© GEORGE FINLAY
HISTORY OF
with an introduction by V. R. R.
First Edition February 1906
CONTENTS
BOOK I
THE CONTEST WITH THE ICONOCLASTS
A.D. 717-867
I. THE
ISAURIAN DYNASTY. A.D. 717-797
Sect. 1.
Characteristics of Byzantine history – Its divisions – Extent and
administrative divisions of the Empire.
Sect. 2.
Reign of Leo III (the Isaurian) A.D. 717-741.
Sect. 3.
Constantine V (Copronymus) A.D. 741-775.
Sect. 4.
Reigns of Leo IV (the Khazar), Constantine VI and Irene, A.D. 775-802.
II. THE
REIGNS OF NICEPHORUS I, MICHAEL I AND
LEO V THE ARMENIAN, A.D. 802-820
Sect. 1.
Nicephorus I, A.D. 802-811.
Sect. 2.
Michael I (Rangabé) A.D. 812-81.
Sect. .
Leo V (the Armenian) A.D. 813-820.
III. THE
AMORIAN DYNASTY. A.D. 820-867
Sect. I.
Michael II (the Stammerer) A.D. 820-829
Sect. 2.
Theophilus, A.D. 829-842
Sect. 3.
Michael III (the Drunkard) A.D. 842-867
IV.
STATE OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE DURING THE ICONOCLASTIC PERIOD
Sect. 1.
Public administration – Diplomatic and commercial relations.
Sect. 2.
State of society among the people of the Byzantine Empire in the eighth and
ninth centuries.
BOOK II
BASILIAN DYNASTY – PERIOD OF THE POWER
AND GLORY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE
A.D. 867-1057
I.
CONSOLIDATION OF BYZANTINE LEGISLATION AND DESPOTISM. A.D. 867-963
Sect. 1.
Reign of Basil I (the Macedonian) A.D. 867-886.
Sect. 2.
Leo VI (the Philosopher) A.D. 886-912.
Sect. 3.
Alexander – Minority of Constantine VII (Porphyrogenitus) – Romanus I Lacapenus
A.D. 912.
Sect. 4.
Constantine VII (Porphyrogenitus) – Romanus II 945-963.
II.
PERIOD OF CONQUEST AMD MILITARY GLORY. A.D. 963-1025
Sect. 1.
Reigns of Nicephorus II Phokas and John I Zimiskes, A.D. 963-976.
Sect. 2.
Reign of Basil II Bulgaroktonos, A.D. 976-1025.
III.
PERIOD OF CONSERVATISM ON THE EVE OF DECLINE. A.D. 1025-1057
Sect. 1.
Constantine VIII, A.D. 1025-1028.
Sect. 2.
The reigns of the husbands of Zoe, A.D. 1028-1054.
Sect. 3.
Reigns of Theodora and Michael VI Stratiotikos, or the Warlike, A.D. 1054-1057.
CHAPTER I
THE ISAURIAN DYNASTY. A.D. 717-797
SECTION I
CHARACTERISTICS OF BYZANTINE HISTORY –
ITS DIVISIONS –
EXTENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS OF
THE EMPIRE
The Institutions of Imperial Rome had long
thwarted the great law of man's existence which impels him to better his
condition, when the accession of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of
Constantinople suddenly opened a new era in the history of the Eastern Empire.
Both the material and intellectual progress of society had been deliberately
opposed by imperial legislation. A spirit of conservatism 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. An attempt was really made to divide
the population into castes. But the political laws which were adopted to
maintain mankind in a state of stationary prosperity by these trammels,
depopulated and impoverished the empire, and threatened to dissolve the very
elements of society. The Western Empire, under their operation, fell a prey to
small tribes of northern nations; the Eastern was so depopulated that it was
placed on the eve of being repeopled by Sclavonian colonists, and conquered by
Saracens invaders.
