title patrician, bestowed on
Demetrius, the queen’s son.
§ 4. The life
of Romanus was drawing to its close. Ill-health was the lot of the Byzantine
sovereign at this time, and especially of the husbands of Zoe. Her father, a
fine figure on horseback, was not seen walking after he assumed sole control on
Basil's death ; Romanus, already sixty at his accession, rapidly broke up after
his disgraceful defeat in Syria ; Michael IV., a well-known epileptic, had to
devise a hurried screen of curtains to hide himself from an audience, and he
became at the latter part of his reign a neurotic and hypochondriac, bathed in
tears and covered with shame ; Michael V. fainted at the inaugural ceremony in
1041, and could hardly be revived by the strongest odours; Constantine X. was
an habitual invalid, unable to walk and suffering agonies from the gout, which
however did not spoil his easy and forgiving temper. Only the two princesses
seem to have enjoyed sound and robust health. The idle and credulous, to whom
history means the secret and anonymous memoirs of court intrigue, were as
common in Byzantium as with us. It is difficult to believe that an age so
careful of life in enemy and traitor should have condoned parricide and
poisoning; or that rulers like Romanus II. and Zoe should have broken their
amiable and lenient record by exceptional and monstrous crime. But there can be
no doubt she was permanently estranged
from an
ascetic husband, who regarded her with The hasty aversion. The hurried marriage
with Michael (for which Patriarch Alexius was summoned in haste on Paphla- the
night of Holy Thursday) caused no stir in the gonian. capital ; and Psellus
himself witnessed the livid countenance of the late emperor as he was borne in
state to burial. The right of Zoe to treat the empire as a dowry seems to be
recognised ; and open expostulation is heard only at the division of the great
offices amongst the low-born family of the new favourite.
Zoe has been
compared to Catherine II., without her ability. But the society of St.
Petersburg was indifferent or indulgent to the amours of the great German
princess who completed the work of Peter I.
The polished
and inquisitive society of Byzantium looked carelessly on the marriage; and
disapproved only of the change of government. Michael IV. was intended to be a
pliant puppet, who would amuse the empress and leave business to an ambitious
brother. Constantine Dalassenus, member of a well- known family, expressed in
public his contempt for the gang which under cover of female legitimacy had
secured control of affairs: on the curious pretext that he had stirred Antioch
to revolt he was imprisoned, together with his son-in-law, Constantine Ducas.
George, brother of John and Michael, was made protovestiaire; and Constantine
succeeded Nicetas as Duke of Antioch. Stephen, brother-in-law of the
Paphlagonians, was named general in Sicily in conjunction with Magniac ; and
his inefficiency and arrogance led to the recall and disgrace of this most
capable of imperial lieutenants, and the loss of Sicily which had been won by
his alliance with the Normans.
(In this new
feudal age it was only personal influence and valour which could keep together
the mercenary armies who made of war an art ; the old discipline and spirit had
disappeared, which could do its duty even in spite of bad generals. Magniac
continued in confinement until the reign of Michael V., 1041 ;
and it is
recorded as the single good action of this unhappy prince that he restored him
to liberty.)
The anxieties § 5- If
sicily slipped away from the empire, owing of Michael to the incompatible
tempers of palace-upstart and iionofan~ a^e caPtain>
°ther outlying districts were in a fer- heir. ment.
The Saracens still attacked the south coast
and islands
of Lesser Asia; two admirals of Thracian Chersonese and the Cibyrrhaeot theme
(Constantine Chages) repulsed these raids with loss. The emir in Sicily allies
with the empire, and his son is created magister militum; and a treaty is made
with Egypt, and perhaps with Tripoli. Both Servia and Bulgaria revolt ; Servia,
subject since Basil II., had given trouble in the preceding reign, but had been
reduced to submission about 1038 ; a member of the royal . house escapes from
duress and becomes king, defeat- x ing George Probatas (a trusted
eunuch who had acted successfully in the negotiations with African emirs). He
justified by his failure in arms the protests of the military caste and the
careful division of the services. Meantime, the inner management of the realm
fell entirely into the hands of John. Michael, like his predecessor, sought
occupation (and perhaps atonement for a crime) in pious but costly building:
his character underwent, also as in the case of Romanus, a complete change. He
was devoted to lepers and" anchorites ; and even in the opinion of the
sceptical populace was but little removed from a saint. Both Zoe and her
husband seem to have earned no discredit or odium from the faults of the
minister, who still preferred the humble title opcpavorpocpo9 and the
substantial authority of the empire. In the many plagues or catastrophes which
distressed the land at this juncture, he was accounted the worst; the taxes
rose, offices were venal, and the governors recouped themselves for the bribe
by oppression. He endeavoured to secure the continuance of his power by
effecting the adoption of another Michael, his sister's son : and this nepotism
brought about his own down-
fall and the
expulsion of his family. The health of The anxieties Michael IV. grew worse; an
heir was necessary; and Zoe might delegate or transfer, but she could tionofan
never exercise in person the duties of sovereignty. heir- She reluctantly consented to this adoption; but the emperor soon
repented of his share in the transaction. His serious and melancholy nature
was repelled from the fawning and insincere character.
Michael the
younger was indeed the sole type in our annals of the usual estimate of
Byzantine ruler: and in the popular indignation which flared up against him
alone of this long line, we may relieve the mob from the indictment of
servility. The dying emperor expelled his nephew from the palace, and relieved
him of the nominal duties of a Caesar; becomes a monk at the urgent entreaty of
his confessor, Zin- ziluc; and expires in his holy retreat and the odour of
sanctity, after refusing to see the empress in her last visit of grief or
inquisitiveness.
§ 6. The
reign of Michael V. (1041-1042) was Loyal feeling brief and significant: after
this signal and unique t°wards example of a popular rising, no one can
reproach the under monarchy with its unrepresentative character. For Michael V.
a few days Zoe resumed the sceptre; but she found the charge irksome and
yielded to the advice of John, to the tears and entreaties of Michael, who
protested that he would ever reign first and most loyal of her subjects. A
letter of recall is produced, purporting to be written by the hand of the late
emperor; and she gives her consent to the coronation of the Caesar. It is
difficult to know whether a strain of madness did not enter into the new
sovereign: his recorded actions are those of a purposeless ingrate. His own
family he hated, as reminding him of the precarious rise of an upstart; and in
the grandiose fashion of a Claudian Caesar, proposed not the murder, but the
emasculation of all his relatives. Constantine, his uncle, created nobilissimus
(a title perhaps dormant since the close of the eighth
Loyal feeling towards dynasty under Michael V.
Indignant populace storms the palace and reinstates
princesses.
century), was
a doubtful accomplice in his schemes. John was exiled to a monastic cloister,
to muse upon his nephew's exercise of power. Alexius, the patriarch, is
banished ; and the Princes' Isle again becomes the asylum for deposed royalty;
Zoe is transported thither, and her head is shorn. To the announcement of the
prefect Anastasius in the circus that Zoe had been guilty of treason and
suffered a fitting penalty, the sole answer was, “ Death to Calaphates.” The
mob were on this occasion unanimous and grimly determined. The two sisters were
proclaimed joint-heiresses and coempresses, and Theodora was taken from her
monastery to the palace. Michael, in terror, brings Zoe across and displays her
at a window of the palace ; but the people have but one single cry and a single
aim. Constantine and all the guards defend the palace; but the indignant mob
enters and sacks the home of upstart tyranny. It was a splendid example of that
feudal temper which in Scotland drove many to certain death for the Stuart
cause. Three thousand perished in this rare rebellion of the inhabitants ; it
is uncertain how the loss was apportioned. The tax-lists are said to have
perished in the flames. Michael and his uncle escape and assume the monastic
habit, and the Monday and Tuesday of this memorable week are over. Zoe now
addresses the multitude from a balcony ; and refuses the savage demands of the
people for the penalty of death or blindness. But Theodora gives the order ;
and under the direction of the new urban prefect, Campanares, first Constantine
with heroic constancy, next the emperor with shrinking and entreaties, were
deprived of sight. So terminated a remarkable period. Since the opening years
of the century, Basil and his brother had employed only rough sergeants or
household slaves; a few curt commands had superseded the courteous method of
consulting the Senate .and higher officials. The bailiff of
Romanus
Argyrus as a private noble, had become Indignant sole responsible minister of
Romanus III.; and the influence of John was only ended abruptly by his palace
and nephews' ingratitude and folly. The people, by no reinstates
• .I « *ij • J)7*ZTbCC&S(5S •
means, as we
see, without weight or views, were patient under the claims of legitimacy, and resented
nothing but the neglect of the rightful princesses.
When the
younger Michael showed the depth of his spiteful and hypocritical nature, they
removed him with ignominy and restored their heroines in the only serious
popular tumult since the Nika riots, five centuries before. The field was once
again open for the choice of an aged and capricious lady, or for the intrigues
of courtiers. The joint administration was not long possible. Theodora retired
once more from the active duties of a ruler; Zoe sought a third husband, to
support the business and the weight of her arduous heritage.
B. Central
Policy and Pretenders’ Aim during
the Reign of Constantine X.
(i042-1054)
§ 1. The
joint rule of the two princesses was Zotfs choice of dignified but brief; together
they gave audience and conferred appointments; at least so far as by an edict,
they endeavoured to reform the venality by which office had been secured under
the upstarts. Constantine the Nobiltssimus refunds a hidden store of 5300 lbs.
of gold which he had diverted to his own use and future contingencies with all
the caution of a parvenu. The Western armies were entrusted to the eunuch
Nicholas; the Eastern to Constantine Cabasilas, patrician ; and Magniac
(already released from duress) was decorated with the title Magister militum,
and sent to Italy with fullest powers and an undivided command. But feminine
rule could not last long in New Rome. Never resented by the people at large, it
seemed nevertheless unfitting, and
Zoe’s choice of gave way to a regent-husband or to a
new dynasty. h ^band ^oe ProPose<^
*° Senate to elect a new prince, and promised to postpone her own feelings to
the public welfare in accepting their choice without demur. The option, after
this protestation, lay naturally with the empress; and three bearers of the
immortal name of Constantine were accorded an interview. Constantine Dalassenus
(from Thalassa on the Euxine) arrived to receive a gracious pardon after a
gratuitous imprisonment of eight years. He came in a very natural state of
bitterness and irritation ; gave advice in a lofty tone; and made no effort to
conceal his strong disapproval of the late Paphlagonian cabal. Constantine
Archoclines (? a title) is removed by premature demise from the tempting offer
; and gossip suspected a jealous wife. Constantine Monomachus (husband of a
niece of Romanus III.) stood next on the list: he had been banished to Mitylene
seven years before by Michael
IV.,
on account of his supposed intimacy with Zoe. Exile had not soured the complacent
and amiable disposition of the new ruler. A swift galley conveyed the
astonished suitor from a subordinate rank in Greece to the throne; and although
Alexius the Patriarch refuses to perform the marriage rite, he consents next
day to crown the united pair. Theodora lost by this event all direct authority,
but continued to enjoy the imperial title and dignity and to reside in the
palace. The short spring of the sisters' government (April to June) gave way
before the summer or rather autumnal brilliance of the mature couple. Like an
echo or grotesque parody of the old rivalry of the Sclerus family, Scleraena, a
charming widow who had shared the exile and soothed the temper of Monomachus,
was admitted to the capital, to the palace, and to the Augustan title. The
arrangement might be said to resemble the special exemption of the French kings
from moral restraint—a relic, it may be, of Merovingian polygamy ; the
mattresse en
Anomalous relations of Monomachus and Scleraena.
titre held a recognised position by the side of the
Anomalous legitimate spouse of prudence or of policy. Scleraena was the
daughter of Romanus Sclerus, and perhaps machus and the great-granddaughter of
the pretender Bardas. ^ckrana. Her chambers adjoined those of Constantine, and
were not far from the apartments of Zoe, who regarded the arrangement with
equanimity or indifference : the disorder took on a regular and formal
character, and was thus robbed of half its evil.
Into these
two twin reservoirs or receptacles poured the entire treasure of the empire. If
we believe the partial witness, the palace saw a double ocean of waste, a
double court of intrigue and venal office.
The faults or
infirmities of Monomachus were forgotten in the mildness of his character and
the prosperity of his reign. For, however easy it may be for us or for Psellus
to detect the unmistakable signs of decay and omens of coming doom, there can
be no question that in the later empire this reign of twelve years was the
zenith and meridian splendour.
§ 2. The
domestic history was diversified by con- Usual series stant plots and
seditions, some serious, some humorous °^e^£ectwe
and half-hearted, but none (so far as can be seen) embodying any principle or
genuine grievance. The setting of this motley drama is like the staging of a
sovereign and his court in a pantomime. It is impossible to believe the actors
in earnest; and the foolish but criminal impulse of the moment is rapidly
forgotten and forgiven, (a) Theophilus Eroticus, once chased from Bulgaria by
Stephen Boisthlabos, was now governor of Cyprus. On hearing of the downfall of
Michael V., he conceived a design, by no means uncommon at the time, of
securing his province as an independent sovereignty. To win popular favour, he
posed as the champion of the people’s rights; and was hailed as a liberator
when he effected (or forgave) the murder of the finance- official, Theophylact,
as a just punishment for the
Usual series of ineffective revolts.
Magniac1 s attempt.
rigour of his
extortions.1 The appearance of Constantine Chages, still Drungaire
of the Cibyrrhaeot theme}
sufficed to end the plot: the people at once returned to their allegiance ; and
Eroticus, taken to the capital, was forced to disport himself in female attire
for the delectation of the citizens : had Constantine X. (we may ask) heard of
the mock penalty meted out by Julius Caesar to the knight Laberius ? (b) In the
same year (1042), Magniac revolted in Italy, and the cause of his resentment
was a feudal quarrel about land. Scleraena’s brother, Romanus, held an
adjoining estate in the great home of wealthy landlords, Asia Minor: he
profited by Magniac's absence on state-service to encroach or to annex, and
finally to secure the recall of his provincial rival. Magniac revolts, and,
assuming the imperial title, crosses with a devoted personal following to
Epirus to attack the seat of government. Unlike Eroticus, he aspired not to a
part but to the whole. The emperor, providing for a doubtful event, sent his
mutinous lieutenant a complete amnesty, but despatched a strong force under
Stephen the Sebastophorus.2 In a sharp engagement at Ostrovo,
Magniac is killed and his men join the imperialists ; for beyond the personal
grievance there was no cause and no conviction. The head of the pretender was
borne in solemn state to the capital, and the splendid procession of the
easily victorious troops was witnessed by the emperor and his two spouses. In
reward for his attitude in the rising, Constantine creates Argyrus, son of Mel
the rebel, the Prince of Bari and Duke of Apulia. (c) Stephen, so lately
successful on the imperial side, now in his turn becomes a conspirator.
1 We may note here the same rivalry of
executive and exchequer as we observe in the earliest account of the Roman
provinces, when the independent procurator watched or thwarted the responsible
governor.
2 This is probably a title designating
those commandants of a quarter of Constantinople who had the right to carry the
imperial image on State occasions; it was a coveted distinction which patricians
might envy, but the wearer was subject to the control of the city prefect.
His design
was to raise Leo, son of Lamprus, the Various governor of Meliten&, to the
throne. Against this futile Plots- latter the whole
resentment of the court party seemed to concentrate ; while the ringleaders
lost their estates and became monks, Lamprus was tortured and blinded, and died
from the effects. It is impossible to assign any motive for this unprecedented
departure from the well-known rule of Byzantine lenience, (d) The emperor's
life was perhaps more endangered by a sudden popular outburst during a
religious procession of the 9th of March 1044.
Once more the
mob, jealous of the rights and dignity of Zoe and Theodora, raised angry voices
of protest against Scleraena, like the mob of older Rome against Donna Olympia
under Innocent XII. He was threatened with death, and the tumult was appeased
only by the appearance of the two aged heiresses at the palace window.
§ 3. (e)
Having weathered this minor storm, the Rebellion of
luckless
emperor found in the revolt of his kinsman Thornic and
. . , , N
the troops of
Leo Thormc or
Tormcius, a genuine tempest (1047). Macedonia.
From this
moment until the close of our period Adrinople becomes a troublesome centre of
disaffection, justifying, as I think, two conclusions—a large element of
transplanted Armenians, and a strong desire to vie with the Oriental armies in
the nomination of the sovereign. It is quite as much from this revival of the
Western battalions under Basil II., as from the ancient splendour of Philip and
Alexander, that the name Macedonian acquired and retained a sense of “
warlike," “ noble,” or “valiant,” like Aryan; the Drakoi Hellenes of Mount
Taurus bore it with pride, and its use survived as a honorific term for the
mercenary troops of Naples or Venice. In the streams of Slavonic,
Bulgarian,
Servian migration and settlement, little remained of Justinian's warlike
subjects on either side of the Danube (homines semper bellicis sudoribus
inhcerentest
c. 535); whole towns and districts had
VOL.
II. S
Rebellion of Thornic and the troops of Macedonia.
welcomed a
new and peregrine population since his namesake (c. 700); if Philippopolis
received its heretical contingent under the Iconoclasts, a colony of stout
Tauric militia may well have thriven in Adrinople. The European towns of the
empire are not buried, indeed, under the deep silence which in all this period
hides the annals of the Ionian cities of the Asiatic coast; and their meagre
record is at times illuminated by such a writing as the “ Capture of Salonica”
(under Leo VI.). The task remains for the careful student and speculator to
inquire into the condition of the commercial centres of Thrace and Macedonia;
and it may safely be predicted that whenever there is an appearance of new life
and fresh vigour, it will have risen from some Eastern settlement. The armies
of Spain, of Germania, and of Syria contended for the prerogative at the death
of Nero ; of Britain, Syria, and Pannonia at the murder of Pertinax. In the
welter of the third century, there is a semblance of earnest purpose when each
regiment believed its captain to be the most fitting heir to Caesar. The
provincial troops of Constantine decided the mastery of the world, and ended
for ever the exclusive claims of Rome and her pretorians. Justinian had
attempted to reduce the armies to harmless and occasional levies ; but the
civilian scheme of society broke down before the Heracliads and Isaurians, and
the State was reorganised on the military basis of which the themes afford
sufficient evidence. Chief amongst these were the Anatolies and Armeniacs; and
for long these regiments were the arbiters of the monarchy, and their support
essential to the continuance of a dynasty. But it must not be forgotten that
the Balkan peninsula was gradually filled with a strange population ; that
Basil II. drove the frontier boldly northwards to the old line of the Danube ;
and that the new citizens, soldiers, or colonists offered a welcome
counterpoise to the predominance of Asia.
And yet the
chief and decisive element among the Rebellion oj
Slavs,
Croats, Serbs or Bulgars was, after all, Thornic and „ . — the troops of
not European
at all. Ghevond Thornic, or Leo Macedonia.
Tornicius,
was a popular favourite (perhaps a feudal magnate ?) among the Macedonian
faction. Their headquarters were at Adrinople, but they had their members and
representatives in the capital. Tornic was a cousin of Constantine X. on the
mother’s side (e£ai'e\]sio? €K fjLrjTpiKrjs piQis)} belching forth the true
braggadocio of Macedon (Ma/ce<W«c^ 'epvyyavuiv IxeyaXav-^iav). The faction
is headstrong and obstreperous (av0aSr]9 k. Opacrus); and though now unused to
the regular practice of arms, vulgar and lacking reverence for imperial dignity
(cf. the irokiriKtj Poo/jLoXo^la to Constantine in the balcony scene).
Leo is
removed from his dangerous friends to the dignified isolation of an Iberian
governor. There he is followed by rumours and suspicions of his loyalty ; he is
recalled and compelled to assume the monastic habit. Constantine granted him an
interview, but merely laughed immoderately at his altered appearance. The
insult rankled, and Tornicius promised himself revenge. His clan, with the
Macedonian faction, rescue him and carry him off.1 With his company
of robbers, Scamars, or devoted adherents, he advances to the walls without let
or hindrance, and attempts to enter by the Blachern Gates. As Justinian
1 Leo Tornicius was no aggressive usurper;
he pleaded the commission of legitimacy (Psellus, § 102). The story went round
that Theodora, now recognised as the rightful sovereign, had chosen Leo, t6p 4k
’M.aicedovlas.
The military faction could thus satisfy their faith to legitimacy, and
their desire for an active regent. They trusted that the scanty forces in the
city would join them, already angry with the emperor for his innovations.
Anxious to see a soldier on the throne, they might take an active part in
the defence of the State (5i* dpyijs t6p
AtiroKpAropa txovTe* (the urban troops) inclSi) k. Kcuvorofieip
kclt’ airQv tfpZaTo \ k. t^p irpoeSptap ainrov 8vax€Pa^V0VTes
K' fiovXifiePoi ZrpaTiibTrjp Ideip avroKpdropa <r<pu>p re
TpoKipSv- petioPTa k. ras iiridpofias tup
fiapfidpup dpelpyopra). So. on approach to the capital they ask the citizens
to open the gates to them, and admit a gracious and valorous emperor who would
guard and promote the empire (^Ttet/07 k.
xPV^rbp avroKp. (pi\av9pd)Tu$ re avrois xpyvbpevop k. t6 'Pufmlwp xpdTos tois Kard tQp fiapfidpup To\4fiots re k.
rpoiralois av^cropra).
Rebellion of Thornic and the troops of Macedonia.
End of Thornic: excuses for the military party.
in a similar
crisis just 500 years before, the emperor with difficulty raised 1000 men,
valets and guardsmen. Argyrus, the Italian rebel, now ally and vassal of the
empire, recommends him to keep within, and not expose his person or his
weakness to the disorderly rabble. Constantine sits on a balcony in full view
of the invading army, in all his imperial panoply; he is mortified by the gross
rudeness of the Macedonians, who dance grotesquely before him, imitating his
gouty movements. He is menaced by missiles, and retires hastily. Tornicius
missed his lucky moment, and gave up the enterprise in the moment of success.
He falls back on Adrinople ; he fails to reduce Rhedestus, which is kept in the
narrow path of loyalty by the patriarch and the chief inhabitant, though a
relative of the pretender.
§ 4. Yet the
crisis seemed serious enough to warrant the recall of the Eastern troops.1
They were divided into two ; and part crossing at Chryso- polis, part at
Abydos, the whole force converged on the disaffected region, completely
enveloping the mutineers at Adrinople. Iasita, well known to us in his Armenian
command, observed the severest discipline and restraint in this civil war. No
pillage was allowed ; deserters were welcomed, and amnesty given to all except
the ringleaders. Tornic is gradually left alone with his faithful lieutenant,
John Batazes ; he takes refuge in a church, but is seized and blinded.2
Pardon is granted generally, and the
1 The people of Byzantium, turning war,
like everything else, “into a joke and pastime,” hastened to enrol for the
emperor. § 112. IIX^os irokiTCKUP ovk 6\iybv, ideXovral 5£ odroi rois \6xois
iavrois icredidoaav, Sicrirep ti rG>v d\\uv k. rbv w&Ke/iov wal^ovres.
Nor were Leo’s soldiers more serious; the whole rebellion was a jest. § 120.
Only in a half-hearted way did they lay siege to the Thracian towns. The
reviving prosperity of this once unhappy district (from Anastasius, 500, to
Basil II., 1000) is well marked by these words: Qpovplois eiiaK&rois AXXws
rrj re rod t6ttov iTri-njdei- hrrjri k. rrj rdv reix&v diaipfoei, t<$
/xtj irpocrhoicav 7roXXou XP^V0V irohtuiov.
2 John suffered with all the courage of an
ancient Roman, and set an example to the unnerved and weeping Leo, like
Constantine to Michael V. a short time before; he only remarked that “To-day
the Roman empire will lose a good soldier.”
stubborn who
rejected all overtures are “ paraded ” End of with contumely, and lose their
estates. So ended Thorntc:
GJCCUSSS
TOT
the most
menacing disturbance in the reign of Con- the military stantine X. We believe
it is possible to extricate vartv- a more serious motive than wounded pique
or personal ambition. Like all rebellions then, it was a protest against the
court and civilian government.
Adrinople was
full of dissatisfied members of the warrior caste, condemned to idleness ; of
retainers who chafed at inaction during peace, and grumbled at the niggardly
pay during a campaign. Stipend and rations and commissariat were controlled
from the centre ; and some inexpert courtier, following the camp, was the real
dispenser of the means and sinews of war. With the person of the monarch, with
the claims of the dynasty, these conspirators had little quarrel. But they
looked back to the glorious days of Basil, and contrasted the luxurious inertia
of the court under the two Constantines with his simplicity and valour. It is
possible that they refused to aid loyally in the foreign campaigns ; not a few
Roman generals have won their way to power by withdrawing support at a critical
moment. And while there was no dearth of men and leaders in the Western army,
the year 1050 was marked by a terrible and triple defeat at the hands of the
Patzi- naks. Either the court could not trust the captains, or the captains
would not serve the court.
§ 5. At the
turn of the half-century an obscure Ludicrous plot (f) again disturbed the
sovereign's peace. A p.a^?e
# ^ # , # ^
1711TIQU6S*
distinguished
family united to overthrow him ; it was detected in time, with the unfailing
disclosure of most Byzantine plots, and the principal agent, a Nicephorus, was
reduced to poverty and exile. It is possible that this is the plot mentioned by
Psellus, when this person following in the imperial escort found ready access
to the palace, stood at the door of the private apartments as if expecting a
summons, and was discovered with a sword prepared to strike
Ludicrous
palace
intrigues.
Clemency of C.X.
the
defenceless Constantine. The most ludicrous of all the court plots, that of
Boilas the jester, revealed the wonderful leniency (or fatalism ?) of the
emperor, and the absurd insecurity of his position. (g) Boilas, an old servant
of Romanus, was gifted with a pleasing stutter, which he took care to cultivate.
He was the favourite of Constantine, who, after the storms of a hard life,
looked on the throne as a welcome haven, and considered amusement to be the
sole—at least the chief—duty of the sovereign. The constant plots published to
every one the dangerous secret that fortune was to the adventurous ; and, in
spite of universal failure and detection, every one believed that he could
guide his intrigue to a successful issue. Boilas, a fool only in appearance and
by design, adopted a clever ruse for securing allies and disarming suspicion.
He approaches the discontented one by one, and either receives a promise of
aid, or artfully congratulates the indignant loyalist that he has so well stood
the test of devotion to his own beloved master, and promises that the emperor
himself shall hear of his steadfastness. It was no difficulty to secrete
himself in the imperial chamber ; indeed, he would seem to have been the
chamberlain at hand (irapaKoiiJ.wij.evog) ; for a ludicrous story is told of
his waking the emperor in the middle of the night to share his joy, because a
dream had disclosed the culprit who had stolen his polo-ponies. He is
discovered with a sword, strutting about the chamber, and seized it may be at
the last moment with remorse or fear. Hurried off and questioned, he was
subjected to a nominal penalty at the express command of the empresses, and
soon restored to complete favour and confidence. The reign of Constantine was
hastening to its close. Zoe expired in the middle of her incense and aromatic
confections, in 1052, at the age of 74: Scleraena had been long since dead ;
and the uxorious Constantine put in their place
a little Alan
princess, hostage at the Roman court, Clemency of whose sole attraction (in the
eyes of Psellus) was G'X' her ivory complexion and her
sparkling eyes. The treasures of the empire were lavished on her countrymen,
and galleys regularly plied the Euxine carrying the wealth of Rome to the outer
barbarians. She was saluted Augusta, but the emperor dispensed with the
ceremony of a formal marriage, and on his death she sank back into the grade of
a hostage.
§ 6. The
civil ministers of Constantine call for a The word of notice. His chief adviser
was Constantine ™™hudes'and Lichudes, whose son we met in connection with John.
Armenia. He was an excellent counsellor, but was superseded by the eunuch John,
of base extraction, by an emperor whose chief distinction was his utter
disregard of the ordinary rules of promotion.
Nothing
shocked the official world more than the caprices of autocracy. The civil
service (as we saw in Lydus) expected the prince, to whom the whole popular
authority was transferred, to be guided by the decisions of his council: he was
u to ratify
the judgment of the chief men of the State ” ; and, as in the Pekinese
Government to-day, an emperor hearing with the ears and seeing with the eyes
of his ministers was no arbitrary ruler, but rather an automaton, bound to
subscribe with the vermilion pencil or the purple ink of the Canicleius, to the
views of others ; those, indeed, who fancy the modern expedient of
Constitutionalism to be a wise novelty, being mistaken. Psellus in several
passages deplores this indifference to procedure and precedent, and actually
left the service of a gracious and amiable prince because his whims made every
post precarious. The military regents had been content to leave much, if not
all, internal management in the hands of lay Premiers—a Bringas or a Basil.
But the emperor Basil II. (as we saw) was a martinet in palace as well as camp,
neglected the honours and compliments due to birth and wealth,
The
ministers, Lichudes and John.
Death of
a x. 1054.
Character and scope of Psellus, contemporary
chronicler.
reposed trust
only in the hireling, and handed on an Oriental method of rule, dangerous and
unpopular in a State where the nobility was still vigorous and inured to war.
The low-born John, with whom all government rested (as with a Duke of Lerma or
a Koprili vizier), unwittingly repaid his benefactor by bringing upon him the
crowning humiliation of his reign. This prince of the Senate and Grand Logo-
thete suggested as successor Nicephorus Bryennius, general of the insolent
Macedonian troops, while the gout-stricken Constantine lay dying. Theodora,
hearing of this proposal, left her convent and proceeded with dignity to the
palace, where she was at once accepted as legitimate sovereign. The emperor,
hearing that his scheme was baffled, turned his face to the wall and expired,
November 30, 1054.
§ 7. The
relations of Psellus and Constantine X. resembled in no small degree those of
Claudius and Seneca ; and their respective characters were closely akin.
Psellus has to explain in his history why he, a professed eulogist of the
living prince, should narrate evil of him when dead. He adroitly explains and
justifies his versatile pen ; and implores the “ blest departedn (Oeiordn] \['vyy, “ ccelo
recepta mens") to pardon him for daring to dispel the illusion of his
perfectness. Verbose, subtle, and unsatisfactory, he has graver faults as a
historian than this vacillation in judgment: he has a rooted dislike to giving
names or facts, and dismisses the foreign relations of Rome with a few pedantic
words about Mysians, Scythians, or Assyrians. We turn with relief from his
diffuse and vague account to bald but explicit chroniclers like Theophanes ;
yet it is from his pages alone that we derive any genuine knowledge of the
atmosphere of the court. He occupied a place midway between the civilians, to
whom office was a mere source of profit and delight, and the military party,
who still believed that patriotic duty was a stern task. He has learnt
correctly from the latter
the
parrot-cry that the armies are starved and Character
imperial
defences ruined by the peace-faction. But a^d fC0Pe
°f . r , . . . . . Psellus, con-
he could give
no warning or wholesome mstruc- temporary tion on government to Michael VII.,
the amiable chronicler. scholar summoned by a supreme irony of fortune to
retrieve the errors or avenge the death of Romanus IV. He is genuinely devoted
to the house of Ducas; and it was this sentiment of affection that made him
hostile to Diogenes. He disliked Stratioticus, and as his envoy undoubtedly
encouraged Isaac Comnenus in his defection. He calls himself il friend of the Romans ”
(<pi\opwfjLaiog) and “ patriot ” (cpiXoTrarpis) ; as if from a superior
vantage-ground he regarded with discreet approval or concern the “ Roman ”
administration, and its efforts for the public good. But he can scarcely be said
to identify himself closely with the State; and his real interests are with
rhetoric or philosophy, in which he was unhappily so apt a teacher of his
royal pupil. For if he has traits in common with Seneca, he has also no little
resemblance to Fronto, urging Marcus Aurelius to the archaisms of the
lexicographer when the barbarians were already knocking at the gate. Evidently,
though he can sympathise with the warriors in their desire for an emperor of
their own choosing, his real grievance is with this wanton violation of strict
rule in civilian promotion. It is the theme and text of his book; to it he
reverts again and again; and it constitutes his chief indictment of the methods
of government.
We cannot
understand who did the routine work, or who issued the necessary orders in the
various departments of State. The permanent officials and secretariat must have
quickly usurped control, as they do to-day in the short-lived ministries of a
republic or under the sister constitution—an autocracy.
§ 8. Though Constantine
X. displays in his rela- Indolence, tions to Armenia much tact, good sense, and
good Cf^^it^m faith, the general impression of
these rulers (1025- ofC.X.
Indolence, 1056) is that they had little notion of
the serious
courage, and business demanded of them. Zoe, to whom
all the
favouritism . . .
ofC. X. world deferred, had no idea of ruling, and
no experience in affairs (xjoayjnarcov iravrairacnv aSarj?). She became
childish in her later years, was subject to sudden changes of temper—from grave
to gay, from sportive to vindictive. With a dim memory, among her crucibles and
pastilles, of her father's irascible moods, she who had opposed the just
penalty of an ungrateful rebel, issued broadcast the savage command to deprive
of sight: Constantine took care that these commands (as speedily forgotten as
issued) were never carried out. She had the innocent vanity of Augustus ; that
the actual fire of her gaze was irresistible, and those who dropped their
eyes, as if dazzled in her presence, were sure of her favour and tangible
rewards. Psellus regarded her natural disposition as spoilt by the vulgarity of
a court from which she never issued. Bent and with trembling hands, she had
nevertheless no wrinkles on her face. Her unique preoccupation was to be free
from care or business {iravrri acryokog etvai); her sole employment (in
default of any interest in dress or female accomplishments) lay in preparing
incense for the divine service—half voluptuous, half pietistic. As for the
easy-going prince himself (whose reign was the zenith of Byzantine success), he
had no taste for hard work, perhaps little knowledge, and no bodily capacity.
The most part of his time he spent in a recumbent posture, a martyr to
rheumatic gout (K\ivo7T6Tt)g ra 7roXXa ?v) ; if he walked, he was supported on
the shoulders of two stalwart officials. Again and again, his attitude to the
sovereign dignity is expressed in the feelings of a storm-tossed mariner who
has made port at last, and will not" be troubled any more on earth (§§ 47,
72, 79). At last he could breathe freely and take his ease (<avairvevcrrea),
and the business of government could be shifted on to some vizier (e<p’
erepw 7rpo(ra)7r(p rrjv tov Kparovg
7roiei
rrjv Siolicrjcriv). In one respect only, we are
told, did Indolence, he preserve a heroic courage in the discharge of his
y^writism duties, in fulfilling the punctilious ceremonial of the ofC.X. court.
In spite of intense suffering, aggravated by all this solemn trifling, he felt
himself under a natural and covenanted obligation to give the citizens the
splendid display, which had now become the chief duty of sovereignty
{airapalrrjra riva yjp*a rotg iroXiTaig, § 128). Never, in all the
agony which he endured with a brave smile, did Psellus hear a murmur or an
angry word against Providence. In personal bravery (in spite of the balcony
scene in the tragi-comedy of Tornicius), Psellus regrets that he fell below the
standard of Roman worthies of the type of Basil II.: but he allows that he was
quickwitted, shrewd, and gifted with a good memory (o£ys ay-^lvovg
juLvtfiuLcov). Yet he was dauntless and unmoved in a crisis,1
and paid little heed to the omens of nervous superstition (§ 96). He was by
birth a member of that warlike nobility which sometimes served and sometimes excited
the alarm of Basil II., who did not move easily among his peers, and had good
reason to distrust their independent loyalty. Theodosius, his father, detected
in some conspiracy (iin TupavviKaig alriaig aXoug), had bequeathed this
imperial suspicion and rancour to his heir—an uncommon instance in our history
of a son prejudiced in his career by a father's fault; for, as a rule, the sons
of traitors are treated with conspicuous fairness and kindly consideration. He
was called to no civil office or empty distinction, so eagerly coveted by
courtiers ; although his lineage warranted the foremost dignities of the
kingdom (yevovg eveicev . . Ta 7rpcora rrjg fiacnXelag). He loved pastime,
witty com-
1
In Tornic’s revolt, his elder sister (Helena) entreated him to fly or take
refuge in a church; the other (Euprepia), having encouraged the rebel, as it
would appear. He uses the (Platonic) words of Socrates bidding a cold farewell
to the weeping Xantippe—ravprjdbv irpbs avrty &Trof3\£\f/as, ’Airay 4tu rts
airrty . . . tva ttjv ifity Kara/xaXdaKl^oi
^vxfiv.
Indolence, courage, and favouritism ofO.X.
His merits underrated.
panions, and
landscape-gardening more than befitted a ruler (/SouXtjcpopw avSpi, quotes the
classical Psellus); but, as many praised his disregard of the strict rules of
promotion in the mandarinat, so there were found apologists for these amiable
and innocent pursuits. Punishment he hated to inflict; and in his rare
reprimands to defaulting officials he grew red and ashamed, modifying the penalty
piece by piece until nothing remained; and even condoning the grievous and
significant offence of peculation from the war supplies by a civilian (§ 170,
cV* KXejuLjmacrl rtg aXoug <ttpartly uccov
SioiKTjarecov). He became, like other exalted persons, the devoted slave of a
petulant favourite, an outspoken lad from the gutter (if we can believe the
historian Psellus); and was credited with the design of naming him as his successor
(§ 179). He actually appointed him chief of the Senate (ra 7rpoora rrjs yepovcrlas),
or gave him rank with the highest dignitaries ; and we are reminded of the
urchin of thirteen who followed a recent Shah on his travels, and was pointed
out as the commander-in-chief of the Persian armies.
§ 9. It is
not altogether easy to reconcile these accounts of the emperor with the general
character of his reign ; and I am strongly inclined to think that his merits
and his industry have been underrated. While titular dignity may have been
lavishly distributed, there is no proof that the business of the empire
suffered by neglect or malversation. Fickle in the choice or retention of his
intimate ministers, Constantine X. was nevertheless well served, and the
retirement of Psellus and his apprehensive friends may not have been a serious
loss to the State. We cannot forget that in an age when the wildest impulse,
grossest ignorance, and vaguest policy reigned supreme elsewhere, the Byzantine
ruler, fixed and imperturbable against foreign rumour or domestic tumult,
maintained his calmness and humanity. Except Tornicius, no pretender
represented the solid
good sense
and patriotism of the military caste; and His merits discontent was limited to
personal envy or to that underrated- general opinion that an emperor should be
first and foremost a soldier (§§ 104, 109). Nor is it clear that Constantine
can be accused of wanton and thriftless waste in the public finance ; the
charge is levelled indiscriminately at all pacific princes, and the pastimes
and boy or girl favourite of the emperor might be somewhat costly or exacting.
The u scandalous chronicle ” of the palace would make him
out an impossible dotard, surrounded and fawned on or hopelessly hoaxed by a
host of low-born jesters.
Yet
Constantine X. was still the trusted arbiter in the last resort, the unfailing
friend of the falsely accused ; and he cannot be blamed if, while the vast
machine of government moved on of itself, he took innocent diversion and
reserved the initiative or the calm dignity of a sovereign for moments of real
crisis. The tranquillity of Theodora's reign and the early quiet of Michael VI.
may prove that during his rule of twelve and a half years the Roman commonwealth
suffered nothing to its detriment from this most amiable and cheerful of its
rulers. At most we must say (as we can say of all the Constantines in the
eleventh century) that he lived before his time.
His
conception of office was purely civilian ; war was a preventable episode, or a
regrettable expedient.
Affable
(iiaceijuLevos iraa-iv) and accessible, giving leave of absence to his
chamberlains and guardsmen (KaT6wa^ovres)y he answered the remonstrances of his friends by saying
that he was in the hands and under the care of a Higher Power, and needed no
human protection. From the more visible guardianship of his people's love he
was unhappily debarred.
Loyalty (in
our modern sense unknown) expended itself in a peculiar form in a jealous watch
over the legitimate claims of the two princesses: there was nothing left over
for the occasional and transient partners of Zoe. If we remember that he was a
His merits underrated.
coeval of
Hildebrand and of William the Conqueror, living alongside of feudal anarchy and
misrule in Western Europe and the Turkish forays of the Eastern border, we
cannot fail to recognise with astonishment the modern character, proclivities,
and policy of this ruler. Behind the mere lover of pleasure, ironically making
light of the business of a monarch, there was another man hidden, a man of firm
and dauntless purpose, steadfast clemency, and straightforward dealing ; and
if, in common with other critics, we place in his days the culminating point of
Roman power, wealth, and territory, we cannot deny some share in this
achievement to Constantine X.
GRADUAL DISPLACEMENT OF THE CIVIL MONARCHY BY
FEUDALISM
CHAPTER XI
CONFLICT OF THE TWO ORDERS
A. The
Military Protest and the CounterRevolution: the Peace-Party and the Soldiers
(Comnenus and Diogenes), 10571067
§ 1. The sole reign of Irene (797-801) had been Theodora and the palmy
days of eunuch-influence. The regencies Michael VI.
1 GTenjUiJLYG
Oi (L
of Theodora
II. (842) and of Zoe (911) had not faction). rested on their exclusive support;
and Theophano (963) hastened into a second marriage with a member of the
warrior-class. But Theodora III. brought into the palace the arts and virtues
of a convent. Her claims to the throne, hallowed by the vicissitudes and
afflictions of nearly thirty years, were recognised by all ; no conspiracies
disturbed her reign ; and her household servants disposed of the vast patronage
of the empire. But it is clear that she remained the mistress, and perhaps no
female sovereign until Queen Victoria exerted at an advanced age a blending so
judicious of administrative ability and moral excellence. When, in spite of
the flattering promises of the soothsayer and the secret conviction of the
empress, her health began to fail unmistakably, the palace-cabal of faithful
servants (but indifferent statesmen) reasserted itself. They pressed on
Theodora the
Theodora and name of Michael Stratioticus, and
perhaps hoped by fcrec^rlofa bellicose surname to delude the warriors into
faction). a belief that at length they had a prince of their own. But if
Michael had ever served in Western or Eastern armies, history is silent as to
his prowess or achievements ; and his accession was the high- water mark of the
pacifists. He was bound by a solemn agreement to do nothing in public affairs
without the full consent of this informal council of ministers; and with an
aged dotard, the cabal hoped for an indefinite continuance of power. The most
liberal of Roman malcontents in early imperial days would have been stupefied
at this condition, which fettered monarchy and rendered it harmless or superfluous—the
mere disguise of a secret committee. At least, Caesar was elected to act and to
assume responsibility. He never became, until the accession of Michael VI., the
creature of a faction. The tradition of imperial industry was still potent:
Michael had to discover some outlet for his faded energy ; and while an
anonymous faction dispensed the money and honours of the realm (ap^aipea-la),
the emperor superintended the cleansing of the pretor's tribunal and issued
“ukases,” like Emperor Paul of Russia, to control the wearing of the hair and the
attire of his subjects. I cannot conceive that it was the prince who replaced
simple “ intendants ” for the usual dignified senators in the management of the
treasury: it seems clear that the peace-faction were here at work. The Senate
was still a venerable and important institution ; its members might be imperial
nominees, but the entire body had a creditable history for the past and
preserved the traditions of an earlier day. But the Yildiz Kiosk was pitted
against the Sublime Porte ; and unknown menials usurped the power of
responsible statesmen. To such a decree (rivalling the autocratic edicts of
Basil and Leo VI.) Michael subscribed his name ; but he was not its author. The
sovereign was a slave, and
in vain he
lavished gifts and doles on the Senate Theodora and and people. He was despised
and distrusted ; and f^ealure^of a the discontented were prepared to rally
round the faction). most unlikely candidate for the throne. But the revolt of
Theodosius Monomachus was a ridiculous fiasco. Claiming a hereditary interest
in the purple, which his cousin had worn for twelve years, he marched to the
palace with a few followers, crying out that he had been defrauded of his
rights. He opened the prisons, as did the conspirators against Justinian II.
(695); and finds his motley crew opposed by the Varangians and marines, whom
the eunuchs had hastily armed. Unable to force an entrance, he betakes himself
to St. Sophia, hoping that patriarch and people will recognise in him their
lawful champion. Instead, the gates are shut against the disorderly rabble ;
and the pretender, deserted and at last a captive, lightly expiates his folly
as an exile to Pergamus, one of the “ dead cities" of the empire.
§ 2. The next
conspiracy was neither contemptible The Warriors nor unjustified: and we shall
bestow some detail Sp^Q^nd upon the successful protest of the
military faction Premier. which transferred the sceptre to the Comneni from
Colonea, and the distant limits of Lesser Asia.
Psellus has
left us a vague but precious account of a movement in which he played no
inconsiderable share : and the curious may be referred to his text.1
Michael VI. had shown a tactless parsimony in rewarding the warriors at the
Easter Doles, 1059.
This solemn
ceremony of imperial gifts had been well described and perhaps derided by
Luitprand of Cremona a century before ; the emperor was still the unique fount
of honour and of recompense. When the turn of the military leaders came,
Michael was
1
This entire period, with the account of Psellus, has been admirably summarised
by Professor Bury in the English Historical Review. It is almost an
impertinence to treat again of the events which he has described so vividly and
estimated with such judgment.
VOL. II. T
The Warriors slighted by Prince and Premier:
Retire to Asia Minor (1057).
Hasty insurgence and failure of Bryennius.
profuse in
compliments : Comnenus and Catacalon (lately recalled from the duchy of
Antioch) were singled out for conspicuous praise; and the rise of the latter
from obscurity through sheer personal merit was pronounced especially
gratifying to the democratic emperor. But the coveted distinction of 7rpoeSpo9
was refused; and neither pittance nor title soothed their vanity. The faction,
headed by these two men, illustrious and plebeian, now betake themselves to the
chief minister, or head of the palace-clique, Leo Strabospondyles. They could
not believe that his Majesty's slight was intentional; it was surely his
purpose to show his appreciation of their services. It was both ungrateful and
unwise to decorate the luxurious and pampered clerks of the bureaux and neglect
the brave defenders of their country who faced death for the good of all ?
Again (and this time by a detested minister) the plaintiffs were dismissed with
contumely; and the eunuch echoes his master's taunts, “What have you done at
Antioch except pillage and oppress ? " The leaders meet in St. Sophia, and
bind themselves by a great oath not to rest until the insult has been avenged.
Catacalon, the veteran and the spokesman, is offered the crown; but he refuses,
and like Sallustius of old on the death of Julian, promises to be the faithful
servant of their choice. In the end he suggests Isaac Comnenus ; “ for,” he
said,11 it
needs a noble to command nobles.” All get leave of absence from the willing
emperor and retire to their estates in Cappadocia, those vast domains which,
whether occupied by palace-eunuchs like Basil (976) or by feudal lords, equally
excited the envy and suspicion of the central government. As a last condition,
Catacalon had insisted that Nicephorus Bryennius should be made privy to the
plot.
§ 3.
Nicephorus Bryennius, the nominee displaced by the prompt action of Theodora in
1054, had been despatched by Constantine X. with the famous
“ Macedonian ” troops to fight the Turks ; for a
pre- Hasty diction was going round that only Macedon could insurgmce overthrow
the East. But, on his patron’s death, he Bryennius. had brought back his
turbulent forces to Chrysopolis without orders ; and Theodora, justly suspecting
his motive after the trouble of Tornic a few years before, had cashiered and
exiled the general. Michael VI. restored him to his command, and sent him with
these same Macedonians to act against Samukh. On a modest demand for the
restitution of his confiscated estate, the emperor replied with a homely
proverb,
" That one did not pay the workman until the
article was delivered.'’ Such was his imprudent use of satire, a dangerous as
well as a contemptible weapon in the hands of authority. With him to report upon
his conduct was sent John Opsaras, a eunuch of the palace, with the army-chest.
We have a repetition of the behaviour of Romanus Lecapenus to a similar spy.
Bryennius demands payment for his men on a higher scale than that sanctioned by
the civilian war-ministry. When Opsaras refuses, he seizes him by the hair,
violently maltreats and drags to his tent a prisoner, dividing the contents of
the war-chest with the troops. Lycanthus, governor of the province (Lycaonia
and Pisidia), advances to avenge this outrage, sets Opsaras free, blinds
Bryennius and sends him to the emperor, with the story of his crime.
Alarmed at
this unexpected blow, the chief officers advance from their several homes to
the strong fortress of Castamouni, the abode of Isaac. With gentle violence in
the dead of night they hurry him away to the plain of Gunaria, where on the
morning of June 8, 1057, he is saluted emperor, like any Probus or Diocletian
of old, by the assembled troops, rapidly recruiting from the soldier-settlers
of the surrounding district. Catacalon did not at once join the rebels, and
caused them no slight misgiving by his silence. Indeed, he found himself in a
difficult place; expecting an earlier movement on the part of
Hasty insurgence and failure of Bryennius.
Catacalon
joins
Comnenian
mutineers.
Isaac, he had
written a daring epistle to the Logothete of the Course, Nicetas Xylinitas, in
which he had openly hinted at insurrection. When the news of Isaac’s tl pronunciamento ” was
confirmed, Catacalon hesitated no longer. He raised iooo men, kinsmen, vassals
or retainers, and servants; and adroitly counterfeits an imperial order
appointing Nicopolis as the rendezvous of all the regiments of the district for
a new campaign against Samukh. This, it is only fair to remark, is a single
incident of questionable honesty in a period to which is usually ascribed the
bad faith, cowardice, and studied hypocrisy of the Greekling. The troops
assemble, Russian and Frank, and the garrison of the themes Chaldia and Colonea
(birthplace of the pretender). At daybreak Catacalon collects the officers, and
gives them a simple choice between death and adhesion to the cause.
§ 4. At the
head of these exultant and unanimous troops, Catacalon advances to meet Isaac.
He in turn, overjoyed at this welcome proffer, leaves .his wife and children
with his brother John in the castle of Pemolissus (on the Halys), passes the
Sangarius, and sets his face towards Nice. Michael VI., in the usual jealous
fashion of a dual control by civilian and soldier, sent against them Aaron
(Isaac's own brother-in-law) and the eunuch Theodore, who march to Nicomedia
and encamp at the foot of Mount Sophon. Meantime Isaac has entered Nice. It is
difficult to induce the two armies to adopt a resolute or hostile air. They
fraternise and discuss the position amicably ; nor are the Asiatic forces
behindhand in proffering advice to quit the party of an aged fool, slave of his
menials, and tyrant only of his brave captains. At last a pageant fray or
tournament was prepared ; and in the battle duly set forth on each side with
centre and wings, according to the invariable custom, Romanus Sclerus is routed
and captured by the Imperialists, Aaron and Lycanthus ; Isaac (in the
centre)
was turned to flight, and only Catacalon Catacalon retrieved the cause of the
rebels, by putting to .
* j Jl o (JOTYlTlCtttCLtt
rout Basil
Tapxavuonjg, noblest of the 11
Macedonian" mutineers. phalanx, while aiding discomfited comrades. Radulf,
a Norse mercenary, fought in single combat with a future emperor, Nicephorus
Phocas (Botaneiates), and the perfectly tempered casque of the latter turned
the mace and numbed the arm of the Latin.
War was still
somewhat of a “pastime," as in the revolt of Tornic; and but few of the
opposing forces were left dead on the field. Revolutions in the Byzantine
period were rarely murderous, and a change of throne or dynasty demanded few
victims.
The
Comnenians enter Nicomedia, and are met by
envoys from
Michael, Constantine Lichudes and Futile
Psellus. The
proposals would have revived the old
and perilous
expedient of the regency, or perhaps gone ‘ ‘
back to the
ideal of Diocletian. A youthful Caesar
was to be
adopted by an aged and childless prince,
the one for
the camp, the other for the palace.
Isaac
accepted the terms, stipulating (i) That Michael should crown no one else: (2)
that the honours bestowed on his companions should be confirmed: (3) that he
should enjoy the patronage in certain minor appointments: (4) that Strabo-
spondyles should be dismissed. To this Michael agreed, and Leo was sent from
the palace to his clerical duties. Everything looked favourable for an amicable
compromise. But behind the scenes strange intrigues were moving. Catacalon
opposed any concession : and the envoys themselves betrayed their master's
cause by urging the mutineers to extreme measures. And the emperor, while promising
in public to adopt Isaac as his colleague and heir, was at the very moment
exacting a terrible oath from the senators never to acknowledge him as such.
