u
A HISTOEY
OF THE
EASTEKN KOMAN EMPIKE
MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited
LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK • BOSTON ■ CHICAGO
DALLAS • SAN FRANCISCO
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.
TORONTO
I
TL-\,
A HISTOEY
OF THE
EASTEKN ROMAN EMPIRE
FROM THE FALL OF IRENE TO THE
ACCESSION OF BASIL L
(A.D. 802-867)
BY
J. B. BURY
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY
AND FELLOW OF KING'S COLLEGE, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
1912
581
B8
COPYRIGHT
KAEOLI KRVMBACHER
VMBRAE
PREFACE
The hiHtory of Byzantine civilization, in wliicli social elements
of the West and the East are so curiously blended and fused
into a unique culture, will not ho written for many years to
come. It cannot 1x3 written until each successive epoch has
been exhaustively studied and its distinguishing characteristics
clearly ascertained. The fallacious assumption, once accepted
as a truism, that the Byzantine spirit knew no change or
shadow of turning, that the social atmosphere of the Eastern
Eome was always immutably tlie same, has indeed been dis-
credited ; but even in recent sketches of this civilization by
competent hands wo can see unconscious survivals of that
belief. The curve; of tlic, whole development has still to be
accurately traced, and this can only be done by defining each
section by means of the evidence wliicli applies to that section
alone. No otlici' metliod will ena,blc us to discriminate the
series of gradual changes which transformed the I'yzantium
of Justinian into that — so dilferent in a thousand ways — of
the last Constantine,
This consideration has guided me in writing the present
volume, which contirnuts, but on a larger scale;, my Ifisiori/ of
the Later Roman Em/pirr, from Arcadius lo Irene, published
more tlian twenty years ago, a,nd cov(;rs a ])erio(l of two
generations, which ni;iy be calhid Ibi' th<'. sake of convenience
the Amorian e])och. 1 think then; has been a tendency to
regard this period, occurring, as it docis, lietweein the r(;viva,l
under the Isauriau and the territorial (;xpansion under the
vii
viii EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
Basilian sovrans, as no more than a passage from the one to
the other ; and I think there has been a certain failure to
comprehend the significance of the Amorian dynasty. The
period is not a mere epilogue, and it is much more than a
prologue. It has its own distinct, co-ordinate place in the
series of development ; and I hope that this volume may
help to bring into relief the fact that the Amorian age meant
a new phase in Byzantine culture.
In recent years various and valuable additions have been
made to the material available to the historian. Arabic and
Syriac sources important for the Eastern wars have been
printed and translated. Some new Greek documents, buried
in MSS., have been published. Perhaps the most unexpected
accessions to our knowledge concern Bulgaria, and are due to
archaeological research. Pliska, the palace of the early princes,
has been excavated, and a number of interesting and difficult
inscriptions have come to light there and in other parts of
the country. This material, published and illustrated by
MM. Uspenski and Shkorpil, who conducted the Pliska
diggings, has furnished new facts of great importance.
A further advance has been made, since the days when
Finlay wrote, by the application of modern methods of
criticism to the chronicles on which the history of this
period principally depends. The pioneer work of Hirsch
{Byzantinische Studien), published in 1876, is still an indis-
pensable guide ; but since then the obscure questions connected
with the chronographies of George and Simeon have been
more or less illuminated by the researches of various scholars,
especially by de Boor's edition of George and Sreznevski's
publication of the Slavonic version of Simeon. But though
it is desirable to determine the mutual relations among the
Simeon documents, the historian of Theophilus and Michael III.
is more concerned to discover the character of the sources
PREFACE ix
which . Simeon used. My own studies have led me to the
conclusion that his narrative of those reigns is chiefly based
on a lost chronicle which w^as written before the end of the
century and was not unfavourable to the Amorian dynasty.
Much, too, has been done to elucidate perplexing historical
questions by the researches of A. A. Vasil'ev (to whose book
on the Saracen wars of the Amorians I am greatly indebted),
E. W. Brooks, the late J. Pargoire, C. de Boor, and many
others.^ The example of a period not specially favoured may
serve to illustrate the general progress of Byzantine studies
during the last generation.
When he has submitted his material to the requisite
critical analysis, and reconstructed a narrative accordingly,
the historian has done all that he can, and his responsibility
ends. When he has had before him a number of independent
reports of the same events, he may hope to have elicited an
approximation to the truth by a process of comparison. But
how when he has only one ? There are several narratives in
this volume which are mainly derived from a single independent
source. The usual practice in such cases is, having eliminated
any errors and inconsistencies that we may have means of
detecting, and having made allowances for bias, to accept the
story as substantially true and accurate. The single account
is assumed to be veracious when there is no counter-evidence.
But is this assumption valid ? Take the account of the
murder of Michael III. which has come down to us. If each
of the several persons who were in various ways concerned
in that transaction had written down soon or even immedi-
ately afterwards a detailed report of what happened, each
^ I regret that the paper of Mr. Brooks on the Age of Basil I. (in Byr.wnti-
nische Zeitschrift, xx.) was not publislied till this volume was corrected for
press. His arguments for postponing the date of Basil's birth till the reign of
Theophilus have much weight. But, if we accept them, I think that the
tradition retains such value as it possessed for dating the return of the Greek
captives from Bulgaria (cp. below, p. 371).
\
X EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
endeavouring honestly to describe the events accurately, it is
virtually certain that there would have been endless divergencies
and contradictions between these reports. Is there, then, a
serious probability that the one account which happens to have
been handed down, whether written by the pen or derived from
the lips of a narrator of whose mentality we have no know-
ledge, — is there a serious probability that this story presents
to our minds images at all resembling those which would
appear to us if the scenes had been preserved by a cinemato-
graphic process ? I have followed the usual practice — it is
difficult to do otherwise ; but I do not pretend to justify it.
There are many portions of medieval and of ancient " recorded "
history which will always remain more or less fables convenues,
or for the accuracy of which, at least, no discreet person will
be prepared to stand security even when scientific method has
done for them all it can do.
It would not be just to the leading men who guided
public affairs during this period, such as Theophilus and
Bardas, to attempt to draw their portraits. The data are
entirely insufficient. Even in the case of Photius, who has
left a considerable literary legacy, while we can appreciate,
perhaps duly, his historical significance, his personality is only
half revealed ; his character may be variously conceived ; and
the only safe course is to record his acts without presuming
to know how far they were determined by personal motives.
J. B. BUEY.
Rome, January 1912.
CONTENTS
CHAPTEE I
NiCEPHORUS I., Stauracius, and Michael I. (a.d. 802-813)
SEC. PAGE
1. The Fall of Irene. ...... 1
2. NiCEPHOEUS I. (A.D. 802-811) ..... 8
3. Stauracius (a.d. 811) ...... 16
4. Reign and Policy of Michael I. (a.d. 811-813) . . 21
6. The Ecclesiastical Policies of Nicephobus I. and Michael I. 31
CHAPTEE II
Leo v., the Armenian, and the Ee vital of Iconoclasm
(a.d. 813-820)
1. Reign and Administration of Leo V. . . . .43
2. Conspiracy of Michael and Murder of Leo ... 48
3. The Revival of Iconoclasm ..... 56
CHAPTEE III
Michael IL, the Amorian (a.d. 820-829)
1. The Accession of Michael (a.d. 820). The Coronation and
Marriage of Theophilus (a.d. 821) . . . . 77
2. The Civil War (a.d. 821-823) ..... 84
3. The Ecclesiastical Policy of Michael II. . . . 110
xi
xii EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAPTEE IV
Theophilus (a.d. 829-842)
SEC.
PAGE
1. The Administration of Theophilus .... 120
2. The Buildings of Theophilus ..... 129
3. Iconoclasm ........ 135
4. Death of Theophilus (a.d. 842) and Restoration of Icons
(a.d. 843) ......... 143
CHAPTER V
Michael III. (a.d. 842-867)
1. The Regency (a.d. 842-856) ..... 154
2. Bardas and Basil the Macedonian (a.d. 856-866) . . 161
3. The Elevation of Basil (a.d. 866) and the Murder of
Michael (a.d. 867) ...... 174
CHAPTER VI
Photius and Ignatius • • ■ • • .180
CHAPTER VII
Financial and Military Administration
1. Finance . . . . . . . • . 210
2. Military and Naval Organization .... 221
CHAPTER VIII
The Saracen Wars
1. The Empire of the Abbasids ..... 232
2. Baghdad ........ 238
3. The Frontier Defences of the Empire and the Caliphate 244
CONTENTS
-EC.
4. The Warfare in the Reigns of Haritn and Mamun
(A.D. 802-833) .......
5. The Embassy of John the Grammarian and the Flight of
Manuel ........
6. The Campaigns of a.d. 837 and 838 ....
7. The Warfare of a.d. 839-867 .....
Xlll
PAGE
249
256
259
273
CHAPTEE IX
The Saracen Conquests of Crete and Sicily
1. The Conquest of Crete .....
2. The Invasion of Sicily .....
3. The Invasion of Southern Italy
287
294
308
CHAPTEE X
Kelations with the Western Empire. Venice
317
CHAPTEE XI
Bulgaria
1. The Bulgarian Kingdom ....
2. Krum and Nicephorus I. .
3. Krum and Michael I. . . . .
4. The Bulgarian Siege of Constantinople (a.d. 813)
5. The Reign of Omurtag ....
6. The Reigns of Malamir and Boris
332
339
345
353
359
369
CHAPTEE XII
The Conversion of Slavs and Bulgarians
1. The Slavs in Greece
2. The Conversion of Bulgaria
3. The Slavonic Apostles-
375
381
392
XIV
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAPTER XIII
The Empire of the Khazars and the Peoples of the North
SEC.
1. The Khazars . . • • •
2. The Subjects and Neighboues of the Khazars
3. The Russians and their Commerce
4. Imperial Policy. The Russian Danger
5. The Magyars . . •
PAGE
402
408
411
414
423
CHAPTEE XIV
Art, Learning, and Education in the Amorian Period
1. Art .........
2. Education and Learning ......
429
434
APPENDICES
L The Letters of Theodore of Studion
II. George's Chronicle .....
III. The Chronicle of Simeon, Magister and Logothete
IV. Genesios and the Continuation of Theophanes
V. Chronology of the War between Michael II. and
Thomas the Slav .....
VI. The Family of Theophilus ....
VII. The Fall of Theodora {chronology)
VIII. The Warfare with the Sauacens in a.d. 830-832 .
IX. The Revolt of Euphemios ....
X. Presiam, Malamir .....
XI. On Some of the Sources for the History of Constantine
AND Methodius .....
XII. The Magyars ......
451
453
455
460
462
465
469
472
478
481
485
489
CONTENTS
XV
BIBLIOGKAPHY
I. Sources
1. General .....
1«. Hagiograpliical ....
2. Western . . . . .
3. Oriental .....
4. Relating to the North (Slavs, Khazars, etc. etc.)
4a. Relating to Constantine (Cyril) and Methodius
5. Archaeological (including Coins and Seals) .
A. Criticism, etc., of Sources
PAGE
493
495
497
498
499
500
501
502
II. Modern Works
1. General Histories ......
2. Monographs and Works bearing on special portions of the subject
3. Works relating primarily to Western Europe
4. Works relating primarily to Eastern Europe or the Saracens
5. Works relating primarily to Northern Europe (Slavs, Russians
Hungarians, etc.) .
5«. Works relating to Constantine (Cyril) and Methodius
6. Civilization
7. Administration, Institutions, Laws
8. Geography
8«. Maps ....
9. Topography of Constantinople and adjacent regions .
10. Chronology and Genealogy
503
503
505
505
506
506
507
507
508
509
509
510
INDEX
I. English
II. Greek
511
530
CHAPTEE I
NICEPHOKUS L, STAURACIUS, AND MICHAEL I.
(a.D. 802-813)
§ 1. The Fall of Irene
The Isaurian or Syrian dynasty, which had not only discharged
efficiently the task of defending the Eoman Empire against
the Saracens and Bulgarians, but had also infused new life
into the administration and institutions, terminated inglori-
ously two years after the Imperial coronation of Charles the
Great at Kome. Ambassadors of Charles were in Con-
stantinople at the time of the revolution which hurled the
Empress Irene from the throne. Their business at her court
was to treat concerning a proposal of marriage from their
master. It appears that the Empress entertained serious
thoughts of an alliance which her advisers would hardly have
suffered her to contract,^ and the danger may have precipi-
tated a revolution which could not long be postponed. Few
palace revolutions have been more completely justified by the
exigencies of the common weal, and if personal ambitions had
not sufficed to bring about the fall of Irene, public interest
would have dictated the removal of a sovran whose incapacity
must soon have led to public disaster.
The career of Irene of Athens had been unusually brilliant.
An obscure provincial, she was elevated by a stroke of fortune
to be the consort of the heir to the greatest tbrone in Europe.
Her husband died after a short reign, and as their son was a
mere child she was left in possession of the supreme power.
She was thus enabled to lead the reaction against iconoclasm,
and connect her name indissolubly with an Ecumenical
^ For this negotiation see further below, Chap. X.
1 B
2 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
Council. By this policy she covered herself with glory in the
eyes of orthodox posterity ; she received the eulogies of popes ;
and the monks, who basked in the light of her countenance,
extolled her as a saint. We have no records that would
enable us to draw a portrait of Irene's mind, but we know
that she was the most worldly of women, and that love of
power was a fundamental trait of her character. When her
son Constantine was old enough to assume the reins of
government, she was reluctant to retire into the background,
and a struggle for power ensued, which ended ultimately in
the victory of the mother. The son, deprived of his eyesight,
was rendered incapable of reigning (a.d. 797), and Irene
enjoyed for five years undivided sovran power, not as a regent,
but in her own right.
Extreme measures of ambition which, if adopted by
heretics, they would execrate as crimes, are easily pardoned or
overlooked by monks in the case of a monarch who believes
rightly. But even in the narrative of the prejudiced monk,
who is our informant, we can see that he himself disapproved
of the behaviour of the " most pious " Irene, and, what is more
important, that the public sympathy was with her son. Her
conduct of the government did not secure her the respect
which her previous actions had forfeited. She was under the
alternating influence of two favourite eunuchs,^ whose intrigues
against each other divided the court. After the death of
Stauracius, his rival Aetius enjoyed the supreme control of the
Empress and the Empire."^ He may have been a capable man ;
but his position was precarious, his power was resented by the
other ministers of state, and, in such circumstances, the policy
of the Empire could not be efficiently carried on. He united
in his own hands the commands of two of the Asiatic Themes,
the Opsikian and the Anatolic, and he made his brother Leo
strategos of both Macedonia and Thrace. By the control of
the troops of these provinces he hoped to compass his scheme
of raising Leo to the Imperial throne.
We can hardly doubt that the political object of mitigating
1 iirLaTT)9L0L bvres t^s ^acxiXelas, ii. 97, of Odrysian nobles who had
Theoph. A.M. 6290. influence with the king). In the
■^ We may describe his position as tenth and eleventh centuries the
that of first minister — an unofficial vapadwaffTeijwu regularly appears in
position expressed by Trapa.Svva(TT€ijwv the reigns of weak emperors,
(a word which occurs in Thucydides,
SECT. I
THE FALL OF IRENE
}ier unpopularity in the capital was the motive of certain
measures of relief or favour which the Empress adopted in
March a.d. 801. She remitted the "urban tribute," the
principal tax paid by the inhabitants of Constantinople/ but
we are unable to say whether this indulgence was intended to
be temporary or permanent. She lightened the custom dues
which were collected in the Hellespont and the Bosphorus.
We may question the need and suspect the wisdom of either
of these measures ; but a better case could probably be made
out for the abolition of the duty on receipts. This tax,
similar to the notorious Chrysargyron which Anastasius I. did
away with, was from the conditions of its collection especially
liable to abuse, and it was difficult for the fisc to check the
honesty of the excise officers who gathered it. We have a
lurid picture of the hardships which it entailed.^ Tradesmen
of every order were groaning under extravagant exactions.
Sheep -dealers and pig -dealers, butchers, wine -merchants,
weavers and shoemakers, fullers, bronzesmiths, goldsmiths,
workers in wood, perfumers, architects are enumerated as
sufferers. The high-roads and the sea -coasts were infested
by fiscal officers demanding dues on the most insignificant
articles. When a traveller came to some narrow defile, he
would be startled by the sudden appearance of a tax-gatherer,
sitting aloft like a thing uncanny.^ The fisherman who
caught three fishes, barely enough to support him, was obliged
to surrender one to the necessities of the treasury, or rather
of its representative. Those who made their livelihood by
catching or shooting birds ^ were in the same predicament.
It is needless to say that all the proceeds of these exactions
did not flow into the fisc ; there was unlimited opportunity
for peculation and oppression on the part of the collectors.'^
We learn that Irene abolished this harsh and impolitic
system from a congratulatory letter addressed to her on the
^ For this tax see below, Chap.
VII. § 1. Theoph. A.M. 6293.
'•^ See Theodore Stud. E-p'p. i. 6,
who says that the ffrpayyaXia of violent
and unjust exactions which existed
had escaped the notice of Irene's pre-
decessors. By her measure wdpos
ddiKias TToXnTrXdiTtos avve^eKoirrj (p. 932).
■'.Theodore, ib. ovk^tl at odoi
TeXuvovvrai ocrat Kara yyjv 8<rai (caret,
ddXaaaav, ovk€ti TjTreipwTai i^apyvpl-
i'ovraL ddLKa Kara roi/s arevwiroiii dK tQiv
ewiKadri/jLivwv wffirep dypiov tivos dalfiovos.
* The TO^oTTji and the i^evTris.
° Theodore also mentions the re-
moval of a hardship suffered by
soldiers' wives, who, when they lost
their husbands, were required to pay
death duties — -ttjv vir^p rod 6avbvT0%
€\€eiv7]v Kal oLTrdvOpuwov i^aTralnjffiv.
4 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
occasion by Theodore, the abbot of Studion. We must i
remember that the writer was an ardent partisan of the
Empress, whom he lauds in hyperbolic phrases, according to
the manner of the age, and we may reasonably suspect that he ;
has overdrawn the abuses which she remedied in order to
exalt the merit of her reform.^ i
The monks of Studion, driven from their cloister by her
son, had been restored with high honour by Irene, and we may |
believe that they were the most devoted of her supporters.
The letter which Theodore addressed to her on this occasion
show^s that in his eyes her offences against humanity counted
as nothing, if set against her services to orthodoxy and
canonical law. It is characteristic of medieval Christianity
that one who made such high professions of respect for
Christian ethics should extol the " virtue " of the woman who
had blinded her son, and assert that her virtue has made her
government popular and will preserve it unshaken.
Even if Irene's capacity for ruling had equalled her appetite
for power, and if the reverence which the monks entertained
for her had been universal, her sex was a weak point in her
position. Other women had governed — Pulcheria, for instance
— in the name of an Emperor ; but Irene was the first who had
reigned alone, not as a regent, but as sole and supreme autocrat. '
This was an innovation against which no constitutional
objection seems to have been lu-ged or recognized as valid at
Constantinople; though in Western Europe it was said that |
the Eoman Empire could not devolve upon a woman, and this
principle was alleged as an argument justifying the coronation
of Charles the Great. But in the army there was undoubtedly
a feeling of dissatisfaction that the sovran was disqualified
by her sex from leading her hosts in war ; and as the spirit of
iconoclasm was still prevalent in the army, especially in the
powerful Asiatic Themes, there was no inclination to waive
this objection in the case of the restorer of image-worship.^
^ It is remarkable that Theophanes to be disclosed undesignedly by an
{loc. cit.) does not mention directly admirer, the deacon Ignatius, who
the existence of the abuses described speaks of her as a woman, and then
by Theodore. The reforms for which almost apologizes for doing so. Vit.
Theodore chiefly thanks her must be Niceph. 146 to Kparaidcppov sKelvo Kal
included in the chronicler's crvv dXKois <pi\66€ov 'y6t'aiov direp yvvaiKa d^fxis
TToXkois. KoKe^v Tr]v Kai dv8pui> toj eiVe/3ei dievey-
'^ That her sex was regarded as a Kovaav (ppovrj/xari.
disadvantage by public opinion seems
SECT. I THE FALL OF IRENE 5
The power exercised by the eunuch Aetius was intolerable
to many of the magnates who held high offices of state, and
they had good reason to argue that in the interests of the
Empire, placed as it was between two formidable foes, a
stronger government than that of a favourite who wielded
authority at the caprice of a woman was imperatively required.
The negotiations of the Empress with Charles the Great, and
the arrival of ambassadors from him and the Pope, to discuss
a marriage between the two monarchs which should restore
in Eastern and Western Europe the political unity of the
Koman Empire once more, were equally distasteful and alarming
to Aetius and to his opponents. The overtures of Charles
may well have impressed the patricians of New Eome with
the danger of the existing situation and with the urgent need
that the Empire should have a strong sovran to maintain
its rights and prestige against the pretensions of the Western
barbarian who claimed to be a true Augustus. It might also bei
foreseen that Aetius would now move heaven and earth to secure
the elevation of his brother to the throne as speedily as possible.
These circumstances may sufficiently explain the fact that
the discontent of the leading officials with Irene's government
culminated in October a.d. 802, while the Western ambassadors
were still in Constantinople.^ The leader of the conspiracy
was Nicephorus, who held the post of Logothete of the General
Treasury, and he was recognized by his accomplices as the
man who should succeed to the Imperial crown. His two
chief supporters were Nicetas Triphyllios, the Domestic of the
scholarian guards, and his brother Leo, who had formerly been
strategos of Thrace. The co-operation of these men was
highly important ; for Aetius counted upon their loyalty, as
Nicetas had espoused his part against his rival Stauracius.^
Leo, who held the high financial office of Sakellarios, and the
quaestor Theoktistos joined in the plot, and several other
patricians.^
^ Theoph. 47627, 47828- The manner them tQiv iTriopKwv Kal doXepuif Tpi(pv\-
in which the presence of the am- Xiwv (476). Michael Syr. iii. 12 as-
bassadors (dTro/cptcndpiot) is noticed signs a leading role to Nicetas.
in the second passage (opuivruv to. ^ As Leo Serantapechos and Gregory,
Trpdyfiara) suggests that Theophanes son of Musulakios (formerly Count of
derived some of his information from the Opsikian Theme). Also some of
their account of the transactions. the chief officers of the other Tagmata
- For this reason Theophanes calls (the Excubitors and the Arithmos).
6 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
On the night of October 31 the conspirators appeared
before the Brazen Gate (Chalke) of the Palace, and induced
the guard to admit them, by a story which certainly bore
little appearance of likelihood. They said that Aetius had
been attempting to force the Empress to elevate his brother
to the rank of Augustus, and that she, in order to obviate his
importunities, had dispatched the patricians at this late hour
to proclaim Nicephorus as Emperor. The authority of such
important men could hardly be resisted by the guardians
of the gate, and in obedience to the supposed command of
their sovran they joined in proclaiming the usurper. It was
not yet midnight. Slaves and others were sent to all quarters
of the city to spread the news, and the Palace of Eleutherios,
in which the Augusta was then staying, was surrounded by
soldiers. This Palace, which she had built herself, was probably
situated to the north of the harbour of Eleutherios, somewhere
in the vicinity of the Eorum which was known as Bous.^ In
the morning she was removed to the Great Palace and detained
in custody, while the ceremony of coronation was performed
for Nicephorus by the Patriarch Tarasius, in the presence of a
large multitude, who beheld the spectacle with various emotions.
The writer from whom we learn these events was a monk,
violently hostile to the new Emperor, and devoted to the
orthodox Irene, who had testified so brilliantly to the " true
faith." We must not forget his bias when we read that all ^
the spectators were imprecating curses on the Patriarch, and
on the Emperor and his well-wishers. Some, he says,
marvelled how Providence could permit such an event and
see the pious Empress deserted by those courtiers who had
professed to be most attached to her, like the brothers
Triphyllios. Others, unable to believe the evidence of their
eyes, thought they were dreaming. Those who took in the
situation were contrasting in prophetic fancy the days that
were coming with the blessed condition of things which
existed under Irene, This description represents the attitude
^ It is supposed that Ak Serai, (ra'EXeii^ep/oi;), which stretched nortli-
" White Palace," the present name of ward from the harbour of that name,
the quarter where the Forum Bous ^ Theophanes (476) koX tolvtss eirl
was situated, is derived from Irene's rots TrpaTTo/jL^voi% ^dvcrx^paivov kt\.,
palace. See Mordtmann, Esquissc, and again kolvti U -n-avras Kareixe
p. 76. In any case, it must have been i;b<t>u}(ns Kal dTrapd/fXijTos dOvfila.
situated in the Eleutherios quarter
SECT. I THE FALL OF IRENE 7
of the monks and the large number of people who were under
their influence. But we may well believe that the populace
showed no enthusiasm at the revolution ; Nicephorus can
hardly have been a popular minister.
The new Emperor determined, as a matter of course, to
send the deposed Empress into banishment, but she possessed
a secret which it was important for him to discover. The
economy of Leo III. and Constantine V. had accumulated a
large treasure, which was stored away in some secret hiding-
place, known only to the sovran, and not communicated to
the Sakellarios, who was head of the treasury. Nicephorus
knew of its existence, and on the day after his coronation he
had an interview with Irene in the Palace, and by promises
and blandishments persuaded her to reveal where the store
was hidden. Irene on this occasion made a dignified speech,^
explaining her fall as a punishment of her sins, and asking
to be allowed to live in her own house of Eleutherios.
Nicephorus, however, banished her first to Prince's Island in
the Propontis, and afterwards to more distant Lesbos, where
she died within a year. We cannot accept unhesitatingly the
assertion of the Greek chronographer that Nicephorus broke
his faith. There is some evidence, adequate at least to make
us suspicious, that he kept his promise, and that Irene was
not banished until she or her partisans organized a conspiracy
against his life.^
^ Theophanes professes to give \leg. obiit]. Aetio retribuit uti
Irene's speech verbatim ; and the ei facere voliiit." The details of
substance of it may perhaps be Michael's statements concerning
genuine. Some patricians were pres- Roman history are frequently in-
ent at the interview, and the chrono- accurate and confused, but it seems
grapher may have derived his infor- probable that there was some real
mation from one of these. Irene's foundation for this explicit notice of
steadfast bearing after her sudden a conspiracy in which Irene was con-
misfortune made an impression. cerned after her dethronement. The
" Michael Syr. 12-13. The passage silence of Theophanes proves nothing,
is literally transcribed by Bar- He wished to tell as little as possible
Hebraeus, 138: " Imperium igitur to the discredit of the Empress and
adeptus est anno 1114 et honorifice to blacken the character of the
habuit Irenem reginam et Aetium. Emperor. The last sentence in the
Hi caedem ejus parare voluerunt above passage means that Aetius
manu mouachorum. Insidiis vero was spared, because he had con-
manifestatis Irene in exilium missa cealed Nicephorus from the anger of
est Athenas ubi monache facta est Irene.
§ EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
8 2. Nicephorus I.
According to Oriental historians/ Nicephorus was descended
from an Arabian king, Jaballah of Ghassan, who in the reign
of Heraclius became a Mohammadan, but soon, dissatisfied
with the principle of equality which marked the early period
of the Caliphate, fled to Cappadocia and resumed the profes-
sion of Christianity along with allegiance to the Empire.
Perhaps Jaballah or one of his descendants settled in Pisidia,
for Nicephorus was born in Seleucia of that province.^ His
fame has suffered, because he had neither a fair historian to
do him justice, nor apologists to countervail the coloured
statements of opponents. He is described ^ as an unblushing
hypocrite, avaricious, cruel, irreligious, unchaste, a perjured
slave, a wicked revolutionary. His every act is painted as a
crime or a weakness, or as prompted by a sinister motive.
When we omit the adjectives and the comments and set down
the facts, we come to a different conclusion. The history of
his reign shows him a strong and masterful man, who was
fully alive to the difticulties of the task of governing and was
prepared to incur unpopularity in discharging his duty as
guardian of the state. Like many other competent statesmen,
he knew how to play upon the weaknesses of men and to
conceal his own designs ; he seems indeed to have been expert
in dissimulation and the cognate arts of diplomacy."* It was
said that tears came with convenient readiness, enabling him
to feign emotions which he was far from feeling and win a
false reputation for having a good heart.^
^ Michael Syr. 15 (Bar-Hebraeus, {Vit. Nicet. xxix. ) as 6 evae^iararos
139). Tabari says: "the Romans Kal <pi'K6TrTU}xos kuI (piXopiovaxos. He is
I'ecord that this Nikephoros was a also praised for piety and orthodoxy
descendant of Gafna of Ghassan " in the Ep. Synod. Orient, ad Theoph.
{apud Brooks, i. 743). 365.
'^ It is strange that Theophanes * Theoph. 477, cp. 483 (6 ttoXu-
calls him a swineherd (476), but the firjxcivos).
point of the contumely may be his ^ Jb. 480. The same faculty was
provincial birth. Michael Syr. 12 calls attributed to Lord Thurlow. When
him a Cappadocian. His head on the Regency question came up, on
coins is — as generally in Byzantine the occasion of George the Third's
coinage — purely conventional. first seizure with insanity, as the
•'' By Theophanes. Over against Chancellor was trimming between
Theophanes, however, we may place loyalty to the King, whose recovery
the brief eulogy of another con- was uncertain, and the favour of the
temporary monk, Theosteriktos (who Prince of Wales, a seasonable display
wrote the Life of Nicetas of Medikion of emotion in the House of Lords was
c. A.D. 824-829), who describes him one of his arts.
SECT. II NICEPHORUS I. 9
Most of the able Eoman Emperors who were not born in
the purple had been generals before they ascended the throne.
Nicephorus, who had been a financial minister, was one of the
most notable exceptions. It is probable that he had received
a military training, for he led armies into the field. He was
thoroughly in earnest about the defence of the Empire against
its foes, whether beyond the Taurus or beyond the Haemus ;
but he had not the qualities of a skilful general, and this
deficiency led to the premature end of his reign. Yet his
financial experience may have been of more solid value to the
state than the military talent which might have achieved
some brilliant successes. He was fully determined to be
master in his own house. He intended that the Empire, the
Church as well as the State, should be completely under his
control,^ and would brook no rival authorities, whether in the
court or in the cloister. He severely criticized his predecessors,
asserting that they had no idea of the true methods of govern-
ment.'"^ If a sovran, he used to say, wishes to rule efficiently,
he must permit no one to be more powerful than himself,^ — a
sound doctrine under the constitution of the Eoman Empire.
The principles of his ecclesiastical policy, which rendered him
execrable in the eyes of many monks, were religious toleration
and the supremacy of the State over the Church. Detested by
the monks on this account, he has been represented by one of
them, who is our principal informant, as a tyrannical oppressor
who imposed intolerable burdens of taxation upon his subjects
from purely avaricious motives. Some of his financial
measures may have been severe, but our ignorance of the
economic conditions of the time and our imperfect knowledge
of the measures themselves render it difficult for us to criticize
them.*
In pursuance of his conception of the sovran's duty, to
take an active part in the administration himself and keep
its various departments under his own control, Nicephorus
resolved to exercise more constantly and regularly the supreme
judicial functions which belonged to the Emperor. His
immediate predecessors had probably seldom attended in
person the Imperial Court of Appeal, over which the Prefect
^ Theoph. 479 d% iavrbv rd iravTa ^ lb.
/xereveyKe'iv. * For these measures see below,
- lb. 489. Chap. VII. § 1.
10
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CMAP. I
of the City presided in the Emperor's absence ; ^ but hitherto {
it had been only in the case of appeals, or in those trials of I
high functionaries which were reserved for his Court, that the j
sovran intervened in the administration of justice. Nicephorus i
instituted a new court which sat in the Palace of Magnaura. |
Here he used to preside himself and judge cases which j
ordinarily came before the Prefect of the City or the Quaestor, j
It was his purpose, he alleged, to enable the poor to obtain '\
justice speedily and easily. It is instructive to observe how
-this innovation was construed and censured by his enemies. !
It was said that his motive was to insult and oppress the j
official classes, or that the encouragement of lawsuits was j
designed to divert the attention of his subjects from Imperial \
" impieties." ^ The malevolence of these insinuations is j
manifest. Nicephorus was solicitous to protect his subjects I
against official oppression, and all Emperors who took an
active personal part in the administration of justice were :
highly respected and praised by the public.
Not long after Nicephorus ascended tlie throne he was
menaced by a serious insurrection.^ He had appointed an
able general, Bardanes Turcus, to an exceptionally extensive
command, embracing the Anatolic, the Armeniac, and the
three other Asiatic Themes.* The appointment was evidently
made with the object of prosecuting vigorously the war
against the Saracens, in which Bardanes had distinguished
himself, and won popularity with the soldiers by his scrupulously
fair division of booty, in which he showed himself no respecter
of persons.^ He was, as his name shows, an Armenian by
1 Cp. Zachariii, Gr.-rbm. Eecht, 357.
2 Theoph. 479, 489.
^ The sources are Theoph. 479 ; Gen.
8 sqq. ; Cont. Th. 6 sqq. The narra-
tives in the two latter works are told
a propos of the history of Leo the
Armenian, and though they are cog-
nate (and must be derived ultimately
from the same source), Cont. Th. is
here independent of Genesios (cp.
Hirsch, Bijz. Stud. 189).
* Cont. Th. 6 ixovoarpaT-qyov tCjv
Tcivre defxaruiv tQiv Kara ttjv avaTokqv.
Theoph. and Gen. designate Bardanes
as strategos .of the Anatolic Theme.
Probably he had held this post at
iirst, and the Emperor afterwards
extended his command. We meet
again the commission of this large
military sphere to one general in a.d.
819, when we -find to. irivre difiara
under one strategos. Theod. Stud,
Epp. ii. 63 (Migne, 1284) toi>s ttjs
i^apxl'O-^ y^iyovs (iTrl yap tuiv e' defxaruiv
TedeiTai), where i^apxla. suggests those
large administrations which had been
introduced in the sixth century (Italy,
Africa). The other three Themes were
the Opsikian, Thrakesian, and Bukel-
larian. See below, Chap. VII. § 2.
6 Cont. Th. 8-9.
SECT. 11 NICEPHORUS I. 11
descent, but we are not told whence he derived the surname
of " Turk." The large powers which were entrusted to him
stirred his ambitions to seize the crown, and the fiscal rigour
of the new Emperor excited sufficient discontent to secure
followers for a usurper. The Armeniac troops refused to
support him, but the regiments of the other four Themes
which were under his command proclaimed him Emperor on
Wednesday, July 19, a.d. 803.^
This revolt of Bardanes has a dramatic interest beyond
the immediate circumstances. It was the first act in a long
and curious drama which was worked out in the course of
twenty years. We shall see the various stages of its develop-
ment in due order. The contemporaries of the actors grasped
the dramatic aspect, and the interest was heightened by the
belief that the events had been prophetically foreshadowed
from the beginning.^ In the staff of Bardanes were three
young men who enjoyed his conspicuous favour. Leo was of
Armenian origin, like the general himself, but had been
reared at a small place called Pidra ^ in the Anatolic Theme.
Bardanes had selected him for his fierce look and brave
temper to be a " spear-bearer and attendant," or, as we should
say, an aide-de-camp. Michael, who was known as Traulos,
on account of his lisp, was a native of Amorion. The third,
Thomas, probably came of a Slavonic family settled in Pontus
near Gaziura.* All three were of humble origin, but Bardanes
detected that they were marked out by nature for great things
and advanced them at the very beginning of their careers.
When he determined to raise the standard of rebellion
against Nicephorus, he took these three chosen ones into his
confidence, and they accompanied him when he rode one day
to Philomelion ^ for the purpose of consulting a hermit said
to be endowed with the faculty of foreseeing things to come.
Leaving his horse to the care of his squires, Bardanes entered
^ Theoph. and Cont. Th. agree. But Genesios makes Thomas
^ The story is told by Genesios (p. 8). out to be an Armenian (though in
The account in Cont. Th. 7 is taken another place he says <jKvdi^wv rip
from Genesios ; see Hirsch, 184 sqq. yivei, 32), while in Cont. Th. 50 his
•' Cf. Ramsay, Asia Minor, 246 n. parents are called ^KXa^oyevQv tG>v
* The town of Gaziura (Ibora) is on ttoWclkis i-yKLacrevdivTWv (caret tt}v
the river Iris, south-east of Amasea, 'A.vaTo\r)v. The stories about his early
on the road to Tokat. It corresponds life will find a more fitting \)\&ce.
to the modern Turkhal. Cp. Ramsay, when we come to his rebellion in the
ib. 326 sqq. On the birth of Thomas reign of Michael II.
in this region, Genesios and Cont. Th. •' In Pisidia, not far east of Antioch.
A
12 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap,
the prophet's cell, where he received a discouraging oracle.
He was bidden to abandon his designs, which would surely
lead to the loss of his property and of his eyes. He left the
hermit's dwelling moody and despondent, and he was mount-
ing his horse when the holy man, who had followed to the
door and espied his three companions, summoned him to
return. Eagerly expecting a further communication Bardanes
complied, and he heard a strange prophecy : " The first and
the second of these men will possess the Empire, but thou
shalt not. As for the third, he will be merely proclaimed,
but will not prosper and will have a bad end." The dis-
appointed aspirant to the throne rushed from the hut, uttering
maledictions against the prophet who refused to flatter his
hopes, and jeeringly communicated to Leo, Michael, and
Thomas the things which were said to be in store for them.
Thus, according to the story, the destinies of the two
Emperors Leo V. and Michael II. and of the great tyrant ;
Thomas were shadowed forth at Philomelion long before it
could be guessed how such things were to come to pass.^
The destiny of their patron Bardanes was to be decided
far sooner. The insurgent army advanced along the road to
Nicomedia," but it was soon discovered that the Emperor was
prepared for the emergency and had forces at his disposition
which rendered the cause of the tyrant hopeless. Thomas,
the Slavonian, stood by his master ; but Leo, the Armenian,
and Michael, of Amorion, deserted to Nicephorus, who duly
rewarded them. Michael was appointed a Count of the tent,^
^ This prediction fost evenhim was Anatolic Theme. In support of this
probably manufactured soon after the view, I adduce tlae fact that when
death of Thomas, in a.d. 824. Leo, the Armenian, became strategos
- Apparently coming from Nicaea of that Theme under Michael I. he is
(Cont. Th. 9). said to have renewed his friendship
^ There is a difficulty, which his- with Michael, the Amorian. This sug-
torians have not noticed, as to the gests that Michael was connected with
meaning of this appointment. There the Anatolic Theme. Moreover, at the
was, so far as we know, no official time of Leo's elevation to the throne^
entitlad Konyji TTj^ KbpTr)s par excellence, he appears as attached to his staff,
while in every Theme there was an The Counts of the tent of the various
officer so named. It may be held that Themes attended on the Emperor's
in the reign of Nicephorus there was tent in campaigns {wepl ra^. 489).
a Count of the Imperial tent, who had The Foederati were the foreign guarc
duties when the Emperor took part in of the Palace, afterwards known as
a campaign, and that the office was the Hetaireia ; the Count of the
abolished soon afterwards. It appears, Federates was the later Hetaeriarch.
however, possible that Michael was See Bury, Imp. Administrative System,,
appointed k6ij.ii}$ ttjs Kdprrjs of the 107.