Leo III. mounted the throne and under his
government the empire not only ceased to decline, but even began to regain much
of its early vigour. Reformed modifications of the old Roman authority
developed new energy in the empire. Great political reforms, and still greater
changes in the condition of the people, mark the eighth century as an epoch of
transition in Roman history, though the improved condition of the mass of the
population is in some degree concealed by the prominence given to the disputes
concerning image-worship in the records of this period. But the increased
strength of the empire and the energy infused into the administration, are forcibly
displayed by the fact that the Byzantine armies began from this time to oppose
a firm barrier to the progress of the invaders of the empire.
When Leo III, was proclaimed emperor, it
seemed as if no human power could save Constantinople from falling as Rome had
fallen. The Saracens considered the sovereignty of every land in which any
remains of Roman civilisation survived, as within their grasp. Leo, an
Isaurian, and an Iconoclast, consequently a foreigner and a heretic, ascended
the throne of Constantine and arrested the victorious career of the
Mohammedans. He then reorganised the whole administration so completely in
accordance with the new exigencies of Eastern society, that the reformed empire
outlived for many centuries every government contemporary with its
establishement.
The Eastern Roman Empire, thus reformed,
is called by modern historians the Byzantine Empire; and the term is well
devised to mark the changes effected in the government after the extinction of
the last traces of the military monarchy of ancient Rome. The social condition
of the inhabitants of the Eastern Empire had already undergone a considerable
change during the century which elapsed from the accession of Heraclius to that
of Leo, from the influence of causes to be noticed in the following pages; and
this change in society created a new phase in the Roman empire. The gradual
progress of this change has led some writers to date the commencement of the
Byzantine Empire as early as the reigns of Zeno and Anastasius, and others to
descend so late as the times of Maurice and Heraclius.[1] But as the Byzantine Empire was only a
continuation of the Roman government under a reformed system, it seems most
correct to date its commencement from the period when the new social and
political modifications produced a visible effect on the fate of the Eastern
Empire. This period is marked by the accession of Leo the Isaurian.
The administrative system of Rome, as
modified by Constantine, continued in operation, though subjected to frequent
reforms, until Constantinople was stormed by the Crusaders, and the Greek
church enslaved by papal domination. The General Council of Nicæa, and the
dedication of the imperial city, with their concomitant legislative,
administrative and judicial institutions, engendered a succession of political
measures whose direct relations were uninterrupted until terminated by foreign
conquest. The government of Great Britain has undergone greater changes during
the last three centuries than that of the Eastern Empire during the nine centuries which elapsed from the
foundation of Constantinople in 330, to its conquest in 1204.
Yet Leo III has strong claims to be
regarded as the first of a new series od emperors. He was the founder of a
dynasty, the saviour of Constantinople and a reformer of the church and state.
He was the first Christian sovereign who arrested the torrent of Mohammedan
conquest; he improved the condition of his subjects: he attempted to purify
their religion from the superstitious reminiscences of Hellenism, with which it
was still debased, and to stop the development of a quasi-idolatry in the
orthodox church. Nothing can prove more decidedly the right of the empire to
assume a new name than the contrast presented by the condition of its
inhabitants to that of the subjects of the preceding dynasty. Under the
successors of Heraclius, the Roman Empire presents the spectacle of a declining
society, and its thinly-peopled provinces were exposed to the intrusion of
foreign colonists and hostile invaders. But, under Leo, society offers an
aspect of improvement and prosperity; the old population revives from its
lethargy, and soon increases, both in number and strength, to such a degree as
to drive back all intruders on its territories. In the records of human
civilisation, Leo the Isaurian must always occupy a high position, as a type of
what the central power in a state can effect even in a declining empire.