The patriarch
Michael Cerularius absolved these reluctant jurors from their word, and
promised the emperor a heavenly, in exchange for an earthly
Futile
negotiations with M. VI.
Triumph
of the Comneni origin of the family.
crown.1
They proclaim the Comnenus emperor. Michael VI., finding resistance fruitless,
retired with quiet dignity to his own house and survived his downfall two full
years unmolested.
§ 5. In this
great military revolution there was a singular absence of Greek chicanery or
refined cruelty. In Michael VI. alone was there doubledealing ; and the envoys
were no doubt justified in urging the refusal of the very measures they brought
for acceptance. There was no violence, no outrage, no pursuit of the downfallen
; and power was transferred from one party to its rival without leaving behind
so much as the rancour and ill-feeling of a General Election. The new family
came from Colonea (o KoXuvelaQev), and afford a good type of that unhellenic
culture, pious, puritan, and warlike, which hailed from the East and could be
referred to no indigenous source. It is true that a harmless fable brought over
their ancestors with the first Constantine, who stood to the Byzantine
pedigree- makers as our own William the Conqueror, a convenient and venerable
fiction. We hear nothing of the family until the days of the prefect of the
East under Basil II., and the name of the village Comn& betrays its feudal
and rustic associations. His children, Isaac and John, were brought up under
the eyes and by the care of the emperor ; partly in the convent of Studium,
partly in his own court, not less austere, like noble pages in an early
Teutonic period or in later chivalry. He chose their wives, and married Isaac
to Catherine, daughter of Samuel, the (Armenian ?) king of Bulgaria, and John
to Anne, daughter of Alexius Charon, Kareiravw in Italy, and a Dalassene on the
mother's side (his eight children survived him, destined to fill the highest
places in the Roman world
1 Lebeau’s
comment is delightful, and will not bear translation: “ L’^change etait
avantageux, si le patriarche en eut et6 le maitre.” It is
interesting to contrast the tone of Gibbon’s inevitable quip on the same point:
“An exchange, however, which the priest on his own account would probably have
declined.”
and to
transform its institutions). This house ruled, Triumph of sustaining or
despoiling the commonwealth, for a hundred years; and the brief principate of
Isaac family! ° (1057-1059), like that of Claudius Gothicus (268270), was an
augury or foretaste of the longer honours awaiting his kinsmen. For the
abdication of Isaac interrupted the line ; and in twenty-two years of loss and
decay the empire learnt to regret the Comnenians. Had Isaac's brother succeeded
and received the support (still indispensable) of the civil officials, had a
continuous policy and a tactful demeanour reconciled the warrior and the bureaucrat,
the history of the East might have run on different lines. It was scarcely the
fault of the Comneni that by 1081 around them the traditions and institutions
of Rome lay in ruins, and that a vigorous and not seldom oppressive predominance
of a feudal clan was the only possible government.
§ 6. The
causes of Isaac's comparative failure, strong brief reign, and early retirement
are still enveloped clertc^fm
u -x u xu x -11 u ixu • *x opposition t0
in obscurity:
it may be that ill-health is quite isaac 1.: his
sufficient to explain the sudden collapse of the abdication. warrior-policy.
Yet it appears that the dead-weight of a stubborn bureaucratic opposition,
outwardly deferential, completely thwarted all reforming enterprise, and
paralysed the zealous arm by the spiteful indolence of the permanent official.
Isaac at the outset had to propitiate the Church; he abandoned two valuable
pieces of preferment to the patriarch, the ceconomus and the treasurer of the
Great Church, saying, “That the Church should choose its own ministers.'' The
doles, gifts, and pensions of Michael VI. had been wasteful and injudicious;
they had been squandered upon laity and churchmen, while the military servants
of the State had been starved or insulted. These he endeavoured to revoke
without exciting undue resentment, and found the task beyond him. Himself
setting a fine example of the
Strong
clerical opposition to Isaac I.: his abdication.
simple life,
he excited the violent hatred of the clerics for suggesting an inquiry into the
revenues of church and convent. He might have appeased the enmity of the
ministerial world ; but he committed the inexpiable offence in the eyes of a
devout hierarchy. The Greek Church never forgave him; Cerularius the patriarch
sets up all the well-known pretensions of sacerdotal sovereignty, which was so
soon to kindle the flames of civil war in Western Europe. He assumed the purple
buskins; pronounced the advantage to lie with the sacerdotium in the delicate
weighing of the two powers, not with the imperium; and threatened, quite in the
style of Hildebrand, that he who bestowed the crown could also take it away.
Isaac deposed and confined him ; and while awaiting the approval of a synod, he
was both relieved and distressed by Michael’s opportune death. Lichudes
succeeded, the old minister of Constantine X., who had received as a solace for
his feelings the titles TrpoeSpog, protovestiaire, and ceconomus at the
Manganese convent. Isaac (it must be confessed) employed a ruse to secure the
surrender of certain documents or charters of monastic immunity. The emperor,
true to the Protestant spirit which existed even in the most devout princes
since the Isaurians, desired to bring these petty autonomies within the pale of
the common law; and to abolish the exempt jurisdictions or spiritual courts,
which made little republics of these foundations. He prevailed on the
ceconomus to surrender these privileges, by threats of a synodal inquiry into
some mythical irregularities in the life of the Patriarch-Designate; and
Lichudes complied. It is impossible not to remark here the complete resemblance
of East and West in the chief social features and problems. There is the same
conflict between the secular and the clerical power ; the same proud menace
from the unarmed priest, strong only in conviction. But in the East (a more
highly developed community) there was a third factor
in the duel
of the knight and the priest,—the civil servant.1
§ 7. We do
not know why Isaac Comnenus Civilian passed over his brother’s claims in naming
his ^dominant successor: it is clear, however, that he did so, and under C. XI.
that Constantine Dux or Ducas, an old companion- in-arms, was appointed as a
compromise, to satisfy the court-party without estranging the Warriors.
After the triumph
of the federate or feudal party in 1057, Isaac, now emperor, had naturally
become a convert to centralism and autocracy. He had gently disembarrassed
himself of his inconvenient allies ; and his successor was still more obviously
annexed by the official ring. The curious may consult the learned account of
the condition of the empire by C. Neumann ; and it needs but little direct
proof to convince us that the years 1059-1067 witnessed a steady civilian
reaction.2 Ducas took pains to conciliate
1 Finlay’s comment upon the success of the
Comnenians (1057) is curious, and a good indication of the confusion of his
judgment on matters Byzantine: “ Perhaps no man then living perceived that this
event was destined to change the whole system of government, destroy the fabric
of the central administration, deliver up the provinces of Asia an easy
conquest to the Seljuk Turks, and the capital a prey to a band of Crusaders.”
Let any one read Psellus’ account of the policy and purposes of the princes
after Basil (Isaac, §§ 51-57), and in spite of the execrable style and
redundant or conflicting metaphors, he will recognise the real culprits,—the
civilians, and the sole cause of the disunion which thwarted all active good
service to the State, in the envy of the two factions. It would be unfair to
confound the Comneni (with their modesty and public spirit, their heroic
struggles against fortune, their untiring energy) with any vulgar feudal
individualist who wrecked a throne, and won a power which he did not know how
to exercise. It was not their fkult that Roman tradition was extinct, when at
last all opposition to the military empire disappeared (1081); and so far from
inviting the invaders of East and West, Seljuks or Latins, the Comneni alone
kept out the former and managed the latter. The Angeli returned to a corrupt
peace and sloth, and the consequence was the collapse of 1204. The sporadic
revivals of the empire, and the autumnal radiance of the Palseologi, were won
by a return to the methods of the Comneni.
2 From the personal knowledge and graphic
account of Psellus we gather: (1) Pacific policy of the emperor (§ 17, ectvry
n6pq> <rvfip6v\<p irepl rb TrpaKT&a xp&pevos» depending on his
own judgment he sometimes missed his aim): t6 yovv §ov\6fievov atir$ (it) rroXifiois
ri irepl t&v iQv&v Starideadai dXXd dibpuv &tto<tto\<xU . . .
Sveiv ft'e/ca, tva /xi/jre
298 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY; OF div. c
I
Civilian the “ politicals/’ discoursed with
eloquence upon
^edZinant the duties of
a ruIer and the beauty of justice, under C. XI.
professed that the crown of rhetoric was of far higher value in his eyes than
the crown of empire ; and made Constantine Psellus the tutor of his sons. There
is no conclusive reason against his authentic connection with the earlier
family of Ducas; did not a son, Nicolas, escape from the ill-fated venture of
Constantine Ducas in 912 ? But he had abandoned the traditions and lost the
spirit of his ancestors.
rd irKelu KaravaXlffKoi tois GTpaTionah k. avrbs
SiayuyrjP %xot ddbpv^op. Psellus (§ 18) rightly rebukes this policy,
but his own Chinese contempt and ignorance of the foreigner is also to blame;
he calls them Mi/<rot and TplfiaWoi, as if he were Demosthenes. (2) Is
popular with the agricultural interest: (§ 16) ol 5’ iirl tup dypup ot t6 wplp
fir)8£ tbv (HaaiXcijoPTa. r}8ei<rav icadapus atrip ipriripifop, and
benefited by kindly words and still kindlier deeds. Indeed, he had been a
countryman all his life on his ancestral estate; (§ 6) ip dypois SUrpifie ra
iroWd k. wept tt\v irarpQap fiu\op iirpayfiareieTO. (3) Chief aim to spread
equality and equity ; (§2) 7rpurop Tlderai airoidaafia labryjTa k. evpo/xlap
KaraaKevdaai; and fill by fair means the exhausted treasury : (§3) fiaaChelav
ip areptp . . . opup tt6.ptup . . . xpW&Tup i£aPT\7}6ipTUP, xPVfiaTiaTfc
l*>i<ro$ iyipero (that is, not oppressive); he left the treasury
half-full. (4) Obliterates the old hard-and-fast distinction between political
and senatorial classes; (§15) sending every one away honoured, leaving none neglected
: oi tup ip Ti\ei, oi tup fi€T’ itcetpovs evdvs, ov tup irbfipudi, d\V oi>8£
tup fiapafoup ovdipa' atpei yap k. toutols (? removes in favour of them) rote
tup dt-iufidTUP fiadfiods, k. 8inprjfiivup t4us tov UoXitikov yipovs k. tov
2vyKXtjTiKov, aiirbs a<patpeT Tb fieffbroixop k. avpdirrei rb SieaTus. We
wish Psellus would give up metaphors and Scripture allusions and confine
himself to facts; there are not many other traces of the distinction of
department of which he speaks ; and it is clear that in many passages where
civil (ttoX.) and military interests are contrasted, ttoXit. certainly
includes, broadly, all who were not in the army-service. See in this very
chapter (§ 7) the following summary of the Military Revolt of 1057 :
& 8eip<p tup 2TpaTiurup iroiovfUpup, el abrol fxkp rbp inrkp tup 8\up
ayupa vttoSilioipto k. tois <T(bfia<riP iirkp tt}$ apxys KipSvpetiotep,
Kardpxoi 8i tovtup ip rats dpxaipeaiah tov KpdTOVS (i.e., the empire) rj
2ijyK\7)T0$ rd toXXA, fit]5£p tup kipSOpup inai<r0ofji.ipt}. (5) His secret
relations to Isaac : it would appear (§ 6-14) that Constantine was early marked
out for the throne, was a favourite with the conspirators in 1057, yielded not
unwillingly to Isaac, but received some promise in stipulation, which was ill-kept;
received again during Isaac’s illness promise of the succession, was again
eluded on a partial recovery, owed to the boldness of Psellus the investiture
with imperial insignia, and succeeded rather in spite of the moribund emperor
than owing to his influence (§ 13, wap dwoypobs t6p re fiaaiXetioPTa
iupaic&s . . . etidi/s tup dpaKrbpuv dfplcrarai.)
He frittered
the imperial dignity by interest in petty Civilian
detail,
by neglect of the wider outlook, by ignorance r 1L • t t
* * j x 1X1 r , predominant i
of the graver
issues. His industry and watchfulness under C. XI.
(for he
spared no pains) seemed to degenerate into
pettiness and
pedantry. He examined minutely into
the conduct
of the civic magistrates, sat as assessor
with the
judges, and interfered in the ordinary course
of justice
with the well-meaning but vicious influence
of an
autocrat. He usurped the functions of his Misplaced
lieutenants,
and failed to find a post or duties of his and , • r f •
, chivalry.
own. Courting
his favour, the warriors become
barristers,
and plead instead of fighting. Corrupted by his own virtues he overrode the
law, made personal exceptions and immunities under cover of equity,
unconsciously altered the whole tenor of the code, and introduced a weak and
amiable arbitrariness into the most steadfast institution of the empire.
Liberal to
the monks, he kept the soldiers on short rations, disbanded troops to avoid
expense, made employment venal, and opened all office without reserve or
distinction to senators and commonalty alike. Like Justinian, he preferred to
purchase peace from a barbarian foe than to raise up a possible competitor at
home at the head of a victorious army: when Belgrade was captured, when the
raids of the Uzes spread unwonted desolation and havoc, he ransomed Nicephorus
Botaneiates (the future emperor) and Basil ’Attokoitos,
and refused to send an army against the invaders. The forces were indeed in a
pitiable plight: captains were ignorant, troops ill-disciplined and badly
equipped, peculation on the part of the ubiquitous^ civilian treasurers and assessors
systematic. Personally brave, he conceived the astonishing design of marching
against the Uzes with a knightly retinue of 150 “paladins.” This project, quite
in keeping with the romantic and chivalrous spirit of the time, had an
unexpected success. The barbarians took to flight (1065), and cease to be a
menace to the empire for the future.
Misplaced energy and chivalry.
Emperor& brothers during Xlth century: the two
Johns.
Many settle
as submissive subjects in those districts of Macedonia which seemed to open
inexhaustible expanses to the barbarian colonist. (Civilised and faithful in
the imperial service, their descendants fought for Rome and attained high
office. Other branches of the now scattered family settled, under the vague
name of Turkmans, in Armenia ; and others again in Moldavia and the country
north of the Danube.) Constantine XI. showed the usual clemency to forlorn and
detected conspirators. Even the city prefect was implicated in a plot to drown
the emperor when passing to the Manganese convent by galley on St. George’s Day
; and retribution stopped at the confiscation of estates. Though simple and
unostentatious in personal life and habits, and curtailing in some degree the
costly waste of the court, Constantine got the name of avarice, and was
accused, even by well-wishers, of a dangerous parsimony in the matter of
national defence.
§ 8. The real
business of government in the eleventh century rested largely with the brothers
of the sovereign. John the Paphlagonian, President of the Foundling Hospital,
had been the effective minister from 1030-1041, and was only expelled by his
nephew’s ungrateful folly. The brother of Isaac Comnenus, sharing with
Catacalon the high titular dignity of Curopalat, would seem to have brought
into a now empty office some genuine duties. The Caesar, John Ducas, brother of
Constantine XI., was for twenty years the moving spirit and the final arbiter
in the curious developments which ended in the Comnenian victory (1060-1081).
When Constantine XI. (like most Byzantine princes in this eleventh century)
fell rapidly into declining health, he commended his wife and the young
Augusti to his brother's care ; bidding her follow his advice in everything,
and his sons to obey him as a father. Eudocia Macrembolitissa, without any
technical exclusion of her sons, assumed the sovereignty and
reigned
alone, perhaps the fourth time in this period Emperors' (since Basil's death)
that one or two princesses had ^ot¥rs^T±l
i • i * m i t ii during Xlth
been
recognised as regnant. Although bound by a century: the
promise to
the defunct prince not to contract atwo Johns. second
marriage, Eudocia was expected by the Byzantine world to follow the example of
Theo- phano and of Zoe. Intrigues were set on foot to find a suitable match.
One favourite was Nicephorus Botaneiates, lately arrived in the capital with a
remnant of his troops and a few foreign auxiliaries attached to him by the
feudal tie of personal loyalty ; his main force having disbanded in Armenia, no
doubt in protest against arrears of pay and consistent neglect on the part of
the home government. The choice of the empress fell on an unexpected head, and
the previous career of Romanus Diogenes had given the public no warrant that he
would attain the chief place by marriage and legitimate association.
His father
had been convicted of treason, and owed Disgrace and his death to his own
ungovernable temper. Not a ^fdde1}
elpv&tiofi of
few Byzantine
rulers crept up the ladder of pro- Diogenes motion in spite of such a family
history; and Romanus (1067). found no hindrance to advancement. Appointed
patrician and Duke of Sardica, he had applied to Constantine XI. for the
titular office of Protovestiaire, which would otherwise appear an uncongenial
post for a member of the militant faction. Ducas replied with unusual brevity,
“ Deserve it”; and Romanus achieved no little success against the Patzinaks.
The
commission of Master of the Wardrobe was duly sent ; and Ducas with unwise
candour or spitefulness remarked that he owed it to his own right hand, and not
to the imperial favour. Sullen, but not yet openly mutinous, Romanus waited for
the demise of Constantine XI.; and was on the event at once suspected by the
court-party of designs against an empress-regent and three infants. He was summoned
to the capital, and the charge duly laid and supported by certain proof. Yet
his situation excited
Disgrace and a general sympathy; and the empress,
warming ^elevation of towarc*s a
gallant soldier, recommended the justices Diogenes to reconsider their verdict
and their sentence. How- (1067). ever much we may deplore
the constant interference of the Roman sovereign ,in the course of ordinary
justice, we cannot deny that such intervention was universally employed on the
side of mercy. In the light of further evidence and the obvious partiality of
the empress, Romanus was acquitted ; but despatched to his Cappadocian estates
to muse awhile on the vicissitudes of fortune and the caprices of the law. On
his way thither a messenger recalled him to receive the honours of magister
militum and arrpaTrjyog. Meantime, Eudocia has got from the patriarch Xiphi-
linus the solemn document in which at her husband's express desire she had
abjured second nuptials; and it is stated that the credulous prelate was led to
believe that the favoured candidate was to be his own brother Bardas. The aged monk
wasted much valuable time in reading the dissolute Bardas the wholesome lessons
of restraint in his new dignity : the court-party were still pressing the
claims of Botaneiates by obscure suggestion ; when Eudocia put an end to all
surmise by calling Romanus to the palace and announcing her marriage.
B. The Military Regency and the C^sar John :
Beginnings of Latin Intervention: the Misrule of Nicephoritzes (1067-1078)
§ 1. The
ambitious had to reckon with a new factor, the loyalty of the palace-guard, the
Varangians. They were devoted to the family of Ducas, and we may well suppose
that they had not been allowed to suffer from the straitened resources of the
military chest or the thrift of the war-office. They take up arms for the young
Augusti, and threaten to burn the palace. Eudocia reasons with the modest and
dutiful Michael, who had been awakened by his
Novel influences: Varangians and Latin soldiers of
fortune.
mother and
Psellus on the eve of the marriage to Novel hear the startling news. She convinces
him of the need of a regent to guard the rights of legitimate and Latin
innocence, and promises that when they are of full soldiers of age their
stepfather will retire. Michael VII. f°rturw' appeased the
tumult, and the Varangians (who were never the same menace as the Turkish
mercenaries in Bagdad) returned to their duty. The military party rallied round
the new emperor ; and the five sons of the Curopcilat John Comnenus, recently
dead, pressed (when their age allowed) into the service of a vigorous captain.
Romanus IV. lost no time in setting the dilapidated machinery of the army in
motion. His levies comprised a motley assemblage of Macedonians, Bulgars, and
Cappadocians. All Phrygia was placed under requisition for men and supplies.
The Uzes, recent enemies of the empire, joined the standard ; Norse bands under
Crispin ; and Varangians from the palace-guard, now reconciled to their new
master. Into the early successes and campaigns of Diogenes we need not enter ;
but we cannot dismiss without notice the novel element in the situation, the
Norse condottieri. Herve,
Radulph (or
Randolph), Gosselin, and later Russell of Balliol, must occupy the attention of
the historian ; forerunners of the Latin movement eastwards, which resulted in
the Latin kingdom and counties of the twelfth century, and impartially spent
itself against the Christian empire in 1204. Crispin belonged, it was said, to
the ancient corsair-family of the Grimaldis of Monaco; but his fathers had
settled in Normandy under Duke Rollo, and had learnt something of the roving
life of these turbulent vassals of France. He became an adventurer and a
soldier of fortune, and entered the service of the empire with his men, whether
kinsmen or retainers. Romanus IV. sent him into Asia; but receiving irregular
pay, he began to live by the plunder of citizens and tax- gatherers. He
defeated the Bulgar prince Samuel
Novel Alusianus
(whose sister Diogenes had married), and
Varandans Turks
sen^
against him by the questionable
and Latin policy
of the time. It was but a half-hearted
soldiers of mutiny
: and neither master nor servant was in
fovtUYMZ -
earnest.
Crispin demanded, and Romanus granted, a full amnesty; but on his recall the
court-whispers again convince the emperor of his treason and he is sent into
captivity at Abydos. The Frank colony at Manzikert revolts at this cold
treatment, and pillages Mesopotamia. Meantime the Turkish war runs its course;
Iconium is ravaged in 1069, Colossae (Khonae) in 1070 ; and after the great
defeat at Manzikert (where the faint assistance of doubtful friends compromised
the day) a treaty was drawn up of amity and alliance, subject to a ransom for
the imperial captive and a yearly tribute or a subsidy of 360,000 pieces of
gold.
Civilian § %
The subsequent proceedings to the death of
™jfoauf^er R°manus
IV. are obscure and perhaps discreditable; Manzikert. but it is not easy to
single out any one actor for censure. In the alarming rumours which reached the
capital, Romanus was reported dead, or given up for lost. The Caesar John
hurried home from the pleasures of the Bithynian chace, to guard the claims of
his nephews and retrieve the error of the fatal marriage. At first the proposal
embodied the joint-rule of Eudocia and her son ; the rights of Andronicus I.
and Constantine XII. being tacitly set aside. Meantime, Romanus was on the
march, to vindicate his prerogative: this, unlike Regulus of old (capitis minor
in virtue of his capitulation), he did not consider abrogated. The Caesar
exacted an oath from the guard never to acknowledge Diogenes; and these
proclaiming Michael VII. sole emperor, rush to the apartments of the empress
with loud and angry cries. Eudocia, hiding in a cavern, was rescued by the
Caesar, but forced to retire to a convent, where she survived perhaps until the
arrival of the earliest Latin pilgrims. Constantine (the
Caesar's son)
was sent in command against Romanus Civilian the outlaw, and defeats him at
Amasea, his head- r^^r^ter quarters,
driving him into the fortress of Tyropaeum. Manzikert. The faithful Armenian
Chatatures reinforces and encourages him ; and on the arrival of envoys from
Michael VII. offering terms, the ex-emperor returns an explicit negative. The
mother of the Comneni, suspected of sympathy with his cause, is exiled to ‘
Princes' Isle,
like many dignified and unhappy personages down to our own time. Andronicus
(another son of the Caesar) is now entrusted with the conduct of the war, which
for some reason Constantine had surrendered. But Romanus, shut up in Adana, and
absorbed in melancholy and humiliation, took no further part, but depended on
the eager loyalty of Chatatures. But this friend is Romanus taken prisoner, and
Romanus at last surrenders, receiving the solemn promise of personal safety
from the Archbishops of Chalcedon, Heraclea, and Colonea. Andronicus, brave but
faithless (as was alleged) in the great battle of Manzikert, behaved well to
his imperial captive. He is detained for a time at Cotyaeum in Phrygia ; and
the order of the Caesar arrives for the extinction of his sight. We can well
believe the asseveration of Psellus that Michael VII. knew nothing of this
barbarity, and that on this occasion, as on many others, the viziers and
ministers worked their own will under cover of their master's name. As to the
act itself, Psellus evidently believes that it was fully justified from a
political view and in the crisis of the moment.
He deplores
it only from the side of that humanity which was accepted as a Byzantine
tradition; and he does not regard it as a breach of good faith.
Andronicus
refuses to comply, and showed his indignation by genuine protests. But the
Caesar regent was all-powerful, and the blinded emperor, conveyed to the isle
of Prote, died there untended in that temper of Christian resignation and calm
VOL. II. U
Romanus deposed by Ccesar John.
Ministers and generals under M.
VII.: Nice- phoritzes.
heroism,
which we learn to expect in misfortune from these “ Greeks of the Lower
Empire." Such was the end of the last colleague-regent from the military
party, and the acute struggle between the two ideals of government culminated
in the year 1071. The character of Diogenes has been differently estimated.
Rather, while we admire his energy and valour, we must not deny his faults.
Reigning by the kind indulgence of his sovereign, who pardoned and raised him
to share her throne, he was arrogant, selfish, and boastful. He drew to himself
the sole power, ill-treating her (if we may believe the envious Psellus) with
actual blows, and committing, in the view of that strong constitutionalist,
the cardinal blunder or crime of a ruler, depending on his own judgment alone
and refusing advice. The results were mischievous. The name of the gentle
pedant Michael was abused by an unscrupulous minister. The injury rankled in
the mind of the warriors ; and Caesar John, recognising his error and seeing
with alarm the condition of the empire, threw his weight into the scale of the
soldiers, and brought in the Comnenian dynasty.
§ 3. The
mildness of Michael VII. was inopportune, and his good intention was
ineffectual. He was the victim of his servants, and exerted as little influence
over Roman destinies as over the See of Ephesus, which he is said to have once
visited as its metropolitan. Coming from a warlike stock (as his name implies)
he had lost all their aptitude or ambition. He was like Claudius or our own
James I., a punctilious purist and grammarian ; and he carried the literary
aspirations of his father to a dangerous extent, under the careful training of
Psellus. He wrote poems and discoursed on rhetoric, and played the docile
Marcus Aurelius to his teacher’s Fronto. Even the Caesar John (like the Chinese
regent at the present moment) did not himself transact the heavy imperial
business. The vizierate
was now a
recognised and perhaps a necessary insti- Ministers and tution ; for princes
born in the purple and bred in ^Mer^M the palace knew nothing of the realm or
its needs, vil.: Nice- They listened to the only home-truths they were
phoritzes. likely to hear, from outspoken bystanders during some solemn
procession. An episcopal chancellor was the centre and arbiter of all normal
administration, the Archbishop of Sid&, in Pamphylia, a wise and admirable
man of business. He recalled Anna, mother of the Comneni; and cemented a friendship
with the most numerous and powerful family by marrying a cousin of the young
empress to the eldest son, Isaac: Irene was a daughter of the king of the
Alans, then vassal to the Iberian ruler,
Bagrat IV.,
whose daughter Mary wedded two emperors in succession, Michael VII. and
Nicephorus III.
This happy
state of affairs did not last. Under Constantine XI. a certain Nicephoritzes, a
Galatian eunuch, had been a secretary of State, and Eudocia hating, like
Theodora, his chicanery and false suspicions, procured his dismissal somewhat
strangely by giving him the duchy of Antioch, an unsuitable post for a subtle
bureaucrat. Here he won the dislike and contempt of the province ; and Constantine
XI. recalled him and placed him in custody.
But the
regent Romanus IV. was indebted to him for large funds raised for the expenses
of the Turkish war,—the method and source of which financial aid he no doubt
forbore to investigate too closely. He released him from prison, and gave him
the post of Chief Justice of Hellas and the Peloponnese, an office once held by
Monomachus (c. 1040). The Caesar John created him grand Logothete, and the
Roman world once again beheld a John of Cappadocia. Worming himself into the
confidence of Michael VII., he supplants the Caesar and becomes sole favourite.
If we can believe the historians, there is nothing but indictments and
accusations, delations and spying and heavy sentences, con-
Ministers and
under M. VII.: Nicephoritzes.
Russell revolts and captures Ccesar John.
fiscation of
municipal or private wealth, such as we are led to expect to-day from a very
different form of government. Appointed sovereign administrator of the Hebdom
monastery, he perverts the donations of the pious laity to his own profit; and
creates a lucrative monopoly in wheat (like early Roman governors and American
financiers) by buying up the harvest of Thrace and garnering the grain at
Rhedestus. Diminishing the bushel by a quarter, and enhancing the price for the
reduced measure, he won for his unfortunate master the unmerited nickname by
which he is known in history, 7rapa7rivdKr]$. The Caesar in umbrage had again
retired to his Asiatic hunting-grounds, and employed six months in that
strenuous leisure, which brings the Byzantine noble, out of office, so much
nearer to the English statesman than to the lethargic Roman of classical days.
But Nicephoritzes grew alarmed at the steadily rising influence of the Comneni;
and recalled the Caesar. Once more he assumed the upper hand ; and once more
the eunuch-minister has to disembarrass himself of a benefactor and a rival. He
induced Michael VII. to believe that no one else could conduct the campaign
against Russell (OvpcrvXiog), the second Latin adventurer who disturbed Asia
at this time. Succeeding to the command of the Frankish “foreign legion"
after Crispin the <ppayyo7rov\6$t he had shown
to the Comneni the feudal spirit of insubordination, and levied contributions
and subsidies like a brigand-chief throughout Phrygia, Galatia, and Cappadocia.
The Caesar's army was a motley gathering, like the forces of Romanus IV.:
barbarians from the European side, a Frank corps commanded by Pape, and the
usual Asiatic levies of Phrygia and Lycaonia. An actual battle was fought near
the river Sangarius in Galatia with the mutineers ; and forms an excellent
instance of the danger of mercenary troops and of the personal resentment which
at several crises in our
history
divided interests and paralysed action. The Russell Frank contingent not
unnaturally fraternised with revolts
and
° J captures
their rebel
kinsmen; and Nicephorus Botaneiates , Ccesar John,
annoyed since
the disappointment of 1067, sullenly
draws off his
forces, exposing the brave Caesar to
the whole
brunt of the fight. The Caesar, trying to
rescue his
son Andronicus in a dangerous combat,
is taken and
made a prisoner with him by the
exultant
Russell.
§ 4. The days
of the fifth century are now revived. Once more the Teuton or Norseman gains
admittance into the empire after a rigorous exclusion of 600 years. Once more
in the camp of a Latin mercenary is carried about a tame Caesar, poor, spectral
heir of Augustus and Trajan. The captive of yesterday becomes the honoured
guest and titular sovereign, and the rebellion takes on the excuse of a
vindication of John's rights. It is doubtful if Russell for a brief moment
entertained the design of seizing the throne himself ; it is obvious that if so
he speedily abandoned it. Constantine (elder son of the Caesar) was sent by the
minister Nicephoritzes to avenge the fate of his father and brother; but on the
eve of taking command he dies of colic, and I prefer not to impute to the
incredible villainy and folly of the eunuch a sad event entirely explicable by
natural causes.
Russell armed
the imperial family against itself ; and proclaims and forced the genuinely
reluctant Caesar to assume htm
emPeror- the
imperial title. At first he declined the honour, but hearing that he had many
partisans in the capital, and honestly desirous of saving the dynasty, he at
last assented. Like Attalus or Eugenius or Gerontius he is saluted emperor by
the Franks. After this events moved wildly. Michael VII. sends to Russell as
token of pardon and amity his wife and children, and gave him the title
Curopalat. But the crafty minister, no doubt without the express order or
cognisance of the emperor, stirred up against the
Casar John
proclaimed
emperor.
by Turks, Russell regains his freedom,
but is reduced by Alexius.
rebel and his
usurper the forces of the Turks. It is difficult to realise the condition of
the Asiatic interior after the defeat of Manzikert. The comedy of the Roman
succession was played out on a deserted scene, and the victors gained little advantage
from their dissension or preoccupation. The levies were made in the very
districts we might well suppose were harried and ransacked by the Seljuk ; and
the solution must be that only sporadic detachments of Curds and Turkmans
pressed on, each acting separately, towards the western coast, and were the
pioneers of a constant filtration into Ionia. Astonishingly quiescent, the main
body of Turks halted on the verge of Cappadocia under Tutach, to the number of
100,000. These attack the troops of Russell; against the Caesar’s advice (he
could not command his imperious Master of the Horse) the first onset is
fiercely resisted, and Russell fell into the main contingent unawares. The
Caesar joined the mad enterprise and shared his fate. Both were taken prisoners
; and Michael VII., relieved at the failure of the condottieri-captain, ransoms
his uncle and obliges him to take the monk’s cowl and tonsure. Unhappily for
the peace of Pontus and the security of the court, Russell recovers his
liberty, and spreads havoc in the neighbourhood of Amasea and Neocaesarea.
Michael, deferring to the last the dreaded help of the Comnenians, sends to
requisition 6000 men from the Prince of the Alans (either in accordance with
the express covenant of a treaty or in view of the recent marriage-alliance).
Nicephorus Palaeologus (first mention of this familiar name) is sent to take
command ; and with the usual perversity of the civilian war-office pay is
withheld, and the once alert allies disband in confusion.
§ 5. It was
agreed by all that the only hope of safety lay in the valour of the united
clans. Alexius, now aged twenty-five, received a commission to extirpate the
tyrant, and
like Belisarius, was told to expect neither Russell men nor money from the
State. Raising his own ^d^dius retainers, and
acting with that humane tact which passes with the closet-historian for craven
duplicity, he detached the soldiers and Turkish allies from the cause of the
Norse rebel. Tutach seized Russell once more—and this time in the service of
the empire—and sent him bound to Alexius at Amasea.
Here occurred
the curious incident, when the merchants of Amasea refused to assist the
imperialists by a subsidy ; when Alexius appealed to the people against the
selfishness of the middle class, like a true Caesar in a democratic republic,
or a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer in a popular budget. Movements were
still being made to deliver Russell, and enable him to continue the
guerilla-warfare which was the delight of his band of countrymen.
Alexius by a
kindly pretence affects to blind the rebel to keep off his dangerous friends,
and conveys him to Constantinople ; there he is beaten and immured. Movement in
—The Balkan district was at this juncture disturbed the Balkans’ by a revolt of Bulgars and Serbs, to
diversify by a foreign war the constant series of domestic sedition.
The former, exasperated
by the fiscal exaction of Nicephoritzes (just as before under Leo VI. by
Stylianus), chose a king and defied, without success, the European imperialists
: their king was sent out of danger and out of mischief into a Syrian exile,
but was subsequently delivered and came home. The Servian revolt was fostered
and maintained by Longibardi- poulos with his Lombard kinsmen from Italy, and
his influence was increased by his marriage with the king’s daughter. The
capital was dissatisfied at the inaction of Michael VII.: after the example of
Romanus IV., military prowess was once more believed to form an indispensable
title. But in this respect Disappoint- at least Michael was incompetent, and
had no vain ™nt °f. illusions ; he decided, not without the
approval of who prepares his all-powerful minister, to confer the
title Caesar «revolt.
Disappointment of Bryennius, who prepares a revolt.
upon
Bryennius, then sojourning at his birthplace, Adrinople, for long past the home
of a warlike spirit and an independent population. Before Bryennius obeyed the
summons, Michael VII. changed his mind, or suffered it to be changed by the
insidious eulogists of the merits, the courage, the enterprise of the new
favourite. As to Agricola under Domitian, the laudantes amid were the most
deadly of his foes. He is given the title Duke of Bulgaria, and the commission
to chase the Serbs and Slavs. He has great success; and extending his sphere he
settles at Dyrrachium, and from thence curbs the insolence of Croats and the
forays of Norse pirates. A second Pompey, he soon subdues all disturbing
elements, and cleanses the Adriatic Gulf, which since Basil had begun once more
to recognise a Byzantine sovereign. This enterprise provided prestige and
employment for the military class ; but discontent was still rife in other
quarters, owing to the tactless injuries of the Premier and the withdrawal of
rations and equipment. The Danubian garrisons were at the time commanded by an
old slave of Constantine XI., Nestor, decorated with the ducal title, who acted
in concert with Tat, a Patzinak chief in the imperial service. The half-pagan
forces had been guilty of sacrilege in the search for booty at Prespa during
the recent war. Deprived of all their plunder for reasons which appear to them
singularly inadequate, they burst into open mutiny, and carried with them their
commanders Tat and Nestor. Presenting themselves before the walls of the
capital, they demand what they believed in their honest conviction to be simple
justice. Nicephoritzes, who never lost an occasion of humiliating a captain,
confiscates the estate of Nestor; and nearly succeeds in securing his person.
But the duke departed, began to lay waste Thrace, Macedonia, and the Bulgarian
frontier, and finally retired among the Patzinaks. In the sedition of barbarian
auxiliaries the Macedonian
troops had
taken no part; but they too had their Disappoint- grievances and demanded
redress. Their envoys ™ent °J. listen to the scornful refusal and
acrimonious insult, who prepares habitual in the treatment of the army ; and
returning « revolt, to Macedonia, with bitterness in their heart, communicate
their discontent and prepare the way for the great rising of Nicephorus
Bryennius.
§6. In 1077,
Bryennius found his position in- and assumes tolerable, owing to the weakness
of his sovereign tJie and the enmity of the minister. He was
amazed to discover that the friendly envoy Eustathius had been sent by the
timid Michael to penetrate his motives and purpose; and the unfounded suspicion
of treason converted a loyal subject into a traitor. But it is unlikely that he
would have taken the initiative, if his brother John and Basilacius had not
returned from an interview with the minister, furious at his refusal of all
their requests for recompense and recognition.
John retired
in dudgeon to his Thracian estate (for the great feudal landlords were not
confined to Lesser Asia), and hears with indignation and alarm that a drunken
Varangian in a village inn near Adrinople had boasted of his secret commission
to compass his murder. He seizes, examines, and cuts his nose; and will owe to
this not unseasonable severity his own assassination some years later. In
concert with the chief inhabitants of Adrinople he works to arouse an
insurrection, and excites his still hesitating brother at Dyrrachium. He even
overcomes the scruples of the long faithful loyalist Tarchaniotes, who, unable
to arouse the Premier to a sense of danger, felt himself compelled to join the
rebel and married his sister to John's son. The minister, neither competent nor
diplomatic, actually allowed his master to name Basilacius governor of Illyria,
with orders to give short shrift to the mutineers and seize Nicephorus.
Reconciled for a moment to the imperial cause by this unmerited honour, he at
first refuses the overtures of the
Bryennius assumes the purple.
The Capital invested and relieved.
Bryennians;
but in the sequel joined them at Thessalonica with his men. All the Thracian
and Macedonian troops are assembled outside Tra- janople ; and Nicephorus,
still averse to taking the final and irrevocable step, is here persuaded to do
so, by the threats or entreaties of friends and soldiers and by the nocturnal
shouts of the beleaguered city itself in his honour. This took place on October
3rd. (Seven days later, as we shall see, Nicephorus Botaneiates also assumed
the purple.) He marches to his home, Adrinople, and is welcomed with joy. The
Bryennians now suggest terms to the emperor, for whom they entertained nothing
but good- humoured contempt and pity. In an age affording many remarkable
instances of brotherly unselfishness, John was, according to custom, decorated
with the titles of Curopalat and Grand Domestic and sent forward with the Uzes
and Patzinaks. Rhedestus, home of the late iniquitous monopoly, and Panium were
both willingly surrendered to the party ; and for some obscure cause Heraclea
was burnt,—a rare incident of retaliation in a chivalrous age when constant
warfare implied neither ravage nor cruelty. Indeed, a similar incident or
accident estranged the warm sympathies of the citizens of the capital, who were
preparing to declare themselves for Bryennius. They were filled with anger at
the wanton havoc wrought by some barbarian marauders across the Horn in the
suburban houses, which, though deserted, still contained their rich furniture,
believed to be safe in the mimic tournament of a civil war. Michael VII. sends
out the titular Augustus Constantine XII. in company with the indispensable
Alexius and Russell, taken from his dungeon. Hastily arming their own domestics
and any chance comer, they break out and surprise these buccaneers, carrying
captive twenty of their stragglers. This petty defeat, magnified into a triumph
by the populace, and the irksome delay before the walls, cooled the ardour of
the Bryennians;
and
John, who had not ceased to be a Roman The Capital because he rebelled against
an odious minister, and
started at
once in pursuit on hearing the report of a fresh Patzinak inroad. The investing
army breaks up and, directed to the Chersonese, inflicts loss on the invaders;
while his brother, the emperor of Adrinople, secures by means of the captives
the firm friendship and alliance of the Patzinaks for his cause.
§ 7. The
situation on the eve of the revolt of Strange Botaneiates was singular and
anomalous. The ^^rfm capital was defended by Germans and Varangians, and Europe
and, administered by a slave. The emperor, kindliest of Asia> 1078' men, was known to exert no influence, and spent his
time in those harmless literary pursuits which from Claudius and Nero to
Michael VII. formed a most serious charge in the indictment of a Caesar. The
armies, divided into the European and the Asiatic, and reinforced by foreign
and barbarian aid, were still in large part composed of native levies. After a
long silence the reviving themesy or rather duchies, of
the western empire claimed to exercise the prerogative of choosing their ruler.
The Macedonian troops, grudgingly supported by the civilian war-office, were
attached to their feudal captains, taken from a few notable families of Asiatic
and Armenian descent.
The populace,
by no means servile or cowed by these constant “ pronunciamentos,” welcomed a
military pretender, compassionated their powerless but innocent prince, and
detested the tyranny of the monopolist. The Seljuks, during the whole term of
Michael's nominal reign, would seem to have withheld their hand, and left the
arena free for the settlement of the Roman disputes. Indeed, they are found
more often acting as obedient allies and vassals than as active foes. Still,
the roving bands filtered through into the deserted interior of Lesser Asia,
pressed to the western coasts, and formed the principal support of the forces
of Melissenus, yet
Strange
another Nicephorus, to whom must be ascribed the 8lt™tl0n:
°f foundation of the Sultanate of Rum. The astonishing
zfiB
etnpiTB in m
Europe
and silence and modesty of the Turk after Manzikert Asia, 1078. allowed
free-play to the combatants in that strange duel of civilian and soldier,
during which the institutions of ancient Rome completely disappeared.
CONFLICT OF
THE THREE NICEPHORI: THE MISRULE OF BORILAS; AND THE REVOLT OF THE FAMILIES OF
DUCAS AND COMNENUS (1078-1081).
§ 1. In the
somewhat tangled series of events which Union of led finally to the seizure and
sack of the capital by the Comnenians, the intimate relation and firm friend-
Ducas. ship of the two chief families must by,no means be forgotten. Michael
VII. had no more loyal subject and lieutenant than Alexius ; Constantine XII.
no more trusty companion. The Caesar John, veritable king-maker of the period,
maintained towards him throughout a consistent confidence and affection ; and
it was by his arbitrament, arguments, and entreaties that the crown was at
last transferred to the Comnenian dynasty. Andronicus, his son, had never
recovered strength after his wounds in the Russell tumult, and was slowly dying
; his daughter,
Irene Ducas,
was married to Alexius, and the two houses doubly bound together. Constantine
XII. would have preferred his own sister Zoe for his friend; and Anna
Dalassena, mother of the Comneni, had not forgiven her brief and honourable
exile at the hands of the Caesar. Nor was the facile Michael convinced of the
wisdom of this alliance.
But John, who
with the monk’s cowl did not lose interest or influence in public affairs, had
the usual success of firm resolve and honest purpose. After some trifling
success of Alexius, objections were swept away and the nuptials celebrated amid
great public joy.—Meantime the Eastern troops, honey- Insurrection combed by
discontent, envied the European forces their resolute conduct, but refused to
acknowledge Botaneiates.
Insurrection
of Eastern troops under Botaneiates.
their
candidate. Once more the armies of the Taurus frontier sustained their
prerogative of creating the prince, which was so long their unquestioned right.
On October 10, 1077, a second Nicephorus Phocas, an aged and now lethargic
veteran, assumed the purple, convoked the officers of Asia Minor, and divided
amongst them the usual dignities and titles of honour. Only two captains of
distinction preserved their good faith to the civilian regime; Nicephorus
Melissenus (who won in later days a sinister fame) and George Palaeologus,
whose father at this time was in command of such territory and such forces as
the Turks chose to allow the Romans in Mesopotamia. The cause of Botaneiates
was everywhere popular, not by reason of his personal character so much as by
way of protest against an unworthy tyrant. The towns of Pontus, Cappadocia, and
Galatia opened their gates to him ; well disposed towards a change of masters,
and enlisted by trusty envoys, by the promises and example of senators and
clergy, among whom the Patriarch of Antioch, Emilianus, was prominent. To the
mind of Nice- phoritzes suggested itself one single unique and unpatriotic
expedient; he secretly begged Soliman to stop the nearer advance of the new
rebels. But Botaneiates with but three hundred men manages, in spite of this
formidable obstacle, to traverse the length of Asia Minor, by way of Cotyaeum,
Azula (on the Sangar), and Nice ; and to disarm the hostility of the Sultan by
the hired offices of Kroudj (Chrysos- culus), the amiable renegade. Before the
walls of Nice, Nicephorus halts with his scanty following; he sees with
consternation the battlements manned and the walls lined with soldiers and
citizens. But to his relief and joy it is his own name that is thundered forth
by them in the imperial salutation ; and he reposes securely in the city while
awaiting reinforcement from his friends and news from the capital. For in
Constantinople the sympathy was general;
senators and
clergy, as in Asia, were warm adherents; Insurrection Emilian of Antioch and
the Archbishop of Iconium, %wp8^nder leaving their flocks, succumbed to the
delights of Botaneiates. political intrigue.
§ 2. The
support of the Caesar John was believed Abdication of to be essential to
success. An envoy, Michael Barus, Mtchael VI1- was
sent to shake his constancy, but to no purpose; and the indignant uncle
apprehends the emissary, and informs his nephew and (what was more important)
the minister Nicephoritzes. But the inertia or mistaken clemency of Michael
VII. ruined any hopes of prompt action, in which still remained a chance of
success. The conspirators the next day (March 24) open the prisons (a now
favourite method), and assemble in St. Sophia, where revolution always sought
the divine sanction, and failure the divine protection. In the still potent
names of Senate and Patriarch they summoned all good citizens to repair with
them to the great church. But Alexius advises stern measures; and believes that
one charge of the palace-guard under a well-known captain would disperse the
mutineers. The emperor is shocked at this advice ; “ Would you have me lose my
reputation for clemency ? ” asked the unhappy scholar ; and abdicating in
favour of his brother, Constantine XII., he retired to the church of Blachern.
The new
monarch at once repudiates the offer of a Borilas enters throne, and hastens to
pay his homage to the veteran who is cautiously and by slow stages approaching
to vengeance assume the power which Michael had let fall so on Njce~ tamely. Borilas, a slave, is sent ahead to take formal Phontzes'
possession of the palace in the name of Nicephorus III., and Alexius and
Constantine are welcomed in the camp, though his distrust and suspicion of the
Ducas family is only dispelled by the straightforward apology of Alexius. The
Caesar John, who had not been allowed to save his nephew's throne, now advises
him in his irretrievable plight to become a monk, and the Studium receives the
imperial novice.
Weakness
and extravagance of Nicephorus III.
Borilas
enters Meantime, Nicephoritzes makes good his escape to andtaJ^es Selymbria,
where at his command Russell the Nor- vengeance man had taken his stand. He
essayed to turn the °phoritzes Norman to the cause of Bryennius, and failing,
is believed to have poisoned him. The friends of Russell carried the fallen
minister to Nicephorus III., who sends him into exile. But the household slaves
who then controlled the government, Borilas and Ger- manus, urge the emperor to
inquire into his secret hoards of wealth. Contrary to the emperor’s orders,
torture is used by Straboromanus to compel restitution, and under it
Nicephoritzes expired (1078).
§ 3. This
bloodless revolution had once more restored the supreme authority to a
warrior. But, from the military point of view, the character and spirit of the
soldier, once elevated to the purple, underwent a complete deterioration. The
etiquette of the palace confined him within its precincts, and formulated his
daily routine with rigid precision. He inherited all his predecessor's
diffidence in respect of the army- corps, reposed his trust and the welfare of
the realm solely in menials, and once more raised the old struggle between the
warrior and the civilian. Borilas and Germanus were the imperial slaves and confidants,
who rose, like Icelus in the service of Galba, from household duties to the
control of affairs. Botaneiates, to secure the still doubtful favour of the
official world, opens the treasury, and with spendthrift generosity, lavishes
titles and pensions broadcast. The State was ruined by these extravagant
doles; distinctions were vulgarised ; the fisc was exhausted ; and at last
recourse was had to the most disgraceful expedient of a bankrupt empire—the debasement
of the coinage. He attempted to come to terms with Bryennius, his Macedonian
rival, and despatches Straboromanus, a kinsman of his own, with Chcero-
sphactes, a relative of Bryennius. They met the pretender in Mcesia, near
Theodorople, and offered adoption as Caesar and the second place in the
administration.
Like Isaac Comnenus, in the similar Weakness crisis of 1057, Bryennius accepted
these conditions, and extra- merely stipulating that the honours and titles of
his V^k^hwus partisans should be confirmed, and
that his corona- III• tion as Caesar should take place outside the city.
Asked his
reason, he bluntly confessed his entire disbelief in the good faith of the
ministers. Their influence broke off the negotiations; and the emperor had to
appeal to Alexius, now invested with the rank of Nobilissimus and Grand
Domestic. The names and numbers of the soldiers under his command are
instructive and significant. The Eastern or Asiatic forces were still
congregated on the Turkish frontier ; and in 1077 (according to Samuel of Ani),
six years after Manzikert, a Roman army had engaged with Gomechtikin near the
old contested border- forts of Nisibis and Amida. Alexius had trained a new
corps, the Immortals, named after the famous bodyguard of the Persians; he
leads the men of Choma (Xco/maTrjvol), a detachment from Mount Taurus and the
warlike settlements there; and this motley host is reinforced by Soliman the
Seljuk.
Advancing
with Catacalon to the river Almyras, in Alexius ends Thrace, he comes in sight
of the splendid array of ^yenniufat Bryennius and Tarchaniotes of Adrinople
(now his Calabrya. most faithful lieutenant) ; Italian mercenaries, Uzes and
Patzinaks (under the terms of the recent alliance), and the regular detachments
of Thrace and Macedonia, become of late the flower of the Roman forces.
The
battle was fought at Calabrya, and long hung in a doubtful issue. The Franks
under Alexius desert to their kinsmen’s side, and the Patzinaks rout the army
of Catacalon. But by a clever ruse the Imperialists spread the report that
Bryennius had fallen, and point to a riderless horse which had been captured by
Alexius. The Turks arrive at the opportune moment, and add terror to the now
wavering party of the pretender. As in most battles of the feudal period, there
would seem to have been little loss of vol.
11. x
Alexius
ends the revolt of Bryennius at Calabrya.
Revolt
of Basilacius in Illyria.
life and much
chivalrous display of personal valour. The Turks, surrounding their gallant
foe, entreat him not to throw away his life, and conduct him to Alexius. The
two generals travel together in amicable intercourse as comrades, and Bryennius
refuses to take advantage of the slumber of Alexius, either to avenge his own
defeat or secure his safety by flight. But the vindictive ministers sent
Alexius on another quest, and he was not able to entrust his captive to the
clemency of Nicephorus. Borilas gives orders that Bryennius should be blinded;
and the feeble emperor mourned the deed, disclaimed responsibility, and by
every means—by invitation to the palace, and by new wealth and added
dignities—attempted to atone for the irreparable outrage. With no less kindness
he allowed the Bryennian faction to retain the grades and distinctions
conferred by the usurper, and no further inquiry was made as to their behaviour
in the recent sedition. The vengeance of a menial and a barbarian mercenary
alone demanded cruel satisfaction; Borilas had mutilated Nicephorus, and the
injured Varangian requited his own wrong by assassinating John, as he left the
palace after a friendly interview with the emperor. At this murder and contempt
for authority the cold prince was filled with righteous indignation, and wished
to punish the criminal. The whole body of Varangians broke out into mutiny, and
threatened to murder the emperor, to whom they had not yet transferred the contemptuous
yet faithful loyalty borne to the house of Ducas. Botaneiates could not control
his soldiers, and trembled before his servants. His gifts had not secured respect
or affection ; and the firm rule (as had been expected) of a resolute general
became the tyranny of a palace-clique or a Turkish guard.