SECT. II
NICEPHORUS I. 13
Leo to be Count of the Federates, and each of them received
the gift of a house in Constantinople.^ When Bardanes
found it impracticable to establish on the Asiatic shore ^
a basis of operations against the capital, of which the in-
habitants showed no inclination to welcome him, he concluded
that his wisest course would be to sue for grace while there
was yet time, and he retired to Malagina.^ The Emperor
readily sent him a written assurance of his personal safety,*
which was signed by the Patriarch Tarasius and all the
patricians ; and the promise was confirmed by the pledge of
a little gold cross which the Emperor was in the habit of
wearing. The tyranny had lasted about seven weeks, when
Bardanes secretly left the camp at midnight (September 8)
and travelling doubtless by the road which passes Nicaea and
skirts the southern shores of Lake Ascanias, escaped to the
monastery of Heraclius at Kios, the modern town of Geumlek.^
There he was tonsured and arrayed in the lowly garment of
a monk. The Emperor's bark, which was in waiting at the
shore, carried him to the island of Prote, where he had built
a private monastery, which he was now permitted to select as
his retreat. Under the name of Sabbas,*^ he devoted himself
to ascetic exercises. But Nicephorus, it would seem, did not
yet feel assured that the ex-tyrant was innocuous ; for we
can hardly doubt the assertion of our sources that it was with
the Emperor's knowledge that a band of Lycaonians '^ landed
on the island by night and deprived the exiled monk of his
eyesight. Nicephorus, however, professed to be sorely dis-
tressed at the occurrence ; he shed the tears which were
1 The details are recorded in Gen., pare the story of Theophilus and
more fully in Gont. Th. The house of Manuel, below, p. 258, and the assur-
Karianos was assigned to Michael, the ance given to Ignatius, below, p. 198.
palace of Zeno and a house called ^ Theoph. ih.
Dagistheus {tov AayLfjdea) to Leo. ® Cont. Th. 10.
2 TT -i J i ni „„„„ Mr, <■„,. „,-^i,+ ^ Theoph. 480 AvKaovds rivas t}
^ He waited at Chrysopohs tor eight ,^ . , , . /
davs (Theonh 479) XvKavOpwTrovs, ofx-oyvccfiofas Kai o/xo-
•' ^ '■ ' '' (ppova% dwocTTeiXas kt\. I would not,
3 The great cavalry depot, about with some historians, quote this ex-
twenty miles east of Nicaea on the pression of Theophanes as a proof of
road to Dorylaion. See Ramsay, the character of the Lycaonians.
Asia Minor, 204-205. Theophanes is a partisan of Bardanes,
■* lb. Cont. Th. (cp. Gen. 10) men- and neither he nor any of his con-
tions the gold cross ; it was probably temporaries could resist the tempta-
an enkol'pion (worn on the breast). A tion of playing on proper names,
cross was regularly used as a pledge Besides Lycaonia was infected with
of Imperial faith in such cases. Com- the Pauliciau heresy.
14 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
always at his disposal, and did not leave the Imperial bed^
chamber for seven days. He even threatened to put to deatl
some Lycaonian nobles ; and the Senate and the Patriarcl:
could hardly venture to doubt the sincerity of his indignation
As for the rebellious army, it was punished by receiving nc
pay; several officers and landed owners were banished; the
property of the chief insurgent was confiscated. Such was
the fate of Bardanes Turcus and his revolt.
In February 808a plot was formed to dethrone Nicephoru!
by a large number of discontented senators and ecclesiastical
dignitaries. It is significant that the man who was designated!
by the conspirators to be the new Emperor was on thisi
occasion also an Armenian. The patrician Arsaber held the
office of Quaestor; and the chronicler, who regarded with!
favour any antagonist of Nicephorus, describes him as pious.
The plot was detected ; Arsaber was punished by stripes,i
made a monk and banished to Bithynia; the accomplices,r
not excepting the bishops, were beaten and exiled.^ |
Nicephorus had two children, a daughter and a son.'
Procopia had married Michael Kangabe,^ who was created
Curopalates ; and one of their sons, Nicetas (destined here-
after to occupy the Patriarchal throne), was appointed, as a!
child, to be the Domestic or commander of the Hikanatoi, a|
new corps of guards which his grandfather had instituted.;
Stauracius was doubtless younger than Procopia, and wasi
crowned Augustus in December 803, a year after his father's]
succession.^ Theophanes, perhaps malevolently, describes'
him as " physically and intellectually unfit for the position."!
j
1 Among the conspirators were the have taken place much later than 794. 1
Synkellos, and the sakellarios and Assuming her to have been married'
chartophylax of St. Sophia (Theoph. early, she might have been born in 778;
483). Finlay justly remarks that the and assuming that her father married!
conspiracies formed against Nicephorus early, he might have been born in 758. i
are no evidence of his unpopularity. Thus Nicephorus must have been 45
"for the best Byzantine monarchs at least when he ascended the throne,!
were as often disturbed by secret plots and was probably older. Stauraciusj
as the worst" (ii. p. 99). was childless. i
^ From Nicetas, Fita Ignatii {Mansi, 3 During his sole reign the coinage'
xvi. 210 55-5-.), we learn that Michael and of Nicephorus reverted to the old
Procopia had five children— (1) Gorgo, fashion of exhibiting a cross on the'
(2) Theophylactus, (3) Stauracius, (4) reverse. After the association of his,
Nicetas, (5) Theophano. Nicetas son he adopted the device (introduced;
(whose monastic name was Ignatius) by Constantine V.) of representing!
was 14 years old in 813, and therefore the head of his colleague. See Wroth,|_
was born in 799. From this we may Jm^). £yz. Coins, I. xl.
infer that Procopia's marriage cannot
SECT. 11
NICEPHORUS I. 15
His father took pains to choose a suitable wife for him. On
December 20, 807, a company of young girls from all
parts of the Empire was assembled in the Palace, to select a
consort for Stauracius.^ For a third time in the history of
New Eome an Athenian lady was chosen to be the bride of
a Koman Augustus. The choice of Nicephorus now fell on
Theophano, even as Constantine V. had selected Irene for
his son Leo, and nearly four centuries before Pulcheria had
discovered Athenais for her brother Theodosius. Theophano
had two advantages : she was a kinswoman of the late
Empress Irene ; and she had already (report said) enjoyed the
embraces of a man to whom she was betrothed." The second
circumstance gave Nicephorus an opportunity of asserting the
principle that the Emperor was not bound by the canonical
laws which interdicted such a union.^
If a statement of Theophanes is true, which we have no
means of disproving and no reason to doubt, the beauty of
the maidens who had presented themselves as possible brides
for the son, tempted the desires of the father ; and two, who
were more lovely than the successful Athenian, were consoled
for their disappointment by the gallantries of Nicephorus
himself on the night of his son's marriage. The monk who
records this scandal of the Imperial Palace makes no other
comment than " the rascal was ridiculed by all."
The frontiers of the Empire were maintained intact in
the reign of Nicephorus, but his campaigns were not crowned
by military glory. The death of the Caliph Harun (809 a.d.)
delivered him from a persevering foe against whom he had
been generally unsuccessful, and to whom he had been forced
to make some humiliating concessions ; but the Bulgarian
war brought deeper disgrace upon Eoman arms and was fatal
to Nicephorus himself. In an expedition which, accompanied
by his son and his son-in-law, he led across the Haemus, he
suffered himself to be entrapped, and his life paid the penalty
for his want of caution (July 26, a.d. 811).*
^ For these bride shows see below, (Theoph. 483).
p. 81. =* Cp. below, p. 34.
- Ixe/xvria-Tevfi^vriv dvSpl /cat noWaKis * Tlie Saracen and Bulgarian wars
avT(^ ffvyKoiTaaddcrav, xwptVas avrrjv oltt' of Nicephorus are described below in
auToC T(p ddXiij) ZravpaKiij) crvvi^ev^ev Chaps. VIII. and XI.
16
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE-
S 3. Stauracius
CHAP, il
The young Emperor Stauracius had been severely wounded ;
in the battle, but he succeeded in escaping to the shelter of;
Hadrianople. His sister's husband, Michael Eangab^, hadi
come off unhurt ; and two other high dignitaries, the magister :
Theoktistos,^ and Stephanos the Domestic of the Schools,
reached the city of refuge along with the surviving Augustus.
But although Stauracius was still living, it was a question
whether he could live long. His spine had been seriously >
injured, and the nobles who stood at his bedside despaired of;
his life. They could hardly avoid considering the question j
whether it would be wise at such a crisis to leave the sole !
Imperial power in the hands of one who had never shown \
any marked ability and who was now incapacitated by aj
wound, seemingly at the door of death. On the other hand, !
it migbt be said that the unanimity and prompt action which ',
the emergency demanded would be better secured by ac- i
knowledging the legitimate Emperor, however feeble he might i
be. So at least it seemed to the Domestic of the Schools, i
who lost no time in proclaiming Stauracius autokrator? \
Stauracius himself, notwithstanding his weak condition, ;
appeared in the presence of the troops who had collected at j
Hadrianople after the disaster, and spoke to them. The :
soldiers had been disgusted by the unskilfulness of the late ;
Emperor in the art of war, and it is said that the new i
Emperor sought to please them by indulging in criticisms on |
his father. I
But the magister Theoktistos,^ although he was present I
on this occasion, would have preferred another in the place of j
1 Theoktistos is undoubtedly the
same person as the quaestor who sup-
ported Nicephorus in his conspiracy
against Irene ; he was rewarded by
the high order of magister.
^ The reign of Stauracius, reckoned
from the date of his father's death,
July 26, to the day of his resignation,
Oct. 2, lasted 2 months and 8 days
{Cont. Th. 11). Theophanes gives 2
months and 6 days (495), but he
reckons perhaj^s from the date of his
proclamation at Hadrianople, which
might have been made on July 28.
It is worth noticing that Muralt and {
Hirsch (190) adduce from Theophanes
July 25 as the date of the death of !
Nicephorus. This is due to a wrong ,
reading, corrected in de Boor's edition, !
491. In Cont. Th. 11 the date is also i
given as July 26, but the death of i
Stauracius is wrongly placed on the j
day of his resignation (Oct. 2). He '
survived till Jan. 11, 812 (Theoph. i
495). '
^ The divergent views of Stephanos I
and Theoktistos are expressly noted
by Theophanes, 492.
SECT. Ill STAURACIUS 17
Stauracius. And there was one who had a certain eventual
3laim to the crown, and might be supposed not unequal to its
burdens, Michael Eangabe, the Curopalates and husband of
bhe princess Procopia. It would not have been a violent
measure if, in view of the precarious condition of her brother,
Procopia's husband had been immediately invested with the
insignia of empire. Such a course could have been abundantly-
justified by the necessity of having an Emperor capable of
meeting the dangers to be apprehended from the triumphant
Bulgarian foe. Theoktistos and others pressed Michael to
assume the diadem, and if he had been willing Stauracius
would not have reigned a week. But Michael declined at
bhis juncture, and the orthodox historian, who admires and
Lauds him, attributes his refusal to a regard for his oath of
allegiance " to Nicephorus and Stauracius." ^
The wounded Emperor was removed in a litter from
Hadrianople to Byzantium. The description of the con-
sequence of his hurt ^ shows that he must have suffered much
physical agony, and the chances of his recovery were diminished
by his mental anxieties. He had no children, and the
question was, who was to succeed him. On the one hand,
his sister Procopia held that the Imperial power rightly
devolved upon her husband and her children. On the other
hand, there was another lady, perhaps even more ambitious
than Procopia, and dearer to Stauracius. The Athenian
Theophano might hope to play the part of her kinswoman
Irene, and reign as sole mistress of the Eoman Empire.^
Concerning the intrigues which were spun round the
bedside of the young Emperor in the autumn months (August
and September) of 811, our contemporary chronicle gives
only a slight indication. The influence of Theophano caused
her husband to show marked displeasure to the ministers
Stephanos and Theoktistos, and to his brother-in-law Michael,
and also to regard with aversion his sister Procopia, whom he
suspected of conspiring against his life.'* As his condition
' Ih. /xifxtjcnv r^s fj.aKapias l*^lprii/7)S Kpar-qaeiv
'^ The wound is characterized as ijXTn^e ttjs /SacrtXeias dTrats oOaa.
mortal {Kaipluis) Kara roO tnrovdvXov to ■* The words of Theophanes are here
de^ibu fj.ipos. The consequence was, 5t' ambiguous, and the sense depends on
oi"pw(/ aluoppayrjcras d/x^rpcos Kare^ripdvdT) the punctuation. De Boor punctuates
M'?.ooi)s Kal (TKeXr]. tlius : dwoaTpecpd/J.ei'OS TrdvTrj kuI llpo-
^ lb. aiirlKa yap i] rdXaiva Kara Koiriav rrju Idiav d5f\(priv, ws iTn^ovXeu-
C
J
18 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap.
grew worse and he saw that his days were numbered, he waverec
between two alternative plans for the future of the Empire
One of these was to devolve the succession on his wif(
Theophano.
The other alternative conceived by Stauracius is &
strange that we hardly know what to make of it. The ide
comes to us as a surprise in the pages of a ninth-centurj
chronicle. It appears that this Emperor, as he felt deatl
approaching, formed the conception of changing the Imperial
constitution into a democracy.^ It was the wild vision of i\
morbid brain, but we cannot help wondering how Stauraciu!
would have proceeded in attempting to carry out such ti
scheme. Abstractly, indeed, so far as the constitutional
aspect was concerned, it would have been simple enough I
The Imperial constitution might be abolished and a demo-
cratic republic established, in theory, by a single measurei
All that he had to do was to repeal a forgotten lawi
which had regulated the authority of the early Caesars, audi
thereby restore to the Eoman people the powers which it hacj
delegated to the Imperator more than seven hundred yearsj
before. Of the Lex de imperio Stauracius had probably neveii
heard, nor is it likely that he had much knowledge of the
early constitutional history of Eome. Perhaps it was fromi
ancient Athens that he derived the political idea which, in
the circumstances of his age, was a chimera ; and to his wife;
thirsty for power, he might have said, " Athens, your own city!
has taught the world that democracy is the best and noblest
form of government." 1
The intervention of the Patriarch Nicephorus at thisj
juncture helped to determine and secure the progress oij
events. He was doubtless relieved at the death of his starkj
namesake, however much he may have been distressed at the!
calamity which brought it about ; and we are told that, when;
Stauracius arrived at Constantinople, the Patriarch hastened!
to give him ghostly advice and exhort him to console those
who had been pecuniarily wronged by his father, by makingj
cacroLV avry rah Qeocpavovs ttjs avyovar-q^ diroffTpecpdinevos. The insinuations oii
vno^o\a7s. The meaning of this would his wife caused the aversion oij
be that Theophano suborned Procopia Stauracius to his sister. i
to plot against Stauracius. It is clear ^ lb. t) drj/jLOKpaTiav eydpai. Xpicmavoh
that we should punctuate after avT(^ iirl rots nrpoKa^ovai ^-a^-o^s (" to crown,
and connect rats virofioKah Avith their misfortunes"). i
SECT. Ill STAURACIUS 19
restitution. But like his sire, according to the partial
chronicler, Stauracius was avaricious, and was unwilling to
sacrifice more than three talents ^ in this cause, although that
sum was but a small fraction of the monies wrongfully appro-
priated by the late Emperor. The Patriarch failed in his
errand at the bedside of the doomed monarch, but he hoped
that a new Emperor, of no doubtful voice in matters of ortho-
doxy, would soon sit upon the throne. And it appeared that
it would be necessary to take instant measures for securing
the succession to this legitimate and desirable candidate. The
strange designs of Stauracius and the ambition of Theophano
alarmed Nicephorus, and he determined to prevent all danger
of a democracy or a sovran Augusta by anticipating the death
of the Emperor and placing Michael on the throne. At the
end of September he associated himself, for this purpose, with
Stephanos and Theoktistos. The Emperor was already con-
templating the cruelty of depriving his brother-in-law of
eyesight, and on the first day of October he summoned the
Domestic of the Schools to his presence and proposed to blind
Michael that very night. It is clear that at this time
Stauracius placed his entire trust in Stephanos, the man who
had proclaimed him at Hadrianople, and he knew not that
this officer had since then veered round to the view of
Theoktistos. Stephanos pointed out that it was too late, and
took care to encourage his master in a feeling of security.
The next day had been fixed by the conspirators for the
elevation of the Curopalates, and throughout the night troops
were filing into the Hippodrome to shout for the new
Emperor."^ In the early morning the senators arrived; and
^ It is to be presumed that three parts of the Great Hippodrome, the
talents means three litrai (£129 : 12s.). northern part being roofed over, the
The mere fact that Stauracius could southern uncovered. But this view
oifer such a sum shows that the is untenable, and Bieliaev is also
Patriarch's demand must have referred wrong in placing the Kathisma — the
to some small and particular cases of building in which the Emperor sat
injustice suffered by individuals. when he witnessed the races — between
^ Theoph. 493 ec ry cr/ceiraory linro- these two portions. The Kathisma
dpojjup. Labarte (131-2) supposed that was at the north end of the Hippo-
this covered hippodrome was inside drome. Ebersolt (Le Grand Palais,
the Palace (Paspates actually assumed 157-8) holds that the northern part
two hippodromes, one roofed, the other was uncovered, the southern covered,
unroofed, within the Palace : rk Bi^f. This view is equally improbable. I
av. 249 sqq.). In irepl Ta|. 507 6 Karu} hope to show elsewhere that "the
(T/cfTrao-Tos itttt. and 6 daK^wacTTos 'nrir, roofed Hippodrome " was contiguous
are mentioned together. Bieliaev sup- to the great "unroofed" Hippodrome,
posed that they are only different though not part of the Palace.
20 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap.
the coustitutioual formalities of election preliminary to thel
coronation were complied with (Oct. 2, a.d. 811). Michaell
Kangab^ was proclaimed " Emperor of the Konians " by thel
Senate and the residential troops ^ — that remnant of them'
which had escaped from the field of blood beyond the Haemus.,
Meanwhile the Emperor, who had been less lucky on that
fatal day, escaping only to die after some months of pain, was
sleeping or tossing in the Imperial bedchamber, unconscious
of the scene which was being enacted not many yards away.
But the message was soon conveyed to his ears, and he
hastened to assume the visible signs of abdication by which
deposed Emperors were wont to disarm the fears or jealousy
of their successors. A monk, named Simeon, and a kinsman:
of his own, tonsured him and arrayed him in monastic garb,;
and he prepared to spend the few days of life left to him in a
lowlier place and a lowlier station. But before his removal
from the Palace his sister Procopia, in company with her
Imperial husband and the Patriarch Nicephorus, visited him.j
They endeavoured to console him and to justify the step wliichi
had been taken ; they repudiated the charge of a conspiracy,!
and explained their act as solely necessitated by his hopeless:
condition. Stauracius, notwithstanding their plausible argu-
ments, felt bitter ; he thought that the Patriarch had dealt!
doubly with him. " You will not find," he said to Nicephorus,
" a better friend than me." ^ ,
Nicephorus took the precaution of requiring from Michael,'
before he performed the ceremony of coronation, a written
assurance of his orthodoxy and an undertaking to do noi
violence to ecclesiastics, secular or regular.^ The usual pro-;
cession was formed ; the Imperial train proceeded from the!
Palace to the Cathedral ; and the act of coronation was duly;
accomplished in the presence of the people.* The rejoicings,
we are told, were universal, and we may believe that therei
was a widespread feeling of relief, that an Emperor sound ini
^ The Tagmata (Theoph. ih.). vised by the author. I
- Theoph. 493 <pi\ov avrov Kpehrom ^ The importance of this under-]
o^X evp-ficreii. Anastasius seems right taking, in its constitutional aspect,
in rendering aurov by me. Perhaps Mill be considered below in Section 5.
^fiov should be inserted, or perhaps •* The proclamation in the Hippo-i
we should read evp-qaeiv. I suspect, drome was at the first hour (6 o'clock),'
however, that the last pages of his the coronation at the fourth. Theoph.j
chronography were insufficiently re- ib.
ECT. Ill STAURACIUS 21
imb was again at the head of the state. The bounty of
VTichael gave cause, too, for satisfaction on the first day of his
-eicn. He bestowed on the Patriarch, who had done so much
n helping him to the throne, the sum of 50 lbs. of gold
£2160), and to the clergy of St. Sophia he gave half that
imount.^
The unfortunate Stauracius ^ lived on for more than three
aionths, but towards the end of that time the corruption of
tiis wound became so horrible that no one could approach him
for the stench. On the 11th of January 812 he died, and
tvas buried in the new monastery of Braka. This was a
handsome building, given to Theophano by the generosity of
Procopia when she resolved, like her husband, to retire to a
3loister.^
S 4. Reign and Policy of Michael I.
It is worth while to note how old traditions or prejudices,
surviving from the past history of the Koman Empire, gradu-
ally disappeared. We might illustrate the change that had
come over the " Eomans " since the age of Justinian, by the
fact that in the second year of the ninth century a man of
Semitic stock ascends the throne, and is only prevented by
chance from founding a dynasty, descended from the
Ghassauids. He bears a name, too, which, though Greek and
common at the time, was borne by no Emperor before him.
His son's name is Greek too, but unique on the Imperial list,
A hundred years before men who had names which sounded
strange in collocation with Basileus and Augustus (such as
Artemius and Apsimar) adopted new names which had an
^ At the end of the ninth century ar-qpLov Ta'E^paLKa. XeySfievov avrfj nap-
the custom was for the Emperor, on ecxe;' [Mtxa'')M ^"^ct STaupd/ctos irafpri
his accession, to give 100 lbs. of gold {ib. 494). The locality is not known,
to the Great Church (St. Sophia) It is called to. BpaKoi in George Mon.
(Philotheos, ed. Bury, 135). This 776. Is the name really derived from
would include the present to the Stmiracius : 'ZravpaKiov being taken
Patriarch. for crra Bpadov ? Pargoire (Les Mon.
^ Michael Syr. (70) has recorded a de Saint Ign. 72) sa,ys: " rd Srai/pa/c/oD
serious charge against Proco])ia, which dont le peuple fit plus tard to. ^paKo,
he found in the chronicle of Diouysios et les demi-savants Td'E/Spai/cd." This
of Tell-Mahre. An intelligent and is a seductive idea ; my difficulty is
well-informed inhabitant of Constanti- that the form "E/3pal'/cd occurs in Theo-
nople told Dionysios that Procopia phanes, who wrote only a couple of
administered a deadly poison to her years later, and must have known the
brother. true name, if that name had been only
■* ev oh Kal eTriarj/jLov oIkov eis jxova- then given to the monastery.
22 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
Imperial ring (such as Anastasius and Tiberius). It was
instinctively felt then that a Bardanes was no fit person to I
occupy the throne of the Caesars, and therefore he became j
Philippicus. But this instinct was becoming weak in a city
where strange names, strange faces, and strange tongues were I
growing every year more familiar. The time had come whenj
men of Armenian, Slavonic, or even Semitic origin might
aspire to the highest positions in Church and State, to the
Patriarchate and the Empire. The time had come at last
when it was no longer deemed strange that a successor of
Constantine should be a Michael.
The first Michael belonged to the Eangabe family, of
which we now hear for the first time.^ He was in the prime ;
of manhood when he came to the throne ; his hair was black \
and curling,^ he wore a black beard, and his face was round.
He seems to have been a mild and good-humoured man, but i
totally unfit for the position to which chance had raised him. \
As a general he was incapable ; as an administrator he was i
injudicious ; as a financier he was extravagant. Throughout i
his short reign he was subject to the will of a woman and the
guidance of a priest. It may have been the ambition of|
Procopia that led him to undertake the duties of a sovran ; j
and she shared largely in the administration.^ Ten days 1
after her lord's coronation, Procopia — daughter and sister, |
now wife, of an Emperor — was crowned Augusta in the 1
throne-room of Augusteus, in the Palace of Daphne, and she
courted the favour of the Senators by bestowing on them \
many gifts. She distributed, moreover, five pounds of gold
^ Cont. Til. 12 iK yeveds 5^ /car- '^ Scr. Incert. 341 iiriayovpov ( =
ayo/x^vov rov 'Pa77a/3e. Before his o-yvpav, curly), the right reading, as
elevation he dwelled near the Man- de Boor has shown {£.Z. ii. 297). It
gana. His father's name was Theophy- may be noted here that the Byzantines
lactus : Nicetas, Vit. Ignatii (Mansi, regularly wore beards. There was a
xvi. 210). Family surnames begin strong prejudice against beardless
to become frequent in the ninth men {cnravol), who were popularly
century. They are constantly indi- regarded as dangerous ; cp. the j
cated by the idiom 6 /card (as well as modern Greek proverb, dTro awavov \
€k). For instance, a man of the dvdpwirov jj.aKpva ra povxd <tov : see for
family of the Melissenoi might be this, and for further illustration,
called M. 6 MeXiffo-nvd^ or M. 6 /card Krumbacher, G.B.L. 809. Michael,
Tbv MekLdurjpbv or M. 6 /card toi)s MeXiff- of course, appears bearded on his
a-qvois or M. 6 iK tQiv MeX. {KaTaywv coins, but the face is only conven-
To yivo^). For Byzantine surnames see tional. I
H. Moritz, Die Zunamen bei den byz. ^ ggp^ Incert. 335 avrr] yap fjv I
Historikern und Chronistcn, Teil i. diandovffa iravra ra, rrjs ^affiXeias.
1896-97, Teil ii. 1897-98 (Landshut).
SECT. IV MICHAEL I. 23
(£216) among the widows of the soldiers who had fallen with
her father in Bulgaria. Nor did she forget her sister-in-law,
who, if things had fallen out otherwise, might have been her
sovran lady. Theophano had decided to end her life as a
nun. Her triumphant rival enriched her, and, as has been
already mentioned, gave her a noble house, which was con-
verted into a cloister. Nor were the poor kinsfolk of
Theophano neglected by the new Augusta. It was said at
least that in the days of Nicephorus they had lived in pitiable
penury, as that parsimonious Emperor would not allow his
daughter-in-law to expend money in assisting them ; but this
may be only an ill-natured invention.
The following Christmas day was the occasion of another
coronation and distribution of presents.^ Theophylactus, the
eldest son of Michael, was crowned in the ambo of the Great
Church. On this auspicious day the Emperor placed in the
Sanctuary of St. Sophia a rich offering of golden vessels,
inlaid with gems, and antique curtains for the ciborium, woven
of gold and purple and embroidered with pictures of sacred
subjects.^ It w^as a day of great rejoicing in the city, and
people surely thought that the new sovran was beginning his
reign well ; he had made up his mind to ask for his son the
hand of a daughter of the great Charles, the rival Emperor.^
The note of Michael's policy was reaction, both against
the ecclesiastical policy of Nicephorus, as we shall see, and
also against the parsimony and careful book-keeping which
had rendered that monarch highly unpopular.* Procopia and
Michael hastened to diminish the sums which Nicephorus had
^ To the Patriarch were given 25 thus {Descr. S. Soph, v. 767) :
lbs of gold to the clergy 100 ^ 5> ^ ^^ ,Vi TrXevpvai
(Theoph. 494). According to Philo- ^ .aXvTrrpas
theos (136) the second or subordinate ^ g^^,^,^, Trerdaavres.
Emperor gave only 50 lbs. altogether
to the Church. See above, p. 21, n. See Ducange, Const. Christ. B. iii.
1. Theophanes says that Michael Ixv. p. 37.
crowned his son inrb 'NiKr](p6pov. ^ (Tu>'aXXa7r5s et's 0eo(/)i/Xa/croi' (ib.).
Nicephorus assisted, but Michael, if Theophylactus was only a boy ; he is
present as he presumably was, placed beardless on the coins on the reverse
the crown himself on the head of of which his bust appears (Wroth, ii.
Theophylactus. Cp. Bury, Co7ist. of 405 sqq.). ■
Later iJ. Empire, 16 and 46, n. 11. ■* In temper Michael resembled the
^ These curtains were called re- parsimonious Anastasius I., who (like
Tpd|37jXa, and are often mentioned in Nerva) was called mtiissMjms ; Michael
the Liber pontificalis (cp. i. p. 375). is YaXTjcoraTos (Theoph.) Cp. Scr.
Paul the Silentiary mentions them Incert. 335 (n-paos) and 341.
24 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
hoarded, and much money was scattered abroad in alms.^
Churches and monasteries were enriched . and endowed ;
hermits who spent useless lives in desert places were sought
out to receive of the august bounty ; religious hostelries and
houses for the poor were not forgotten. The orphan and the
widow had their wants supplied ; and the fortunes of decayed
gentle people were partially resuscitated. All this liberality
made the new lord and lady highly popular ; complimentary
songs were composed by the demes and sung in public in their
honour.^ The stinginess and avarice of Nicephorus were now
blotted out, and amid the general jubilation few apprehended
that the unpopular father-in-law was a far abler ruler than
his bountiful successor.
It was naturally part of the reactionary policy to recall
those whom Nicephorus had banished and reinstate those
whom he had degraded.^ The most eminent of those who
returned was Leo the Armenian, son of Bardas. We have
met this man before. We saw how he took part in the
revolt of Bardanes against Nicephorus, and then, along with
his companion in arms, Michael the Amorian, left his rebellious
commander in the lurch. We saw how Nicephorus rewarded
him by making him Count of the Federates.* He sub-
sequently received a command in the Anatolic Theme, but for
gross carelessness and neglect of his duties ^ he was degraded
from his post, whipped, and banished in disgrace. He was
recalled by Michael, who appointed him General of the
Anatolic Theme, with the dignity of Patrician — little guess-
ing that he was arming one who would dethrone himself and
deal ruthlessly with his children. Afterwards when the
General of the Anatolics had become Emperor of the Eomans,
^ See Theoph. 494, and Scr. Incert. nothing of his disgrace, which we
335, 336. learn from the Fragment of the
^ Scr. Incert. ih. Scriptor Incertus and Coiit. Th., and
., (2) omits to mention in this passage
that Michael made him arpaTriybs tCiv
•* See above, p. 13. According to 'AvaToKiKwv.
Genesios (10) he was inroarpaT-nyos tCov « jjg gg^^g himself up to luxury
'AvaroKiKSiv subsequently to his tenure and idleness iv ■n-oXixi'v 'Evxat.Twv
of the captaincy of the Federates, and (C07U. Th. 11). Euchai"ta, in the
then Michael advanced him to the Armeniac Theme, lay west of Amasea,
dignity of Patrician. It is probable on the road to Gangra ; see the dis-
that Leo was a turmarch of the cussion in Anderson, Stndia Pontica,
Anatolics when he was disgraced ; i. 7 sqq. He equates it with the
but observe that Genesios (1) knows modern Ehvan Chelebi.
SECT. IV
MICHAEL I. 25
it was said that signs and predictions of the event were not
wanting. Among the tales that were told was one of a little
jlave-girl of the Emperor, who was subject to visitations of
' the spirit of Pytho." ^ On one occasion when she was thus
seized she went down from the Palace to the seashore below,
near the harbour of Bucoleon,^ and cried with a loud voice,
addressing the Emperor, " Come down, come down, resign
what is not thine ! " These words she repeated again and
acfain. The attention of those in the Palace above was
attracted ; the Emperor heard the fatal cry, and attempted
to discover what it meant. He bade his intimate friend
rheodotos Kassiteras ^ to see that when the damsel was next
seized she should be confined within doors, and to investigate
bhe meaning of her words. To whom did the Palace belong,
if not to its present lord ? Theodotos was too curious himself
bo fail to carry out his master's order, and the girl made an
interesting communication. She told him the name and
mark of the true Lord of the Palace, and urged him to visit
the acropolis at a certain time, where he would meet two
men, one of them riding on a mule. This man, she said, was
destined to sit on the Imperial throne. The cunning spatharo-
candidate took good care not to reveal his discovery to his
master. Questioned by Michael, he pretended that he could
make nothing of the ravings of the possessed girl. But
he did not fail to watch in the prescribed place at the pre-
scribed time for the man who was to come riding on a mule.
It fell out as the damsel said ; Leo the Armenian appeared on
1 This story is told by Genesios Bucoleon (from a marble group of a
(10, 11), but I doubt whether he lion and bull). Genesios here (10)
had the tale from popular hearsay, says that the girl stood ev xt^P'V
which he mentions as one of his \iQlvi^ 8 vpoaayopeverai. BovKoXeiov.
sources (3) ^/c re (p-qixrjs dTJdev dpafxovaijs Perhaps this was a paved place round
7iK0VTiffiJ.ivos. See Hirsch, 124. The the group. I think it may be inferred
story of the possessed woman who from this passage that in the time of
brought forth a monster, in the EpisL the writer from whom Genesios derived
Synod. Orient, ad Theo2)h. 367, is the story Bucoleon had not yet been
regarded by Hirsch as a variant ; but applied to the port and palace,
it is quite different ; this Pythoness * He belonged to the important
was consulted by Leo. family of Melissenos. His father,
''^ Millingen ( Walls, 269 sqq. ) shows Michael, was strategos of the Anatolics
that Hammer was right in identifying under Constantine V., and married a
the port of Bucoleon with Ghatlady sister of that Emperor's third wife
Kapu (a water-gate on the level Eudocia ((n'77a/i/3po?, Scr. Incert. 360).
ground below the Hippodrome), and He afterwards became Patriarch. For
that the port and palace of Hormisdas the family of the Melissenoi, see
were the older names for the port and Ducange, Fam. Byz. 145.
palace called by tenth-century writers
26 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
a mule ; and the faithless Theodotos hastened to tell him the
secret and secure his favour. This story, noised abroad at i
the time and remembered long afterwards, is highly charac-
teristic of the epoch, and the behaviour of Theodotos is \
thoroughly in the character of a Byzantine palace official.
In matters that touched the Church the pliant Emperor \
was obedient to the counsels of the Patriarch. In matters
that touched the State he seems also to have been under the
influence of a counsellor, and one perhaps whose views were
not always in harmony with those of the head of the Church.
No single man had done more to compass the elevation of
Michael than the Magister Theoktistos. This minister had
helped in the deposition of Irene, and he was probably
influential, though he played no prominent part, in the reign
of Nicephorus. Nicephorus was not one who stood in need
of counsellors, except in warfare ; but in Michael's reign
Theoktistos stood ne.ar the helm and was held responsible by
his contemporaries for the mistakes of the helmsman. The
admirers of the orthodox Emperor were forced to admit that,
notwithstanding his piety and his clemency, he was a bad
pilot for a state, and they threw the blame of the false course
on Theoktistos among others.^ It was Theoktistos, we may
suspect, who induced Michael to abandon the policy, advocated
by the Patriarch, of putting to death the Paulician heretics.^
But Michael's reign was destined to be brief. The struggle
of the Empire with the powerful and ambitious Bulgarian
kingdom was fatal to his throne, as it had been fatal to the
throne of Nicephorus. In the spring, a.d. 813, Michael took
the field at the head of a great army which included the Asiatic
as well as the European troops. Michael was no general,
but the overwhelming defeat which he experienced at Versinicia
(June 22) was probably due to the treachery of the Anatolic
regiments under the command of Leo the Armenian.^ f
Michael himself escaped. Whether he understood the
import of what had happened or not, it is impossible to
1 Theoph. 500 ; also 497 rais rCiv war with Bulgaria. See also a letter
KaKO(rv/xl3oij'\(x}v ei(rr)yT}(T€(nv. addressed to him by Theodore in a.d.
'^ We can infer from some words of 808, Epp. i. 24, p. 981.
Theophanes that Theodore of Studion ^ For the Bulgarian war in a.d.
was an ally of Theoktistos : 498 ot 812, 813, and the circumstances of the
5^ KaKol crvfjL^ov\oL {i.e. Theoktistos defeat, see below, Chap. XI. § 3.
chiefly) aw QeoSupip were in favour of
SECT. IV MICHAEL I. 27
decide ; but one would think that he must have scented
treacheiy. Certain it is that he committed the charge of the
whole army to the man who had either played him false or
been the unwitting cause of the false play. A contemporary
author states that he chose Leo as " a pious and most valiant
man." ^ A chronicler writing at the beginning of Leo's reign
might put it thus. But two explanations are possible : Michael
may have been really blind, and believed his general's specious
representations ; or he may have understood the situation
perfectly and consigned the power to Leo in order to save his
own life.' Of the alternatives the latter perhaps is the more
likely. In any case, the Emperor soon foresaw what the end
must be, and if he did not see it for himself, there was one to
point it out to him when he reached Constantinople two days
after the battle. A certain man, named John Hexabulios, to
whom the care of the city wall had been committed, met
Michael on his arrival, and commiserating with him, inquired
whom he had left in charge of the army. On hearing the
name of Leo, Hexabulios exclaimed at the imprudence of his
master : Why did he give such an opportunity to such a
dangerous man ? The Emperor feigned to be secure, but he
secretly resolved to abdicate the throne. The Empress
Procopia was not so ready to resign the position of the
greatest lady in the Empire to " Barca," as she sneeringly
called the wife of Leo,^ and the ministers of Michael were not
all prepared for a change of master. Theoktistos and Stephanos
consoled him and urged him not to abdicate.'* Michael
thought, or feigned to think, that the disaster was a divine
punishment, and indeed this supposition was the only
alternative to the theory of treachery. " The Christians
1 Theoph. 502. Empresses (perhaps the same as the
2 This alternative did not occur to Tv/j.Trdvioi', see Ducange, Gloss., s.v.), so
Hirsch. He regards the fact that called from its shape. Compare the
Michael charged Leo with the com- hat worn by Theodora, wife of Michael
mand as a proof of Leo's innocence. VIIL, shown in Ducange, Fam. Byz.
The story of Hexabulios is told in- 191 (from a MS. of Pachymeres).
dependently by Genesios and Cont. The bronze Tyche in the Forum of
Th. Constantine had something of this
^ Theophanes, ib., mentions her un- kind on her head (/xera /xo8iov, Patria
willingness, but in Cont. Th. 18 her Cpl p. 205).
jealousy of "Barca" is mentioned. ■* Theoph. ih. Manuel the proto-
She was furious at the idea that Leo's strator is specially mentioned in Cont.
wife should place the modiolon on her Th., ib., as opposed to Michael's resig-
head. This was a head-dress wprn by nation.
28
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. I
have suffered this," said the weeping Emperor in a council of
his patricians, " on account of my sins. God hates the
Empire of my father-in-law and his race. For we were more
than the enemy, and yet none had heart, but all fled." ^ The
advice of the Patriarch Nicephorus did not coincide with the
counsels of the patricians. He was inclined to approve
Michael's first intention ; he saw that the present reign could
not last, and thought that, if Michael himself proposed a
successor, that successor might deal mercifully with him and
his children.
Meanwhile the soldiers were pressing Leo to assume the
Imperial title without delay. The general of the Anatolics at
first resisted, and pretended to be loyal to the Emperor at '
such a dangerous crisis, when the enemy were in the land.
But when he saw ^ that the Bulgarians intended to advance
on Constantinople, he no longer hesitated to seize the prize :
which had been placed within his reach. He did not intend
to enter the Imperial city in any other guise than as an
Emperor accepted by the army ; and the defence of Con-
stantinople could not be left in the hands of Michael. It i
may be asked why Leo did not attempt to hinder Krum from I
advancing, by forcing him to fight another battle, in which ''■
there should be no feigned panic. The answer is that it was i
almost impossible to inveigle the Bulgarians into a pitched \
battle when they did not wish. Their prince could not fail to {
have perceived the true cause of his victory, and he was not
likely to be willing to risk another combat.
July had already begun when Leo at length took the step i
of writing a letter to the Patriarch. In it he affirmed his '
own orthodoxy ; he set forth his new hopes, and asked the :
blessing and consent of the head of the Church. Immediately |
after this he arrived at Hebdomon, and was proclaimed in i
the Tribunal legitimate ^ Emperor of the Komans by the {
^ This is related by Scr. Incert.