Before reviewing the history of Leo's
reign, and recording his brilliant exploits, it is necessary to sketch the
condition to which the Roman administrative system had reduced the empire. It
would be an instructive lesson to trace the progress of the moral and mental
decline of the Greeks, from the age of Plato and Aristotle to the time of the
sixth ecumenical council, in the reign of Justinian II; for the moral evils
nourished in Greek society degraded the nation, before the oppressive
government of the Romans impoverished and depopulated Greece. When the imperial
authority was fully established, we easily trace the manner in which the
intercommunication of different provinces and orders of society became
gradually restricted to the operations of material interests, and how the
limitation of ideas arose from this want of communication, until at length
civilisation decayed. Good roads and commodious passage-boats have a more
direct connection with the development of popular education, as we see it
reflected in the works of Phidias and the writings of Sophocles, than is
generally believed. Under the jealous system of the imperial government, the
isolation of place and class became so complete, that even the highest members
of the aristocracy received their ideas from the inferior domestics with whom
they habitually associated in their owh households – not from transitory
intercourse they held with able and experienced men of their own class, or with
philosophic and religious teachers. Nurses and slaves implanted in their
ignorant superstitions in the households where the rulers of the empire and the
provinces were reared; and no public assemblies existed, where discussion could
efface such prejudices. Family education became a more influential feature in
society than public instruction; and though family education, from the fourth
to the seventh century, appears to have improved the morality of the
population, it certainly increased their superstition and limited their
understandings. Emperors, senators, landlords and merchants were alike educated
under these influences; and though the church and the law opened a more
enlarged circle of ideas, from creating a deeper sense of responsibility, still
the prejudices of early education circumscribed the sense of duty more and more
in each successive generation. The military class, which was the most powerful
in society, consisted almost entirely of mere barbarians. The mental
degradation, resulting from superstition, bigotry and ignorance, which forms
the marked social feature of the period between the reigns of Justinian I and
Leo III., brought the Eastern Empire to the state of depopulation and weakness
that had delivered the Western a prey to small tribes of invaders.
The fiscal causes of the depopulation of
the Roman empire have been noticed in a prior volume, as well as the extent to
which immigrants had introduced themselves on the soil of Greece.[2] The corruption of the ancient language
took place at the same time, and arose out of the causes which disseminated
ignorance. At the accession of Leo, the disorder in the central administration,
the anarchy in the provincial government and the ravages of the Sclavonians and
Saracens, had rendered the conditiom of the people intolerable. The Roman
government seemed incapable of upholding legal order in society, amd its
extinction was regarded as a proximate event.[3] All the provinces between the shores of
the Adriatic and the banks of the Danube had been abandoned to Sclavonian
tribes. Powerful colonies of Sclavonians had been planted by Justinian II., in
Macedonia and Bythinia, in the rich valleys of the Strymon and the Artanas.[4] Greece was filled with pastoral and
agricultural hordes of the same race, who became in many districts the sole
cultivators of the soil, and effaced the memory of the names of mountains and
streams, which will be immortal in the world's literature.[5] The Bulgarians plundered all Thrace to
the walls of Constantinople.[6] Thessalonica was repeatedly besieged by
Sclavonians.[7] The Saracens had inundated Asia Minor
with their armies, and were preparing to extirpate Christianity in the East.
Such was the crisis at which Leo was proclaimed emperor by the army, in Amorium
A.D. 716.
Yet there were peculiar features in the
condition of the surviving population, and an inherent vigour in the principles
of the Roman administration, that still operated powerfully in resisting
foreign domination. The people felt the necessity of defending te
administration of the law, and of upholding commercial intercourse. The ties of
interest consequently ranged a large body of the inhabitants of every province
round the central administration at this hour of difficulty. The very
circumstences which weakened the power of the court of Constantinople,
conferred on the people an increase of authority, and enabled them to take
effectual measures for their own defence. This new energy may be traced in the
resistance which Ravenna and Cherson offered to the tyranny of Justinian II.
The orthodox church, also, served as an additional bond of union amomg the
poeple, throughout the wide extent of the imperial dominions, its influences
connected the local feelings of the parish with the general interests of the
church and the empire.These misfortunes, which brought the state to the verge
of ruin, relieved commerce from much fiscal oppression and many monopolies.
Facilities were thus given to trade, which affored to the population of the
towns additional sources of employment. The commerce of the Eastern Empire had
already gained by the conquests of the barbarians in the West, for the ruling
classes in the countries conquered by the Goths and Franks rarely engaged in
trade or accumulated capital.[8] The advantage of possessing a systematic
administration of justice, enforced by a fixed legal procedure, attached the
commercial classes and the town population to the person of the emperor, whose
authority was considered the fountain of legal order and judicial impartiality.