§ 4. Meantime
the harvest of pretenders was by no means over. The Western Provinces, awaking
from their long slumber of exhaustion, claimed equal rights in the election of
a prince. The area of the
malcontents
comprised Illyria and Macedonia; the Revolt of modern country of European
Albania, and the home ^8^tus tn of the Shkipetars, the
Toskidae and Geghidae, and of * the formidable Turkish rebel Ali Pasha of
Jannina.
Basilacius
took up the cause which had fallen almost by an accident from the hands of
Bryennius.
Long before
the end of that futile revolt he had approached Achrida and consulted the
Archbishop whether he should assume the purple. The churchman dissuaded him,
and he retired, to watch events and to protect the empire, to Dyrrhachium, with
his mingled forces of Illyrians, Macedonians, Bulgars,
Franks, and
Lombards from Italy. On the coronation of Nicephorus III. he wrote a letter of
congratulation • and welcome, and receives from him the title of Nobilissimus
with a golden Bull. But while the contest of Imperialists and Bryennians was
hanging in the balance, he threw off disguise and delays, took the Augustan
name and attire, and waited with calm indifference to question the right and
challenge the fortune of the survivor in the duel. Alexius encamped on a plain
near the river Vardar (Axius), and Basilacius issued forth from his
headquarters at Thessalonica (six leagues' journey) to encounter him.
The
engagement was long uncertain, and if we are to believe historians, it was at
last decided, like Calabrya, by a conspicuous exploit of personal valour.
This, while
it turned the tide and determined the issue, gave no proof of the relative
strength or spirit of the combatants. While Manuel, a nephew of Basilacius,
exultantly proclaims aloud that the day is theirs, a Macedonian-Armenian and
Imperialist named Curticius seizes him bodily, drags him from his saddle, and
carries him off to the feet of Alexius.
Basilacius
drew off his crestfallen troops to Thessalonica, and is by them compelled to
capitulate.
Either the
army was growing weary of constant sedition, or it had determined that the
captain and inspired leader of the warriors could not be found
Misgivings
of Alexius, once more victorious.
Restless
state of European and Asiatic provinces.
in
Basilacius. Once more the clemency of Alexius and of his sovereign was eluded
or openly flouted ; between Amphipolis and Philippi messengers arrive from
Borilas, who demand the person of the captive, and inflict the usual penalty
for high treason. The position of Alexius now gave him reason for serious
thought. The trusted right hand and indispensable champion of the Imperialist
cause, the friend and favourite of the aged emperor, he had become the sport of
slaves, who sent him breathless from one post of danger to another, allowed him
no repose, and robbed him of the recompense and credit of his victories. His
achievements were tarnished by their cruelty and bad faith ; and he knew well
that they would hail his failure with secret joy, as they had regarded his
success with spiteful envy. He was now decorated by his grateful sovereign with
the new title He/Bao-ros ; and the 11 Greeks," in conferring this dignity upon private
subjects outside the imperial family, would seem to forget that it is a mere
translation of “ Augustus/' But the favour of the emperor counted for little
at the court, and was no guarantee of security. Nicephorus III. had just
married the wife of Michael VII., consoled for the loss of kingdom and partner
with the Archbishopric of Ephesus; and the young Constantine XIII., born in the
purple and invested with the imperial dignity in his cradle, became the stepson
and prospective heir of a childless and uxorious prince ; his proposed union to
Robert Guiscard’s daughter Helen was broken off, and in the issue we might see
how fraught with evil result was this rupture.1
§ 5. With the
settlement of the disputed succession, the inhabitants of either continent
might reasonably hope for a period of quiet and recuperation. Their
1
The Byzantine court had now completely laid aside its vain and Chinese
exclusiveness in the question of imperial princesses ; the regula’ tions or
.advice of Constantine VII., never adhered to with strict fidelity, were now
again and again disregarded ; and Nicephorus wedded his niece, a daughter of
Theodulus of Synnada, to the Craal of Hungary.
hopes were
disappointed. The European provinces Restless state
were once
more overrun by Patzinaks (no doubt °{n^u2giatic
the late
allies of the two Macedonian pretenders), provinces.
and by
Paulicians, a fiery race of Covenanters, who
still
retained their faith and truceless hatred of
Greek Church
and Byzantine rule in their new home
in Thrace.
The former burnt a large part of Adrin-
ople, home of
the recent sedition. Lecas, a Paulician
heretic,
slays the Bishop of Sardica at the altar, and
Dobrouni,
another of the same creed, acting in
concert with
him, spreads terror in the vicinity of
Mesembria.
These two miscreants, tiring of outlawry,
conceive the
bold project of demanding amnesty
and pardon
from Nicephorus ; it is granted with
criminal
indulgence, and thus the lenient ruler is
obliged for
the second time to condone an atrocious
murder, in an
age unusually tender in regard to
human life.
Nor was Asia more tranquil. The
Turks had
begun again their inroads, dissatisfied (as
we may well
suppose) with the recompense meted
out by the
courtiers for their service in the late
sedition.
Alexius, detained against the Basilacians, Futile
was
not available, and Constantine XII., the son ™belh°n°f , _ 1 . , .T , „ Const. XII.
of Ducas, was
sent in command. Never formally
despoiled of
the Augustan title which he had carried since birth, he conceives that the time
has now arrived for enforcing his claims. Crossing to Chry- sopolis with the
forces allotted to him, he assumed the garb and title to which he had a right,
and seemed uncertain whether he would teach the Turkish marauder a lesson or
overthrow the government.
But his
attempt proves , abortive ; and Nicephorus immures him as a monk in some
convent on the Propontis: in the next reign he will be seen as a trusted
captain in the expeditions of Alexius. All these events seem crowded into a
single anxious and turbulent year. But it would be a mistake to exaggerate the
misery or bloodshed caused by these incessant civil wars. The condition and the
senti-
Futile
rebellion of Const. XII.
Like
earlier Slavonic immigrants, the Turks penetrate into Asia Minor.
ment of the
provinces, always obscure under a centralised government, cannot be distinctly
revealed by the most patient search. Still, it may be inferred that the
western half enjoyed considerable prosperity, in spite of the brilliant
skirmishes and tourneys which amused the mercenaries and gratified the
military instincts of the Armenian families and Macedonian nobles. As for
Lesser Asia, it is hard to ascertain the extent or the design of the Turkish
forays or Turkish migrations wending slowly and without violence to the western
coast. Life went on much the same in the luxurious society of the walled towns,
and the nomad Turkomans may have been accepted with indifference and permitted
to settle, or rather bivouac, on Roman soil. This part of Asia, in a word, was
Turkicised much as Greece and Macedonia were Slavonised in the seventh and
eighth centuries. There was no definite moment when Roman authority ceased in
the various districts, when the writ of a Roman emperor ceased to run.
Permeated by degrees, and at first in its more desolate regions, by new
colonists, the country lost by silent and stealthy encroachment its language,
its government, and its creed. The urban centres still retained their wealth
and culture, speedily recovered any violent raid which from time to time fell
on them, and willingly abandoned to the new occupants whole tracts of
superfluous pasturage. Meantime the new settlers or nomads, with a savage’s
deep-seated dislike of needless war, became peaceful countrymen, carrying into
a desert the rules and customs of a patriarchal community. They crept into the
service of the Romans, and into the religious faith of the Greeks. Utterly
lacking in the conception of a wider polity than the tribe, they looked with
amazement at the complicated mechanism of the empire, fell into place like
Teutons and Goths before them as soldiers, husbandmen, and household domestics
; and even
mounted
into the high places of spiritual and civil Like earlier ruje Slavonic
§ 6. The
influx of the Turks differed no doubt '^Turks*’ in important details and in
general result; but the penetrate into method was the same—a gradual
infiltration and no Asia Minor' definite challenge or conquest. We must
repeat that the Turks, under Soliman, are found more often as allies than as
enemies of Rome; and the attitude of the Seljuks was not by any means wholly
hostile.
As with the
Goths under Valens, 378, their violence or breach of faith was often the issue
of some tactless meddling of government officials. The Turkomans who followed
in the train of the Seljuks were not fighters by conviction but bandits by
necessity.
Pillage was
to them a means of livelihood ; they had neither the fixed design nor the
discipline necessary for annexation. Their masters and superiors, the Seljuk
caste, had no wish to overthrow the empire.
For
the Sultanate of Rum, which stands out so boldly in the map as an independent
power, had its origin no doubt, like the Frankish power in Gaul or the
Visigothic in Spain, in some curious and confused sentiment in which alliance,
vassalage, and occasionally overt enmity were unequally blended. Nor can it be
for a moment doubted that the real founder of this Turkish dominion in Hither
Asia was a Roman and pretender to the purple. In 1080, Nicephorus “Nicephorus “
the Fifth," Melissenus, brother-in-law of Alexius, a
took the
imperial title. Himself a great feudal lord principality. in Cos, he had
influence on the mainland. Allying with these roving Turkish bands he founded a
principality along the coast,„ which gave an augury and example of the Latin
counties in loose vassalage to the kingdom of Jerusalem. With these strange
allies or mercenaries, he becomes master of Phrygia and Galatia ; and it would
be difficult to decide whether in effect a new usurper had assumed the purple
or a foreign tribe had ousted Roman customs and authority from a large and fertile
district. Was
“
Nicephorus V” founds a Turkoman principality.
Alexius
declines to serve against him.
it but
another ephemeral revolt or a revolution ? The chief cities opened their gates
to him and his masterful servants without demur or conviction; and a powerful
army of mixed troops was stationed in Nice (henceforth, until the coming of the
Crusaders, the headquarters of a rival to the Byzantine Caesar). The court
proposed to send against this new pretender the usual scourge of rebels,
Alexius. The emperor had lavished on him and his family the most honourable
marks of favour and affection. Isaac, returning lately, 1079, from a prosperous
viceroyalty as Duke of Antioch, was created 'Ee^aarog, lodged in the palace,
and apparently chosen in all but open promulgation as heir-presumptive. His
advice was taken, or at least he was officially consulted, in all affairs ; and
the star of the servile camarilla waned. Incapable of business, but
well-meaning and amiable, Nicephorus III. might have reigned in confidence and
security as a constitutional monarch had not the traditions of Byzantine
despotism made him the prey and the victim of his valets.
§ 7. Alexius,
fatigued and distrustful, had lately curbed the raids of the Patzinaks, by
turns servants and spoilers of the Balkan district. He put little faith in the
imperial favour, or rather the imperial advisers, and declined the commission
to overthrow the fifth Nicephorus. As in old times a palace- eunuch is
appointed in his place, raised, like Narses under Justinian, from the control
of the imperial wardrobe (TrpcdTofiecrTKxpm, a title coveted even by warriors)
to the responsible direction of a foreign campaign. To the annoyance of the
army, John takes over the command from Alexius, and leads his force to Nice. There
he secures Fort George on Lake Asernius, near which Nice is built, and holds a
council of war to discuss its future conduct. Curticius (the hero of Calabrya)
and George Palseo- logus, his uncle, recommend an immediate attack on the
Sultan at Dorylaeum. John insists on his sole
authority,
and drags the army into a distressing Alexius
plight, from
which he is only rescued by George
Palaeologus.
He repays this timely service by black him.
ingratitude,
and prejudices the emperor’s mind
against the worthiest
of his captains. The court-
party dared
not repeat the experiment; no further
levies were
trusted either to a soldier or a civilian ;
and
Melissenus (astonishing to relate) continued un- West Asia
disturbed to
divide Hither Asia peaceably with the md^Pendent
r . and aggres-
Turks into
the reign of Alexius. So far from acting 8ive. as a Roman patriot, he was a mere forerunner or
jackal, preparing the way for the Turks. When he was removed the delusion was
detected; under cover of a fictitious emperor, Soliman had quietly established
his undisputed sway over all Asiatic provinces, from Cilicia to the Hellespont.
The capital was fixed at Nice ; the still Greek or Roman towns paid him their
tribute, and perhaps hardly regretted the days of Nicephoritzes or Borilas. The
Turk never proposes to administer ; he is content to encamp and to enjoy. No
violent catastrophe marked the insensible change of government. The “seven
churches ” and the dead or decaying metropoles of Ionia scarcely marked the
gradual shifting from the rule of an emperor to that of a usurper,1
and from this again to the control of a Turkish emir depending on Soliman the
Seljuk. So abased was the imperial government, or so indifferent to a trifling
inconvenience, that the ferry-dues insolently established on the Asiatic side
by the half-Roman, half- Turkish power, were hardly resented. Certainly, no
steps were taken to remove the oppressive toll— booths, the publicans who
filled, or the unnatural alliance which supported them. In this extraordinary
atmosphere of tolerance and half-heartedness ended the year 1080 ; and we have
now reached the climax of our story.
1
Could the boundary-line be so accurately drawn, and were not both wearers of
the name Nicephorus ?
The
Ministers plot against Oomnenians.
§ 8. The
ministers, long jealous of the Comnenian clan, do not trouble to disguise their
suspicion and dislike. The Empress Mary (wife of two sovereigns) formally
adopts Alexius ; and her husband (no doubt at the instigation of the envious
cabal) announces a nephew from Synnada as heir to the throne. The choice was by
no means bad ; the son of the rich Asiatic noble Theodulus was youthful,
accomplished, and vigorous. But the empress saw in Alexius the defender of her
son's claims, the little Constantine XIII. At this juncture the ministers
decided to get rid of Alexius and his kin, either by casting them as a prey to
the Turks or by weaving a charge of attempted treason. Alexius is sent against
the barbarians and their renegade 11 Roman '' emperor to Cyzicus ; and the ministers work
on the fears of the emperor. They point to the troops gradually collecting (at
his own orders !) for the campaign, in the streets and barracks of the capital.
Alexius contrives to reassure the emperor, who may perhaps have remembered
that he was once a soldier and had risen to power as champion of the military
interest. The rumour went that the insufferable Borilas himself designed to
kill the emperor and seize the throne; certainly it was agreed that he had
marked out the whole Comnenian clan for ruin. Alexius then determined to
forestall him. His companions and advisers are, significantly enough, an
Armenian Bacouraon (Pacurians) and the nephew of Robert Guiscard, known to the
Greeks under the patronymic of Humbertopoulus. On February 14, the later St.
Valentine's Day, the party take their momentous step and leave the city. They
collect at Tchourlu (T^oi^ooiAov), while their wives and children secure
themselves in the safe and venerable asylum of Sophia. But the movement would
have been incomplete, perhaps destined to utter failure, without the magic of
the name and influence of Caesar John. He had thrown off the monk's cowl,
and was
occupying one of his country-seats in TheMinisters Thrace. An emissary
entreated his sanction and VComnmians approval for the enterprise. He
starts to join the mutineers, and on the way annexes the treasure of a
financial agent of the government and the alliance of a vagrant troop of
Hungarians. The principal towns of Thrace (with the strange exception of
Adrinople) declare for the insurgents ; and they advance to the capital,
encamping at Schiza, within six leagues. The warm appeal of Caesar John and the
unselfish affection of Isaac Comnenus enlisted all sympathy for Alexius.
Constantine XII. was a tonsured monk, Constantine XIII. an infant; and the
Caesar, representing the whole Ducas interest, earnestly pleaded for the young
champion of imperialism, whose merits had won so infamous a recompense. Isaac,
in full sight of the army, invests Alexius the still reluctant Alexius with the
imperial insignia ; mvested» and these two by this act fix the
policy and the succession of Byzantine royalty for a hundred years.
“ Nicephorus V.” writes to congratulate Alexius on
escaping the perfidious intrigue of miserable slaves, and suggests a division
of the empire: but the negotiations came to nothing. The fourth Nicephorus
trembled and lost heart: the Caesar corrupts the German guard and gains
admittance for the whole insurgent army. The entire city is abandoned Sack of
the to pillage, but life is spared. Botaneiates, failing in a message to
Melissenus for aid, offers to adopt Botaneiates Alexius and transmit the crown
to him, retaining V-081). only title and dignity, but surrendering active
control. These offersr (which could
hardly have altered the status of the ineffective prince) came too late. The
patriarch urged him to spare Christian bloodshed, and retire in obedience to
Heaven’s manifest will. The bodyguard still lined the avenues of the palace,
and were prepared to resist; but like Pius IX., the last legitimate Nicephorus
decided to abandon his cause. Wrapping his head in his mantle, t
Sack
of the capital and resignation of Botaneiates (1081).
and preceded
by the scoffing Borilas, he takes the road to St. Sophia. Removed to the
convent of Periblept, he receives the tonsure, and on his own confession
regretted none of the pleasures or profits of empire but the use of meat, from
which his new career debarred him. With the victory of the Comnenian clan
begins a new era for the Roman Empire, which at least here we are not prepared
to follow. The military caste had triumphed, and a potent family divided out
amongst its members the extravagant titles, the steadily dwindling resources,
and the real hard work of the empire. The sack of the capital, so bitterly
deplored by Alexius and his daughter the historian, marks a real change in
motives, ideals, and political aims ; and we are warranted in fixing here the
limit of our survey of the institutions of imperial Rome.
ARMENIA AND
ITS RELATIONS WITH THE EMPIRE (520-1120)
THE PREDOMINANCE OF THE ARMENIAN ELEMENT
GENERAL
INTRODUCTION
§ 1. Under
the dynasty of the Heracliads the Interest of
Balkan
peninsula ceased to form an effective part ei9h,th
. . . .
. century:
of the empire
; but Lesser Asia was recovered and Eastern
consolidated.
The great nursery of warlike princes dynasties of • ,, i—. .. . ' . . Borne and
in the
Danubian provinces sent no more champions Armenia.
like Decius
or Diocletian, like Constantius and his
heirs, or
Justinian and his nephew. Africa is lost by
the year 700
; and by 750 the resolute Constantine V.
seems to have
abandoned all interest in older Rome,
and submitted
with a strange tameness to the loss
of the Exarchate.
The scene of the active and
decisive
movements, which only find an echo or a
reflection on
the smaller Byzantine stage, is shifted
eastwards and
comprises the new Regiments of
Asia Minor
and the newly risen nation of Armenia.
It is a
matter of no great importance to decide
whether Conon
is an Isaurian or a Syrian ; what
is of
interest is his undoubted connection with the
land between
the Caucasus and Lake Van. Now
the eighth
century .witnesses a significant revival in
the
nationalities lying on the Eastern frontier. And
the spring of
their fresh and energetic vitality may
be traced to
the stir and commotion which followed
the overthrow
of the Persian Colossus and the
establishment
of the militant caliphate about the
year 650.
An Armenian, Artavasdus,
contended for the Byzantine throne just a century before the Bagratid dynasty
arose under Ashot I. on the ruins of the
335
Interest
of eighth century: Eastern dynasties of Rome and Armenia.
Early
Armenian history : Arsacids and conversion of Tiridat (c. 300).
Caliphate :
and an Arzrunian, Leo V., actually reigned for seven troubled years over the
Roman Empire, long before his own family had established themselves in
independence in their own country. The weakness of the successors of Harun gave
a welcome opportunity for revival to the Armenian nationality, and enabled them
to preserve a feudal liberty, to play a new and serious part in the politics of
the East.
The Bagratid
dynasty, with the rival family of Arzrunians in Vasparacania (908-1080), will
provide two strong Christian principalities on the east of the 11
Roman ” Empire down to the very last years of the period we are undertaking. A
third fraction indeed, to the west of Lake Van, fell under the Muslim,—the
Merwanidae ; and the relations of all three portions of Armenia oscillated
between autonomy and vassalage to Byzantium or to Bagdad and his lieutenant at
Meliten&. All were extinguished together at the close of our epoch (1080) ;
and only in the mountain-fastnesses of Cilicia, in the safe asylum of Mount
Taurus, did there linger on a semblance of Armenian sovereignty, expiring about
fifty years before the fall of Constantinople (a.d.
1400) in the person of Leo VI., a refugee in the Parisian metropolis.
Such is a hasty outline of the fortunes of the Armenian provinces from the
advent of the “ Isaurians ” to the accession of Alexius Comnenus.
§ % It will
be necessary to cast our eyes backward as well as forward if we wish to have a
clear notion of the place occupied and the part played by this singular
nationality. Armenia owes its renown and its integrity to the same family that
so long bore sway in Parthia, the Arsacidae. In 150 B.C. a Parthian sovereign
established his brother there, and the line continued to the reigns of
Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. (150 B.C. to a.d. 430). Such a State, midway between two great empires
and often bearing the brunt of their quarrels, would bear a
)
doubtful
allegiance to the courts of Rome and of Early
Ctesiphon. It
was to Armenia that the pride and Armenian
htstovv
*
tradition of
the Arsacids retired after the triumph Arsacids and of the Sassanids in the
reign of Severus II. (226). conversion of There the national or dynastic
opposition to the new $00^ ^ family (or tribe) sustained itself for some six
years; and we may notice that the kingdom was reconstituted in the latter part
of the century by Roman aid, and after a brief hostility under Tiridat accepted
the Christian faith and practice. Himself of royal Arsacid descent, Gregory the
Illuminator works for the conversion of his people ; and before the great tenth
persecution in the Roman Empire (c. 304 a.d.)
Armenia had
its Patriarch or Catholicus, and the Church could claim more than half the
subjects as believers. Towards the close of the fifth century a division of
interests or “ spheres of influence *’ (such as divides Persia to-day between
Russia and England) became necessary; and Theodosius authorised an amicable
settlement with Persia; by which Persarmenia had its Arsacid governor, owning
allegiance to the State, and Roman Armenia, a similar native chieftain, owning
fealty to Byzantium (c. 400 A.D.).
The
high-water mark of Roman influence was reached in the reign of Maurice, nearly
two hundred years after (c. 600 A.D.), when, as Georgius of Cyprus clearly
shows, a considerable advance of imperial frontier was made in the North and
the Euphrates valley. In Persarmenia, indeed, the Arsacids were soon superseded
by princes or satraps of Persian birth, who continued for just two centuries
(c. 430—630 A.D.).
The
disastrous rupture in the orderly succession Decay of of the empire, and the
internecine conflict of the Soman infiu-
• • • QKhCQ
%Th
Heraclian
revival, tired out the two combatants in seventh profitless
warfare. Armenia in 650 yielded greatly century. to Saracen influence ; and in
the loose federalism of the early political system of Islam retained its native
princes owning obedience to the caliph. The reign of Justinian II. is memorable
for an attempt to vol. 11. Y
Decay
of Roman influence in seventh century.
Armenian
Nonconformity, obstacle to union.
recover
independence, or rather to exchange the Arabian suzerainty for a Roman
protectorate. But before the close of his first reign (by 695) the country is
entirely subjected and Arab emirs replace the suspected native chieftains. Thus
the last years of this century witness the loss of the African province and a
curtailment of the “sphere of Roman influence" in the nearer East. For
one hundred years all is confusion and disorder ; and we again take up the
records of this “ ambiguous ” people, as Tacitus calls it, in the renewed
activity displayed under the Jewish (?) family of Ashod, who in the reign of
the third Michael founded a power, which, with numberless vicissitudes and
sundry changes of abode, lasts five and a half centuries till the latter days
of the Palaeologi (843-1393).
§ 3. A
strange fortune overtook this doubtful land and nation, belonging properly
neither to West nor East, siding with the empire in general Christian belief,
yet severed from a full sympathy and communion by an accident or a
misunderstanding. For the Armenian Church remained in touch with Orthodoxy for
barely a century and a half (300-450 A.D.). It did not accept the Articles of
Chalcedon (451 A.D.) in the reign of Marcian ; and so great was its detestation
of the Nestorian heresy that it distorted some uncertain phrases in this
Council's decisions into an acceptance of the hateful 11
Adoptianism," used language which savoured of Eutychianism (a-v/jLjni^igf not cvwctls), and gradually drifted away from the great Establishment
into a kind of provincial isolation. (And from this it may be said never to
have successfully issued. Evangelised by the Jesuits and protected by the
Russian Church and Government, it still preserves its solitude and its
independence, and now and again extends tentative offers for reunion to the
Protestant sects in Western Europe.) It was a feature of later Persian
diplomacy to foster these religious schisms. The supposed Eutychians of
Armenia, and
the followers of Nestorius, found the Armenian
same favour
and protection ; and the advisers of the Aon~ ..
. .. . . . conformity,
Shah were
quite aware of the political value of an obstacle to
opposition to
Byzantine orthodoxy. It was the first
endeavour of
Heraclius, warrior and theologian, to
revive
religious unity in the East, and rally the
flagging
patriotism of Armenia, Egypt, and Syria in
the new
crusade (c. 625). His failure belongs rather
to the
records of religious history than to my present
design ; and
I am content here merely to remark the
abortive
effort,—which will be described more fully
in a later
section. But whatever the schism between not to entry
the
churches and the cleavage between Armenia and of Armenian t-. i • 1 i • „ , ... . . . into Roman
Byzantine
speculation, nothing hindered the widening service.
influence of
the Armenian stock on the destinies of the empire. We may hazard the conjecture
that in the singularly democratic or purely official society of the capital,
this definite title to noble birth gave weight and influence. Plagues had
decimated Byzantium in the middle of the sixth and eighth century.
An artificial
capital, artificially recruited, is exposed to violent changes and
vicissitudes. In the reigns of Theodosius II., of Justinian I., of Constantine
V., an entirely different population thronged the cities.
The
official nobility were subject to the same law of .
sterility and
decay, inexorably awaiting comfort and opulence and that secure transmission of
hereditary wealth, which was the chief pride (and perhaps the chief danger) of
the empire. A primitive society is keenly alive to the claims of birth ; and
the Armenians might boast to find among themselves the “ oldest and most
illustrious families of Christendom." It is no wonder that Asiatic
influence eclipsed the moribund traditions of Greece and Rome. The eighth
century tells of the internecine conflict between Hellenism, enthroned in the
Establishment, and the new Asiatic militarism, which, as the spirit of Cromwell's
soldiers, represented a practical and Puritan piety. The newly stirring
movement makes itself
A
rmenian Nonconformity, obstacle to union, not to entry of Armenian into Roman
service.
Armenian
pretenders
and
sovereigns
(700-850) at Byzantium.
felt first
perhaps in the revolt of Simbat or Sempad, under Justinian II.,—corrupted into
some resemblance to a native Greek name, as Sabbatios or Symbatios (just as
the titles of Gothic kings were insensibly accommodated to classic etymology as
Theodoric, Theodatus). Under Constans III., an “Armeniac” general of Persian
birth, Saborios had invited the Arabs to subdue Romania ; and Sempad, although
a Roman patrician and commander holding the same rank, exchanges his allegiance,
and allows Southern Armenia to fall to the Arabs.
§ 4. We may
suppose that the Romanising party emigrated into the empire and the imperial
service from a land overrun by unbelievers. At any rate, the influence of
Armenia is henceforward continuous and consistent. Armenian birth seems to have
been the chief recommendation of the idle and luxurious Vardan or Bardanitzes
(Anon. Cod. Coislin.), who reigns as Philippicus (711-713); Leo III., if not a
native in descent, possessed strong connection and affinity in Armenia, and his
son-in-law, Artavasdus, is a typical Armenian noble. In 790, Alexius Musele,
governor of the Armeniac theme, is suspected of conspiring with his mutinous
legions, and was flogged, tonsured, and blinded by the order of Constantine VI.
These native (?) levies were the determined opposers of the claims of Irene ;
and the too dutiful emperor deprived himself of strong Armenian support when
he insisted on the recognition of his Greek mother's title. Vardan, another
compatriot, rebels against the first Nicephorus, and Arsaber, patrician and
quaestor, who revolted in 808, belongs to the same race. Armenia has its first
legitimate ruler in Ghevond, who ruled as Leo V. from 813 to 820, son-in-law of
Arsaber. And in this connection a citation from Father Chamich's history1
should not be omitted : 1 St. M. on Lebeau, vol. xii. 355, 409, 431.
il In this age,
three Armenians were raised at different Armenian
times
to the imperial throne of the Greeks. Two Pre^ders r and
of them,
Vardan and Arshavir, only held this lofty sovereigns
station for a
few days. The third, Levond, an (700-850) at
Arzrunian,
reigned seven years. Not long after By%antmm'
Prince
Manuel, of the Mamigonian tribe, won great
renown with
the emperor Theophilus for his warlike
skill and
valour.” This Arzrunian family with which
Leo V. claims
connection was supposed to have
issued from
the parricide sons of Esarhaddon,
Adrammelech
and Sharezer.
The
Mamigonian Manuel became a member of the Council of Regency during Michael
III.’s minority; and it was necessary to support the claims of that
extraordinary upstart, Basil “the Macedonian,” by appealing to his ancient
descent from Armenian royalty. This curious fiction was a concession to the
Asiatic and aristocratic prejudice then dominant in Constantinople ; and is the
strongest testimony that we possess to the complete seizure of the government
in the middle of the ninth century by Armenian personality and tradition.
§ 5. After
this short and general survey we shall Summary of examine each period in
detail, from the age ofconclusiom- Justinian to the last ‘years of our
allotted span, and even encroach on the Comnenian period, and surpass the
limits of the eleventh century. From this inquiry we invite adhesion to the
following conclusions: (i) That the Armenians succeeded to the place and
functions of the Pannonian or Illyrian sovereigns (250-678), and became the
defenders of the imperial frontier on the East ; (2) that this race, strenuous,
prolific, and feudal, formed a compact military party, in whose eyes the prestige
of the empire and the survival of Roman culture depended on the generous
nourishment of* national armies and defence ; (3) that to the scanty and
precarious barbarian levies of the time of Belisarius succeeded a native force
of provincial militia, recruited in the
Summary
of countries they defended (during the development of conclusions. ^he tfoemafjc system, c. 650-800) ; (4) that the
vitality of the empire was due not so much to the useful role of the civilian
prefect and judge (a class almost extinct by 650), as to the new vigour and
loyal allegiance of the Armenian immigrants and settlers ; (5) that this
warrior-class, handing on military skill and valour from father to son,
maintained a silent but truceless conflict with Greek orthodoxy, monachism, and
the civilians who starved the war- chest; (6) that later Byzantine history
becomes an interesting spectacle of the vicissitudes of this contest, and
culminates (it may be said) in the scandalous treatment of Romanus IV. (1071);
(7) that the whole spirit of this invading race was “feudal,” that is, attached
great weight to descent, family connection, landed possessions, and vassals ;
(8) that feudalism infects (or transforms) the Roman institutions, presenting
us with the glorious epic of Phocas, Zimisces, and Basil, and the constant pretensions
of certain noble families, if not to sovereignty, at least to actual and
responsible control ; (9) that, while as a rule nationality and local prejudice
vanish in the lofty atmosphere of the throne, the Byzantine monarchs are
Armenian in actual birth or unmistakable sympathies ; (10) that the strong
armies of the Eastern frontier are the chief (if not the invariable) arbiters
of the succession, and are seen to dictate heirs to a failing, or policy to an
incompetent, dynasty, from 700 to the accession of the Comneni.1
1
Feudalism implies a union of land-tenure, warlike exercises, and that personal
loyalty which attaches the strong to the service of an individual, at a time
when the notion of the abstract State or Commonwealth is incomprehensible.
Gelzer (in his “ Abstract of Byzantine Imperial History ”) may indeed complain
that under Zimisces (969) we have to note a retrogression of empire and an
expansion of feudalism, while the Roman 7nilitary and civil State takes on a
military and aristocratic aspect. But he might have placed this obvious and
significant symptom much earlier. The Pretenders of the ninth century belonged
to the new military caste, enriched by ample allotment of vacant land in the
east of Lesser Asia. The throne of the Amorian sovereigns (820-867) is
supported by heroes
I
EARLY HISTORY
OF ARMENIA DOWN TO THE FIRST PERIOD OF JUSTINIAN I. (540 a.d.)
§ 1. The real
centre and interest of this period in Armenia in the imperial history lies in the
East. The connection the new
. with the West is largely artificial. Justinian reconquered the ancient
capital, and Leo III. lost it; but these events had little influence on men and
society in the East*, certainly none upon the political development which we
are now attempting to trace.
Never did the
city of Constantine look westward; she preserved, and still maintains to-day,
her persistent Orientation. The men who by adoption joined the Roman
Commonwealth, and entered into the Roman tradition with eager loyalty, were not
Italians, will soon cease even to be Thracians and Illyrians, or even
Dardanians and Pannonians of the hardy Balkan stock of Decius, Diocletian,
Valen- tinian, and the house of Justin. The empire (as we so often have
occasion to remark) was specialist and supra-national. It knew nothing of race
or family,
of Asiatic
breed and Roman traditions. Nor, again, is it possible for the historian to
regret the new anti-centralising and anti-civil tendencies.
Great posts
became once more almost sovereign, at least vassal, States.
The
peace-party of menials and officials offered no substitute for an aggressive
policy which was also the most prudent course. Praise has been lavished on the
civil service of the empire ; yet it is but just to apportion the merit
carefully between the two rival departments. The conquests of the feudal or
chivalrous party enabled the civilians to enjoy and monopolise the world’s
riches (960-1025) for half a century unchallenged.
But the
war-party alone understood the true needs of the State, and, judging from their
actual experience, would not be put off by the real or affected ignorance of a
historian like Psellus or a dilettante like Constantine Ducas (1059-1067). The
strong arm was still indispensable for the maintenance of law and order, for
that civilian procedure which existed nowhere else on earth except in China.
There is little sign of mere feudal anarchy and individualism in the great
Armenian champions of the empire ; but the official class and the clergy hated
and feared them. Feudalism gave the empire a long respite and a glorious
sunset; and it was not the fault of the Comneni, but of the age, that they
became th& unwilling destroyers of the old Roman system.
Armenia
in the new expert service of Rome.
and at this
time little of creed or religion—for the ministers and historians of Justinian
are dubious Christians—and the great code is singularly free from all traces of
Christian influence. Work had to be done, and it mattered little who performed
it. But it must be well done ; continuous training, and a sort of school—of
law, of arms, or of letters—became the rule. The army-corps in the anarchy of
235285 kept alive the memories of Roman discipline, a certain patriotic
simplicity, and some rough rules of honour. Constantine’s civil service, and
the punctilious ranks and duties of the court, had inculcated a definite and
immobile routine. The growing demand for central supervision resulted in a body
of civilians without initiative, but singularly faithful to a corporate spirit
which dictated all their phrases and acts. The ecclesiastical caste naturally
existed as a thing apart, and drew to itself those who were excluded from the
other branches of State service. The unhappy curial colleges were kept alive
and compact not merely by direct and tyrannical force, but by the whole
tendency of a specialising age. The military caste (of which Justinian, perhaps
not unwisely, showed some distrust) formed another well- trained corps, solid
and continuous in method, precise in promotion. Who are the new actors on the
scene ? Who, in the dearth of recruits or violent depopulation of the empire,
will take up the different posts as representatives of the imperial tradition ?
It will be found that at least in one department of State the land of Armenia
is closely concerned. From the time of Justinian onwards, the best soldiers of
the empire will be Armenians. Usurpers and pretenders, too, will belong to the
same race, and when the throne is vacant there will seldom be wanting an
Armenian candidate. The customs and beliefs of this remote country will
exercise the strongest influence ontl Rome/’ Here will be learned the lessons of defence
from a feudal military caste
which had
long been extinct within the borders of Armenia in
the empire.
There will enter into Roman life a the ne™ .
. , . .
*11*1*111 expert service
foreign
element not to be gainsaid, which will take of Rome.
the place of
the Teutons, Heruls, and Gepids who had once formed the heart of the Roman
armies.
There will be
witnessed a silent but resolute duel between the Hellenic spirit, now
orthodox-Christian, and the simpler Protestantism of the Armenian mountaineers.
The eighth and ninth centuries will be the chief scene of this conflict; the
attempt of Iconoclasm to revert to a religious practice and belief, simpler and
more Roman. From Armenia came also (i) the tendency to hereditary succession in
the imperial title, and in the great feudal estates of Asia Minor ; (2) the
strong military and aggressive spirit which awoke in the Basilian house the
fires of old Roman conquest; and (3) that strangely un-Roman principle of the
Shogunate that would reserve the chief dignity to a certain family, but deliver
effective control to a colleague or recognised generalissimo.
The
competition for this latter post, not to be settled but by the sword, will lead
to that clan-rivalry of warlike families which issues in the victory of the
Comneni. And it is here I have ventured to place the extinction of the genuine
imperial tradition.
It is my
present purpose to inquire into this gradual admission of Armenians into the
armies and society of “ Rome ” ; to trace in the tedious wars with Persia the
real cause of the futile and inconclusive strife ; and to examine the part
played by this new nationality in the East, that succeeded to the championship
of the empire which was undertaken in the West by the Teutonic race.
§ 2. The
turning-point in the relations of Armenia Christianity, and Rome was the
conversion of King Tiridat in the third century. In this acceptance of the
Christian and of faith Armenia took the lead, and set an example estrangement.
which Rome under Constantine was not slow to follow. It is undoubted that this
community of
Christianity} creed
brought the country into closer connection alliance R°mans, anc^ severed it from its natural
and of allies and neighbours. Yet the peculiar form
finally estrangement, taken by Armenian Christianity served rather to isolate
than to bring their Church into a full Christian fellowship. Especially under
Heraclius are the separatist tendencies of all Eastern Christians apparent.
Neither Syria nor Egypt nor Armenia recognised the established church of the
capital with its Hellenic orthodoxy ; and it was disunion and jealousy between
these branches that admitted the infidels so easily. Still, the immigration of
the warrior class, and the constant interference of Rome in Armenian affairs,
were largely due to this common belief. The Arsacid Christian monarchy
confronted the new Sassanid dynasty, predominant since 226 in Persia, a Magian
revival, and entirely hostile to the Arsacid house. The extension of Persian
influence implied the propaganda of fire-worship and the persecution of
converts to the Gospel, sometimes even of native and hereditary Christians.
These were thrown into the arms of Rome; and Armenia was an occasional casus
belli, and a constant source of suspicion and disquiet between the two empires,
as will readily be seen in the ensuing sketch. Thus religion partly united and
partly severed this debatable country from the body of the empire. But in spite
of the curious vassaldom and imperial investiture under early Caesars, the real
intercourse did not begin until both powers had adopted a common religious
belief. To make clear the character of this preponderating influence on the
Eastern world, I shall have to go back to very primitive times to account for
the peculiar features of Armenian society and civilisation.
Origin and § 3. Various modern writers (amongst
others Wi- eoflthe%St0ry lamowitz“Mollendorff)
refer the origin of this people Armenians, to a great Phrygio-Thracian
immigration from the West. The rough “ Dorians ” had ousted an earlier
culture, and
established themselves in its place; Origin and
survivors who
escaped serfdom travelled eastwards. e^Jl^lstory
But the
Phrygio-Thracian tribes went farther, and Armenians.
became the
ancestors of the Armenian race.1 Their
own
traditions, wildly improbable as history, are
curiously
typical of their native belief ; they sprang
from Haik,
son of Thargamus—the Togarmah of
Scripture,
grandson of Noah, and were thus Iape-
tids, their
earliest indigenous dynasty being certainly
traced to
Japhet.2 But two chief clans boasted of a
singular and
perhaps discreditable descent; from the
intercourse
of David and Bathsheba, as yet illicit, or
from the
parricides of Sennacherib, Adrammelech
and Sharezer,
“ who fled into the land of Armenia ”
after their
father's murder. Clan-feeling, intense
pride in
families developing into tribal chieftaincy, and
finally into
feudal principality, such is the chief note
of Armenian
society. And it is little wonder that in
such an
assembly of equal tribes no one family should
have attained
supremacy.; in a proud and feudal
community a
foreign dynasty must rule, because no
one single
member will submit to an equal. The
difficulties
as well as the vitality of the Armenian race
will be due
to strong, jealous, and exclusive pride. It
has a sense
of nationality unknown in the artificial
li Roman "
commonwealth, which asked no questions
about birth.
It was ruled by turbulent nobles,
full of
vigour and public spirit; whereas Rome,
since the
adoption of an imperial government, had
set itself to
weaken the pride of caste and the power
of families,
substituting for claims of descent an
1 The Armenians were not without affinity
to the Phrygians in the central plateau of Asia Minor, and these again are
allied to the inhabitants of Thrace and Macedonia. These peoples are
non-Oriental in their character and culture; and Armenian history is the
struggle of an outpost of the West.
2 The Seljukian Turks are equally confident
of their origin from the scriptural patriarchs. The Ghuss (OSfot) tribe traced
back to Ghuss, son or grandson of Japhet (Yafeth), son of Noah (Nuh). The
enemies of the Ghussidse believed that this early hero had stolen the
rain-stone, which Turk, also a son of Japhet, inherited from his father.
Origin and early history of the
Armenians.
Rivals of Assyria.
official
hierarchy where personal cleverness went for everything. It is easy to foresee
the result of the fusion of the two. The later period of Roman history is the
record of a long contest: on the one hand, the ministry of isolated
instruments, the eunuch- celibate or the priest ; on the other, the closely knit
family : the ideal state and the feudal clan. Victory will lie with the more
natural association ; the last two centuries before Alexius are just the
chronicle of notable generations, not merely on the throne, but in the military
class, in the great land-holding section which was now refusing to be a mere
payer of taxes. .
As late as
the accomplished Orientalist, Saint Martin, the old legend of Semiramis, her
visit, conquest, and death in Armenia had to be fitted in somehow. Instead,
modern research gives us the historic kingdom of Urartu, round about Lake Van,
wresting provinces from Assyria during the throes of revolution (c. 750 B.C.)
; Tiglath Pileser marching in reprisal against Sarduris II. at the head of a
powerful confederacy, and defeating (744), with a capture of
73,000 prisoners; ten years later assaulting
Turushpa, Sarduris’ capital city on Lake Van ; Rusas, the new King of Ur,
again, under Sargon, stirring up the Hittite neighbours to rivalry (716, 715),
and even sowing sedition in the northern provinces of Assyria ; seeing his
allies one by one reduced, flying to impenetrable mountain-plateaux in Armenia,
and at last falling on his sword in despair. This Haikian (or earliest native)
dynasty was not without its mythical or actual glory. Tigranes (Dikran) is the
equal ally of Cyrus, as Barvir had revolted against Assurbanipal.1
It was
1 A
general summary of chief events: Assault of Assyria under Tigl. Pil. I. begins
noo. Shalmanezer II. first to plan annexation, 860, and Arame’s dynasty ends.
Sarduris I. begins a new house, and resists Assyria, 850-830. Shalrn. III.
makes six ineffectual expeditions, c. 780. Argistis and Sarduris II. continue
to humble Assyria and annex territory. Tigl. Pil. III. curbs and reduces to old
limits, c. 735. Argistis II. reduced to a small district round Lake Van.
brought to a
close only by the irresistible march of The Arsacid Alexander (328). Subject to
the Seleucid monarchy, f0ffS0 Armenia broke into rebellion and secured a short a.jd.). period of autonomy
(c. 318-285 B.C.), and just a century later declared its independence of
Antiochus the Great under its governor Artaxias (190). Fifty years later again,
the Parthian sovereign put his brother Val-arsaces on the throne, and the great
Arsacid dynasty begins in the latter branch, which far outlasts the better -
known house of Persia.
Tigranes,
son-in-law of Mithradates of Pontus, reigns over Syria, Greater and Lesser
Armenia, and some Parthian provinces ; is entangled in the quarrel with Rome
(which first brings the two powers into connection) ; and is allowed by
Pompey, the capable reorganiser of the East, to retain the North and Centre,
resigning to his son the accretions in the South-west, Sophene and Gorduene.
About the middle of the first century B.C. Armenia came into collision with the
curiously assorted sovereigns of Egypt; Artavasdus, defeated and taken to Alexandria
by Antony, is put to death by Cleopatra in 30 B.C. Then ensued a time of feudal
anarchy, one hundred and seventy princely families fighting with each other and
raising up (as Tacitus tells us in “ Annals," ii.) some fitful
shadow-kings in rapid succession. Germanicus solemnly invests one with the
diadem at Artaxata in A.D. 17 ; and already the country is more akin to Rome
than to Parthia nimium vicina. Yet it was ready enough to give welcome to the
cast-out Arsacid Artaban (possibly on account of his Roman education as well as
his undoubted lineage). Under Nero and Vespasian, Erovant I.
(c. 60-80),
Arsacid on the female side, unites Armenia and builds two cities, Erovantoshad
and Pakaran ; and Ardashir (of a more legitimate Arsacid line) appears later
under the alternate suzerainty of Rome and Parthia, scarcely recognisable in
the historians as Exedarus.
Homans and § 4. In the first quarter of the third
century A.D., ^Arwniia™ northern branch
of the Arsacids had been more independence powerful than the southern. Chosroes
the Great of extinguished Armenia takes up arms on behalf of his cousins
against the Sassanids (226) ; but on his murder by a renegade member of his own
clan, Armenia passed under the victor's yoke (250), easily yielding to foreign
sway owing to its feudal distractions. Tiridat of the ousted line, son of
Chosroes, flies to Rome, common asylum, like Paris to-day, for displaced monarchs
; and the burlesque Augustan historians of this period say nothing to the point
on an event so pregnant with grave issues. It was perhaps this restoration to
his father’s throne by Roman help that explains the extreme bitterness of Sapor
against the empire ; the captivity and death of Valerian. The new king, at
first, like Decius and Aurelian, a persecutor of the Christians, meets Gregory
the Illuminator, national hero of the story of Armenian evangelisation. The
saint cures the king, and converts the people. For just a century onwards,
until the “ first partition " under Theodosius (385), Armenia is a scene
of perpetual conflict between Rome and the Sassanids. It cost the lives of two
emperors, Valerian and Julian (261, 363); and Jovian, after the latter’s death,
has to purchase a safe retreat by the disgraceful surrender of five provinces
beyond the Euphrates, with the important and thoroughly Roman frontier-towns,
Nisibis and Singara, and the fertile lands of Arzanene and Gorduene. The treaty
of Theodosius definitely ceded all fanciful or legitimate rights over Eastern
or Greater Armenia, and incorporated Lesser Armenia into the empire (385). But
neither province received an alien viceroy ; in both a scion of the Arsacids
was set up as a governor or vassal-prince ; Arsaces III. in Roman, Chosroes
III. in Pers Armenia, as it is henceforth habitually called. From this year may
be dated the gradual infiltration of the Armenian
race into
Roman territory, expelled by religious in- Romans and tolerance or encouraged
by the military prizes of ^™enia ™ the empire. The century (400-500) from
Arcadius independence to Anastasius passed without any protracted warfare
extinguished between the two great powers; and we are prepared * to accept the
story that Arcadius begged Isdigerd (succ. c. 400) to become tutor and guardian
to his son, in spite of Agathias’ denial; did not Heraclius appeal in like
manner to the chivalrous feeling of the Avar Khan, when he left young
Heraclius- Constantine as regent in a capital almost denuded of garrison ? Did
not Cabades propose in vain to the prosaic Justin I. that he should adopt
Chosroes, and did not the refusal precipitate the war, long preparing, between
the two rivals ? Armenia, u
perpetual source of annoyance ” (as Bury rightly calls it), was undoubtedly
the cause of the brief war The religious under Theodosius II. (420-1). It was
the old story; Varanes II. had attempted to proselytise Persarmenia, and had
begun a persecution of Christians. Nothing happened of any consequence ; it
rarely did in these interminable and purposeless wars on the Euphrates. Peace
for a hundred years was finally proclaimed by the optimistic diplomats of the
two kingdoms (422). In 428 the government of Persarmenia was altered ; instead
of a native prince, a Persian governor or Martzban was sent.
It is
possible to explain this in two ways ; (1) either (as Bury supposes) the
Armenians begged the king to send a polite foreigner in place of an unpopular
member of the old royal line (a request by no means uncommon or unnatural) ; or
(2) the tyrannical sovereign extinguished the last embers of independence by
annexing on the same footing as all other Persian provinces. Isdigerd II. (440)
is very anxious to convert Armenia to the Zoroastrian faith, but meets with no
success, chiefly owing to the staunchness of the Mamigonian clan (a notable
house throughout Armenian history, and, if rumour may
The religious
difficulty
(400-500).
Cabades the Socialist renews the war with Rome.
be believed,
deriving descent from a Chinese outlaw and immigrant of the dispossessed Han
dynasty !)1 Balas, the next Sassanid, wisely gave back liberty of
conscience and worship in Armenia, and restored the status to that of
vassal-ally ; Vahan (Baavrjg) the Mamigonian is made prince-governor, and the
step taken in 428 (whatever its significance) reversed. Balas died in 487, four
years before Zeno the Isaurian, bequeathing peace to the rival empires and
internal contentment to Armenia.
§ 5. Plato’s
dream and prayer has rarely been realised or granted; a philosopher-king is
happily a rarity, and invariably a disappointment. Neither Marcus nor Julian
could encourage (by their example or success) the exercise of reflection upon a
throne ; for while their virtues were their own, their failures may be
distinctly traced to their creeds. But it is recorded of one Roman emperor and
one Sassanid king that they desired to put in practice the theories laid down
in Plato’s ideal commonwealth. Gallienus was prepared to assent to Plotinus’ request
for the loan of a ruinous Italian city, that a model community, like the
Quakers or Oneidists, might be tested. Cabades, the new king of Persia, fell
under the influence of a convinced and earnest Socialist, a strange and
repulsive amalgam of the Socrates and the Thrasymachus of the u Republic.” He bears a
curious resemblance to a certain Chinese statesman, Waganchi, who likewise
converted a despot, and received license to put his views in force over the
vast and silent population. This alliance of despotism with Socialist visions
is therefore no novelty ; indeed it is perhaps the only expedient by
1
Colonies of Chinese are by no means unknown in Armenia. Was the famous Georgian
royal family Chinese in origin? About 250 A.D., when the Goths, sweeping Europe,
were about to annihilate Decius and his army, comes into the western part of
Asia a Han of royal descent; in 260, Tiridates gives him the province or
district of Taron, of which mention will be frequent. His name was Mam-kon, and
he became the head of the Mamigonian clan.
which these
views can ever be imposed on mankind, Cabades the in themselves curiously
unsatisfying to every human ^enewfthe instinct. Men are neither born equal, nor
do they war with believe themselves to be so; and it is only under a Rom^ despotism where all are alike slaves, that the automatism and
docility, requisite for the Socialistic order, can be found. Cabades, carefully
preserving his own autocracy, like Frederic of Prussia or Joseph II., posed as
the enlightened foe of privilege, the apostle of Liberalism. “Women and
property must be held in common ; so-called ' crimes' are merely the artificial
creation of an unjust society; and right and wrong lie elsewhere than in the
conventional standard." The nobles, about the close of the century,
united to depose a monarch holding such views, and left him ample leisure to
enjoy a practical application of his own tenets. Restored (not unlike Justinian
II. two centuries after) by the aid of the Huns to his “ unequal " and
privileged rank (500), he showed more caution, reserved his free-thought and
anarchic dreams for private, and perhaps seized with eagerness an occasion for
renewing the Roman war. The pretext was the arrears in the Roman subsidy,
promised for the joint defence of the Caspian gates or passes of Caucasus.
Tradition
made out that Cabades was offended, because the prudent old money-lender
Anastasius refused a loan, intended to pay off his dangerous 11 Ephthalite ” allies. At
any rate, in 502, eighty years after the hundred years' peace, hostilities
broke out; and Persia was soon in possession of the cities of the march-land,
Martyropolis, Theodosiopolis, and Amida. Competent authorities believe (and I
am content to accept their judgment) that in the next ensuing three years of war
the Roman side was at a disadvantage, chiefly owing to the jealous policy of
dividing the supreme command. Still, Celer the Illyrian, magister officiorum
(why not militum ?) achieved some success in Arzanene and recovered vol. 11. z
Cabades the Socialist renews the war with Rome.