339-340. It is stated in Cont. Tli.
that Michael secretly sent by a trusty
servant I the Imperial insignia (the
diadem, the purple robe, and the red
shoes) to Leo ; hence the anger
of Procopia, mentioned in the last
note but one. Theophanes does not
mention this. In the richly illus-
trated Madrid MS. of Skylitzes (14th
cent.) — in which older pictures are
reproduced — Michael is represented as
crowning Leo ; both are standing on a
raised shield. See Diehl, L'Art byzan-
tin, 778. For 'another story of the
resignation see Michael Syr. 70.
^ This moment in the situation is
mentioned by Theophanes, ih.
■' ivvo/xwraros, ih. For the Palace
of Hebdomon (which van Millingen
SFXT. IV MICHAEL I. 29
assembled army. On Monday, July 11, at mid-day, he entered
by the Gate of Charisios ^ and proceeded to the Palace ; on
Tuesday he was crowned in the ambo of St. Sophia by the
Patriarch.
When the tidings came that Leo had been proclaimed, the
fallen Emperor with his wife and children hastened to assume
monastic garb and take refuge in the Church of the Virgin of
the Pharos.^ Thus they might hope to avert the suspicions
of him who was entering into their place ; thus they might
hope to secure at least their lives and an obscure retreat.
The lives of all were spared ; ^ the father, the mother, and the
daughters escaped without any bodily harm, but the sons
were not so lucky. Leo anticipated the possibility of future
conspiracies in favour of his predecessor's male children by
mutilating them. In eunuchs he would have no rivals to
fear. The mutilation which excluded from the most exalted
position in the State did not debar, however, from the most
exalted position in the Church ; and Nicetas, who was just
fourteen years old when he underwent the penalty of being an
Emperor's son, will meet us again as the Patriarch Ignatius.^
Parents and children were not allowed to have the solace of
living together ; they were transported to different islands.
Procopia was immured in the monastery dedicated to her
namesake St. Procopia.^ Michael, under the name of
proved to be situated at Makri-Keui Nikolaos Mesaritcs, Die Palastrevolu-
on the Marmora) and the Tribunal, tion des Johannes Komnenos, 1907).
see Bieliaev, iii. 57 sqq. The Tri- See further Ebersolt, 104 sqq.
bunal was evidently a large paved ^ On the fate of Michael and his
place, close to the Palace, with a tri- family, the most important records
bunal or tribunals. Theodosius II., are Co7i<. Th. 19-20, and Nicetas, Vit.
Constantine V., and others had been Ign. 212-213. Genesios is not so well
proclaimedEmperors in the same place. informed as Cont. Th., and speaks as
^ This gate (also called the Gate of if Ignatius alone suffered mutilation.
Polyandrion) was on the north side of ■* The eldest son, Theophylactus, his
the river Lycus and identical with father's colleague, was less distin-
Edirne Kapu, as van Millingen has guished. He also became a monk
proved (83 sqq.). The street from this and changed his name, but Eustratios
gate led directly to the Church of the did not rival the fame of Ignatius.
Apostles, and Leo must have followed Of the third, Stauracius, called per-
this route. haps after his uncle, we only hear that
^ This church had been built by he died before his father.
Constantine V. It was easily access- ® The site is unknown. It was
ible from the Chrysotriklinos, being founded by Justin I., who was buried
situated apparently between this there (cjx Ducange, Const. Christ.
building and the Pharos, which was Bk. iv. p. 112), and is to be distin-
close to the seashore. There is a de- guished from the monastery of Proco-
scription of the church in Mesarites plus, which the Empress Procopia is
(29 sqq. in Heisenberg's Programm, said to have founded {ib.).
30 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
Athanasius, eked out the remainder of his life in the rocky islet
of Plate/ making atonement for his sins, and the new Emperor
provided him with a yearly allowance for his sustenance. By
one of those strange coincidences, which in those days might
seem to men something more than chance, the death of
Michael occurred '" on an anniversary of the death of the rival
whom he had deposed. The 11th day of January, which had
relieved Stauracius from his sufferings, relieved Michael from
the regrets of fallen greatness. He was buried on the right
side of the altar in the church of the island where he died.
Opposite, on the left, was placed, five years later, the body of
the monk Eustratios, who had once been the Augustus
Theophylactus. This, however, was not destined to be the
final resting-place of Michael Eangabe. Many years after,
the Patriarch Ignatius remembered the grave of his Imperial
father, and having exhumed the remains, transferred them to
a new monastery which he had himself erected and dedicated
to the archangel Michael at Satyros, on the Bithynian
mainland, opposite to the Prince's islands. This monastery
of Satyros was also called by the name of Anatellon or the
Eiser, an epithet of the archangel. The story was that the
Emperor Nicephorus was hunting in the neighbourhood, where
there was good cover for game, and a large stag was pulled
down by the hounds. On this spot was found an old table,
supported by a pillar, with an inscription on this wise : " This
is the altar of the Arch-Captain {ap-)(^i(npaTrj<yov) Michael, the
Rising Star, which the apostle Andrew set up." ^
1 Oxeia and Plate are the two most steriktos, writing in the latter years
westerly islands of the Prince's group. of Michael II., speaks of Michael I. as
Cont. Th. states (20) that Michael alive [Vit. Nicct. xxix. 6 vvv ^tl iv
went to Plate, Nicetas {Vit. Ign. 211) fiovaSiKi^ Biairpiirwv d^idi/xaTL).
says vaguely irpbs rets TrpLyKiireiovs '^ The anecdote is told in Conf.
vrjcrovs (and that Procopia went with Th. 21. Hirsch (178) referred tlie
him). Some modern historians follow anecdote to Nicephorus II., and drew
Skyiitzes (Cedrenus, ii. 48 ; Zonaras, conclusions as to the revision of Co7it. i
iii. 319) in stating that he was banished T/i. But Nicephorus I. is unquestion-
to the large island of Prote, the most ably meant. Cp. Brooks, £.Z. x. 416- ;
northerly of the group (Finlay, ii. 417. Pargoire has shown that Igna- |
112 ; Schlumberger, Les lies des tins did not found this monastery
Princes, 36 ; Marin, 33). For a till his second Patriarchate in the
description of Plate see Schlumberger, reign of Basil I. [Les Hon. de Saint j
ih. 296 sqq. Ign. 71 sqq.), and has proved the
2 Cont. Th. 20, A.M. 6332 = A. d. approximate position of the monas-
839-840 (reckoning by the Alexandrine tery. For the topography of the
era) ; cp. Muralt, sub 840. Theo- coast, see below, p. 133.
SECT. V ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF NICEPHORUS 31
^ 5. Ecclesiastical Policies of Nicephorus I. and Michael I.
The principle that the authority of the autocrat was
supreme in ecclesiastical as well as secular administration had
heen fundamental in the Empire since the days of Constantine
the Great, who took it for granted ; and, in spite of sporadic
attempts to assert the independence of the Church, it always
prevailed at Byzantium. The affairs of the Church were
virtually treated as a special department of the affairs of the
State, and the Patriarch of Constantinople was the minister of
religion and public worship. This theory of the State Church
was expressed in the fact that it was the function of the
Emperor both to convoke and to preside at Church Councils,
which, in the order of proceedings, were modelled on the
Eoman Senate.^ It was expressed in the fact that the canons
ordained by ecclesiastical assemblies were issued as laws by
the Imperial legislator, and that he independently issued edicts
relating to Church affairs. It is illustrated by those mixed
synods which were often called to decide ecclesiastical questions
and consisted of the dignitaries of the Court as well as the
dignitaries of the Church.
The Seventh Ecumenical Council (a.d. 787) marks an
epoch in the history of the relations between Church and
State. On that occasion the right of presiding was transferred
from the sovran to the Patriarch, but this concession to the
Church was undoubtedly due to the fact that the Patriarch
Tarasius had been a layman and Imperial minister, who had
been elevated to the Patriarchal throne in defiance of the
custom which had hitherto prevailed of preferring only monks
to such high ecclesiastical posts. The significance of the
epoch of the Seventh Council is that a new principle was
signalized : the assertion of ecclesiastical independence in
questions of dogma, and the assertion of the autocrat's will in
all matters pertaining to ecclesiastical law and administration.
This was the view which guided the policy of Tarasius, who
represented what has been called " the third party," ^ standing
between the extreme theories of thorough -going absolutism,
' Gelzer, Staat und Kirche, 198. ^ Qelzer, ib. 228 sqq. He compares
See this able article for the whole it to the ^jar^i 2^olitique in France in
history of the Imperial authority over the reigns of Henry III. and Henry
the Church. IV.
32 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
which had been exercised by such monarchs as Justinian, Leo
III. and Constantine V., and of complete ecclesiastical inde-
pendence, of which the leading advocate at this time was
Theodore, the abbot of Studion. The doctrine of the third
party was ultimately, but not without opposition and protest,
victorious ; and the ecclesiastical interest of the reign of
Nicephorus centres in this question.
Tarasius, who had submitted by turns to the opposite
policies of Constantine VI. and Irene, was an ideal Patriarch
in the eyes of Nicephorus. He died on February 25, a.d,
806,^ and the Emperor looked for a man of mild and
complacent disposition to succeed him. The selection of a
layman was suggested by the example of Tarasius ; a layman
would be more pliable than a priest or a monk, and more
readily understand and fall in with the Emperor's views of
ecclesiastical policy. His choice was judicious. He selected
a learned ^ man, who had recently retired from the post of
First Secretary^ to a monastery which he had built on the
Bosphorus, but had not yet taken monastic vows. He was a
man of gentle disposition, and conformed to the Imperial idea
of a model Patriarch.
The celebrated Theodore, abbot of the monastery of
Studion, now appears again upon the scene. No man con-
tributed more than he to reorganize monastic life and render
monastic opinion a force in the Empire. Nicephorus, the
Emperor, knew that he would have to reckon with the
influence of Theodore and the Studite monks, and accordingly
he sought to disarm their opposition by writing to him and
his uncle Plato before the selection of a successor to Tarasius,
and asking their advice on the matter. The letter in which
Theodore replied to the Imperial communication is extant,**
and is highly instructive. It permits us to divine that the
abbot would have been prepared to fill the Patriarchal chair
himself. He begins by flattering Nicephorus, ascribing his
1 Theoph. A.M. 6298, p. 481jg. }x-r]vl (rvvTeXovfihif} ireinrTr^v (pipovri
All the MSS. have /ce' (i.e. the 25th). cvv wevrawXri Terpadi.
De Boor reads nj', on the ground that ^ ggg ignktius, Vit. Nic. Fair. 149
the version of Anastasius, which has sqq. His learning is also shown by
duodecimo Kalendas Martias {i.e. the his extant writings.
18th), represents an older and better ^ Protoasecretes. For his monas- 11
text. This is not confirmed by teries see below, p. 68. "
Ignatius, Vit. Tar. 27 ^evpovapli^ ■* Ejyp. i. 16, p. 960.
SECT. V ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF NICEPHORUS
33
elevation to God's care for the Church. He goes on to say-
that he knows of no man really worthy of the Patriarchate,
and he names three conditions which a suitable candidate
should fulfil : he should be able, with perfect heart, to seek
out the judgments of God; he should have been raised by
gradual steps from the lowest to higher ecclesiastical ranks ;
he should be experienced in the various phases of spiritual
life and so able to help others. This was manifestly aimed at
excluding the possible election of a layman. But Theodore
goes further and actually suggests the election of an abbot
or an anchoret,^ without mentioning a bishop. We cannot
mistake the tendency of this epistle. It is probable that
Plato proposed his nephew for the vacant dignity.^ But
Theodore's bigotry and extreme views of ecclesiastical inde-
pendence rendered his appointment by an Emperor like
Nicephorus absolutely out of the question.
Eespect for Church tradition, with perhaps a touch of
jealousy, made Theodore and his party indignant at the
designation of Nicephorus, a layman, as Patriarch. They
agitated against him,^ and their opposition seemed to the
Emperor an intolerable insubordination to his own authority.
Nor did their attitude meet with much sympathy outside
their own immediate circle. A contemporary monk, who was
no friend of the Emperor, dryly says that they tried to create
a schism.^ The Emperor was fain to banish the abbot and
his uncle, and break up the monastery ; but it was represented
to him that the elevation of the new Patriarch would be
considered inauspicious if it were attended by the dissolution
of such a famous cloister in which there were about seven
hundred brethren.^ He was content to keep the two leaders
in prison for twenty-four days, probably till after Nicephorus
had been enthroned.^ The ceremony was solemnised on Easter
^ Ariyo^ixevos OTcrTvKiTrjs or ^yKketcTTOs.
The mention of a cTvKiT-qs is remark-
able, and I conjecture that Theodore
had in his mind Simeon (a.d. 764-
843) who lived on a pillar in Mytilene ;
see Acta S. Davidis, etc.
2 Theodore, Epitaph. Plat. 837.
Cp. Schneider, Der hi. Theodor, 27.
■' Plato went at night to a monk
who was a kinsman of the Emperor,
seeking to make him nse his influence
against the appointment of Nicepho-
rus (Theodore, ib.). This monk was
doubtless one Simeon, to whom we
have several letters of Theodore.
* Theoph. A.M. 6298.
5 lb. Michael, Vit. Theod. Stud. 260
says the number nearly approached
1000.
^ Theodore, Eirltaph. Plat., ib.
Other members of the community
were imprisoned too.
P
34 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
day (April 12) in the presence of the two Augusti/ and the
Studites did not persist in their protest.^
The Emperor Nicephorus now resolved to make an asser-
tion of Imperial absolutism, in the sense that the Emperor
was superior to canonical laws in the same way that he was
superior to secular laws. His assertion of this principle was
the more impressive, as it concerned a question which did not
involve his own interests or actions.
It will be remembered that Tarasius had given his
sanction to the divorce of Constantine VI. from his first wife
and to his marriage with Theodote (Sept. a.d. 795).^ After
the fall of Constantine, Tarasius had been persuaded by Irene
to declare that both the divorce and the second marriage
were illegal, and Joseph, who had performed the marriage
ceremony, was degraded from the priesthood and placed under
the ban of excommunication. This ban had not been
removed, and the circumstance furnished Nicephorus with a
pretext for reopening a question which involved an important
constitutional principle. It would have been inconvenient to
ask Tarasius to broach again a matter on which his own
conduct had been conspicuously inconsistent and opportunist ;
but soon after the succession of the new Patriarch, Nicephorus
proceeded to procure a definite affirmation of the superiority
of the Emperor to canonical laws. At his wish a synod was
summoned to decide whether Joseph should be received
again into communion and reinstated in the sacerdotal office.
The assembly voted for his rehabilitation, and declared the
marriage of Constantine and Theodote valid."*
In this assembly of bishops and monks one dissentient
voice was raised, that of Theodore the abbot of Studion. He
and his uncle Plato had suffered under Constantine VI. the
penalty of banishment from their monastery of Sakkudion, on
account of their refusal to communicate with Joseph, who had
transgressed the laws of the Church by uniting Constantine
^ Theoph. ib. It is interesting to to be expected,
observe the tendency of the writer ^ Qp_ Theodore, Efp. i. 25, p. 989 ;
here. He approved of the election 30, p. 1008.
of Nicephorus, but could not bear to -' Bury, Later Roman Empire, ii.
attribute a good act to tlie Emperor, 487.
and therefore adds casually irpbs 5s * Mansi, xiv. 14. Hefele (iii. 397)
/cat tQ:v ^affCKiwv, as though the speaks inadvertently of the affair of
presence of Nicei)horus and Stauraeius tlie " Abt Johannes." Cp. Theodore,
were something unimportant or hardly Ejyp. i. 33, p. 101.
SECT. V ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF NICEPHORUS 35
with Theodote. It has been thought that the firm attitude
which they then assumed may have been in some measure due
to the fact that Theodote was nearly related to them ; that
they may have determined to place themselves beyond all
suspicion of condoning an offence against the canons in which
the interests of a kinswoman were involved.^ Now, when the
question was revived, they persisted in their attitude, though
they resorted to no denunciations. Theodore wrote a respectful
letter to the Patriarch, urging him to exclude Joseph from
sacerdotal ministrations, and threatening that otherwise a
schism would be the consequence.^ The Patriarch did not
deign to reply to the abbot, and for two years the matter lay
in abeyance, the Studites saying little, but declining to com-
municate with the Patriarch.^
The scandal of this schism became more public when
Joseph, a brother of Theodore, became archbishop of Thes-
salonica.^ He was asked by the Logothete of the Course,
why he would not communicate with the Patriarch and the
Emperor. On his alleging that he had nothing against them
personally, but only against the priest who had celebrated the
adulterous marriage, the Logothete declared, " Our pious
Emperors have no need of you at Thessalonica or anywhere
else."^ This occurrence (a.d. 808) roused to activity
Theodore's facile pen. But his appeals to court-dignitaries or
to ecclesiastics outside his own community seem to have
produced little effect.*^ He failed to stir up public opinion
^ Pargoire, Saint Theophane, 65. perhaps a daughter of Plato's sister.
Theodote was an i^adeXcprj of Theodore A table will illustrate Theodore's
(Michael, Fit. Theod. Stud. 254)— family :
Sergius = Euphemia
Plato Theoktiste = Photeinos daughter
Theodore Joseph Euthymios daughter
? Theodote = Constantine VI.
See Pargoire, ih. 36-37.
^ Epp. I. 30. Theodore did not election see ih. i. 23.
object to Joseph's restoration to the ^ lb. i. 31.
office of Oikonomos (see i. 43). ^ Cp. i. 24 to Theoktistos the
•' Ih. i. 26. magister ; 21 and 22 to Simeon the
■* For the circumstances of his monk, a relative of the Emperor, of
36 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
against the recent synod, and in their schism the Studites
were isolated/ But the attitude of this important monastery-
could no longer be ignored.
The mere question of the rehabilitation of a priest was,
of course, a very minor matter. Nor was the legitimacy
of Constantine's second marriage the question which really
interested the Emperor. The question at issue was whether
Emperors had power to override laws established by the
Church, and whether Patriarchs and bishops might dispense
from ecclesiastical canons. Theodore firmly maintained that
" the laws of God bind all men," and the circumstance that
Constantine wore the purple made no difference.^ The
significance of Theodore's position is that in contending for
the validity of canonical law as independent of the State and
the Emperor, he was vindicating the independence of the
Church. Although the Studites stood virtually alone — for
if any sympathised with them they were afraid to express
their opinions — the persistent opposition of such a large and
influential institution could not be allowed to continue. A
mixed synod of ecclesiastics and Imperial officials met in
January a.d. 809, the legality of the marriage of Theodote
was reaffirmed, and it was laid down that Emperors were
above ecclesiastical laws and that bishops had the power of
dispensing from canons.^ Moreover, sentence was passed on
the aged Plato, the abbot Theodore, and his brother Joseph,
who had been dragged before the assembly, and they were
banished to the Prince's Islands, where they were placed in
separate retreats.* Then Nicephorus proceeded to deal with
whom Theodore complains (i. 26, the possible interpretation that the
addressed to the abbot Simeon, a synod was held in Dec. 808 and the
different person) that he was a.ij.(poTep6- expulsion followed in January (cp.
■yXuaaos. Hefele, iii. 397). For the acts of the
^ If there were secret sympathisers, synod {cvvobos Brj/noffia) see Theodore,
they had not the courage of their E2U^- i- 33, pp. 1017-19 oiKovo/xiav odv
opinion (see i. 31, p. 1009 vvKrepivol rriv ^ev^i/xoix^iav doy/j.ariii'ovaiv iwlrCiiv
Oeocre^eh, afraid to come out into the ^aaiXiuiv roiis deiovs vdfiovs fxrj Kpareiv
light). diopi^ovTai' . . . enaarov tQiv Upapx^^v
" lb. i. 22. At this time Theodore €^ovaidi;€LV iv tois deiois KavSac wapa to.
wrote (i. 28) to an old friend, Basil of eV avTo7s KeKavovLafx4va dirotpaiuovTai.
St. Saba, who was then at Rome, and Of course this is Theodore's way of
had renounced communion with him ; putting it. The Acts assuredly did
and we learn that Pope Leo had ex- not speak of roiis deiovs vofxavs. For
pressed indifference as to the " .sins" the composition of the Svnod cp. ib. i.
of Joseph (p. 1001). 34, p. 1021.
* The date is given by Theophanes •* Plato in the islet Oxeia (Theodore,
(484) whose words, however, admit Epitaph in Plat. c. 39, p. 841, where
SECT. V ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF NICEPHORUS 37
the seven hundred monks of Studion. He summoned them to
his presence in the palace of Eleutherios, where he received
them with impressive ceremonial. When he found it im-
possible to intimidate or cajole them into disloyalty to their
abbot or submission to their sovran, he said : " Whoever will
obey the Emperor and agree with the Patriarch and the
clergy, let him stand on the right ; let the disobedient move
to the left, that we may see who consent and who are
stubborn." But this device did not succeed, and they were
all confined in various monasteries in the neighbourhood of
the city.^ Soon afterwards we hear that they were scattered
far and wide throughout the Empire.^
During his exile, Theodore maintained an active corre-
spondence with the members of his dispersed flock, and in
order to protect his communications against the curiosity of
official supervision he used the twenty-four letters of the
alphabet to designate the principal members of the Studite
fraternity. In this cipher, for example, al])}ia represented
Plato, heta Joseph, omega Theodore himself.^ Confident in the
justice of his cause, he invoked the intervention of the Koman
See, and urged the Pope to undo the work of the adulterous
synods by a General Council. Leo wrote a paternal and
consolatory letter, but he expressed no opinion on the merits
of the question. We may take it as certain that he had other
information derived from adherents of the Patriarch, who were
active in influencing opinion at Eome, and that he considered
Theodore's action ill-advised. In any case, he declined to
commit himself.^
The resolute protest of the Studites aroused, as we have
seen, little enthusiasm, though it can hardly be doubted
that many ecclesiastics did not approve of the Acts of the
recent synod. But it was felt that the Patriarch had, in the
circumstances, acted prudently and with a sage economy. In
later times enthusiastic admirers of Theodore were ready to
read 'OleZa), Theodore in Chalkites, * The first letter that Theodore
now Halki {;id., Epigramm. 98-104, wrote to Leo he destroyed himself (see
p. 1804). ib. i. 34, p. 1028). The second is
1 Michael, Vit. Theod. Stud. 269 ; extant (i. 33). We learn the drift of
cp. Anon. Vit. Theod. Stud. 160. the Pope's reply from i. 34, written in
2 Theodore, E^jp. i. 48, pp. 1072-73. the joint names of Plato and Theodore.
Some were exiled at Cherson, others in See also their letter to Basil of Saba,
the island of Lipari. i. 35. For the activity of the other
* lb. i. 41. side at Rome, see i. 28.
38 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
allow that Nicephorus had wisely consented lest the Emperor-
should do something worse. ^ And after the Emperor's death
he showed that his consent had been unwillingly given.
If the Emperor Nicephorus asserted his supreme authority
in the Church, it could not be said that he was not formally
orthodox, as he accepted and maintained the settlement of the
Council of Nicaea and the victory of Picture-worship. But
though his enemies did not accuse him of iconoclastic tendencies,
he was not an enthusiastic image- worshipper. His policy was
to permit freedom of opinion, and the orthodox considered
such toleration equivalent to heresy. They were indignant
when he sheltered by his patronage a monk named Nicolas
who preached against images and had a following of disciples.^
The favour which he showed to the Paulicians gave his enemies
a pretext for hinting that he was secretly inclined to that
flagrant heresy, and the fact that he was born in Pisidia
where Paulicianism flourished lent a colour to the charge'.
These heretics had been his useful supporters in the rebellion
of Bardanes, and the superstitious believed that he had been
victorious on that occasion by resorting to charms and sorceries
which tlieij were accustomed to employ.^ Others said that
the Emperor had no religion at all.* The truth may be that
he was little interested in religious matters, except in relation
to the State. He was, at all events, too crafty to commit
himself openly to any heresy. But it is interesting to observe
that in the policy of toleration Nicephorus was not unsupported,
though his supporters may have been few. There existed in
the capital a party of enlightened persons who held that it
^ 1 Michael, Vit. Thcod. Stud. 268 ^ Theoph. 488. In writing to the
i^KOfSfj-Tiaev fxT] ^ov\bfi€vo% dXXa ^laadeis monk Simeon (i. 21) Theodore Studites
L/TT^ Tov avaKTos. Ignatius in his Life himself speaks thus of Nicephorus :
of Nicephorus completely omits this oi 5ea-7r6rat iifiwv oi dya0ol neaiTai Kai
passage in his career. Theophanes Kpiral rod diKaiov. (piXrjTat tQv
touches on it lightly in his Chrono- irappr/aLa^ofx^vuiv if dX-rjOeig.- ws
graphy, and we know otherwise that avrd to rlfiiov airCov arb/xa ttoX-
he did not blame the policy of the Xd/cis diayopevei.
Patriarch and therefore incurred the
severe censure of Theodore, who " Theoph. ib. He is said to have
describes him as a Moechian, i.e one slaughtered a bull in a particular way,
of the adulterous party. See Theodore, ^^'^ ^° ^^^^ ground garments of
£pp. ii. 31, p. 1204, where p.ou 6 tov Bardanes in a mill.
o-XWaT-osct^dSoxos refers to Theophanes, * Anon. Fit. Thcod. Stud. 153: he
who had been Theodore's sponsor was " nominally a Christian, really an
when he became a monk, as Pargoire enemy of Christianity." Ignatius,
has shown (<S'aMii! Thiophane, 56 sqq.). Vit. Nicephori Patr. 153, admits that
See also ih. ii. 218, p. 1660. he was orthodox.
SECT. V ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL I. 39
j was wrong to sentence heretics to deatli,^ and they were strong
enough in the next reign to hinder a general persecution of
the Paulicians.
But for the most part the policy of Mcephorus was
reversed under Michael, who proved himself not the master
but the obedient son of the Church. The Patriarch knew the
character of Michael, and had reason to believe that he would
be submissive in all questions of faith and morals. But he
was determined to assure himself that his expectations would
be fulfilled, and he resorted to an expedient which has a
considerable constitutional interest.
The coronations of the Emperors Marcian and Leo I. by
the Patriarch, with the accompanying ecclesiastical ceremony,
may be said to have definitely introduced the new constitutional
principle that the profession of Christianity was a necessary
qualification for holding the Imperial office.^ It also implied
that the new Emperor had not only been elected by the Senate
and the people, but was accepted by the Church. But what
if the Patriarch declined to crown the Emperor-elect ? Here,
clearly, there was an opportunity for a Patriarch to do what it
might be difficult for him to do when once the coronation was
accomplished. The Emperor was the head of the ecclesiastical
organization, and the influence which the Patriarch exerted
depended upon the relative strengths of his own and the
monarch's characters. But the Patriarch had it in his power
to place limitations . on the policy of a future Emperor by
exacting from him certain definite and solemn promises before
the ceremony of coronation was performed.^ It was not often
that in the annals of the later Empire the Patriarch had the
strength of will or a sufficient reason to impose such capitula-
tions. The earliest known instance is the case of Anasta-
sius I., who, before the Patriarch crowned him, was required
^ Theophanes calls them KaKorpoTriov R. Empire, 27-29. In later times a
ffvfi^ovXwi' (495). They argued on regular coronation oath (we do not
the ground of the possibility of re- know at what date it was introduced)
pentance, idoytxaTi^ov 5^ d/uLaOQs /jlt} rendered special capitulations less
i^eivaLtepedaLi' aTro<palvecfdai KaracLffe^Cbv necessary. In the tenth century the
Odvarov, Kara wavra (adds the writer) Patriarch Poly euktos was able to extort
Tttis de'icus ypa(pals evavTiovixevoL irepl a concession from John Tzimisces as
To&rwi>. a condition of coronation. It must
9 m, £. Tir • ■ J -J always be remembered that coronation
ce ta/n^ °^'^ ''*'''''' '' ^^ ^^'^ Patriarch, though looked on as
a matter of course, was not a constitu-
^ Cp. Bury, ConMUution of Later tiowdiX sine qii anon {ib. \\ sq.).
40 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
to swear to a written undertaking that he would introduce
no novelty into the Church.
Nicephorus obtained from Michael an autograph assurance
— and the sign of the cross was doubtless affixed to the signa-
ture — in which he pledged himself to preserve the orthodox
faith, not to stain his hands with the blood of Christians, and
not to scourge ecclesiastics, whether priests or monks.
The Patriarch now showed that, if there had been no
persecutions during his tenure of office, he at least would not
have been lacking in zeal. At his instance the penalty of
capital punishment was enacted against the Paulicians and
the Athingani,^ who were regarded as no better than
Manichaeans and altogether outside the pale of Christianity.
The persecution began ; not a few were decapitated ; but
influential men, to whose advice the Emperor could not close
his ears, intervened, and the bloody work was stayed. The
monk, to whom we owe most of our knowledge of the events of
these years, deeply laments the successful interference of these
evil counsellors.^ But the penalty of death was only commuted ;
the Athingani were condemned to confiscation and banishment.
The Emperor had more excuse for proceeding against the
iconoclasts, who were still numerous in the army and the
Imperial city. They were by no means contented at the rule
of the orthodox Eangabe.^ Their discontent burst out after
Michael's fruitless Bulgarian expedition in June, a.d. 812.
We shall have to return to the dealings of Michael with the
Bulgarians ; here we have only to observe how this June
expedition led to a conspiracy. When the iconoclasts saw
Thrace and Macedonia at the mercy of the heathen of the
north, they thought they had good grounds for grumbling at
the iconodulic sovran. When the admirers of the great Leo
and the great Constantine, who had ruled in the days of their
fathers and grandfathers, saw the enemy harrying the land at
will and possessing the cities of the Empire, they might bitterly
^ The Athingani, if not simply a Zigeuner (gipsy) is derived from the
sect of the Paulicians, were closely Athingani ; since ddiyyavos means
related to them. The name is supposed gipsy in Modern Greek,
to be derived from d-dLyydvetv, re- .^ ^
ferring to the doctrine that the touch iheoph. 495.
of many things defiled (cp. St. Paul, ^ It may be noted that Michael
CoIks. ii. 21 /xTjdi 6lyr)s:). They seem made no changes, significant of ortho-
to have chiefly flourished in Phrygia. doxy, in the types of the coinage ;
It has been supposed by some that cp. Wroth, I. xli.
SECT. V ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL I 41
remember how heavy the arm of Constantine had been on the
Bulgarians and how well he had defended the frontier of
Thrace ; they might plausibly ascribe the difference in military
success to the difference in religious doctrine. It was a good
opportunity for the bold to conspire ; the difficulty was to
discover a successor to Michael, who would support iconoclasm
and who had some show of legitimate claim to the throne.
The choice of the conspirators fell on the blind sons of
Constantine V., who still survived in Panormos, or as it was
also, and is still, called Antigoni, one of the Prince's Islands.
These princes had been prominent in the reign of Constantine
VI. and Irene, as repeatedly conspiring against their nephew
and sister-in-law. The movement was easily suppressed, the
revolutionaries escaped with a few stripes, and the blind princes
were removed to the more distant island of Aphusia.^ But
though the iconoclasts might be disaffected, they do not seem
to have provoked persecution by openly showing flagrant
disrespect to holy pictures - in the reigns of Nicephorus and
Michael. Michael, however, would not suffer the iconoclastic
propaganda which his father-in-law had allowed. He edified
the people of Constantinople by forcing the iconoclastic
lecturer Nicolas to make a public recantation of his error.
The Emperor and the Patriarch lost no time in annulling
the decisions of those assemblies which the Studite monks
stigmatised as " synods of adulterers." The notorious Joseph,
who had celebrated the " adulterous " marriage, was again
suspended ; the Studites were recalled from exile ; and the
schism was healed. It might now be alleged that Nicephorus
had not been in sympathy with the late Emperor's policy,
and had only co-operated with him from considerations of
" economy." ^ But the dissensions of the Studite monks, first
^ Theoph. 496. Aphusia, still so a/cros) hermit scraped and insulted a
called, is one of the Proconnesian picture of the Mother of God, and was
islands, apparently not the same as punished by the excision of his tongue.
Ophiusa, for Diogenes of Cyzicus ^ It is not known whether the
(Mliller, 7^. iZiG*. iv. 392) distinguishes Emperor or the Patriarch was the
^vaia Kai 'Ocpideffaa. The other chief prime mover. It is interesting to
islands of the group are Proconnesus, note that the Emperor Nicephorus
Aulonia, and Kutalis ; the four are had given the brothers of the Empress
described in Gedeon, UpoLKduvqaos, Theodote quarters in the Palace, thus
1895. Cp. Hasluck, J.H.S. xxix. 17. emphasizing his approbation of .her
2 The fact that Theophanes only marriage, and that Michael I. ex-
records one case in Michael's reign polled them (Scr. Incert. 336).
{ih). is significant. A vagabond {ifiwepl-
42 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, i
with Tarasius and then with Nicephorus, were more than
passing episodes. They were symptomatic of an opposition or
discord between the hierarchy of the Church and a portion of
the monastic world. The heads of the Church were more
liberal and more practical in their views ; they realized the
importance of the State, on which the Church depended ; and
they deemed it bad policy, unless a fundamental principle
were at stake, to oppose the siipreme authority of the
Emperor. The monks were no politicians ; they regarded the
world from a purely ecclesiastical point of view ; they looked
upon the Church as infinitely superior to the State ; and
they were prepared to take extreme measures for the sake of
maintaining a canon. The " third party " and the monks were
united, after the death of Michael I., in a common struggle
against iconoclasm, but as soon as the enemy was routed, the
disagreement between these two powers in the Church broke
out, as we shall see, anew.
CHAPTEK II
LEO V. (the ARMENIAN) AND THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM
(A.D. 813-820)
S 1. Beign and Administration of Leo V.
Leo V. was not the first Armenian ^ who occupied the
Imperial throne. Among the Emperors who reigned briefly
and in rapid succession after the decline of the Heraclian
dynasty, the Armenian Bardanes who took the name of
Philippicus, had been chiefly noted for luxury and delicate
living. The distinctions of Leo were of a very different
order. If he had " sown his wild oats " in earlier days, he
proved an active and austere prince, and he presented a
marked contrast to his immediate predecessor. Born in
lowly station and poor circumstances, Leo had made his way
up by his own ability to the loftiest pinnacle in the Empire ;
Michael enjoyed the advantages of rank and birth, and had
won the throne through the accident of his marriage with an
Emperor's daughter. Michael had no will of his own ; Leo's
temper was as firm as that of his namesake, the Isaurian.
Michael was in the hands of the Patriarch ; Leo was
determined that the Patriarch should be in the hands of the
Emperor. Even those who sympathized with the religious
policy of Michael were compelled to confess that he was a
feeble, incompetent ruler ; while even those who hated Leo
most bitterly could not refuse to own that in civil administra-
tion he was an able sovran. A short description of Leo's
1 On one side his parentage was The statements are vague. His par-
" Assyrian," which presumably means ents (one or both?) are said to have
Syrian (Gen. 28 ; Gont. Th. 6 Kara slain their (?) parents and been exiled
av^vyLav eS, ' Affo-vplcov /cat 'Apfieviuu). for that reason to Armenia.
43
44 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
personal appearance has been preserved. He was of small
stature and had curling hair ; he wore a full beard ; his hair
was thick ; his voice loud/
On the very day of his entry into Constantinople as an
Augustus proclaimed by the army, an incident is related to
have occurred which seemed an allegorical intimation as to
the ultimate destiny of the new Emperor. It is one of those
stories based perhaps upon some actual incident, but improved
and embellished in the light of later events, so as to bear
the appearance of a mysterious augury. It belongs to the
general atmosphere of mystery that seemed to envelop the
careers of the three young squires of Bardanes, whose
destinies had been so closely interwoven. The prophecy of
the hermit of Philomelion, the raving of the slave-girl of
Michael Eangab^,^ and the incident now to be related,^ mark
stages in the development of the drama.
Since Michael the Amorian had been rewarded by
Nicephorus for his desertion of the rebel Bardanes, we lose
sight of his career. He seems to have remained an officer in
the Anatolic Theme, of which he had been appointed Count
of the tent, and when Leo the Armenian became the
strategos of that province the old comrades renewed their
friendship.'* Leo acted as sponsor to Michael's son ; ^ and
Michael played some part in bringing about Leo's elevation.
The latter is said to have shrunk from taking the great step,
^ Pseudo-Simeon, 603. This is one at Constantinople (Panchenko, Kat.
of the notices peculiar to this Mol. viii. 234).
chronicle and not found in our other 2 ConstantinePorphyrogennetoswas
authorities. I have conjectured that conscious of this dramatic develop-
the source was the Scnptor Incertus, ^ent. We may trace his hand in the
of whose work we possess the valuable comment (in Cont. Th. 23) that the
fragment frequently cited m these prophecy of Philomelion was the first
notes. See Bury, A Source of Symeon ^a^^e sketch, and the words of the
Magister B.Z I. 572 (1892). Note de slave-girl "second colours "—5e!;repci
Boor s emendation ayvpdf for oyvpdy ^^^ xp^f^"-ra cbs ip t^ypacpia rah
(ko^tju) m this passage, and cp. above, ^porepah e/xfiopcpwd^i'Ta ffKcals.
p. 22, n. 2. On most of the coins of ^ rj^ tj , r, ■ n j-/^/
Leo, which are of the ordinary type of J ^old by Genesios, 7, and in Cant.
this period, his son Constantine ap- ^^'- ^^ ^^f*'^'" Genesios).
pears beardless on the reverse. A seal, '^ Cont. Th. 12ji. See above, p. 12.
which seems to belong to these It is not clear whether Michael's office
Emperors, with a cross potent on the was still that of /co/^Tys r^s K6pT-qs of
obverse, and closely resembling one the Anatolic Theme. Gen. 7 describes
type of the silver coinage of these him as tuiv avrov 'nnroK6fj.(j]v Trpwrdpxv
Emperors and of their predecessors (cp. Cont. Th. 19), which seems to
Michael and Theophylactus (see mean that he was the private proto-
Wroth, PI. xlvii. 4, 11, 12), is pre- sdraior of Leo as strategos.
served in the Russian Arch. Institute ^ Gen. 12,,.
SECT. I LEO V. 45
as he was not sure that he would obtain simultaneous recog-ni-
tion in the camp and in the capital, and Michael the Lisper,
threatening to slay him if he did not consent, undertook to
make the necessary arrangements/ When Leo entered the
city he was met and welcomed by the whole Senate near the
Church of St. John the Forerunner, which still stands, not
far from the Golden Gate, and marks the site of the monastery
of Studion. Accompanied by an acclaiming crowd, and closely
attended by Michael his confidant, the new Augustus rode to
the Palace. He halted in front of the Brazen Gate (Chalke)
to worship before the great image of Christ which surmounted
the portal. The Fifth Leo, who was afterwards to be such
an ardent emulator of the third Emperor of his name, now
dismounted, and paid devotion to the figiu-e restored by Irene
in place of that which Leo the Isaurian had demolished.