A fixed legislation and an uninterrupted administration of justice, prevented
the political anarchy that prevailed under the successors of Heraclius from
ruining society in the Roman empire; while the arbitrary judicial power of
provincial governors in the dominions of the caliphs, rendered property
insecure, and undermined national wealth.
There was likewise another feature in the
Eastern Empire which deserves notice. The number of towns was very great, and
they were generally more populous than the political state of the country would
lead us to expect. Indeed, to estimate the density of the urban population, in
comparison with the extent of territory from which it apparently derived its
supplies, we must compare it with the actual condition of Malta and Guernsey,
or with the state of Lombardy and Tuscany in the middle ages. This density of
population, joined to the great difference in the price of the produce of the
soil in various places, afforded the Roman government the power of collecting
from its subjects an amount of taxation unparalleled in modern times, except in
Egypt.[9] The whole surplus profits of society
were annually drawn into the coffers of the state, leaving the inhabitants only
a bare sufficiency for perpetuating the race of tax-payers. History, indeed,
shows that the agricultural classes, from the labourer to the landlord, were
unable to retain possession of the savings required to replace that
depreciation which time is constantly producing in all vested capital, and that
their numbers gradually diminished.
After the accession of Leo III., a new
condition of society is soon apparent; and though many old political evils
continued to exist, it becomes evident that a greater degree of personal
liberty, as well as greater security for prosperity, was henceforth guaranteed
to the mass of the inhabitants of the empire. Indeed, no other government of
which history has preserved the records, unless it be that of China, has
secured equal advantages to its subjects for so long a period. The empires of
the caliphs and of Charlemagne, though historians have celebrated their praises
loudly, cannot, in their best days, compete with the administration organised
by Leo on this point; and both sank into ruin while the Byzantine empire
continued to flourish in full vigour. It must be confessed that eminent
historians present a totally different picture of Byzantine history to their
readers. Voltaire speaks of it as a worthless repertory of declamation and
miracles, disgraceful to the human mind.[10] Even the sagacious Gibbon, after
enumerating with just pride te extent of his labours, adds: "From these
considerations I should have abandoned without regret the Greek slaves and
their servile historians, had I not reflected that the fate of the Byzantine
monarchy is passively connected with the most splendid and important
revolutions which have changed the state of the world."[11] The view of Byzantine history, unfolded
in the following pages, are frequently in direct opposition to these great
authorities. The defects and vices of the political system will be carefully
noticed, but the splendid achievements of the emperors, and the great merits of
the judicial and ecclesiastical establishments, will be contrasted with their
faults.
The history of the Byzantine empire
divides itself into three periods, strongly marked by distinct characteristics.
The first period commences with the reign
of Leo III., in 716, and terminates with that of Michael III in 867. It
comprises the whole history of the predominance of the Iconoclasts in the
established church, and of the reaction which reinstated the orthodox in power.
It opens with the efforts by which Leo and the people of the empire saved the
Roman law and the Christian religion from the conquering Saracens. It embraces
a long and violent struggle between the government and the people, the emperors
seeking to increase the central power by annihilating every local franchise,
and even the right of private opinion among their subjects. The contest
concerning image-worship from the prevalence of ecclesiastical ideas, became
the expression of this struggle. Its object was as much to consolidate the
supremacy of the imperial authority, as to purify the practice of the church.
The emperors wished to constitute themselves the fountains of ecclesiastical as
completely as of civil legisation.
The long and bloody wars of this period
and the vehement character of the sovereigns who filled the throne, attract the
attention of those who love to dwell on the romantic facts of history.