Feudal policy of Justin,
520> and eastern campaigns of Belisarius.
the fortress
of Amida ; while in 507 Anastasius built the great citadel Dara on the site of
a tiny village. (We may perhaps here notice the last Roman champions from the
Balkans. We have this Illyrian ; twenty years later we find Belisarius in
command in Persia, a Slav from “ Germania/" a Teutonic colony in Illyricum
; nearly forty years later (544) we find in an Eastern command Nazares from
Illyria, tcov ev I\\vpl019 crTpaTicoTcov ap^cov. But in spite of Heruls and
Gepids in the hasty levies of the famous general, the day for Goths or Teutons
is over in the Eastern empire. We shall read of no more Thracians, Dacians, or
Dardanians; the house of Justin, extinct in 578, is succeeded by an Asiatic,
Maurice the Cappadocian, from Arabissus, almost within Lesser Armenia. So on
the palace-guard of sturdy Thracians have followed levies of strange Isaurians
and Armenians, who to the number of nearly 4000 keep watch in Justinian’s
palace.1)
§ 6. It was
Justin I., about 520, who initiated or rather revived the policy of welcoming
ethnic kings as vassals under the suzerainty of the empire ; Tzath, king of the
Lazi of Colchis, being received under its protection, after paying a kind of
feudal homage. Persia found a new motive for war in this interference with her
natural allies or subjects ; under Justinian I. a great army 30,000 strong
invaded and ravaged Mesopotamia, while Belisarius, now appearing for the first
time, suffered a defeat. In 529 Persians, with their Saracen ally Alamundarus,
plunder the country up to Antioch ; and Belisarius in the Roman reprisals of
the ensuing year wins his first laurels at Dara,— notable as the first defeat
of the Persians for many years. The new emperor had started his Eastern policy
by appointing a magister militum for Armenia (crrpaTijXaTiis); Sittas, husband
of Theodora’s sister, Comito, held the office, but in 530 Dorotheus was
1
Though when the dignity was sold to peaceable but conceited civilians, the
guard was found to exist only on paper.
acting as his
lieutenant. Nor was Justinian backward Feudal policy in securing other loyal
and gratuitous allies for the frontier ; he gave the title of patricius (as
Anastasius eastern cam- to Clovis) to Arethas (Harith), king of the Ghassanid
paigns of Bedawins and ancestor (?) of Emperor Nicephorus I. Belisarms- (802-811). This chieftain continued a faithful ally of Rome during a
long reign (530-572), as a contemporary of Chosroes (530-579). Once more
Persians and Alamundar raid in 531, and after the doubtful result of the battle
of Callinicum, Belisarius was recalled; it is difficult to say whether justly.
For clearly the suspicious policy of divided command thwarted any united
action. Mundus the Gepid succeeds him; and the new king Chosroes is quite
content to make an Endless Peace, while the subsidy (11,000 lbs. of gold) is
faithfully promised on the part of Rome for the defence of the Caucasian
passes. But the brilliant successes of Justinian’s early years, over faction at
home and Goth and Vandal abroad, roused Chosroes' envious fear (540). The
Gothic king Vitiges sent envoys to the Persian court to implore help against
the common danger, the universal autocrat; and the two distant wars have an appreciable
influence on each other. The despairing struggle of Gothic freedom is
lengthened out by the diversion of troops to the East; it is hard to say in
which quarter the efforts of Rome's “ only general" were the more needed.
§ 7. It is
possible to trace to the fiscal system of Cause of Rome the reaction of the
middle period (540-55°) which set back the triumphs of Justinian in East and
East and West. Alexander the Logothete estranged loyal Italy West: fiscal and
let in the Goths again; Armenia is found de- system' nouncing the
exactions of the collectors, and professing her willingness to acknowledge
Chosroes. It does not become one who lives under the perils of a democratic
budget and the costliness of popular government to speak hastily of Roman imperial
finance.
Where we have
accurate figures the amount would
Cause of Justinian's failure in East and West:
fiscal system.
not seem
excessive ; but it is clear that the passage from the intermittent suzerainty
of barbarian king or even Sassanid to an expensive system of centralised
officialism must seem vexatious and oppressive. It would be mere impertinence
for any modern writer in a u
free ” State to blame the empire (or censure a “ despotic " form of rule)
for showing the natural and inevitable tendency of civilised society ; namely,
to centre in the State all the resources of citizens, all the springs of
action, all the natural riches of the country. The Roman Empire in this sixth
century was absolutely modern, and indeed democratic in tone and attitude ; it
overrated its strength, and undertook the colossal burden which mischievous
dreamers to-day would have us transfer from collective shoulders to an
irresponsible centre. It multiplied its duties and functionaries: the subject
class paid. Italy, under the mild control of Gothic king or the benevolent
pauperism of the Holy See, was ill-prepared for the new demands. Armenia, a
feudal society (as we must again repeat), regarded even a modest contribution
to imperial needs as an imposition and a disgrace. Amazaspes, the Roman
governor, was slain by Acacius, and such was the Roman weakness or
preoccupation elsewhere, that he was allowed to succeed his victim. But the
demagogue in responsible office is a curious spectacle (as we may learn from
Sardou's Rabagas). Money had to be collected, and the indignant and protesting
Acacius was now the collector ; he too was killed, and Sittas, sent on a
message of conciliation, shares the same fate. Armenia appeals to Chosroes for
help ; and could point to the encroachments of Rome, as proof of a real danger
to Persia ; for Justinian had reduced the wild Pontic tribe of the Tzanni and
had set a dux over the military forces of Lazica. For the next few years the
real centre of the eastern cyclone lies in this remote kingdom.
The details
of this Lazic war, told with leisured
and scholarly
grace by Agathias, passed over with Cause of
weariness
by Gibbon, retold with redundant minute- Jufjmia^s
J ; ..... failure in
ness by
Lebeau, and again with critical judgment East and by Bury,—need not detain us
now. Like most West: fiscal episodes in the long feud of Rome and Parthia, system' it has no conclusion, no meaning at first sight ; a mere desultory
skirmish over a “ sphere of influence ” claimed simultaneously by two great
powers. Yet grave interests were at stake. It was a part of the great
imperialist policy of Justinian to secure vassals and allies on the outskirts
of the realm. His uncle had set the example; and perhaps the astute nephew had
secretly inspired. The friendship of the Lazic king would secure Roman Armenia
and act as a set-off to Persian influence. Justinian was penurious in the
extreme of the lives of his citizen-soldiers, of the number of troops on a foreign
expedition, of the initiative or responsibility entrusted to individual commanders.
He welcomed gladly any substitute for his own dear troops or suspected
generals. The Lazi, the Tzans, the Apsilians become dependent on the empire ;
chieftains of Herul and Hun are baptized, the emperor, as it were, standing
sponsor ; the Caucasian Abasgi and the Nobadae are converted, and to complete
the isolation of Persia, bishops and clergy are sent to the Axumites. The king
of Iberia comes to the capital and is received with rich gifts by Justinian and
Theodora. The spread of Christianity was part of Justinian's imperialism : he
was pope as well as Caesar.
II
RELATIONS OF ROME AND ARMENIA FROM JUSTINIAN TO HERACLIUS (540-620)
§
1. Such a policy of Imperialism, flattering to Loyal service these remote
princes allied to the majesty of Rome, .
bore
immediate fruit. An Army List of Justinian's intfaEasT' later years would
display in a striking manner the and ItalV•
Loyal service of Armenia to the empire: in the East and
Italy.
predominance
of Armenians. In 540, the garrison of Sura on the Euphrates is under an
Armenian commandant; so too with the fleet of Thrace two years later. Phazas
the Iberian prince has an important post in the Eastern armies; he is nephew
of Peranes, the son of the Iberian king Gourgenes, at this time a refugee at
Constantinople (in whose name it is difficult to avoid tracing the later name
of the inland Caucasian country). In the same year (542) Belisarius sent on a
mission in the East Adolius, son of the assassin Acacius ; and we wonder that
Armenian families should have given up their own names and adopted the weak
quadrisyllables of the later empire. In 543, when Chosroes thought of attacking
the Roman province by way of Persarmenia, we find in the Roman army, 30,000
strong, Narses of the Camsar clan, and Isaac, brother of Adolius.1
In the familiar weakness of the Roman command, the two confederate generals
have little chance; Narses is killed in battle, and Peranes the Iberian seeking
to ravage Taron (Tapavvwv Xw^om), on south and west of Lake Van, has to return
from a successful foray on news of the defeat.—The result of the confederacy of
East and West against Rome is evident when the Lazic troubles begin (545). The
costly system of frontier forts, Martyropolis, Satala, Sebast&, Colonia,
and others, overtaxed Justinian's treasury, and an expensive restoration
relaxed the vigour of the Italian war. But the emperor was perhaps more than
indemnified by the loyal service of Armenians far from their homes. Isaac an
Armenian, of Camsar and Arsacid families, brother of Narses
1 It is at this point that we may notice the emphatic
witness of Procopius to the prosperous state of Armenia under Persian sway ;
Dovin, or AotfjStos, the capital, is eight days’ journey from Theodosiopolis
(Arzeroum), and stands in a smiling and fertile plain, covered with thriving
villages at short intervals on a high-road busy with mercantile traffic between
India and China and the West. Dovin is near the site of ancient Artaxata and
lies north of the Araxes: it maintained its dignity as the capital for eight
hundred years.
(who
fell fighting in the East) ; Gitacius with a small Loyal service band of
Armenian fellow-countrymen, “ who knew .
nothing but
his native tongue" (as Procopius tells us); in the East ' Pacurius,
grandson of Gourgenes, the Iberian ex-king, and ItalV• and son
of Peranes ; Varazes with a little cohort of eighty; and Phazas, cousin of
Pacurius, already seen in Roman service in 542 ;—such are the Oriental officers
in Italy.—But we must turn once more to The Vassal the East (549) and the Lazic
entanglement. Gubazes i^zic'and the king is the son of a “ Roman" wife ;
it being sub-infeuda- a long-established custom (eV iraKalov) for the Lazic tl<m%
dynasty to accept honorary posts in the imperial palace and to marry with the
daughters of senators on the emperor’s choice or approval. It is quite possible
that Gubazes may have actually served in person as a Silentiarius; though in a
later age similar posts, as that of Curopalat, were purely titular and implied
no duties. Indeed, though he had been for long a vassal of Persia, he demanded,
naively enough, the payment of arrears of salary as Usher of the
Palace since his accession to the throne!
For the
Persian yoke was unpopular (ovk avroyvco-
fjiovovvTes, Procop.); and when Chosroes tried to murder Gubazes, the country flung
itself into the arms of Rome. Mermeroes a Persian, forced to retire, begins
tedious intrigue (551) against the Romans; and until 555 there are ceaseless
and indecisive hostilities.—We may notice here the subinfeudation then
prevalent; the little peoples of Scymnia and Swania, in the interior of the
Caucasus, are subject to the Lazic king, but are governed by native princes
bound to homage (ap^ovreg . . . rtov ofjLoeOvcov). When the tribal headship is
vacant, word is sent to the Lazic king, who is then empowered by the Roman
emperor to invest whom he will, provided it be one of the same tribe. It is
clear that the ascending hierarchy of feudal obligation was well known to the
Eastern peoples of the sixth century.
Armenian valour in Africa : first Armenian plot:
recall and conspiracy of Artaban (548).
§ 2.
Meantime, Armenian bravery had not been without employment in Africa. Here, as
in Italy, the first rapid successes had been followed by disastrous reaction.
In 543 we find the two sons of John the Arsacid despatched, John and Artaban ;
and this family would seem to have passed into the imperial service when
Arzanen6 had thrown off the Persian yoke and surrendered to Rome. John was soon
killed by the mutinous Moors; but for Artaban was reserved a romantic and
troubled career. With his nephew Gregoras and Ardashir (Artaxerxes) he joins,
or pretends to join, the curious rebellion of Gontharis the rvpavvo9 in
Carthage. But seizing a fit moment they murder the rebel and his friends, and
shout the loyal salutations to Justinian. As a reward of this service Artaban
is allowed to leave his post and return to the capital, lured by the
fascinating Prejecta, a member of the imperial family. But disappointed passion
or ambition made him a conspirator (548). Theodora, finding that he is already
married, disposes otherwise of Prejecta, and forces him to take back his
earlier and rejected spouse, also of Arsacian descent (ojmocpvXos). Artabanus
in high dudgeon listened to the murmurs of a youthful kinsman, Arsaces, who had
been publicly whipped and paraded through the streets on a camel for
treasonable correspondence with the Persian court. Smarting with the disgrace,
Arsaces dwelt lightly on his own wrongs, but dilated rather on national
grievances, the unhappy condition of those Armenians who fell a prey to the
Roman tax-gatherer. They decide to assassinate Justinian ; the plot is
discovered ; and the mild emperor is content with despoiling Artaban of his
dignity and confining his impetuous relatives within the palace for a time. I
would throw no doubts on the mercifulness of an untiring prince and a good man
; but we may well suppose that a fear of offending the powerful Armenian
contingent would reinforce the “ imperial clem-
ency,”—one of the most glorious and truthful titles
Armenian in use for the later Caesars: six years later (554) v2fHca™first “ Chanoranges,” a member of the conspiracy (perhaps Armenian
a title of honour at the Persian court), would be Pj0^ ™caH
found serving in Italy against Buccelin's marauders. spiracy 0f
Such was the first Armenian plot against the life Artaban and majesty of an
emperor; it will not be the last.
Generally
devoted, like the Swiss, in their impersonal attachment to the empire, and
displaying more manly qualities than any desire for intrigue, the Armenians on
occasion can become dangerous competitors for the sovereign dignity. In the
next century we shall have the brief and obscure “tyranny” of Mejej or Mizizius
(668), and with increasing frequency candidates will propose themselves for
the purple : until in one century there are few pretenders who are not of this
race, and in the next an entire dynasty will be Armenian in origin and
sympathies. We may complete here the record of the empire's debt to Armenians
on the African shore. Artaban's own successor was probably a fellow-countrymen,
John Troglita, the hero of the epic of Cresconius Corip- pus. Now John's
brother is a certain Pappus or Bab, a name common among Armenians, and especially
with the clan of Arsacids. He was the son and the husband of a princess ; his
wife “filia regis erat; mater quoque filia regis " ; and his own Christian
name,
John, is a
favourite with the Armenians, who have ever held in especial veneration the
memory of the Precursor, “ Karabied." Such was the tale of Armenian
prowess in Africa.
§ 3. Again
turning to the East, John Guzes is very Persarmenia
valiant
at the siege of Petra in 550, and loses his life un^eT xi_ .1 , . . , religious
there the
next year in a similar assault. In 551, too, persecution
Aratius
appears (Hrahad), Arsacid and Camsar, \nJoins.the
PlilDlTP
control of
Armenian and Illyrian troops. Arme- * nians command the punitive expedition
which exacted vengeance from Rome's seditious subjects in the Caucasus, the
Misimians, and the disorderly Tzanni
Persarmenia
under
religious
persecution
joins the
empire.
of Pontus ;
the army obeyed Varazan the Armenian and Pharsantes the Colchian, one who held
the office of master of the troops in the Lazic court (juLayicrrpog tcov ev
avky TayjuLaTcov). This title, like those of patrician and curopalat, will meet
us often, and sometimes in curious disguises, till the close of our history
and the subjugation of the free Christian kingdoms between the Black and
Caspian Seas.—In 562, another sonorous title was invented for the short and
suspicious armistice between the two powers ; this time the peace is not “
endless ” or “ for a century/’ but “for fifty years." Menander gives with
his usual minuteness the exact terms of a compact so soon to be
violated.—Justin II. (565-578), who showed an equal desire to lighten the
subjects' burden and to raise the dignity of Rome, assumed a loftier tone towards
the Sassanid than Justinian, mild but persistent, had ever adopted. Once again
the northern lands, ambigua gens mortaltum, as Tacitus well styles' them,
supplied an incentive to war. While Swania, to the great annoyance of the
emperor, decides for union with Persia after a kind of plebiscite, like Rome on
Garibaldi's entrance in 1870; Persarmenia, on the other hand, begged to be
transferred to the Christian power. This country, once Great Armenia, had been
surrendered, if we may trust the solitary evidence of Evagrius, by Philippus
(244), after the murder of Gordian III., 7rpdor]v fPcojuLaioig
kcltvkoos ; and if this be true, it forms doubtless an episode in the obscure
revolutions which placed Tiridat on the throne. Definitely recognised as
Persian by Theodosius, it had taken little part in the recent wars, and since
the reign of Justin I. at New Rome (518) had been under the benevolent rule of
Mejej (the later Greek Mi^/^o?), a Gnounian prince. He repaired the mischief of
the past, paid regular tribute, saw that the Christian faith and practice were
respected, and taught Armenians to forget their light vassalage by securing a
greater prosperity than in the days of
independence,
both in numbers and rich com- Persarmenia merce with India. He remained in
charge for UJ^0US thirty years (518-548); but
Chosroes did not give persecution the succession to a native Christian prince
but to a Joins,the Zoroastrian. The church was persecuted
: magians empire' were introduced for a subtle or violent propaganda
; fire-temples were built, even in the especially loyal Reschdounian canton.
Envoys were sent (532) to remonstrate with the Persian king, and to demand the
strict terms of the compact between King Valasch (or Balas) and Prince Vahan
the Mamigonian.
Chosroes,
alarmed at the Gothic successes of Rome, was prepared to conciliate ; and
Ten-Shahpour (cf. later name Ten-Chosroes, Tayu^oV^co) was recalled.
Veshnas-Varanes (552-558) and Varazdat (558—
564) succeed
; and Souren follows them, a member of the Surenian family, a branch of the
Arsacids, to whom Theophylact gives the title KXifxardp^ijg rrjs yApjuL€vl(av nroXirelag (the Armenian Goghmanagal).
Once more
persecution became a settled policy; and Vartan, head of the Mamigonians, set
himself forward as the leader of a revolt, his patriotic feelings roused by a
private wrong,—the murder of his brother Manuel by Surena. He was distinguished
in birth as in military skill, nrpov^wv yevei, afycocrei, e/uLTreipla <tt partly nzy—just those
characteristics to be expected in a race which forced a chivalrous feudalism
upon the reluctant institutions of imperial Rome.
The
patriarch Moses II. leads a rebellion at Dovin, the record of which is
strangely preserved to us by .
.Gregory of
Tours. Vartan and Vard (Bardas) complete the attack; Dovin. is taken; Surena
killed; and by the end of March 571 Persian soldiers and priests of the alien
creed were exterminated in a general rising.
§ 4. Armenia,
struggling towards independence, Doubtful sought alliance of her northerly
neighbours (xX^o-io- \00poL . . . ofAoeOveis . . . aX\6(pv\oif Evagr.) and Persarmenia the powerful protection of Rome. Justin II. wel-
(575-580).
Doubtful issue of the quarrel over Persarmenia
(575-580).
comes the
envoys, promises to defend as his own subjects, and pledges never to abandon
the authors of the revolt to the tender mercies of Persia. Iberia follows the
lead, and crosses over to the Roman side ; for the king of that country we
should probably read Stephen rather than Gourgenes (Topyivoyi), with Theophilus
of Byzantium. Chosroes sent Deren, the “ Constable of Persia ” (Sparabied), to
reduce the disaffected provinces. Being defeated in the first engagement, he
gave way to Bahram (or Varanes) (the pretender eighteen years later to the
throne of Persia), who at once availed himself of the dissension invariably
prevalent in a feudal society of peers, even when the common liberty is in
peril. Vartan, soon despairing of his venture, retired with his kinsmen to the
Roman capital, and was there treated with the generous courtesy always extended
to dispossessed princes. Nothing can well be more tedious and unedifying than
the record of the next seven or eight years. Anarchy prevailed ; fire and sword
ravaged the country, from which all traces of former prosperity vanished. The
Persian army, under Mihram and Bahram, is swelled by Caucasian tribes,
Dilemites and Sabirians. Under Marcian the Roman commander fight Vartan the
refugee, the Alans with their chieftain Saros, Colchians and Abasgians. Neither
great power seemed anxious to push matters to a final settlement ; Chosroes is
glad in 575 to make peace with the regent, Tiberius II., but wishes to except
the rebels from its benefits. The Roman generals, Kurs the u Scythian ” (or Goth) and
Theodosius, attack the Albanians and Sabirians, take hostages, and secure
their brief surrender to the empire : on their default they return, ravage
their land, and transplant across the Cyrus the faithful Romanisers, iravoiKia
/i€toikIi£ovt€s (Menander),—an early instance of that wholesale change of a
settlement which is an interesting but disconcerting feature in the later
history. The Roman army twice
disbands,
either in dislike of a new general or in fear Doubtful of the emperor's
displeasure : it seems a significant symptom of the contempt of authority which
marks Persarmenia the fifty years from Justinian to Heraclius. In 576,
(575-550). the Great King marched out in person to Armenia ;
Taron (an
appanage of Vartan's family) he finds a vast wilderness; and, losing the great
battle of Melitene, is said to have forbidden a Persian king to lead his own
armies—a prohibition very unlikely, but singularly parallel with the tendencies
of China and Rome about this time, where Maurice and Heraclius and Lichi found
it difficult to revive the military side of kingship. Next year (577) the
humiliated kingdom was exposed to Saracen raiders, acting under the
instructions of Rome. Yet the emperors do not follow up their successes, and
indeed on both sides of the long struggle we observe merely a temporising and
spasmodic policy, no constant aim. There now appeared on the Eastern scene a
general whom Armenian writers claim as a fellow- countrymen. Maurice was,
according to Evagrius, a native of Arabissus in Cappadocia; but others say he
was born in the province of Ararat; in either case it is more than probable
that he was in some way connected with that district, which gave strength and
military leaders to the empire after the failure of the Balkan or Illyrian
stock. He may well have belonged to one of the families who migrated into Roman
territory during a persecution. In 579,
Tiberius
II. agreed to give up the imperial claims in Persarmenia and Iberia, but
refused to surrender those who wished to join the empire. But Chosroes
especially insists on the extradition of those feudal clan^-leaders (yeveap^at)
who had initiated the revolt; and dies during the ineffective conferences,
after a reign of nearly half a century. Tiberius’
§5. We are
now on the threshold of the most offer to resign stirring scene in a somewhat
wearisome duel; the last fifty years of the wars between Persia and Rome
Persarmenia.
Tiberius are crowded with incident. A Persian
general deoffer to resign thrones his sovereign, who is restored by a Roman
Roman ~
claims to emperor ; a Roman centurion murders his
emperor, Persarmenia. and is attacked by the Persian, grateful to the prince
only, not to the commonwealth. Rome, lately so triumphant in its favourite role
of arbiter of justice and the world’s peace, is helpless before the Persian
vengeance; and, after an inglorious and desperate interval of some sixteen,
years, suddenly awakens to crush her rival in the campaigns of Heraclius, and
in the end to expose two exhausted powers to the irresistible Arabs. To the new
Shah, Hormisdas (579), Tiberius renews his offer to surrender Persarmenia and
Arzanene, but not the heads of the rebellion. (It is to this epoch that we
refer the curious counterpoise of Tiberius to the seditious and untrustworthy
legions of Rome; he purchases barbarian slaves (ayopao-as (rco/mara eQvucwv),
and thus began or revived that policy of slave-armies so eagerly imitated by
the Moslem in the cases of Turkman, Janissaries, and Memlukes.) The last year
of Tiberius was signalised by a great Roman victory at Constantia ; but John
Mystakon, a Thracian, under the new emperor Maurice, 582, suffered a defeat,
and yielded his place in 584 to the emperor's brother-in-law, Philippicus ; for
it might well seem hazardous to entrust an important post to any but a member
of the imperial family. At the great battle of Solacon, it is said that half
the Persian army perished, and this success was Mutinous followed up by the
ravage of Arzanene. But Philip- Spersian and P*cus>
^e Heraclius later, was of a highly strung and Roman neurotic temperament;
seized by panic he fled, and, armies alike, filled with shame, remained in
retirement during the rest of his command. The active duties were handed over
to Heraclius, father of the future emperor; and the armies of Rome obeyed in
addition two Arabs and a Hun (u7rocrTpaTtjyos). The mutinous and malcontent
spirit of these Roman troops was well displayed in 588, when Priscus was sent
out as general-in-chief;
they broke
into open revolt, forced him to fly for Mutinws his life, and, refusing to be
propitiated by the °^QvS^fjfnani of Philippicus’ return,
proclaimed Germanus their ^man ' leader. The Senate
condemns Germanus to death ; armies alike. but Maurice, naturally clement, and
at this time helpless, pardons him. Finally, on the pleading of Gregory, bishop
of Antioch, the troops take back their old commander, Philippicus, and almost
at once secure an important victory in a pitched battle near Sisarban,
adjoining Nisibis (590). We read with some surprise of this success of soldiers
thoroughly mutinous and demoralised; but the armies of Persia were in a worse,
at least a similar, plight. Bahram, the new pretender, came of Arsacid stock,
and of the family of the Miramians (t?? tov Mippajuov oiKap%id?); that is, he
belonged to a branch of the old regnant house which enjoyed the feudal appanage
of Rey in Hyrcania down to the middle of the seventh century. During this time
Persarmenia had become Roman in its sympathies; Maurice had also appointed a
(rrpartjyog for Colchis, who, taking measures with the patriarch
(Koivo\oyq<ra$ tw ciceio-e iepapxoOvTi), had gained a victory over the Persians
near Ganzac, the Albanian capital. But a settled policy was out of the
question. Opinion began to veer round to Persia: Sembat raises a Persian party,
murders John, ’Ap/uevla9 rjye/uLcov, is reduced by Domen- tziolus, condemned to
the beasts in the Byzantine arena, and finally reprieved by the clemency of
Maurice. It is curious to speculate on the long train of results from this act
of pardon. Sembat the Bagratid returns a free man to become a resolute
“medizer,” the favourite of Chosroes II., the Persian governor of Armenia. From
him issued the well-nigh interminable line of Armenian and Georgian kings, who
ceased only with the opening of the nineteenth century.
§ 6. In 590
Chosroes displaces his father, and is j)ethrone- himself
dethroned by Bahram. He flies to the secure ment of and honourable protection
of Rome. The Armenian Chosroe8-
Ghosroes dethroned and restored by Rome in concert
with Armenian nobles.
nobles, with
that warm and chivalrous interest in a legitimate line which is so prominent in
Byzantine history, supported the cause of Chosroes. Among their number are
conspicuous Mouschegh, prince of Daron or Taron,1 a Mamigonian,
Sembat the pardoned rebel of the Bagratid stock, and Khoutha, prince of
Sassoun, a canton near Daron belonging to the Mamigonians, and giving its name
to-day to a notable friend of our English royalty. With Mouschegh emerges a
family well known in Roman history—one Alexius Mouschegh (Moxr^Xe) is a
trusted Armenian captain under Constantine VI. (c. 790) ; and another, victor
in Sicily, will be Caesar and emperor's son-in-law for a brief space under
Theophilus. Comentiolus has a certain success at Martyropolis, where the
garrison are compelled to surrender by the bishop Domitian, another determined
Eastern prelate, who mingles in political affairs; Sittas, a rebel, is given up
to condign punishment, and burnt alive in the barbarous fashion of those days
(we may see such a penalty inflicted under both Phocas and Heraclius). But
Chosroes did not like Comentiolus. By the king's influence he was recalled, or
rather put in a subordinate place under a general of undoubted Armenian
descent, Narses, an Arsacid and a Camsar (541), who six years earlier was
governor of Constantia. After a brilliant victory over the pretender Bahram in
Aderbaijan, near the modern Tabriz, Chosroes is re-established as king. He
cedes Dara, Anastasius' well-placed citadel, and a large strip of Armenia,
stretching along Lesser Armenia; it has been long since the Romans had a
frontier on the East so safe or so honourable. Armenians are in favour for
their loyal support; the sons of Sembat, Ashot and Varazdirot, receive the rank
due to the children of the Great King; their father, a vassal of Persia on
specially advantageous
1
Tchamtchian believes that this captain may be identified with John Mystak6n, an
early general under Maurice, but there seems little reason.
terms, is
made Marzban of Armenia and Hyrcania, chosroes de-
lying
south-west of the Caspian. Mouschegh, or throned and
«Musel,” the Mamigonian, alone is envious and
disappointed;
like some feudal noble of Western concert with
Europe, he
retires sullenly to his own estates. Ten
years of
peace and silent recovery (591-601) were
a welcome
relief to the peoples of the near East, Welcome
hurried
along against their will in the aimless quarrels Peaff broken r i , ^ 1 11 m r
1 by the murder
of the two
great powers. Only the Saracen free-lances of Maurice.
seem to have
distressed Chosroes by their raids ; and on his remonstrance (601), Maurice
sent George,
“ prefect of
the East/' and comptroller of the revenue (<popo\oyla$ €7ricrracrla, Thph.
Simoc.), to propitiate his offended ally. It was very typical of the disintegrating
and individualist spirit then abroad, that the envoy boasted, openly and with
impunity, that to his tact alone was due the success of a delicate business
which the emperor could not have carried through. Meantime, as we know, “
urgentibus imperii fatis,”
disaffection had penetrated the Western armies of Rome ; the Avar
campaigns were a failure ; the toiling emperor could do nothing right in the
eyes of his subjects. For a moment the destiny of the commonwealth hangs in the
balance ; but the evil genius prevails, and Phocas is elected by the troops.
He was
joyfully accepted by the capital and its factions (602), to their eternal
shame and remorse.
§ 7. At this the unnatural and
incredible peace was Chosroes’ war
roughly
broken. In 604 policy and the manes of of vengeance i X* • , against Rome.
his
murdered friend drove Chosroes into a declaration of war, and the last and
most dismal scene opens in the long fight. For eighteen years the Romans suffer
indescribable hurt and ignominy (604-622); in six years their majesty is amply
vindicated, and the exhausted combatants succumb to an unexpected foe. At this
dramatic crisis in our history, we can readily forgive the turgid metaphors of
the historian; the Persian king sounds the trumpet which announces the doom of
a world, and over- vol. 11. 2 A
Chosroes1 war throws the well-being of
Roman and Persian alike ajSlw. (K°<rMO<t>0opov aiXiriyya .
. . Xvrtjptov evTrpayias). The now pacified frontier had been denuded of
troops, and all available forces had been sent over for the pressing needs of
the Avar campaign. These were now hastily collected and despatched eastwards,
under a eunuch, Leontius, soon to be supplanted by the new emperor's own
brother (or nephew), Domen- tziolus, the Curopalat; for Phocas, like Maurice,
seems to trust only a near relative in high command. A conspiracy of perhaps
honourable silence among the historians disguises the details of this war ;
Theophy- lact is scanty, and the Oriental writers alone give us some tidings of
a crisis, which forms such a signal Mutinous refutation of elective monarchy.
The Armenian 'ofTwm™6 Pr*nces>
living in a spirited feudal society, careless like the later Teutons
of any tie but personal loyalty, were not backward in offering themselves for
the war of righteous vengeance. When Sembat dies in 601, Chosroes appoints a
nominee recommended by the nobles—David, the Saharhounian. Ashot, his son,
accompanied the king on an expedition into Roman Armenia; and being made
lieutenant of Persian forces in that district, begins to ravage a country just
reviving under the blessings of peace. Mouschegh (Mwo-^Xe), alone in his
private appanage of Taron, remained, like Achilles in his tent, deaf to the
call to arms; and in the truceless enmity of the two forces believed he had
found the best guarantee for his own autonomy. Mihram sent against him a nephew
of the Great King himself; is absurdly deceived by Vahan the Wolf, heir to the
principality, and meets with woeful discomfiture; his army is divided and
lured to its destruction piecemeal, and the independence of Taron seems
secured. Vahan, succeeding to the chieftaincy in 605, still defies the might of
Persia, and set an example which the unwieldy and dissolving empire of Rome
could not imitate. Chosroes, indignant at the failure of his
expedition
and his nephew’s death, sends his uncle, Mutinous Vakhtang, against the rebel.
But David the Marz- l^^^nce ban eludes the order to
send reinforcements, and Vahan is completely successful. He dies in glory and
independence at his capital Moush ; and his son Sembat, having killed the
second kinsman of the Great King, is for the present left alone in his precarious
freedom. Such was the feudal atmosphere of Armenia; such were the centrifugal
tendencies which rendered sovereign authority everywhere helpless at the
beginning of the seventh century.
Ill
THE DYNASTY OF HERACLIUS AND THE EASTERN VASSALS
(a) To the Death of Constans III.
(620-668)
§
1. During his distant campaign in Persia, Hera- Keratlius' clius had no reason
to complain of the services ren- to
dered by
Armenia,in other parts of the empire. His religious con- unexpected vigour and
success had reunited those Mmity m scattered limbs and interests which had been
falling apart in the years that followed Justinian’s death.
When the
soldiers, despising a sexless rebel, saved him the trouble of punishing
Eleutherius’ revolt, the exarchate was given to Isaac, an Armenian (probably of
the Camsar clan), 625 (?), whose epitaph, written by his wife Susannah, can
still be read in St. Vitalis at Ravenna. He belonged to that princely caste who
offered themselves to the emperors almost on equal terms—to that feudal and
warlike nobility which still surrounded the Sassanid throne and tempered its
despotism, only to vanish utterly in the democratic equality of Islam and the
unchecked autocracy, its necessary consequence.
'Aj0/J.6V109 rjv yap ovrog etc \afxirpov yevovs
o aird(rr]?
AjO/xewa? *007x09 /meyag ’I<raaKio$ tcov fiacriXecov
o crv/uLjULa)(o$.
Heracliutf attempt to secure
religious conformity in Armenia.
(These lines
show clearly the proud and independent spirit in which he served Rome,
governing the curious patchwork which composed the imperial districts in Italy
for eighteen years.) The problem of Heraclius in dealing with Armenians in
their own country was one of religion, as will be seen in the sequel. David,
lieutenant- general in Persarmenia since 601, and Prince of the Saharhounians,
escaped to the Romans in 625, finding it difficult to conceal his sympathies in
the crusade, or convince the king of his good faith. Varazdirot the Bagratid,
son of Sembat, is his successor as Marzban; but exposed to the plots of an
envious governor of Aderbaijan, Roustem, he follows the precedent set and takes
refuge in the emperor’s capital, after nearly seven years’ command in Armenia
(631). On the peace (628) Heraclius gave Roman Armenia to Mejej the Gnounian
(Me^e^to?), a great-grandson of that Mejej who had long controlled Persarmenia
under Cabades and Chosroes Nushirvan. Heraclius now tried to secure religious unity
and persuade Armenia to accept the council of Chalcedon. The patriarch Esdras
and Mejej consent, but are indignantly repudiated by the rest of the prelates ;
and the rupture of the churches has lasted to the present day. Meantime the
independence of Sembat the Mamigonian, Prince of Taron, was secured by the
weakness of Persia and his own craft. Surena, demanding the surrender of his
brother Vakhtang’s wife and children, is defeated ; and Vahan or Baanes
deceives and cuts to pieces some Persian troops under Dehram in a fashion
strangely recalling the earlier successes of this house. Taron was now safe
from interference, and this immunity from foreign control was shared with the
adjacent districts of the Balounians, of Haschtiang, and of Ard-Shont.
§ 2. The
flight of Varazdirot to Byzantium drove Armenia into alliance with the emperor.
Rustem,
who had
attempted to oust the late governor, was Ambiguous hindered by troubles at home
and could not profit position of by his disappearance. Anarchy prevailed every-
between the where. The Patriarch Esdras, taking the lead like two powers.
Moses, Domitian, Cyrus, Sergius (statesmen-prelates of the age), summoned a
conference of peers, and with their consent despatched envoys to Heraclius (c.
632). The emperor, hoping for better fortune in political than in his recent
religious intervention, sent out David, the ex-governor, with the high title
Curopalat: this is the earliest instance of its use for an Armenian governor,
and it will meet us at every turn in Armenian history together with the name
mayi<TTpo$. But the attempt to rule independent nobles by a vassal prince of
their own rank could not succeed; feudal pride was too strong. The nobles
league and chase David from his post (1c. 634), and civil war ensues till 636.
Then Theodore, Prince of the Reschdounians (like Tar on, near Lake Van),
acquires sufficient force to exercise the precarious office of Marzban without
authorisation from either monarch ; quite in the fashion of some mediaeval
count, doubtful vassal of a German emperor and a French king. Meantime the Arab
Advent of the onslaught on the prostrate rivals had begun, andArahs' in the Roman service and in their own country Armenians are
conspicuous. It is said that Vardan commanded a Roman army at the siege of
Damascus (634), where the Greek writers give Theodore, the emperor's brother ;
while Vardan's son is on duty at Emesa. If it is true (and the two accounts are
quite compatible), "he will be a Mamigonian prince. In the same year of
disaster (634)
Heraclius
sent a Vahan (or Baanes), also a Mamigonian, in joint command with Trithurius.
(Gf this Vahan Arab writers know nothing, but use consistently the name Vardan
both for this colleague and for 11
Theodorus "). It is not difficult to see why he supplants the emperor's
brother in the eyes of the
Patriotic resistance under the Vahans.
Nationalism ruined by feudal paralysis: Sack of
Bovin (640).
Arabians ;
for he actually displaced him in a mutiny of the troops and was saluted
emperor, curiously foreshadowing a very similar sedition of the Persians under
Theophobus exactly 200 years later (irpo-
XeLpK>ovraL
fia<JL^a T°v Kaa 'HpaicXeiov aireicr)pv£av} Thpl.). But the revolt of “ Emperor ” Bardanes comes to the same
untimely end as that of his Armenian kinsman under Nicephorus I. (804): he
retires to Mount Sinai and becomes a monk.1
Another Armenian Vahan is killed at Tarmouk (636), where some read in error “
Manuel ” : this officer, a Mamigonian Romaniser and a eunuch (according to
Elmacin), was sent by Heraclius as governor of Alexandria and AvyovcrTaXiog.
But Armenian valour was sadly needed at home. Arab raids became frequent;
Abderrahman with 18,000 ravages Taron, raises tribute, and carries off women
and children as slaves or hostages. Prince Vahan (a Camsar and Arsacid on the
mother's side), son of Sembat of Taron, raises half this number to defend their
country ; he aroused a Mouschegh into arms, and unhappily Sahour, Prince of the
Andsevatsians, from the southernmost part of Vasparacan and the heart of
Kurdistan mountains. This traitor ruined the patriotic enterprise and passed
over to the foe, the loyal Armenians suffering a terrible rout and losing
Mouschegh (Movo^Ae) and Diran, Vahan’s brother, who enjoyed the rich
satisfaction of slaying the renegade before his own death.
§ 3.
Theodore, Prince of the Reschdounians, tried without success to rally the
nationalist cause ; feudal jealousies prevented any cohesion in the party.
1 If
we may trust an anonymous Syriac chronicler at the beginning of the fourteenth
century, this was not the only instance of Separatism in the East, where
private ambition defended in name the cause of the empire which had already
been surrendered by the emperor: a certain Joseph makes himself master of
Byblos, maintaining a petty State against Persian and Arab alike under the
unauthenticated title of defender of the empire on the Phoenician coast; Job
succeeds and extends his dominion to Caesarea Philippi.
The country
lay open to the marauders, for the Nationalism Arabs had as yet no idea
whatever of empire. So ruined ty pitiable was the condition of the land
that Patriarch paralysis: Esdras dies of grief (639) after a primacy of ten
Sacko/JDovin years and eight months ; and at this signal the ^6
Arabs close in round his see-city, the capital Dovin, taking it by assault
early in 640 (Epiphany, according to Asolik). It was burnt and laid waste, and
35,000 captives may attest past prosperity and present misfortune. Habib,
ironically termed the Steady north- “ friend of Rome" (he was no doubt a
constant but w^rdadm^
OT LilP
unwelcome
visitor), was the author of this crushing (640 sqq.). blow to Armenian freedom.
Believing resistance to be fruitless, the “Batrik” (ttarpl/cio?) of a
Bas- fouradjan ” acknowledges the caliph ; or rather surrenders through Habib
to Moawiah, governor of Syria for Othman. In this anonymous official with a
Roman title some have recognised Theodore, who had so lately tried to marshal
his national army.
Habib passed
northward through Sisakon beyond the Araxes, seized Wa'is, a strong fortress,
and advancing into Iberia, seized Tiflis. All the princes of North Armenia and
Iberia, and the chieftains of the Caucasus, pay tribute. Salman, his
lieutenant, captured Bardaah, the capital of Otene (in Albanian hands since the
fall of the Arsacid monarchy in Armenia), and Schamkor, a citadel and district
in the north (which comprised a separate lordship until the fourteenth
century). The Arabs’ success was continued into the fastnesses of Albania ;
Cabalaca (or Cabala), the capital, felt into their hands; and the petty
Albanian chiefs in.Schaki and up to the Caspian Sea were reduced to vassals.
(But a terrible Nemesis awaited them (651), which we may here anticipate.
The Khan of
the Khazars proved an unconscious avenger of Rome and of Armenia; the Arab com-
• mander and his troops were confronted and exterminated, few escaping with
the story.) Such was then the state of the country in the middle of the
Steady north- seventh century when Constans,
grandson of
wardafaance Heraclius, was just issuing from
tutelage into a
° r S wayward and
headstrong manhood. Both powers
claimed the
suzerainty of Armenia (for in neither
case did it
amount by a direct administration) ; the
Arabs, though
continually ravaging, never made any
permanent
conquest; and the strange slave-dynasties
of Turkmans,
alien military oligarchies, Taherids,
Sofarids,
Bowids, Samanids, had no better success.
It was
reserved for the pacific avarice of the
Byzantines
and for the ruthless courage of the
Seljukian
Turks to overpower this sturdy outpost
of eastern
Christianity—or rather to drive its last
representatives,
like the Gothic remnant in Saracen
Spain, into
the fortresses of Cilicia and Georgia.
§ 4. But
meantime affairs in Armenia had not
„
, ttt stood still. Once more Theodore tries to con- Constans 111. . J _ _
Nationalists federate the nationalists. The
Roman Senate had,
aim, at jn
the name of the youthful Constans (642), sent the autonomy. ^ Curopalat, Varazdirot, to resume whatever power he
could over the turbulent local chiefs, who were quite out of sympathy with the
uniform and centralised control of Rome. On his death Sembat, his son,
succeeded to a vain dignity. Sembat (in a well- marked triple division of
authority and department) was at the head of the civil administration ;
Theodore commanded the troops; and the new Patriarch Narses, or Nerses, showed
all the vigour and capacity of an ecclesiastical statesman. These three, acting
in a rare and happy agreement, endeavoured to restore order to the Church and
State. But on a fresh inroad (646) through Peznounia (north-west of Lake Van)
to the remote province of Ararat or Uriartu, Theodore and Sembat are forced to
pay tribute once more. This news of his defaulting vassals reached the
inflammable emperor, who seemed more anxious to punish this defection than
prevent it by timely reinforcement. Constans III. arrived at Dovin, now
recovering from its desolation, and was wel-
(640 sqq.).
After the visits of
corned by the
conciliating patriarch, Narses (c. 646). After the
Valuable
time and patience were exhausted in pro- ™slt8 0f _ f t , * 1.1 1 ■ Constans III.
fitless
theology. Constans, like his grandfather Nationalists
nearly twenty
years before, attempts to force the aim at Council of Chalcedon on the belief
of Armenia. autonomy’
To secure a
barren religious uniformity, he gave up a valuable occasion for establishing
Roman suzerainty over a grateful people. On his retirement (647) the old feuds
break out again, and the Symbol is repudiated. He now from a distance orders
the three heads of the civil, military, and ecclesiastical society to convoke a
council at Dovin and to urge the acceptance of the distasteful creed. Narses,
finding himself in an untenable position between prince and people, and unable
to satisfy either party, abdicates.
In 649 Theodore
secures John the Doctor for his successor, and the two convene an assembly at
Mandzikert, in Central Armenia (651). But the fortunes of Armenia have taken an
unexpected turn for the better. News of the defeat and overthrow of Habib’s
lieutenant may very likely have reached the conclave; the emperor was far off,
and Roman troops were scanty. The princes believed themselves able to dispense
with the support of Rome, its churches, its orthodoxy, and its imposts. They
anathematise the creed of Chalcedon and all its adherents. Political and
religious separatism had triumphed; and it may be that the lords were always
more favourable to the loose suzerainty of the Arabian caliph.
§ 5. In this
crisis Constans III. sent the gallant Waning veteran, Mejej the Gnounian,
commanding in Western of Roman Armenia, to conciliate his countrymen ; but
speedily Armenia’ replaced him by a certain Pasagnathes,“ Patrician of
tributary to the Armenians ” (Thpl.), who is by no means so loyal caliph' to the Roman interest. Imitating the feudal princes around him and the
example of Joseph and Job in Ccele-Syria, of Eleutherius in Italy, he attempts
to seize autonomy, and gives hostages to Moawiah.
Waning of Roman influence ; Armenia tributary to
caliph.
Constans was
roused to indignation; unstable and precipitate, he advances to Cappadocian
Caesarea to punish his viceroy or his vassal, is seized with despair of
reducing Armenia (aireX-Trlcra9 r?? *Ap- /uievla?), and beats a hasty retreat
to the city of Constantine. Moawiah now determines to reduce Armenia, where he
counts on the support of Pas- agnathes. Abulpharagius speaks of a great expedition,
of a double siege of the Caesarea before mentioned, of an honourable tribute
and capitulation ; and of the amazement and regret of the Arabs at the rich
splendour of the city they had held to ransom. But the onslaught of Moawiah had
produced a reaction in Greater Armenia ; Pasagnathes had made little progress
in detaching the nation from the Roman alliance. In 653 another effort was made,
this time with better success. Habib, “friend of Rome," was sent thither
and defeated a Roman general, Maurianus, who was present with reinforcements
for the loyalists. He chased him to Caucasus ; ravaged the country, burned the
towns, and came home laden with booty and captives. The Armenian writers, John
Catholicos and Asolik, believed that over 7000 hostages were carried off from
the richer families as a pledge of their inaction. Theodore the Reschdounian,
lieutenant-general and patriot, at last abandons the Roman cause. With his
troops he passes over to Damascus, dying there the next year (654) ; his body
is brought back and buried in his father's sepulchre in Vasparacan. The civil
governor Sembat, Curopalat, dies about the same time ; and of the two only
Narses is left. He comes out of his seclusion, and concerts measures with the
grandees of Armenia, to secure order and protect the country from a foe whose
method of conquest was a mere raid. Hamazasp, son of David the Mamigonian, is
now raised to the supreme civil dignity ; and Vard or Bardas, son of the late
commander-in-chief, as the new general, divides with him the government.
Armenian authorities style these leaders “ Patrician " ; Waning
and
with this Roman title they continued tributary °fBoman __ 1 J J influence;
to
the Moslem. Armenia
tributary to caliph.
IV
UNDER THE HERACLIADS AND ISAURIANS
(/3) From Constantine IV.
to the Death of
Leo III. (670-740)
§ 1. It seems
abundantly clear that the Armenian Revolt of
soldiers in
the immediate service of the empire were
r princes tn
dissatisfied
with the treatment of their country by East and the Heracliads. After the great
opportunity in 628, yP°r the Roman policy had been
vexatious and inter- (668). mittent. It had neither protected Armenia as a friendly
ally, nor governed her as a subject vassal— neither defended nor administered.
The imperial visits had been unwelcome ; for they had turned on points of
religious difference, not on the urgent need of reinforcements against the
unbeliever. While the Council of Chalcedon was pressed on the people with angry
zeal, the country was left exposed to a ruthless power which recognised neither
Chalcedon nor any other. In 667 Constantine IV., as yet beardless, was regent
for his father absent in Sicily.
The <rTpart]ybs
’Ap/neviaKcov, Sapor the Persian-born (Zaftwpios nepo-oyevtjs), revolts, an
Amadounian prince; allied with Moawiah’s troops he agrees with the caliph to
pay tribute to him if he wins the empire.
Sergius, “
magister militum ” (o-TpaTijXarw), was sent to Damascus to draw up the
contract. But Rome was saved from the disgrace of becoming vassal to the
caliph, under an Armenian, by a eunuch of the court. Andreas had been bold
enough to refuse leave to the empress to accompany Constans westwards ; just as
the Patriarch Sergius had prevented a similar flight of the Emperor Heraclius
himself. Before the caliph, at Damascus, the two
Revolt oj Armenian princes in East and West; Sapor
and Mejej {668).
Recovery of Armenia under suzerainty to caliph.
emissaries
explain their terms—his favour is to be given to the highest bidder. Sergius,
full of the true Byzantine hatred for a palace-chamberlain, insults Andreas ;
and the latter hurries off to arrange for a warm reception of the general from
the Clisur- rarch of the Taurus (in the neighbourhood of Ara- bissus). Sergius,
elated at his triumph, returns from his mission to be rudely seized in the
moment of success. Andreas mutilates and hangs the rebel, not for the personal
abuse but for his treason to the empire. Sapor dies of a fractured skull in an
accident with a restive horse, while Nicephorus, patrician, is sent against him
to Adrinople (which we must suppose to be some unknown spot within the limits
of the Armeniac theme). The sedition of the nepcroyevw had collapsed ; but
within a year an obscure cabal at Syracuse had procured the assassination of
Constans at the bath, and the elevation of the handsome Armenian, Mejej, to
taste for a brief season the cares rather than the delights of sovereignty. He
is Mi(£fi£to9 in Theophanes, Mizius to the barbarous translator in the
Miscella, Mecetius to Paul the Deacon, Mezzetius to Anastasius. Michael, the
Syrian patriarch, styles him a patrician ; he was certainly a Gnounian prince ;
in no other family do we find this name. We may well ask whether he was not the
son or grandson (cv7rpe7rtjg k. wpaiorarog) of the aged Mejej, partner of
Heraclius and governor of Roman Armenia ? The entanglement of Justinian
(patrician) and his son Germanus might persuade us to accept another hypothesis
;—was this another attempt to transfer the throne to the survivors of a dispossessed
dynasty, who had treated Armenia with greater fairness than the Heracliads ? We
may note that Germanus is castrated, and becomes later—like Ignatius, son of
Michael I. (813)—patriarch of the capital city.
§ 2. During
the contest of Ali and Moawiah for the caliphate, Armenia recovered her lost
independence and placed herself under the protection of
Rome. We find
again the title u Curopalat” ; but Recovery of
when
Moawiah became recognised head of Islam, Armenia . . . . . .