Perhaps the Armenian had not yet decided on pursuing an
iconoclastic policy ; in any case he recognized that it would
be a false step to suggest by any omission the idea that he
was not strictly orthodox. Halting and dismounting he con-
signed to the care of Michael the loose red military garment
which he wore. This cloak, technically called an eagle'; and
more popularly a kololion, was worn without a belt. Michael
is said to have put on the " eagle " which the Emperor had
put off. It is not clear whether this was strictly according
to etiquette or not, but the incident was supposed to be an
omen that Michael would succeed Leo. Another still more
ominous incident is said to have followed. The Emperor did
not enter by the Brazen Gate, but, having performed his act
of devotion, proceeded past the Baths of Zeuxippos, and
passing through the Hippodrome reached the Palace at the
entrance known as the Skyla.^ The Emperor walked rapidly
through the gate, and Michael, hurrying to keep up with
him, awkwardly trampled on the edge of his dress which
touched the ground behind.
It was said that Leo himself recognized the omen, but it
certainly did not influence him in his conduct ; nor is there
1 Gen. 5, repeated in Cont. Th. an illustration in the Madrid MS.
^ aerbs, also ddXaaaa, Cont. Th. 19. of Skylitzes (reproduced in Beylie,
Genesios says it was called a ko\6^lov L'Hahitation huzantine, 122).
(a garment with very short sleeves, ■* Compare tlie route of Theopliilus
whence its name ; op. Ducange, Gloss. on the occasion of his triumph. See
S.V.). The incident is the subject of below, p. 128.
46 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
anything to suggest that at this time Michael was jealous of
Leo, or Leo suspicious of Michael. The Emperor made him
the Domestic or commander of the Excubitors, with rank of
patrician, and treated him as a confidential adviser. Nor did
he forget his other comrade, who had served with him under
Bardanes, but cleaved more faithfully to his patron than had
either the Amorian or the Armenian. Thomas the Slavonian
returned from Saracen territory, where he had lived in exile,
and was now made Turmarch of the Federates. Thus the
three squires of Bardanes are brought into association again.
Another appointment which Leo made redounds to his credit,
as his opponents grudgingly admitted. He promoted Manuel
the Protostrator, who had strongly opposed the resignation of
Michael and his own elevation, to the rank of patrician and
made him General of the Armeniacs. Manuel could hardly
have looked for such favour ; he probably expected that his
fee would be exile." He was a bold, outspoken man, and when
Leo said to him, " You ought not to have advised the late
Emperor and Procopia against my interests," he replied, " Nor
ought you to have raised a hand against your benefactor and
fellow-father," referring to the circumstance that Leo had stood
as sponsor for a child of Michael.^
The revolution which established a new Emperor on the
throne had been accomplished speedily and safely at a moment
of great national peril. The defences of the city had to be
hastily set in order, and Krum, the Bulgarian victor, appeared
before the walls within a week. Although the barbarians of
the north had little chance of succeeding where the Saracen
forces had more than once failed, and finally retired, the
destruction which they wrought in the suburbs was a gloomy
beginning for a new reign. The active hostilities of the
Bulgarian prince claimed the solicitude of Leo for more than
a year, when his death, as he was preparing to attack the
capital again, led to the conclusion of a peace.
On the eastern frontier the internal troubles of the
Caliphate relieved the Empire from anxiety during this
^ Or perhaps Michael for a child of 23. There is perhaps no need to sus-
Leo {Cont. Th. 24). Leo was the pect a confusion of the two Michaels,
godfather of a sou of Michael the The advancements of Michael and
Amorian (Theophilus — unless Michael Thomas are told in Gen. 12, that of
had another son who died early), ih. Manuel only in Cont. Th.
SECT. I LEO V. 47
reign, and, after the Bulgarian crisis had passed, Leo was able
to devote his attention to domestic administration. But of
his acts almost nothing has been recorded except of those
connected with his revival of iconoclasm. His warfare against
image-worship was the conspicuous feature of his rule, and,
occupied with execrating his ecclesiastical policy, the chroniclers
have told us little of his other works. Yet his most' bitter
adversaries were compelled unwillingly to confess ^ that his
activity in providing for the military defences of the Empire
and for securing the administration of justice was'deserving of
all commendation. This was the judgment of the Patriarch
Nicephorus, who cannot be accused of partiality. He said
after the death of Leo : " The Eoman Empire has lost an
impious but great guardian." " He neglected no measure
which seemed likely to prove advantageous to the State ; and
this is high praise from the mouths of adversaries. He was
severe to criminals, and he endeavoured, in appointing judges
and governors, to secure men who were superior to bribes.
No one could say that love of money was one of the Emperor's
weak points. In illustration of his justice the following
anecdote is told. One day as he was issuing from the Palace,
a man accosted him and complained of a bitter wrong which
had been done him by a certain senator. The lawless noble
had carried off the poor man's attractive wife and had kept
her in his own possession for a long time. The husband had
complained to the Prefect of the City, but complained in vain.
The guilty senator had influence, and the Prefect was a
respecter of persons. The Emperor immediately commanded
one of his attendants to bring the accused noble and the
Prefect to his presence. The ravisher did not attempt to
deny the charge, and the minister admitted that the matter
had come before him. Leo enforced the penalties of the law,
and stripped, the unworthy Prefect of his office.^
Our authorities tell us little enough about the administra-
tion of this sovran, and their praise is bestowed reluctantly.
But it is easv to see that he was a strenuous ruler, of the
^ Gen. 17-18. for show. Gieseler regarded him as
" Gen. 17. The account in Cont. " einer der besten Regenten" {Lehr-
Th. 30 is taken from Genesios, but huch der Kircheiujescldchte, ii. 1, p. 4,
the writer, on his own authority, ed. 4, 1846).
makesout Leo to have been a hypocrite, •' Gen. 18.
and to have feigned a love of justice
48 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
usual Byzantine type, devoted to the duties of his post, and
concerned to secure efficiency both in his military and civil
officers. He transacted most of his State business in the long
hall in the Palace which was called the Lausiakos. There his
secretaries, who were noted for efficiency, worked under his
directions.^ In undertakings of public utility his industry
was unsparing. After the peace with Bulgaria he rebuilt and
restored the cities of Thrace and Macedonia, and himself with
a military retinue made a progress in those provinces, to for-
ward and superintend the work.^ He personally supervised
the drill and discipline of the army.^
8 2. Conspiracy of Michael and Murder of Leo
The reign of Leo closes with another act in the historical
drama which opened with the revolt of Bardanes Turcus. We
have seen how the Emperor Leo bestowed offices on his two
companions, Michael and Thomas. But Michael was not to
prove himself more loyal to his Armenian comrade who had
outstripped him than he had formerly shown himself to his
Armenian master who had trusted him. Thomas indeed had
faithfully clung to the desperate cause of the rebel ; but he
was not to bear himself with equal faith to a more legitimate
lord.
The treason of Thomas is not by any means as clear as the
treason of Michael. But this at least seems to be certain,
that towards the end of the year 820 ^ he organized a revolt
in the East ; that the Emperor, forming a false conception of
the danger, sent an inadequate force, perhaps under an incom-
petent commander, to quell the rising, and that this force was
defeated by the rebel.
But with Thomas we have no further concern now ; our
instant concern is with the commander of the Excubitors, who
was more directly under the Imperial eye. It appears that
Michael had fallen under the serious suspicion of the Emperor.
^ Gen. 18. than a month or two before Leo's
2 lb. 28. For his new wall at death, Leo would have been con-
Blachernae see below, p. 94. strained to deal seriously with it,
'^ Cont. Th. 30. and we should have heard about
* The date is not given, but may be the operations. For the statement of
irxferreil with tolerable certainty. If Michael in his letter to Lewis the
the rebellion had broken out sooner Pious see Appendix V.
SECT. II '^MURDER OF LEO V. 49
The evidence against him was so weighty that he had hardly
succeeded in freeing himself from the charge of treason. He
was a rough man, without education or breeding; and while
he could not speak polite Greek, his tongue lisped insolently
against the Emperor. Perhaps he imagined that Leo was
afraid of him ; for, coarse and untrained as he may have been,
Michael proved himself afterwards to be a man of ability, and
does not strike us as one who was likely to have been a reck-
less babbler. He spoke doubtless these treasonable things in
the presence of select friends, but he must have known well
how perilous words he uttered. The matter came to the ears
of the Emperor, who, unwilling to resort to any extreme
measure on hearsay, not only set eavesdroppers to watch the
words and deeds of his disaffected officer, but took care that he
should be privately admonished to control his tongue. These
offices he specially entrusted to the Logothete of the Course,
{John Hexabulios, a discreet and experienced man, whom we
{met before on the occasion of the return of Michael Eangabe
jto the city after the defeat at Hadrianople.^ We may feel
I surprise that he who then reproved Michael I. for his folly in
' leaving the army in Leo's hands, should now be the trusted
minister of Leo himself. But we shall find him still
holding office and enjoying influence in the reign of Leo's
successor. The same man who has the confidence of the First
Michael, and warns him against Leo, wins the confidence of
Leo, and warns him against another Michael, then wins
the confidence of the Second Michael, and advises him on his
dealing with an unsuccessful rebel." Had the rebellion of
Thomas prospered, Hexabulios would doubtless have been a
; trusted minister of Thomas too.
Michael was deaf to the warnings and rebukes of the
Logothete of the Course ; he was indifferent to the dangers
in which his unruly talk seemed certain to involve him.
The matter came to a crisis on Christmas Eve, a.d. 820.
Hexabulios had gained information which pointed to a con-
spiracy organized by Michael and had laid it before the
Emperor. The peril which threatened the throne could no
longer be overlooked, and the wrath of Leo himself was
furious. Michael was arrested, and the day before the feast
1 Above, p. 27. ^ Below, p. 106.
E
50 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
of Christmas was spent in proving his guilt. The inquiry
was held in the chamber of the State Secretaries/ and the
Emperor presided in person. The proofs of guilt were so
clear and overwhelming that the prisoner himself was con-
strained to confess his treason. After such a long space of
patience the wrath of the judge was all the more terrible,
and he passed the unusual sentence that his old companion-
in-arms should be fastened to a pole and cast into the
furnace which heated the baths of the Palace. That the
indignity might be greater, an ape was to be tied to the
victim, in recollection perhaps of the old Eoman punishment ^
of parricides.
This sentence would have been carried out and the reign
of Leo would not have come to an untimely end, if the Empress
Theodosia had not intervened. Shocked at the news of the
atrocious sentence, she rose from her couch, and, not even
taking time to put on her slippers, rushed to the Emperor's
presence, in order to prevent its execution. If she had
merely exclaimed against the barbarity of the decree, she
might not have compassed her wish, but the very day of the
event helped her. It was Christmas Eve. How could the
Emperor dare, with hands stained by such foul cruelty, to
receive the holy Sacrament on the morrow ? Must he not be
ashamed that such an act should be associated with the feast
of the Nativity ? These arguments appealed to the pious
Christian. But Theodosia had also an argument which might
appeal to the prudent sovran : let the punishment be
postponed ; institute a stricter investigation, and discover the
names of all those who have been implicated in the plot.
The appeal of the Empress was not in vain. Her counsels
and her entreaties affected the mind of her husband. But
while he consented to defer his final decision, it would seem
that he had misgivings, and that some dim feeling of danger
entered into him. He is reported to have said : " Wife, you
have released my soul from sin to-day ; perhaps it will soon
cost me my life too. You and our children will see what
shall happen."
In those days men were ready to see fatal omens and
^ Gen. 20 irepX tov twv da-qKp-qTiwv far from the Lausiakos (op. Bieliaev,
xupov. These offices were situated not i. 157).
SECT. II MURDER OF LEO V. 51
foreshadowings in every chance event and random word. The
Etnperor lay awake long on the night following that Christmas
Eve, tossing in his mind divers grave omens, which seemed
to point to some mortal peril, and to signify Michael as the
instrument. There was the unlucky chance that on the day
of his coronation Michael had trodden on his cloak. But
there were other signs more serious and more recent. From
a book of oracles and symbolic pictures ^ Leo had discovered
the time of his death. A lion pierced in the throat with a
sword was depicted between the letters Chi and Phi. These
are the first letters of the Greek expressions ^ which mean
Christmas and Epiphany, and therefore the symbol was
explained that the Imperial lion was to be slain between
those two feasts. As the hours went on to Christmas morning
the Lion might feel uneasy in his lair. And a strange dream,
which he had dreamt a short time before, expressly signified
that Michael would be the cause of his death. The Patriarch
Tarasius had appeared to him with threatening words and
gestures, and had called sternly upon one Michael to slay the
sinner. It seemed to Leo that Michael obeyed the command,
and that he himself was left half dead.
Tortured with such fears the Emperor bethought him to
make further provisions for the safety of the prisoner whose
punishment he had deferred. He summoned the keeper
{jpa-pias) of the Palace and bade him keep Michael in one of
the rooms which were assigned to the Palace-sweepers, and to
fasten his feet in fetters. Leo, to make things doubly sure,
kept the key of the fetters in the pocket of his under-garment.
But still his fears would not let him slumber, and as the night
wore on he resolved to convince himself with his own eyes
that the prisoner was safe. Along the passages which led
to the room which for the time had been turned into a
dungeon, there were locked doors to pass. But they were
not solid enough to shut out the Emperor, who was a strong
man and easily smashed or unhinged them. He found the
prisoner sleeping on the pallet or bench of the keeper, and the
keeper himself sleeping on the floor. He saw none save
these two, but unluckily there was another present who saw
^ 'iK TWOS (Tv/x^o\iK7Js ^i^Xov (Geii. 21).
'■^ XpLCTTov 7] yeffTjcTLs and (ja} (pwra.
52 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
him. A little boy ^ in the service of Michael, who had been
allowed (doubtless irregularly) to bear his master company,
heard the approaching steps and crept under the couch, from
which hiding-place he observed the movements of Leo, whom
he recognized as the Emperor by his red boots. Leo bent
over Michael and laid his hand on his breast, to discover
whether the beating of his heart pointed to anxiety or
security. When there was no response to his touch, the
Emperor marvelled much that his prisoner enjoyed such a
sound and careless sleep. But he was vexed at the circum-
stance that the keeper had resigned his couch to the criminal ;
such leniency seemed undue and suspicious. Perhaps he was
vexed too that the guardian was himself asleep. In any case
the lad under the bed observed him, as he was retiring from
the cell, to shake his hand threateningly at both the guardian
and the prisoner. The unseen spectator of Leo's visit reported
the matter to his master, and when the keeper of the Palace
saw that he too was in jeopardy they took common counsel
to save their lives. The only chance was to effect a com-
munication with the other conspirators, whose names had
not yet been revealed. The Emperor had directed that, if
Michael were moved to confess his sins and wished for ghostly
consolation, the offices of a priest should not be withheld from
him, and the matter was entrusted to a certain Theoktistos,
who was a servant of Michael, perhaps one of the Excubitors.
It certainly seems strange that Leo, who took such anxious
precautions in other ways, should have allowed the condemned
to hold any converse with one of his own faithful dependants.
The concession proved fatal. The keeper led Theoktistos to
Michael's presence, and Theoktistos soon left the Palace, under
the plea of fetching a minister of religion, but really in order
to arrange a plan of rescue with the other conspirators. He
assured the accomplices that, if they did not come to deliver
the prisoner from death, Michael would not hesitate to reveal
their names.
The plan of rescue which the conspirators imagined and
carried out was simple enough ; but its success depended on
the circumstance that the season was winter and the mornings
dark. It was the custom that the choristers who chanted the
^ The boy was an eunuch (Gen. 23).
SECT. II
MURDER OF LEO V.
53
matins in the Palace Chapel of St. Stephen ^ should enter by
the Ivory Gate at daybreak, and as soon as they sang the
morning hymn, the Emperor used to enter the church. The
conspirators arrayed themselves in clerical robes, and having
concealed daggers in the folds, mingled with the choristers
who were waiting for admission at the Ivory Gate. Under
the cover of the gloom easily escaping detection, they entered
the Palace and hid themselves in a dark corner of the chapel.
Leo, who was proud of his singing (according to one writer he
sang execrably, but another, by no means well disposed to him,
states that he had an unusually melodious voice "), arrived
punctually to take part in the Christmas service, and harbour-
ing no suspicion of the danger which lurked so near. It was a
chilly morning, and both the Emperor and the priest who led the
service had protected themselves against the cold by wearing
peaked felt caps. At a passage in the service which the
Emperor used to sing with special unction, the signal was
given and the conspirators leaped out from their hiding-place.
The likeness in head-dress, and also a certain likeness in face
and figure, between Leo and the chief of the officiating clergy, led
at first to a blunder. The weapons of the rebels were directed
against the priest, but he saved his life by uncovering his head
and showing that he was bald. Leo, meanwhile, who saw his
danger, had used the momentary respite to rush to the altar
and seize some sacred object, whether the cross itself, or the
chain of the censer, or a candelabrum, as a weapon of defence.
When this was shattered by the swords of the foes who
surrounded him and only a useless fragment remained in his
hands, he turned to one of them who was distinguished above
the others by immense stature and adjured him to spare his life.
Bieliaev) thought that the church
(which Gen. and Cont. Th. do not
identify) is that of the Lord, which
was also close to Daphne. The
Armenian historian Wardan (see Mar-
quart, Streifzilge, 404) says that the
keeper of the prison was a friend of
Michael and bribed the /layy'Ka^irai
(palace-guards), and that they exe-
cuted the murder. He also mentions
the intervention of the Empress.
" Gen. p. 19 dojSapbv i/x[3ouiv /cat
KaKbpvdixos, but Cont. Th. 39 ^v 70,^
(jivaei T€ eij(pwvo$ Kal iv Ta.1% jUeX(jj5(ats tCoi>
Kar' fKelvo KaipoO avdpihirwv ijd^TaTOS.
1 AcfM Davidis, etc., 229 Kara tov
Tov Trp(j}TOfjLdpTvpos '^T€(pdvov vaov rbv
'iv^ov 'dvTO. Twv ^aaiXeicjv iv tottcjj ry
iwiXeyofMevcj} Ad(pvri. But Nicetas ( Vit.
Ign. 216) places the murder in the
Church of the Virgin of the Pharos,
and this is accepted by Ebersolt (155),
who consequently gets into difficulties
about the Ivory Gate. From Gen. 24
it is clear that this gate was an ex-
terior gate of the Palace (this is in
accordance with Constantine, Cer. 600),
doubtless communicating with the
Hippodrome, and close to the Daphne
Palace. Labarte (122 ; followed by
54 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
But the giant, who for his height was nicknamed " One-and-a-
half," ^ swore a great oath that the days of Leo were numbered,
and with the word brought down his sword so heavily on the
shoulder of his victim that not only was the arm cut from
the body, but the implement which the hand still held was
cleft and bounded to a distant spot of the building. The
Imperial head was then cut off, and the work of murder and
rescue was accomplished.^
Thus perished the Armenian Leo more foully than any
Koman Emperor since Maurice was slain by Phocas. He was,
as even his enemies admitted (apart from his religious policy),
an excellent ruler, and a rebellion against him, not caused by
ecclesiastical discontent, was inexcusable. Michael afterwards
declared, in palliation of the conspiracy, that Leo had shown
himself to be unequal to coping with the rebellion of Thomas,
and that this incompetence had caused discontent among the
leading men of the State. But this plea cannot be admitted ;
for although Thomas defeated a small force which Leo, not
fully realizing the danger, had sent against him, there is no
reason to suppose that, when he was fully informed of the
forces and numbers of the rebel, he would have shown himself
less able or less energetic in suppressing the insurrection than
Michael himself Certainly his previous conduct of warfare
was not likely to suggest to his ministers that he was
incapable of dealing with a revolt. But in any case we have
no sign, except Michael's own statement, that the rebellion of
Thomas was already formidable. We must conclude that the
conspiracy was entirely due to Michael's personal ambition,
stimulated perhaps by the signs and omens and soothsayings
of which the air was full. It does not appear that the
religious question entered into the situation ; for Michael was
himself favourable to iconoclasm.
The body of the slain Emperor was cast by his murderers
into some sewer or outhouse ^ for the moment. It was after-
^ %v KoX ■r^fj.KTv, see Gen. 25. From which they interpreted to signify
Cont. Th. 39 we get another fact about some portentous event. See Gen. 26,
the giant: he belonged to the family Cont. Th. -40. Cp. the story told of the
of the Krambonites. death of Wala of Corbie (a.d. 836):
2 There was a story told that at Simson, Lndwig, ii. 157.
the very hour at which the deed ^ Gen. 26 iv evXoecdeai xcipots tois
was wrought, four o'clock in the irpos to de^tfxov (5. seems to mean a
morning, some sailors, sailing on the receptacle for sewerage ; not noticed
sea, heard a strange voice in the air, in Ducange's Gloss. ).
SECT. II MURDER OF LEO V. 55
wards dragged naked from the Palace by the " Gate of Spoils "
to the Hippodrome/ to be exposed to the spurns of the
populace, which had so lately trembled in the presence of the
form which they now insulted. From the Hippodrome the
corpse was borne on the back of a horse or mule to a harbour
and embarked in the same boat which was to convey the
widow and the children of the Emperor to a lonely and lowly
exile in the island of Prote. Here a new sorrow was in store
for Theodosia : the body of the son who was called by her own
name was to be laid by that of his father. The decree had
gone forth that the four sons were to be made eunuchs, in
order that they might never aspire to recover the throne from
which their father had fallen. The same measure which Leo
had meted to his predecessor's children was dealt out to his
own offspring. Theodosius, who was probably the youngest of
the brothers, did not survive the mutilation, and he was
buried with Leo. There is a tale that one of the other
brothers, but it is not quite clear whether it was Constantine
or Basil,^ lost his power of speech from the same cause, but
that by devout and continuous prayer to God and to St.
Gregory, whose image had been set up in the island, his voice
was restored to him. The third son, Gregory, lived to
become in later years bishop of Syracuse. Both Basil and
Gregory repented of their iconoclastic errors, and iconodule
historians spoke of them in after days as " great in virtue." ^
But although Michael, with a view to his own security,
dealt thus cruelly with the boys, he did not leave the family
destitute. He gave them a portion of Leo's property for their
support, but he assigned them habitations in different places.
The sons were confined in Prote, while the wife and the mother
of Leo were allowed to dwell " safely and at their own will " in a
more verdant and charming island of the same group, Chalkites,
which is now known as Halki.*
1 There is a picture of the scene in course, is a mistake. Constantine
the Madrid MS. of Skylitzes (Beylie, was not Basil. The renaming was of
L' Habitation hyzantine,lQQ). Partisans Symbatios, who became Constantine
of Michael appear above the roof of {ib. 41 ; below, p. 58). It seems prob-
the Palace to illustrate the chronicler's able that Basil was meant, as we
words (Cedrenus, ii. 67) ha to ttjv find the story told of him in Pseudo-
^aaiXeiov a^X-fji' oTrXois oi'/cetots Travrodev Simeon, 619.
irepi.(ppaxOr]va.i. ■* Gen. 99.
'■^ Cont. Th. 47 MwvaTavThos 6 ■* Coiht. Th. 46, where their retreat
fjLeTovo/iaffdeh BafftXetos. This, of is designated as the monastery tQu
56
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. II
S 3. The Revival of Iconoclasm
The revival of image-worship by the Empress Irene and
the authority of the Council of Nicaea had not extinguished
the iconoclastic doctrine, which was still obstinately main-
tained by powerful parties both in the Court circles of
Byzantium and in the army. It is not surprising that the
struggle should have been, however unwisely, renewed. JTlie
first period of iconoclasm and persecution, which was initiated
by Leo the Isaurian, lasted for more than fifty, the second,
which was initiated by Leo the Armenian, for less than thirty
years. The two periods are distinguished by the greater__
prominence of the dogmatic issues of the question in the,
later epoch, and by the circumstance that the perse cution wa s
less violent and more restricted in its range. '
"We have already seen that Leo, before he entered Constan-
tinople to celebrate his coronation, wrote to assure the Patriarch
of his orthodoxy.^ No hint is given that this letter was a
reply to a previous communication from the Patriarch. "We
may suppose that Leo remembered how Nicephorus had exacted
a written declaration of orthodoxy from Michael, and wished
to anticipate such a demand. We know not in what terms
the letter of Leo was couched, but it is possible that he gave
Nicephorus reason to believe that he would be ready to sign
a more formal document to the same effect after his coronation.
The crowned Emperor, however, evaded the formality, which
the uncrowned Emperor had perhaps promised or suggested ;
and thus when he afterwards repudiated the Acts of the
Seventh Ecumenical Council he could not legally be said to
Aeo-TTOTcoi'. I know no other reference
to this cloister, but infer that it was
in Halki from the letter of Theodore
of Studion to Theodosia and her son
Basil (ii. 204 eTreidr] di aireSbd-q iifuv
■wapa Tov /JLeydXov /SacrtXeois 17 vijaos tt}s
XaXKiTov eis KaroiKrjTrjpiov). Theodore
complains that the abbot and monks
had been turned out of their house to
make room for Theodosia, and have no
home. The letter might suggest that
Basil was with Theodosia (in contra-
diction to the statement of Cont. Tli.),
but the inference is not necessary and
the superscription may be inacciirate.
For a description of Halki and its
monasteries, see Schlumberger, ojj. eit.
102 sqq.
^ Theoph. 502 ypi<t^€i /xev N LK7]4>6p(j}
Tip narpiapxTI to. Trepl ttjs eavrou opdo-
do^ias dLafie^aiovfjLfvos, airdbv fxera tjjs
ei'X^s /cat eTTLveuffecas avrov tov Kpa.Tov%
fwiXajS^adai. This statement of Theo-
phanes is most important and seems to
be the key to the difficulty. Theophanes
does not say a word in prqudice of Leo.
He wrote probably very soon after
Leo's accession and before the icono-
clastic policy had been announced. If
Leo had signed, like ]\Hchael, a formal
document, Theophanes would almost
certainly have mentioned it.
SECT. Ill THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 57
have broken solemn engagements. But his adversaries were
eager to represent him as having broken faith. According
to one account/ he actually signed a solemn undertaking to
preserve inviolate the received doctrines of the Church ; and
this he flagrantly violated by his war against images.
According to the other account,^ he definitely promised to
sign such a document after his coronation, but, when it came
to the point, refused. The first story seizes the fact of his
reassuring letter to Nicephorus and represents it as a binding
document ; the second story seizes the fact that Leo after his
coronation declined to bind himself, and represents this
refusal as a breach of a definite promise.
The iconoclastic doctrine was still widely prevalent in the
army, and was held by many among the higher classes in the
capital. If it had not possessed a strong body of adherents,
the Emperor could never have thought of reviving it. That
he committed a mistake in policy can hardly be disputed in
view of subsequent events. Nicephorus I., in preserving the
settlement of the Council of Nicaea, while he allowed icono-
clasts perfect freedom to propagate their opinions, had proved
himself a competent statesman. For, considered in the interest
of ecclesiastical tranquillity, the great superiority of image-
worship to iconoclasm lay in the fact that it need not lead to
persecution or oppression. The iconoclasts could not be com-
pelled to worship pictures, they had only to endure the offence
of seeing them and abstain from insulting them ; whereas the
adoption of an iconoclastic policy rendered persecution inevit-
able. The course pursued by Nicephorus seems to have been
^ Scr. Incert. 340 TrpSrepov rroi-^aas placed on his head ; then devrepa rrjs
i^Lbxeipov ; cp. 349. Simeon {Leo Gr. (SacnXetas iifi^pas Kal avOis 6 deo(p6pos
207) j3e/3atc6(ras avrbv iyypd(f>wi irepl ttjs rif ttjs opdodo^ias rofiip rbv dpTL(pav7J
favTou opdooo^ias (cp. Vers. Slav. 90 ; jSacrtXea KaTTjireL-yeu efarjf/.rjvacrdai 6 de
Add. Georg. ed. Mur. 679 has to KparaiQs dinjpve'iro. This story may
^yypa(pov—'a9eTrj(rai). Hii'sch is the be near the truth though it is told by
only modern authority since Lebeau a partisan. It is repeated by Genesios,
(xii. 297) who accepts this account etc., and accepted by Finlay, ii. 113
(22). According to Vit. Theod. Grapf. (who here confounds the Patriarch
665, Leo gave an undertaking at the with the deacon Ignatius), Hergen-
time of the coronation. rother, i. 234, and most writers. Hefele
2 Ignatius, Vit. Niceph. Pair. 163, leaves the question open (iv. 1).
164 : Nicephorus sent an elaborate Ignatius relates that the Patriarch,
form (r6,u.os), containing the orthodox when placing the crown on Leo's head,
creed, to Leo before his coronation ; felt as if he were pricked by thorns
Leo assented to its contents, but post- (164).
poned signing until the diadem was .
58 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
perfectly satisfactory and successful in securing the peace of
the Church.
All this, however, must have been as obvious to Leo the
Armenian as it seems to us. He cannot have failed to realize
the powerful opposition which a revival of iconoclasm would
arouse ; yet he resolved to disturb the tranquil condition of
the ecclesiastical world and enter upon a dangerous and dis-
agreeable conflict with the monks.
Most of the Eastern Emperors were theologians as well
as statesmen, and it is highly probable that Leo's personal
conviction of the wrongfulness of icon-worship,^ and the fact
that this conviction was shared by many prominent people
and widely diffused in the Asiatic Themes, would have
been sufficient to induce him to revive an aggressive icono-
clastic policy. But there was certainly another motive which
influenced his decision. It was a patent fact that the icono-
clastic Emperors had been conspicuously strong and successful
rulers, whereas the succeeding period, during which the worship
of images had been encouraged or permitted, was marked by
weakness and some signal disasters. Llhe day is not yet
entirely past for men, with vague ideas of the nexus of cause
and effect, to attribute the failures and successes of nations to
^" the wrongness or soundness of their theological beliefe\ and
even now some who read the story of Leo's reign may
sympathize with him in his reasoning that the iconoclastic
doctrine was proved by events to be pleasing in the sight of
Heaven. We are told that " he imitated the Isaurian Emperors
Leo and Constantine, whose heresy he revived, wishing to
live many years like them and to become illustrious." ^
To the ardeut admirer of Leo the Isaurian, his own name
seemed a good omen in days when men took such coincidences
seriously ; and to make the parallel between his own case
and that of his model nearer still, he changed the Armenian
name of his eldest son Symbatios and designated him Con-
stantine.^ The new Constantine was crowned and proclaimed
Augustus at the end of 813, when the Bulgarians were still
^ That tlie iconoclastic policy of Leo siantin V, cap. viii. See also Schenk,
III. and Constantine V. is not to be B.Z. v. 272 sqq.; Brehier, 41-42. This
explained by "considerations of ad- applies to the later iconoclasts also,
niinistrative and military interest " "^ Scr. Incert. 346, 349.
has been shown by Lombard, Con- ■' lb. 346. Cp. Gen. 26.
SECT. Ill THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 59
devastating in Thrace or just after they had retreated, and it
pleased Leo to hear the soldiers shouting the customary
acclamations in honour of " Leo and Constantine." Propitious
names inaugurated an Armenian dynasty which might rival
the Isam'ian.
Stories were told in later times, by orthodox fanatics who
execrated his memory, of sinister influences which were brought
to bear on Leo and determine his iconoclastic policy. And
here, too, runs a thread of that drama in which he was one
of the chief actors. The prophecy of the hermit of Philo-
melion had come to pass, and it is said that Leo, in grateful
recognition, sent a messenger with costly presents to seek out
the true prophet. But when the messenger arrived at Philo-
melion he found that the man w^as dead and that another
monk named Sabbatios had taken possession of his hut.
Sabbatios was a zealous opponent of image-worship, and he
prophesied to the messenger in violent language. The
Empress Irene he reviled as " Leopardess " and " Bacchant,"
he perverted the name of Tarasius to " Taraxios " (Disturber),
and he foretold that God would overturn the throne of Leo
if Leo did not overturn images and pictures.^
The new prophecy from Philomelion is said to have alarmed
the Emperor, and he consulted his friend Theodotos Kassiteras
on the matter. We already met this Theodotos playing a part
in the story of the possessed damsel who foretold Leo's
elevation. Whatever basis of fact these stories may have, we
can safely infer that Theodotos was an intimate adviser of the
Emperor. On this occasion, according to the tale, he did not
deal straightforwardly with his master. He advised Leo to
consult a certain Antonius, a monk who resided in the capital ;
but in the meantime Theodotos himself secretly repaired to
Antonius and primed him for the coming interview. It was
arranged that Antonius should urge the Emperor to adopt the
doctrine of Leo the Isaurian and should prophesy that he
would reign till his seventy-second year. Leo, dressed as a
private individual, visited the monk at night, and his faith
^ Gen. 13 (repeated in Cont. Th.). describes himself as Sesucli the lord of
It may be one of the tales which earthquakes, addresses Leo as "Alex-
Genesios derived from rumour {(prj/jLT)), ander," and prophesies that he will
but it is also told in the Epist. Synod. reduce the Bulgarians if he abolishes
Orient, ad Theoph. 368, where Sabbatios icons.
60 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
was confirmed when Antonius recognized him. This story,
which, of course, we cannot unreservedly believe, became
current at the time, and was handed down to subsequent
generations in a verse pasquinade composed by Theophanes
Confessor.^
The Emperor discovered a valuable assistant in a young
man known as John the Grammarian,^ who had the distinc-
tion of earning as many and as bitter maledictions from the
orthodox party of the time and from subsequent orthodox
historians as were ever aimed at Manes or at Arius or at
Leo III. He was one of the most learned men of his day,
and, like most learned men who fell foul of the Church in
the middle ages, he was accused of practising the black art.
His accomplishments and scientific ability will appear more
conspicuously when we meet him again some years hence
as an illustrious figure in the reign of Theophilus. He
was known by several names. "We meet him as John the
Eeader, more usually as John the Grammarian ; but those who
detested him used the opprobrious titles of Hylilas,^ by which
they understood a forerunner and coadjutor of the devil, or
Lekanomautis, meaning that he conjured with a dish. His
parentage, if the account is true, was characteristic. He was
the son of one Pankratios, a hermit, who from childhood had
been possessed with a demon. But all the statements of our
authorities with respect to John are coloured by animosity
because he was an iconoclast. Patriarchs and monks loved to
drop a vowel of his name and call him " Jannes " after the
celebrated magician, just as they loved to call the Emperor
Leo " Chame-leon."
The project of reviving iconoclasm was begun warily and
silently ; Leo had determined to make careful preparations
before he declared himself. At Pentecost, 814, John the
Grammarian, assisted by several colleagues,'^ began to prepare
^ Gen. 15. in Cedrenus, ii. 144), Cont. Th. 154—
'^ See Scr. Incert. 349, 350. a distinguished family in Constanti-
'^ lb. It is not quite clear, however, nople, which St. Martin [apud Lebeau,
whether this obscure name was ap- xiii. 14) thinks was of Armenian
plied to John or to Pankratios his origin. His brother bore the Armenian
father. Pseudo-Simeon (606) inter- name Arsaber, and his father's name
prets the })assage in the former sense, Pankratios may be a hellenization of
and I have followed him. See Hirsch, Bagrat.
332. He belonged to the family of * Besides Bishop Antonius, men-
the Morocharzamioi (Morocharzanioi tioned below, the otlier members of
SECT. Ill THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 61
an elaborate work against the worship of images. The
Emperor provided him with full powers to obtain access to any
libraries that he might wish to consult. Eare and ancient
books were scattered about in monasteries and churches, and
this notice suggests that it was not easy for private individuals
to obtain permission to handle them. It is said that the zeal
of the scholar was increased by a promise of Leo to appoint
him Patriarch, in case it should be found necessary to remove
Nicephorus. John and his colleagues collected many books
and made an extensive investigation. Of course their opponents
alleged that they found only what they sought, and sought
only for passages which might seem to tell in favour of
iconoclasm, while they ignored those which told against it.
The Acts of the Synod of 7 5 3 gave them many references, and
we are told how they placed marks in the books at the relevant
passages.^
It was desirable to have a bishop in the commission, and
in July a suitable person was found in Antonius, the bishop
of Syllaion in Pamphylia.^ He is said to have been originally
a lawyer and a schoolmaster, and in consequence of some
scandal to have found it advisable to enter a monastery. He
became an abbot, and, although his behaviour was loose and
unseemly, " God somehow allowed him " to become bishop of
Syllaion. His indecent behaviour seems to have consisted in
amusing the young monks with funny tales and practical jokes.
He was originally orthodox and only ado^Jted the heresy in
order to curry favour at the Imperial Court. Such is the
sketch of the man drawn by a writer who was violently
prejudiced against him and all his party .^
Private apartments in the Palace were assigned to the
committee, and the bodily wants of the members were so well
provided for that their opponents described them as living like
pigs.* In the tedious monotony of their work they were
consoled by delicacies supplied from the Imperial kitchen, and
the commission were the laymen ets toi)j rdwovs ^vda 'qvpuxKov).
Joannes Spektas and Eutychianos, 2 gyllaion was near the inland
members of the Senate, and the monks Kibyra (see Anderson's Map of Asia
Leontios and Zosimas (Theosteriktos, Minor).
Vit. Meet, xxix., who adds that 3 „ , + qki
Zosimas soon afterwards died in con- ^°'^- i^^cert. dOi.
sequence of having his nose cut off as * Ignatius, Vit. Nic. Pair. 165 to
a punishment for adultery). irpbs Tpv<pT]i> avQiv SLktiv diroTd^as aiirois
^ Scr. Incert. 350 {(xrjixddia. ^dWovTes cnTifpiffiov.
62 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
while the learning and subtlety of John lightened the difficulties
of the labour, the jests and buffoonery of the bishop might
enliven the hours of relaxation. The work of research was
carried on with scrupulous secrecy. Whenever any curious
person asked the students what they were doing they said,
" The Emperor commissioned us to consult these books, because
some one told him that he lias only a short time to reign ; that
is the object of our search." ^
In December the work of the commission was completed
and the Emperor summoned Nicephorus to a private interview
in the Palace.^ Leo advocated the iconoclastic policy on the
ground that the worship of images was a scandal in the army.
" Let us make a compromise," he said, " to please the soldiers,
and remove the pictures which are hung low." But Nicephorus
was not disposed to compromise ; he knew that compromise in
this matter would mean defeat. When Leo reminded him
that image-worship was not ordained in the Gospels and laid
down that the Gospels were the true standard of orthodoxy,
Nicephorus asserted the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in
successive ages. This interview probably did not last very
long. The Patriarch was firm and the Emperor polite. Leo
was not yet prepared to proceed to extremes, and Nicephorus
still hoped for his conversion, even as we are told that Pope
Gregory II. had hoped for the conversion of his Isaurian
namesake.
The policy of the orthodox party at this crisis was to
refuse to argue the question at issue. The Church had already
declared itself on the matter in an Ecumenical Council ; and
to doubt the decision of the Church was heretical. And so
when Leo proposed that some learned bishops whom the
Patriarch had sent to him should hold a disputation with
some learned iconoclasts, the Emperor presiding, they em-
phatically declined, on the ground that the Council of Nicaea
1 According to the Eipist. Synod. rately informed. See C. Thomas,
Orient, ad Theoph. 373, Nicephorus at Thcodor, 104, n. 2. The synod, at
length obtained an inkling of what which 270 ecclesiastics are said to
was going on in the Palace and sum- liave been present, was doubtless a
moned a synod in St. Sophia, at which avvooos evdrj/jLovaa, for which see Her-
he charged the members of the com- genrother, i. 38, and Pargoire, L'lJgl.
mission with heretical opinions ; and byz. 55-56.
the synod anathematized Antonius. ^ -phis interview is described by Sen
It may be questioned whether the Incert. 352-353.
authors of this document were accu-
SECT. Ill THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 63
in A.D. 787 had settled the question of image-worship for
ever.