Unfortunately, the biographical sketches and individual characters of the
heroes of these ages lie concealed in the dullest chronicles. But the true historical
features of this memorable period is the aspect of a declining empire, saved by
the moral vigour developed in society and of the central authority struggling
to restore national prosperity. Never was such a succession of able sovereigns
seen following one another on any other throne. The stern Iconoclasts, Leo the
Isaurian, opens the line as the second founder of the Eastern Empire. His son,
the fiery Constantine, who was said to
prefer the odour of the stable to the perfumes of his palaces, replanted
the Christian standards on the bank of the Euphrates. Irene, the beautiful
Athenian, presents a strange combination of talent, heartlessness and
orthodoxy. The finance minister, Nicephoras, perishes on the field of battle
like an old Roman. The Armenian Leo falls at the altar of his private chapel,
murdered as he is singing psalms with his deep voice, before day-dawn. Michael
the Amorian, who stammered Greek with his native Phrygian accent, became the
founder of an imperial dynasty, destined to be extinguished by a Sclavonian
groom. The accomplished Theophilus lived in an age of romance, both in action
and literature. His son, Michael, the last of the Amorian family, was the only
contemptible prince of this period, and he was certainly the most despicable
buffoon that ever occupied the throne.
The second period commences with the reign
of Basil I. in 867, and terminates with the deposition of Michael VI. in 1057.
During these two centuries the imperial scepter was retained by members of the
Basilian family, or held by those who shared their throne as guardians or
husbands. At this time the Byzantine empire attained its highest pitch of
external prosperity. The Saracens were pursued into the plains of Syria.
Antioch and Edessa were reunited to the empire. The Bulgarian monarchy was
conquered, and the Danube became again the northern frontier. The Sclavonians
in Greece were almost exterminated. Byzantine commerce filled the whole
Mediterranean and legitimated the claim of the emperor of Constantinople to the
title of Autocrat of the Mediterranean sea.[12] Respect for the administration of
justice pervaded society more generally than it had ever done at any preceding
period of history of the world – a fact which our greatest historians have
overlooked, though it is all-important in the history of human civilisation.
The third period extends from the
accession of Isaac I. (Comnenus) in 1057, to the conquest of the Byzantine
empire by the Cruisadrers in 1204. This is the true period of the decline and
fall of the Eastern Empire. It commenced by a rebellion of the great nobles of
Asia, who effected an internal revolution in the Byzantine empire by wrenching
the administration out of the hands of well-trained officials, and destroying
the responsibility created by systematic procedure. A despotism supported by
personal influence soon ruined the scientific fabric which had previously
upheld the imperial power. The people were ground to the earth by a fiscal
rapacity over which the spledour of the house of Comnenus throws a thin veil.
The wealth of the empire was dissipated, its prosperity destroyed, the
administration of justice corrupted, and the central authority lost all control
over the population, when a band of 20,000 adventurers, masked as crusaders, put
an end to the Roman empire of the East.
In the eighth and ninth centuries the
Byzantine empire continued to embrace many nations differing from the Greeks in
language and manners. Even in religion there was a strong tendency to
separation, and many of the heresies noticed in history assumed a national
character, while the orthodox church circumscribed itself more and more within
the nationality of the Greeks and forfeited its ecumenical characteristics. The
empire still included within its limits Romans, Greeks, Armenians, Isaurians,
Lycaonians, Phrygians, Syrians and Gallo-Grecians. But the great Thracian race,
which had once been inferior in number only to the Indian, and which, in the
first century of our era had excited the attention of Vespasian by the extent
of the territory it occupied, was now exterminated.[13] The country it had formerly inhabited
was peopled by Sclavonian tribes, a diminished Roman and Greek population only
retaining possession of the towns, and the Bulgarians, a Turkish tribe, ruling
as the dominant race from Mount Hemus to the Danube. The range of Mount Hemus
generally formed the Byzantine frontier to the north, and its mountain passes
were guarded by imperial garrisons.[14] Sclavonian colonies had established
themselves over all the European provinces, and had even penetrated into the
Peloponnesus. The military government of Strymon, above the passes in the plain
of Heraclea Sintica, was formed to prevent the country to the south of Mount
Orbelos and Skomios from becoming an independent Sclavonian province.
The provincial divisions of the Eastern
Empire had fallen into oblivion. A new geographical arrangement into Themes
appears to have been established by Heraclius, when he recovered the Asiatic
provinces from the Persians: it was recognised by Leo and endured as long as
the Byzantine government.[15] The number of themes varied at different
periods. The Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing about the middle of
the tenth century, counts sixteen in the Asiatic portion of the empire, and
twelve in the European.