. J _ 7 under suze-
the Armenian
again veered round against Rome, rainty to
remembering
the scanty aid rendered by the empire caliph. and the constant religious
friction. Vard or Bardas, the Reschdounian, was prominent in the anti-Roman
party. Hamazasp died after a principate of four years in 658; and the caliph “
invests” his brother and successor, Gregory, on the demand of the grandees and
the patriarch. It cannot be denied that under the infidel suzerain the country
enjoyed a new life of peace and prosperity. The lords were harmonious; the
prince tactful, pious, and enlightened ; the tribute punctual; and the
contingents of Armenia regularly figured in the muster-roll against the Roman
Empire. In 683 (John Catholicos and Asolik are our authorities) this tranquil
development was suddenly arrested. The Khazars, unconscious saviours of the
Armenian State thirty years before, crossed the Caucasus on a pillaging enterprise,
slay Gregory, and expose the land to two years' anarchy. In the last year of
Constantine IV., a prince more fortunate in West than East, Ashot the Bagratid,
rallying the forces against the northern raider, is recognised as a patrician.” He gives
(according to a sacred custom) the control of the troops to a brother, Sembat,
and secures his position by dutiful tribute, the only indispensable incident in
the condition of a Moslem vassal. The young Justinian II. and the caliph
strike a peace for ten years in 686, which gives signal proof of progress and
quiet re- Secret com- covery in the empire during the reign of the fourth
Constantine. The caliph gave 3000 pieces of gold caliph:
a
day, one horse, and one slave, while the two removal of the
1 j 11 , * \ ,, \ ,* Mardaites.
powers shared
equally (Kara to la-ov) the revenues
of Cyprus,
Armenia, and Iberia. But behind this
apparent
humiliation of the tributary caliphate lay
a secret
understanding of the utmost importance,
which
explains the sudden advantage of Rome in
Secret com- the negotiations. For some time past the
Mardaites II.fmith1 *n Coele-Syria
been a thorn in the side of caliph: ° Damascene
court. Under a nominal allegiance
removal of the to Rome, they had kept their autonomy
and played Mardaites. 0£f one p0wer
against its rival. Justinian II. now agreed to the removal of this inexpensive
bulwark. A local chronicle of later date tells of the behaviour of Leontius,
general of the East, and afterwards emperor (695—698), towards these gallant
mountaineers : advancing to Cabbelias, their stronghold, with protestations of
amity, he lured and killed John their chief. He appointed as successor the
nephew of the dead prince, administered the oath of allegiance to the empire,
and somehow contrived to appease their resentment. He then achieved the sole
object of this sudden imperial interest in the Mardaites: he removes 12,000 of
their best soldiers to Lesser Armenia, to Thrace, and to Pamphylia (where, like
the Gotho-Greeks in an earlier age, they formed a military settlement or colony
detached from the native populace, under their own commander at Attalia, the
Kareiravw (Constant Imp. ad. imp., § 50; this would seem to be the work of
Tiberius III., who sprang from those parts, and it is not beyond possibility
that Leo the “ Isaurian ” was the son of one of these Apelatic brigands).
Without distracting attention to the origin and fortunes of this remarkable
community, we may note that Roman opinion looked on these unauthorised
defenders as a “ brazen wall ” (^aX/ceov tci^os) ; and regarded Justinian's act
as the capital error of his reign, whereby he permanently exposed the eastern
frontier and mutilated the empire (rrjv 'YcofjLaikrjv Svvaaretav
ctKpooTtipidaras). The Arabs, now relieved from fear, sought again and
fortified anew the strongholds from Mopsuestia to the north of Edessa and
Nisibis, and the parts round Martyropolis (Miafarekin).—The same Leontius was
sent on as general Kara rrjv ’Apfievlav, with a force of 40,000 to overawe the
inhabitants
and remind them of the mighty claims Secret com-
of Rome. He
advanced right up to Albania to
,, i
. IL and the
Mongam, the rich alluvial pastures and marshes at caliph:
the mouth of
the Cyrus, ravages twenty-five pro- removal of the
vinces or
cantons, carries captive eight hundred Mardaites-
families to
be sold as slaves, and massacres the
Saracens
there.
§ 3. Armenia
had then, by the end of Justinian’s Troubled state first reign, passed through
the following vicissitudes ^f^^hTvisit since the rise of Islam, the collapse of
the Sassanids, of Just. II. and the decay of Roman influence or continuous
policy in the East. Arab invasions begin as early as 637; they capture and lose
Dovin, 639 ; reduce a large part as Saracen province by 650, but soon, after
the defeat by the Khazars, are driven out, 652656 ; recover their footing by
657, and during the reign of the Roman emperor, Constantine IV., control the
land by tributary princes ; are challenged by Justinian in a restless but
impatient policy, 686-693; and in 693 send governors to take the place of the
native rulers. For in 692 Justinian had lost the great battle of Cilician
Sebast& by the defection of his Slavonic mercenaries (Xao? Trepiovcrios, to
the number of 30,000, an unhappy imitation of Tiberius II.'s bodyguard). The
caliph shakes off the tribute, and reasserts his sway over Armenia (693), since
the inroad of Leontius a prey to anarchy and invasion.
The Arabs had
raided and carried off booty and slain Ashot the patrician, after four years'
rule. In 690, Justinian had himself visited the East, with an army, divided
into sections, for Armenia and for Albania. His presence compels the submission
of the lords, tribute is paid and promised, and Roman control seems to revive.
The government is entrusted to Narses of Camsar descent, son of Vahan : and he
is honoured by the dignities of Patrician and Curopalat. The troops and
military matters, with the title TrarpiKiog T*j$ ’Ap/uevlas, are given
(according to the familiar division of labour) to Sembat the Bagratid,
Arab inroads brother of the murdered Ashot. On the
retire- arfth.GmW’ti men*
Justinian, who could intimidate but not
o e capi
a. ^e£en^
Abdallah, on behalf of the caliphs, marched
to Dovin and
secures the persons of the rulers by a trick, including the patriarch
Isaac,—the chief pastor exercising (as we have often seen) in this feudal
society very great political influence. Sembat manages to escape, and after
opening a secret and hesitating intrigue with Leontius, general of the
Anatolies, flies to Albania with Ashot his cousin, and Vard the son of
Theodore, Prince of the Resch- dounians. The Armenian cause is upheld only by a
Roman resident or commissioner (7rapa/3ov\o$ ovojulciti 'Eafiivo?), who,
indignant at the flight of Sembat, harasses and defeats the Arabs. His troops
take Dovin, burn the renegade governor's palace, and march to Vartanakert,
where the refugees were besieged ; the siege is raised, the Arabs defeated and
drowned in the breaking of the deceptive ice, which a frost of exceptional
severity had formed on the Araxes. Leontius, well known in the East, has now
become emperor (695), and he sends a namesake as Curopalat. Sembat moves the
capital northwards to the fortress of Toukhars in Daik (or Ta'ik), on the
Lazic frontier, and for some time kept the country inviolate from Arab
incursions. To this period ^692 or earlier) must be referred an obscure
alliance between the Khazars and the empire, resulting in a joint inroad from
the north into the caliph's lands. Othman defeats the united force of 60,000
with 4000, if the figures are correct; and the caliph's nephew, Mohammed, at
the head of 100,000, after a preliminary failure, defeats the Khazars ; while his
son Maslemah attacks and completely routs 80,000 at the gates of Tzour (or
defiles of Derbend), and achieves a complete victory. It is hazardous to assign
this event to any precise year in the caliphate of Abdalmelik, but the inroad
would seem to show(i) the exposed and troublous state of Armenia
proper ; (2)
the security or insolence with which Arab inroads
the
Arabs penetrated across it to attack the nor- and removal , of the capital.
them foe.
§ 4. Meantime
in Byzantium, Leontius gives place Terrible to Tiberius III. (698); and once
more an Armenian VGnre^!?0z{ pretender
gives anxiety at court. Bardanes, son of Against Nicephorus, a patrician, is
troubled with an early legend Romanising of an eagle shielding him from the sun
in infancy.part The same tale is narrated of Marcian and of Basil;
but the court was justifiably suspicious of Armenian immigrants of royal
descent and imperial auguries, and he is exiled (c. 700) to Cephallenia, to
reappear as first undoubted Armenian Caesar in 711. Armenia, as was her wont,
vacillated between the two powers ;
Vahan, “ he
of the seven devils ” a Mamigonian governor, was a faithful henchman to the
caliphs, and reduced forts in Lesser Armenia for the use of Arabs. But on his
retirement, the lords in secret conclave (01 apyovres 'Apjuievias) decide to
extirpate the Saracen intruder. Narses the Camsarid and Sembat the Bagratid
lead the new revolt, always believing their late more tolerable than their present
masters. Roman influence revives during this not discreditable reign of an
obscure Cibyrrhaeot (698—705) ; the northerly people of Vanand, by the Araxes,
join the confederacy ; and it is proposed to welcome a Roman garrison for
Greater Armenia,— an expedient which would have been long ago suggested but for
the inclirable feudalism which could neither brook tutelage nor dispense with
foreign aid. At the same time, dread of the nearer power forces the insurgents
to open negotiations with the caliph in case of failure; and it is probable
that the captive patriarch Isaac, dying (703) at Harran in Mesopotamia, was
engaged on a conciliatory mission. But the day of vengeance was near: Mohammed
entering Armenia with a large force massacres all Romans ; convenes through
Cassim, his lieutenant, all the grandees (fjLeyio-Taves), and burns
vol. 11. 2 B
Terrible vengeance of caliph (705) against
Romanising party.
Armenian exiles flock into Roman service.
Early adventures of Conon in the East.
them alive !
Dovin is given to the flames ; noble families are enslaved; pillage and desolation
last for several years ; and the poor remainder of the Christian nobility take
measures for deserting their country and finding asylum on Roman ground. In
706, the curopalat Sembat, with two Arzrounian princes, Gregory and Gorioun,
fly to Lazica, where Justinian II. allotted towns for their occupancy : but
finding it difficult to live under official supervision, these feudal princes
return to the despairing business of brigand- or guerilla-warfare. The silence
which falls on Armenian history in the opening of the eighth century tells us
emphatically of the decay if not of the extinction of national life. A feudal
peerage, rent by jealous factions and supporting severally, like the Japanese
Daimios, a warlike retinue of vassals and kinsmen, could not accept the control
of either despotic or democratic monarchy. While they felt themselves free to
join either party at pleasure, the sovereigns of New Rome and of Damascus regarded
them at each default in the light of traitors and apostates. The sole administrative
measure of these suzerains was a punitive expedition, brutal ferocity, a hasty
nomination, and a hurried retreat. No attempt was made to annex or incorporate
; and though both powers are to be blamed for a policy of slave-drivers, it may
be confessed that the most prosperous years in the troubled century were passed
under Arab allegiance. Yet the results of this most recent and vindictive act
(705-6) desolated Armenia and sent her soldiers and captains wholesale into the
ranks of Rome. Even more conspicuously than before, Armenian influence prevails
in the imperial society and government. Alone the Greek Church maintains its
independence and its suspicious attitude.
§ 5. The
early experiences and success of Conon (or Leo III.) sufficiently attest his
Armenian connections. He was sent by the restored Justinian II.
to subdue a
revolt of Abasgia, Alania, and Iberia, Early adven- which the greed of
governors had roused during the lQ™on^n the impunity granted by the
weakness of the central East. government (695-705). He was also (it was said by
the malignant) despatched by a jealous prince upon an errand from which he
would never return alive. But Conon falsified this secret hope. Known to us as
an able leader and an implacable persecutor, he displayed all the arts of a
tactful diplomat. De- . prived of his military chest (it was said with
Justinian's connivance), he secured the cordial help of the Alans against the
mutineers. The Alans deceive them by a profession of sympathy, surround their
forces, and at his orders exterminate them. Another Roman detachment was
defeated by the Saracens (?) before Archaeopolis in Lazica. Conon is now cut
off by his relentless foes ; and only manages to slip through by a perjured
guile, by which Pharasmanes, governor of the Iron Fortress in the Caucasus, consents
to capitulate and join the Romans, but is seized and his citadel razed to the
ground. Leo gained Absilia, was received with honour, and sailed from Trebizond
for the capital, to find that Anastasius II. was fixed on the throne (713). We
make much of these early stories of great men, but this series of incidents
throws perhaps little light upon the state of feeling in the East. It is clear
that exchange of suzerains was easy, that Abasgia and Lazica were in the main
loyal to the Romans, but that the Saracens (?) found no difficulty in
penetrating to the very capital of Colchis. Yet it is from this half-mythic
exploit that Leo III. won the command of the Anaiotics, and the reputation
which made the caliphate recognise in him the future emperor.—About this time
the authorities supply us with conflicting rumours on the behaviour and policy
of Rome towards the Armenians, which make it difficult to discover the truth :
at the close of his reign Justinian (in Syrian accounts) is said to drive out
these natives from his dominion,
Two Armen- while the Arabs gave them a home (c.
709). This lpmblems(l): (un^ess
*w0 accounts are given of a single event) was of Armenian repeated
under the Armenian Bardanes, now the Em- arutwori in Peror
Philippicus, in 712 : “ He chased them from his of Leo III territory, and the
Arabs gave them settlements in Melitene.” So Abulpharagius and Michael Syrus,
and even Theophanes, seem to agree, ottcrjcrai yvayKaarev, which might easily
be applied to one who made them shift their quarters. The natural and accepted
account is of course exactly the reverse : Philippicus established his
fellow-countrymen, expelled from their domiciles, in Melitene, and in Fourth
Armenia. History is, alas! not so explicit as to the respective power of Rome
or the caliphate to allot land in these districts ; and we are obliged to leave
an obscure transaction with this remark:—the settlers seemed in the end to
become rather the friends of the caliph than partisans of the empire. So
confused are the homesteads and the population by the shifting of entire
countrysides in this era, that it is not surprising if we cannot assign the
birth and descent of Leo with any accuracy. Did he belong to the Mardaite borderers
? Was he born, like Artavasdus, his son-in- law, at Marach, near Germanicea, on
the confines of Syria and Cilicia ? Technically, the name 11 Isaurian” means little ;
Leo III. was not a compatriot of Zeno. But the name Syrian means still less. It
is incontestable that he represented Armenia in character and creed, that his
chief allies and relatives came from that nation, and that he believed himself
closely united with it.
Unqualified § 6. Still we
find Arab intervention in the north submission
to stern an(j imperious. In 71 o, Othman
seized Camakh,
the caliph . r * • • * •
(from 710). or Am, the
ancient capital of Armenia, with its images of the old Armenian gods and its
sepulchres of the kings of the Haik dynasty. About 720, the country was once
again aroused by the din of war, and became the scene of a renewed struggle of
Khazars with the Moslem. Maslemah, the son of Caliph
Abdalmelik,
who failed in the great siege of Constan- Unqualified tinople, now governor of
Armenia, has to repress the invaders : Armenia has no longer native and tribu-
(from 710). tary rulers, but a prince direct from
Damascus. In 722, he carries the war across the Caucasus into the homes of the
enemy. For the next ten years Maslemah appears and disappears in an Armenian
command, according to the caprice of his brother,
Caliph
Hischam. We find him in 728 laying siege to Derbend, but suddenly retiring
(SeiXavSprja-ag) by one of those inexplicable panics, which seem common enough
for Roman and infidel generals in the East about this time. He is again
displaced in 731, to make room for Merwan, an Ommiad, and son of Mohammed, who
long governed a contrite or suppressed Armenia. Under him “order reigned in”
Armenian
“Warsaw” ; the country was consolidated; the Khazars repressed or conciliated;
the petty princes along the Eastern Caucasus reduced to order. It was the era
of unquestioned Arabian supremacy.
PREDOMINATING INFLUENCE WITHIN (740-1040)
V
ARMENIANS WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE EMPIRE FROM CONSTANTINE Y. TO THEOPHILUS
(c. 740-840)
Revolt oj § 1.
It becomes difficult in the period before us
anTtmm- to keeP
distinct streams of political development plantation of and of Armenian
infiltration. Deprived of local life, fineV11' Armenia poured
the best treasures of her warlike or feudal temper into the empire, and
contributed largely to its internal history. The revolt of Arta- vasdus must be
once more treated under this heading (742, 743). To the line of Baanes and
Mizizius and Bardanes-Philippicus is added a new pretender, son-in-law of the
great Iconoclast by Anna his daughter, and father of Nicephorus. A civil war at
this juncture was little short of disastrous for the fortunes of the
commonwealth ; Constantine to the end of his reign was hampered by the losses
of this needless family quarrel. But it was more than a contested succession or
a domestic sedition ; it was a national movement. The troops concerned are
Armenians and Armeniacs—that is, troops supplied by the princelings (like
Hessians in the eighteenth century) serving as allies under the imperial
standard, and troops stationed in the Armeniac theme, by origin and sympathy
equally Oriental. At Modrina, on the Bithynian frontier of Phrygia, the
patrician Tiridates lost his life, an Armenian and cousin of Artavasdus; and
his soldiers refuse to yield, determined not to survive their compatriot or
accept
quarter from
aliens. These troops had long formed Revolt of the flower of the Roman armies;
and their obstinate andtrans- valour led to a serious loss (Constant. Imp. ad:
imp: plantation of i. 2). The Domestic sent to gather provisions for the f^y*1" beleaguered capital bears the same Armenian name as his master;
and the chief minister and companion of Artavasdus' flight (743) is the
patrician Ba/cra<yero9 (or with Zonaras fetter, "BaKrayyio?) in which
we can easily read Vakhtang. Almost two centuries had elapsed, when the revolt
was at last subdued, since Artaban's attempt on the life of Justinian in 548.—
Ten years
later, when Abbassid caliphs have supplanted Ommiads, and Pepinids the effete
line of Clovis, when the Exarchate had been torn from the empire,—the East
awakens to life once more.
Chusan
revolts against the Emir of Mesopotamia, at the same time Governor of Armenia ;
with the help of Roman troops he takes Meliten6 and Theodosio- polis; Camakh
(or Ani) as well, if we accept the account of Abulpharagius. Constantine V.
adopts the transplanting policy of Justinian II.; from these towns he takes
large numbers of heretics, and with them replenishes the terrible gaps left in
his capital by the Great Pestilence. Scylitza (Cedrenus) calls them “ kinsmen
of the emperor; Armenian and Syrian schismatics ” (uvyyeveh . . . ’Apjmey. k.
'S/vpovg atperucovg), following Theophanes, the
violent hater of the Iconoclasts. Probably they were Pauli- cians ; and we
shall find them later arguing with Alexius Comnenus at the close of the
eleventh, and still existing in the nineteenth century, as a suspected but
tolerated community in Thrace. Caliph Mansour fights with varying success; his
forces are beaten back with discredit from the siege of Camakh (Ani), but he
manages to rebuild Arsamosata (767) on the Euphrates, and in 771 he captures
Samosata and Germanicea, the birthplace of the reigning dynasty, “ decanting ”
the population into Palestine (fji€TeTroir}Qt] eh Tia\aiarrlvr)v).—In 772 a
Vardan is
Armenian monopoly of military command.
Vigorous policy of Harun; constant duel at
Byzantium between Armenian generals and Orthodox reaction.
found in
command of the Roman theme of the Armeniacs; and six years later (778) a great
force of 100,000 men is raised under Leo IV., in which all the four generals of
divisions are clearly of Armenian descent; Artavasdus of the Anatolies,
Tatzates of the Buceellarians, Caristerotzes of the Armeniacs, Gregory, son of
Mazalacius, of the Obsicians; the entire army being placed under the control of
the famous old monk-hunting Michael Lachanodracon of the Thracesians. Tadjat is
a favourite name with the Arzrounian and Gnounian princes ; and it is interesting
to notice that, thirty years after the rising of Artavasdus, his compatriots
monopolise all the chief military posts, and as a consequence the entire government
of Asia Minor. Little was accomplished by this vast and unwieldy host: but more
Jacobite Syrians were transferred to Thrace ; perhaps to act as a counterpoise
or solvent to the Hellenic orthodoxy, against which the Armenian camarilla had
declared a truceless war.
§ 2. In 780 a
new and romantic figure claims our notice. Harun enters for the first time on
the stage as governor of Aderbaidjan, a post in our own day allotted to a
Persian heir-apparent. But the position included the control of Armenia ; and
by the side of the inexperienced prince was a faithful Barmecide as Secretary
of State. With this year then begins a more vigorous and vexatious policy
towards the lands of the empire ; and at home a long and obscure series of
conspiracies takes its start, aiming at the dethronement of Constantine VI. and
Irene. Incessant intrigue and suspicion was the atmosphere in which moved the
unfortunate half-brothers of Leo IV. Decorated with the empty titles of Caesar
or Nobilissimus, they became for more than thirty years a storm-centre and a
rallying-point for the malcontents. The last intimation of their existence is
found in the reign of the first Michael, when their dynasty had irretrievably
passed away ; though
a
few who recalled the services of the a I saurian '' Vigorous house looked with regret at the
blinded princes, the con
blameless
instruments or pretexts of revolution for stant duel at so long a time. This
year (780) sees the earliest attempt to place Nicephorus on the throne ; and
the Armenian plot includes the father of a future emperor, Bardas, generals and
general of the Armeniacs. Now in the dim light ^^tion. which fitfully
illuminates a dark period we are left to surmise, and may often be led astray
by an excessive interest in the meagre detail. But it seems impossible to
avoid the following conclusions: that since the time of Leo the whole imperial
forces in Asia had been in the hands of a small band of devoted Armenian
adherents, who thoroughly sympathised, like Cromwell's Ironsides, with the
policy of image-breaking and monk-hunting ; that the Orthodox reaction looked
to Irene the Athenian, strangely-mated consort of Leo IV.; that the last twenty
years of the dynasty were not a mere household quarrel between a capable
mother and a wayward son, with designing uncles in the background : rather was
it a serious contest between two rival creeds, two rival methods of government.
Irene
represents Orthodoxy, pacific principles, and palace-control; the leaders of
the army represent a bluff and jovial worldliness, anti-clerical and
undoctrinal, and an aggressive frontier policy. These incidents are treated
elsewhere, in our estimate of the imperial position and its dangers. We must
here restrict our attention to their Armenian aspects; yet it will not be easy
to keep the threads apart, so closely interwoven is the national, the
religious, the political issue. The Saracens' inroads, menacing all Asia Minor,
begin anew in 781, the annual tournament, or rather purposeless slave-raid,
which excites the impatience of the historian and the reader.
Chief command
of the imperial troops is entrusted to the eunuch John, significantly enough ;
not for the first time had the court found security in supplanting
Vigorous policy oj Harun; constant duel at
Byzantium between Armenian generals and Orthodox reaction.
Treason oj Tatzates owing to hate of courtiers.
a too popular
general by a pliant agent of the palace, and some of the great Roman successes
had been won by the latter. Eleutherius the exarch (619) was a eunuch, and
perhaps owed his failure and death to the circumstance, and in 782, another,
Theodore, was sent in command to Sicily. This is the first occasion for many
years that we read of such an appointment, and no doubt it marked a deliberate
purpose in the regency of Irene. The civil service, or rather the
palace-clique, were to be pitted against the strength of the Armenian general,
the military caste ; and from this moment dates the tedious duel which fills
all our later records to Alexius (1081). Michael Lachanodracon (who held
command in Asia for forty years) and the Armenian Tatzates defeated the Arabs
under the vigilant supervision of the eunuch, who desired, with the court, that
the result of the battle should be neither too disastrous nor too triumphant;
in the victory there must be a discreet and moderate exultation, and no single
personality should stand out before the public gaze. Elmacin tells us that
certain Greek troops fled to Damsak, lord of Malch (MaXXo?, in Thph. MjjXoy; in
the Miscella, Milium) ; this will be, as Balrik of Patricius, an equivalent of
Domesticus, already used for the chief commander in the East. We cannot avoid
the conclusion that this new title implies that change of policy which placed
all large forces under direct central control. In the next centuries the name
Domestic of the Schools will be the invariable appellation of the generalissimo;
but the Schools are the household troops, and their commander an emissary or a
satellite of the palace.
§ 3. The want
of harmony between the two departments may well have emboldened Harun ; he
advances to Chrysopolis, near Chalcedon, without let or hindrance. Nicetas, a
eunuch and a chief favourite with Irene, defended the town (called by Elmacin
al-KoumaSy the Count, by Ibn-al-athir, Koumas-al-
kawamis,
Count of counts, on the analogy of Emir Treason of
of emirs).
Lachanodracon suffered a reverse, and Ta{zates
, „ , , . . . - ,. owing to hate
turned to fly
on the plain of Darenig in Lydia ; of courtiers.
15.000 Romans perished. Nor was the panic at
Constantinople allayed by the next item of intelligence—that Tatzates had
passed over to the caliph, finding the insolence of the eunuch Stauracius insufferable.
Long ago the pretorian prefect, despoiled of direct military command, had taken
his revenge by controlling the stipends and the commissariat ; now (true to the
civilian policy) the accountant (\oyo- Oerrjs, whether of post or of exchequer)
could harry the army corps by interference, formalities, and delay. Nor need we
betray surprise if an Armenian Christian magarizes; it may well be that the
crude belief of a Paulician or an Athingan was in fuller sympathy with Islam
than with Christianity. In the dearth of evidence, we need not refer Tatzates
to one or other of these heterodox sects: yet there is reason to think that,
among the military caste, such views were more prevalent than the Greek Church
would have us believe. And it is well to remind those who see in the Albigenses
or Cathari the forerunners of Protestantism and the pure gospel, that in the
Western sects, as in the Oriental, there was little distinctively Christian at
all, either in dogma or in practice. The treason of Tatzates bore immediate
fruit; invited as if to an honourable conference, the chief minister of Irene
was seized by his advice, and held to ransom by the unscrupulous Harun. Disgraceful
terms were dictated, and the empire paid
65.000 pieces of gold for the liberty of some
menials
of the court.
Harun, contemptuous, gave the com- Violent monwealth a breathing space, which
was employed ^^l^ary by Irene (785) to reverse the Iconoclast
policy at a opposition to formal council. The guard, whether from Puritan
Image* (785). conviction or loyalty to the Isaurian memory, violently
interrupted the conclave and menaced the Greek bishops with death. Irene
treated the revolt
Violent with adroitness and clemency. A feint of a
Saracen
Armenian inroad allows her to transfer these
Armenians across ana military
opposition to the Bosphorus, where they are at once
disbanded ; Images (785). their wives and effects are sent after them, and they
are forbidden to set foot in the capital city again. Meantime, Stauracius
enrolled loyal Thracians in their place as the bodyguard of the sovereigns. So
turned out the first attempt to roll away the Armenian incubus, as this
court-party and the Orthodox Church without doubt believed. It is clear that
the removal of the anti-Hellenic element could not have been complete; for the
Armeniac guards play a consider- First deposi- able part in the revolution of
790. In the interval, frustrated C°nstantine
VI. had emerged into manhood, and the Armenian resented the trifling and
ceremonious part allotted to troops. the legitimate Augustus. He had suffered
the great disappointment of his life in losing his romantic Western bride
Rotrud (;EpuQpw), and being forced to wed Maria, a beautiful and
pious but humbly-born Paphlagonian. He was embittered and dangerous ; Irene
removed him, by her act exciting the deep displeasure of the Armeniacs. Alexius
Mouschegh (MftxrifAe), Spathaire and Drungaire of the night-watch, being sent
to appease them (with singular short- sight), merely places himself at the head
of a movement of his countrymen with which he felt in complete sympathy. The
rest of the Thematic troops, curiously massed as it would seem within sight and
reach of the capital, assemble and salute Constantine VI. sole emperor, who at
once confirms Alexius in the captaincy of the Armeniacs. The fierce delight of
old Michael Lachanodracon may be imagined, in the pleasing duty of
administering an oath to the troops never to receive Irene as ruler: two years
later he closed his restless career in battle against the Bulgars, 792.
G. VI. §
4. A third intrigue of the discontented with
Armenian18 ^aesar
Nicephorus enables Stauracius to implicate supporters. Alexis Mouschegh in the
plot. Constantine blinds
his faithful
servant on a false suspicion ; and the G. VI. superstitious noted with
satisfaction that exactly five eftran9?s his
A
PTi 1 fi 77
years later,
in the very month of August, and on the supporters. same day of the week, he
suffered the same penalty.
The pent-up
fury of the Armeniac troops broke out at this treatment of their general; they
imprisoned Theodore Camulianus, sent to remonstrate with them, and cut to
pieces a detachment, no doubt of Thracians (and amongst these we may note with
some astonishment the commander’s name, Constantine Ardashir, an Armenian).
Terror prevailed at Constantinople ; but the storm-cloud suddenly dissolved
under the influence of money, as the violent factions had been appeased under
Justinian. The year 797 is signalised both by the second and final dethronement
of Con- His removal; stantine VI., and by two abortive attempts to elevate his
uncle Nicephorus; the fourth plot of this unhappy puppet of a losing faction
was followed by his banishment to Athens, whither the eunuch Stau- racius sent
him, lured from the safe asylum of S. Sophia. Here his partisans once more
meditate revolt; but the citizens, devoted to Irene, and led by her brother the
patrician Constantine Seranta- pechys, save the government further trouble by
inflicting blindness on all the brothers.
The presence
of an insolent foe, in the heart Peril of the of the empire and within sight of
the capital, cannot caPltal have implied in those days
the ignominy and panic, the paralysis of trade and government, which it would
entail to-day. The reign of Irene was by no means wanting in dignity; but the
strong Asiatic contingents must have been seriously weakened, and the frontier
defence imperilled, when we read that in 798 the stables and horses of Irene
and Stauracius, on the shores of the Bosphorus, were plundered by the Arabs,
and that Peter, Count of Obsicians, was and recut to pieces resisting with his
band. It was ™ovalof
l.YPlfhS
OH blip
perhaps in
the same year as Charles’ coronation as stauracian Western emperor, that tho
strange veto was placed party.
Peril of the capital and removal of Irene by the
Stauracian party.
Exceptional post created for Armenian general in
Asia.
by Irene on
the intercourse of the military caste with this minister; and we only mention
it here as a proof of the jealous separation of departments prevailing at this
time, or perhaps inaugurated by the first female sovereign. Meantime, a plot
was forming (800) within the precincts of the palace and the ministries, to
deprive Irene as she had deprived her son. The historian is prepared to see in
Nicephorus (descendant of the Ghassanid king Djabalas), a kinsman of the
powerful eunuch, and to explain the sudden elevation of a civilian comptroller
of the finances by the same unseen agency as raised Michael IV. to the throne
in 1034. Masoudi and Abulpharagius agree in calling his father Istibrak, which
may well be a version of Stauracius ; and his son and successor bore the same
name. Yet we must allow that the minister was by this time dead, and that his
crafty brother looked for other supporters in his venture. On the disgrace or
demise of his rival, the eunuch Aetius divided between himself and his brother
Leo the chief military command near the capital; he unites the colonelcy of
Obsicians and Anatolies, giving Leo the European troops of Thrace and
Macedonia. But the Stauracian party was not extinct. Seven eunuchs combine
with rare unanimity in the cause of Nicephorus: Nicetas, already named, with
three eunuch brothers of the Trefoil or Triphyllian family; and in the
remaining three is found Gregory, son of Musalacius, who may be kinsman to the
general of the Obsicians in 778.
§ 5. It is
hard to believe that the throne was quietly transferred, not from an individual
but from a dynasty, without the connivance or approval of the strongest factor
in the State. At all events Nicephorus took a very strong step in appointing
Bardanes (Vartan) the Mamigonian to an exceptional position in Asia, or at
least in confirming him in the post (/xovocTTpaTtiyos tcov irevre Oe/iaTaw, says Thph. and
his
continuator) charged with (ecpopela and irpovoia) Exceptional the full
oversight of all. It may be well surmised P°st created
ii, for
Armenia
that
on the death of Staurace a bolder policy was general in welcomed in regard to
the East, and that in spite Asia. of the civilian jealousy of these exceptional
military commissions, something like a dictatorship in Asia was invented to
secure the frontier and restore peace to the interior. This office either dated
from the latter days of Irene, or it was bestowed by Nicephorus,—in either
case, Bardanes could not have been wholly ignorant of the revolution of 802, or
wholly acquiescent unless he consented. Constantine Sathas has perhaps too
sweepingly pronounced that changes on the throne from 700 to the Venetian
capture in 1204 were invariably the work of the Asiatic troops. If so, the
elevation of Nicephorus the Arabian provides a notable exception, unless we
suppose that here, once more, an Armenian officer preferred to delegate rather than
usurp the chief place. But his approval of Nicephorus was soon changed into
hostility. His soldiers hurried along a path of perilous ambition a general who
was brave, equitable in dividing the spoils, and animated by no friendly
feeling towards a hated civilian exactor. Like some general in the third
century, His dis- or like Julian in the fourth, he is forced to take the and
dangerous
step by the urgent entreaties and threats of his men. Only the Armeniacs stood
out, and their refusal is somewhat puzzling. Bardanes the Turk (o rovpKos), who
was no more an orthodox Christian than Nicephorus or Michael II., took the
precaution (so runs the story) of consulting a wizard. The purple is promised
to his two companions-in-arms,
Leo and
Michael, but he and Thomas are classed together as pretenders destined to fail.
The two His
obscure
captains, on whom rested the shadow of A'^mnian
. it, • . . , officer
coming
greatness, lost no time in separating them- Leo joins
selves from a
countryman who had aimed too high. Nicephorus.
Leo was the
son of Bardas, who after holding com
His
Armenian officer Leo joins
Nicephorus.
Armenian conspirator only overcome by Armenian aid.
mission as
o-Tpartjyos in Armenia under Leo IV., had joined the unsuccessful plot of 780,
and had been whipped and cashiered. But his disgrace had not prejudiced his
son's promotion in the ancestral art of the condottieri. His family claimed
Arzrounian descent (Kar^Orj yap £k tu>v 'Eevaxtjpe'tjuL, says George Monachus), a family or princely dynasty
owning vast territory in Southern Armenia, towards the mountains of Kurdistan
and Assyria. (The prevalent passion for tracing descent from Assyrian, Persian,
or Armenian stock appears clearly in Leo, in Theophobus, and Theodora; lastly
in Basil, the so-called Macedonian, whose pedigree was written up by Photius,
to show a clear lineage from the Arsacidae.) Nicephorus welcomed the friends of
the pretender. Each received a post of trust and an estate of good emolument;
Leo became chief of the Federates (<poiSeparoyv), and enjoyed the imperial
domain (ftacrikacbv oikov) of Zeno and Dagistheus: Michael was
appointed count of the court (kojulw Kooprrjs), or seneschal of the imperial
tent, and received the rents of the estate of Carianus. Once more, the only way
to overcome an Armenian competitor was to depend on Armenian aid. The revolt
ended in the flight of the regretful Bardanes, his entrance into a convent, and
the sinister story of his loss of sight at the hands of some wild Lycaonians
(\vKav0po)7roij says Thph.). Public rumour asserted that these were sent by
Nicephorus himself, though he not only denied complicity, but mourned seven
days for his unhappy rival. Even if the worst side of the story be true (and we
have every reason to distrust contemporary witness about Nicephorus I.), it
says much for the humanity of the times that he thought it worth while to
pretend sorrow for a punishment, which in any other age would have been deemed
ridiculously inadequate.
§ 6. Harun in
803 advanced right up to the Bosphorus, and this time he carried with him a
tame
aspirant to
the legitimate purple, Thomas, the son of A false Con- Mousmar. This person has
been supposed to be stantinfVL identical with the companion of Bardanes
and the Harun. later rebel whose sedition wrought havoc throughout Lesser Asia.
But the foreign authorities state that he claimed to be the “ son of
Constantine VI.,” palpably impossible by computation of age, and wholly irreconcilable
with the later “white hair” of the pretender of 823. Constantine VI. himself
might have been just over fifty in the time of Michael II.; and we cannot
conceive that one who claimed to be his son should then show marks of old age.
No doubt he gave out that he was Constantine himself, a legitimate scion of a
successful dynasty, still popular with a large number of the subjects of Rome.
Harun knew, and in secret scorned, the imposture, but he outwardly treated the
pretender Constantine with the respect due to his dignity.
But this bold
enterprise, like all the incursions of Harun, had no result; and the militant
caliph of romance died in 809, having wrought great and purposeless mischief to
the Roman commonwealth.
In
806 Bardanes Anemas, clearly an Armenian Armenian minister, was charged (so the
authorities report) to ^gs^rstand
reduce the settlers in Thrace to the level of imperial *
serfs,
tilling imperial demesne-land. Once again in 808, an Armenian appears as
plotting against the emperor, Araates, of Camsar extraction, and quaestor (or
chancellor); Nicephorus, with the tired or ironical clemency characteristic of
his reign, cut his hair and sent him to meditate in a Bithynian monastery.
Our
accounts of Nicephorus come from garbled and prejudiced sources; and it is from
Abulpharagius that we learn that he was a gallant prince, by no means despised
by his Oriental foes or invariably unsuccessful in warfare. It cannot be denied
that his attachment to Hellenic orthodoxy, or even to Christianity, lay under
deserved suspicion. I am not inclined to dismiss summarily, as the unscrupulous
vol. 11. 2 c
Armenian ministers and conspirators.
Success and elevation oj Leo the Armenian (813).
scandal of
political or religious partisans, the stories of his heretic sympathies or
pagan practices. He was the cordial friend (§i(X7rvpo$ (piXos) of Manichees,
that is, of Paulicians, whom he allowed to found a little State in Armenia.
Like Michael, he consorted with the mysterious Athingans of Phrygia; his
Lycaonians were not merely rough henchmen but disseminators of heresy. He
consulted gipsies and soothsayers ; he submitted to a rite resembling the
Mithraic taurobolium. If he was not, like Leo, a determined Iconoclast, it was
merely because he was devoid of religious conviction; himself of Arabian
descent, he reminds one of the Morescoes—an outward conformity concealing an
utter indifference. Leo the “ Assyrian ” was made by him a-Tparrjyo? of the
Armeniacs, and, like his greater “Isaurian" namesake just one hundred
years earlier, he lost his military chest—not this time through treachery, but
by carelessness. The emperor is content with a beating and a sentence of exile.
He owed his advancement to a victory over Thebith in an Arabian inroad ; and to
a curious act of perfidy at the great battle of Adrinople, in which, following
so soon after the death of Nicephorus, every other empire but the Byzantine
must have succumbed (June 22, 813). It is perhaps unwise to trust the biassed
and clerical historians; and the same doubtful tale is told of Deems'
successor, Gallus (251), and of Romanus I. (919). In any case, Leo had not lost
the affection of his Oriental troops, or the confidence of the capital. It is
more than likely that the Armeniacs were determined to make something out of
their employment on a European shore, outside their own province, and to claim
the usual prerogative of the troops of Anatolia in creating and unmaking
princes.
§ 7. Over
these important forces, at least over the Armeniacs, Leo V. placed Manuel, an
Armenian and a Mamigonian. His own son Sembat he created
colleague and
Augustus, changing his name to the Success and ever-popular Constantine, like
Leo III., whom he set ej^0a^ before him as his
model. John the Grammarian is Armenian made patriarch of the Morochorzenian
clan; his {813). father Bagrad or Pagrat (IIayKpanos), and his brother Arsharis
(Apcraprjg) sufficiently display their nationality. Leo is displaced by
another bold and ignorant soldier of fortune, Michael of Amorium ; and in the
absence of any legal ruler, the succession is contested with equal right by
Thomas, son of Mousmar.
I will not here dwell on the peculiar
character of Serious
this
revolt (821—3). The Obsicians and Armeniacs t0
.. v 1 1 1 • 1 11
1 State
did not join
the pretender, but his ranks were swelled under
not merely by
needy Socialists but by Saracen sub- Michael II, sidies and detachments of
Parsee dualists. It was a strange assortment; Thomas himself was called indifferently
a Slavonian, a Scythian, or the son of a Byzantine emperor ; and his host
represented every race, creed, and nation of the East. Twice he attacked the
capital; and fell at last, no doubt because he could not undermine the loyal
attachment of the Armenians to the candidate who was first in the field. The
short reign of Michael II. gave little prognostic of the future splendour of
the dynasty. Crete was torn away (824), and continued in detachment until its
recovery by Phocas under Romanus II. (962). Sicily was almost entirely lost to
the Saracens (827), and the slender cord of sentiment or tribute which bound
the remote Dalmatian coast was snapped, if we may trust the terse and summary
dictum of Scylitza (Cedrenus) Aireo-ranicre iraa-a rj AaX/marla). Indeed, like
Gallienus (260-268), the emperor merely joked about the loss of territory as
modifying the toil of his office. There were not wanting those who reminded him
that with a few more such lightenings of labour, the imperial dignity Armenian
would become superfluous. Indeed, it seems quite helPand clear that the heart, the vigour, and the policy of
indispensable Rome lay solely in the Armenian mountains. The to Rome.
Armenian help and alliance indispensable to Rome.
Services to the empire of Armenia under Theophilus;
Alexis and Theophobus.
steadiness of
the Eastern frontier during the reigns of Leo V. and Michael II., the
restoration of order and plenty after Thomas' destructive insurrection, were
due to the loyalty of Asiatic troops under Manuel; and the true inner history
of the empire should be written rather from some frontier citadel in the East
than from the palace in the capital. The real and serious happenings might be
told by tracing not the series of pageant emperors but the records of Manuel,
John Curcuas (920-942), or Nicephorus Phocas and Zimisces: and these do less
for the commonwealth in the purple than as simple generals of the East. So
indispensable was the Armenian influence that we may at once discount the
pleasing legend of the marriage of Theophilus. Policy, not whim or accident, dictated
such an alliance. Theodora is a niece of the brave champion of the East, and
the whole family are staunch Armenians and marry husbands of the same nation ;
her sister Mary is found united to Arshavir, a jmayiarTpos, possibly the
brother of the patriarch John. Throughout the reign (829-842), Manuel and
Theophobus the “Persian " are the principal commanders ; Theophobus is
rewarded by the highest dignities of the realm, the hand of the emperor's
sister, Helen, and at last by suspicion, disgrace, and death.
§ 8. From
Persarmenia too comes Babec, for five years rebel against the suzerain caliph
(<c. 831), with 7000 men of his own country. These settled at Sinope, like
the Mardaites at Attalte, formed an independent military commonwealth, raised
their numbers to fourteen and subsequently to thirty thousand, and gave the
court anxious moments when they desire to restore a national monarchy in the
person of Theophobus. For he succeeded to the captaincy of the formidable band
on Babec’s death ; and the “ Persians " are loaded with favours and legal
privileges; intermarriage is permitted and encouraged ; and the soldiers rise
to the highest titles and places in
the
military service of the empire (fiacriXiicois afytbjmao-iv, Services to KwSify o-TparicoTtKois). Theophanes'
continuator tells °'
us with
pardonable hyperbole, okov 3iQvo$ v7T7]koop, and under Leo Grammaticus
adds the significant item that down TheoPhiiusJ
^ io nn't © drift
to his day
there are detachments called roup/tat Theophobus. 7repcrcov in all the
themes,—whose origin we shall presently have occasion to remark. These troops
surround Theophilus the “ unfortunate ” in the disastrous battle of 835 ; and
Manuel saves his life. In the same year Manuel, more an ally than a subject,
crosses over to the caliph ; and having repented him of his mcigarizingy is
welcomed with open arms by Theophilus and obtains the title of Magister and
Domestic of the Schools. This easy exchange of masters must excite our
surprise; but the “ Persians ” or Pers- armenians had brought their traditional
policy with them into the imperial service. Naturally desirous of independence,
they had played off one illustrious power against the other, had received an
Arsacid ruler of alien race, had coquetted with Sassanids, and had paid tribute
to the caliph. Religious disputes had prevented a genuinely cordial attachment
to their proper suzerain. A purely feudal system of society had put annexation
under a centralised bureaucracy out of the question, and had rendered
suspicious the proffers of Armenian help or the entreaties of Armenian
distress. It is not unlikely that the perplexing and meteor-like career of
another compatriot may be traced to the suspicions of the court and ministries
; and we may assume that the young Alexis Mouschegh (Mwcr^Xe) owed his elevation
and his downfall to the indirect influence of the Armenian faction. Might not
Theophilus, alarmed not without reason at the rising fame of his wife's
brother, burdened with a debt of gratitude to her uncle, desire to find a rival
to this coalition, and find it only in another Armenian ? Distinguished in the
defence of Sicily, Alexis was summoned home to receive the successive steps of
patrician, proconsul}
Services to magister (always an especial honour),
and lastly ^Armenia6 Caesar : revival
of a title not employed since Con- under stantine V. gave it charged with
misery to his cadets. Ak^sand’ *s betrothed to the emperor's
daughter, and sent Theophobus. again to Sicily as its General and Duke. But on
the death of the infant princess, and on the birth of a son, afterwards Michael
III., Theophilus, amidst the envious voices of courtiers, had no longer the
same need of his services or the same confidence in his loyalty. He was
recalled, whipped, and immured in a dungeon ; and as speedily reinstated in
favour and dignities. But Alexis and his brother Theodosius were weary of such
vicissitudes, and retired at the moment of the final triumph of innocence into
a cloister. In 837 occurred the famous proclamation of Theophobus as king not
of Rome but of the Persians: the troops were distributed through the older
themes of Asia, and the suspicion leads in the end (842) to the murder of
Theophobus, the last act Armenia of the dying emperor. Next year we find
Armenia %to\taUha*'te^ wholly attached to the
caliphate: following its ‘ armies are the chief of the Bagratids and the leader
of Vasparacan, the former bearing the title “ Prince of princes," while
the latter, Ashot, Arzrounian, and therefore kinsman of Leo V., bore that of
simple “ Prince." With this rapid increase in Armenian influence in the
high places of the empire, this practical monopoly of Armenian defence in the
imperial military system—this curious antipathy to Rome in the land itself—we
pass to a new age, an established dynasty, and the altered policy of pretenders
or rather regents, all of Armenian birth.
VI
ARMENIANS WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE EMPIRE FROM MICHAEL III. (842), TO THE
END OF ROMANUS I. (944)—(840-940)
§ 1.
Theoctistus the eunuch, chief minister of the Roman young prince, looked
eastwards for the warrior's et^p^w,ns laurels which always eluded him.
In 843 he led Bardas and an expedition to the eastern shores of the Euxine
Theoctistus. to bring succour to the people of Lazica, or rather, if we look
more closely, to punish a revolt. For the Arabs had not in effect penetrated so
far ; they held in vassalage, especially when the emir of Meliten& took the
lead (838), the feudal princes of our Oriental Poland, but they had not yet
challenged Roman supremacy on the Black Sea or among the tribes of the
Caucasus. Yet the Roman Empire was very weak in those climes, and the abolition
of Chersonese autonomy under Theophilus, so much regretted and censured by
historians, may well have been a necessary act. It involved a permanent
garrison and military law in a district threatened by Patzinaks and Russians,
and half-way between the capital and its dubious vassals or allies in Abasgia.
Some years before, 832, Bardas and Theophobus had been sent on a similar
enterprise ; and neither seems to be attended with any conclusive results. It
would appear that all loyal Armenians had sought refuge and settlements on
Roman ground, leaving the magarizing faction to swell the armies of Islam. This
alone can account for the diversity of feeling between the trustworthy officers
of the Roman army (if we except Manuel's lapse), and the antipathy of the
natives in their own country. We have now arrived at the Rise and most notable
instance of Armenian success,—Basil the Macedonian, Armenian and Arsacid; whose
Armenian. mother's family descended from the great Constantine; who boasted on
both sides Alexander of Macedon
Rise and elevation of Basil the Armenian.
Basil invested by the new Bagratid monarch.
as ancestor.
His forefathers (deriving from the Christian king Tiridates) claimed the
hospitality of the Roman Empire, either, as was then believed (Genesius), in
the days of Leo I. (457—474), under whom they settled in Macedonian Nice; or as
Saint Martin with more likelihood, under the great Justinian, when Artaban and
his kin entered the imperial service. That the story of Armenian colonists is
not purely mythical is clear from the mention of Cordylus and his son Bardas at
the time of Crum's ravages, 810-820 (during which time the latter, obviously of
Armenian birth, was chief of a Macedonian settlement beyond the Danube); from
the name of Basil's brother, Sembat (EvjuLpdnos, Geo. Mon.). And it must be
obvious to the student that “ Macedonian " is a vox nihili; there was no
settled population of the Balkan peninsula that predated the Slavonic
incursions except in the towns ; and it is clear that Basil was not a Slav, and
that his elevation was not a revenge for the failure of Thomas (823). On the
other hand, we must not press unduly the serious motives or deliberate policy
which raised the handsome groom who was neither soldier nor civilian. It was no
military nomination such as we have in other Roman and Byzantine pretenders,
called in to retrieve the errors or neglect of a worn-out dynasty. We must
leave it as an instance of capricious selection by a legitimate monarch of a
colleague, whose tact disarmed envy and hostility and enabled him to rise to an
unchallenged and sovereign position from the murder of his benefactor. The
first act of Basil was to display his veneration for his ancient fatherland ;
in 867, he heard from an Armenian bishop that a Bagratid prince had the right
to crown the head of the house ; just as in later time the solemn act of
coronation has become the privilege of certain archiepiscopal sees. Basil
despatched Nicetas to Ashot I., founder, amid the disorders of the caliphate,
of the Bagratid
line of
kings; he sent him in reply a rich crown, Basil invested and Nicodemus carried
back a grateful letter from b^a^a^w the
emperor addressed to u my beloved son.” This monarch.
interchange of courtesies was maintained during the reign of Leo VI.
§
% In the plot against Bardas the regent (866), Notable Sembat, his son-in-law,
Armenian and Bagratid, was Armenian an accomplice with his own brother Bardas;
and emerge; the truly Oriental list of conspirators includes besides, Maleinus,
an Assyrian, a Chaldean (from near Trebizond), and pfa^j8' a Bulgarian. In the same year the disappointed Argyrus. schemer Sembat
rebelled against the influence of Basil, now a full associate in the empire and
charged with all its serious business. He is reduced by Nicephorus Maleinus, an
Armenian noble of one of those prolific and warlike families which produced the
Phocas and Zimisces of the next century. In 872 Basil in an Eastern expedition
receives, like some German emperor, the repentant homage of a brigand chief,
Curticius, who from the safe fastness of Locano's castle had secured wide
territory and wrought havoc on Roman land ; this petty feudal tyrant brings
over his men-at-arms with him. In 879 occurred another x
Armenian
conspiracy which introduces us to a notable name. John Curcuas (Gourgenes ?)
captain of the Hicanates (iKavaroi, a corp dating from c. 800), lured, like
many other usurpers, by a lying soothsayer, attempted to secure a throne, for
which, as it seemed, the sole condition was Armenian descent. He lost his
sight, and his partisans were whipped. One cannot wonder at the severity with
which divination was pursued in the empire (e.g. under Valens, c. 370), when
designing men worked on empty and credulous brains with such hopes. The treason
of Bardas had not harmed the career of Leo V., his son ; and it is a pleasing
trait in Byzantine manners that military promotion was bestowed on the sons of
traitors.
Curcuas the
younger, in the next century, hero of a prose-epic in eight books, is the
guardian of the
Notable Armenian families emerge ; Male’inus,
Curcuas, Phocas, Argyrus.
Intimate and tactful relations of Leo VI. with
Armenia : expansion of empire towards East.
Eastern
frontier and fitting companion of the great warriors of his nation, Phocas and
Zimisces. And, indeed, about this time (880) emerged the first Phocas
(Nicephorus) to attain renown; he had served with ability and courage against
the Western Saracens in Sicily, and about 886 was sent to curb their Eastern
kinsmen. Leo VI. pays him a generous tribute for his ready inventiveness in
strategy: and for over a century there will be few years unmarked by the
valour or the revolt of a Phocas. He desolated Cilicia up to the gates of
Tarsus ; for the border wars were still merely forays, raids of vendetta,
without fixed policy. In 891, he is “Governor of Lydia ” ; and for many years
formed an iron bulwark to the east frontier, ravaging Syria and checking any advance
of Islam. He left three sons, Michael, Leo, and Bardas. Another family of
repute emerges at this time, that of Argyrus ;—Leo was sent by Michael III., c.
850, against the Paulician stronghold of Tephric£ ; his grandson Eustathius is
a great territorial magnate in Charzian£ (Cappadocia), whither after good
service to the State he is banished: his recall or rather exile to his lands
being procured by the envy of a friend Himerius. He may well have belonged to a
family of settlers originally Armenian ; but he is at any rate a good instance
of a type meeting us with increasing frequency,— the military leader and feudal
lord, having great possessions in a certain district; in the intervals of
warlike duties exercising there the functions of a clan-chieftain among
kinsmen, of a landlord among serfs.