Soon after these preliminary parleys, soldiers of the
Tagmata or residential regiments showed their sympathies by
attacking the Image of Christ over the Brazen Gate of the
Palace. It was said that this riot was suggested and en-
couraged by Leo ; and the inscription over the image, telling
how Irene erected a new icon in the place of that which
Leo III. destroyed, might stimulate the fury of those who
revered the memory of the Isaurian Emperors. Mud and
stones were hurled by the soldiers at the sacred figure, and
then the Emperor innocently said, " Let us take it down, to
save it from these insults." This was the first overt act in
the new campaign, and the Patriarch thought it high time to
summon a meeting of bishops and abbots to discuss the
danger which was threatening the Church. The convocation
was held in the Patriarch's palace. All those who were
present swore to stand fast by the doctrine laid down at the
Seventh Council, and they read over the passages which their
opponents cited against them.^ When Christmas came,
Nicephorus begged the Emperor to remove him from the
pontifical chair if he (Nicephorus) were unpleasing in his
eyes, but to make no innovations in the Church. To this Leo
replied by disclaiming either intention.^
These preliminary skirmishes occurred before Christmas
(a.d. 814). On Christmas day it was noticed by curious and
watchful eyes that Leo adored in public a cloth on which the
birth of Christ was represented.^ But on the next great feast
of the Church, the day of Epiphany, it was likewise observed
that he did not adore, according to custom. Meanwhile, the
iconoclastic party was being reinforced by proselytes, and the
Emperor looked forward to a speedy settlement of the question
in his own favour at a general synod. He issued a summons
to the bishops of the various dioceses in the Empire to
1 The riot of the soldiers and the 133-135 ; Ebersolt, Sainte-Sophie de
meeting of the bishops occurred in Constantinople, 26-27 (1910).
December before Christmas: so ex- ^ ^^ -j ^i i i ^■ e
pressly Scr. Incert. 355 radra iTrpaxOv „ " ?^ evidently had an audience of
Irpb tL ioprQ.. C. Thomas (^6. 107, V' ^"^P*'':"''' Pe/'l^aps^on Christmas
n. 5) seems to have overlooked this. J^^^' f^^^^ru,v {sic) r^v eopnou (Scr.
The Patriarch's palace was on the incert. *6.j.
south side of St. Sophia, probably * ^ov\6fji.evos Sia^daai. rrjv ioprqv
towards the east ; see Bieliaev, ii. {'ib-)-
64 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
assemble iu the capital, and perhaps stirred the prelates of
Hellas to undertake the journey by a reminiscence Mattering
to their pride. He reminded them that men from Mycenae
in Argolis, men from Carystos in Euboea, men from Corinth,
and many other Greeks, joined the Megarians in founding that
colony of the Bosphorus which had now grown to such great
estate.^ According as they arrived, they were conducted
straightway to the Emperor's presence, and were prohibited
from first paying a visit to the Patriarch, as was the usual
practice. The Emperor wished to act on their hopes or fears
before they had been warned or confirmed in the faith by the
words of their spiritual superior ; and this policy was regarded
as one of his worst acts of tyranny. Many of the bishops
submitted to the arguments or to the veiled threats of their
sovran, and those who dared to resist his influence were kept
in confinement.^ The Patriarch in the meantime encouraged
his own party to stand fast. He was supported by the
powerful interest of the monks, and especially by Theodore,
abbot of Studion, who had been his adversary a few years ago.
A large assembly of the faithful was convoked in the Church
of St. Sophia, and a service lasting the whole night was
celebrated.^ Nicephorus prayed for the conversion of the
Emperor, and confirmed his followers in their faith.
The Emperor was not well pleased when the news reached
the Palace of the doings in the Church. About the time of
cockcrow he sent a message of remonstrance to the Patriarch
and summoned him to appear in the Palace at break of day,
to explain his conduct. There ensued a second and more
famous interview between the Emperor and the Patriarch,
when they discussed at large the arguments for and against
image-worship. Nicephorus doubtless related to his friends
the substance of what was said, and the admirers of that
saint afterwards wrote elaborate accounts of the dialogue,
which they found a grateful subject for exhibiting learning,
1 Gen. 27 ivrevdev koX ypa.\f/as iravrl assembly of the bishops was held in
etnaKdiTiij Karalpeiv iv Bi'fai/rty ry virb the Palace (toO devrepov Kaid^a
Meyapiuv KnadivTi koI 'Rv^avros, Kar crvvl<TT7) to ^ovXevT-rjpwi' , ih.) before
EiypwTTiyj' ffweXedvTiav iv rfj toijtov the Patriarch's counter - demonstra-
TToXla-ei^ Kapva-Tlwv MvKT]vaLiov Kal tion ; but of course it was not a
'K.opLvdLwv dXKwv re iroWuv, (()iKo(rb(pois "synod."
Hfia Kal priTopai. The mythological ^ Ignatius, Fit. Nic. Pair. 167 ttjv
flourish may be due to Genesios. ■wa.vwxov iinTeXecrovTas avva^Lv.
^ Ignatius, Vit. Nic. Pair. 166. An
SECT. Ill THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 65
subtlety, and style. Ultimately Nicephorus proposed that
the bishops and others who had accompanied him to the gate
should be admitted to the Imperial presence, that his Majesty
might become fully convinced of their unanimity on the
question at issue. The audience was held in the Chrysotri-
kliuos,^ and guards with conspicuous swords were present, to
awe the churchmen into respect and obedience.
The Emperor bent his brows and spake thus : "^
Ye, like all others, are well aware that God lias appointed us to
watch over the interests of this illustrious and reasonable flock ; ^ and
that we are eager and solicitous to smoothe away and remove every thorn
that grows in the Church. As some menibers of the fold are in doubt
as to the adoration of images, and cite passages of Scripture whicli seem
unfavourable to such practices, the necessity of resolving the question
once for all is vital ; more especially in order to compass our great end,
which, as you know, is the unity of the whole Church. Tlie questioners
supply the premisses ; we are constrained to draw the conclusion. We
have already communicated our wishes to the High Pontiff, and now we
charge you to resolve the problem speedily. If you are too slow you
may end in saying nothing, and disobedience to our commands will not
conduce to your profit.
The bishops and abbots, encouraged by the firmness of the
Patriarch, did not flinch before the stern aspect of the
Emperor, and several spoke out their thoughts, the others
murmuring approval.^ Later writers edified their readers by
composing orations which might have been delivered on such
an occasion. In Theodore, the abbot of Studion, the Emperor
recognised his most formidable opponent, and some words are
ascribed to Theodore, which are doubtless genuine. He is
reported to have denied the right of the Emperor to interfere
in ecclesiastical affairs :
Leave the Church to its pastors and masters ; attend to your own
province, the State and the army. If you refuse to do this, and are bent
on destroying our faith, know that though an angel came from heaven to
pervert us we would not obey him, much less you.^
1 Trpos rd xp^copo^a ducLKTopa (Igna- enumerates those who took a promin-
tius, Vit. Nic. 168). ent part : the bishops Euthymios of
=» I translate freely from Ignatius. Sardis, Aemilian of Cyzicus, Michael of
The general tenor of the speech is Synnada,Theophylactusof Nicomedia,
doubtless correct. and Peter of Nicaea.
, , , , . % - " Theosteriktos, Vit. Nicel. 30 ;
3 TT^v ixeyoKo^vvixov Kai XoyiKV' Cxeorge Mon. 777 ; Michael, Fit. Theod.
■^olixv-qv. 280 sqq. (where, however, the strong
■'Theosteriktos, Vit. Nicet. 29, figureof an angel's descent is omitted).
F
66 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
The protest against Caesaropapism is characteristic of
Theodore. The Emperor angrily dismissed the ecclesiastics,
having assured Theodore that he had no intention of makino-
a martyr of him or punishing him in any way, until the
whole question had been further investigated.^
Immediately after this conclave an edict was issued for-
bidding members of the Patriarch's party to hold meetings or
assemble together in private houses. The iconodules were
thus placed in the position of suspected conspirators, under
the strict supervision of the Prefect of the City ; and
Nicephorus himself was practically a captive in his palace,
under the custody of one Thomas, a patrician.
The Patriarch did not yet wholly despair of convertino-
the Emperor, and he wrote letters to some persons who might
exert an influence over him. He wrote to the Empress
Theodosia,^ exhorting her to deter her lord from his " terrible
enterprise." He also wrote to the General Logothete to the
same effect, and in more threatening language to Eutychian,
the First Secretary. Eutychian certainly gave no heedful ear
to the admonitions of the pontiff. If the Empress saw good
to intervene, or if the General Logothete ventured to remon-
strate, these representations were vain. The Emperor forbade
Nicephorus to exercise any longer the functions of his office.^
Just at this time* the Patriarch fell sick, and if the
1 Michael, Vit. Theod. 281-284. and showed the old coins, the Emperor
2 She was the daughter of Arsaber, ^^^^^ him whether he found them ex-
patrician and quaestor (Gen. 21).' posed to the air or in a receptacle. He
Dark hints were let fall that there said"exposed to the air." The Emperor
was something queer about her mar- V^^ *^^'" washed with water and the
riage with Leo. Perhaps she was a images disappeared. The man con-
relative within the forbidden limits fessed the imposture, and the Patriarch
Cp. ih. 19. ^^^ discredited. The motif of this
fiction is doubtless an incident which
" Ignatius, Vit. Nie. 190. A curious occurred in the reign of Theophilus
story IS told by Michael Syr. 71, when the gold circle (roO^a) of the
that the crown of a statue of "Angus- equestrian statue of Justinian in the
tus Caesar," which stood on a high Augusteum fell, and an agile workman
column, fell off. It was difficult, but reached the top of the column by the
important, to replace it, for it was be- device, incredible as it is described by
heved that the crown had the power Simeon {Leo Gr. 227), of climbino- with
of averting pestilence from the city. a rope to the roof of St. Soplua, at-
V\ hen a man was found capable of the taching the rope to a dart, and liurlinc
task, the Patriarch secretly gave him the dart which entered so firmly into
some coins and instructed him to say the statue {i-TrwbT-nv, the Lat. transl.
that he had found them at the foot of has equum) that he was able to swing
the statue. He wished to prove that himself along the suspended rope to
the representation of sacred imajjes the summit of the column,
was ancient. When the man descended * Probably in February
SECT. Ill
THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM
67
malady had proved fatal, Leo's path would have been smoothed.
A successor of iconoclastic views could then have been
appointed, without the odium of deposing such an illustrious
prelate as Nicephorus. If Leo did not desire the death of his
adversary, he decided at this time who was to be the next
Patriarch. Hopes had been held out to John the Grammarian
that he might aspire to the dignity, but on maturer reflexion
it was agreed that he was too young and obscure.^ Theodotos
Kassiteras, who seems to have been the most distinguished
supporter of Leo throughout this ecclesiastical conflict, declared
himself ready to be ordained and fill the Patriarchal chair.^
But Nicephorus did not succumb to the disease. He
recovered at the beginning of Lent^ when the Synod was
about to meet. Theophanes, a brother of the Empress,^ was
sent to invite Nicephorus to attend, but was not admitted
to his presence. A clerical deputation, however, waited at the
Patriarcheion, and the unwilling Patriarch was persuaded by
Thomas the patrician, his custodian, to receive them.^ Nicephorus
was in a prostrate condition, but his visitors could not
persuade him to make any concessions. Their visit had
somehow become known in the city and a riotous mob, chiefly
consisting of soldiers, had gathered in front of the Patriarcheion.
A rush into the building seemed so imminent that Thomas
was obliged to close the gates, while the crowd of enthusiastic
iconoclasts loaded with curses the obnoxious names of Tarasius
and Nicephorus.''
After this the Synod met and deposed Nicephorus. The
enemies of Leo encouraged the belief that the idea of putting
Nicephorus to death was seriously entertained, and it is stated
that Nicephorus himself addressed a letter to the Emperor,
begging him to depose him and do nothing more violent, for
^ Scr. Incert. 359. The disappoint-
ment of John was doubtless due to the
interest of Theodotos.
^ He belonged to the important
family of the Melissenoi. His fathei-
Michael, patrician and general of the
Anatolic Theme, had been a leading
iconoclast under Constantino V. (cp.
Theoph. 440, 445). For the family
see Ducange, Fam. Byz. 145a.
* Scr. Incert. 358. In the mean-
time, some of theduties of the Patriarch
had been entrusted to a patrician,
whose views were at variance with
those of the Patriarch (see Ignatius,
Vit. Mc. Pair. 190). From the Scr.
Incert. we know that this patrician
was Thomas.
* lb. 191 Tov TTj^ ^aaiKlacrTis 6fj.ai/j.ova.
^ lb. 193. The deputation brought
a pamphlet with them — rcjj arbfj-i^
£Keivif) TOfxip — which they tried to per-
suade him to endorse, threatening him
with deposition.
6 lb. 196. Scr. Incert. 358.
68 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
his own sake. But there is no good reason to suppose that
Leo thought of taking the Patriarch's life. By such a course
he would have gained nothing, and increased his unpopularity
among certain sections of his subjects. It was sufficient to
remove Nicephorus from Constantinople, especially as he had
been himself willing to resign his chair. On the Bosphorus,
not far north of the Imperial city, he had built himself a
retreat, known as the monastery of Agathos.^ Thither he was
first removed, but after a short time it was deemed expedient
to increase the distance between the fallen Patriarch and the
scene of his activity. For tliis purpose Bardas, a nephew of
the Emperor, was sent to transport him to another but
somewhat remoter monastery of his own building, that of the
great Martyr Theodore, higher up the Bosphorus on the
Asiatic side. The want of respect which the kinsman of the
Emperor showed to his prisoner as chey sailed to their
destination made the pious shake their heads, and the tragic
end of the young man four years later served as a welcome
text for edifying sermons. Bardas as he sat on the deck
summoned the Patriarch to his presence ; the guards did not
permit " the great hierarch " to seat himself ; and their master
irreverently maintained his sitting posture in the presence of
grey hairs. Nicephorus, seeing the haughty and presumptuous
heart of the young man, addressed him thus : " Pair Bardas,
learn by the misfortunes of others to meet your own." ^ The
words were regarded as a prophecy of the misfortunes in store
for Bardas,^
On Easter day (April 1) Theodotos Kassiteras was
tonsured and enthroned as Patriarch of Constantinople. The
tone of the 'Patriarchal Palace notably altered when Theodotos
took the place of Nicephorus. He is described by an opponent
as a good-natured man who had a reputation for virtue, but
was lacking in personal piety.* It has been already observed
that he was a relative of Constantine V,, and as soon as he
was consecrated he scandalised stricter brethren in a way
1 Ignatius, Vit. Nic. 201. It is not Michael, Vit. Theod. 285, as March 20.
certain on which side of the Strait 2 ^^^^^ ^^^s dWorpiais avfxAopais rhs
Agathos lay, but it can be proved that iavroO /caXwr dLarieeadai.
St. Theodore was on the Asiatic (see
Pargoire, Boradion, 476-477). The date
of the deposition is given by Theoph.
De exit. S. Nic. 166, as March 13, by * Scr. Incert, 360
Pargoire, ^orarftoM, 476-477). The date ^ee below, p. 72. The edifying
of the deposition is given by Theoph. anecdote may reasonably be suspected.
SECT. Ill THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 69
which that monarch would have relished. A luncheon party ^
was held in the Patriarcheion, and clerks and monks who had
eaten no meat for years, were constrained by the kind
compulsion of their host to partake unsparingly of the rich
viands which were set before them. The dull solemnity of an
archiepiscopal table was now enlivened by frivolous conversation,
amusing stories, and ribald wit.^
The first duty of Theodotos was to preside at the icono-
clastic Council, for which all the preparations had been made.
It met soon after his consecration, in St. Sophia, in the
presence of the two Emperors.^ The decree of this Synod
reflects a less violent spirit than that which had animated
the Council assembled by Constantine V. With some
abbreviations and omissions it ran as follows : —
" The Emperors Constantine (V.) and Leo (IV.) considering the public
safety to depend on orthodoxy, gathered a numerous synod of spiritual
fathers and bishops, and condemned the unprofitable practice, unwarranted
by tradition, of making and adoring icons, preferring worship in spirit
and in truth.
" On this account, the Church of God remained tranquil for not a
few years, and the subjects enjoyed peace, till the government passed
from men to a woman, and the Church was distressed by female simplicity.
She followed the counsel of very ignorant bishops, she convoked an
injudicious assembly, and laid down the doctrine of painting in a material
medium the Son and Logos of God, and of representing the Mother of
God and the Saints by dead figures, and enacted that these representations
should be adored, heedlessly defying the proper doctrine of the Church.
So she sullied our latreutic adoration, and declared that what is due only
to God should be offered to lifeless icons ; she foolishly said that they
were full of divine grace, and admitted the lighting of candles and the
burning of incense before them. Thus she caused the simple to err.
" Hence we ostracize from the Catholic Church the unauthorised
manufacture of pseudonymous icons ; we reject the adoration defined by
Tarasius ; we annul the decrees of his synod, on the ground that they
^ Scr. Incert. 360 dpia-T68enrva, Serruys (see Bibliography ; Acta con-
dijeuner. cilii, a.d. 815). In the first part of
^ lb. y^Xoia Kal TraiyviSia /cat this treatise (unpubKshed, but see
TToXalcrfiaTa Kal atcrxpoXo7tas. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. ed. Harles, vii.
^ The proceedings of this Council 610 sq.) Nicephorus reproduced and
were destroyed when images were commented on the principal decrees of
restored ; but the text of the decree the iconoclastic councils. The other
has been extracted literally from the sources for the synod of 815 are :
anti-iconoclastic work of the Patriarch Theodore Stud. Eyi). ii. 1 ; Michael
Nicephorus entitled "BXe7xo5 koI IL E^i. ad Lud. ; Scr. Incert. 360-361 ;
avaTpowT] Tov dO^fffiov kt\ opov (pre- Theosteriktos, Fit. Nicet. xxx. Cp.
served in cod. Paris, 1250) by D. Mansi, xiv. 135 sqq. 417.
70
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. II
granted undue honour to pictures ; and we condemn tlie lighting of
candles and offering of incense.
" But gladly accepting the holy Synod, which met at Blachernae in
the temple of the unspotted Virgin in the reign of Constantine and Leo
as firmly based on the doctrine of the Fathers, we decree that the
manufacture of icons — we abstain from calling them idols, for there are
degrees of evil — is neither worshipful nor serviceable." ^
The theological theory of image- worship must be left to
divines. In its immediate aspect, the question might seem to
have no reference to the abstract problems of metaphysical
theology which had divided the Church in previous ages. But
it was recognised by the theological champions of both parties ^
that the adoration of images had a close theoretical connexion
with the questions of Christology which the Church professed
to have settled at the Council of Chalcedon. The gravest
charge which the leading exponents of image-worship brought
against the iconoclastic doctrine was that it compromised or
implicitly denied the Incarnation. It is to be observed that
this inner and dogmatic import of the controversy, although
it appears in the early stages,^ is far more conspicuous in the
disputations which marked the later period of iconoclasm.
To the two most prominent defenders of pictures, the Patriarch
Nicephorus and the abbot of Studion, this is the crucial point.
They both regard the iconoclasts as heretics who have lapsed
into the errors of Arianism or Monophysitism.^ The other
aspects of the veneration of sacred pictures are treated as of
secondary importance in the writings of Theodore of Studion ;
the particular question of pictures of Christ absorbs his
' airpO(TKVi'r]TOS /cat axpr^crros.
2 In the Acts of the Synod of a.d.
753 (754), the iconoclasts attempted
to show that image-worship involved
either Monophysitism or Nestorianism
(Mansi, xiii. 247-257). Cp. Schwarz-
lose, Der Bilderstreit, 92 sqq.
* John of Damascus {Or. i. 4, 16,
etc.) bases the legitimacy of pictures
on the Incarnation.
* See the First Antirrhesis of Nice-
phorus, who observes that Constantine
V. made war Kara rrjs tov Movoyevovs
oUovofjiias (217). Cp. also ib. 221, 244,
and 248-249. The works of Theodore
on this question are subtler than those
of Nicephorus. His 7'lnrcl Antir-
rhetikos would probably be considered
by theologians specially important.
It turns largely on the notion of irepi-
ypa<p7i, expounding the doctrine that
Christ was irepiypa-n-TOi (as well as
airepLypatvTos), circumscript and cap-
able of being delineated. Theodore
constructed a philosophical theory of
iconology, which is somewhat mysti-
cal and seems to have been influenced
by Neo-Platonism. It is based on the
principle that not only does the copy
(elKdov) imply the prototype, but the
prototyjje implies the copy ; they are
identical Kad' ofiolwaiv, though not
Kar ova-lav. See passages quoted by
Schwarzlose, 180 sqq. ; Schneider, 105
sq.
SECT. Ill THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 71
interest, as the great point at issue, believing, as he did, that
iconoclasni was an insidious attack on the orthodox doctrine
of the Incarnation.
We must now glance at the acts of oppression and perse-
cution of which Leo is said to have been guilty against those
who refused to join his party and accept the guidance of
the new Patriarch. Most eminent among the sufferers was
Theodore, the abbot of Studion, who seemed fated to incur the
displeasure of his sovrans. He had been persecuted in the
reign of Constantine VI. ; he had been persecuted in the reign
of Nicephorus ; he was now to be persecuted more sorely still
by Leo the Armenian. He had probably spoken bolder words
than any of his party, when the orthodox bishops and abbots
appeared before the Emperor. He is reported to have said
to Leo's face that it was useless and harmful to talk with a
heretic ; and if this be an exaggeration of his admiring
biographer, he certainly told him that Church matters were
outside an Emperor's province. When the edict went forth,
through the mouth of the Prefect of the City, forbidding the
iconodules to utter their opinions in public or to hold any
communications one with another, Theodore said that silence
was a crime.^ At this juncture he encouraged the Patriarch
in his firmness, and when the Patriarch was dethroned,
addressed to him a congratulatory letter, and on Palm Sunday
(March 25), caused the monks of Studion to carry their holy
icons round the monastery in solemn procession, singing
hymns as they went.^ And when the second " pseudo-synod "
(held after Easter) was approaching, he supplied his monks
with a formula of refusal, in case they should be summoned to
take part in it. By all these acts, which, coming from a man
of his influence were doubly significant, he made himself so
obnoxious to the author of the iconoclastic policy, that at
length he was thrown into prison. His correspondence then
became known to the Emperor, and among his recent letters,
one to Pope Paschal, describing the divisions of the Church,
was conspicuous. Theodore was accompanied into exile by
Nicolas, one of the Studite brethren.^ They were first sent
to a fort named Metopa situated on the Mysian Lake of
1 Theodore, Efix ii. 2 ; Michael, - Michael, Vit. Theod. 285.
Vit. Theod. 284. ^ Vit. Nicolai Stud. 881.
V2 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
Artyuia/^ The second jirison was Bonita,^ and there the
sufferings of the abbot of Studion are said to have been
terrible. His biographer delights in describing the stripes
which were inflicted on the saint ^ and dwells on the sufferings
which he underwent from the extremes of heat and cold as
the seasons changed. The visitations of fleas and lice in the
ill-kept prison are not omitted. In reading such accounts we
must make a large allowance for the exaggeration of a bigoted
partisan, and we must remember that in all ages the hardships
of imprisonment endured for political and religious causes are
seldom or never fairly stated by those who sympathize with
the " martyrs." In tlie present instance, the harsh treatment
is intelligible. If Theodore had only consented to hold his
peace, without surrendering his opinions, he would have been
allowed to live quietly in some monastic retreat at a distance
from Constantinople. If he had behaved with the dignity of
Nicephorus, whose example he might well have imitated, he
would have avoided the pains of scourgings and the unpleasant
experiences of an oriental prison-house. From Bonita he was
transferred to the city of Smyrna, and thrown into a dungeon,
■ where he languished until at the accession of Michael II. he
was released from prison. In Smyrna he came into contact
with a kinsman of Leo, named Bardas, who resided there as
Strategos of the Thrakesian Theme. There can be little doubt
that this Bardas was the same young man who showed scant
courtesy to the fallen Patriarch Nicephorus, on his way to the
monastery of St. Theodore. At Smyrna Bardas fell sick,
and someone, who believed in the divine powers of the famous
abbot of Studion, advised him to consult the prisoner.
Theodore exhorted the nephew of Leo to abjure his uncle's
1 Called at this time the Lake of Lake Anava, east of Clionae. For
Apollonia (Fif. Nic. Shod.), after the this lake see Ramsay, Phrygia, i. 230.
important town at its eastern corner. (Op. also Pargoire, in £chos d' Orient,
Cp. Pargoire, Saint TMophane, 70. vi. 207-212, 1903.)
TheodoreremainedforayearatMetopa, ^ In the Vit. Nic. Stud, it is stated
April 15, 815-816 spring, ih. 71. that Theodore and Nicolas received
■■^ Our data for the location of Bonita a hundred strokes each, for writing
are : it was 100 miles from the Lycian certain letters. Afterwards they were
coast (Theodore, Ep. 75, p. 61, ed. beaten with fresh withies called rhccae.
Cozza-Luzi), near a salt lake {ih.), in Moreover, their hands were bound with
the Anatolic Theme {ih. Ej). 10, p. ropes which were drawn very tight.
10) ; and Chonae lay on the road from Their imprisonment at Smyrna lasted
it to Smyrna. Hence Pargoire, op. 20 months, so that they left Bonita
cit. 70-71, places it close to Aji-Tuz- in May-June 819 (Pargoire, Saint
Gol, "the lake of bitter waters," i.e., Theophane, ih.).
SECT. Ill THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 73
heresy. The virtue of the saint proved efficacious ; the young
man recovered ; but the repentance was hollow, he returned
to his error ; then retribution followed and he died. This is
one of the numerous stories invented to glorify the abbot of
Studion, the bulwark of image-worship.^
One of the gravest offences of Theodore in the Emperor's
eyes was doubtless his attempt to excite the Pope to intervene
in the controversy. We have two letters which he, in con-
junction with other image-worshippers, addressed to Pope
Paschal I. from Bonita.^ His secret couriers maintained com-
munications with Eome,^ where some important members of
the party had found a refuge,* and Paschal was induced to
send to Leo an argumentative letter in defence of images.^
The rigour of the treatment dealt out to Theodore was
exceptional. Many of the orthodox ecclesiastics who attended
the Synod of April a.d. 815 submitted to the resolutions of
that assembly. Those who held out were left at large till the
end of the year, but early in a.d. 816 they were conducted to
distant places of exile. This hardship, however, was intended
only to render them more amenable to the gentler method of
persuasion. After a few days, they were recalled to Con-
stantinople, kept in mild confinement, and after Easter (April
20), they were handed over to John the Grammarian, who
presided over the monastery of Saints Sergius and Bacchus.
He undertook to convince the abbots of their theological error,
and his efforts were crowned with success in the case of at
least seven. Others resisted the arguments of the seducer,
and among them were Hilarion, the Exarch of the Patriarchal
monasteries, and Theophanes the Chronographer.^
^ Tliese details about Theodore's iiople {E'p. 2Ti, Cozza-Luzi).
banishment are derived from Theo- * Methodius, abbot of Chenolakkos
dore's Letters, from Michael's Vita (afterwards Patriarch of Constanti-
Theodori, and a few from the Vita nople) ; John, Bishop of Monembasia
Nieolai. {Ep. 193, Cozza-Luzi).
^Theodore, ^^jip. ii. 12 and 13. ^ Part of this eiiistle is preserved in
Paschal was elected in Jan. 817, and a Greek version and has been edited by
the letters belong probably to 817 and G. Mercati, JVote di letteratura bihlica
818 respectively. John of Eukairia, a c cristiana antica = Studi i Tcsti, 5),
signatory of the iirst letter, did not 227 sgg-., 1901. It contains some argu-
sign the second ; he had in the mean- ments which appear to be new.
time joined the iconoclasts {ib. ii. 35). ^ Qur chief source here is Theo-
" Dionysios who was in Rome at steriktos, Vit. Nic. xxx. sq. Nicetas,
the beginning of 817 ; Euphennan {ib. abbot of Medikion, was taken to
ii. 12) ; and Epiphanes, who was Masalaion (possibly in Lycaonia, cp.
caught and imprisoned at Constanti- Ramsay, Asia Minor, 356), where he
74
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP, II
Theophaiies, whose chronicle was almost our only guide
for the first twelve years of the ninth century, had lived a
life unusually ascetic even in his own day, in the monastery
of Agros, at Sigriane near Cyzicus.^ He had not been present
at the Synod nor sent into exile, but in the spring of a.d.
816 the Emperor sent him a flattering message, couched in
soft words, requesting him to come " to pray for us who are
about to march against the Barbarians." Theophanes, who
was suffering from an acute attack of kidney disease,^ obeyed
the command, and was afterwards consigned to the custody of
John. Proving obstinate he was confined in a cell in the
Palace of Eleutherios for nearly two years, and when he was
mortally ill of his malady, he was removed to the island of
Samothrace where he expired (March 12, a.d. 818) about
three weeks after his arrival.^
When we find tbat Leo's oppressions have been exaggerated
in particular cases, we shall be all the more inclined to allow
for exaggeration in general descriptions of his persecutions.
We read that " some were put to death by the sword, others
tied in sacks and sunk like stones in water, and women were
stripped naked in the presence of men and scourged." * If
remained for only 5 days. He suc-
cumbed to the arguments of Jolm,
but afterwards repented, and was
banished to the island of St. Glyceria
"in the Gulf," which Biittner-Wobst
{B.Z. vi. 98 sq.) identifies (unconvinc-
ingly) with Niandro. See also Theo-
dore, Ep. 79, Cozza-Luzi, and Epp. ii.
9 ; Sabas, Vit. Macar. 154 (Makarios
of Pelekete was one of those who did
not yield) ; and the Vitae of Theo-
phanes. John was assisted in his
work by Joseph, famous as the subject
of the Moechian controversy. Theo-
dore Stud, wrote to Theophanes
(while he was in SS. Sergius and
Bacchus), congratulating him on his
firmness {Ej). 140, Cozza-Luzi).
^ Sigriane has been located in the
environs of Kurchunlu, at the foot of
Karadagh, between the mouth of the
Rhyndakos and Gyzicus. See T. E.
Euangelides, 'H Mo^t; ttjs "Ziypiavris i)
rod Me7dXoi; 'Aypov (Athens, 1895) 11
sqq. ; Pargoire, op. cit. 112 sqq. The
island of Kalonymos (ancient Besbikos,
modern Emir Ali Adasse), mentioned
in the biographies of Theophanes, who
founded a monastery on it, lies due
north of the estuary of the Rhyndakos.
Sigriane is to becarefullydistinguished
from Sigrene near tlie river Granikos,
with which Ramsay {Asia Minor, 162)
and others have identified it (Pargoire,
ib. 45-47).
"^ Nicephorus Blach. Vit, Theojjh-
23. Theophanes had stone in the
bladder.
^ For the day see Anon. B. Vit.
Thcoph. 397 (and Anon. C. 293). For
the year see Pargoire, op. cit. 73 sqq.,
who fixes 818 by a process of exclusion.
Note that Anon. A. (p. 12) and Theod.
Prot. Enkomion 616, say that Theo-
phanes received 300 strokes before his
removal from Constantinople ; if tliis
were true, the other biographer would
not have failed to mention it.
■* Ignatius, Vit. Nic. 206. The best
evidence for the severity of the perse-
cution is in Theodore Stud.'s letters
to Pope Paschal and the Patriarch of
Alexandria {Epp. ii. 12, 14). He
mentions deaths from scourging and
drownings in sacks {elal 8i ol Kal
acLKKLcOivrei eOaXaaaevdrjcrav awpia, Cos
cra(pks yiyovev iK tQv toOtovs deaaai-Uvuv,
p. 1156).
SECT. in
THE REVIVAL OF TCONOCLASM
75
such atrocities had been frequent, we should have heard much
more about them. The severer punishments were probably
inflicted for some display of fanatical insolence towards the
Emperor personally. His chief object was to remove from the
capital those men, whose influence would conflict with the
accomplishment of his policy.^ But there may have been
fanatical monks, who, stirred with an ambition to outstrip
the boldness of Theodore of Studion, bearded the Emperor to
his face, and to them may have been meted out extreme
^ The statements about tlie suffer-
ings of individuals in hagiographical
literature (in which the principle that
suffering for orthodoxy enhanced merit
guided the writers) cannot be accepted
without more ado. It is said that
Leo scourged Euthymios of Sardis and
banished him to Thasos {Acta Davidis,
229). George the bishop of Mytilene
was sent to Cherson, and replaced by
Leo an iconoclast ; he excited the
Emperor against the holy Simeon of
Lesbos, who, imitating his namesake
the Stylite, lived on a pillar. at Molos,
a harbour in the south of the island,
having fastened his calves to his
thighs with chains. The inhabitants
were ordered to bring wood to the
foot of the column ; when the fire was
kindled, Simeon allowed himself to be
taken down, and was banished to
Lagusae, an island off the Troad {ib.
Til sqq). Theophylactus of Nico-
media is said to have been struck in
the face by the Em{)eror and banished to
Strobilos in the Kibyrrhaeot Theme (see
Synax. Ecc. C'pl. 519-520, cp. Loparev,
Viz. Vrem. iv. 355). Micliael, tlie Syn-
kellos of Jerusalem (born c. 761, made
Synkellos 811), his friend Job, and
the two Palestinian brothers Theodore
and Theophanes (see below, p. 136),
were persecuted by Leo. But ^le Vita
Mich. Sync, is full of errors and must
be used with great caution. Theodore
and Theophanes seem to have been
among those monks who fled in the
reign of Michael L (on account of
Mohamraadan persecution : a.d. 812
monasteries and churches in Palestine
were plundered) to Constantinople,
where the monastery of Chora was
placed at their disposal. Michael
seems to have been sent by the Patri-
arch of Jerusalem on a mission to
Rome in Leo's reign, and, tarrying on
his way in Constantinople, to have
been thrown into prison. (Theod.
Stud., writing to him in a.d. 824,
Ei)p. ii. 213, p. 1641, asks him,
"Why, when you had intended to
go elsewhere, were you compelled to
fall into the snares of those who
govern here ? ") It is not clear why
he did not return to Jerusalem under
Michael II. ; he is said to have lived
then in a convent near Brusa. Theo-
dore and Theophanes were confined
by Leo in a fortress near the mouth of
the Bosphorus (see Vailhe's study,
Saint Michel Ic Syncelle). For the
l)ersecution of Makarios, abbot of Pele-
kete (near Epliesus) see Vit. Macarii
157-159, sq. (Cp. Theodore Stud.
Ep. 38, ed. Cozza-L., p. 31.) John,
abbot of the Katharoi monastery (E. of
the Harbour of Eleutherios), is said to
have suffered stripes and been banished
first to a fort near Lampe (Phrygia)
and then to another in the Bukellarian
Theme {A.S. April 27, t. iii. 495).
Hilarion, abbot of the convent of
Dalmatos (or Dalmatoi ; n. of the
Forum Arcadii), was tortured by hunger
by the Patriarch Theodotos, and then
confined in various prisons {A.S. June
6, t. i. 759). Others who were mal-
treated, exiled, etc., were Aemilian,
bishop of Cyzicus {Synax. Ecc. Cp. 875,
cp. 519), Eudoxios of Amorion {ih.
519), and Michael of Synnada {tb. 703,
cp. Pargoire, l^clios d'orient, iv. 347
sqq., 1903). The last-named died in
A.D, 826. Joannes, abbot of Psicha
(at Cple.), suffered according to his
biographer {Vit. Joann. Psich. 114
sqq.) particularly harsh treatment.
He was flogged, confined in various
prisons, and then tortured by one
"who outdid Jaunes. " This must
mean not, as the editor thinks, John
the Grammarian, but Theodotos. Cp.
the story of the treatment of Hilarion.
II
76 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ii
penalties. Again, it is quite possible that during the destruc-
tion of pictures in the city, which ensued on their condemna-
tion by the Synod, serious riots occurred in the streets, and
death penalties may have been awarded to persons who
attempted to frustrate the execution of the imperial commands.
We are told that " the sacred representations " ^ were at the
mercy of anyone who chose to work his wicked will upon
them. Holy vestments, embroidered with sacred figures, were
torn into shreds and cast ignominiously upon the ground ;
pictures and illuminated missals were cut up with axes and
burnt in the public squares. Some of the baser sort insulted
the icons by smearing them with cow-dung and foul-smelling
ointments.^
1 Ignatius, Vii. Nic. eKrvn-w/xaTa.
2 lb. ^oX^Itols Kul dXoKpais Kal dSfj.a7s 6.-n8ii;ov<TaLS /car^xP*"''"'-
pr(
toil
iflii
fort
Fo(
CHAPTEE III
MICHAEL II., THE AMORIAN
(a.d. 820-829)
S 1. The Accession of Michael {a.d. 8^20). The Coronation
and Marriage of Theophihis (a.d. 821)
While his accomplices were assassinating the Emperor,
Michael lay in his cell, awaiting the issue of the enterprise
which meant for him death or empire, according as it failed or
prospered. The conspirators, as we have seen, did not bungle
in their work, and wdien it was accomplished, they hastened
to greet Michael as their new master, and to bear him in
triumph to the Imperial throne. With his legs still encased
in the iron fetters he sat on his august seat, and all the
servants and officers of the palace congregated to fall at his
feet. Time, perhaps, seemed to fly quickly in the surprise of
his new position, and it was not till midday that the gyves
which so vividly reminded him of the sudden change of his
fortunes were struck off his limbs. The historians tell of a
difficulty in finding the key of the fetters, and it was John
Hexabulios, Logothete of the Course, who remembered that
Leo had hidden it in his dress.^
About noon,^ without washing his hands or making any
other seemly preparation, Michael, attended by his supporters,
proceeded to the Great Church, there to receive the Imperial
crown from the hands of the Patriarch, and to obtain recoei:-
nition from the people. No hint is given as to the attitude
of the Patriarch Theodotos to the conspiracy, but he seems
1 According to Cont. Th. (41), or broken with a hammer (^6Xts
however, the key was not forthcom- dXaadivTuv).
ing, and the fetters were loosened '^ At the seventh hour, Gen. 30.
77
78 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
to have made no difficulty in performing the ceremony of
coronation for the successful conspirator. The Amorian
soldier received the crown from the prelate's hands, and the
crowd was ready to acclaim the new Augustus. Those who
held to image worship did not regret the persecutor of their
faith, but thought that he had perished justly ; and perhaps
to most in that superstitious populace the worst feature in the
whole work seemed to he that his blood had stained a holy
building.^ We have already seen how Michael dealt with the
Empress Theodosia and her children.
The new Koman Emperor ^ was a rude provincial, coarse
in manners, ill-educated, and superstitious. But he was
vigorous, ambitious, and prudent, and he had worked his way
up in the army by his own energy and perseverance.
Amorion, the city of his birth, in Upper Phrygia, was at this
time an important place, as the capital of the Anatolic
province. It was the goal of many a Saracen invasion. Its
strong walls had defied the generals of the Caliphs in the
days of the Isaurian Leo ; but it was destined, soon after it
had won the glory of giving a dynasty to the Empire, to be
captured by the Unbelievers. This Phrygian town was a
head-quarter for Jews, and for the heretics who were known as
Athingani.^ It is said that Michael inherited from his parents
Athingan views,"* but according to another account he was a
Sabbatian.^ Whatever be the truth about this, he was inclined
to tolerate heresies, of which he must have seen much at his
native town in the days of his youth. He was also favour-
ably disposed to the Jews ; but the statement that his grand-
father was a converted Jew does not rest on very good
authority.*^ It is certain that his parents were of humble
rank, and that his youth, spent among heretics, Hebrews, and
half-Hellenized Phrygians, was subject to influences which
were very different from the Greek polish of the capital. One
so trained must have felt himself strange among the men of
old nobility, of Hellenic education, and ecclesiastical ortho-
1 Such was the thouglit of the "' Nicetas, Vit. Iijn. 216. The
Continuer of Theophanes, 42. Sabbatians were a fourth-century off'-
^ His age on his accession is not shoot from the Novatians ; they held
recorded, but he was certainly well that Easter should be celebrated on
over forty. tlie same day and in the same manner
^ See above, ]>. 40. as the Jewish feast.