Seven great themes are particularly
prominent in Asia Minor,[16] Optimaton, Opsikion, the Thrakesian, the
Anatolic, the Bukellarion, the Kibyrraiot and the Armeniac. In each of these a
large military force was permanently maintained, under the command of a general
of the province; and in Opsikion, the Thrakesian and the Kibyrraiot, a naval
force was likewise stationed undet its own officers. The commanders of the
troops were called Strategoi, those of the navy Drungarioi. Several subordinate
territorial divisions existed, called Tourms, and separate military commands were frequently established for the
defence of important passes, traversed by great lines of communication, called
Kleisouras. Several of the ancient nations on Asia Minor still continued to
preserve their national peculiarities, and this circumstance has induced the
Byzantine writers frequently to mention their country as recognised
geographical divisions of the empire.
The European provinces were divided into
eight continental and five insular or transmarine themes, until the loss of the
exarchate of Ravenna reduced the number to twelve. Venice and Naples, though
they acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern Empire, acted generally as
independent cities. Sardinia was lost about the time of Leo's accession, and
the circumstances attending its conquest by the Saracens are unknown.
The ecclesiastical divisions of the empire
underwent frequent modifications; but after the provinces of Epirus, Greece and
Sicily were withdrawn from the jusisdiction of the Pope, and placed under that
of the Patriarch of Constatinople by Leo III., that patriarchate embraced the
whole Byzantine empire. It was then divided into 52 metropolitan dioceses,
which were subdivided into 649 suffragan bishopricks, and 13 archbishopricks,
in which the prelates were independent (aujtokevfaloi) but without any suffragans. There were,
moreover, 34 titular archbishops.[17]
[5]Constant. Porphyr., De Them., ii. 25. Strabonis Epit. tom. iii. 386, edit. Coray.
"Their place of birth alone is mute
To sounds which echo farther west,
Than their sires' islands of the blest."
[14]The country within Mount Hemus, called Zagora, was only ceded to the Bulgarians in the reign of Michael III. Cont., Script. post Theoph., 102. Symeon Log., 440. Cedrenus, i. 446; ii, 541.
[16]The Asiatic themess were – 1. Anatolikon, including parts of Phrygia, Lycaonia, Isauria, Pamphylia and Pisidia. 2. The Armeniac, including Pontus and Cappadocia. 3. The Thrakesian, part of Phrygia, Lydia and Ionia. 4. Opsikion, Mysia and part of Bithynia and Phrygia. 5. Optimaton, the part of Bithynia towards the Bosphorus. Bukellarion, Galatia. 7. Paphlagonia. 8. Chaldia, the country about Trebizond. 9. Mesopotamia, the trifling possessions of the empire on the Mesopotamian frontier. 10. Koloneia, the country between Pontus and Armenia Minor, through which the Lycus flows, near Neocaesarea. 11. Sebasteia, the second Armenia. – Scrip. post Theoph. 112. 12. Lycandos, a theme formed by Leo VI. (the Wise) on the borders of Armenia. 13. The Kibyrraiot, Caria, Lycia and the coast of Cilicia. 14. Cyprus. 16. The Aegean. Cappadocia is mentioned as a theme. – Scrip. post. Theoph. 112; and Charsiania, Genesius, 46. They had formed part of the Armeniac theme.
The twelve European themes were – 1. Thrace. 2. Macedonia. 3. Strymon. 4. Thessalonica. 5. Hellas. 6. Peloponnesus. 7. Cephallenia. 8. Nicopolis. 9. Dyrrachium. 10. Sicily. 11. Longibardia (Calabria). 12. Cherson. The islands of the Archipelago, which formed the 16th Asiatic theme, were the usual station of the European naval squadron, under the command of a Drungarios. They are often called Dodekannesos, and their admiral was an officer of consideration at the end of the eighth century. – Theophanes, 383. The list of the themes given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus is a traditional, not an official document. Cyprus and Sicily had been conquered by the Arabs long before he wrote.