§ 3. Leo VI.
continued the policy of his (putative ?) father, and drew closer the bonds of
Roman-Armenian alliance. Ashot I. visits the Roman court at some time early in
the reign (perhaps in 888) and left a detachment of troops, who were employed
against the Bulgars. The captain was Melric or Mel (and I am unable to
sympathise with M. Brosset in identi-
fying him
with Curticius) ; we shall hear again of Intimate and this captain. Escaping
from this unsuccessful Nations oj counter, Mel is reported to have returned
with his Leo VI. with band to Lesser Armenia, founded a fort in Lycandus Armema:
... . , r _ . , . ' t 1 T ttt i i . expansion of
(district of
Dchahan) and enabled Leo VI. to boast empire
to- that another theme was added to the empire under wards East. his sway:
(when somewhat later we find Arabians writing of “ Mleh Demeslicos ” it is
impossible not to connect the name with this captain). In 893 Leo received
envoys from Sembat, the new Bagratid king, to apprise him of his succession ;
they paid homage, and it is said that the two sovereigns exchanged gifts each
year during this reign. Towards the close of the century (perhaps in 898),
Gregory (Tprfyopis), son of Vahan, the Bagratid prince of Taron, came into
somewhat peculiar relations with the empire : like many of his peers, he was
careful to keep on friendly terms with both powers. His doubtful faith was
reported at court; and he imprisoned the two Armenians who, as he supposed, had
carried the tale.
But they had
a powerful advocate in King Sembat, their kinsman ; and he asks the emperor to
secure their deliverance from duress. Gregory sends a hostage to court, and is
so charmed by his treatment there, and the kindness of Leo, that he releases
the two captives under escort of his brother Apoughan.
He came
himself to Constantinople and received the title imayiorTpos, while his brother
was made patrician ; and the firm alliance was ratified by a marriage within
the imperial house. In the latter years of his reign, Leo achieved a similar
diplomatic triumph, and once more added a theme to the provinces of the empire:
three brothers, owners of land beyond the Euphrates, north of Meliten£, gave
themselves up to the emperor as his “ men ” ; and, like Melias or Mel,
received back their canton as the theme of Mesopotamia, of which one of the
three became the first governor. Private enterprise thus became the pioneer of
Imperialism.
Multiplication of petty
sovereignties in Armenia in decay of caliphate.
§ 4. To the student,
it is clear that the principles and methods, the rules and conditions, of
feudalism were perfectly understood and practised by the Roman court long
before the Crusaders brought eastwards the name “ liegeman" (XiQos) and
the formal constitution of the kingdom of Jerusalem. Evidently Leo VI. took
full advantage of the disorders and incoherence which these feudal tendencies
produced in Armenia. Everywhere the example of the disintegrating caliphate
was eagerly followed by the princelets. Kingdoms (of the smallest extent and
most precarious tenure) are multiplied; every noble claims for clan or manor
complete immunity; and family divisions increase the number and weaken the
power of minute sovereign states. The Roman Empire was the residuary legatee amid
such confusion. It alone stood upright in the ruins of the Orient,—an orderly,
amiable, and peaceful commonwealth, mild in its laws, Christian in its belief,
tactful and courteous in its dealings with lesser potentates. Greater Armenia
was portioned out, like mediaeval Germany, between nobles who strove to
maintain independence against Roman and Saracen alike. Such was “Cricorice” of
Taron, between Taurus and Euphrates, in whose strange name we recognise the
diminutive of Gregory, Gregoritza (as from Theophilus we have 0eo<^AtT^9,
the early patron of Basil). There is “ Symbaticius ” (a similar Grecized form
for “ little Sembat ”) who might claim to be the chief of these petty
sovereigns ; he bore the title “ Prince of princes ” and ruled undisputed from
Kars to Lake Van, a district henceforth called Vasparacan. There is besides the
northerly Iberian prince, Adranasar, still enjoying, of hereditary right rather
than by direct imperial collation, the dignity of “ Curopalat.” The relation
between these feudal princes and the empire strongly resembled the nominal
vassalage of the Mongolian or Tibetan chiefs to the court of Pekin. The emperor
in each case received presents, or
perhaps “
tribute ” ; but was expected to surpass the Multicostliness of these gifts by
lavish munificence, and to pl^twn pension superannuated scions
of the princely houses sovereignties
and
dignify the rural clan-leader with some imperial Armenia , , . , tn decay of
dignity. He
provided wives (as under Justinian I. canphate.
in Colchis)
from noble and senatorial families at home: he exchanged lands inside the safer
circuit of the empire for districts of peril beyond the Euphrates.
To this
policy must be largely attributed the extension of the empire to the shores of
the Caspian, which took place quietly enough in the next hundred years. Of
these records we hear little amidst the din of the Bulgarian campaign and the
more brilliant and less durable victories in the lower East.
§ 5. In 911
(the year of Leo's demise) Sembat I., Appeal of king of Armenia, was reduced to
hopeless impotence by the insubordinate nobles. He had recourse to empire
{911). the empire; and John Catholicos is in error in naming Basil as the
object of his entreaties. But Leo dies, and Alexander was by no means inclined
to venture on a distant enterprise. To the troubled dignity his son, Ashot II.,
succeeds in 914 ; who, like some chivalrous Gothic king in Spain, forms a
chosen band and harries the Moslem. He secures the crown rather in virtue of
his exploits against the unbeliever than as a birthright. He chases Arabs from
Tiflis, and ravages Aderbaijan. He allied with “ Aternerseh ” (the Adranasar
mentioned above),
Bagratid king
of Iberia, who had secured the kingly title (c. 900) by the direct recognition
of Sembat I., happier in his external relations than in his domestic policy.
This coalition, joined by Gourgenes, king of Abasgia, reduced or overawed the
petty feudal tyrants and secured the coronation of Ashot II. in 915. Royalty
saw in the emperor a suzerain and a champion, fount of honour and legitimate
dispenser of dignities ; aristocracy preferred the Moslem alliance. Under the
not incapable regency of Zoe (914) a Vasparacanian prince offered aid against
the
Appeal of Armenian king to empire (911).
Consistent Imperialism of Armenian royalty; nobles
and people thwart alliance.
Saracens ;
and Constantine VII. in his first brief rule follows a sympathetic policy with
regard to Ashot II., confronted with a perilous confederacy of Moslem governors
and his own unruly nobles. The emperor was astonished that the willing
assistance of the empire had not been solicited. A Greek patriarch condescends
to write to the heretical Armenian Catholicos a letter of friendly sympathy and
advice : “ The emperor is sincerely concerned at the distress of Armenia, and
begs you to rouse the kings to united efforts on its behalfJohn the Catholicos
succeeded with Adranasar II. and obtained his aid ; while Gourgenes wrote in
reply to the emperor a letter which is curiously typical of the attitude of
these kings of the East to Rome: “ Only give us an asylum in the empire and all
Armenians will follow us across the border and will settle there and become
loyal subjects.” The emperor (who was now Romanus Lecapenus, 920) invited Ashot
the “ Iron” and John to Constantinople ; the latter refuses, not wishing to
scandalise his flock by communicating with heretics who accepted the detested
Council of Chalcedon ; the former is warmly welcomed, and returns with prestige
and hopefulness enhanced to an enthusiastic people, already beginning to repair
the damage of successive Moslem inroads. A small Roman force secures the
submission of two recalcitrant cities or forts ; and are then sent back with a
wise confidence in the native allegiance. Ashot is now joined by his brother
Abbas, returning from his refuge with the grand prince of Abasgia, whose
daughter he married. With this the fortunes of the little kingdom began to
revive. But the same hindrances stood in the way of any certain alliance ; the
distaste of the feudal nobility for the methods of Rome ; the prejudice of the
people at large against the “heretical council.” We may anticipate a few years
in order to supply another instance—in 926, Gagic or Cakig, king of Vasparacan,
earnestly desired
to conclude
an alliance with the empire. But the Consistent lords protested, and hurled at
the diplomacy and ^^menian arms of the “Greeks" those taunts of
faithlessness royalty; and cowardice, which have been re-echoed down to nobles
arid the present day. The clergy insist on a reconciliation of the Churches
before a national alliance is suggested. The king therefore wrote to the
Byzantine patriarch, pointing out the trivial points (as he considered them)
of disagreement between the hostile creeds, and the greater and nobler issues
at stake in a confederacy of two Christian powers against a common foe. But the
letter remained unanswered ; the tolerant and broad-minded monarch was before
his time ; and an immaterial discrepancy on a subtle point of metaphysics prevented
the alliance. In the latter days of the Eastern empire the reunion of the
Churches failed for a similar reason.
§ 6. Once
more the Taronites on the hither side of Submission of Lake Van claim our
attention. Here, as elsewhere in feudal and .limited monarchies permeated by \c. 930). family feeling, a system of patrimonial subdivision was in vogue.
At Gregory’s death, the province of Taron was portioned between his children;
and in 926 (the same year we have just been considering)
Bagrat, a
son, visits the Roman capital and marries a daughter of Theophylact, a close
kinsman of the regent-emperor Romanus I., whose father (it will be remembered)
bore the same name. He was also created a patrician, and received investiture
for that district of the Taronite principality (the Armenian a Saxony ") which
recognised suzerainty. About the same time his cousin Thornic (in which we
clearly see the later title Tornicius, a rebel under the tenth Constantine)
surrendered his hereditary lands to the empire, on condition of receiving an
equivalent at the Byzantine court,—Constantinople being not merely the goal of
barbarian greed, but the Mecca or (if it be preferred) the Paris of Armenian
nobles. Sembat, his brother, followed the pre-
Submission of cedent, and sank into a dignified
pensioner in
the Taronites the capital. only
Vahan, the third, remained in his to the empire m . t. . , ,
(c. 930). native province; thus the Taromte family divided
its
members between the luxurious comfort of Byzan- Extensionof tium and the
exacting duties of clan-chieftaincy.— Roman the
empire was not merely a diplomatic dealer
by diplomacy i*1
alliance, pensions, and orders, it could maintain its and by war. cause in the
last resort by force of arms. Desultory warfare (not easy to distribute in
years or campaigns) meets us from the last year of Leo VI. Lalacon, with the
Armeniac troops, is sent to ravage Colchis ; and Catacalon, his successor,
recovers Theodosiople (near Arzeroum), sacks Phasian&, and humbles the pride
of some mysterious foe, variously supposed to be the Colchians or the Saracens:
neither purport nor event of these expeditions is clear. A dispute ensued with
the king of Iberia, who quietly occupied Theodosiople on the retirement of the
Roman troops under Catacalon. Remonstrance was made on the part of the empire,
but it was finally agreed that the Araxes should be the limit of Roman
authority, and all territory to the north should be surrendered to Iberia.
Curcuas, soon succeeding for his brilliant twenty-two years’ defence of the
frontier, turned his attention rather to the southern district and to
Vasparacan. In the neighbourhood of Lake Van many cities seemed to be occupied
chiefly by Moslem ; and when he reduced the towns of Akhlat and Bitlis he granted
terms to the inhabitants on this curious and significant condition—that a
cross should be planted in the middle of the mosque. We may well pause for a
moment to contrast the demands of a strong central government with the
fanciful and trivial stipulations of feudal tenure, flattering to vanity, but
useless as a guarantee of service or fidelity. Religious piety about this term
dictated a somewhat costly bargain, when very substantial concessions (both of
captives and advantages) were made by Romanus I. (942) to secure the miraculous
veil of Edessa.
§ 7. Such,
then, were the relations of the empire Universal with the petty Christian
kingdoms and principalities of the East down to the retirement of the regents
Armenia. (944, 945). The period had been prolific in bringing to birth fresh
independent sovereignties. The country from the Caucasus to Kurdistan was a
motley patch-work (like mediaeval Germany), not merely of immune baronies but
of full-blown royalties, multiplying and vulgarising the regal title. Over all
these miniature kingdoms or principalities the Roman Empire exercised a potent
charm. Except by the sovereign, the masterful and methodic system was not
beloved ; the nobles disliked its rigour, the clergy its doctrine. But it was
the secure and dignified asylum for the dispossessed exile ; it was the sole
fount of honour in bestowing those empty titles and positions which from Clovis
onwards had secured the homage of powerful kings. Certainly at the end of this
epoch the ties are very much closer than at the beginning ; and there is no
waning in the preponderating influence which the Armenian race exercised within
the empire and in the imperial service. Lecapenus is a member of this militant
caste or aristocracy, inured to arms from childhood and invariably following
the ancestral craft: his father Theophylact saved Basil’s life, and one of the
last acts of Leo VI. was to appoint the son High Admiral. Like Nicephorus
Phocas (963) and Romanus IV. (1067), he rises to place and power against the
anxious interest of the courtiers, by the favour of an empress and his own
troops. He upheld, not unworthily, the repute of Rome, and after a quarter of
a century gave way to a “ legitimate ” monarch, whom at one time he could have
displaced without peril. The chief Armenian hero of the time Exploits and is
John Curcuas, who in his long Eastern lieutenancy SQ^uafthe quietly prepared the way for the more familiar Armenian.
achievements of Phocas and Zimisces. Son of the blinded pretender, whose
failure we have noticed (879),
VOL. 11. 2 D
Exploits and success of Curcuas the Armenian.
he became
sergeant of gendarmerie, and arrested some conspirators in 919. In 920 he went
eastward with wide and ample powers: defended Syria and Euphrates, repressed
the Moslem, and overthrew a significant plot of Bardas Boilas to erect an independent
Armenian governorship within the empire and imitate the emirs of the caliphate,
who like the imperial counts of the West were daily claiming independence.
(This is variously referred to the years 924 and 936.) This rebellion again
excited the infidel to reap profit from Roman dissensions. But Curcuas never
lost a battle ; he carried fire and sword into their country, recovered
Malatiyah, and employs its colleague-emirs as trusty allies. When on their
death the town again closes its gates against the empire, Curcuas with Melias
of Lycandus (a feudal warrior-chief, but also a loyal subject) again reduces
and razes it to the ground. Once more the Euphrates flowed lt under Roman laws."
The troops of Curcuas were recognised as the flower of the army, and the most
efficient force in the empire ; in a Russian peril they are hastily summoned
across the continent to take part in the capital's defence (941). It was
Curcuas who really began the great work of consolidation on the Eastern
frontier with a resolute design which never faltered. Himself born in Lesser
Armenia, son of a soldier, he is the father of Romanus Curcuas, a captain of
distinction under Nicephorus in the pursuit of the same policy. His brother
Theophilus, Aovj~ of Chaldia, is noticed as a strenuous provincial governor,
and was the grandfather of Zimisces. Curcuas became a popular hero (his life
was written by Manuel in eight books, unfortunately lost), and he suffered at
the close of his career the usual penalty reserved for Armenians of warlike
ability. Here the envious or vindictive influence is not a secluded sovereign
warring against private wealth or merit (as in some Eastern court), but the
Byzantine official world. He was accused of treason-
able designs,
and perhaps the idle sons and colleagues Exploits and of Romanus were induced
to join in the charge. The 8Q™tuafthe emperor refused to
believe, and despatched secret Armenian. (and happily impartial) envoys to
inquire on the spot into the behaviour of Curcuas. Their report disposed of the
cabal, and reinstated the general.
Romanus, to
mark his approval and delight, proposed to ally the houses of the sovereign -
regent and the generalissimo ; Constantine VIII/s son was to be betrothed to
Euphrosyne. Once more, the autocrat is helpless and overborne; the court is
again aroused to bitter hostility ; and Romanus, with the deep regret of
Charles I., sacrifices his brave defender to a lighter fate. He is cashiered
and supplanted by Pantherius, a kinsman of the reigning house : according to a
custom in favour at Rome, Damascus, and Bagdad alike, of entrusting the highest
posts only to those who had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by
disloyalty.
VH
RELATIONS OF ARMENIA AND ARMENIANS TO THE EMPIRE, FROM THE SOLE REIGN OF
CONSTANTINE VII. (945) TO THE DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL V. (1042) -(940-1040)
§ 1. The
close of the reign of Romanus I. had Religious been marked in Armenia by
religious disputes which left their sting and trace. About 940, Ber, king of
Armenia Georgian Abasgians (another puzzling subdivision), from Rome' presented himself with a large force before Kars, where King Abbas, son
of Sembat the Bagratid, was about to consecrate a patriarchal church ; and
requested that the rite employed should be Georgian. Suspecting his motive,
Abbas, after fruitless parleying, attacked and captured Ber. In the following
years the unappeasable enmity of Greeks and Armenians
Religious
differences
separate
Armenia
fromRome.
Rise and elevation of Zimisces the Armenian.
became
apparent and gave rise to serious dissension, such as we may witness to-day in
Liverpool or Belfast. Devout Armenians fly from disorder to the lands of Shirak
and Little Vanand ; and to end the conflict, once more a patriarch Vahanic has
the courage to propose the acceptance of Chalcedon, so that Armenia might
worship in communion with the Greek and Georgian rite. As with the complaisant
Esdras under Heraclius, the popular indignation vented itself against the
renegade and compelled him to flee into Vasparacan. About the same time,
religion had led to a singularly disadvantageous compact ; at the price of the
Saviour’s letter to Abgarus of Edessa, the emir had secured the Roman promise
(for what it was worth) never to war against Edessa, Hara, Sroudj, and
Samosata. The reigns of Constantine VII. and his sbn were free from Armenian
complications ; but the influence of the emigrant nobles who formed the
military caste in Roman society was daily increasing. When Bringas (963), the
civil minister, cannot induce Marianus Apambas, general of Italy, to compass
the overthrow of Nicephorus Phocas, he applies to Zimisces and his cousin,
Romanus Curcuas,—the one, patrician- general of the East, and related in some
way to Nicephorus; the other full of hereditary valour, and son of the brave
defender of the border from 920942. (Tchemchkik is an Armenian word of
doubtful meaning, which may be found in our maps to-day, but -kik is a
diminutive, and Tchemch is a Persian word meaning “ majestic ” ; and the whole
might imply a humorous oxymoron. Ducange believes that the reading in Leo
Diaconus should be juLoipaKlrfys, and that the Greek equivalent means “youth.”)
Of noble family or clan, his mother was in some degree connected with Nicephorus
(as cousin ?), and he was the great-nephew of the famous Curcuas and grandson
of his brother Theophilus, governor of Chaldia. (It is curious to note that
Curcuas becomes Gourgen in
the
Armenian chronicles.) Six years later, Zimisces Rise and consented to be an
accomplice and agent in the plot fhe
he so
indignantly rejected in 963 ; to Phocas sue- Armenian. ceeded an Armenian
regent. He took the young emperors, aged 11 and 8, from their retreat in Vasa-
cavan, which under Nicephorus had been chosen for their exile or their safety ;
and he surrounds himself with a special bodyguard of Armenian fantassins
(Asolik on 971); of the services of the Armenian infantry under Phocas we have
already heard in Leo Diac. and Abulpharagius.
§ 2. As the
object of Basil, his ward and pupil, Zimisces and
was the
consolidation of lands in Europe, so before
the eyes of
Zimisces floated the ideal of a crusader, his eastern
He
aimed at the recovery of Jerusalem, Syria, and exploits and . . A . r J .
.. ' . , close relations
Mesopotamia.
A great force is collected under
“ Mleh
Demeslicos ” (is not this a scion of the Armenian family of Melias, creator and
governor of Theme r°yalty- Lycandus under Leo VI. ?*)
; and in spite of the covenant of Romanus I., the army ravages the lands of
Edessa, takes Nisibis and Amida (Diarbekir), and fills the country with
carnage. A reverse before Amida brings the emperor out in person ; he penetrated
into the Taron district and encamped near Adziatsberd, where he finds himself
confronted and opposed by a notable coalition of Armenian nationalists,
numbering 80,000. Yet once again the kings display their Romanising
proclivities ; and Ashot III. and his namesake the king of Vasparacan act as
peacemakers, and end by lending him reinforcements. Alarmed at these
preparations, the people of Bagdad loudly accuse the sloth of their rulers, and
insist on urgent measures. We must elsewhere attempt to trace the political
development of the caliphate and the causes which led to the seclusion of a
Caliph-Mikado; here we must be
1 Or
does Mleh stand for Melek or Malech, Lord or chitf Domestic?
Or, again, is it in any way connected with the later family of Melis-
senus ?
Zimisces and the Crusading Ideal; his eastern
exploits and close relations with
Armenian
royalty.
contented
with noting the institution by Rahdi1 (934-940) of the
Emir-al-Omra’s office, which some years before these events had centred all
effective authority in this Shogun,—minister or generalissimo. But (as
sometimes in Japan) the chief emir was himself an indolent man of pleasure;
and public indignation had to summon, from the useless pastime of the chace, a
delegate who had in turn delegated all serious business. Bokhtiar set himself
to defend the capital and raise troops ; he compelled the unfortunate Commander
of the Faithful to sell his furniture for the purpose. But the Roman peril
vanished like a summer cloud ; while their armies wrought havoc up to
Miafarekin, an imprudence of the mysterious Domestic Mleh exposed the weakness
of their position and lost at once the advantages of the campaign. (Indeed, it
is disheartening work for the student to trace the thousand-years' conflict on
the Tigris and Euphrates, and to reflect that in that long period no serious
change was effected in frontiers or influence, except in the middle of the
seventh and the middle of the eleventh centuries.) In 974, Zimisces retaliated
and reduced the caliph, or rather the emir, to the payment of tribute, which we
find still paid twelve years later—even amidst the civil discord and insecurity
which filled the early portion of Basil’s reign. We notice, with amusement but
without surprise, that the prudent emperor refuses to open negotiations on the
reunion of the Churches, suggested by the ex-Patriarch Vahanic, on the ground
that he had been canonically deposed by his own people. In 975, during the
great and comprehensive expedition into Syria, Zimisces sent Ashot III., his
old ally, a full narrative of his visit to Jerusalem, with a gift of 2000
slaves and 1000 horses, decorating at the same time two Armenian envoys with
the titles “ rabounapet ’’ (rabboni) and philosopher in one case ; and in the
other, /j.dyi<rrpo<s
1 Or
by his immediate predecessor ?
or
protospathaire: so at least run the native accounts of an enterprise and a
compliment otherwise unknown.1
§ 3. In the
troublous year 976, after the death of Armenian Zimisces, the revolt of Sclerus
takes on an entirely ^nfluenee^n Armenian character. His headquarters were in
rebellion of Dchahan and Melitene ; there he was saluted em. Sclerus (976).
peror, and there he was joined by Armenian horsemen. The seat of government
and the resources of the rebellion lay in Mesopotamia ; and while 300 Arab
cavaliers fought under his standards, the neighbouring emirs of Diarbekir,
Amida, and Miafarekin cordially assisted the cause. Nor are the native Armenian
princes behindhand; a brother Romanus and the two sons (Gregory and Bagrat) of
Ashot, prince of Taron, were to be found amongst his allies. The rebel fleet
was under the command of Manuel Curticius. The attitude of a certain David in
this civil war is more doubtful ; he is variously represented as a king of
Iberia, or as a prince of Ta’ik and Curopalat; as an ally of the legitimate
emperor, or as acting in concert with the pretender.
One account
tells us that, in exchange for his support, Basil II. promised to surrender all
towns depending on the empire, in Hark (or Haik ?) and Apahouni provinces, and
in the district of Mardal.
But whatever
may have been the aid of this dubious Displeasure ally, we cannot doubt that,
on the whole, Basil had °/u^^i(and good reason to
be displeased with the Armenian qfreiigious attitude during the
rebellion. He was angry with persecution. the race and the Church ; and he
empowered the metropolitans of Sebaste and Meliten£ to persecute the
Eutychians. They fail in a design to seize the Patriarch Khatchic, but succeed
so well in stirring up the bitterest feelings between the two nations that, in
977, St. Gregory of Narec loses all his popu-
1
Schlumberger does full justice to these Oriental sources in his diffuse history
of the time. But the shapeless and straggling plan of his meritorious labour
of love makes the narrative very difficult reading to the eager student.
Displeasure of Basil and outbreak of religious
persecution.
Armenia suffers from the Moslem and is reconciled to
Basil II.
Legend of Armenian origin of Samuel the Shishmanid.
larity and is
subject to insult, on the mere suspicion of a desire for reunion with the hated
“Greeks/’ But the emperor was eminently placable, and has gained an undeserved
renown for merciless cruelty by a single action during a Western campaign.
Twelve years later (989) he accepts graciously the surrender of the four
princes who had taken part with Sclerus. One last ember of sedition broke into
flame in the revolt of George, juLayiarrpos, in Taron, quickly overthrown by
John, general of the Imperialists, on the plains of Bagarij. When Sclerus
accepted from his generous rival the title of Curo- palat, and retired into the
dignified privacy which that title now entailed, Basil had no more competitors
to fear. In this same year (989) we read of an isolated fact which raises our
sympathy for the gallant Armenian struggle for freedom and worship, between the
infidel and the still more suspected Greek. The emir of Akhlat (near Lake
Van), governor of Hark and Apahouni (mentioned above as offered by Basil to an
ally), once more elevates the defences of Manzikert, which Bardas Phocas had
destroyed, captures Moush, and massacres the priests there ; Asolik, our
informant, having himself seen the gory traces on the church- wall. But the
chief interest of Basil's reign and subsequent exploits is now finally
transferred to the West ; and we shall find Armenian characters figuring
conspicuously either in actual records or in the romance of History.
§ 4. In 988
(here too we depend on Asolik) Basil compelled many Armenians to emigrate into
Macedonia and settle there; an instance of that transplanting policy which
the Byzantines for divers reasons so often adopted. Carrying into their new
home the hostility and resentment which they had felt in the East, they lost no
time in defaulting to the Bulgarians ; and in the number of these defaulters
were found Samuel and Manuel, two members of a
great
Armenian family in Derdcham. When in the Legend of next year (989) Basil,
accompanied by the Armenian ^^™of annalist, went to the wars and captured Curt,
the Samuel the Bulgarian king, the following strange tale went round :
Shishmanid. that it was the Armenian Samuel who placed himself at the head of
the despondent Bulgars, chased the imperial troops, accepted the title of king,
and proposed peace on the terms of marriage with Basil's sister. Being
deceived, like Jacob, by a lady-in- waiting, he swears undying hatred and
commits the episcopal go-between of the mock marriage to the flames. It is
difficult to say what element of truth lies embedded in this astounding myth ;
perhaps we may pardon the national conceit of a writer who sees a compatriot in
every gallant foe of the powerful emperor, an Arsacid on every throne.
Yet Armenians
are not wanting to the imperial Armenian cause ; and several facts point to the
noble confidence of Basil, and his ready acceptance of Armenian proffers (990).
of loyalty. He placed in command at Thessalonica Gregory the Taronite, a Greek
patronymic for that family of princes who, having surrendered their territorial
right between Taurus and Euphrates, were content to live as pensioners of the
Roman court or captains in the Roman armies. Some members of the clan had
followed Sclerus ; but all were pardoned and taken into the confidence and
intimate service of the emperor. Again, in his retinue on this occasion,
Basil takes
with him a Gregory /idyia-Tpog and his son Ashot, with Sahak, prince of
Handzith. Meantime, in the East the mysterious David, prince of Taik, had been
enjoying great success against the various emirs; he had reconquered land in
Vas- paracan and Ararat. But this success aroused envy, and he was poisoned in
the Eucharist—a rare instance in this history of treacherous or brutal crime so
familiar in Western annals. He has time to make a will, bequeathing his little
realm to the mighty empire, much as kings of Pergamus or Bithynia had
Taik
bequeathed to Rome ; Basil II. removes religious
disabilities.
The Great Durbar oj 991; Basil II. receives fealty
of Armenian kings.
done in
earlier days. At this moment Basil was at Tarsus (991), and on the news flies
northwards with his habitual impetuosity. Met on the way by the remonstrances
of the Armenian clergy against the vexations of the Sebastene prelate, he at
once annuls all their religious disabilities, and restored amongst other
privileges the use of bells. At Erez, in the canton of Archamouni, he received
the homage of the Emir of Neferkert, and, oddly enough, seems to have ordered
his Armenian princely neighbours to lend him their support in case of need. We
may believe that Basil saw in this nominal vassal of the imprisoned caliph a
useful renegade for his own purposes ; and it is clear, both for the Christian
nobles and the Moslem governors, that independence could only be preserved by
playing off one great power against the other.
§ 5. The
Caucasian monarchs also came to pay their respects ; Bagrat, king of the
Abasgians (a minor royal dignity, held as apprenticeship by the Iberian heirs),
and his father, Gourgenes, king of Iberia. Meeting Basil near Mount Hadjitch,
they were decorated severally with the titles curopcilat and magistros ; and
Gourgenes discovered later, to his chagrin, that he had enjoyed a vastly
inferior dignity. Several Taik princelets do homage, and the harmony is only
broken by the quarrels of a Russian and a Georgian. On the charge of stolen
fodder the whole Russian contingent make common cause against the pur- loiners,
and defeat the Georgians after slaying their Taik generals, John and Gabriel,
sons of Otchopentir, and Tchortovanel, son of Abou-Harp (Abel-kharp ?). Abbas,
king of Kars (the hero of the cathedral- dedication), renders fealty at the
same time with Sennacherib, king of Vasparacan, and his brother Gourgenes,
loaded with gifts. The absence of Gagic I., king of Ani, from this imperial
durbar excited adverse comment; a nephew instils into Basil's ear suspicions of
his uncle's motive, while the emperor
waits with
increasing impatience at Bagrevad (in the The Great province of Hark). Basil
orders the district of gg[b.a Cogovit and Dzalcot to be
ravaged. Some difficulty il
receives arose, too, out of the envious discontent of the Iberian JealtV
°f king at his inferior .title ; he works havoc in Ta'ik, king^ and,
after recourse to arms, Basil finds it prudent to cede a portion of this
district to Georgia at a convention agreed to at Mount Medzob. (This king,
Gourgenes, left to his son, Bagrat, whose superior dignity had incensed him,
the joint kingdoms of Abasgia and Iberia; and he dying ten years before Basil,
in 1015, is followed by his son Georgi, heir to both crowns.) According to
Arabian writers,
Basil
occupied at this time (before the close of the century) the towns of Akhlat,
Malazkert, and Ardjich ; and this famous expedition is followed in the East by
a long peace and silence. It is not until 1016 that we resume the thread of
Armenian history, interrupted for a quarter of a century. The scene Valiant of
events is Vasparacan, where, since Phocas and ^^pamcan Zimisces, a part had
been incorporated into the to Seljuks. empire, part being occupied by petty
chieftains, allied or directly vassals, part still acknowledging an independent
king, Sennacherib. Upon this little realm fell the brunt of the Seljukian
invasion in its earliest attacks. Countless Turks invade and penetrate into the
Reschdounian canton. Sapor (who would seem to have controlled the military
resources of the country) marches to meet them. With him went the valiant youth
David, son of the king; while the sovereign himself, charged with the civil and
central government, watched anxiously from his capital at Van, or at Ostan. The
Seljuks carried their ravages to Dovin and the canton of Nig, actually securing
a portion of Vasparacan. Vasak of Betchni (father of Gregory, imdytcrTpos by
imperial favour, of whom we shall hear later) joins in defending the country,
falls on the Turks besieging a church, and cuts their detachment to pieces,
cleaving in two a very Goliath
Sennacherib of Vasparacan surrenders i the empire.
. Feudal fiefs within the empire.
of stature at
a single blow. In the very moment of victory, while he was uttering words of
pious thank, fulness, a stone ended his life, and he was venerated as a martyr
in the cause of his religion and his country. His brother Varanes succeeds as
generalissimo of independent Armenia ; a post, like the Byzantine shogunate in
the past century, sometimes equal in dignity, and generally greater in
authority than the kingship itself. The Armenian troops more than held their
own against the raiders, but Sennacherib, remembering a prophecy of Nerses
about the fate of their country, convened the grandees, persuaded them to
endorse his proposal of a surrender to Rome, and despatched his brave son David
to the imperial capital. He was accompanied by the clan- bishop of the
Reschdounians, who could from his own eye-witness testify to the havoc wrought
by the Turk in his canton : three hundred horses laden with presents followed
in the retinue. David, a prince after Basil’s own heart, was welcomed with
fatherly affection, and solemnly adopted by the childless monarch in St. Sophia
; iooo villages or hamlets, ii fortresses, and 10 cities were transferred to
the direct sway of Rome. Convents and their lands were only excepted; but many
of their inmates, together with 400,000 of the people, followed the king into
the safer territory of the empire. They rapidly build cities for their own use
on the Euphrates, Akh, andArabkur; while Sennacherib, made patrician, is given
Cappadocia to govern as an imperial lieutenant, and receives an appanage very
palpably feudal, in the city and surrounding district of Sebaste, for his own
hereditary usufruct. We know that Basil distrusted the great Asiatic landlords
who {t joined
field to field” and emulated the latifundia of an earlier age; he had removed
Eustathius Maleinus from his “more than civil” demesnes in 991, and part of the
principality assigned to the ex-king may have comprised the estate of Maleinus
(which had at his
death
reverted to the State). The new province was Feudal fiefs entrusted to Basil
Argyrus (a brother of the future Wlth]n the
Emperor, Romanus III.); and on his estrangement,6^™’ from
native sympathies, Nicephorus Comnenus was despatched to consolidate and to
pacify. Sennacherib (according to Armenian accounts) showed his loyalty to
Basil in a peculiar way, for it was he and not Xiphias who killed Nicephorus
Phocas (last pretender of the famous clan) and sent his head to Basil (1021).
§ 6. But the
Far East gave the veteran emperor Discontent
endless
trouble: in 1022, he sets his face towards and rebellion . m Georgia
Iberia, and
marches on Vanand (or Phorac). The (1022). whole country was up in arms against
the Roman aggression ; the Abasgians were in force, and all the neighbouring
tribes of the Caucasian district joined the coalition. Basil after some anxiety
wins a decisive engagement, and proceeds to ravage twelve cantons (according to
Samuel of Ani, twenty-four).
He winters in
Marmand on the Euxine, and crosses thence into Chaldia. On September nth a
second battle was fought, in which Liparit, Abasgian general, was slain.
George, the king, flies and sues for peace, which is granted by Basil in
exchange for the cession of a large district and the surrender of a son as
hostage. Basil treated this youth with the well- known kindness and
whole-hearted confidence of Byzantine rulers ; he was to him as a son, and received
the now uncommon title, magister militice (1(rTpaTrjXdrrjg). John, king of Ani,
who had also been Proposal to a moving spirit in the anti-Roman league, finding
his ^Jngdomof allies surrendering, hurriedly made terms with the Ani to Rome.
empire. Like Sennacherib, he proposed to give up Ani to Rome on condition of a
life-interest reserved to himself, and an imperial promise to defend Armenia
from the Turks. The Patriarch Peter, charged with the precious documents, the
title-deeds of a kingdom, arrived at court. Basil treats him with great
respect, enhanced by a miracle of which
Proposal to the emperor was witness. (There are
references to ^Inlbmof an °bscure
campaign in Persia in 1022, in which Ani to Rome. Basil suffered some reverses,
but gained the citadel of Ibrahim through the cleverness and loyalty of a
native woman in that part of Armenia which was occupied by the Moslem.) It is
uncertain if the deed of Curious delay gift or donation of Ani was given up by
Basil II. or fa7rantfer? Constantine IX. during his brief reign (1025-28) ;
varying ’ nor is the transaction entirely clear. Cyriacus, chief accounts. 0f
the Armenian patriarchal hospital, was sent, at the emperor’s request, on a
delicate mission ; and in his hands was placed an important document which transferred
a large district to the direct rule of Rome. This was to be delivered to the
new King of Ani, John Sembat; was it to remind him of the precarious tenure,
or to surrender the deed ? Cyriac (Kvpatcos) at any rate kept it, and appears
to have delivered it over again to Michael IV., and the mild and conscientious
prince waited till Sembat’s demise to enter upon a legitimate possession. John
Sembat of Ani, and his brother Ashot, king of Tachir, died about the same time,
previous to 1039, probably in 1038. An interregnum, or rather anarchy,
prevailed Anarchy and for two years. The nobles do not agree upon the choice of
a successor; for Sembat was childless, and Gagic, his nephew, son Of Ashot, was
too young. Thus the boy of fourteen years had to wait until a loyal general put
him in possession of his heritage two years later. In 1039 the bailiff of the
king profited by political disorder to pillage the royal treasure-house, to
entrench himself in a strong Michael IV., castle of his own, and to return in force
to Ani, pre- parest™' Pared to offer himself as a candidate for the
vacant enforce the throne ; his name was Sargis-Vestes1 of Siounia
(or Swania). Then at length Michael displays the letter, conveying Ani as a
gift to the empire ; and sends an
treason in Ani.
claim.
1 It
is possible that, in the profuse distribution of Byzantine court- titles,
Vestes stands for jSArr^s, a somewhat obscure dignity, perhaps Master of the
Imperial Wardrobe.
army to
enforce the claim, reaching, according to the Michael IV.,
historian,
the incredible number of 100,000. Mean- 104°> pre-
• , r • 1 \
1 a • pares to
time the
military resources of independent Armenia, enforce the
at least of
Vasparacan, were under Varanes (or Bah- claim. ram), a brother of that General
Sapor who had met and defied the first Turkman onslaught. It is not easy to
define his position exactly ; he was certainly in some respects the peer of
kings, and pursued a free policy of his own choice, as a strong nationalist.
With an equally incredible force of Furious 50,000 he falls on the negligent
Roman troops, who had hitherto met with no resistance. The infuriated
Nationalist. natives slay the Romans without quarter, in spite of the imploring
appeals of their own more merciful general. Sargis had played a double part: he
had betaken himself dutifully to the Roman camp, and, now that fortune had
declared against them, he returned to the city and gave the best account he
could of his absence.
§ 7. But the
chief Armenian throne was now open Bahram to the adventurer. Under Michael V.
(1041), David Lackland, a Bagratid “ king ” in Albania, descends Ani (1042).
into Shirak (possibly at the instigation of Rome), to seize the vacant crown.
Here again Varanes interposed, challenged his ambitious aim, and forced him to
retire. Sargis-Vestes had not given up his pretensions, and Varanes guarded the
rights of a scion of the royal house against these claimants. At length he
succeeds in placing the youthful Gagic (or Cakig) on the throne, aged sixteen,
destined to be the last independent sovereign. In this restoration Varanes was
warmly assisted by his own nephew,
Gregory
imdyKrTpog, lord of Betchni, in Ararat (who would seem to have received the
title during a sojourn at Constantinople, and to have there written works in
verse and prose in his native tongue ; also to have converted a Moslem by the
literary tour de force of embracing in a thousand distichs the history of the Old
and New Testaments. He left behind him a
Bahram son, who was destined to become Prince or
Duke of las^Kkig^of Antioch under the Romans). Gagic was a youth of Ani (1042).
excellent qualities, and fought with courage and success against the hordes of
the Turkmans now returning to the charge. In 1042 (the limit of our present
inquiries) they are found near Betchni, the residence of Gregory jmdyiarrpos;
Gagic secures the victory by a clever ambuscade, and many are lured to death
and drowned. They return soon after to the coveted soil of Vasparacan, and are
confronted by Khatchic-Khoul the Lion (an Arzrounian prince), in the Canton of
Thorounavan.
Straight- it
may not be out of place to give another in
dealing of stance of the good faith and feeling of
the Byzantine the emperors, sovereign, at a time when the title seems to modern
ears to imply the hypocrite, the thief, and the assassin. David, the son of
Sennacherib, Arzrounian “ king ” of Sebaste, died after ten years' reign. Here
is an excellent example of the official turning into the hereditary, the
transformation of a functionary holding a certain post at pleasure into a
continuous feudal family seized of an appanage on condition of a trifling
homage. Atom, his brother, succeeds, but is accused at court of treasonable
intentions by an Armenian prince, jealous of their house. Michael IV.,
credulous and alarmed, sent troops, and a summons to appear before him. The
royal brothers wisely decide to obey. At the tomb of the great emperor Basil
they read out his deed of investiture with the sovereign principality of
Sebaste, and protest their innocence of the charge. Michael at once believes
them, embraces them with tenderness and remorse, and imprisons the
calumniator.—The reign of the same prince was also signalised by the amazing
vicissitudes of the little town and fortress of Bergri, on the borders of Lake
Aghthamar near Ardjich. The governor, Khtric, was captured by the Roman
governor in Vasparacan, Nicholas Cabasilas, who seized the town. He again
recovers his liberty and his post, loses again to the
Armenian
lords Gardzi and Tadjat, wins it back, celebrating his triumph with a horrible
bath of gore, and yields at last to the empire.
Leaving then
independent Armenia in the hands Relations of
of
a generous and able prince, and united in loyalty the Armenian , j u , , r ; kingdom to
by a common
danger, we may perhaps establish the empire
the following
conclusions. The native dynasty had (c-1042). emerged again out of
trouble and conflict, and thanks to the services of Sapor, of Bahram, of Vasak,
and of Gregory,had reasserted its rights. The claims of Rome, founded on an
authentic document, had been overlooked, tacitly surrendered, or mildly
enforced. The Turkish onset had largely contributed to the success of the
loyalist or nationalist party ; Roman governors and native princes lived side
by side in suspicious amity, in open hostility, and occasional alliance.
One great
armament had been launched in vain against Armenian autonomy; and time was preparing
a last and final conflict in which the lesser power would vanish like Poland in
thraldom to the empire, itself already approaching the term of its real
sovereignty in Asia. We reserve for notice, under the important reign of
Constantine X., the final conclusion; following, as it does, the familiar lines
of those historical events, by which the independence of smaller states is wont
to be extinguished.
§ 8. There
remains only to notice briefly some Close disconnected details in the general
relations of Rome ft^riawith^ and Armenia, which serve to illustrate the time
empire under between Basil II. and the tenth Constantine.
Romanus III.
(of the notable family of Argyrus) was strongly Armenian in his sympathies; he
married two nieces and perhaps a daughter to their princes. It may be suspected
that his death arrested the development of friendly relations and a wise policy
of conciliation. I do not attach weight to the supposed insult imposed on the
Armenian reinforcement at the Black Mount, when
vol. 11. 2 E
Close during
his ill-starred expedition of 1030, he enrolled
Iberia^h0^ ^em
among
his regular troops. The actual loss empire under of the day was retrieved by
Maniaces (himself RomanusIII, 0f Eastern descent) ; though nothing
could ever obliterate the personal disgrace and shame of the emperor, who,
perhaps for a century, was the first to suffer defeat in the open field.
Magniac was given command of the riparian cities and forts along the Euphrates,
with a chief residence at Samosata and a roving commission. He seized Edessa,
then occupied by a lieutenant of the emir of Miafarekin, and sent home an
annual tribute of 50 lbs. of gold from the single city. He was soon transferred
to the control of Roman Vasparacan, while Leo Lependrenus succeeded him in the
Mesopotamian viceroyalty. The brother of Michael IV., the eunuch Constantine,
was the next governor of Edessa, or at least appears in its defence, with the
title of Domestic of the eastern troops. The technical successor to
Lependrenus was an undoubted Armenian, born, it was said, of an Iberian mother,
Varazvatch.—It would appear that the death of Romanus III. (1034) stirred the
ill-feeling and suspicion of these Iberians. Romanus and Zoe had married a
niece, daughter of Basil Argyrus, to Bagrat, son of George, king of Iberia and
Abasgia ; and it is said that Bagrat broke a long peace with the empire to
avenge the murder of Romanus. This would seem to be (like the scandalous yet
circumstantial story itself) very problematic : in 1036, the same monarch sent
a reinforcement of 4000 men to David Lackland against the emir of Dovin. The
tendency to appoint natives to the imperial Armenian commands in the East is
evinced by the name theempire^ Khatchic, a native governor under the empire for
Principality Roman Vasparacan, a post in which the official of Tarsus. and
the feudal element must have been very evenly balanced. We read of two sons,
Hassan and Zinziluc, being despatched to offer gifts and homage
to the
emperor Michael IV. During their absence Armenian
the Turks
kill father and brother, and they return aovernors for
1 J the
empire:
with 5000
Romans to take vengeance. Quite in the Principality
spirit of
mediaeval chivalry, the murderers are of Tarsus. challenged to single combat,
and the right prevails in the province of Her. But the petty Armenian
principalities or governorships have become increasingly insecure; the tide of
Roman influence is fast ebbing in the east, or rather the Armenian nationality
is being driven westwards. On Hassan's death, the emperor gave his son,
Abel-Kharp, the principality of Tarsus, in Cilicia, with its dependencies, and
thus paved the way for that romantic sequel to the Armenian monarchy in the
country of St. Paul. Once more, under Romanus III. (1034),
Alda, widow
of George of Abasgia, had handed over a strong fortress to Rome, Anaquoph ; and
Demetrius, brother of the Bagrat above, who married the emperor's niece Helena,
received the distinction of magister militum. Thus hither and thither flowed
the stream of Romanising sympathy among the Armenians at this time.
Kings of Iberia (or Georgia or Karthli) of the Bagratid line, established as fifth
dynasty since 575 by Gouaram, curopalat:—
Adranasar (Aternerseh) II., 890. (Bagratid king of Georgia; a grandson of
Ashot I., Bagratid king of Armenia; crowned by Sembat I.)
David II., son.
Gourgenes I., nephew of David.
Bagrat II., son of Gourgenes, the Fool.
Gourgenes II., son of Gourgenes, 998.
Bagrat III., son of Gourgenes, 1008.
N
Georgi I., son of Bagrat III., 1015.
Bagrat IV., son of George, who married niece of Romanus III., whose
brother Demetrius received title magister militum, whose mother Alda received
Roman garrison in Anaquoph. There follow:
Georgi II., 1072 ; David III., 1089; Demetrius I.,
1125.
The new line of Abasgian kings provides several members of
the Iberian Bagratids, though sovereigns are not invariably chosen from
that family: in 915, there is a Gourgenes, grand prince of the Abasgians,
nephew of David 11, (above); his son Bagrat served, as it were, an
apprenticeship in Abasgia for the more important crown of Iberia, which he
obtained in 958, at the close of Constantine VII.’s reign. At that time Abasgia
served, like Naples or Tuscany, as a stepping-stone to a higher dignity. But
the barbarous names of Thothos and Ber (927 and 945) prove that the Abasgian
chieftains were not always chosen of this stock.
Kings of Armenia (of the Bagratid line)
Ashot (son of Vasak), created ruler of Armenia by Merwan II., last Ommiad
Caliph, 748.
Sempad, 758.
Ashot, 781.
Sembat, Confessor, 820.
Ashot I. the Great (first independent ruler), 856.
Sembat I., Martyr, 890.
Ashot II. (iron-arm), 914.
(An Ashot not counted, nominee of Arabs,:92i.)
Apas, 928.
Ashot III., the Pitiful, 952.
Sembat II., the Powerful, 977.
Gagic I. (*king of kings), 989.
John Sembat III., 1020-1042.
Gagic II., 1042 (+1080).
ANNEXATION, RIVALRY, AND ALLIANCE WITHOUT
(1040-1120)
VIII
ARMENIA AND THE EMPIRE FROM CONSTANTINE X.
TO THE ABDICATION OF MICHAEL VI. (1040-1057).
§ 1. The reign of Monomachus is perhaps the zenith
Voluntary of Byzantine influence and extension, and the first .
Kina of ,i wi
moment of
rapid reaction and decline. The chief (<?. 1045). event in the Eastern world
was the extinction of the Bagratid kingdom in Greater Armenia, and the annexation
of a vast territory, which stretched the realm from the Danube (or even the
Straits of Messina) to the Caspian Sea. In 1045, Michael Jasitas, Roman
governor in Iberia, has small success against the recalcitrant Gagic, nephew of
the deceased monarch ; and Constantine X. does not scruple to request the aid
of Aboulsewar, Arab emir of Dovin, against a Christian sovereign. The emir
bargained to retain his conquests. Gagic was alarmed at this unholy alliance;
and Sargis-Vestes, working on his fears, induced him to make peace with the
mighty yet placable rulers, whose arms and allies were ubiquitous. At last the
distressed king decides to repair to the well-known asylum ; he binds his
nobles of the Romanising party by terrible oaths not to surrender the city of
Ani in his absence, and exacts from the emperor full and express safe- conduct
and immunity. The treacherous faction at once despatched the keys of citadel
and palace to
Voluntary cession of King of Ani (c. 1045).
Exploits of Catacalon, Roman governor, against emir
of Bovin.
Constantine ;
and to his credit he refused to accept the advantage. Meantime a notable
Armenian peer set the example of capitulation ; Gregory /mayiarrpos, friend of
the aged Basil II., versifier and paraphrast of Scripture, gave up his
possessions in Ararat in exchange for land in Mesopotamia, and the coveted
title of Duke (which now became the chief honour bestowed by the empire on its
foreign adherents). Gagic hesitated no longer ; and with the entrance of
Jasitas into Ani the Bagratid kingdom comes to an end, leaving only the prince
of Kars in complete but precarious autonomy, under the hereditary sway of the
son of Abbas. Gagic is granted the now archaic title of magister militum, with
a large fief in Cappadocia. The first dependent governor of Ani was Catacalon
Catacecaumenus, the burnt (cf. Fabius Ambustus), a general of the Armenian
military caste, who will bulk largely on the scene in the next twenty-five
years. Catacalon at once suspected the patriarch Peter and his nephew Kliatchic
of very doubtful attachment to the new suzerain; he seizes them both. Constantine
X., entirely faithful to the gracious and trusting policy of the later emperors
towards alien princes and possible allies, received Peter at court, and (while
compelled to acknowledge the fairness of his lieutenant's suspicions) gave him
the high dignity of Syncellus to# his own “ Chalcedonian” patriarch.
He orders the reinstatement of Khatchic in the see of Ani, and even dismisses
Peter after three years from his honourable detention, at the request and with
the personal surety of Gagic the ex-king, and the two princes or “ kings "
of Sebaste ; thither the patriarch retired, to die in 1060.—The two following
years (1046) witnessed more desultory conflicts in the farther East.
Aboulsewar, the emir of Dovin, was discontented with the good faith of the
“Greeks," and loudly bewailed the violation of the compact by which he was
to
retain
whatever he won from Gagic. It is customary Exploits of to believe implicitly
such charges in the case of the decadent Byzantine monarchy, the u Lower ” empire ; governor,
in this case, we will only remark that Gagic had (^'^i^nir already detached the emir from his
imperial ally ‘
and thus
rendered the treaty void ; and again, he had ceded his kingdom of his own
free-will.
Nicolas
Cabasilas,1 in command of the troops, despatched a large force,
under Jasitas and an Alanian vassal of his own, which is badly defeated under
the walls of Dovin. The two generals are at once recalled, and Catacalon
transferred from Iberia ; while, with the true Byzantine caution so often fatal
to rapid and concerted action, the control of the army was entrusted to a
Saracen eunuch, Constantine, in whose loyalty the emperor had every reason to
confide ; we are reminded of the influence of Samonas under Leo VI. But this
strangely assorted pair of yoke-fellows, the bluff general and the emasculated
renegade from Islam, acted throughout in perfect agreement. They close in on
the emir's capital, carefully occupying all places of supply and commissariat.
(The Armenian writers give Catacalon the name Telarkh or Teliarkh: is it
possible that under this lurks concealed, the ironical title reXeios ap^cov, or
reXeiapxyg ?) Aboul- sewar retaliated (as was usual in these border forays) by
carrying desolation up to the walls of the new Roman centre, Ani. He destroyed
the churches, martyring the faithful priests and bishops; and amongst the
number we find the name of Vahram, the aged Arsacid general and patriot, who
had com-
1 We may perhaps suspect that the name Basil is not
strictly of Greek origin, either at this time or earlier, when it is
illustrated by the great Christian dogmatist. The Armenian form might be Vasel
or Bar- shegh ; the Greeks would force its Hellenic equivalent into some kind
of intelligible form. In this spirit and intention, they make Topyivdrjs (alert
mind) of Gourgenes, Su/*j8dnos of Sembat, Ua.yKp6.Tios of Bagrat. In the West
they attempted a derivation of Thiudat and Thiuds-reich, by words which reminded
the hearer or reader of the gift of God (Geds, dupov).
The Seljuk advance : its significance in world-
history.
pleted his
eightieth year. He still lives as a canonised saint in the grateful memories of
his scattered countrymen.