^ Cont. Th. 42. « Michael Syr. 72.
SECT. I MICHAEL II. 79
doxy ^ with whom he had to deal in Constantinople. He did
not disguise his contempt for Hellenic culture," and he is
handed down to history as an ignorant churl. Such a man
was a good aim for the ridicule of witty Byzantines, and it is
recorded that many lampoons were published on the crowned
boor.^
The low-born Phrygian who founded a new dynasty in the
ninth century reminds us of the low-born Dardanian who
founded a new dynasty exactly three hundred years before.
The first Justin, like the second Michael, was ignorant of
letters. It was told of Justin that he had a mechanical
contrivance for making his signature, and of Michael it was
popularly reported that another could read through a book
more quickly than he could spell out the six letters of his
name.* They were both soldiers and had worked their way
up in the service, and they both held the same post at the
time of their elevation, Justin was the commander of the
Excubitors when he was called upon to succeed Anastasius,
even as Michael when he stepped into the place of Leo. But
Michael could not say like Justin that his hands were pure of
blood. The parallel may be carried still further. The soldier
of Ulpiana, like the soldier of Amorion, reigned for about nine
years, and each had a successor who was a remarkable contrast
to himself. After the rude Justin, came his learned and
intellectual nephew Justinian ; after the rude Michael, his
polished son Theophilus.
Michael shared the superstitions which were not confined
to his own class. He was given to consulting soothsayers
and diviners ; and, if report spoke true, his career was directed
by prophecies and omens. It is said that his first marriage
was brought about through the utterances of a soothsayer.
He had been an officer in the army of the Anatolic Theme, in
idays before he had entered the service of Bardanes. The
general of that Theme, whose name is not recorded, was as
'eady as most of his contemporaries to believe in prognosti-
jeation, and when one of the Athingan sect who professed to
1 Cp. Finlay, ii. pp. 128, 129. is described as not so cruel as Leo, but
2 Cont. Th. 49 Av "EXK-qvLK^v '^^ '^^'"''^ 1"^'^^P' Xap'^o^efos Kal crxeSo^
■aiSevaiv diawTvoov, where Hellenic is iv avepo}ivdii:(T,^txaTLKT-nv^57)a.vaaTpo(l>7)v
pot used in the bad sense of n«(/a7i. Kai SiaiTap avadei^d^evos
' •* Uont. Ih. 49, clearly taken from
^ Ih. In the Ada Davidis, 230, he one of the popular lampoons.
80 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ni
tell fortunes, declared to him that Michael and another officer
of his staff were marked out for Imperial rank in the future,
he lost no time in taking measures to unite them with his
family. He prepared a feast, and chose them out of all the
officers to be his guests, to their own astonishment. But a
o-reater surprise awaited them, for when they were heated with
wine, he offered them his daughters in marriage. At this
unexpected condescension, the young men, of whom one at
least was of humble birth, were stupefied and speechless.
They drew back at first from an honour of which they deemed
themselves unworthy ; but the superstitious general overcame
their scruples, and the marriages took place. Thus it came about
that Michael won Thecla,^ who became the mother of the
Emperor Theophilus. The other son-in-law, whoever he may
have been, was not so fortunate ; in his case the soothsayer
was conspicuously at fault.^
Theophilus, for whom Leo V. had probably stood sponsor,^
was adult when his father came to the throne, and on the
following Whitsunday (May 12 a.d. 821) Michael, according
to the usual practice, secured the succession by elevating him
to the rank of Basileus and Augustus.^ The ceremony of
his marriage was celebrated on the same occasion.^ Having
^ Her name is known from Con- v-ko 'Avtwvlov iraTpidpxov Kal toj tou
stantine, Ger. 645, and Michael Syr. ydfiov Kal t($ ttjs (SaaiXeias arifpei. ttj
72. Simeon and the Vita Theodorae ayia treuTT/jKoa-Trj. (Cp. vers. Slav. 93,
state that Theophihis was the son of and Jdd. Georg. 790 ; the text of Leo
Michael's second wife, Euphrosyne. Gr. is imperfect.) See Brooks, o]}. cit.
- The story is told by Gen. 31 542, who rightly says that this is an
(^ = Cont. Th. 44.) authentic notice which must be separ-
3 Gen. 12. ated from the legend which precedes
* The true date of the elevation of it. It is not clear whether all these
Theophilus and his marriage has been ceremonies were performed on the
ascertained by Brooks {B.Z. 10, 540 same day. The crowning of Theo-
sqq.). The will of Justinian, Duke of philus with the diadem {dT^n^j^a or
Venice, equates indiction 7 (a.d. 828- 8idd7jiJt.a) must have come first, and
829) with the ninth year of Michael was performed in St. Sophia ; the
and the eighteenth fmistake for eighth) ceremony is described in Constantine,
of Theophilus. This is compatible Cer. i. 38. We must not press the
with his coronation in a.d. 821 or 822. notice so as to imply that Michael was
Now there are no coins of Michael II. absent himself and deputed the Patri-
alone (see Wroth, ii. 416), and this arch to crown his son. Except in the
fact, combined with the probability Emperor's absence, the Patriarch
that the Emperor would not delay handed the crown to him, and he
long to crown his son, justifies us in placed it on his colleague's head,
deciding for 821. The day of the The marriage ceremony was always
ceremony is recorded by Simeon. performed in the Church of St. Stephen
^ Simeon (Theod. Mel. 147), cTT^tpei in Daphne, and is described Cer. i.
5e Qeodwpai' ev t(^ evKTtjp'u^ tov ayiov 89 (the nuptial crown is crreepdvu/xa,
2iT€(t>dvov, (TT€(pdels Kal avrbs HfMa avrrj as distinguished from the Imperial
SECT. I
THE MARRIAGE OF THEOPHILUS
81
received the Imperial crown from his father's hands in St.
Sophia, he was wedded by the Patriarch, in the Church of
St. Steplien in the Palace, to Theodora, a Paphlagonian lady,
whose father and uncle were officers in the army.^ The
ceremony was followed by her coronation as Augusta.
It is probable that the provincial Theodora, of an obscure
but well-to-do family, was discovered by means of the bride-show
custom which in the eighth and ninth centuries was habitually
employed for the purpose of selecting brides for Imperial
heirs. Messengers were sent into the provinces to search for
maidens who seemed by their exceptional physical attractions
and their mental qualities worthy of sharing the throne of
an Emperor. They were guided in their selection by certain
fixed standards ; they rejected all candidates who did not
conform, in stature and in the dimensions of their heads and
feet, to prescribed measures of beauty.'^ It was thus that
Maria, discovered in a small town in Paphlagonia, came to be
the consort of Constantine VI.,^ and we saw how a bride-show
was held for the wedding of Stauracius.^ In later times
Michael III. and Leo VI. would win their brides in the same
fashion ; ^ and it* is not improbable that Irene of Athens
owed her marriage with Leo IV. to this custom.
The bride-show of Theophilus has been embroidered with
legendary details, and it has been misdated, but there is no
reason for doubting that it was actually held. The story
represents Theophilus as still unmarried when he became sole
Emperor after his father's death. His stepmother Euphrosyne
ariixfia.). The coronation of the
Augusta was celebrated in the same
place {ib. i. 40). The procedure where
the marriage and coronation of an
Augusta were combined is described
ib. i. 41. For the succession of
Antonius to the Patriarchate, see
below, p. 115.
^ Her father was Marinos, a drun-
garios, if not a turmarch. He belonged
to the town of Ebissa {Gont. Th. 89).
In the same passage the fact that
Theodora had been crowned "long
ago," TrdXtti or), i.e. before her husband's
accession to the autocracy, is recorded.
For the family relations of Theodora
see below, Chapter V. p. 156, Genea-
logical Table. She was of Armenian
descent, at least on one side, for her
uncle, the general Manuel, was an
Armenian [Gont. Th. 148).
^ Vita PMlareti, ed. Vasil'ev, in
Izv. Kpl. V. 76. The Imperial agents
measured Maria's height, her Xavparov,
i.e. her head and face, and her foot
{tov 7ro56s TO weSikov).
^ Ib. 74 sqq.
^ Above, ]). 15.
5 Michael III. : Vita Irenes, 603.
Leo VI. : Vita Theophanus, ed. Kurtz
{Zainski imp. Ak. Nauk. viii<= ser.
iii. 2 (1898), p. 5). The custom, but
perhaps in a modified form, made its
way into France : Lewis tlie Pious
chose his wife Judith, inspectis pleris-
que nobiliutn filiabus {Ann. r. Fr.
150, A.D. 819).
G
82 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
assembled the maidens, who had been gathered from all the
provinces, in the Pearl-chamber in the Palace, and gave the
Emperor a golden apple to bestow upon her who pleased him
best.^ Theophilus halted before Kasia, a lady of striking
beauty and literary attainments, and addressed to her a cynical
remark, apparently couched in metrical form," to which she
had a ready answer in the same style.
Theophilus :
A woman was the fount and source
Of all man's tribulation.
Kasia :
And from a woman sprang the course
Of man's regeneration.
The boldness of the retort did not please the Emperor, and
he gave the golden apple to Theodora.
It was in the spring of a.d. 821, and not nine years later,
that Theophilus made his choice, and it was his mother,
Thecla, if she was still alive, and not Euphrosyne, who
presided over the bride-shov/.^ Some may think that the
golden apple, the motif of the judgment of Paris, must be
rejected as a legendary trait in the story ; yet it seems
possible that the apple had been deliberately borrowed from
the Greek myth as a symbol by which the Emperor intimated
his choice and was a regular feature of the Byzantine bride-
shows. Nor does there seem any reason to doubt that the
poetess Kasia was one of the chosen maidens ; and the passage
between her and the Emperor is, if not true, happily invented
so far as her extant epigrams reveal her character."* Dis-
1 The story in its genuine form is 0. <w -^ivaCy, 8ia ywaiKos ^elff-yeppi-n rk
io\dhj^\meon {Add. Georg.l^Q). It ^aOXa.
is completely altered and corrupted in K. dAXd nal 8iu yvvaLKos to, Kpeirrova
Vita Thcodorae, 4 (see below). The ir-qyagei.
Pearl-chamber (MapvapiTou rp//cXti/os) is {text: -n-qy. to. Kp.). I pointed this
an anachronism. It was one of the out in Gibbon, v. 199 note, and Enql.
new buildmgs of Theophilus himself Hist. Rev. xiii. p. 340 (1898).
(see below, p. 131). The bride-show of ^ Eudocia, his mother (not Basil),
Leo Vl.^was held ^v tlvl ^aa-i\iK(2 manages the bride-show of Leo VI.
rajxielip rrjs irepi^XinTov Mavavpa^ ( Vita ( Vita Theophanus, loe. cit.).
2 fr^ff "','• ^f ■ 'f •^- ' Her strong opinions came out in
• ^u 1, -^l change the dialogue her epigrams ; she did not suffer fools
m the chronicle falls into the ' ' politi- gladly : see the verses on the /j-Gipos in
caj metre, which I have reproduced Krumbacher, Kasia, p. 362, cp. p. 365.
m Enghsh ; Xhree hymns of Kasia are printed in
SECT. I THE MARRIAGE OF THEOPHILUS 83
appointed in her chance of empire, Kasia resolved to renounce
the world, and a letter of Theodore, the abbot of Studion, is
preserved in which he approves of her design, and compliments
her on the learning and skill of some literary compositions
which she had sent him.^
The pleasing story of the bride-show of Theophilus, in
which Kasia is the heroine, did not find favour with the
monk who wrote an edifying biography of the sainted Theodora.
He would not allow that she owed her elevation to the too
ready tongue of her rival who had presumed to measure wits
with the Emperor, and he invented a different story in which
Kasia is ignored.^ According to this frigid fiction, Theophilus
selected seven of the maidens, gave each of them an apple, and
summoned them again on the morrow. He asked each of them
for her apple, but the apples were not forthcoming. Theodora
alone produced hers, and along with it offered a second to the
Emperor. " This first apple, which I have kept safe," she
said, " is the emblem of my maidenhood ; the second, do not
decline it, is the fee.^ of the son which shall be born to us."
When Theophilus, in amazement, asked her to explain this
oracle," she told him that at Nicomedia, on her way to
Constantinople, she had visited a holy man who lived in a
tower, and that he had prophesied her elevation to the throne
and had given her the apple.^
Christ and Paranikas, Anth. Graeca e'ldei, ttjs re Kdvovas /cat ctlxovs iroirj-
carju. C/(7'is<M?toni?rt, 103-104 ; another <rd(r5js iv roh xpovois QeocpiXov /cat tov
in Krumbacher, 347 sqq. Krumbacher vlov avrov. The convent seems to
has shown that her name was Kasia, have been somewhere on the Seventh
not Eikasia or Ikasia as the chronicle Hill, near the Constantinian Wall (cp.
has, and he conjectures that Et/ca<ria van Millingen, Walls, 22-23).
arose from r) Kacria (317). Accepting '^ Vita llieodorae, 4. Melioranski
the date of the bride-show as c. 830, characterises this narrative as "a
he places her birth c. 810 ; but the polemical pendant " to the story of
true date of the marriage of Theo- Kasia [Iz sem. ist. 12). He thinks
philus shows that the year of her that the use of dfj.<poT€pas, p. 3, is an
birth must have been in the neigh- allusion to Kasia's rivalry ; but
bourhood of 800. She was still a d/xcpoT^pas here means all.
very young girl when she decided to •' 5-qvdpLov.
become a nun (see next note), so * The beauty of Theodora was cele-
that we might conjecture the date to brated in Spain by the poet Yahya
38 c. 804. al-Ghazzal, who was sent by Abd ar-
^ Ep. 270, Cozza - Luzi (cp. A. Rahman as an envoy to the Court of
3-ardner, Theodore, 266 sqq.). The Theophilus (a.d. 839-840). He was
;enth-century author of the IIciT/jia conversing with the Emperor when
57r6Xec<js (ed. Preger, 276) notices the Theodora entered "dressed in all her
lonvent founded by Kasia and describes finery — a rising sun in beauty. AI-
jier as ttJs ixovaxns, ev-rrpenovs Kal €v- Ghazzal was so surprised that he could
a^oijs Kal cre^aa/Mids yvvaLKos, wpalas Ti^ not take his eyes from her," and
i
84 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
§ 2. Tlie Civil War (a.d. 821-823)
Of the three actors in the historical drama which was
said to have been shadowed forth by the soothsayer of
Philomelion, one has passed finally from the scene. The last
act is to take the form of a conflict between the two survivors,
Michael of Amorion and Thomas of Gaziura. This conflict is
generally known as the rebellion of Thomas, but it assumed
the dimensions and the dignity of a civil war. Two rivals
fouo-ht for a crown, which one of them had seized, but could
not yet be said to have firmly grasped. Michael had been
regularly elected, acclaimed, and crowned in the capital, and
he had the advantage of possessing the Imperial city. His
adversary had the support of most of the Asiatic provinces ;
he was only a rebel because he failed.
We have seen how Thomas clung to his master and patron
Bardanes whom others had deserted (a.d. 803). When the
cause of Bardanes was lost, he probably saved himself by
fleeing to Syria and taking up his abode among the Saracens,^
with whom he had lived before. For in the reign of Irene
he had entered the service of a patrician,^ and, having been
discovered in an attempt to commit adultery with his
master's wife, he was constrained to seek a refuge in the
dominions of the Caliph, where he seems to have lived for
a considerable time. His second sojourn there lasted for
ceased to attend to the conversation. reign (this is incorrect). Michael II.,
Theophilus expressed astonishment at in Ep. ad Lud. 417, says that-he abode
his rudeness, and the poet said to the among the unbelievers until the reign
interpreter, "Tell thy master that I of Leo, and during that time became
am so captivated by the charms of this a Mohammadan in order to gain in-
queen that I am prevented from fluence with the Saracens,
listening. Say that I never saw in ^ For a discussion of the difficulties,
my Ufe a handsomer woman." "He see Bury, B.Z. i. 55 sqq., where it is
then began to describe one by one all shown that the patrician was not
her charms, and to paint his amaze- Bardanes, as Genesios alleges (35).
ment at her incomparable beauty, and Michael {Ep. ad Lud., ih.) does not
concluded by saying that she had name the patrician. The fact seems to
captivated him with her black eyes" be that Thomas first fled c. A.D. 788,
(Makkari, ii. 115). and only returned in a.d. 803 to assist
^ There is an explicit statement in Bardanes ; so that he might be roughly
the Acta Davidis (a well - informed described as having lived with the
source), 232 : having served Bardanes, Saracens for twenty-five years (Gen.
he fied, on account of misdeeds, to ih.). This I now believe to be the true
the Saracens and lay quiet during explanation of the twenty-five years,
the reigns of Nicephorus, Staiiracius, and not that which I suggested loc.
Michael I., and a great part of Leo's cit.
SECT. II • THE CIVIL WAR 85
about ten years (a.d. 803-813). We saw how he received a
military command from his old fellow-officer, Leo the Armenian,
and he rose in arms shortly before that Emperor's death.^
If he was tempted to rise against Leo, much more was he
tempted to dispute the crown with Michael, with whom he
seems to have had a rivalry of old standing.^ Thomas was
much the elder of the two ; at the time of his rising he was
an old man. One of his legs was maimed ; but his age and
lameness did not impair his activity. The lame man was
personally more popular than the lisper ; for, while Michael's
manners were coarse and brusque, Thomas was courteous and
urbane.^ His Slavonic origin hardly counted against him ; ^
men were by this time becoming familiar with Eomaeized
Slavs.
But Thomas did not come forward as himself; and this
is a strange feature of the rebellion which it is difficult to
understand. He did not offer himself to the inhabitants of
Asia Minor as Thortias of Gaziura, but he pretended that he
was really one who was generally supposed to be dead, a
crowned Augustus, no other than Constantine the Sixth, son
of Irene. That unfortunate Emperor, blinded by the orders
of his mother, had died, if not before her dethronement, at all
events in the first years of Nicephorus.^ The operation of
blinding had not been performed in public, and a pretender
might construct a tale that another had been substituted,
and that the true Constantine had escaped. But it is hard to
see how the fraud could have been successful even for a time
in the case of Thomas. He might easily enough have palmed
himself off among barbarian neighbours as the deposed
Emperor. Or if he had produced an obscure stranger and
given out that this was Constantine who for more than twenty
years had lurked in some safe hiding-place, we could under-
stand that the fiction might have imposed on the Themes of
Asia. But we cannot easily conceive how one who had been
recently before the eye of the world as Thomas, Commander
^ See above, p. 46 and p. 48. filled the Patriarchal chair seventy
2 Gen. 32 avkKo.Biv yap dWrjXois years back— Nicetas, in the reign of
a.vTnrewovd6Tuss BdaravTo. Oonsjantine V
" Cont. Th. 53.
^ Before the year A.D. 806, as is
proved by Theodore Stud. Ej}}}. i. 31
■* But observe the «' nal aKvOi^uv ry (and cp. Gen. 35) ; see Brooks, B.Z. ix.
yivei of Genesios, 32. A Slav had 654 sqq.
86 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE • chap, hi
of the Federates, and whose earlier career must have been
more or less known by his contemporaries, could suddenly
persuade people that all this time he was not himself. One
almost suspects that some link in the chain of events is lost
which might have explained the feasibility of the deceit. If
Thomas had withdrawn for some years to Syria, he might
have returned in the new character of an Augustus who was
supposed to be dead. And indeed in one account of the
rebellion it is implied that he started from Syria, perhaps with
some Saracen support at his back,^
The pretender was not content with being Constantino,
son of Irene ; he resolved, like Constantino the Great, to have
a son named Constantius. Accordingly he adopted a man of
mongrel race, whose true name is unknown, and called him
Constantius. Our record describes this adopted son in terms
of the utmost contempt, — as a base and ugly mannikin.^
But he must have had some ability, for his " father " trusted
him with the command of armies.
It is impossible to distinguish with certainty the early
stages of the insurrection of Thomas, or to determine how far
it had spread at the time of Michael's accession. He established
his power by winning the district of Chaldia, in eastern Pontus.
He also secured some strong places in the Armeniac Theme, in
which Gaziura, his native town, was situated, but the soldiers
of this Theme did not espouse his cause. It was to the
eastern provinces that he chiefly looked for support at first,
but his power presently extended to the west. The false
Constantino and his son could soon reckon the greater part of
Asia Minor, from the borders of Armenia to the shores of the
Aegean, as their dominion. The Paulician heretics, who were
persecuted by Leo, flocked to their standard. They intercepted
the taxes which should have been conveyed to Constantinople
and used the money for winning adherents to their cause.
^ Gen. 36 ; Coni. Th. 51 ; Acta Dav. Harun, who treated him with honour
232. There is a confusion in this as an Emperor's son, to give him an
tradition between the beginning of the army to overthrow the Emperor
rebellion and the alliance of Thomas (Nicephorus). Mamun, however, gave
with the Saracens in a.d. 821. him an army " soit pour s'emparcr
According to Michael Syr. 37, Thomas, de I'empire des Romains et le lui
whose father's name was Mosmar, was livrer (ensuite), soit pour les troubler
with the Saracens before the death of par la guerre." Cp. Bar-Hebraous,
Harun, and ju'etended to be the smi of 150.
Constantine VI. He tried to persuade ^ jjj
SECT. II
THE CIVIL WAR 87
The cities which would not voluntarily have acknowledged
them were constrained by fear. Soon they could boast that
only two armies in Asia had not joined them, the Opsikian
and the Armeniac. The patrician Katakylas, Count of
Opsikion, was a nephew of Michael, and remained true to his
uncle. Olbianos, strategos of the Armeniacs, espoused the
same cause. But the meagre and disorderly accounts of the
war which have reached us do not inform us what Olbianos
and Katakylas did, or whether they did anything, to stem the
torrent of rebellion. No dates are given, and even the order
of events is obscure.
But if Michael and his supporters made no signal effort
to oppose the progress of the danger, the attention of Thomas
was diverted to another enemy. The civil war in the Empire
was an opportunity for the Caliph, and the Saracens began
to make excursions in the Eoman lands which were left
insufficiently protected, as the regular defenders had abandoned
their posts to swell the army of Thomas. Perhaps the
murmurs of his soldiers ^ convinced Thomas that he must
relinquish for a time his war against his countrymen to
repel the common foe. But if he was yielding to the wishes
of his followers, in taking measures to protect their homes,
he made a skilful use of the danger and turned it completely
to his own advantage. His long sojourns among the Moslems
stood him in good stead now. His first movement was to
invade Syria ^ and display his immense forces to the astonished
eyes of the Saracens. Perhaps such a large Koman army had
seldom passed the Taurus since Syria had become a Saracen
possession. But the object of this invasion was not to harry
or harm the invaded lands, but rather to frighten the enemy
into making a treaty with such a powerful commander. The
design was crowned with success. The Caliph Mamun
empowered persons in authority to meet the pretender, and
a compact of alliance was arranged. Thomas or Constantine
was recognised as Emperor of the Eomans by the Commander
of the Faithful, who undertook to help him to dethrone his
rival. In return for this service, Thomas is said to have
1 Gont. Th. 54. This point is not Genesios does not mention this move-
ia Genesios. nient. The Syrian episode evidently
'^ lb. els tV avTuiv eiaftdWoji'. belongs to the siininier of A.D. 821.
88 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
agreed not only to surrender certain border territories which
are not specified, but to become a tributary of the Caliph.^
After the concUision of this treaty, which turned a foe
into a friend, we expect to find the Emperor Constantine
hastening back to recover the throne of the Isaurians. But
before he left Syria he took a strange step. With the
consent or at the instance of his new allies he proceeded to
Antioch, in order to be crowned by the Patriarch Job as
Basileus of the Eomans. The coronation of a Eoman
Emperor in Antioch in the ninth century was a singular
event. We cannot imagine that Thomas was accompanied
thither by his army ; but doubtless the Greek Christians of
the place flocked to see the unaccustomed sight, and when the
Patriarch Job placed the crown on the head of the Basileus
they may have joined his attendants in acclaiming him. We
have to go back to the fifth century for a like scene. It was
in Syrian Antioch that Leontius, the tyrant who rose against
Zeno, was crowned and proclaimed Augustus. The scale and
gravity of the rebellion of the Isaurian Leontius render it not
unfit to be compared with the rebellion of the later pretender,
who also professed to be of Isaurian stock.
But when we consider the circumstances more closely the
coronation assumes a puzzling aspect. If Thomas had been
simply Thomas, we can understand that he might have
grasped at a chance, which was rare for a rebel in his day,
to be crowned by a Patriarch out of Constantinople, even
though that Patriarch was not a Eoman subject. But
Thomas, according to the story, gave out that he was an
Emperor already. He had borrowed the name and identity
of the Emperor Constantine VI. ; he had therefore, according
to his own claim, been crowned Augustus by the Patriarch
of Constantinople forty years before. What then is the
meaning of his coronation at Antioch ? One would think
that such a ceremony would weaken rather than strengthen
his position. It might be interpreted as a tacit confession
that there was some flaw in the title of the re-arisen Con-
' Cont. Th. 54 viri<Txvo{>/j.euos ra not mention this, but it may explain
J^u/xaiuv Tf TrpoSovvai 6pia Kal Tr]v avrGiv (see below) the coronation at Antioch.
aiiTois virb xetpas Troiijaai apxqv. The The author of the Acta Davidis says
las*^ clause must be interpreted to (232) that Thomas promised to sub-
mean that Thomas undertook to pay a ject the Empire to the Saracens. This
tribute to the Caliph. Genesios does doubtless was generally believed.
SECT. II THE CIVIL WAR 89
stantine. It would have been requisite for an Emperor who
had been first crowned at Antioch to repeat the ceremony
when he had established himself on the Bosphorus ; but it
is strange that one who had declared that he had been
formally consecrated at Constantinople by the chief Patriarch
should come to Antioch to receive an irregular consecration
from a lesser prelate. It does not appear that the tyrant
had abandoned his claim to be another than himself, and,
having won his first followers by an imposture, now threw
off the cloak and came forward as Thomas of Gaziura. It
may be suggested that the coronation was not contrived by
the wish of the pretender, but by the policy of Mamun. The
reception of the emblem of sovranty at the hands of a
Patriarch, who was the subject of the Caliph, may have
been intended as a • symbolical acknowledgment of the
Caliph's overlordship and a pledge of his future submission
as a tributary.^
The prospect of the tyrants looked brighter than ever
when they returned to the lands of the Empire. Men of all
sorts and races and regions had flocked to their standards —
Slavs, Persians, Armenians, Iberians, and many from the
regions of the Caucasus and the eastern shores of the Euxine.^
The total number of the forces is estimated at eighty thousand.
Pteports meanwhile reached Constantinople of the gathering of
this large host. But Michael took it for granted that rumour
outran the truth, and deemed it enough to send into the field
a small army, totally insuflicient to cope with the foe. The
^ The difficulty about the coronation tions Saracens, Persians, Iberians,
at Antioch has not been noticed, so Armenians, Abasgians (Avassis), and
far as I know, by any historian. If speaks as if all these had been in the
Thomas had jiretended to be a son of rebel army at the very beginning of
Constantine (as Michael Syr. alleges, the revolt against Leo V. Besides
see above, p. 86, n. 1), all would be these, Genesios (33) mentions Alans,
clear. It is curious that Michael Syr. Zichs, Colchians, Indians (that is,
(75)states that iuA.D. 831-832 a Roman, negroes), Kabeiroi, Slavs, Huns, Van-
pretending to be of Imperial lineage, dais, and Getae. The Kabeiroi are
came to Mamun in Cilicia and asked probably the Turkish Kabars of the
him to help him to the throne ; Mamun Khazar Empire (see below, p. 426).
caused him to be crowned by the For the Alans (Ossetians), see below.
Patriarch Job ; the impostor after- p. 408 sq. The Getae may be the Goths
wards became a Moharamadan. When of the Crimea, the Huns may be Mag-
the news reached Constantinople, the yars or Inner i3ulgarians, or something
bishops met and excommunicated Job. else. It is difficult to discover ninth-
The Greek sources give no support to century Vandals (Wends do not come
this story. into range).
^ Michael, ^j.afZZi<(?. 417-418,men-
90 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
thousands of Michael were swallowed up by the tens of
thousands of Thomas/ As no formidable resistance was offered
to the tyrant's progress in Asia Minor, he prepared to attack
the city itself. For this enterprise, in which so many had
failed before him, it was judged indispensable to possess a fleet.
The City of the Bosphorus had over and over again defied a
joint attack by land and sea ; it was naturally inferred that
an attack by land alone would have no chances of success.^
The pretender therefore set himself to gather a fleet, and it
would seem that he had no difticulty in seizing the fleets of
the Aegean and the Kibyrrhaeot Themes, which together
formed the Thematic or provincial navy.^ Thus all the
warships stationed in the eastern parts of the Empire were in
his hands, except the Imperial fleet itself, which lay at the
Imperial city. In addition to these, he built new warships
and new ships of transport. When all was ready, he caused
his naval forces to assemble at Lesbos and await his orders,
while he himself advanced to the Hellespont and secured
Abydos. And now he met his first reverse. All had yielded
to him as he swept on through the Asiatic Themes, except
one place, whose name our historians do not mention. He
did not think it worth while to delay himself, but he left a
considerable part of his army under the command of Con-
stantius, to reduce this stubborn fortress. It seems probable
too that this dividing of his forces formed part of a further
design. "We may guess that while Constantine was to cross
by the western gate of the Propontis and advance on the city
from the west, Constantius was to approach the eastern strait
and attack the city on the south. But if this was the plan
of operations, Constantius was not destined to fulfil his part
of it. Olbianos, the general of the Armeniac Theme, was
biding his time and watching for an opportunity. His army
^ This engagement is recorded only "the feeble spirit" of the defenders,
by the Continuer, who uses the ex- He remarks that currents of the Mar-
pressive metaphor (io-Trep Tt TTOTOJ' Stt/'u)!' mora, and "the violent storms to
avepplxji-qffev (55). Part of Michael's which the waters around the city are
army, however, escaped. liable," were natural allies of the
^ It is, however, well remarked by besieged,
van Millingen ( Walls, 179) that in ^ ivreudev /cat rod de/jLariKov aroKov
Byzantine history "there is only one yiferai iyKpar-qs {ib.) ; fiB-q to vavriKov
instance of a successful naval assault airav rb virb 'Fw/xalovs ov, ttXtjv tov
upon Constantinople, the gallant cap- /SacriXtKoO KXrjdevTos vvoTrouiTaL (Gen.
ture of the city in 1204 by the Vene- 37).
tians," and that was largely due to
SECT. II
THE CIVIL WAR 91
was not large enough to try an issue with the united forces of
the enemy, but his chance came when those forces were divided.
He set an ambush to waylay the younger tyrant, who, as he
advanced securely, supposing that the way was clear, allowed
his men to march in disorder. Constantius was slain and his
head was sent to Constantine. This was the first check in
the triumphant course of the war, though the death of the
" son " may have caused little grief to the " father."
The scene of operations now shifts from Asia to Europe.
The Emperor, seeing that his adversary was preparing to cross
the straits, had gone forth at the head of a small army and
visited some of the cities of Thrace in order to confirm them
against the violence or seductions of the tyrant and assure
himself of their stedfast* faith. But his care availed little.
On a dark moonless night Thomas transported his troops to
various spots on the Thracian shore, starting from an obscure
haven named Horkosion.^ About the same time the fleet
arrived from Lesbos and sailed into the waters of the Propontis.
No resistance was offered by the inhabitants of Thrace when
they saw the immense numbers of the invading host. Michael
seems to have lingered, perhaps somewhere on the shores of
the Propontis, to observe what effect the appearance of his foe
would produce on the cities which had yesterday pledged
themselves to stand true, and when he learned that they were
cowed into yielding, he returned to the city and set about
making it ready to withstand a siege. The garrison was
recruited by loyal soldiers from the Asiatic Themes, now free
from the presence of the pretender. The Imperial fleet,
supplied with " Marine Fire," was stationed not in the Golden
Horn, but in the three artificial harbours on the southern
shore of the city, — the port of Hormisdas, which was probably
already known by its later name of Bucoleon ; ^ the Sophian
1 Gen. 37 implies that Horkosion the Marmora appears in the sequel,
was on the Hellespontiue coast, not Of the harbours along this shore the
necessarily that it was close to Abydos. best account is in van Millingen,
We may therefore identify it with Walls, 268 sqq. There were two other
'OpKos, which lay between Parion and harbours besides the three above-
Lampsacus (Theod. Stud. IJj;^. i. 3, p. mentioned ; but there is no evidence
917), which is doubtless the Lorco of that the Kontoskalion (between the
later times, placed with probability Sophian and the Kaisarian) existed
by Tomaschek in the crescent bay a in the ninth century, while that of
little N.E. of Lampsacus {Top. v. Eleutherios or Theodosius, the most
Kleinasien, 15). westerly of all, had probably been filled
2 The position of Michael's fleet on up before this period (the author of
92 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
harbour, further to the west ; ^ and beyond it the harbour of
Kaisarios.^ The entrance to the Golden Horn was blocked
by the Iron Chain, which was stretched across the water from
a point near the Gate of Eugenios to the Castle of Galata.^
In making these dispositions Michael was perhaps availing
himself of the experience of previous sieges. When the
Saracens attacked the city in the seventh century, Constantine
IV. had disposed a portion of his naval forces in the harbour
of Kaisarios."* In the second attack of the same foe in the
eighth century, Leo III. had stretched the Iron Chain, but he
seems to have stationed his own ships outside the Horn.^
The host of Thomas had been increased by new adherents
from the European provinces, and Slavs from Macedonia flocked
to the standard of the Slavonian pretender.'' But he needed
a new general and a new son. To succeed the unlucky leader,
whom he had destined to be Constantius the Fourth, he chose
a monk, already bearing an Imperial name, and worthy in the
opinion of the tyrant to be Anastasius the Third ; not worthy,
however, of such an exalted place, in the opinion of our
historians, who describe him as an ugly man, with a face like
an Ethiopian's from excessive wine-drinking, and of insane
rnind.^ But the monk was not fitted to lead troops to battle,
and for this office Thomas won the services of a banished
general named. Gregory, who had perhaps better cause than
himself to hate the name of Michael. Gregory Pterotos was
a nephew of Leo the Armenian, and, on the death of his uncle,
whom he loved, fear had not held him back from entering the
presence of his successor, where, instead of falling among those
the ndrpia, 184, 248, says this hap- ^ From Theoph. 396 we know that
pened in the reign of Theodosius I. ; in a.T). 717 it was attached to the
but the alternative name suggests ko-stOCKiov tCcv TaXdrov (as in later
rather that he repaired it). It may times). The southern end was fastened,
be noticed that the harbours in which in later times, to tlie Kentenarion
Phocas expected Heraclius (a.d. 610) tower close to the Porta Eugenii, and
to land were those of Kaisarios, Sophia, we know that this existed in the ninth
and Hormisdas (John Ant., in Mliller, century (Ildrpia 264, where Con-
F.H.G. V. 1. 38). stantine I. is said to have built the
^ Also called Harbour of Julian and tower). Cp. van Millingen, 228.
New Harbour. 4 Theoph. 353.
^ Van Mulingen has shown that it 5 y. oq^
is almost certainly identical with the » ,,•' i i t, 7 t , rr,,
Neorion of Heptaskalon, and there is ,/ Michael, Ep. adLud. 418: Thrace,
archaeological evidence for placing it Macedonia, Thessalonia, et cirmm-
between Kum Kapussi and Yeni Kapu ^acenhbus Sclamniis.
{310 sqq.). 7 Gen. 39.
SECT. II THE CIVIL WAR 93
who grovelled at the Imperial feet, he overwhelmed him with
reproaches for the murderous deed. The Emperor merely said,
" I know the greatness of your sorrow and the ocean of your
distress," but two days later he banished this fearless kinsman
of his predecessor to the island of Skyros.^ Gregory was not
unwilling to attach himself to the rival of him who had
banished himself and dethroned his uncle, and he was speedily
entrusted with the command of ten thousand men and sent on
to open the assault on the Imperial city.
It was already winter, and the first year of Michael's
reign was drawing to a close, when Gregory took up his
station on the north-west .of the city, in the suburbs outside
Blachernae, while the fleet, under another unnamed com-
mander, reached the same quarter by sailing up the inlet of
the Golden Horn, having evidently unfastened the Iron Chain
where it was attached to the Castle of Galata.^ On the
banks of the Barbyses,^ a stream which flows into the Horn,
the leaders of the sea forces and the land forces could concert
their plans together. No action, however, was taken until
Constantius and Anastasius arrived with their mighty host.
The leaders seem to have imagined that when this vast
array spread out before the walls of the city, and their ships
filled the Golden Horn and threatened the harbours on the
Propontis, the inhabitants would be so utterly dismayed by
the sight of the overwhelming numbers that they would throw
open their gates in despair. But it soon became clear that
the city and its masters were resolved to withstand even such
a vast force ; they trusted in their impregnable walls. It was
the first business of Thomas, when he saw that a siege was
inevitable, to reduce the suburbs and villages which lay north
1 The details about this Gregory Sweet Waters of Europe. It flows
(his kinship with Leo, the cause of into the Horn close to the Cosmidion
his exile, and his name Pterotos) are (Church of SS. Cosmas and Damian,
recorded in Cont. Th. 57, but not by now the Eyub mosque), which is not
Genesios. far to the west of Blachernae. See
^ This is an inference, but I think van Millingen, Walls, 175-176. There
evident. Thomas controlled the was a bridge across the Barbyses
northern shore of the Horn. In ex- (Niceph. Patr. ed. de Boor, 14 and
actly the same way the Venetians, 26), which must have been quite
having captured the Galata Tower, re- distinct from the bridge across the
moved the chain in A. D. 1203 (Nicetas, Golden Horn, of which the southern
ed. Bonn. 718-719). point was in Aivan Serai ; though
^ Gen. 38. The Barbyses (or Bar- Ducange (Const. Christ, iv. 125) and
byssos) is now called the Kiat-haneh van Millingen seem to connect the
Su, one of the streams known as the two bridges.
94 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
of the city along the shores of the Bosphorus.^ These places
could not resist. The inhabitants were doubtless glad to
submit as speedily as possible to any one engaged in besieging
the city, remembering too well how but a few years ago they
had been harried by another and more terrible enemy, the
Bulgarian Krum,^
The siege began in the month of December.^ The course
of events from this point to the end of the war may be
conveniently divided into five stages.^
1. Decetnber 8 '21 to Fehruary or March 822. — Thomas
spent some days in disposing his forces and preparing his
engines. He pitched his own tent in the suburbs beyond
Blachernae,^ not far from the noble building which rose
towards heaven like a palace, the church of St. Cosmas
and St. Damian, the physicians who take no fee for their
services to men. Until the reign of Heraclius the north-
western corner of the city between the Palace of Blachernae
and the Golden Horn must have been defended by a fortifica-
tion of which no traces survive.*^ Heraclius, whether before
or after the siege of the Avars (a.d, 626),^^ had connected the
Palace with the seaward fortifications by a wall which is
flanked by three admirably built hexagonal towers.^ But the
assaults of the Bulgarians in a.d. 813 seem to have proved
that this " Single Wall of Blachernae," as it was called, was
an insufficient defence, and Leo V., in expectation of a second
Bulgarian siege,'^ constructed a second outer wall, parallel to
that of Heraclius, and forming with it a sort of citadel which
was known as the Brachionion.^*'
1 Gen. 39. the Cosmidion. Cp. Ducange, Const.
2 Above, p. 46. Chr. 127.
3 The date comes from Michael, EiJ. « Extending, I conjecture, from the
ad Lud. 418, where we also learn that north-east corner of the Palace to the
the blockade lasted for the space of a sea-wall. Op. van Millingen, Walls,
year. 120. The outer walls of the Palace
■* There has been no full and critical itself formed the fortification as far as
relation of the siege by modern his- the northern extremity of the Theo-
torians. See Lebeau, xiii. 50 sqq. ; dosian Walls.
Schlosser, 440 sqq.; Finlay, ii. 131 '' Pernice (i'/wiperatore^racKo, 141)
(very brief). Much the best is that of has given some reasons for thinking
Vasil'ev, Viz. i. Ar. 33 sqq. that the wall was built after the Avar
s The suburb between Cosmidion attack in a.d. 619. Cp. my note in
and Blachernae was known as ra Gibbon, v. 92.
Ua-vKivov (and is so designated here in « Van Millingen, Walls, 164 sqq.
Cont. Th. 59), from Paulinus (famous ^ See below, p. 359.
for his love-affair with Athenais, the '» Van Millingen, Walls,\Q?,: "The
wife of Theodosius II.), who founded Wall of Leo stands 77 feet to the west
SECT. II THE CIVIL WAR 95
The troops on whom it devolved to attack the long
western walls of Theodosius, from the Palace of Blachernae
to the Golden Gate, were assigned to the subordinate tyrant
Anastasius/ to whose dignity a high command was due, but
others were at hand to keep the inexperienced monk from
blundering. The main attack was to be directed against the
quarter of Blachernae. Here were gathered all the resources
of the engineer's art, rams and tortoises, catapults and city-
takers ; and over these operations Thomas presided himself.
In the city meanwhile the aid of Heaven and the inven- ^
tions of men were summoned to defend the walls. On the
lofty roof of the church of the Mother of God in Blachernae,
the Emperor solemnly fixed the Eoman standard, in the sight
of the enemy, and prayed for succour against them. Presently
the besiegers beheld the young Emperor Theophilus walking
at the head of a priestly procession round the walls of the
city, and bearing with him the life-giving fragments of the
holy Cross, and raiment of the mother of Christ.^
But, if he employed superstitious spells, Michael did not
neglect human precautions. He too, like his opponent, called
to his service all the resources of the art of the engineer, and
the machines of the besieged proved in the end more effectual
than those of the besieger. Simultaneous attacks by land and
sea were frustrated, and on land at least the repulse of the
assailants was wholly due to the superior machines of the
assailed. The missiles which were shot from the city carried
farther than those of Thomas, and great courage was required
to venture near enough to scale or batter the walls. Ladders
and battering-rams were easily foiled by the skilful handling
of engines mounted on the battlements, and at last the attack-
ing host retired from the volleys of well-aimed missiles within
the shelter of their camp. At sea, too, the assailants were
discomfited, but the discomfiture was perhaps chiefly caused
by the rising of an adverse wind. The ships of Thomas were
of the Wall of Heraclius, running while the lower jjortion was pierced
parallel to it for some 260 feet, after by numerous loopholes."
which it turns to join the walls along ^ This is recorded in Cmit. Th., not
the Golden Horn. Its parapet walk by Genesios.
was supported upon arches which ^ The clothes of the Virgin were
served at the same time to buttress " discovered " in a coffin at Blachernae
the wall itself, a comparatively slight in a.d. 619 (see my note in Gibbon,
structure about 8 feet thick. ... It v. 81). We shall meet this precious
was flanked by four small towers, relic again in a.d. 860 (below, p. 420).
96 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
provided both with " liquid fire " and with four-legged city-
takers/ from whose lofty storeys flaming missiles might be
hurled upon and over the sea-walls of the city. But the
violent wind rendered it impossible to make an effective use
of these contrivances, and it was soon clear that the attack
on the seaside had failed.
Foiled at every point, Thomas was convinced that he had
no chance of succeeding until the severity of winter had
passed, and he retired from his position to await the coming
of spring, whether in the cities of Thrace or on the opposite
coasts of Asia.^
2. Spring, 822 a.d. — At the coming of spring Thomas
reassembled his land forces and his ships at Constantinople
and prepared for another simultaneous attack on both elements.
Michael meanwhile had made use of the respite from hostilities
to reinforce his garrison considerably, and during this second
siege he was able to do more than defend the walls : he could
venture to sally out against the enemy. It was also probably
during the lull in the war that some repairs were made in
the "Wall of Leo, recorded by inscriptions which are still
preserved.^
We are told that when the day dawned on which a grand
assault was to be made on the walls of Blachern, the Emperor
ascended the wall himself and addressed the enemy, who were
within hearing.* He urged them to desert the rebel and seek
^ T€Tpa<TKe\eh eXeiroXeis. occurred. Fragmentary inscriptions
^ The words of our source {Cont. of M. and T. have been found near
Th. 61 fiWws 5^ /cat j] icpa SpifivTepov the Charisian Gate in the Theodosian
edeiKvv tov Kaipov dre xf'Mwi'os eTnyevo- Wall {ib. 101).
fiivov /cat TTJs QpaKTjs tuiv dWuv oii<Tr]s ■* Co7it. Th. 61 retxos twv BXaxepvCou
dvffx^'-l^^po" f""' Tapaxft/ta<Tiaj' irpair-q was to be the object of attack, i.e.
Koi TTjv TOV (jTpaTov dvaKOfxidrjv) may chiefly the Wall of Leo ; then Michael
merely mean that winter in Thrace is said to have spoken iK tov rwv
was too severe for military operations, retx"" /u-eTewpov, but it does not follow
not that Thomas wintered elsewhere. that this also was the Wall of Leo.
^ Those inscriptions are near the We may suspect that Michael stood
south end of Leo's Wall ; both are on the battlements of the Palace of
defective. One records the names of Blachernae, nearly opposite the point
Michael and Theophilus ; the other where the wall which Manuel Com-
gives the date a.m. 6330, which nenus, in the twelfth century, built
corresponds to a.d. 822. See van outside the Palace, was pierced by the
Millingen, Walls, 168. An inscrip- gate of Gyrolimne. This conjecture
tion on one of the towers of the (which I owe to Mr. van Millingen) is
Heraclian Wall is in honour of an suggested by (1) the fact that at
Emperor Michael ; if this was Michael Gyrolimne the younger Andronicus,
n. (as van Millingen thinks, 166), the during his rebellion, more than once
name of Theophilus must also have held parley with his father's ministers ;
SECT. II THE CIVIL WAR 97
pardon and safety in the city. His words were not received
with favour, nor did he imagine that they would move those
whom he addressed. But he achieved the effect which he
desired, though not the effect at which his speech seemed to
aim. The foe concluded that the besieged must needs be in
great straits, when the Emperor held such parley from the
walls. With confident spirits and in careless array they
advanced to the assault, supposing that they would encounter
but a weak resistance. Suddenly, to their amazement and
consternation, many gates opened, and soldiers, rushing forth
from the city, were upon them before they had time to
apprehend what had happened. The men of Michael won a
brilliant victory, and Thomas was forced to abandon the
assault on Blachernae. A battle by sea seems to have been
fought on the same day, and it also resulted in disaster for
the besiegers. The details are not recorded, but the marines
of Thomas, seized by some unaccountable panic, retreated to
the shore and absolutely refused to fight.
Time wore on, and the taking of the city seemed no nearer.
One of the generals in the leaguer concluded that there was
little chance of success, and weary of the delay he determined
to change sides. This was Gregory, the exile of Skyros, and
nephew of Leo the Armenian. His resolve was doubtless
quickened by the fact that his wife and children were in the
power of Michael ; ^ he reckoned that their safety would be
assured if he deserted Thomas. Accordingly, at the head of
his regiment, he left the camp and entrusted a Studite monk
with the task of bearing the news to the Emperor."^ But the
approaches to the city were so strictly guarded by the
blockaders that the messenger was unable to deliver his
message, and Michael remained in ignorance of the new
accession to his cause. As it turned out, however, the act of
Gregory proved of little profit to any one except, perhaps, to
him, whom it was intended to injure. Thomas saw that the
(2) the hill opposite tins gate must From the same source we learn that
inevitably have been occupied by Gregory was given to deep potations
troops of Thomas, and in 1203 the (62) ; he seems to have been a man
Crusaders on this hill were nearly who acted generally from impulse
within speaking distance of the more than from reflexion,
garrison on the wall. Cp. van ^ This, too, we learn from Co?i.<. TA.,
Millingen, ib. 126-127. not from Genesios.
^ Cont. Th. 63 gives us this fact
H
98 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
traitor must be crushed immediately, for it would be a serious
disadvantage to have an enemy in his rear. Accordingly, he
marched against him with a band of chosen soldiers ; his
army being so large that he could easily divert a portion
without raising the blockade. The followers of Gregory were
defeated, we know not where nor how ; and Gregory himself,
a fugitive from the field, was pursued and slain. There is a
certain propriety in the part which this soldier plays in the
last act of the drama, in which Leo, Michael, and Thomas
were the chief performers. Leo had passed away before that
last act ; but his nephew, as it were, takes his place, and
oscillates between his rivals, is banished by Michael and slain
by Thomas.
3. Summer and Autumn a.d. 823. — The false Constantine,
if he still sustained that pretence, made the most of his easy
victory over the renegade. He proclaimed that he had con-
quered by land and sea, and sent letters to Greece and the
islands of the Aegean, bearing this false news.^ His purpose
was to reinforce his navy, which hitherto had accomplished
nothing worthy of its size, by fresh ships from these regions.
Nor was he disappointed. It was clearly thought in Greece,
where the population was devoted to image-worship, that the
pretender was carrying all before him, that the capture or
surrender of the city was merely a matter of days, or at most
months, and that Michael's days were numbered. A large
fleet was sent, with all good-will, to hasten the success of one
who professed to be an image-worshipper.^ No less than
three hundred and fifty ships (it is alleged) arrived in the
Propontis. Under given topographical conditions, when the
same object is in view, history is apt to repeat itself, and we
find Thomas mooring these reinforcements in the harbour of
Hebdomon and on the adjacent beach,^ exactly as the Saracens
^ ypa.fj.fj.a(n ireir\auftAvois, Gen. 41. harbour of Hebdomon was east of the
^Hopf (126) sees here "the old P^^Iace (and just to the east of the har-
opposition of the oppressed provinces JT' 7^^ .'if Kyklobion). It is clear,
agiinst the despotic centralisation in *'r^'^i°f ' *^^* l ^^'.^'?''= J« h^^Jour
the caiiital " Hebdomon ; but it could not have
} ^' , held all the ships, and so some of them
rri Twv KCkKovfiivwv Bvpldwv olktyj, were moored to the east along the
ibid. Ti$ tQ}v B. \iu.evi, Cont. Th. 64. shore. Hopf (119) curiously says that
From a passage in John of Antioch it Thomas took "Berida" by "storm.
1.3 clear that Byrides was a place on On the irivaS, of the Hell. Syllogos
the coast between Hebdomon (Makri- (see Bibliography) Byrides is marked
keui) and the Golden Gate. The near Selymbria.
SECT. II
THE CIVIL WAR
99
had disposed their fleet on the two occasions on which they
had attempted to capture the city.^
He had formed the project of a twofold attack by sea."-^
On the northern side the city was to be assailed by his
original fleet, which lay in the Golden Horn ; while the new
forces were to operate against the southern walls and harbours,
on the side of the Propontis. But Michael foiled this plan by
prompt action. Sending his fire-propelling vessels against the
squadron at Hebdomon, he destroyed it, before it had effected
anything. Some of the ships were entirely burnt, others
scattered, but most were captured, and towed into the city
harbours, which the Imperial navy held.^ Such was the fate
of the navy which the Themes of Hellas and Peloponnesus had
sent so gladly to the discomfiture of the Phrygian Emperor.
On the seaside the danger was diminished ; but by land
the siege was protracted with varying success until the end of
the year. Frequent excursions were made from the city, and
sometimes prospered, whether under the leadership of the
elder Emperor or of his son Theophilus, with the General
Olbianos or the Count Katakylas.* But on the whole the
besieged were no match in the field for their foes, who far
outnumbered them. Both parties must have been weary
enough as the blockade wore on througli the winter. It was
at length broken by the intervention of a foreign power.
1 Theoph. 353 (664 a.d.) cnro ttjs
irpbs oiicriv dKp6Tr]TOS tov ' E^56/j.ov . . .
fi^XP'- '"'oiKi-f Tov TTpbs avaTo\7]v aKpwTripLov
rod Xeyo/x&ov KvK\oj3iov (a description
indeed which does not naturally
suggest a harbour), and 395 (717 a.d.)
an equivalent description.
^ Gen. ib.
^ Ib. Tas irXeiovs 5e ai'rcDc . . . t<J5
^affiXei TTpocrdyoiKTLv. George Mon. (795)
mentions the destruction of the fleet
as a critical event in the siege.
Finlay, whose accountof this rebellion
is not very satisfactory, makes a
strange mistake here (ii. 131): "The
partisans of Michael collected a fleet
of 350 ships in the islands of the
Archipelago and Greece, and this fleet,
having gained a complete victory over
the fleet of Thomas, cut off the com-
munications of the besiegers with
Asia." He has thus reversed the
facts. The Greek of the historical
Commission of Constantine Porphy-
rogennetes seems to have been too
much for Finlay here, but the story is
told simply enough by Genesios.
■* Here, again, Co7if. Th. 64 has
information not vouchsafed by Gene-
sios : vvv )j.kv TOV Mtxtt'7^, v^" 5e tov
vlov avToD Qeo(pl\ov avrols iire^LOUTOs
fxeTo, 'OX^iavov Kal Kara/ci;\a. This
suggests that Olbianos and Katakylas
were in the city during the siege.
Finlay knows that the troops of the
Armeniac and Opsikian Themes inter-
rupted the communications of Thomas
with the centre of Asia Minor : "These
troops maintained a constant com-
munication with the garrison of
Constantinople from the coast of
Bithynia" {loc. ciL). There is no
authority for this, though it is what
we should expect. We only know
that before the blockade began in
spring Michael imported many troops
into the city, doubtless regiments of
these Themes.
100 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chai>. hi
4. Intervention of the Bulgarians, Spring, a.d. 823. — It
was from the kingdom beyond Mount Haemus that Michael
received an opportune aid which proved the turning-point in
the civil war. The Bulgarians had been at peace with the
Empire, since Leo and king Omurtag, not long after the death
of Krum, had concluded a treaty for thirty years.^ Communi-
cations now passed between Constantinople and Pliska, but it
is uncertain who took the first step, and what was the nature
of the negotiations. The simplest and earliest chronicle of
the siege represents Michael as requesting Omurtag to take
the field against Thomas, and Omurtag readily responding to
the request.^ But an entirely different version is adopted in
records which are otherwise unfavourable to Michael.^
According to this account, the proposal of alliance came from
the Bulgarian king, and the Emperor declined the offer
because he was reluctant to permit Christian blood to be shed
by the swords of the heathen. He tendered his sincere
thanks to Omurtag, but alleged that the presence of a
Bulgarian army in Thrace, even though acting in his own
cause, would be a virtual violation of the Thirty Years'
Peace.^ Omurtag, however, took the matter into his own
hands, and, unable to resist the opportunity of plunder and
pillage, assisted Michael in Michael's own despite. It was
obviously to the interest of the Emperor that this version
should obtain credit, as it relieved him from the odium of
inviting pagans to destroy Christians and exposing Eoman
territory to the devastation of barbarians. We must leave it
undecided whether it was Michael who requested, or Omurtag
who offered help, but we cannot seriously doubt that the help
was accorded with the full knowledge and at the desire of the
besieged Emperor. It may well be that he declined to
conclude any formal alliance with the Bulgarians,^ but merely
gave them assurances that, if they marched against Thomas
and paid themselves by booty, he would hold them innocent
of violating the peace. The negotiations must have been
^ See below p. 360. •* See Gen. ib. airoXoyelTaL /jltj
2 George Mon. p. 796 ixaOCov ws 6 ^^P^"""- ^"^^ ^'^' ToffovTov xp'^^ov
§a<n\evs Mixa^X rom Bov\y6.pov^ eh ^f^oXoynKoras XpcariaviKQp aifidruju
av/xnaxiav kclt avrou wpoaeKaX^aaro. "■Hi^<T0ai iwl tu tG>v araaiwrQu -rroXefxu,
This is accepted by Hirscli, 134. raKaWs Sotavra KaraXvetv.
Gen. 41 5ia7rpe(T/3ei/eTat irpos ^acnX^a
^ Gen. 41-42 ; Cont. Th. 65. koX ffv/j./j-axelu alruTai avT(^.
SECT. II
THE CIVIL WAR
101
conducted with great secrecy, and the account which
represented Michael as unreservedly rejecting the proffered
succour gained wide credence/ though his enemies assigned to
his refusal a less honourable motive than the desire of sparing
Christian blood, and suggested that his avarice withheld him
from paying the Bulgarians the money which they demanded
for their services."
Omurtag then descended from Mount Haemus and
marched by the great high road, by Hadrianople and
Arcadiopolis, to deliver Constantinople from the Eoman
leaguer, even as another Bulgarian monarch had come down,
more than a hundred years before, in the days of Leo III., to
deliver it from the Saracens.^ When Thomas learned that
the weight of Bulgaria was thrown into the balance and that
a formidable host was advancing against him, he decided to
abandon the siege and confront the new foe.*^ It was a
joyful day for the siege-worn citizens and soldiers, when they
saw the camp of the besiegers broken up and the great army
marching away from their gates. Only the remnant of the
rebel navy still lay in the Golden Horn, as Thomas did not
require it for his immediate work. The Bulgarians had
already passed Arcadiopolis and reached the plain of Keduktos,
near the coast between Heraclea and Selymbria.^ Here they
awaited the approach of Thomas, and in the battle which
ensued defeated him utterly. The victors soon retired, laden
with booty; having thus worked much profit both to themselves
^ We must suppose that Michael
deliberately circulated it. It is char-
acteristic that he does not mention
or even hint at the Bulgarian episode
in his letter to the Emperor Lewis.
He wished the Franks to supjiose that
the subjugation of Thomas was due to
his unaided efforts, and it would have
been humiliating to confess to the
rival Emperor that the Bulgarians had
invaded the Empire even in his own
cause.
2 Cont. Th. 652.
^ Tervel (a.d. 717).
•• Michael Syr. (37) says that Michael
employed Saracen captives who were
in the city to fight for him, promising
tliem freedom (a promise which he
did not keep), and with their help
routed Thomas. It is quite possible
that he did enlist them in his forces
during the siege.
^ Gen. 42. Kara rhv ^7]5oijktov
KoKovfievov x^po^- (For the date of
the battle of Keduktos see Appendix
v.). For the location of Keduktos
(A-quaechidus), the important passage
is Nicephorus Bryenn. 135 (ed. Bonn)
= Anna Comnena I. 18-19 (ed. Reiffer-
scheid) describing the battle between
Alexius Comnenus and Bryennios iv
Tois Kara rou Kt/Soi/ktoi/ ireoiots, near
the fort of Kalavrye and the river
Halmyros. The Halmyros seems to
be the stream to tlie west of Erekli
(Heraclea), and the name of Kalavrye
{TaXa^pla in Attaleiates, 289 ed. Bonn)
is preserved in Gelivre near Selymbria
(Tomaschek, Zur Kunde der H.-h.
331). Cp. jirecek, Hcerstrasse, 101.
102
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. Ill
and to their ally, for whom the way was now smoothed to the
goal of final victory. They had destroyed the greater part of
the rebel army on the field of Keduktos, and Michael was
equal to dealing with the remnant himself.
5. Siege of Arcadiopolis and end of the Civil War, 823
A.D. — When the Bulgarians retreated, Thomas, still hopeful,
collected the scattered troops who had been routed on the day
of Keduktos, and marching north-eastward pitched his camp
in the marshy plain of Diabasis, watered by the streams of the
Melas and Athyras which discharge into the lagoon of Buyak
Chekmeje, about twenty miles west of Constantinople. This
district was well provided with pasturage for horses, and well
situated for obtaining supplies ; moreover, it was within such
distance from the capital that Thomas could harry the
neighbouring villages.^ The month of May, if it had not
already begun, was near at hand, when Michael went forth to
decide the issue of the long struggle. He was accompanied
by his faithful generals Katakylas and Olbianos, each at the
head of troops of his own Theme. It is not recorded whether
the younger Emperor marched with his father or was left
behind to guard the city. But the city might justly feel
secure now ; for the marines whom Thomas had left in the
Golden Horn espoused the cause of Michael, as soon as they
learned the news of Keduktos.^
Thomas, who felt confident of success, decided to entrap
his foes by the stratagem of a feigned flight. But his
followers did not share his spirit.^ They were cast down by
the recent defeat ; they were thoroughly weary of an enter-
prise which had lasted so much longer than they had dreamt
^ Gen. (42) indicates the character
of the place. Its distance from Con-
stantinople is vaguely suggested in
Co'iit. Til. 66 araBiovs dyr^xo" ttjs
7r6Xews iKavovs, and KCLKeWev rds
TTpovo/xds iroiwv wavra n^v irpb ttjs
iroXeojs ^Keipe Koafiov, but Thomas did
not come within sight of the city.
Diabasis has been identified by JireCek
{ib. 53, 102) with the plains of Choiro-
bakchoi, described by Kinnamos (73-
74 ed. Bonn) and Nicetas (85-86 ed.
Bonn). The Melas (Kara-su) and
iUhyras flow from the hill of I^^ush-
kaya near the Anastasian Wall ; and
near here Tomaschek (op. cit. 304)
would place the fortress A6yyoL, which
commanded the plain (according to
Kinnamos), identifying it with Can-
tacuzene's ij Adyovs, i. 297 ed. Bonn.
(I-16ghus in Idrisi's geography).
North of the lagoon there is an ex-
tensive marsh, through which there is
a solid stone dyke of Roman work ;
this was doubtless called the Crossing,
Diabasis.
" That the naval armament joined
Michael after the Bulgarian victory is
stated in Cont, Th. Genesios is less
precise.
^ The spirit of the army is described
in Cont. Th. 67.
SECT. II
THE CIVIL WAR
103
when they lightly enlisted under the flag of the pretender ;
their ardour for the cause of an ambitious leader had cooled ;
I they were sick of shedding Christian blood ; they longed to
return to their wives and children. This spirit in the army
of the rebels decided the battle of Diabasis. They advanced
against their enemies as they were commanded ; when the
word was given they simulated flight ; but, when they saw
that the troops of the Emperor did not pursue in disorder, as
Thomas had expected, but advanced in close array, they lost
all heart for the work, and surrendered themselves to Michael's
clemency.
The cause of Thomas was lost on the field of Diabasis.
The throne of the Amorian Emperor was no longer in
jeopardy. But there was still more work to be done and the
civil war was not completely over until the end of the year.
The tyrant himself was not yet captured, nor his adopted son,
Anastasius. Thomas, with a few followers, fled to Arcadiopolis ^
and closed the gates against his conqueror. The parts of the
tyrant and the Emperor were now changed. It was now
Michael's turn to besiege Thomas in the city of Arcadius, as
Thomas had besieged Michael in the city of Constantine.
But the second siege was of briefer duration. Arcadiopolis
was not as Constantinople ; and the garrison of Thomas was
not as the garrison of Michael. Yet it lasted much longer
than might have been expected ; for it began in the middle of
May, and the place held out till the middle of October.^
Arcadiopolis was not the only Thracian town that sheltered
followers of Thomas. The younger tyrant, Anastasius, had
found refuge not far off, in Bizye.^ Another band of rebels
seized Panion,"* and Heraclea on the Propontis remained
devoted to the cause of the Pretender. These four towns,
Heraclea, Panion, Arcadiopolis and Bizye formed a sort of
^ The united authority of the con-
temporary George Mon. (797) and
Genesios (43) would be decisive for the
city of Arcadius, as against Cotit. Th.
in whicli the city of Hadrian is men-
tioned. ' A.8pLavovTroKiv there (68) is
probably a slip ; in any case it is an
error. All doubt on the matter is re-
moved by Michael's own statement
{Ep. ad L'Lid. 418) from which we learn
the duration of the siege. Arcadiopolis,
the ancient Bergyle, corresponds to
the modern Liile Burgas, and was a
station on the main road from Hadria-
nople to Constantinople. Cf. JireSek,
Heerstrasse, 49.
^ See Appendix V.
•' Bizye lay nearly due
east of
Hadrianople, and N.E. of Arcadiopolis.
^ On the Propontis coast, not far
from Heraclea (Suidas, s.v.).
104 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
line, cutting off Constantinople from Western Thrace. But
the subjugation of the last refuges of the lost cause was merely
a matter of months. It would not have been more than a
matter of days, if certain considerations had not hindered the
Emperor from using engines of siege against the towns which
still defied him. But two lines of policy concurred in deciding
him to choose the slower method of blockade.
In the first place he wished to spare, so far as possible,
the lives of Christians, and, if the towns were taken by
violence, bloodshed would be unavoidable. That this con-
sideration really influenced Michael is owned by historians
who were not well disposed towards him, but who in this ,
respect bear out a statement which he made himself in his
letter to Lewis the Pious.^ He informed that monarch that
he retreated after the victory of Diabasis, " in order to spare
Christian blood." Such a motive does not imply that he
was personally a humane man ; other acts show that he could
be stark and ruthless. His humanity in this case rather
illustrates the general feeling that prevailed against the
horrors of civil war. It was Michael's policy to affect a tender
regard for the lives of his Christian subjects, and to contrast
his own conduct with that of his rival, who had brought so
many miseries on the Christian Empire. "We have already
seen how important this consideration was for the purpose of
conciliating public opinion, in the pains which were taken to
represent the Bulgarian intervention as a spontaneous act
of Omurtag, undesired and deprecated by Michael.
But there was likewise another reason which conspired
to decide Michael that it was wiser not to storm a city
of Thrace. It was the interest and policy of a Eoman
Emperor to cherish in the minds of neighbouring peoples,
especially of Bulgarians and Slavs, the wholesome idea that
fortified Eoman cities were impregnable.^ The failure of
Krum's attack on Constantinople, the more recent failure of
the vast force of Thomas, were calculated to do much to
confirm such a belief. And Michael had no mind to weaken
this impression by showing the barbarians that Eoman cities
might yield to the force of skilfully directed engines. In
' ap.cL fxh Tov ifi(pv\tov dTrodidpdaKOiv woXefiov, Cont. Th. 68. Michael, Ep.
ad Lud. 418. '^ Cont. Th. 68.
SECT. II THE CIVIL WAR 105
fact, Michael seized the occasion to show the Bulgarians that
he regarded Arcadiopolis as too strong to be taken by assault.
In following these two principles of policy, Michael
placed himself in the light of a patriot, in conspicuous contrast
to his beaten rival, who had been the author of the Civil
War, and had used all his efforts to teach barbarians how the
Imperial city itself might be taken by an enemy. The
garrison of Arcadiopolis held out for five months,^ but Thomas
was obliged to send out of the town all the women and
children, and the men who were incapable of bearing arms,
in order to save his supplies. By the month of October, the
garrison was reduced to such straits that they were obliged
to feed on the putrid corpses of their horses which had perished
of hunger.^ Part of the garrison now left the town, some
with the knowledge of Thomas, others as deserters to Michael.
The latter, desperate with hunger, let themselves down by
ropes, or threw themselves from the walls at the risk of
breaking their limbs. The messengers of Thomas stole out
of the gates and escaped to Bizye, where the younger tyrant
Anastasius had shut himself up, in order to concert with the
" son " some plan for the rescue of the " father." Then
Michael held a colloquy with the garrison that .was left in
Arcadiopolis, and promised to all a free pardon, if they would
surrender their master into his hands. The followers who
had been so long faithful to their leader thought that the
time had come when they might set their lives before loyalty
to a desperate cause. They accepted the Imperial clemency
and delivered Thomas to the triumphant Emperor.
The punishment that awaited the great tyrant who was
so near to winning the throne was not less terrible than that
to which Michael himself had been sentenced by Leo, the
Armenian. All the distress which the Emperor had under-
gone for the space of three years was now to be visited on his
head. The pretender, who had reduced his conqueror to dire
extremities and had wasted three years of his reign, could
hope for no easy death. The quarrel between Michael and
Thomas was an old one ; it dated from the days when they
[had both been officers under the general Bardanes. The
I time had now come for settling accounts, and the reckoning
1 Michael, Ep. ad Lud. 419. 2 Qe,j_ 44^
lOe EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
against the debtor was heavy indeed.' The long war had
inflicted immeasurable injury on the lands of the Empire,
and it would be hard to estimate how much Thrace alone had
suffered. The private ambition of the old Slav of Gaziura,
the impostor who had deceived his followers, for a time at
least, that he was a legitimate Emperor, was answerable for
all this ruin and misery. When he was led in chains to the
presence of his hated rival, Michael, not disguising his joy,
set his foot upon the neck of the prostrate foe,^ and pro-
nounced his doom. His hands and feet were to be cut off,
and his body was to be pierced on a stake. The miserable
man when he was led to punishment, cried aloud for mercy :
" Pity me, thou who art the true Emperor ! " ^ Hope may
have been awakened in his heart for a moment, hope at least
of some alleviation of the doom, when his judge deigned to
ask him a question. It was one of those dangerous questions
which tempt a man in the desperate position of Thomas to
bear false witness if he has no true facts to reveal. Michael
asked whether any of his own officers or ministers had held
treacherous dealings with the rebel. But if the rebel had
any true or false revelations to make, he was not destined to
utter them, and if he conceived hopes of life or of a milder
death, they were speedily extinguished. At this juncture
John Hexabulios, the Logothete of the Course, intervened
and gave the Emperor wise counsel. The part played in
history by this Patrician was that of a monitor. We saw
him v/arning Michael Eangabe against Leo ; we saw him
taking counsel with Leo touching the designs of Michael the
Lisper; and now we see him giving advice to Michael. His
counsel was, not to hear Thomas, inasmuch as it was improper
and absurd to believe the evidence of foes against friends.
The sentence was carried out,^ probably before the walls
of Arcadiopolis, and doubtless in the Emperor's presence ; and
the great rebel perished in tortures, " like a beast." * A like
^ George Mon. 797 /carA t^v dpxa.lav Genesios does not notice the ass, which
(TvvridfLav. We remember how Justinian often played a part in such scenes.
II. set his feet on the necks of Leontius , mi ■ ^ ^ ■ ^ -i j i
and Tiberius. J The punishment is described by
2 In Cont. Th. (69), it is said that ffl^J?^^^ himself in his letter to Lewis
he was exhibited on an ass : iwl 6vov re ^* ''
dearpli^ei irdcn, touto fibvov iwirpayiji- * wairep re ^Qov ^vaOavarcvv, Cont.
hovvTa, iXerjffiiv fxe 6 dXrjOuis /SacrtAei/. Th. 70.
SECT. II
THE CIVIL WAR
107
doom was in store for his adopted son. But Bizye caused the
Emperor less trouble than Arcadiopolis, for when the followers
of Anastasius heard the news of the fate of Thomas, they
resolved to save their own lives by surrendering him to
Michael. The monk, who in an evil hour had exchanged
the cloister for the world, perished by the same death as
Thomas. But even after the extinction of the two tyrants,
t|here was still resistance offered to the rule of Michael. The
inland cities, Bizye and Arcadiopolis, had surrendered ; but the
maritime cities, Heraclea and Panion,^ still held out. In
these neighbouring places there was a strong enthusiasm for
image- worship, and Michael had given clear proofs that he
did not purpose to permit the restoration of images. But the
resistance of these cities was soon overcome. The wall of
Panion was opportunely shattered by an earthquake, and thus
; the city was disabled from withstanding the Imperial army.
Heraclea, though it was visited by the same disaster, suffered
less, and did not yield at once ; but an assault on the sea-
side was successful, and here, too, Michael had a bloodless
victory.
The Emperor, having completely established his power in
Thrace, returned to the city with his prisoners. If his
dealing with the arch-rebels Thomas and Anastasius had been
O
cruel, his dealing with all their followers was merciful and
mild. Those who were most deeply implicated he punished
by banishment. On the rest he inflicted only the light
ignominy of being exhibited at a spectacle in the Hippodrome
with their hands bound behind their backs.
But there was still some work to be done in Asia, before
it could be said that the last traces of the rebellion of Thomas
had been blotted out. Two adherents of the rebel still held
two strong posts in Asia Minor, and plundered the surrounding
country as brigands. Kaballa," in the Anatolic Theme, to the
north-west of Iconium, was in the hands of Choereas, whil(
^ Michael, %b. , calls it Panidus.
^ There were two places of this
name (in one of which Constantine V.
Kaballinos was probably born), one in
Phrygia, south of Trajanopolis, the
other on the borders of Pisidia and
Lycaonia and not far from Laodicea
Kekaumene (Ramsay, Lycaonia, 69).
The latter, which is doubtless the
Kaballa in question, is placed by
Ramsay in Pisidia, near the village of
Chigil on the road from Iconium to
Philomelion. Anderson (cp. his J/ff^?)
[jlaces it at Kavak, considerably nearer
Iconium, and in Lycaonia ; see
J. U.S. xviii. 120-1 (1898).
108 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
Gazarenos of Kolonea held Saniana, an important fortress on
the Halys.^ Michael sent a golden bull ^ to these chiefs,
announcing the death of Thomas and offering to give them a
free pardon and to confer on them the rank of Magister, if
they submitted. But they were wild folk, and they preferred
the rewards of brigandage to honours at the Imperial Court.
The messenger of Michael, however, accomplished by guile what
he failed to accomplish openly. He seduced some of the
garrisons of both towns, and persuaded them to close the gates
upon their captains while they were abroad on their lawless
raids. The work of tampering with the men of Choereas and
Gazarenos demanded subtlety and caution, but the imperial
messenger was equal to the emergency. The manner in which
he won the ear of an oekonomos or steward of a church or
monastery in Saniana, without arousing suspicion, is recorded.
He found a peasant, by name Gyberion, who had a talent for
music and used to spend his leisure hours in practising rustic
songs. The envoy from the Court cultivated the friendship
of this man and composed a song for him, which ran thus :
Hearken, Sir Steward, to Gyberis !
Give me but Saniana town,
New-Caesarea slialt thou win
And eke a bishop's gown.^
Wlien these lines had been repeatedly sung by the man within
the hearing of the oekonomos or of his friends, the meaning of
the words was grasped and the hint taken. Shut out of their
" cloud-capped towns " ^ the two rebels, Choereas and Gazarenos
took the road for Syria, hoping to find a refuge there, like
their dead leader Thomas. But before they could reach the
frontier they were captured and hanged.
^ Saniana has been identified by aKovae, Kvpi otKovo/xe,
Ramsay {Asia Minor, 218 sqq.) with rbv Tv^ipiv, ri aov Xeyei
Cheshnir Keupreu, on the east side of dv /xol ou)s ri^i' ZavLavav,
the Halys, south - east of Ancyra, /xTjTpoTroXiTijv ae Trolau,
a point at which the military road NeoKaio-dpeidv aot ddiau.
from Dorylaeum forked, one branch
going eastward, the other south-east- If this is right, the lines are eight-
ward. If he is right, its military im- syllabled trochaics with accent on the
portance (implied, I think, in Co7it. penultima. For Neocaesarea in Pontus
Them. 28) is clear. =Niksar, cp. Anderson, Sludia Pon-
2 xpv(ToPo6\\Lov, Cont. Th. 72. tica, i. 56 sqq.
^ Krumbacher has restored the ^ Ih. 73 inrepve(pu)v tovtuv ttoXix-
verses as follows, G.B.L. 793 ih. : vlwv.
jft,
SECT. II THE CIVIL WAR 109
The drama is now over ; all the prophecies of the sooth-
sayer of Philomelion have come true. The star of the Armenian
and the star of the Slavonian have paled and vanished before
the more puissant star of the man of Amorion ; both Leo and
Thomas have been done to death by Michael. He now wears
the Imperial crown, without a rival ; he has no more to fear
or hope from unfulfilled soothsay.
We may now turn from the personal interest in the story
to the more general aspects of this great civil war, which
caused abundant misery and mischief The historians describe
how " it filled the world with all manner of evils, and
diminished the population ; fathers armed themselves against
their sons, brothers against the sons of their mothers, friends
against their dearest friends." ^ It was as if the cataracts of
the Nile had burst, deluging the land not with water but with
blood." The immediate author of these calamities was Thomas,
and there is no doubt that his motive was simply personal
ambition. The old man with the lame leg was not fighting
for a principle, he was fighting for a diadem. But nevertheless
he could not have done what he did if there had not been at
work motives of a larger and more public scope, urging men
to take up arms. It must not be forgotten that he originally
revolted against Leo, and that his war with Michael was
merely a continuation of that revolt. Now there were two
classes of subjects in the Empire, who had good cause to be
discontented with the policy of Leo, the image-worshippers
and the Paulicians. The policy of Thomas, which he skilfully
pursued, was to unite these discordant elements, orthodoxy
and heresy, under a common standard. His pretence to be
Constantino VI. may have won the confidence of some image-
worshippers,^ but he was possibly more successful in conciliating
Paulicians and other heretics.
It is more important to observe that the rebellion probably
jinitiated or promoted considerable social changes in the
1 Gont. Th. 49. won no sympathy from the image-
2 Ih. 53. worshippers of Constantinople, and
^ Ho seems to have professed image- his memory was execrated by such a
Ivorship himself (Michael, Vit. Theod. bigoted iconolater as George Mon.
|?<WfZ. 320 iXeyero lepcis elKovas ixTro- (793). Cp. below, p. 116. Ignatius
W^xecrdaL re Kat irpoaKvvelv) and the the deacon (biographer of the Patriarch
Birecautions of Michael, lest Theodore Nicephorus) wrote iambic verses on
|)tud. and his party should embrace Thomas (ra Kara Qoofxav), Suidas s.v,
yds cause, bear this out. But Thomas 'lyvdrios.
no EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, in
Asiatic provinces. The system of immense estates owned by
rich proprietors and cultivated by peasants in a condition of
serfdom, which had prevailed in the age of Justinian, had
been largely superseded by the opposite system of small
holdings, which the policy of the Isaurian Emperors seems
to have encouraged. But by the tenth century, vast pro-j
perties and peasant serfs have reappeared, and the process
by which this second transformation was accomplished must
be attributed to the ninth. The civil war could not fail to
ruin numberless small farmers who in prosperous times could
barely pay their way, and the fiscal burdens rendered it
impossible for them to recuperate their fortunes, unless they
were aided by the State. But it was easier and more con-
ducive to the immediate profit of the treasury to allow these
insolvent lands to pass into the possession of rich neighbours,
who in some cases might be monastic communities. It is
probable that many farms and homesteads were abandoned by ;
their masters. A modern historian, who had a quick eye for
economic changes, judged that the rebellion of Thomas " was
no inconsiderable cause of the accumulation of property in
immense estates, which began to depopulate the country and
prepare it for the reception of a new race of inhabitants." ^
If the government of Michael II. had been wise, it would
have intervened, at all costs, to save the small proprietors.