§ % The year
1048 saw the beginning of the Seljukian wars, which destroyed in a few years
the caliphate and the traditional form and territory of the Roman Empire,
extended a Turkish conquest from the neighbourhood of Byzantium to Cashgar,
vanished before the still more terrible onslaught of the Mongols, and gave
birth in dying to the Ottoman supremacy. The founder of the line was a brave
captain in Turkestan, very probably of Christian belief, who, in the disturbed
and incoherent realm which we call the caliphate, retired affronted from a
petty court, set up an independent authority, and died full of years and booty
as a brigand chief or mercenary captain in Bokharia at the age of eighty. It is
fitting to compare for a moment the fortunes of Rome and Islam. Both systems
were anti-national, impersonal, democratic (or rather equalitarian), and
therefore despotic. There were no gradations of authority, no distinct and
balancing centres of influence ; the Caliph and Caesar were all or nothing; the
popular delegation of power was plenary and (at first) irrevocable. Rome leant
successfully on the nations who entered her pale ; the provinces were summoned
one by one to send their sons to the capital and revive its dwindling vigour.
As in Rome, Spaniards and Africans, Syrians and Dacians had played their part
in sustaining the empire which recognised no distinction of race, so in Islam
we can trace the successive stages by which the real power passes from Arabia
to Syria, Persia, and Khorasan ; how the caliphs, recruiting their armies farther
and farther from the seat of government and the home-country, became the
victims and the slaves of the Turkish mercenaries whom they had invoked against
their own subjects. In the widespread theocracy of Islam "any believer
might become, not
indeed Caesar—the
prophet's kin were sacred—but TheSeljuk his tyrant or his assassin. The
difference between the two parallel systems may be seen in the greater %n world- efficiency of the successors of Constantine, who are history.
continually awoken from the slumbers of the puppet to become the active
controllers, first ministers, and generals of the great commonwealth.
Elsewhere, the members of a privileged house of sacred and immemorial descent
sank into nonentities; but at Old and New Rome there are no Mikados, rots
faineants, or Abbassid caliphs. By the middle of the eleventh century, the
original force of Islam had been exhausted ; its noonday was long past. The
three great movements which created our modern world were just happening: the
Norman conquests of England and of Southern Italy,—the arrival of the Seljukids
as militant exponents of the principles of Islam. It is at this time that the
kingdoms of the ancient and the modern world fall into that shape and system
which has lasted until the present day. For the Seljukids are the ancestors and
pioneers of the Ottoman Turks.
§ 3. The
first embroilment of these redoubtable First pillage
foes with the
imperial forces occurred in 1048, for °fVas~
. . r ^ 1 paracan.
a miserably
inadequate cause. Stephen, governor of Vasparacan and son of Constantine
Lichudes, a favourite minister of Constantine X., refused leave, like Edom of
old, to Cutulmish, Togrul's cousin, to pass through while retiring before the
Arabs of Diarbekir. The arrogant governor is defeated, captured, and sold as a
slave; but the glowing reports of Cutulmish on the fertile province influence
the greed of the Sultan (as we may now call the representative of the
imprisoned caliph, in distinction from the official emirs of the Arabian
system).
Twenty
thousand men under Assan are sent to reduce and ravage Vasparacan ; for if
Harun himself had no higher ambition than a successful slave-raid, it was not
to be expected that these gross recruits
First pillage of Vasparacan.
Division in the Roman councils; they wait for
Liparit.
{Feudal character of Liparit.)
to Islam,
perhaps Christian renegades, had any idea of political consolidation. The new
governor was Aaron, son of Ladislas, Bulgarian king, and brother of Prusianus
(the duellist); so strangely on the outskirts of her empire did Rome bring
together the different nations, tongues, and creeds of the world. He sent to
Catacalon for aid, who had during the rebellion of Tornicius been summoned to
the defence of the emperor against the usurper, and afterwards transferred to
his old post as governor of the Iberian frontier of Armenia. Local report
assigns a creditable victory and successful ruse to Catacalon: the camp was
deserted, and while it is rifled by the enemy the ambush falls on them,
drowning them in the river Strauga (?) It must, however, be remarked that the
incident and the plan bear a suspicious resemblance to the tactics of king
Gagic ; and that while the Byzantines know of one incursion of the Seljuks, the
Armenians, with better chances of accurate knowledge, speak of three. But the
further success of the Roman arms and perhaps a long reprieve for the Asiatic
provinces of the empires, were hindered by the Byzantine safeguards of a
divided military command, by a college of equal generals. Their unanimous voice
was requisite for any joint action, and a single veto (as in a Polish Diet)
could indefinitely postpone action at a crisis. Aaron the Bulgar wished to act
on the defensive and await further imperial commands, when Togrul's brother,
Ibrahim Inal, advanced against them with an enormous host of 100,000.
Catacalon, merely a warrior and not a courtier, bluntly declared for an
immediate attack. The emperor sent in reply a cautious direction to wait for
the further reinforcements of the Iberian Liparit.—This ally or vassal or
subject of Rome (we are approaching the feudal uncertainty of legal status) is
an excellent type of a common class in these latter days of the Eastern empire.
A trained warrior, and descending- from a military
family, he
stands, like Vasak or Bahram, a powerful (.Feudal general by the side of the
throne, or on its steps, and often of more consequence than its occupant.
Twenty- six years before (1022), his grandfather had died fighting against the
empire with the Abasgians ; and under Bagrat, king of Northern Iberia, he was
established there and enjoyed great influence. But the king insulted his wife,
and was expelled by an exasperated husband. Seizing the throne like the Persian
general Bahram of old (in a rare interruption of a strictly hereditary line),
he sought to establish himself by the friendship of Rome. Constantine X.
willingly accepted his proposal, and recognised the successful pretender ; but
Bagrat escapes from his exile, passes to Trebizond, and secures the emperor’s
permission to visit Constantinople. There the legitimate sovereign complained
of the countenance given to a rebel and usurper. And on this occasion, if on no
other, the emperor acted a truly imperial part, as judicious arbiter of the
quarrels of lesser men, such as Dante vainly portrayed to the turbulent West as
the ideal of an earthly monarch. He mollified the two rivals, and prevailed
with wonderful tact on Liparit to rest content with the life— enjoyment of the
province of Meschia, acknowledging Bagrat as his sovereign.
§ 4. While
the generals each in good faith proffered Defeat of and upheld their different
views, the forces of Liparit were slowly assembling and descending southwards,
/or peace and Ibrahim, reaping a full advantage from the re- Rome•
spite, attacked Arz-Roum (near the ancient Theodosio- polis), and burns and
sacks an opulent town, where the number of victims of fire and sword was said
to reach 140,000. Still Aaron believed that nothing could dispense from the
letter of the imperial instructions ; and his veto paralysed the action of the
Roman forces while Catacalon chafed at the delay.
But the
arrival of Liparit only brought a fresh obstacle. He came with 26,000 Georgians
and
Defeat of Liparit; negotiations for peace with Rome.
The
Patzinaks create a diversion in Europe ; eastern
armies weakened.
Armenians and
700 of his own immediate retainers and vassals ; but he refused to fight on a
Saturday. When the engagement does in the end take place, both Roman generals
accounted for the detachment that confronted them, but Liparit was defeated and
taken captive. The Sultan displayed an even greater generosity towards his
fallen foe than Alp Arslan to Romanus Diogenes. He dismissed Liparit without
ransom; and gave to the released prisoner for his own use the sum which the
emperor had sent. Events seemed to point to a truce in the hostilities between
the two powers ; but the Sheriff sent to the Roman capital to discuss the terms
of peace, made extravagant demands, required tribute from the empire (which was
as yet insensible of its secret decay), and broke off negotiations on refusal.
In consequence, Togrul resumed the war next year (1049) by an attack on
Manzikert, some twenty years before the famous and fatal battle. (Earlier in
the year he had appeared before Comium in Iberia, but was deterred by the news
of a great Roman force which Constantine X. had collected. The defection of the
emperor’s Patzinak allies or recruits altered the whole complexion of affairs.
Like the Slavonian mercenaries of Justinian II. they abandoned their forts with
one consent, refused to go on a distant expedition to the rocks of Iberia, and
swam the Bosphorus on their horses beneath the eyes of an amazed and perhaps
affrighted capital.) The patrician Basil forces Togrul to retreat; and the
great army collected at Cappadocian Caesarea was free to turn its attention to
Aboulsewar. The Roman arms and designs were crowned with complete success. The
emir’s territory was ravaged, the old treaty renewed, and a hostage was offered
and accepted, in the person of his nephew Artasyras. But this concentration of
troops on the Eastern frontier had left the capital exposed. The days of the
great Justinian were recalled when, victor from
Gades and the
Straits of Hercules to Colchis and The the Euphrates, he trembled in the palace
before a Patzmaks
create &
raid of
disorderly barbarians. Neither then nor diversion in now could the empire
support more than one Europe; fully-equipped host; Belisarius had to leave his
task ^mies in Persia to fly to Italy. In recent times a Russian weakened. scare
had brought up Curcuas with all his men from their proper post; and we shall
soon see how the revolt of Tornicius disorganised the military defences strange
trio by a contemptible domestic sedition. The Roman of generals armies had
followed strange leaders of every nation patzinaks under heaven; but never
perhaps a combination so (1050). curious. At the head was a retired priest,
Nicephorus, who had abandoned his orders to follow active military service ; a
Western bishop would have united the two professions of arms and prayer.
Catacalon, not without a smile or a murmur, assumed a subaltern post ; and
Hervey the Norman (<ppayy67rov\og) occupied a powerful but indeterminate
position as ally or condottiere: here first we meet with a notable name among
the foreigners,
Russians,
Germans, and English, who since the days of Basil and Constantine had formed no
mean reinforcement to the decaying (or suspected) native armies. Successive
defeats had broken the spirit of the soldiers. Nicephorus was routed ;
Catacalon was taken, still breathing, among the heaps of slain ; like Liparit,
he was tended by the foe, restored to health, and finally released, to act once
more as the guardian of the empire, the veteran hero and spokesman of the
military party, and the 11
king-maker ” in the revolution of 1057. The Patzinaks were a third time
victorious over the cowed and demoralised forces (1050); but by one of the
rapid turns from peril to security, so familiar in Byzantine history, they were
repressed and rendered harmless by the end of the next year.
§ 5.
Meantime, the court and advisers of the benevolent emperor were agitated by
perpetual sus-
The courtiers charge Armenian Princes of Arkni with
disloyalty.
Curious plot to annihilate Armenian ‘Huguenots.*
Normans posted in East owing to distrust.
picion of
Armenian loyalty. Once more a charge was preferred (1051) against the
vassal-princes, who lived so strangely in the midst of the uniform officialism
of Rome, on the border-line between subject and ally. The province of Baghin,
in Fourth Armenia, had long enjoyed peace under a college of amiable brethren
residing at Arkni, Abel Harpic (or Aboul-Kharp), David, Leo, and Constantine.
The emperor listened to their accusers, and sent Peros with a force to
investigate. He summons all the lords to attend a durbar and publicly renew
their profession of loyalty. Intending to abstain they were betrayed ; and
found it prudent to present themselves and tender allegiance. Of the guilty
designs of the eldest brother Peros was reluctantly convinced; with unusual and
almost unique severity in this age of tenderness to traitors and renegades, he
set a price upon his head; but wept at the spectacle of accomplished justice.
The remaining three princes he brought home with him, to be banished into an
island in the ensuing year (1052), not because their innocence was again doubtful,
but by the kindness of the emperor. Our authorities at this juncture tell us
that “a decision was taken at court to annihilate the entire Armenian race,”
and we are left in darkness as to the motive and scope of this curious
proposal, which has found in our own times a parallel in the policy of Abdul
Hamid II. The emperor (always the most clement man within his own dominions)
saved them from the tempest; there was no Armenian Bartholomew, no Sicilian
Vespers; and the gracious and capable sovereign, Theodora, sent them back to
their own land, conferring the responsible control of their province to
Melusianus.—But it is abundantly clear that the court-party and civil ministers
entertained a profound distrust of the Armenian warrior-class. From certain
vague intimations we might almost surmise that the great army of the East was
no more. In 1052, we find Franks and Varangians dispersed in
various posts
of Iberia and Chaldia, under Michael Normans the Acolyth. He was successful in
inducing Togrul to P°sted m.
1 • X e t • •
, r , • East owing to
desist from
his savage- reprisals for the escape of his distrust. rebel brother Cutulmish.
But in 1053, the Sultan Attack of again returns to Lake Van, round which in
earliest Togrul
tiprrphi
and latest
time alike clustered the homes of the true reneJed
Armenian race. He captured Bergri and begins the (1053) but second siege of
Manzikert, still ruled by Basil the patrician (scion of a noble family of Talk
by a Georgian mother), a clear proof that the wisdom and justice of the emperor
had arrested the fatal policy of eliminating the Armenian element from the
service of Rome. The Turks had the usual successes of a ferocious and
undisciplined horde. The districts of Ararat, Vanand, Khorsen£, Chaldia, and
Taik were ruthlessly ravaged. Thatoul, the general of Abbas, king of Kars, was
put to death in captivity for having killed in battle a Seljuk prince. But the
Sultan retired baffled from the walls and bastions of the citadel; an Armenian
and a nameless but ingenious Frank diverted the force of his batteries and set
fire to the engines which, stolen from the Romans, they employed with clumsy
art against their inventors. After receiving in his camp from a catapult the
gory head of a general who had counselled persistence in the siege, Togrul
hesitated no longer.
He strikes
his camp and plunders the vulnerable portion of Arzk6, a town in the Pesnounian
district, and on the borders of Van. The not inglorious reign of Constantine X.
was wearing to its close ; two acts of imperial generosity must be recorded;
Basil, for
his meritorious defence, was created Duke Catacalon, (or Prince ?) of Edessa,
and Catacalon, returning safe and whole from the kindly Patzinaks, received the
still prouder title, Duke of Antioch, which had for a hundred years shed added
lustre on the highest official rank.
§ 6. During
the short reign of Theodora (1054- attack;6^ 1056) decisive
and significant movements took treason of the place in the East. On the one
hand, the Seljuks i^arit.
Fresh Seljuk attack ; treason of the son of Liparit.
Pillage of Chaldia.
Emir of Akhlat extinguishes revolt of Hervey the
Norman.
gathered
courage, assaulted Ani (1055) by the united armies of Togrul and Aboulsewar,
once more hostile to the empire; ravaging the district of Basen, massacring the
whole populace of Ocom to the number of 30,000, scared or stupefied by the
fires kindled by the savage foe. (Another band of mutineers, despising the
commands of the Sultan but recognising the same prey, killed a Roman commandant
Theodore, in the province of Taron.) On the other hand, we have a signal
instance of that restless feudal spirit which excited the distrust of the
ministers in the capital against the Armenian race, whether as vassal-princes
or as troops enrolled in the imperial service. Ivan (or Ivane), the son of
Liparit, the superstitious general who had failed against the Turk in 1048, had
been gratified by the investiture of the provinces of Hacht6an and Archa- mouni
: he had found this substantial recompense for the very doubtful services of
his family inadequate to his own deserts. He coveted the addition of the province
of Carin ; and to secure his purpose, allied with the Turks. Terrified at his
crime, he guides them into Chaldia, away from his own territory ; and they are
glutted with the rich booty of a defenceless country. This was the signal for a
more determined and ferocious onslaught. Anarchy broke loose in the Asiatic
provinces. A band seizes Erez, and massacres all its people.
Michael VI/s
reign was marked by the revolt of Hervey, an excellent instance of the dangers
of mercenary aid, and the aversion of strong and youthful individuality to
serve an impersonal cause. Neither Norman nor Armenian (amid many signal points
of unlikeness) could appreciate a state, a commonwealth, or public welfare.
All life was for them comprised in personal honour, in detached acts of
prowess, and in allegiance to a personal chief. Hervey at least would have been
contented if his vanity had been flattered by the title magister militum,
which
he asked as the price of his services. The Emir of boon was refused with some
scorn ; and Alaric had fxtinguhhes sacked Rome to avenge a similar slight.
Hervey revolt of was no historian, but the same Teutonic spirit, Hervey the
covetous of honour and careless of gain, worked in *
him as in his
Gothic cousin six and a half centuries before. He dissembles his resentment and
asks a furlough. He passes into Armenia, where he had an estate or a citadel;
and communicates his discontent to the other Franks, who had been established
there in military colonies to counteract the Armenian influence. The empire had
reason to repent of its decision ; the Norman mercenaries were less trustworthy
and more dangerous than the Armenian natives. Like Russell some years later in
the empire, like the Seljuks themselves in their early days, he became a
brigand-chief, a robber-baron of the Western type, a captain of raceless and
creedless condottieri. In Vasparacan, he does not scruple to court the alliance
of Samukh, Togrul’s general, and with his aid to harass the lands of the
empire. But the infidel put small faith in these blonde barbarians ; and
Michael VI. owed to the prudence and friendliness of the Emir of Akhlat the
easy extinction of the mutiny. Apolasar posed as the host and ally of Hervey’s
company, but it was against the wish of their leader that the Franks entered
the city. They were all assassinated ; and Hervey himself thrown into chains.
The emir wrote to Michael VI. with almost dutiful glee at the deserved fate of
the rebel; and the emperor, terrified at the renown of any successful general
in his^ employ, must have been profoundly thankful that he was not required to
provide the military class with a chance of distinction. But the emperor could
not avert his fate. He was destined to fall before some member of the
warrior-class, and it was the veteran general, Catacalon Catacecaumenus, who
became the arbiter of the due moment of the insurrection and the qualifications
of the new emperor.
VOL. ii. ' 2 F
Catacalon
and
Armenian military faction again in power (1057).
Armenian influence on Rome.
IX
ARMENIA AND WESTERN ASIA FROM ISAAC I. TO THE RETIREMENT OF NICEPHORUS
III. (1057-1081)
§ 1. The
forces of the East had recovered their influence, their numbers, and their
prestige; or at least the great magnates knew where their disbanded soldiers
were chafing in enforced inaction. The troops, gathered at Castamouni in
Paphlagonia, joyfully proclaimed Isaac Comnenus, to whom the choice of
Catacalon had pointed, on June 8, 1057. From this moment the conflict between
the Pacifists and the military caste is continual and embittered, and ceases
not until the accession of the second Comnenus, twenty-four years later, puts
an end for ever to the civil tradition of Rome. Like any feudal prince of the
West, summoned by his peers to a precarious throne, Isaac is well aware of the
doubtful benefit of a military backing. The constitution had not yet lost its
archaic and yet venerable lineaments; the wearer of the purple was not yet a
pure military dictator, nor a feudal prince among his clansmen or his serfs.
Michael VI. had dismissed with irony and studied insult the generals who had
assembled to pay their Easter homage and receive the usual gifts and honours.
Isaac was not so imprudent ; but he took occasion to send his late allies far
from the capital to reside on their own estates. Catacalon became Curopalat,
but the office was perhaps, for the first time, divided between a brother, John
Comnenus, and a subject. Henceforth, the emperor relies only on his kinsmen ; a
Comnenus is the power behind the throne even during the interval between the
abdication of Isaac and the emergence of Alexius ; and the nomination of a new
emperor is the triumph of a feudal clan.
I have dwelt
thus on the political aspect of the revolution of 1057, because it bears out
the influence ascribed to the new feudal forces at work throughout
the empire,
and especially in the East. Armenia had Armenian
influei Rome.
no doubt
preserved her independence by means, inftmnce on
rather than
in spite, of her feudal turbulence. But she had done more ; she had permeated
the socialistic system and government of Rome with the spirit of a bellicose
hierarchy: and the influence which destroyed the reality of the empire, while
it kept alive its phantom for 500 years, came from the East and not from the
West.—For our present purpose, we Desultory
must
now resume our inquiry into the sequel of the r^s10^
m • , • , 1 1 i-»i Seljuks with
Turkish
inroads and the Roman civil war. Blour, varying
in Carin
(which Ivan had coveted), submitted to success terrible cruelties ; Khorzene
and Andzitene are ran- ' sacked ; and the attention of the warrior-class was
distracted from the needs of the State to their own real or imagined grievances
(1057). In 1058, a Turkish force came against Melitene and sacked and burnt
according to their custom ; but with a curious nemesis, the retreating raiders
are snow-bound among the gorges of the Taurus for five months, while the scanty
but resolute defenders hold the passes. The death of their general and the news
of a Roman reinforcement threw the Turks into confusion near the village of
Mormran; and, though during their retreat through Taron they burn Elnout’s
cathedral and belfry (built by Gregory /mdyicrTpos), Thornic the Mamigonian
assembles the levies of Sassoun against them, rescues their prisoners, and
sends them back in safety to Meliten&. So far at least the Turkish war is a
mere record of havoc, slaughter, and burning ; broken only by some instance of
patriotic daring. There is no steady policy, no advance to any certain goal.
The Seljuks harry and destroy but they do not annex, and seem at the very
moment of signal triumph to repent suddenly of their aggression.
§ 2. The
estrangement of Armenia was assisted Religious and by theological hate.
Constantine XI. Ducas had senslomtf" succeeded, and he summoned the Ani
patriarch Armenia and Khatchic (nephew of Peter) to appear in the capitalthe emPire
Armenian alliance with infidel and Seljuk advance.
Religious and (1059); was
retained in polite captivity for three sensions ©/" years>
importuned to accept the creed and rites of the Armenia and Greek Church, and
(if an odd report be worthy of the empire, credit) to supply the emperor with
an annual tribute or subsidy. Application is made also to Atom and Abousahl,
princes or “kings” of Sebaste (Sivas), and to Gagic, the king of Kars. But the
suggested submission was intensely distasteful to the Armenian nation ; nor
did the behaviour of the “ Greeks ” serve to mollify these prejudices. Insults
were meted out to the Armenians, on account of their religion ; George coming
from Ani to Antioch suffers the crowning and unpardonable indignity of a pulled
beard. In revenge he asks aid of the Turks, and plunders twelve adjacent villages
belonging to the empire ; no doubt frightened, like the rest of his countrymen,
at the success of his unnatural vengeance. Yet Constantine XI. himself trusted
Armenian loyalty and valour; he appointed Khatchatour, a native of Ani, whom
Zonaras calls XarctTovpios, Duke of Antioch in 1060. But nothing could heal the
breach between the two nations ; jealousy impeded the successes of the camp as
well as the harmony of a common worship. When (also in 1060) the duke levied
his men and marched out to meet Slar- Khorasan (a title, not a name, “General
of Khorasan”), a Greek, envious of Armenian success, sounded a trumpet in the
dead of night, and thus informed the Turks, encamped near Nchenic, of the
approach of foes: the emperor punished the culprit with the extreme penalty. If
the duke by this expedition saved Edessa, he did not escape calumny; whisperers
were always ready to insinuate suspicions of Armenian intrigues. He is relieved
of the high office and replaced by Vasak, son of Gregory /uLayicrTpos, the
pious poetaster: the emperor afterwards (with the keen desire to be just, which
we have learnt to expect in Byzantine sovereigns) compensated him with the
command of the fort Andrioun. At a second
siege of
Edessa, bad feeling again broke out: 4000 Armenian Greeks leave the city and
encamp beyond the river in comparative safety and complete uselessness ; only
and, Seljuk a few Armenians, performing prodigies of valour, advance. kept the
bridge, and a Frank died bravely in the defence. Togrul follows this up by an
order to Fall of the three generals, including Samukh, to attack Sebaste.
Atom,
helpless and dismayed, retired with his brother Arknl ” to an impregnable
fortress, Khavatanek, and witnesses or hears of the burning of his capital,
the murder of his subjects. After eight days’ wanton havoc and destruction, the
Turks leave behind them a mere scene of ruin, and Atom, like all Armenian
princes in distress, seeks the asylum of the Roman court. This blow carried the
horrors into a part of the empire which had long enjoyed peace. In 1061,
another trio of captains, including the nameless “General of Khorasan,” were
ordered to Baghin, where Arkni, the chief town, falls before their fury, only
intermitted for a brief space out of respect for religion during a service in
church. The “ Frankish colt ” and the Duke of Edessa were sent against them too
late to save the town.
§ 3. Alp
Arslan succeeded Togrul, or TayypoXliri£, Serious
in
1062, being the brother or the nephew (Abul- aggressive 1 • v r 1 1 i policy of new
pharagius) of
his predecessor. Next year he invades sultan
and reduces
Albania, forces David Lackland to give (1062). his daughter in marriage ; and
takes the province of Gougarkh and Dchavakh (dependent on Iberia), together
with the town of Akhal-Kalaki, “the new city.” With Arslan, the Seljukian
sovereign ceases to be a captain of brigands and raiders, and assumes the
generous air and serious policy of a more civilised ruler. In 1064 he attacks
the favourite and coveted citadel of Ani (with its lofty ramparts of Sembat
II., and its circumfluent river, the Ak- hourian). This town had been in Roman
hands Capture and since 104s: but was still entrusted to the care of °f ,old native Armenians as lieutenants and officers of the capital, Ani.
Capture and sack of old Armenian capital, Ani.
Secret cession of last independent state to Rome.
Further range of Seljuks unhindered.
empire.
Bagrat was in chief command as duke ; and Gregory, a Georgian, held a
subordinate post. Here again the Sultan was disappointed, and preparing to
retire, was unhappily brought back by the news that the inhabitants were
leaving the city, in the very moment when their safety was assured, the host of
fugitives amounting to 50,000. Arslan returns and sacks (June 6, 1064). Part of
the citizens were sent home as slaves, part set to rebuild the shattered walls
and houses. With a strange population transplanted into it, Ani soon recovered
from its ruins ; for the Sultan had something more than a destructive aim. The
king of Kars, sole surviving independent State now left between the old
monarchies and the new barbarian inroad, averted the impending storm by wearing
mourning, as if for Togrul; and the generous Arslan accepted without suspicion
this hypocritical compliment. But the king followed the precedent so often set
by Armenian princes ; he handed over his land to Rome, by secret compact rather
than open agreement, and was promised in exchange a fertile district and one
hundred villages, near the Pontic towns of Amasea, Comana, and Larissa. But the
trusted and venerable asylum of the oppressed would very soon be unable to
protect the refugee. The eastern peril pressed gradually westwards. While
jealousy at home starved the Roman armies, the Turkish troops under Samukh and
the Slar-Khorasan had laid waste Iberia, Mesopotamia, Chaldia, and Meliten&
; from the Euphrates northward to the Caucasus spread a scene of uniform
desolation. Greater Armenia and Vasparacan are now to experience the horrors of
this destructive war. Roman influence ebbs in Ani; and the natural defenders
had lost their spirit in servitude (as they supposed) to a foreign power. The
emperor gave liberty to the Patriarch Khatchic, at the prayers of the refugee
princes of Sivas; but he survived but a short time,
and died at Cucusa
in this year (1064). Would there Further be a new patriarch, it was anxiously
asked ? At last, r^j^f through the good offices of the Empress
Eudocia unhindered. and Abbas, prince in (or of) Amasea, permission was
extorted from Constantine XI., or rather his Greek orthodox advisers ; a son of
the nayi<TTpos Vahram was chosen under the title of Gregory II. In 1066 a
Turkish army ravages the district near the Black Mountain, on the confines of
Asia Minor and the modern province of Caramania: while another column
penetrates to the province of Telkhoun, and plunders the district of the
confluence of Euphrates and Melas.
§ 4. The
short regency of Eudocia (1067) was Armenian
scandalised
by another proof of the ill-feeling be- disaffection;
J r ° treason of tfo
tween the 11 two nations. At Melitene
a Roman captain
force was
stationed in the garrison, and another Amertidus. detachment (perhaps the more
important) on the opposite bank ; the latter refused to cross to the aid of the
town. The inhabitants, deserted by their allies, bear the brunt and the town is
taken. Arslan advances without check to Caesarea, pillaging along his route,
and despoiling the shrine of St. Basil in his metropolis. He returned by
Cilicia and Aleppo, guided by a Roman renegade. Amerticius, claiming descent
(like most ambitious men in the East) from the old line of Persian kings, had
served the empire under Michael VI.; accused to Constantine XI. of some crime,
he had been punished with exile, but, his innocence soon established, he had been
taken back into fullest confidence and sent against the Turks. But the
disastrous policy of the civilian ministers of war transformed a loyal servant
into a foe: he became desperate owing to the default of pay, subsidies, and
commissariat, and was glad to conduct the Turks to the ready plunder of a
country which for the past hundred years had been singularly free from ravage.
The Roman cause was undermined, as we see, by national and religious
animosities; but its
Evil effects of
civilian
parsimony.
No adequate Imperial forces on Eastern frontier.
Lukewarm support extended to B. IV.
armies, still
capable and brave, were honeycombed by discontent. Nicephorus Botaneiates, the
future emperor (1078-1081), commanded a considerable force in Northern Syria ;
but his men disband in tumult like the soldiers under Tiberius and Maurice ;
and the new levies in Antioch, without cavalry, arms, uniform, or rations, soon
follow their example.
It was
impossible for the blind to mistake the signs of the times. Under a series of
princes full of good intentions and generous impulses, but imperfectly
informed and unduly influenced, the civilian and military duel was being fought
to a finish. The inner history of this movement belongs to that parallel and
complementary section, which narrates the shifting of authority under the
nominal autocracy of the Caesars. But the Eastern annals of these last fifty
years betray unmistakably the outward symptoms of the disorder. To the shortsighted
civilians this real Eastern danger lay in independent commands, such as had
been confidently bestowed on Curcuas, on Phocas, or on Catacalon: the Turkish
inroads, by the side of this formidable domestic menace, sank into mere border-
forays, and the submission of the Armenian princes (which should have aroused
the deepest anxiety) flattered the ignorant pride of the pacific and luxurious
courtiers. The choice of Eudocia may well have been dictated by a nobler
purpose than mere sentimental attraction. Against the advice and the perpetual
intrigues of the palace and nobility, Romanus Diogenes was elevated to the
throne as colleague of the young heirs and husband of the empress. The last
military regent of Rome now appears on the scene, the son of a rebel and a
pretender, and the most tragic figure in later Roman history, the Regulus of
the empire.
§ 5. The
campaigns of Romanus IV. belong to plain historical narrative ; and it is idle
to speculate on the possible results of the loyal and consistent
support
of his lieutenants and of the court. His Lukewarm, difficulties belong to the
domain of political intrigue, to
which is
elsewhere explored ; and all that here con- ^ jy. cerns us is the inquiry into
the general issue of the war. Its failure was by no means a foregone conclusion.
' The war-party and the upholders of u peace at any price ” were no doubt evenly divided ;
and had the Byzantine empire enjoyed the blessings of universal suffrage and
“popular ” control, there is no reason to believe that the consequences would have
been different. The civilians honestly took up much the same attitude as the
opponents of the Boer war in England: and both (if mistaken) were sincerely
convinced of the evils of imperialism and a military ascendancy. (In the actual
conduct of the campaign His cam- we note the same strange anomaly as in
Heraclius' ^Tmrdan Persian war. When in the second year (1069) officers;
Romanus proposed to advance to Akhlat, on Lake s^sPlci0J\
of Van, the Turks were deciding to ignore his inroad was prmce8, and
attack Iconium.) In 1068 we see that Romanus leaves an Iberian Pharasmanes in
command of Hiera- polis; and in 1070 the generals include Manuel Comnenus (a
curopalat on his father's death), Nicephorus, of the illustrious family of
Melissenus, and Michael the Taronite, of the old princely house so long
domiciled in Constantinople. He performed a notable feat in bringing his captor
to the Roman court (captus ferum victorem cepit), a hideous dwarf, boasting the
ancient Persian dynasty among his ancestors, like all who claimed or attained
high position in this age. It is possible that the favour shown to this
renegade exasperated Arslan. In Catastrophe 1071 he collects all his forces,
seizes Manzikert, of Manzikert and lays ineffectual siege to Edessa and Aleppo ;
’ at least the empire had not forgotten the arts of defence with which her
valour has been so often reproached by the historians of the closet. Romanus
was at Sebaste (or Sivas), where once more the misunderstandings of court and
Armenians broke out.
Catastrophe of Manzikert (1071).
Scanty results of Manzikert (1071).
The princes,
Atom and Abousahl, of this feudal appanage or vassal principality, received him
with respect; but the familiar charge of disloyalty being preferred, the
emperor believes it and treats the town as a foreign conquest, refusing the
title “ king '' which soothed the vanity of the exiles. Advancing to Manzikert
he recovered it and put all Turks to the sword ; and in his train we note the
Armenian captains, Nicephorus Basilacius and Kbapat. The great battle of
Manzikert follows, the capture and release of the emperor, the vindictive
measure of the a
political ” party under the Caesar John, the removal of Eudocia, the disastrous
civil war, and the final defeat of Romanus at Amasea. Once more, as under the
emperor Phocas, can an eastern monarch plead a righteous vengeance for his
wars. Henceforward the Turkish Sultan might urge an honourable motive, the
requital of Romanus' death. There is no reason to distrust the sincerity of his
intent; and it is clear that the sultan had been deeply impressed by the
fortitude of his gallant foe.
§ 6. But even
while we recognise this change from a brutal raid to a solemn punishment of
guilt, it is impossible to submit these ancient campaigns to any rules of
modern warfare. It is difficult to understand what took place in Arslan's
councils or camp during the earlier years of Michael VII. But little capital
was made out of the victory of Manzikert, at least by the central authority ;
the sultan seemed content to denounce the murderers. The emigration of Armenian
princes westward still continues, and we are left in astonishment at finding
that Cilicia is still considered a safe asylum. In 1072 we find once more a
close connection of the exiled nationality with Cilicia. In this year
Abel-Kharp, grandson of Khatchic (who called for our notice in 1048), became a
friend of the gentle and studious emperor who so fitly represented the civil
party. Michael gave the prince command in Tarsus and Mamistria ;
he raises the
fortification, and prepares to dwell in Michael VII. the strong fortress of
Paperon, like any feudal noble in the West. The province becomes by degrees
land and Armenianised : and there is a steady influx of the aw^rds
DVlTlCWCLlltlBS.
race. His daughter
is married to a younger son of Gagic. Soon after, Ochin (“chased by the Turks,”
according to Samuel of Ani) obeys the invariable rule ; he cedes his lands to
the empire (which was perhaps almost helpless to defend them), and, joining
Abel in Cilicia, receives from him (with the imperial sanction) the fort of
Lambron (in the extreme west of the ancient province), where he too exercises
wisely a petty feudal sovereignty.—Meantime Ani, now Ani, content definitely in Turkish hands, is placed under Emir
Wlt} SelJ^k Phatloun,
an aged warrior who soon resigned in to restore " favour of a grandson.
This government must have royalty. been
as mild and tolerant as the earlier rule of the Arabs in the countries they so
rapidly annexed.
Gagic, the
ex-king of Ani, tried to rewin his crown when in 1073 Malek Shah succeeded to
Alp Arslan : but among the Armenian princes he finds no sort of sympathy; and
we may wonder whether this indifference was due to lack of patriotism, to a
genuine contentment with the control of Phatloun, or to dislike for the
character of their late sovereign (about whom a curious story is told of
cruelty to a bishop, set to fight in a pit with his own dog).—The record The
interval of the next few years is unexpectedly scanty and used bV Ro™e interrupted. The Romans seem to
have had an^sediUm.^ unfortunate respite for the growth of rebellion, which
diverted their thoughts from the defensive measures so urgently needed. Michael
VII. seems to have reigned in 1074 over a territory which nominally touched the
Danube and the Euphrates, and included an effective control over Asia Minor.
The merchant
grandees of Amasea were emboldened to refuse subsidies to Alexius Comnenus, the
future emperor ; the rising of Oursel or Russel could be repressed without
causing undue alarm ; and the
The interval military party must have been slowly
recovering
^lfor domestic strength
and prestige for the dignified “ pronuncia- sedition. mentos” of
Bryennius and Botaneiates. In the last year of Michael VII. (1077) we read with
surprise of an imperial army quartered at Nisibis, Amida, and Edessa, and find
that it sustained a defeat at the hands of the Turk, General Gomechtikin : our
Triumph of astonishment reaches a climax when we discover t%cUmover (I07^)
Soliman, another Turk, acting in concert with House of the imperialists against
the rebel Botaneiates. But Ducas {1078). the star of Nicephorus was in the
ascendant. He mounted the throne with the approval of the more energetic
section ; and the seventh Michael, like three of his predecessors, the first,
the fifth, and the sixth of the name, retired from the palace, to become the
non-resident Archbishop of Ephesus.
Revolt of § 7. The last Armenian pretender within
the BaHlacius in our
period now claims our attention ; also
Macedon. a Nicephorus, and surnamed Basilacius (or
Vasilatzes).
The scene of
the fruitless revolt was Macedonia ; engagements took place near the Strymon
and the Axius rivers, and the decisive blow that ended the sedition came from
the mace of Curticius (called a Macedonian, but of obvious Armenian descent),
who killed Manuel, nephew and chief lieutenant of the pretender. Five centuries
and a quarter had elapsed since the first conspiracy of Artabanus against
Justinian.—Two or three incidents in Armenian history seem to show (1) how
poorly the Seljukids had followed up the victory of Manzikert and the political
dissensions of the Romans ; (2) how Turkish influence or example Revolutions'
had corrupted the manners of the Armenians. About seizure by ’ I077> a generation of
Turkish atrocities might appear Armenian to have prompted or excused the murder
of Khat- chatour, once Duke of Antioch, now commander of Andrioun.1
When he fell ill, a Greek monk stifled
1 Is
this Andrioun the Adrinople of an earlier Armenian revolt ? Rebellions of
Armenian pretenders are not uncommon in the Macedonian or Thracian colonies
(Nicephorus Basilacius, Tornicius, Basil the “ Mace-
him with a
mattress. The faithful troops avenge Revolutions their master by throwing the
assassin from the top of a lofty tower. At the same time Antioch became
Armenian jealous of the renown of its Armenian Duke, Vasak; Philaret. he is
stabbed in the street under cover of offering a petition; the soldiers appeal
to Philaretus, a character and a type that deserves some notice. He came from
Varajnouni in Vasparacan, and, after the death of Romanus IV. (1071), aimed at
the creation of a small independent state. With 20,000 men devoted to his cause
he ousts the “ Greek ” garrisons in several towns, encamps before Marach, and
begs Thornic (Tornicius) the Mamigonian, a prince of Taron and Sassoun, to join
him in recovering Armenian autonomy. Thornic, like all the Taronites loyal to
Rome, not only refuses but prepares to thwart Philaret's ambitious schemes. But
the latter, indifferent as to the creed of his allies, invokes Turkish help,
overthrows his rival, and makes a drinking goblet of his skull: it is long
since we have to chronicle such an act of barbarity in the mild annals of
Byzantium, and for the peculiar form of this savage exultation we must go back
to the Lombards in the middle of the sixth, to the Bulgarians in the beginning
of the ninth century. The rest of the body was sent to the prince or emir of
Nepherkert, a personal enemy of the dead man. In such a society we cannot
wonder that every attempt to rebuild a national kingdom should fail. Philaret,
long independent with his Armenian troops, and seemingly undisturbed by the
Turks, secured his reconciliation with the Empire by meting out'punishment to
the murderers of Vasak; the indulgent emperor gave him a complete amnesty and
the re- Events in version of the Duchy of Antioch (c. 1078).—In 1080, the third
Armenian Bagratid dynasty came to an oj Cilicia.
donian,” Samuel, King of Bulgaria and Armenian Colonist (!)); but it is
not possible to locate the rebellion of Sapor, 667, in Europe, and Andrioun .
may well have been altered to the better-known name {cf pp. 380, 452).
Events in Armenian kingdom of Cilicia.
Disappearance of natives in Armenia.
end,
extinguished in the person of Gagic. This exking, unsuccessful in his hopes of
recovering his sceptre, went down into Cilicia (almost repeopled with Armenian
settlers), and demanded the surrender of his young son David at Fort Paperon,
son-in-law, and perhaps hostage or prisoner, of Abel-Kharp. Having received his
son he disbands his followers, and, wandering with a small retinue, is murdered
by obscure treachery. Both David and Abel follow him to the grave ; and the
Paperon principality falls to Sahak or Isaac, son-in-law of Ochin, who by the
cession of Abel had (as we saw) received in fee the castle of Lambron. Fortune
was severe at the time on the scions of Bagratid royalty. John, Gagic’s eldest
son and David’s brother, after marrying the daughter of the Duke of Ani (?),
fled to Iberia, thence yielding to an irresistible attraction to the Roman
court with his son Ashot. From the Emir of Gandzac, by a somewhat discreditable
covenant, Ashot (leaving his party) secured the government of Ani as a subject,
where his family had so long ruled in independence. He was poisoned by the clan
of Manoutch£ ;—so ran the tale of crime and violence in the East during a short
period of five years.
§ 8. There
now remained but three scions of the house of Bagrat—Gagic, the son of Abbas,
and the two princes of Sebaste, who seem to have outlived their contemporaries,
the jealousy of their countrymen and peers, and the suspicion of the Roman
ministers. From this year (1080) may be dated the disappearance of the
Armenian race in its native land. A tiny principality, Parisos in Onti,
struggled in vain to preserve its freedom, and soon vanished. Religion fell
into decay; and the Armenian Church was nobly distinguished by its apostolical
poverty, its uncompromising but ignorant loyalty to its creed and traditions.
The remnants of the once powerful race escaped into Cilicia, and founded there
the last and most romantic monarchy in Armenian history.
Reuben, a
companion of Gagic, betook himself on Foundation
this
king’s murder to a canton peopled by his race ofindepen- ~ , • -ii
i • tt • i dent kingdom
—Constantine, a son, was with him. He seized the 0f
Cilicia. forts Cositar (or Conitar, in south of Ani) and Bard- zerberd ; then
penetrating the inaccessible Taurus, and joined by Armenian refugees, he
established himself as king. Basil the Robber possessed a separate realm at
Kesoun, near Marach (or Ger- manicea): while the several authorities seem to
have acted in concert against the common foe and to have maintained to the end
an indefinite kind of vassalage to the empire. But Reuben could not carry the
patriarchate with him. Ani was still the The Patri- centre of Armenian native
tradition : and Barsegh arc1ial Sees. (Barsel or Basil), already
bishop, is elevated to the supreme title (but, as we shall see, he will not
rule without a rival over an undivided Church till some years later). The
consecration of the patriarch took place at Haghpat in 1082, and Stephen,
Albanian patriarch of Gandzac, performed the ceremony at the request of
Manoutch6, governor of Ani (after young Ashot’s untimely death), and Gorigos,
king of Albania, from his capital Lori.
§ 9. We have
just overstepped the boundaries of Western the period marked out, but it is
needful to advance Q^^taT even further into the unknown domain lying beyond.
Christians. We shall trace the fortunes of the Armenians in the next section
during the reign of Alexius, 1081-1118; for it is impossible to leave the
actors in the drama without inquiring into their later fate. Let us, at the
strict limit of our appointed task, resume the state of the empire and its
dependants up to the success of the Comnenian clan. In the ten years between
Romanus and Nicephorus, Asia Minor was overrun by roving and predatory bands of
Turks.
Destiny, or
the motion of the globe, forced a constant stream of immigrants westwards,
spoilers and refugees alike ; just as six hundred years before the integrity of
the Occidental empire had crumbled
Western migration of Oriental Christians.
Asia Minor overrun.
Cilicia an outpost of Armenian nationality and
Imperial tradition.
before the
steady inrush of Northern barbarians. Central Asia stood now to the Roman
Empire as Scandinavia, Denmark, and Germany to the realm of Honorius or
Valentinian III. Armenia had pressed westwards and yielded only to the irresistible
momentum of the Turkish tribes. While Antioch still remained an imperial fief
or duchy, with its broad territory carefully defined as in Boemund's treaty of
investiture, Smyrna, Ephesus, Laodicea—in a word, the Seven Churches of the
Revelation—and the western coast-line fell into Turkish hands. Certain
strongholds, like Pergamus and Philadelphia, may at times be found tenanted by
a Roman garrison ; but the population that filtered in to occupy the wild
sheep-runs and vast feudal solitudes was Turk or Turkoman, rightly claiming or
usurping affinity with the great Mongolian family. Meantime, as with the empire
of Attila (c. 450) or with the later Mongol horde (1200), nothing gave cohesion
to the new Seljuk power, and every emir fought for himself. The central
authority betrays all the well- known traits of barbarity in the first onset,
followed by tolerance and clemency toward conquered peoples and their rulers.
Armenia proper was not discontented with the government of Malek Shah ; but
the irreconcilable patriots fled with Reuben or with Basil, and repeopled a
territory where the inhabitants had been often shifted since the days of St.
Paul. The emperor was not without power in these distant and outlying parts ;
while (like Justinian or Phocas) he watched with alarm the manoeuvres of
barbarian squadrons within sight of his own capital. Armenia preserved a
measure of independence under a suzerain who had not yet learned how to
administer. The new kingdom enjoyed a prosperous development ; and the captains
and pretenders of the empire, those who defended and those who sought to
destroy, will be found still to belong to the constant rival of the Greek
nationality and religion,
X
ARMENIANS UNDER THE EMPIRE AND IN CILICIA DURING THE REIGN OF ALEXIUS I.
(1080-1120)
§ 1. It is
impossible to take leave summarily of Anomalous the race whose firm native
characteristics impressed the empire with their own ineffaceable stamp, more
under than half replaced the population, and enabled the C(>mnentans. great feudal revival of the Comneni and Palaeologi to
continue the “ Roman ” sway for nearly half a millennium. And as the sequel
shows the significance of events, as later exponents of a philosophical school
the latent drift of the early masters, so we can understand the period already
surveyed by the light thrown back upon it by the ensuing years.—
The elevation
of the Comnenian clan meant the triumph of a vigorous policy and the feudal
aristocracy ; the dream of the “ pacifists ” was over. The army, and indeed
the whole military system, had to be reorganised: the sovereign has to learn
once more to fight in person, and display not merely the strategy of a captain
but the valour of a knight.
It is
difficult to realise the Asiatic situation. Turks appeared in sight of the
city, and their earliest capital was Nice, within the hundredth milestone ;
they manoeuvred on Damalis and ravaged Bithynia.
Yet Alexius
defeats them, chases to Nicomedia, graciously accords peace, exacts the promise
not to pass beyond the Dracon, and makes use of Turkish reinforcements, which
th& Sultan is glad to provide.
In
spite of this early success which gave hopes of Fluctuating the recovery of the
great wrong, the Turks, fn giving their name by 1085 to the whole
country Asia Minor. (Toujo/aa, instead of 'Pa>ytt<ma), have made Asia
Minor a heap of ruins, and the inhabitants are carried off wholesale as slaves
or settlers beyond Oxus and Jaxartes. In their hands lay the once fertile pro-
vol. 11. 2 G
Fluctuating success of Seljuks in Asia Minor,
vinces of
Pontus (with some reservation), Paphla- gonia, Bithynia (south of Nice), Ionia,
Phrygia, Cappadocia, Lycaonia, Isauria, a portion of Cilicia, and the
Pamphylian coast to Satalia. The conquests of Soliman (Suleiman), first
Sultan, or perhaps viceroy of Rum,1 were confirmed by the sanction
and recognition of Malek Shah, head of the conquering clan, and by the
treachery of Philaret, Duke
1 A
few words on the Seljukian kingdoms may not here be out of place : as in later
Mongolian empires a certain family bore unquestioned sway ; the law of
succession was uncertain ; brotherly feuds frequent; local emirs apt to assert
independence; and the various centres of the hereditary branches constantly at
feud. The term “Sultan” may be said to apply to the princes of the blood, while
Emir implies a mere lieutenancy, often in practice independent. There was the
Great Sultan in Irak and Khorasan, like Kublai in Cambaluc in later times (the
last representative being Sinjar, +1157) ; but Aleppo and Damascus (as well as
Nice and Iconium) were seats of petty sovereignties in the family of Seljuk.
The Sultan of Aleppo was a son of Toutoush, and the other city was occupied by
his cadet. This constant subdivision and the resulting jealousy rendered joint
action impossible, and gave the empire respite from the fate which only came
with the Ottoman Turks.—As for the dominion of Rfim, it achieved its zenith in
its early years under Soliman, after the conquest of Antioch had relieved it of
a constant source of anxiety in the rear. When in 1097 Nice surrendered, and
the capital was transferred to Iconium, the Romans recovered a large district
inland and many walled towns; Turkish emirs, in vague allegiance to the Seljuk
prince, were expelled from Smyrna, Ephesus, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea,
Lampes, Polybotus: so overpowering had been the early inroad, so disastrous the
effects of Melissenus’ insurrection. When Arslan (1092-1106) fell back on the
north-east of Asia Minor, he counted on the faithful help of the emirs in that
region. But the Danishmand (from Tailu the “Schoolmaster”) effectually hindered
his plans. These had probably entered the district of Sivas soon after the
death or defeat of Romanus IV. : on Soliman’s death (imitating Aboul Cassim)
they had seized Sivas, Tokat, Nicsar, Ablastan, Castamouni, and Malatiyah (the
ancient seat of the bitterest foe of the Romans). This rebel viceroyalty formed
an effective counterpoise to the adjoining legitimate dynasty of Rum, and was
of valuable help to the Roman revival: not until the extinction of the
Danishmand (1175), after a century of power, did Iconium become the residence
of a free and dangerous monarch. “ Saisan ” is unknown to Orientalists ; he is
Khahan Shah set free by the Grand Sultan Mohammed, murdered towards the close
of Alexius’ reign after his treaty with the empire, and succeeded by Masoud,
who enjoyed or regretted his long reign of nearly forty years (n55). The
Danishmand were reduced by his son, Kilig Arslan II., in II75*
of Antioch,
the Armenian of many parts. We have severed from,
spoken of the
anomaly, by which Antioch and its
environs
remained loyal and imperial, while Ephesus territory.
and Nice
belonged to the enemy. This possession
kept the
nearer Turks in check by a perpetual
menace in
their rear. Whatever raids changed the
aspect of the
continent to ruin, while the Romans
held part of
Armenia, Trebizond, Cilicia, and Ccele-
Syria, the
Seljukian kingdom formed an enclave shut
off from the
central frame of their empire. In 1083
Basil
(Barshegh), an Armenian, governor of Edessa,
was replaced
by an illustrious compatriot, Sembat,
who at once
excited the rage and hatred of the
citizens.
Philaret fished in troubled waters: he Strange
advances
to Edessa, seizes Sembat and certain other exploits of
• • • , __ t x
Philaret,
native
princes, carries them to Marach (Germanicea), Duke of
and blinds
them there ; while he makes his own Antioch.
son,
Barsames, governor. He soon allies with
Soliman
against his father, and takes Antioch (1084).
Philaret
escapes to Honi in Dchahan, but expelled by
Emir
Poltadji, returns to Marach: and to console
himself in a
mean retreat he consecrates a fourth
Armenian
patriarch for this new ducal residence.
(Some
accounts give as the reason for the unfilial
treachery,
the horror which Barsam felt at his
father’s
apostasy to Islam ; but his own alliance with
Soliman is
beyond doubt, and it was a lieutenant of
the Sultan,
Aboul-Cassim, who occupied Antioch.)
Sinope was
also seized about this time : and the
further
advance of Soliman was abruptly stopped
by the
jealousy of his kinsmen.
§ 2.
Fraternal feuds and the independence of the Adroit emirate, out of sight of
central control, made the consolidation of the Seljuk empire impossible. The
jealousy and Emir of Aleppo and Mosul claimed from a prince of the blood the
same tribute that guilty Philaret had eju * s' paid ; and, met with arms instead of
compliance, had invoked the aid of Toutoush, the Great Sultan’s brother. He,
long envious of his cousin Soliman’s
Adroit diplomacy of Alexius; jealousy and divisions
of Seljukids.
Armenians high in the Imperial service.
fame and wide
dominions, drove him to suicide, and became the foremost figure among the Seljuks
next to the throne. Asia Minor breaks up like Germany at the Great Interregnum
into numberless petty emirates ; and at Nice Aboul-Cassim disposes at will of
the late Sultan’s power, creates his brother Pulchas emir in Cappadocia, and
assumes the airs of an independent Sultan. This was now the opportunity of
Alexius. Malek Shah, in his turn, was suspicious of his brother’s rising
renown, and allies with the empire. Alexius, adroitly tampering with the envoy
sent to arrange terms, secures the restoration of Sinope, and creates the now
Christian emissary, Duke of Anchialus, to shield him from his master’s
resentment on the unknown continent of Europe. He converted Aboul-Cassim,
taught prudence by two defeats, into a friend and ally, indulged him (on a
visit to the capital, still splendid and inviolate) with all kinds of pleasures
and sights, and invented for his vanity the unmeaning title (TefiacTTOTaTog !
Meantime (while Alexius restored, owing to this alliance, the Roman power in
Bithy- nia), Malek Shah attempted to convince Aboul that he was but a subject,
a lieutenant, and a rebel. Attempting to appease him, he is strangled by his
orders in far Khorasan.—Such, then, was the state of affairs in the early reign
of Alexius ; he had recovered large districts by personal prowess or diplomacy,
and the intestine discords of a quarrelsome and suspicious family allowed him
to complete his success. Meantime, Armenians are still prominent as ever in
the imperial armies. His most trusted generals were natives ; Nicolas “ Branas
” or Varaz, and Pacurian, who is Bacouran in his own tongue. We are not in the
least surprised to find Taticius (?Tadjat), (the Saracen son of a brigand-
captain, reduced to slavery by Alexius’ father), in command of a Persian colony
in Macedonia : these bore the name BapSapiwrai, or Vardariots, from the
river Bardar,
not far from Achrida. These claimed Armenians descent from the Persian
contingents of Babec and Theophobus, prudently distributed among all the
service. Roman themes (c. 840) ; gave an Armenian name to the classical stream
; and sustained in this foreign land the tradition of the corps. Similar
Eastern reinforcements came from the isolated Paulician centre of
Philippopolis, where heretics of Armenian descent kept up their faith and
customs. Nor was the voluntary aid of the semi-independent Cilician princes
behindhand ; the prince of Lambron, Ochin, joins Alexius' armies, is nearly
killed at the engagement of Dyrrhachium, owes his recovery to the devoted care
of the emperor (admirable friend and placable foe), and procures the
appointment of Prince (or Duke) of Tarsus, with the title of Augustus
(2eficKTTos). Ochin, father of Haiton (Haythonus), is the ancestor of St.
Narses of Lambron.
§ 3.
Meantime, how fared the Armenian popula- Mild rule of tion, as yet true to
their native soil ? The rule of *»
A. VTTlPTltd
Malek Shah
over the vassal-princes was mild and proper. indulgent to the
Christians throughout the East, with that true indifference to religious forms
which marks the Turk and the Mongol. A great part of Armenia was still in Roman
hands ; and perhaps Ani did not finally leave the empire until 1086. The
government was left to the Manoutche; and the Sultan advancing without
opposition to the shores of the Black Sea, drove his horse into the waves ;
thereby solemnly claiming possession, like the Spanish loyalists in the early
times of American discovery. To the manes of his father he uttered a proud and
pious boast:
“ Your little
son, once an infant, now reigns to the uttermost ends of the earth." His
general, Pouzan, laid siege to Edessa (1087); and Barsames (son of Philaret),
unpopular with the citizens, threw himself from a tower over the wall, and
sustaining terrible injuries, was tended till death ensued in the enemy's camp.
The Edessenes capitulated; and the town
Mild rule of Malek in Armenia proper.
Conciliation of Armenians.
His wise reign followed by civil strife {1092-1097).
continued
under Turkish influence, and perhaps under a Roman governor, until the coming of
Baldwin and the creation of the first independent Latin principality. In 1088
Gandzac was taken by assault, and Phatloun (grandson of the first emir) was
taken prisoner and replaced by another governor. While the realm was extending,
internal administration was not without merit. The patriarch Barsegh (or Basil)
applied to the Sultan for the diminution of imposts and tributes (1090) and
also of the number of patriarchs, no less vexatious.
The scattered
faithful of the Armenian Church recognised four metropolitan sees, and it
seemed probable that with each new principality of refugees the archiepiscopal
control would be further divided. Basil secures the resignation or submission
of the patriarch of Honi (after a fourteen years’ rule) and of the patriarch of
Edessa. About this time, such was the favour extended by the Sultan, Liparit
(no doubt kinsman of the earlier broken reed) embraced Islam; and Gorigos
(already named as Albanian king in Chaki), visits the Persian court and returns
loaded with gifts. Sometime before his death (the computation of time being
obscure in Samuel of Ani and others), Malek Shah, significantly accompanied by
this Albanian king and a certain George II. of some petty Caucasian monarchy,
advances from Khorasan to capture Antioch; Philaret, who seems to have
maintained friendly terms with the various masters of the city, was indemnified
by the charge of Marach, the price of his conversion to the Mahometan faith.
Malek, from Antioch as his headquarters, pushed forward to the Mediterranean,
and there in the same dramatic fashion took possession of the Southern Sea. The
death of this wise and tolerant potentate (1092, but according to Samuel of
Ani, 1095) was the signal for civil war, and the disruption of the empire which
he had done so much to consolidate. Toutoush was suspected of poisoning his
brother,
and his claim
(natural enough in Turkish tradition) His wise was not recognised. Pouzan, the
great general, like Bahram the Persian, rebels, but is defeated and
(1092-1097). killed ; the sceptre was not to pass out of the line of Seljuk.
The four years of civil war dissolved the strength of the military caste; many
rebel captains tender homage, and Barkiarok, son of Malek, is able to establish
himself in Armenia and Persia, and finally to remove his uncle Toutoush in
1097.
§ 4. But to
return : the death of Malek had im- Seljuks at mediate effect on the Sultanate
of Nice (1092) and Nice' the fortunes of the empire. Two sons of
Soliman escape from their honourable captivity as hostages for their father’s
allegiance; and David Kilig Arslan I., the elder, is welcomed by the Nicenes
with genuine heartiness. He secures the permanence and contentment of the
Turkish garrison by sending for their wives and children, and replaces the
suspected Pulchas (brother of the late rebel governor) by Mohammed, with the
title “ first of Emirs." Alexius had not been able of late to pursue his
persistent policy of recuperation. The Comans and Patzinaks spread more terror
in the capital than the nearer yet less deadly Turks. In 1091, Alexius was
exposed to Armenian yet another Armenian plot: Ariebus (Ariev, Arm. =
^kJius^fhe sun) conspires with a Frank to kill the hard-working Duchy of prince
; the plot was discovered and the conspirators Trebizond. treated with that
excessive leniency which is a standing marvel in all Byzantine rulers, and
Alexius in particular. Trebizond now begins to enter into serious history and
give an augury of its future fame.
Malek might
ride proudly into the Euxine, but the empire still possessed the seaports and
convoys of the northern coast of Asia Minor. It had shown a stout resistance to
the Turks, and it may be surmised that Pontus was still independent. A native,
Theodore Gabras, recovered it from their hands and received his own conquest in
fief from the emperor with the ducal title ; while Gregory, his son, was
invited to
Armenian the capital for an alliance with the
imperial house PAJexjus™the an(*
f°rmaNy betrothed to Mary, then aged six years. Duchy of (The
impetuous and ungrateful youth was involved in Trebizond. a pi0t
against his benefactor and sovereign ; but was merely confined among the
Paulician colony at Philippopolis.) We may inquire, without requiring or
expecting a reply, whether at some time Trebizond did not fall under the sway
of David III. the Repairer, king of Georgia from 1090-1130? His sway extended
over all Lazica ; but if he controlled Trebizond it was for a brief space.
Theodore Gabras chased him as he had chased the Turks.
General state The Armenian emirs, relieved of the
control of wrimlofthe a ^rm benevolent Sultan, oppressed their
subjects Crusaders. after 1092. A fresh exodus transported many natives into
the artificial Armenia of king Reuben, and still further denuded the original
home of the race. Monks above all fled from the wrath to come. Yet Ani still
remained a centre of patriotic sentiment: Gregory, father of the patriarch
Basil, repelled an assault on Ani, and followed up his victory by using the
troops of Emir Manoutch6 to obtain possession of Gagsovan, himself falling in
the successful assault. Meantime, the Armenian servants of the empire showed
the old aptitude for conspiracy, to be met by the consistent clemency of the
Caesar; in 1093, Michael the Taronite, brother-in-law of Alexius, dignified by
the title UavuTrepcreftao-Tos, joined the futile conspiracy of Diogenes (son of
the late emperor). A second Catacalon Catacecaumenus (from Phrygia ?), who had
served gallantly at the Calabrya engagement, was also found among the
insurgents. Exile and confiscation follow discovery ; but John Taronite, son of
Michael, is continued in office and favour.—On the eve of the first Crusade,
there was peace in the East ; and the undisputed realm of David Kilig Arslan I.
stretched from Orontes and Euphrates to the Bosphorus. (We may note in passing
that about this time Alexius entertained a
proposal
to welcome the English refugees from General state Norman tyranny at the
seaport of Cibotus, near of the
Nicomedia.
Saxon guardsmen were not uncommon, Crusaders. but an English settlement was
never an accomplished fact on the shores of the cosmopolitan empire.)
§
5. The Crusaders arrived and the Roman world Reconquest of was thrown open to
the foreigners, like the Middle Kingdom in our own day. They came not as recruits
Armenian or settlers, but as visitors, doubtful allies, finally as
pnmsipaJtttes. foes and conquerors. We will only follow events in the familiar
campaign so far as they concern our purpose, the re-establishment of Roman
authority in the peninsula, and the condition of the Armenian race. The fall of
Nice in 1097 implied the removal of the Seljuk capital or rather headquarters
from the immediate vicinity of Constantinople ; and from *
this fateful
moment Roman influence steadily revived.
The next
conquest of importance was Edessa, where Baldwin fixed the earliest independent
principality.
There was
still a shadow left in that city of Roman power; as in the cities of Northern
Gaul in the time of Clovis and Syagrius. Thoros (Theodore) had received his
commission from Romanus IV.
(1c. 1070);
and after the manifold vicissitudes of Oriental fortresses, with their almost
annual change of masters, he had somehow managed during the inroads of
Philaret, Barsames, and Pouzan to retain a delegated, or acquire an independent,
authority.1 Edessa welcomed the Latin; perhaps the Frankish Latins
settlers had made a fetter impression in the East {^j^rmse than their countrymen elsewhere. The aged Thoros Armenians. adopted
Baldwin as his son and shares the govern-
1
He is Gibbon’s “ Greek or Armenian tyrant, who had been suffered under the
Turkish yoke to reign over the Christians of Edessa.” He was of course an
Armenian; and the Turks, without regular method of government, employed
harmless officials or native princes, much as the Western invaders availed
themselves of the existing methods of Roman bureaucracy and finance. In the
constant Seljukian feuds there was every opportunity for such a viceroy to
assume an independent r61e.
Latins
fraternise
with
Armenians.
Their services to the Crusaders.
ment; but he
perishes in an obscure popular rising, and the whole-hearted allegiance of the
citizens is transferred to the Latin adventurer. Armenians aided him ; a
certain Bagrat was a warm supporter (probably not a member of the dynasty); and
Constantine I. added his help, king in Cilician Armenia, who had succeeded on
Reuben’s death after a reign of fifteen years (1080-1095).1 ^ was
this first inheritor of a romantic crown who moved the capital to a fortress
newly acquired, Vahca in Cilicia, aided by the loyal support of Bazouni, Prince
of Lambron, and Ochin his brother, governor and Duke of Tarsus (in virtue of a
direct imperial commission). It would appear that the forms of feudalism and
aristocratic independence were carefully preserved in the new kingdom ; that
the lesser princes warmly supported a tactful and courageous monarch ; and that
over all, the empire threw a vague halo of suzerain influence and honorific
titles, as it had done (for instance) on the Lazic and Iberian sovereign in
happier days. Nor were the Armenians unfriendly either to Turks or to
Crusaders: so efficient and opportune were the subsidies of king Constantine to
the famished Latins that, on the capture of Antioch, he was richly recompensed,
and believed his royal dignity further augmented, by the grateful titles,
marquis, aspet, and {hraros. The Western powers did not forget this seasonable
aid; Gregory XIII. mentions his services to the cause of Christendom in a Bull
of 1584.—In this same year, 1097, we read of the succession of a grandson of
Gregory fidyicrrpog to the feudal fortress of Dzophk in the old Fourth Armenia:
he was an Arsacid on his mother’s side (a sister of the patriarch Gregory) ;
and while his brother attained patriarchal rank in Egypt, his son Narses was
celebrated for his elegant Armenian
1 It is fair to say that some authors
cannot identify this Constantine with the king, but suppose him to be a feudal
prince of Gargar, a district near Marach.
writings,—a
taste which was a family gift from his ancestor in the days of Basil II.
§
6. Boemund (the constant foe and at last the Rivals to humble vassal of the
adroit emperor) founded the principality of Antioch in 1098, destined to
survive Antioch and for nearly two hundred years under nine princes. It Edessa;
the was in vain that the Sultan sent a great force of Damshmand-
360,000 men under Korbouga.1 Anna
Comnena’s avaplQ/uLrjToi were swept
away or annihilated
by the
courage of famished despair. Armenia proper was exposed to an invasion of Soliman,
son of Ortukh, who marched into Vanand. But the Seljuks were already enfeebled
by contested claims and the revolt of lieutenants ; the curious and obscure
power of the Danishmand had been established in the neighbourhood of Sivas.2
He was a lettered Armenian apostate (such were the careless or democratic
methods of the Turks) who governed the territory of Sebast£ (lately occupied by
Atom and his brother), and had joined the district of Malatiyah (Melitene).
Lying between
Rum and the suzerain-sultanate he
1 This dignitary is oddly named by Matthew
of Edessa, Couropaghat (the Armenian transliteration of Curopalat): his full
name would seem to be Kawam ad-Dawla (pillar of the State) Kurbugha ; and if in
the Chanson d’Antioche he is termed Carbaran cCOliferne, I am inclined to
believe some legend compared him to Holofemes, and told (no doubt untruly) of
some feminine stratagem by which he was overcome.
2 This obscure dynasty, at first helpers of
Kilig Arslan and then rivals or foes of his house, are perhaps the only family
who have gloried in the scholastic title of “pedagogue.” The name means
schoolmaster, and is borne not only by the founder Tailu but by his successors,
to the despair of the numismatologist of princely series. His eldest son,
Khazi, speedily learnt the Turkish lesson, “ the slaughter of the innocents ”
(or did he set the terrible precedent ?). He mounted the throne (1104) in the
same year that removed Soliman, son of Ortukh, Toutoush, Seljukian prince of
Damascus, and the Great Sultan Barkiarok. But he at once murdered his eleven
brethren. On the death of Soliman, the family possessed the centres of Sivas,
Tokat, Nicsar, Ablastan, Malatiyah, and perhaps Kastamouni; and may well have
begun their ambitious career directly after the death of Romanus IV. (1071).
Ahmed Khazi (fii3S) was succeeded by the short reign of his son, Mohammed
(+1143), an<* it was only on the extinction of this house, after
a century’s power (117 5), that the kingdom of Rilm again revived.
Rivals to reigned as an independent prince, coerced
the
Latins at f°rmer
power as it was closed in by the judicious
Antioch and advances of Alexius, and perhaps atoned
by this
Edessa; the unwilling service to the empire for the
sin of apostasy. Damshmand. „ , . ° j- ,
i_ j itr^i
But in no way
did he deserve so well of the emperor
as in his
imprisonment of the Prince of Antioch. He captured him on a field, where two
militant Armenian prelates are said to have met their fate, held him to ransom,
and accepted the price of
10,000 gold pieces from another Armenian, the
Imperial general Basil (Barshegh) the Robber, Prince of rE(M;eccpedi- Kesoun* Tancred, regent for the absent
prince, tion to repudiated the debt, and increased the bounds of the nos* 1104
principality ; yet while he thus despoiled the robber ’ ’ by a mean evasion, he
contrived to secure the alliance of the Armenian princes. But meantime the
empire was just preparing to make good its suzerain-rights over the
vassal-kingdom. The imperialist generals Butumites (1103) and Monastras (1104)
established once more Roman prestige; the one by seizing Marach and leaving
troops there, the latter, by the occupation of Tarsus, Adana, and Mopsuestia
(Mamistria); and, as some would convey, of the entire province. Seven years
before, William of Tyre may well be pardoned for supposing Tarsus to be in
Turkish hands, though it was still under an imperial lieutenant, Ochin: for the
allegiance to the far-off emperor was a mere shadow of servitude. But the early
years of this twelfth century witnessed a great and welcome reaction in the
tide of Roman fortunes; and, if to use Gibbon’s suppressed simile, the jackal
(Alexius) followed the lions, it is certain that he knew how to turn to
advantage both his own victories and their mistakes. In 1105, there are to our
surprise two efficient imperial armies in the East, in Syria under Cantacuzen,
and in Cilicia under Monastras ; and when the latter is relieved, his successor
is known by an Armenian title not a
name,—i4s/>^(’Acr7reT>/9),constable,which to the Greek
ears may have
suggested some Homeric adjective, Curious the u immense " or u unspeakable." Constantine I. had died in 1099;
and Thoros or Theodore had general. succeeded to rule in the “ land of
Thoros." Under Roman influence and approval, he enlarged his
mountain-realm, added Anazarbus to the important fortress of Kendroscavi, and
(with the Moslem loyally obedient) ruled over a mixed population and a tract of
two days' by sixteen days' journey. It is hard to say whether the imperial army
superseded, or supported, or competed with the royal authority.
Certain it is
that the Aspetes gained a peculiar notoriety for somnolence and excess; and in
a drunken slumber was transported unconscious to Antioch by Tancred, who
secured Mamistria and predominant influence in Cilicia. (It is only fair to add
that the incident is unknown to Armenian writers, and may be as apocryphal as
Anna Comnena's legend of Boemund and the cock in the coffin.)
§ 7. But the
province was unsettled and tempting War of enough to attract the Great Sultan
himself. In ^rn^niaof 1107 or 1108, Taphar (Barkiarok's successor) Cilicia.
ravaged the land of king Thoros. Basil sets on him and defeats, returning in
patriotic joy to his fortress- capital Kesoun. But Taphar comes back ashamed
and angry with a larger force, and lays siege to Harthan. Once more Basil
achieves a notable victory, and receives a petition for reinforcements from
Baldwin of Edessa, to which he assents. But to his surprise he learns that his
men are to be used against Tancred ; he sharply refused to go against one u who had always been
friendly to the Armenians." Now it may be possible, with ibis Amity of
indirect intimation, to give some account of the Tmcredofd perplexing changes in Cilician “ Armenia " which we Antioch. have just
recorded. If Tancred was their firm and trusty friend, his advent and capture
of the Aspet (Alexius' general) was either purely apocryphal or carried out in
alliance with the native princes. Here
Amity of Armenia and Tancred of Antioch.
Boemund becomes Vassal of the empire.
(Changes in Roman administration: the Duchy.)
we may well
suspect another instance of the alienation of the feudal mind (very local,
personal, and impulsive) at the uniform demands of imperialism. Though himself
an Armenian, the Aspet may have come as a helper of the nationalists, and
ended, as other Byzantine captains, as a foe more hated than the infidel. But
in the welter of feudalism it is not easy to extricate the thread of private
motive, much less that of political principle; and a great change comes over
the East in 1108, when the “ thirty years’ war ” is over with Boemund, and the
fiercest assailant of the empire becomes the dutiful liegeman (\[Qos) of
Alexius. The terms of this curious infeudation are little short of amazing: the
emperor grants what he certainly could not give, and makes over a life-interest
to his vassal and feudal control over a district, including the towns of
Antioch, Borzes, Shizar (Larissa on the Orontes), Artakh, Tolukh, Saint Elias,
Marach, and the districts of Pagres, Palaza, and Zyme ; always excepting that
which belongs to the Armenian subjects of the empire. From the ancient duchy
of Antioch was detached all Cilicia east of the Cydnus, and a portion of Syria
round Laodicea, Gabala, Marathus, Antaradus, and Batanea. Boemund secured an
annual pension or subsidy of 200 pounds of gold and the dignified, if
unmeaning, title of 2e/3acrT09: he died in 1111.
At this point
in our' story it may be well to notice briefly the changes in Roman provincial
government, of which the ducal system is the final phase. At first, governors
united civil and military duties ; were judge of assize and lord-lieutenant and
sheriff all in one. About A.D. 300, the well-known separation of department
took place ; and specialism reigned supreme down to the days of Heraclius. The
Thematic scheme recognised the extinction of the civil magistrate and the
ascendancy of the captain of the district corps. Localities were renamed after
the regimental titles; and the problem of civil
ruler and
municipal methods becomes for us in- (Changes soluble. The vague designations,
Anatolies, Armeniacs, ^ministra- Buccellarians, Cibyrrhceots, and the like,
disappear in tion: the their turn ; the commanders are Domestics, and the
Duchy.\ old classical nomenclature is revived for the countries of Asia Minor.
A last step is the transference of control to dukes ruling the garrison in
important centres as Antioch, and acting as arbiter in the rare disputes which
could not be settled by local custom and precedent. It may be doubted whether
these local and urban duchies were a reminiscence of the early Latin title (so
common in Ammianus) or came back into use by way of Spoleto and Benevent and
the lessons taught by Southern Italy.
$8. In 1107,
we must notice a plot against Another
• t ^.7*TH6TttClTt
Alexius,
Armenian according to some authors, conspiracyt
Pontic in the account of others. Was Gregory, now Duke of Trebizond, the
Taronite who displaced the suspected Gabras clan? Or was he the Gregory Gabras
himself, affianced to the emperor’s daughter Mary, who had already conspired,
and been already forgiven ? I am inclined to respect both the judgment of
Fallmerayer and the well-known indulgence of the emperor. Seizing Trebizond as
an independent domain or fortress, like the emirs around him, Danishmand or
other, he was confronted by a Taronite (his own cousin, if we believe the
former story). Brought captive to Byzantium, he almost eluded the imperial
clemency by the violence of his language ; but mollified by captivity and time
he mends his ways, is restored to favour, and once more regains his duchy by
the favour of the generous emperor. Captured (if it be still the same governor
and not a son) in 1142 by the Danishmand Emir of Melitene and the Emir of
Kamakh, he was able to offer the enormous ransom of 30,000 pieces of gold, a
certain sign of the original wealth and power of rapid recovery which the great
coast-towns of Lesser Asia always possessed.
Desultory fighting in East between Franks and
Armenians.
Difficulties of RUm.
In 1109 the
restless spirit of Norse individualism or crusading zeal led Baldwin and
Joscelin into an attack upon Harran. Apolasar, Prince of Taron, joined them (as
he had joined Cilician Basil some time before against the Seljuks): he met his
death in the expedition. The Emir of Mosul made reprisals and laid siege to
Edessa, retiring before the united forces of the Christian princes, but
returning after their departure to inflict serious damage on the city. Next
year, the Turks invade the “realm of Thoros" ; but the king with his
brother Leo (Ghevond) can repulse their attacks. In default they turn (mo)
against the little feudal fortress of Dzophk in the Mesopotamian district,
where the new prince Apirat, of the brave stock of Gregory fxayia-rpos, is
completely successful ; but in the moment of victory is killed by a chance
arrow from an ambuscade. Next year, Tancred and Basil vanish from the turbulent
scene.—Meantime, in Lesser Asia the Seljukian kingdom of Rum had been enjoying a
certain respite from its anxieties ; Kilig Arslan I.'s son was careful to
maintain good terms with the reviving empire, and with a prince who knew how to
turn every success and every failure to his own profit. But on his Eastern
frontier (if we may use the term of his vague and shifting “ sphere of
influence ” round Iconium) he knew no security. The “Schoolmaster” dynasty gave
him no peace; and in 1112 he drowned himself in the river Chaldras near Edessa
to escape his foe, the Emir Dcholi ; he had reigned six years (1106—12). His
son “Saisan” pursued a more vigorous policy; he ravaged the open country of the
Romans from Philadelphia to the Ionian coast. That city (destined in later
times to be the last solitary outpost of Roman power in Asia) contained a strong
garrison under Constantine Gabras : and neighbouring Pergamus was held by the
veteran Monastras. Gabras, retrieving the treason of his family, and justifying
the wise confidence of the emperor, defeats Saisan and forces him to
sue for
peace; it was concluded on honourable terms.
A great blow
fell on the Western provinces in the Alexius next year: the central Seljukian
power in Khorasan c}ccks
j
j ji x i j. • • -i. r inr°adfrom
aimed a
deadly stroke at the reviving prosperity of Khorasan.
Asia. All the
country from Nice to Adramyttium
was ravaged ;
and all the coast-towns along Troas
and Mysia
were sacked, with Prusa, Apollonia, and
Cyzicus.
Eustachius Camyzes, governor of Nice,
was defeated
and captured ; and it was the veteran
Alexius in
person who turned the scale. Twice he
defeated the
Turks, and returned home to receive
the sincere
congratulations of the capital. This
victory
ensured a welcome term of peace.
§ 9. About
this time happened the great earth- Armenian quake described by Matthew of
Edessa, which in the s^r^ns distressed
country added the catastrophes of Nature Earthquake. to the gratuitous havoc of
man. Chiefly attacking the neighbourhood of Samosata, Kesoun, and Marach, it is
said to have destroyed 40,000 Turks. The conservative character of the princes
of the East is here well displayed, a contrast to the mere destructive raids
which seem so often to exhaust the Turks’ conception of “ administration/' The
Armenian kings Thoros and Leo hasten, like modern sovereigns, to the scene, and
bestir themselves to relieve the distressed and raise their shattered homes;
their humane efforts are seconded by a Camsar prince in Mesopotamia, Basil the
Child.—We have read of Baldwin of
the aid and
countenance given by these Armenian Edfssa
o j reduces
the
princes to
the Crusaders: the return was not seldom Armenian a sorry one, and the
extinction of these small and principalities. ancient sovereignties was
hastened by the crafty greed of the Latin, no less than by the jealous centralism
of Byzantium, or the wanton destructiveness of the Seljuk. Baldwin, Prince or
Count of Edessa, having married his sister to Leo of Cilicia, lures Basil into
confinement and seizes his estates.
Alexius,
unable to avenge this treacherous act,
vol. 11. 2
H
Baldwin of welcomed the dispossessed prince with the
invariable reduces the Byzantine courtesy. The only son of Thoros, Con-
Armenian stantine, died at this juncture. Suspicion pointed principalities. an
i^ie finger at the intrigues of his uncle Leo
; and if we were inclined to impute motive or listen to slander, we might
suppose that Leo and Baldwin had conspired to divide between them the remnants
of the Christian kingdoms in the Mesopotamian region. In 1117, Baldwin
continued his offensive policy. Ignorant of the arts of peace or the duties of
a ruler, he confused thoughtless acquisitiveness with statesmanship ; and
believed that he governed when he merely laid waste and thwarted development:
he attacked the town and province of Pir lying southwest of Sroudj, and was
delayed a whole year before the principal fortress. He deprived another Armenian
prince of his estates, a former ally of the first Baldwin, and thus
ungratefully repaid his imprudent services: he took from him the town and
residence of Araventan. state of Asia Meantime the gradual desolation of the
fertile and Restless policy P°Pu^0us Lesser Asia was
stealthily and steadily of Mm. proceeding. Clouds of Turks, Turkmans, and Kurds
poured in, bands succeeding one after the other, pillaging and wasting, and
even demolishing the ancient and deserted sites to pitch their nomad tents over
the ruins of Lydian, Hellenic, and Roman culture. “Saisan” again breaks faith
with the empire; and Alexius, now a martyr to the gout, rises from his sick-bed
to teach him a lesson. He projected the capture of Iconium, for twenty years
the headquarters of the Seljukian encampment, in answer to the insulting
farces of the palace, where his malady was caricatured amid the laughter of the
Sultan and courtiers. Several brave but indecisive engagements were fought near
Nicomedia ; and Bardas (grandson of Burtzes, commander under Basil II.) was
entrusted with a troop to reconquer his heritage, which, now occupied by Turks,
had been then bestowed as a
reward of
merit. It is uncertain whether he attained State of Asia
his
end : but it is clear that Alexius and Bardas re- 11S?>
i ™ , ,
, , , ,
. restless policy
pulsed the
Turks, and welcomed to an asylum in of Mm.
Constantinople
a multitude of expatriated Asiatics, followed by wives and children, with that
protective instinct which, sometimes obscured, never failed entirely in the
rulers of Rome. Alexius established for their benefit monasteries, almshouses,
and hospitals ; and in 1116 opened his doors wide to admit the monks of Iberia,
who came westward in crowds from the turmoil of the new invaders to the settled
and orderly commonwealth,—which, having enervated its citizens by relieving
them of arms and military duties, could do no less than protect them.—Saisan,
Homage to a prince of inconsequent spirit and easily repenting hu
of his
boldness, soon sued for peace after a personal defeat. He showed his intense
reverence for the imperial dignity and its wearer by dutiful courtesy on a
Phrygian plain, where the two monarchs held an interview. But once more
fraternal discord intervened, not to save Rome from a foe but to spoil a
welcome treaty; Masoud, no doubt representing the “ unbending Turk party,"
murdered his brother on his return. In 1118 died the Emperor Alexius I., and it
is not without import that, when John his son marches to the palace to secure
the succession, he should meet Abasgian envoys on the way, bringing the
daughter of David III. the Restorer to marry a member of the noble house of
Bryennius. With this last instance of the continuous relations of these
countries to the empire, ,we shall end this historical sketch.
(/ venture to
annex another account of the motives and significance of the Revolutions (695,
fyc.) during the Anarchy. It was written in a somewhat different connection and
with another purpose. It is hoped that the two versions may be mutually
complementary.)
THE
ARISTOCRACY AND THE PROVINCIAL REGIMENTS;
OR EMPEROR,
SENATE, AND ARMY DURING THE
GREAT ANARCHY
(690-720)
§ 1. The monarchy under the Heracliads was un- Predomin- popular with
both ranks in the State-service; and p^^ciai however beneficial the work of
former rulers, nothing regiments: but good fortune and great
personal tact could up- the empire hold the central power. In the summary
deposition now Asmtic' and mutilation of Justinian II. by an obscure
cabal it had suffered a grievous blow. In the next brief period between
Justinian’s first dethronement and the peaceful secession of Theodosius III.
(685—
717), the two
parties in the State contend for the mastery. No question is raised of altering
the form of the constitution ; but the sovereign is to be rendered harmless, a
negligible quantity. The provincial regiments, created in the newly recovered
districts of Lesser Asia, and to some extent in the vague centres of imperial
influence still left in Hellas and Thrace, usurp a prominent share in the
election of rulers, which the Eastern realm but rarely witnesses. Phocas,
indeed, had been the disastrous product of a military revolution ; Heraclius,
like Galba, Vespasian or Severus, had arrived at the head of a local contingent
to save the capital from itself. But in the curious and often decisive prominence
of the Obsicians and Anatolies, it is possible
485
Predominance of the provincial regiments: the empire
now Asiatic.
to detect a
wider and deeper issue than the mere brute force and narrow motive of local
levies. The Roman Empire, with its centre of gravity, is being shifted
eastward; and although the ambiguous city of Constantine hangs doubtfully between
either continent, there is no question in the next age of its orientation. The
desolation of Thrace, the wide, autonomous, and pastoral communities of
“Sclavinia,” the ebbing of the tide of Roman and Hellenic influence in the
European part of the empire, the rare oases of urban culture and commerce clinging
to the outskirts of a barbaric continent, the shifting of interest to the lands
most imperilled by the Arab advance,—this is the picture which the obscure records
of the Heracliads open to us. The empire was in truth confined as an effective
power to Asia Minor ; and with Asia Minor will rest the arbitrament of its
future destinies. The torch of the Roman tradition had passed from Spaniard to
African and Syrian, and from these again to Illyrians and Pan- nonians. We have
shown how from Decius to the second Justin (250-578) the Balkan peninsula supplies
Rome both with sovereigns and soldiers. A new epoch opens in the last years of
the sixth century; and it is not without good reason that (as Gibbon tells us),
“Tiberius by the Arabs and Maurice by the Italians are distinguished as the
first of the Greek Caesars." But strictly Hellenic influence was never
fated to predominate at Byzantium that anomalous outpost of Roman law in the
Greek and Oriental world. Infrequent, precarious, and unsuccessful is the
intervention of an authority purely Greek ; it is largely feminine, and is
therefore strongest when indirectly exerted. Still the Roman ideal called from
the very ends of the earth representatives of divers races to carry on the
imperishable tradition; but it did not appeal, or it appealed in vain, to its
ancient rivals, the Greeks. Whatever the exact nationality of Heraclius, he is
plainly typical
of Roman
character ; and his eyes look westwards to Predomin- Africa and Italy. But
after the reign of Constantine IV. there is no further hesitation as to the
important regiments: part to be played by Byzantium in the further East; the empire the reforms and Thematic reorganisation did little or now
Asiahc' nothing for Europe, everything for Asia Minor. The sceptre passes
to Armenia and Syria; and the European side plays (until the days of Basil II.)
an insignificant role in the fortunes of that strange fiction, the “
commonwealth of the Romans/'
§ 2. The reconquest
from Persia, the needs of de- Permanent fence west of Mount Taurus against the
caliphate, Thematic had decided the form of the new administration. * Great
districts were roughly mapped out for the patrol of permanent legions, with no
great solicitude for precise frontiers or well-defined duties. I am not
convinced that civil magistrates, despatched from the capital, vanished
entirely from the scene ; but their powers were now subordinate, and enter
nowhere into the light of political interest. The cities had their respectable
or episcopal rulers ; the country its semi-feudal chieftains, not seldom wisely
identified by the government with the regimental leaders. The legislation of
Leo III. shows the tendency of an earlier age ; neither the serf nor the small
yeoman proprietor survived. Castles rose in Cappadocian fastnesses; already
under Phocas and Heraclius, a local nobleman was able in true mediaeval fashion
to baffle and mortify the sovereign and entertain the forces of the State as if
they formed a private militia. The armies were necessary; first Anatolies,
Obsicians, Armeniacs, and then as needs multiplied, Thracensians, Optimates,
Buccellarians.
But it was
essential that they should be governed from the centre; and as the centre was
never too * stable in the empire with all its majestic pretension, they ended
in controlling rather than being controlled. We find under Constantine IV. the
halfreligious, half-military rising in favour of a triad of
Revolutions emperors ; and though beaten then, the
provincial of 695, 698. army does not
forget. Leontius was named General of Hellas when he opened the Byzantine
Bastille and overthrew the tyrant (685); but he had commanded the Anatolies,
had served with distinction in the far East, and derived his ancestry from
Isauria. He is replaced by a Gotho-Greek from Pamphylia, whose barbarous name
Apsimar bears witness to his original race. Not for the first or last time do
we record the rebellion of an army disgraced and defeated, the insurrection and
success of a general who had failed. The expedition to relieve Carthage had
proved abortive, apparently owing to the dissensions of the lieutenants, their
reluctant support to John the Patrician. Fearing his protest at the capital,
they united and elected an admiral,—sailing, as Romanus Leca- penus and his
companions two hundred years later, to upset the reigning prince. This mutiny
is maritime and Asiatic ; it is indifferent to race, but it is a respecter of
names, and seeks (as it would appear) to affiliate itself to the fallen house
of the second Justinian. The name Tiberius is revived, borne by two joint-
emperors in the century before; and the new ruler, when he bestows on his
brother sole command of the Asiatic cavalry, and of the passes of Cappadocia,
gives him the not less venerable name of “ Heraclius.” Both these revolutions,
then, are Asiatic, and while a general expels a tyrant, an admiral, quite in
the manner of Septimius Severus, reverts to the exiled line in his choice of
imperial titles. The restoration of Justinian II. by the help of Terbelis, the
Bulgarian chief and Roman “ Caesar,” need not detain us ; the Armenian Vardan
(afterwards Philippicus) is saluted emperor at Cherson by an alliance of
mutinous troops and terrified citizens,—for Justinian had sent orders to raze
it to the ground and exterminate the inhabitants. Justinian § 3. We must notice
the secondary place of the restored: Senate during the rule of Leontius the
Isaurian, 711, 718. Apsimar the Gotho-Greek and Asiatic, and Justinian’s
second
brief reign of revenge. It exercises no influ- Justinian ence on the changes in
succession ; and it seems to 0f
have been
coerced, like the rest of the representative 711, 718. classes in the city,
into raising funds for the equipment of the expedition against Cherson.
(Theoph.:
’lovcnmavos . . . e^oTrXluag cttoXov ttoXvv . . , airo
SiaVOJULrjg TCOV OLKOVVTCOV T*]V TToXlV
CTVyKXt]TLKCOV T 6 K.
epyacrTtjpiciKcov k. Stjiulotcov k. ttclvtos
6(p(piKiov. We shall find these guilds of artisans mentioned again as consulted
by the sovereign, Leo IV., when he names his little son Constantine as his
successor in a.d. 776.) Nicephorus, using and perhaps perverting the same
anonymous authority on which Theophanes depended : CK T€ TCOV CTTpCLTlCOTLKCOV
KClTaXoyCOV €Tl Se KOI tov yecopyiKod k. tcov SavavcriKCov Teyvcov tcov re e/c
Trjg o-vyKXrjrov /3ovXrjg k. tov t>79 TroXeco? Stf/nov, The Senate suffered
severely along with the leaders of the army from the anger of the restored
exile (Theoph.: avaplO/uitjTOv 1r\t}6o$ eK tc tov itoXitikov k. tov
<jtpaTicoTiKov KctTaXoyov aTrcoXearev. Zonaras slightly alters the sense, in
paraphrasing the common original which, as Bury suggests, may well be the u
acta ” of the denies:
iroXv Se 7TXrjOog eK T6 TOV Sf]JULOTlKOV K. TOV
<TTpCLTLCOTlKOV
Sle<p6eipev. The two terms are not synonymous,
and I prefer to keep the word ntoXitikov for the higher and official class.) When we pass to
the next revolution which disposed of the incompetent and luxurious Armenian,
we have a curious instance Shortsight of both of the power and of the
thoughtless shortsight military of the military faction. The
Obsicians blind and comPtrators'
depose Philippicus, but have taken no measure to secure a successor ; and once
more the august names of the “ Senate and People ” are invoked to cover the
hasty selection of a chief secretary, Artemius, by a determined minority, who
still retained their presence of mind. It seems evident that Philippicus
favoured the civilian element at the expense of the soldiers ; he celebrated
his birthday by a public festival and races, and by a banquet with the nobles
Shortsight
of (/zeTa itoXitcov ap-^aioyevcov apicrTrja-ai). It is also clear Tonspirators
the warrior-faction took no steps to provide an emperor ; for the first act of
the new sovereign is to blind and exile the sacrilegious authors of the crime
which raised him to power. We cannot doubt that once more the palace-faction
profited by the military oversight, and got ready a candidate to be crowned on
Whitsunday; Theoph. merely o-copevOevro? tov Xaov ei? Trjv fieyaXrjv
e/ocX^a-lav i(TT€(p6t] 'ApTe/iios o irpwro acnjKptjTis. Nicephorus somewhat
more explicit, but not more instructive: aOpoicrOeh o t?? ttoXecog aVa? Srjjmo?
7rpo$ to lepov . . . te/ievog avayopevov&LV eh /3a<riXea ’ApTefiioVf
$fXt7T7rikov ypafifxaTea Tvy-^avovTa, 01/9 t# 'iTaXw*/ (poovfl kclXovo-iv
ao-rjKpriTis. It is reserved for Zoriaras to display a precision which is
suspicious ; first, the guests of the monarch, as at the King’s dinner to the
Jockey Club, are select nobles, or as some aver, the winners in the day’s
races, xiv. 25, ctvctgItovs Tivag tcov t*}$ o-vyKX^rov ireir0Lr\T0y
a>9 S’ evioi Xeyovcri, Tovg ev t{j tcov l.iriroov a/z/XX# viKtjaavTag; next,
he is killed, not by a discontented military faction of Obsicians then
stationed in Thrace, but by Senators ; 7rapa tlvcov tcov t?9 yepovcrlag
KaTaa-^eOelg TvcfyXovTai: lastly, the Senate and people elect and salute Artemius
(of Te Ttjg crvyKX^rov /SovXtj? k. o SrjfiooSiis 0^X09), changing his name (as
was then the custom) to the once unpopular designation of “Anastasius.” It is
far more probable that the account of the earlier historians is true ; it was a
military rising against a partially successful resumption of civilian sway.
Vardan neglected the army and ruled, as Nicephorus tells us, without dignity or
solicitude (acrejuLvoo? k. paOv/im). But the more crafty order made use of the
victory to score another civilian triumph in the nomination of Artemius ; and
it is to his credit first, that he punished the authors of the revolution, and
next, that he gave all attention to the needs of national defence. (Nic. : SI
eirtjmeXeiag ta 7roXejuiKa 7rpayfiaTa eT^e K.ap^ovTCKz iKCtvov? irpos Tag
tovtcov SioiKvcreis KaOia-rr}.)
§ 4. Once
more is repeated the curious mutiny of Mutinous troops, conscious of meriting
censure. Once more trooPf and the u
Obsicians ” encourage themselves by throwing Theodosius off authority, by
refusing to join in the expedition ni- against the Saracens. They
kill the Minister of the Exchequer, Deacon John, at Rhodes, and sail off
tumultuously to the capital. We may note as a sequel to the Heraclian practice
and precedent, the union of sacred and profane offices, or the quest of trustworthy
agents in the ranks of the clergy ; crrparriyov, says Theoph., tov Skxkovov *Icodvvrjv r 5? /uLeya\r}$ eKK\r](rlas to TrjviKavTa \oyoOeTyv yevucov
VTrdpyovTa.
We are no
little surprised at this strange mingling or confusing of the functions of all
three orders in the State,—a deacon is treasurer and Commander- in-chief ; nor
is our wonder allayed when we find the rebellious and unpatriotic regiment
described as headless (aKe<paXcov ovtoov),
and selecting at haphazard when they put into Adramyttium the respectable
tax-collector who bears in history the name of Theodosius III. (Theoph.,
eiikriTrTopa tcov SrjjuLoa-loov
<popwv (the others, irpaKTopa) . . . dirpay/xovd re k.
ISicoTrjv).
(Here the verbal resemblance proves the common source of both our clerical
historians, Theo- phanes and Nicephorus; we may in passing notice that the
latter, aiming at a greater elegance of style, replaces the colloquial phrase,
tov ftacriXea avea-Kaxfrav ( = cursed, dug up bones; see the Calopodian
colloquy before the u Nika ” riots), by the more
decorous e§v<r(f)rjjuLovv.) For the second time, the capital was exposed to
Obsician* ravage, sailors and soldiers uniting in the pleasant duty of pillage,
tov avv civtu>, says Zonaras, vavriKov re k. crTpaTiooTucov eigpvivrog
7roXXa tcov ev Tai$ oiKiatg ^ptymaTtov rjp7rdyf]crav. Perhaps he is toning down
the horrors of this military sack, which displayed clearly the weakness of a
purely civil administration and a civil candidate; Theoph. is more definite, ol
Se 7rapdvojuoi Xaoi tov ’OxjsiKtov ajma tcov JTorOoypaiKcov Tfl vvkti ei$ row?
owcou? tcov ttoXitcov
Mutinous troops and revolt under Theodosius III.
Civilian capital defenceless before new military
concentration.
mfJLOvres juLeyicrTrjp elpyacravro aXwaiv, /uqSevos
(peia-d/uLepoi. Anastasius II. assumes the monastic garb at Nicaea, and is
permitted to retire in safety to Thessalonica. Such, then, was the issue of a
sullen and unpremeditated mutiny, without a leader and without a policy. The
story of the elevation of Theodosius III. (yrpog Trpay/jLaTcov StotKtj(Ttv k. tclvtci /3a<ri\ela$ ar(poSpa cnroTrecpvKwg, Zonaras) recalls the tumultuous
and accidental success of Phocas; and although nothing could be more opposed
than the characters of the two men, they have this much
in common. Both appeared as leaders of a military faction at a moment when such
a leader was wanted; and both were entirely incapable of fulfilling their
promise and their task. The loyalty of the 11 Obsiciansmelted away. Theodosius was left confronted
with a Senate who despised him; and as Maurice found an avenger in Heraclius,
so more speedily Conon the Syrian rose as general of the Anatolies to punish
not merely the dethroner of Artemius, but the insolence of the West-Asiatic
faction.
§ 5. The
capital is no less defenceless than Rome found herself in the years following
Nero's death. Once more jealous regiments disputed between themselves the
prize of victory and plundered the metropolis. Again, on the failure of a
legitimate line, civil rule disappeared in anarchy, and men welcomed the first
respectable plebeian from the East who came to restore order; Leo III. is a
second Vespasian. It must be noted that the anti-imperial campaign of the nobles
either failed entirely or took on quite another character. For the Senate
gained nothing by the final dethronement of Justinian II.; it was at the mercy
of the provincial regiments, and might deem itself fortunate if these marauders
had a recognised leader. Gradually, an athletic and warlike nobility, chiefly
Asiatic, was supplanting the earlier Civilians, the dpyaioyevei?, who had long
monopolised
the safe seats in the official bureaux. Civilian It is perhaps possible to see
in this period the revival °^^eiess of a “ nationalist ” spirit,
at least an esprit de before new corps among the legions quartered in certain
dis- military tricts and recruited from the native population. I tration.
think, too, it is possible to convey a wrong impression to the reader by using
a word of such precise meaning to modern ears. The new “ nationalism " was
Obsician, Anatolic, or Armeniac, not “Roman,” Cappadocian, or even
Armenian,—large as is the part played by this last people who almost engross
the history of this eighth century. The feuds of the legions last far into
Isaurian annals.
The rebellion
of Artavasdus, the brother-in-law of Constantine V., is not merely a personal
quarrel, but a trial of force between two well-matched armies.
Justinian II.
had combated the rising national tendencies by his despotic policy of
resettlement; and Conon, who becomes Leo III., may claim to represent Thrace,
whither his parents were transplanted to Mesembria, as well as the distant
Isauria or Syria, their original home. Still we may trace the Balkan influence,
but it is perhaps fanciful to insist on it. We know they had not been in their
new home long enough to have learnt Greek orthodoxy, letters, or culture. The “
Isaurian ” house represents the old Roman spirit; it is a Byzantine ” in its true
and proper sense,— practical, austere, warlike, and Protestant, and it beats
not without success against the cage of dialectic pietism and civilian intrigue
which imprisoned the imperial figure. It was the lack of strict nationality and
consistent political aim or intelligence which made the strong hand from time
to time welcome and indeed inevitable.
So to-day
Parliaments tend to break up into group- systems from the simple division of
ministry and opposition; and it is in such conflict of petty interests that the
central power may possibly hope to recover some of its lost rights and
influence.
Armeniacs § 6. The pretext for Conon’s insurrection
was upsetm'tohcs indignant
support of the dethroned Anastasius II., Obsician who had appointed him and the
young Armenian influence Artavasdus to command the Anatolic and Armeniac ' ’ '*
detachments. The real motive was a profound scorn and hatred of the cowardly “
Obsicians," a milder contempt for their nominee, and a desire to fish in
troubled waters. The condition of affairs was indeed deplorable. Three times
since the first dethronement of Justinian had the capital been exposed to the
horrors of a blockade, to the insults and pillage of victorious besiegers.
Security
reigned neither in the capital nor on the frontier. The Arab armies were once
more in the heart of Asia Minor. The general of the Anatolies had been in
favour with Justinian ; he owed his present post to Anastasius; and he appeared
as a patriotic champion against the infidel, and as a ** restorer of the old
paths." A formal meeting of patriarch, Senate, and chief magistrates is
convened to decide upon the crisis. Theodosius himself proposes the choice of
Leo, and the tardy sanction of the ministerial cabinet ratifies the clamour of
the Asiatic armies. There was no longer any pretence of recalling the monk
Artemius from his exile in Thessalonica: and all classes united to welcome the
foreign general who promised to set a firm hand on the helm. It is a point of
idle or fanciful significance which the clerkly writers do not forget, that the
Saracen army round Amorium were the earliest to salute Leo emperor and to
invite the city to join in the shout: %pi~avTo, says Theoph., ev<ptjjuLelv tov crTpartjyov Aiovra /3acri\ea irapaKaXovvre^
k. tov$ gctw raurb iroielv. It may
be a prejudice of orthodox historians to attribute the rise of this
half-Mahometan Protestant to the suggestion of the infidel, but the narrative
bears clear marks of authenticity. Through
this alliance
Maslema attempted to reduce the Armeniacs Roman Empire (elprjvevcrai yuer aihrov k. Si* avrov rrjv
^efnat°liCS 'Yonfjiavlav viTOTa^ai). Leo gets
possession of Theo- obsician dosius' son and puts him in irons with all his
suite (xeipovrai fxera itacrfjg
Ttjg f3aaiXiK*]g virovpylaig k. tcov ’ * ev teXei avSpcov tov TraXarlov). With this precious
hostage he advances to Chrysopolis, and there takes place the assembly noticed
above (Theoph., yvovg Se o 0. ra irpayQevTa k.
j3ov\evcrafjL€VO<z YepjuLavov tov
iraTpiapx^v k. ttjv arvyicXriTOv .
. . eyxeipii^ei avrw Tt\v fiaanXelav). Nicephorus represents the initiative as
coming from the Senate and such leaders of the army as were in the capital:
rowra (viz. the successes of Maslema) juaOovreg ol re (TTpaTicoTiKol k. ttoXitucoi apxpvreg k. Ttjv tov
0. aireiplav k. cog ovk ticavcog e^ei irpog ra 7rpog tovg TroXe/uilovg avriicaOlo-Tao-Oai,
e<plo-TavTai avrw irapaivovvreg Trjv fiao-iXela v TrapaiTrjcracrQai k. a/3Xa/3cog ISicoTevarai. And the
choice of Leo is made (he seems to suggest) by voting: Erra elg yjs/jcpov
eXtjXvOoTcov tov fiaarCXevarovTog
(= as to a successor) iipeOij Aecov o 7raTpiKiog. The general impression of the
crisis of 716—717 is well represented by the same author a little earlier:
’l&irei ovv itvkvcu tcov
flacriXecov eiravacrTaareig eyevovTO k.
rj Tvpavvig eKpaTel tcl re
r?9 fiaariXeiag k. tj79
7roXecog KaTrjfj.eXeiTO k. SieTrnrTe it pay fACrra
eTi jultjv k. rj tcov Xoycov tj(pavl^€TO 7ralSev<rig k. to. tcl/cti/ccl SieXveTo. Theophanes,
too, in his second and better narrative of the rise of Leo III. (where he
actually styles the hated Iconoclast o ev<re/3r]g fiacriXevg):
Ttjg tcov
‘Pco/UQtiW 7roXiTelag (rvyKexyjmevijg ovcrrjg eic re Ttjg /3ap/3dpcov
eirtSpoiULtjg k. £k tcov tov ’Iovctt. jutaupovicov k. tcov tov
<f>iXnr7riKov avoariovpyicov, ovTog o A ecov virepe/xayei tw ’AjoTe/mla),
evavnovjULevog QeoSocrlu). We will leave the Senate humbled and sobered, conscious
of the inefficacy of pure civilian rule; the Armeniacs and Anatolies triumphant
at their success over the Obsician candidate; and the capital confident in the
new ruler. But abroad there is a
Armeniacs general sense of anarchy and growing
barbarism;
polite
letters and official training have disappeared. Obsitian Even military discipline
and the famous skill of influence Roman tactics has gone; and the work of re’ organisation has to be taken in hand afresh by
the Isaurian house.