Future Emperors might thus have been spared a baflfling
economic problem and a grave political danger.
S 3. The Ecclesiastical Policy of Michael
It was probably during or just after the war with
Thomas that Thecla, the mother of Theophilus, died. At all
events we find Michael soon after the end of the war making
preparations for a second marriage, notwithstanding the deep
grief which he had displayed at the death of his first wife.
A second marriage of any kind was deprecated by the strictly
orthodox, and some thought that at this juncture, when the
Empire was involved in so many misfortunes, the Emperor
showed little concern to appease an offended Deity. But the
Senators were urgent with him that he should marry. " It is
J Finlay, ii. 133.
SECT. Ill ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL II.
Ill
not possible," they said, " that an Emperor should live without
a wife, and that our wives should lack a Lady and Empress."
The writer who records this wishes to make his readers believe
that the pressure of the Senate was exerted at the express
desire of Michael himself/ However this may be, it is
interesting to observe the opinion that an Augusta was
needed in the interests of Court society.
But those who carped at the idea of a second marriage
were still more indignant when they heard who she was that
the Emperor had selected to be Empress over them. It was
not unfitting that the conqueror of the false Constantine
should choose the daughter of the true Constantine for his
wife. But Euphrosyne, daughter of Constantine VI., and
grand-daughter of Irene, had long been a nun in a monastery
on the island of Prinkipo, where she lived with her mother
Maria. Here, indeed, was a scandal ; here was an occasion for
righteous indignation.^ Later historians at least made much of
the crime of wedding a nun, but at the time perhaps it was
more a pretext for spiteful gossip than a cause of genuine
dissatisfaction.^ The Patriarch did not hesitate to dissolve
Euphrosyne from her vows, that she might fill the high
station for which her birth had fitted her. The new Amorian
house might claim by this marriage to be linked with the old
Isaurian dynasty.
The ecclesiastical leanings of Michael II. were not different
from those of his predecessor,^ but he adopted a different
1 Coni. Th. 78. Our Greek author-
ities do not tell us directly that Thecla
was alive wlien Michael acceded to
the throne. But Michael Syr. 72
states that she died "when he had
reigned four years " ; and the language
of Cont. Th. 78, in noticing his second
marriage, seems decidedly to imply
that she had died very recently.
Michael Syr. adds a dark and incred-
ible scandal that Euphrosyne bore a
male child, and reflecting that it was
of Jewish race and would "corrupt
the Imperial stock " caused it to be
killed. •
^ Theodore of Studion denounced
the Emperor for this unlawful {iKvbjxojs)
act in a catechesis, Parva Oat. 74, p.
258, and he wrote a letter to Maria,
exhorting her not to go and live with
her daughter in the Palace {J^p}}. ii.
181 ; cp. Hj). 148 Cozza L.).
^ Compare Finlay ii. 142. He gives
no reason for this view, but I find one
in the silence of the contemporary
George, who does not mention Euphro-
syne. In the chronicle of Simeon
{Add. Georg. 783, 789), she is mentioned,
but the author does not know who she
was and takes her for the mother of
Theophilus.
* It is a mistake to suppose (as
Schwarzlose does, p. 73) that Michael
was neutral. Grossu {Prep. Theodor.
151) properly calls him " a convinced
iconoclast, though not a fanatic."
Finlay (ii. 129) speaks of his "in-
difference to the ecclesiastical disputes
112 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
policy. He decided to maintain the iconoclastic reform of Leo,
which harmonized with his own personal convictions; but at
the same time to desist from any further persecution of the
image -worshippers. We can easily understand that the
circumstances of his accession dictated a policy which should,
so far as possible, disarm the opposition of a large and in-
fluential section of his subjects. Accordingly, he delivered
from prison and allowed to return from exile, all those who
had been punished by Leo for their defiance of his authority.^
The most eminent of the sufferers, Theodore of Studion, left
his prison cell in Smyrna, hoping that the change of govern-
ment would mean the restoration of icons and the reinstallation
of Nicephorus as Patriarch. He wrote a grateful and con-
gratulatory letter to the Emperor, exhorting him to bestow
peace and unity on the Church by reconciliation with the see
of Eome.^ At the same time, he attempted to bring Court
influence to bear on Michael, and we possess his letters to
several prominent ministers, whom he exhorts to work in the
cause of image-worship, while he malignantly exults over the
fate of Leo the Armenian.^ Theodore had been joined by
many members of his party on his journey to the neighbour-
hood of Constantinople, and when he reached Chalcedon, he
hastened to visit the ex-Patriarch who was living in his own
monastery of St. Theodore, on the Asiatic shore of the
Bosphorus.'* Here and in the monastery of Crescentius, where
which agitated a church to many of proceeding to Prusa and Chalcedon
whose doctrines he was at heart ad- (Michael, Vit. Thcod. c. 58). On
verse"; but this " indifference " was leaving Smyrna, Theodore proceeded
relative ; it would be misleading to to Pteleae, by way of Xerolopha and
describe him as an " indifterentist." AAkkov fiirdra, unknown places (ib.
His own iconoclastic convictions are c. 48). The jjosition of Pteleae, on the
expressed clearly in his Letter to river Onopniktes {ib. c. 51), is un-
Lewis (420 sq.). On his actual policy, known, but it is probably the same as
all writers agree ; it is briefly summed Pteleae on the Hellespont (for which
up in the Acta Davidis 230 : KaTix<^' see Ramsay, Asia Minor, 163). In
€KaaTos dk rb Sokovv avT(^ TroieiTw. that case, Theodore must have followed
1 In the Epist. syn. ad T/teoph. 377 the coast road from Smyrna.
Michael is described as tov TrpaoraTov * Grossu (145) is wrong in saying
Kal yaXyivoTaTov ^aaiX^a, who xP'-<^'''o- ^^^^ Theodore crossed the Bosphorus
/xi/xriTus said to those who were in and visited Nicephorus in the monas-
chains, " Come forth." tery of Agathos. This monastery
2 T^K^^^^-^ i^™, ;; TA ^.^a-y have been on the European side
"= iheodore, ^wjo. ii. /4. e i\ -o t -u ^ -nt- v
' ^^ or the Bosphorus, but Niceimorus was
2 Ib. ii. 75, 76, 80, 81, 82. These in the monastery of St. Theodore
and the letter to the Emperor were (Ignatius, Vit. JViceph. 201), which
probably written at Pteleae, where was on the Asiatic side (Pargoire,
Theodore stayed for some time, before Boradion, 476-477).
SECT. Ill ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL IL 113
Theodore took up his abode somewhere on the Asiatic shore of
the Propontis/ the image-worshippers deliberated how they
should proceed.
Their first step seems to have been the composition of a
letter^ which Nicephorus addressed to the Emperor, admonishing
him of his religious duties, and holding up as a warning the
fate of his impious predecessor. In this document the argu-
ments in favour of images were once more rehearsed. But
Michael was deaf to these appeals. His policy was to allow
people to believe what they liked in private, but not to permit
image-worship in public. When he received the letter of
Nicephorus he is reputed to have expressed admiration of its
ability and to have said to its bearers words to this effect :
" Those who have gone before us will have to answer for their
doctrines to God ; but we intend to keep the Church in the
same way in which we found her walking. Therefore we rule
and confirm that no one shall venture to open his mouth
either for or against images. But let the Synod of Tarasius be
put out of mind and memory, and likewise that of Constantine
the elder (the Fifth), and that which was lately held in Leo's
reign ; and let complete silence in regard to images be the
order of the day. But as for him who is so zealous to speak
and write on these matters, if he wishes to govern the Church
on this basis;'^ preserving silence concerning the existence and
worship of images, bid him come here."
But this attempt to close the controversy was vain ; the
injunction of silence would not be obeyed, and its enforce-
ment could only lead to a new persecution. The Emperor
^ Michael, Vit. Theod. c. 59, names has, I think, been a confusion here
the monastery, and seems to imply it between Michael's reply to the Patri-
was on the Gulf of Nicomedia. But arch and his subsequent reply to the
in Vit. Nicol. Stud. 900, the place of audience of ecclesiastics whom he
Theodore's abode at this time is received, doubtless at a silention in
described as a irapaKoKvLos tSttos ttjs the presence of the Senate. We do
Ilpov(n]s, which would naturally mean not know whether Nicephorus -wrote
on the bay of Mudania. his letter before or after the appearance
2 Ignatius, Vit. Niccph. 209, where of Theodore on the scene. Grossu
Michael's reply Trpos ro()s rb ypd/j.fjLa (144 sqq.) is right, I think, in his
8LaKOfucrafi€vovs is given. George Mon., general reconstruction of the order of
without mentioning Nicephorus or his events, but it cannot be considered
letter, cites Micliael's reply (from absolutely certain.
Ignatius), referring to it as a public =* From these words, I think we
harangue, i-rri \aov B-rjfxTjyopriffas (792). may infer that the Patriarchate was
The texts of Simeon have eTrt (reXevriov already vacant through the death of
instead of eTrt Xaov (Leo Gr. 211 ; Theodotos.
Vers. Slav. 92, na selendii). There
114 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
presently deemed it expedient to essay a reconciliation, by
means of a conference between leading representatives of both
parties, and he requested the ex-Patriarch and his friends
to meet together and consider this proposal/ The image-
worshippers decided to decline to meet heretics for the purpose
of discussion, and Theodore, who was empowered to reply to
the Emperor on behalf of the bishops and abbots, wrote that,
while in all other matters they were entirely at their sovran's
disposition, they could not comply with this command,^ and
suggested that the only solution of the difficulty was to appeal
to Kome, the head of all the Churches.
It was apparently after this refusal^ that, through the
intervention of one of his ministers, Michael received in
audience Theodore and his friends.* Having permitted them
to expound their views on image-worship, he replied briefly
and decisively : " Your words are good and excellent. But,
as I have never yet till this hour worshipped an image in my
life, I have determined to leave the Church as I found it.
To you, however, I allow the liberty of adhering with
impunity to what you allege to be the orthodox faith ; live
where you choose, only it must be outside the city, and you
need not apprehend that any danger will befall you from my
government. "
It is probable that these negotiations were carried on
while the Patriarchal chair was vacant. Theodotos died early
in the year, and while the image-worshippers endeavoured to
procure the restoration of Nicephorus on their own terms, the
Emperor hoped that the ex-Patriarch might be induced to
yield. The audience convinced him that further attempts to
come to an understanding would be useless, and he caused the
^ Theodore, Epp. ii. 86. mentions only the one transaction.
^ They based their refusal on an We can, therefore, only apply con-
apostolic command, sc. of Paul in siderations of probability.
Titus iii. 9-10. * Michael, ih. c. 60 (cp. Vita Nicol.
^ So Schneider, 89 ; Grossu, 147. Stud. 892). The Patriarch was not
C. Thomas places the audience almost present {ib. ; and Theodore, Epp. ii.
immediately after Theodoi-e's return 129, p. 1417 ; from which passage it
from exile, and before the letter of appears that at this audience the
Nicephorus (136). The difficulty as Emperor again proposed a conference
to the order arises from the fact that between representatives of the two
the three negotiations — (1) the letter doctrines, and offered to leave the
of Nicephorus, (2) the proposal for a decision to certain persons who pro-
conference, (3) the audience — are re- fessed to be image-worshippers — tovtov
coT'ded in three sources, each of which KaKelvov tG)v dijdev ofMotppovu}!/ rifxiv).
SECT. Ill ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL 11. 115
vacant ecclesiastical throne to be filled by Antonius Kassymatas,
bishop of Syllaion, who had been the coadjutor of Leo V. in
his iconoclastic work.^ By this step those hopes which the
Imperial leniency had raised in the minds of Theodore and his
party were dissipated.
The negotiations, as they were conducted by Theodore,
had raised a question which was probably of greater import-
ance in the eyes of Michael than the place of pictures in
religious worship. The Studite theory of the supremacy of
the Eoman See in the ecclesiastical affairs of Christendom had
been asserted without any disguise ; the Emperor had been
admonished that the controversy could only be settled by the
co-operation of the Pope. This doctrine cut at the root of
the constitutional theory, which was held both by the
Emperors and by the large majority of their subjects, that the
Imperial autocracy was supreme in spiritual as well as in
secular affairs. The Emperor, who must have been well aware
that Theodore had been in constant communication with
Kome during the years of persecution, doubtless regarded his
Eoman proclivities with deep suspicion, and he was not
minded to brook the interference of the Pope. His suspicions
were strengthened and his indignation aroused by the arrival
of a message from Pope Paschal I. Methodius (who was
afterwards to ascend the Patriarchal throne) had resided at
Eome during the reign of Leo V. and worked there as an
energetic agent in the interests of image-worship." He now
returned to Constantinople, bearing a document in which
Paschal defined the orthodox doctrine.^ He sought an
audience of the Emperor, presented the Papal writing, and
called upon the sovran to restore the true faith and the true
Patriarch. Michael would undoubtedly have resented the
dictation of the Pope if it had been conveyed by a Papal
. ^ Thcodotos was Patriarch for six 2 ggg Vit. Metli. 1 § 4, p. 1248 ; cp.
years (Theoph. 362 ; Zonaras xiv. 24, Theodore, E^ip. ii. S.^. Methodius was
14, p. 350 : Zonaras probably had a a native of Syracuse. He went at
list of Patriarchs before him, see an early age to Constantinople, and
Hirsch, 384). Ashe became Patriarch became abbot of the monastery of
at Easter 815, his death occurred in Chenolakkos. He went to Rome in
821. Cp. Andreev, Kond. Pair. 200. A.n. 815. See Pargoire's papers in
His successor Antonius was already l^^chos d'Orieiit, &,\2& sqq. a,nA.l%Zsqq.
Patriarch at Whitsuntide (see above, (1903).
p. 80 n. 5) ; we may conjecture that ■' Vit. Meth. 1 § 5 rofiovs doy/xaTiKoi/s
he was inaugurated at Easter. See tjtoi opovs dpOoSo^ias.
further Vasil'ev, Fril. 147-148.
116 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, in
envoy ; but it was intolerable that one of his own subjects
should be the spokesman of Eome. Methodius was treated
with rigour as a treasonable intriguer ; he was scourged and
then imprisoned in a tomb in the little island of St. Andrew,
which lies off the north side of the promontory of Akritas
(Tuzla-Burnu), in the Gulf of Nicomedia.^ His confinement
lasted for more than eight years."
After the outbreak of the civil war Michael took the pre-
caution of commanding Theodore and his faction to move into
the city, fearing that they might support his opponent, who
was said to favour images. The measure was unnecessary, for
the iconolaters of the better class seem to have had no
sympathy with the cause of Thomas, and the ecclesiastical
question did not prove a serious factor in the struggle.^
On the termination of the war, the Emperor made a new
effort to heal the division in the Church. He again
proposed a conference between the leading exponents of
the rival doctrines, but the proposal was again rejected,
on the ground that the question could be settled only in
one of two ways — either by an ecumenical council, which
required the concurrence of the Pope and the four Patri-
archs, or by a local council, which would only have legal
authority if the legitimate Patriarch Nicephorus were first
restored/
^ Vit. Metli. 1 § 5. For the island Leo, the Sakellarios (whom Michael
see Pargoire, HUria, 28. had charged with the negotiation), re-
^ Vit. Meth. 1 § 6, says nine years. jecting the proposition on behalf of his
As he was imprisoned in spring 821, party {Epp. ii. 129). Tlie writer refers
and released (i6.) by Michael just before to the audience which the Emperor
his death (Oct. 829), eight and a half had accorded to him and his friends
would be more accurate. in 821 as irpb rpiQv irdv. This enables
^ Michael, Vit. Theod. c. 61. Vit. us to assign the date to the first months
Nicol. Stud. 900. Grossu (149) and of 824. At the same time Theodore
others think that Theodore, while he addressed a letter directly to the
was in the city, was probably re- Emperors Michael and Theophilus
installed at Studion. I doubt this. (ii. 199), setting forth the case for
During the latter part of the war pictures. At the end of the war
(Grossu omits to notice) he was in the Theodore retired (along with his
Prince's Island, as we learn from a disciple Nicolaus) to the monastery of
letter written there, Epp. ii. 127, p. St. Tryphon, close to the promontory
1412. (Nicephorus, it would seem, of Akritas, in the Gulf of Nicomedia
was allowed to remain in his monastery (Michael, Vit. T/icod., ib. ; Vit. Nicol.
on the Bosphorus.) From ^^^. ii. 129. Stud. 900), where he lived till his
p. 1416, we learn that Theodore had death, Nov. 11, 826 {Vit. Nicol.
no sympathy with the rebel : (povicrKos 902 ; Naukratios, Encyclica, 1345 ;
^Trai' KparrjOy diKaius awoTicrei irpbs tov Michael, Vit. Theod. c. 64). He was
v6/j.ov T7]v dfTicnjKovaav woivrjv. buried in Prince's Island, but the
"* The source is Theodore's letter to remains were afterwards removed to
SECT. Ill ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL II. 117
The Emperor was convinced that the obstinacy of the
image-worshippers rested largely on their hopes that the
Eoman See would intervene, and that if he could induce the
Pope to assume a cold attitude to their solicitations the
opposition would soon expire. In order to influence the
Pope he sought the assistance of the Western Emperor, Lewis,
to whom he indited a long letter, which contains an in-
teresting description of the abuses to which the veneration of
images had led.^ " Lights were set in front of them and
incense was burned, and they were held in the same honour
as the life-giving Cross. They were prayed to, and their aid
was besought. Some used even to cover them with cloths
and make them the baptismal sponsors for their children.
Some priests scraped the paint from pictures and mixed it in
the bread and wine which they give to communicants ; others
placed the body of the Lord in the hands of images, from
which the communicants received it. The Emperors Leo V.
and his son caused a local synod to be held," and such
practices were condemned. It was ordained that pictures
which were hung low in churches should be removed, that
those which were high should be left for the instruction of
persons who are unable to read, but that no candles should
be lit or incense burned before them. Some rejected the
council and fled to Old Rome, where they calumniated the
Church." The Emperors proceed to profess their belief in
the Six Ecumenical Councils, and to assure King Lewis
that they venerate the glorious and holy relics of the Saints.
They ask him to speed the envoys to the Pope, to whom
they are bearers of a letter and gifts for the Church of
St. Peter.
The four envoys^ who were sent on this mission met
with a favourable reception from the Emperor Lewis at
Studion in 844 (Michael, ih. c. 68). the false idea of some historians that
During his last years he continued his Michael held a council in 821. He
epistolary activity in the cause of simply adhered to the acts of 815.
orthodoxy, and many people came to •' Theodore, a strategos of proto-
see and consult him {ih. c. 63). spathar rank ; Nicetas, bishop of
^ Mich. Ej). ad Lud. 420. It is Myra ; Tlieodore, oekonomos of St.
dated April 10, a.d. 824. Sophia ; Leo, an Imperial candidatus.
^ " Propterea statuerunt orthodoxi The Patriarch Fortnnatus of Grado
imperatores et doctissimi sacerdotes (who had fled to Constantinople in
locale ad nnare concilium." This state- 821) accompanied them {Ann. r. F.,
ment, which of course refers to the suh 824).
synod of a.d. 815, seems to have led to
118 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, hi
Kouen, and were sent on to Eome, where Eugenius had
succeeded Paschal in St Peter's chair.^ It is not recorded
how they fared at Kome, but Lewis lost no time in making
an attempt to bring about a European settlement of the
iconoclastic controversy. The Prankish Church did not agree
with the extreme views of the Greek iconoclasts, nor yet with
the doctrine of image-worship which had been formulated by
the Council of Mcaea and approved by the Popes ; and it
appeared to Lewis a good opportunity to press for that
intermediate solution of the question which had been
approved at the Council of Prankfurt (a.d. 794). The
sense of this solution was to forbid the veneration of images,
but to allow them to be set up in churches as ornaments and
memorials. The first step was to persuade the Pope, and for
this purpose Lewis, who, like his father, was accustomed to
summon councils on his own authority, respectfully asked
Eugenius to permit him to convoke the Prankish bishops to
collect the opinions of the Fathers on the question at issue.
Eugenius could not refuse, and the synod met in Paris in ]
November 825. The report of the bishops agreed with the!
decision of Frankfurt ; they condemned the worship of images,
tracing its history back to the Greek philosopher Epicurus;
they censured Pope Hadrian for approving the doctrine of the
Nicene Council ; but, on the other hand, they condemned
the iconoclasts for insisting on the banishment of images from
churches.""^ Lewis despatched two learned bishops to Eome,
bearing extracts from the report of the synod,^ but the story
of the negotiations comes here to a sudden end. We hear of
no further direct communications between Eome and Con-
stantinople, but we may reasonably suspect that a Papal
embassy to Lewis (a.d. 826), and two embassies which
passed between the Eastern and Western Emperors in the
following years,'^ were concerned with the question of religious
pictures.
Till his death, from disease of the kidneys, in October
^ Paschal seems to have died some ^ gickel, Acta Ltid. 235, 236, pp.
time in spring 824 ; cp. Simson, L%id- 154 sq.
wig, i. 212, n. 1. * Ann. r. F., suh 826, 827, 828. See
^' For all this, see Simson, ib. 248 below, p. 330.
sqq., where the .sources are given.
:EC
SECT. Ill ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL II. 119
A.D. 829, Michael adhered to his resolution not to pursue or
imprison the leaders of the ecclesiastical opposition. The only
case of harsh dealing recorded ^ is the treatment of Methodius,
and he, as we have seen, was punished not as a recalcitrant
but as an intriguer.
1 For the alleged persecution of Euthymios of Sardis (Gen. bO — Cont. \Tli.
48) see below p. 139.
CHAPTEE IV
THEOPHILUS
(A.D. 829-842)
^ 1. The Administration of Theophilus
For eight years Theophilus had been an exemplary co-regent.
Though he was a man of energetic character and active brain,
he appears never to have put himself forward,^ and if he
exerted influence upon his father's policy, such influence was
carefully hidden behind the throne. Perhaps Michael com-
pelled him to remain in the background. In any case, his
position, for a man of his stamp, was an education in politics ;
it afforded him facilities for observing weak points in an
administration for which he was not responsible, and for study-
ing the conditions of the Empire which he would one day
have to govern. He had a strong sense of the obligations of
the Imperial office, and he possessed the capacities which his
subjects considered desirable in their monarch. He had the
military training which enabled him to lead an army into the
field ; he had a passion for justice ; he was well educated, and,
like the typical Byzantine sovran, interested in theology.
His private life was so exemplary that even the malevolence
of the chroniclers, who detested him as a heretic, covild only
rake up one story against his morals.^ He kept a brilliant
Court, and took care that his palace, to which he added new
1 He emerges only on two occasions behaved with a pretty maid of his
in our meagre chronicles — (1) as help- wile. AVhen Theodora discovered his
ing in the defence of the city against conduct and showed her chagrin, he
Thomas, and (2) as responsible for swore a tremendous oath that he had
the death of Euthymios of Sardis never done such a thing before and
(but for this see below, p. 139). would never repeat the offence {Cont.
^ The scandal was that he mis- Th. 95).
120
SECT. I THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEOPHILUS 121
and splendid buildings, should not be outshone by the marvels
of Baghdad.
We might expect to find the reign of Theophilus remem-
bered in Byzantine chronicle as a dazzling passage in the
history of the Empire, like the caliphate of Harun al-Eashid
in the annals of Islam. But the writers who have recorded
his acts convey the impression that he was an unlucky and
ineffective monarch.-' In his eastern warfare against the
Saracens his fortune was chequered, and he sustained one
crushing humiliation ; in the West, he was unable to check
the Mohammadan advance. His ecclesiastical policy, which
he inherited from his predecessors, 9,nd pursued with vigour
and conviction, was undone after his death. But though he
fought for a losing cause in religion, and wrought no great
military exploits, and did not possess the highest gifts of
statesmanship, it is certain that his reputation among his
contemporaries was far higher than a superficial examination
of the chronicles would lead the reader to suspect. He has
fared like Leo V. He was execrated in later times as an unre-
lenting iconoclast, and a conspiracy of silence and depreciation
has depressed his fame. But it was perhaps not so much his
heresy as his offence in belonging to the Amorian dynasty
that was fatal to his memory. Our records were compiled
under the Basilian dynasty, which had established itself on
the throne by murder ; and misrepresentation of the Amorians
is a distinctive propensity in these partial chronicles. Yet, if
we read between the lines, we can easily detect that there was
another tradition, and that Theophilus had impressed the
popular imagination as a just ^ and brilliant sovran, somewhat
as Harun impressed the East. This tradition is reflected in
anecdotes, of which it would be futile to appraise the propor-
tions of truth and myth, — anecdotes which the Basilian
1 Cp. esp. Oont. Th. 139 {dvdTvxm). tiirische, kiichliche wie Verwaltungs-
^ The hostile chroniclers admit his fragen allein entscheidet, und eine
love of justice, and Nicetas {Vita vollendete Verstandnislosigkeit fiir
Ignatii, 216) describes him as "not die Zeichen der Zeit sind die Eigen-
otherwise bad " (apart from his heresy) ttimlichkeiten dieses stark iiber-
a,ndi disSiKaioKpialasdvT€xoiJ.evos. Gelzer schatzten, im Grunde keineswegs
(^&Wss, in Krmnbacher, G.B.L. 967) bedeutenden Regenten." His ecclesi-
judges Theophilus severely : " Ein astical policy was a failure, but other-
Grbssenwahn nach dem Vorbilde wise I fail to see the grounds for this
orientalischer Sultane, ein Allwis- verdict,
senheitsdiinkel der selbstiindig mili-
122 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, iv
historiographers found too interesting to omit, but told in a
somewhat grudging way because they were supposed to be to
the credit of the Emperor.
The motive of these stories is the Emperor's desire to
administer justice rigorously without respect of persons. He
used to ride once a week through the city to perform his
devotions in the church of the Virgin at Blachernae, and on
the way he was ready to listen to the petitions of any of his
subjects who wished to claim his protection. One day he
was accosted by a widow who complained that she was
wronged by the brother of the Empress, Petronas, who held
the post of Drungary of the Watch. It was illegal to build i
at Constantinople any structure which intercepted the view ori
the light of a neighbour's house ; but Petronas was enlarging
his own residence at Blachernae, with insolent disregard
for the law, in such a way as to darken the house of the
widow. Theophilus promptly sent Eustathios the quaestor,
and other officers, to test the accuracy of her statement, and
on their report that it was true, the Emperor caused his
brother-in-law to be stripped and flogged in the public street.
The obnoxious buildings were levelled to the ground, and the
ruins, apparently, bestowed upon the complainant.^ Another
time, on his weekly ride, he was surprised by a man who
accosted him and said, " The horse on which your Majesty is
riding belongs to me." Calling the Count of the Stable, who
was in attendance, the Emperor inquired, " Whose is this
horse ? " " It was sent to your Majesty by the Count of
Opsikion," was the reply. The Count of the Opsikian Theme,
who happened to be in the city at the time, was summoned
and confronted next day with the claimant, a soldier of his'
own army, who charged him with having appropriated the ;
animal without giving any consideration either in money or '
military promotion. The lame excuses of the Count did not
serve ; he was chastised with stripes, and the horse offered to
its rightful owner. This man, however, preferred to receive
2 pounds of gold (£86, 8s.) and military promotion ; he proved
a coward and was slain in battle with his back to the enemy.^
Another anecdote is told of the Emperor's indignation on
^ Simeon, Add. Georg. 793.
2 lb. 803. The story is told otherwise in Cont. Th. 93.
SECT. I THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEOPHILUS 123
discovering that a great merchant vessel, which he descried
with admiration sailing into the harbour of Bucoleon, was
the property of Theodora, who had secretly engaged in mer-
cantile speculation. " What ! " he exclaimed, " my wife has
made me, the Emperor, a merchant ! " He commanded the
ship and all its. valuable cargo to be consigned to the flames.^
These tales, whatever measure of truth may underlie
them, redounded to the credit of Theophilus in the opinion of
those who repeated them ; they show that he was a popular
figure in Constantinople, and that his memory, as of a just
ruler, was revered by the next generation. We can accept
without hesitation the tradition of his accessibility to his
subjects in his weekly progresses to Blachernae, and it is said
that he lingered on his way in the bazaars, systematically
examining the wares, especially the food, and inquiring the
prices.^ He was doubtless assiduous also in presiding at the
Imperial court of appeal, which met in the Palace of
Magnaura,^ here following the examples of Nicephorus and
Leo the Armenian.
The desirability of such minute personal supervision of
the administration may have been forced on Theophilus by
his own observations during his father's reign, and he evidently
attempted to cross, so far as seemed politic, those barriers
which hedged the monarch from direct contact with the life
of the people. As a rule, the Emperor was only visible to
the ordinary mass of his subjects when he rode in solemn
pomp through the city to the Holy Apostles or some other
church, or when he appeared to watch the public games from
his throne in the Hippodrome. The regular, unceremonial
ride of Theophilus to Blachernae was an innovation, and if it
did not afford him the opportunities of overhearing the gossip
I of the town which Harun al-Eashid is said by the story-tellers
to have obtained by nocturnal expeditions in disguise, it may
have helped a discerning eye to some useful information.
The political activity of Theophilus seems to have been
directed to the efficient administration of the existing laws
and the improvement of administrative details ; * his govern-
1 Gen. 75 ; told differently and with ^ Cp. ih. 88 ev KpirypioLS.
more elaboration in Cont. Th. 88. •» For the new Themes which he
2 Cont. Th. 87. instituted, see below, Chap. VII. § 2.
124 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, iv
ment was not distinguished by novel legislation or any
radical reform. His laws have disappeared and left no visible
traces — -like almost all the Imperial legislation between the
reigns of Leo III. and Basil I.^ Of one important enactment
we are informed. The law did not allow marriage except
between orthodox Christians.^ But there was a large influx,
during his reign, of orientals who were in rebellion against
the Caliph/ and Theophilus, to encourage the movement,
passed a law permitting alliance between Mohammadan
" Persians " and Eomans.^ This measure accorded with his
reputation for being a friend of foreigners.^
One of the first measures of the reign was an act of policy,
performed in the name of justice. According to one account*'
the people had gathered in the Hippodrome to witness horse-
races, and at the end of the performance the Emperor assembled
the Senate in the Kathisma, from which he witnessed the
games, and ordered Leo Chamaidrakon, the Keeper of the
Private Wardrobe, to produce the chandelier which had been
broken when Leo V. was cut down by his murderers in the
chapel of the Palace. Pointing to this, Theophilus asked,
" What is the desert of him who enters the temple of the Lord
and slays the Lord's anointed ? " The Senate replied, " Death,"
and the Emperor immediately commanded the Prefect of the
City to seize the men who had slain Leo and decapitate them
in the Hippodrome before the assembled people. The astonished
^ A law concerning the fashion of shorn at once. This incident, which
wearing the hair is attributed to him is undoubtedly genuine, may have
in Cont. Th. 107. His own hair was actually prompted the regulation,
thin, and he decreed {ideairiaev and ^ Marriages with heretics were for-
v6/xou i^edero) that no Roman should bidden : Acta Cone. TruUani, c. 72.
allow his hair to fall below the Cp. Zachariii v. L. Gr. - rom. R.
neck, alleging the virtuous fashion 6i sq.
of the ancient Romans. Such an ^ See below, Chap. VIII. p. 252.
edict is grossly improbable. We may ^ Cont. Th. 112.
suspect that he introduced a regula- ^ <pi\oe9vr}s tQv vdnroTe jBaaiXeuv,
tion of the kind in regard to soldiers ; Acta 42 3Iart. Amor. 27 where he is
and some light is thrown on the said to have been fond of negroes
matter by an anecdote (recorded about (AidioTres), of whom he formed a
A.D. 845-847) in Acta 42 Mart. Amor. military handon. This passage also
24-25. Kallistos, a count of the refers to marriages of foreigners with
Schools {i.e., captain of a company in Roman women : avva-yrj'yepKijs iK
the Scholarian Guards), presented him- dtacpopuv yXuiaffuiv 5ti nXeia-Trji'
self to the Emperor with long untidy avfi/jiopiav ovs Kai ^evywcrdai. rais
hair and beard (avxi^VPV^ ''''■'"■ '^^l^'V '^''^' dvyarpdaL twv ttoKltQv wpbs 5e Kai
d.(pL\oKd\ifi yei/eiddL). Theophilus very dcrTvyfiTdvuv ^laaTLKws avvrd^as
naturally administered a severe rebuke dv€Tpe\pe ra 'Pu/xaiuiv aiVta.
to the officer, and ordered him to be ^ Simeon, Add. Georg. 791.
I
SECT. I THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEOPHILUS 125
victims of such belated justice naturally exclaimed, " If we had
not assisted your father, Emperor, you would not now he
on the throne." There are other versions of the circumstances,
and it is possible that the assassins were condemned at a formal
silention in the Magnaura.^ It would be useless to judge this
punishment by any ethical standard. Michael II. had not
only a guilty knowledge of the conspiracy, but had urged the
conspirators to hasten their work. The passion of a
doctrinaire for justice will not explain his son's act in calling
his father's accomplices to a tardy account ; nor is there the
least probability in the motive which some image-worshippers
assigned, that respect for the memory of Leo as a great
iconoclast inspired him to wreak vengeance on the murderers.^
The truth, no doubt, is that both Michael II. and Theophilus
were acutely conscious that the deed which had raised them
to power cast an ugly shadow over their throne ; and it is
noteworthy that in the letter which they addressed to the
Emperor Lewis they stigmatize the conspirators as wicked
men.^ Michael, we may be assured, showed them no favour,
but he could not bring himself to punish the men whom he
had himself encouraged to commit the crime. The conscience
of Theophilus was clear, and he could definitely dissociate the
Amorian house from the murder by a public act of retribu-
tion. It may well be that (as one tradition affirms "*) Michael,
when death was approaching, urged his son to this step. In any
case, it seems certain that the purpose of Theophilus was to
remedy a weakness in his political position, and that he was
taking account of public opinion.
The Augusta Euphrosyne, last Imperial descendant of the
Isaurian house, retired to a monastery soon after her stepson's
accession to the supreme power. Michael is related to have
bound the Senate by a pledge that they would defend the
rights of his second wife and her children after his death.^
If this is true, it meant that if she had a son his position
should be secured as co-regent of his stepbrother. She had no
children, and found perhaps little attraction in the prospect of
1 Gen. 51. Add. Gcorg. 789, that Theopliilus
- Add. Georg., ih. reigned along with Euphrosyne is a
^ Ep. ad Lud. 418, "a quibusdani corollary from the error that she was
improbis." his mother, and brought about his
■* Gen. 51. marriage with Theodora after his
^ Cont. Th. 78. The statement in father's death.
126 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, iv
residing in the Palace and witnessing Court functions in which
Theodora would now be the most important figure. There is -
no reason to suppose that she retired under compulsion. '
The first five children born to Theophilus during his
father's lifetime were daughters, but just before or soon after
his accession Theodora gave birth to a son, who was named
Constantine and crowned as Augustus. Constantine, however,
did not survive infancy,^ and the Emperor had to take thought
for making some provision for the succession. He selected as
a son-in-law Alexios Musele,^ who belonged to the family of the
Krenitai, of Armenian descent, and betrothed him to his eldest
daughter, Maria (c. a.d. 831). Alexios (who had been created a
patrician and distinguished by the new title of anthypatos,*
and then elevated to the higher rank of magister) received the
dignity of Caesar, which gave him a presumptive expectation
of a still higher title. The marriage was celebrated about
A.D. 836, but Maria died soon afterwards, and, against the
Emperor's wishes, his son-in-law insisted on retiring to a
monastery. There was a story that the suspicions of
Theophilus had been aroused by jealous tongues against the
loyalty of Alexios, who had been sent to fight with the
Saracens in Sicily. It is impossible to say how much truth
may underlie this report, nor can we be sure whether the
Caesar withdrew from the world before or after the birth of a
son to Theophilus (in a.d. 839), an event which would in any
case have disappointed his hopes of the succession.^
^ On tli8 retirement of Euplirosyne, Melioranski, ih.
see Melioranski, Viz. Vrcm. 8, 32-33. ^ He probably died c. a.d. 835. For
The statements of Simeon (y4c?(^. treorj/. the evidence for Constantine, for the
790) and Gont. Th. 86 contradict each argument that Maria was the eldest
other ; according to the latter she was daughter, for the chronology, and for
(laudably) expelled from the Palace the coins, see Appendix VI.
by Theophilus (accepted as true by ^ Mushegh, in Armenian ; cp. St.
Hirsch, 205). I think Melioranski is Martin ainiil Lebeau, xiii. 118, who
right in following the former {Viz. thinks he was descended from the
Vrem. 8, 32-33), but his observations Mamigonians. His namesake, who
about the chronology do not hold. held high posts under Irene and Con-
Gont. Th. is undoubtedly right in stantine VI., may have been his
stating that Euphrosyne withdrew to father.
the cloister in which she had formerly ■* See Bury, Imj). Administration,
been a nun (in the island of Prinkipo ; 28.
see above, p. Ill) ; she had nothing to ^ Cp. Appendix VI. ad fin. Theo-
do with the monastery of Gastria, to philus gave Alexios three monasteries,
which Simeon sends her {Add. Georg. one of them at Chrysopolis. But
790 ; cp. Vit. Tkeodorae Aug. p. 6). Alexios wished to found a cloister
Gastria belonged to Theoktiste, the himself; and taking a walk north-
mother-in-law of Theophilus. See ward from Chrysopolis along the shore.
SECT. I THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEOPHILUS 127
While he was devoted to the serious business of ruling,
and often had little time for the ceremonies and formal
processions ^ which occupied many hours in the lives of less
active Emperors, Theophilus loved the pageantry of royal
magnificence. On two occasions he celebrated a triuniDh
over the Saracens, and we are so fortunate as to possess
an ofl&cial account of the triumphal ceremonies.^ When
Theophilus (in a.d. 831) reached the Palace of Hieria, near
Chalcedon, he was awaited by the Empress, the three ministers
— the Praepositus,^ the chief Magister, and the urban Prefect —
who were responsible for the safety of the city during his
absence, and by all the resident members of the Senate. At
a little distance from the Palace gates, the senators met him
and did obeisance ; Theodora stood within the rails of the
hall which opened on the court, and when her lord dismounted
she also did obeisance and kissed him. The train of captives
had not yet arrived, and ten days elapsed before the triumphal
entry could be held. Seven were spent at Hieria, the senators
remaining in ceremonial attendance upon the Emperor, and
their wives, who were summoned from the city, upon the
Empress. On the seventh day the Court ^ moved to the Palace
of St. Mamas, and remained there for three days. On the
tenth, Theophilus sailed up the Golden Horn, disembarked at
Blachernae, and proceeded on horseback outside the walls to
a pavilion which had been pitched in a meadow^ near the
Golden Gate. Here he met the captives who had been con-
veyed across the Propontis from Chrysopolis.
Meanwhile, under the direction of the Prefect, the city
had been set in festive array, decorated " like a bridal chamber,"
he came on a site which pleased him stantinopolis, ii. 297-304). The urban
in the suburb of Anthemios, some- quarter of Anthemios {ib. 467-469) was
where near the modern Anadoli- north - nortli - west of the Cistern of
Hissar. The ground belonged to the Mokios (Chukur-Bostan), in the west
Imperial arsenal {mangana), but, of the City.
through the influence of Theodora, ^ See Cord. Th. 88.
Alexios was permitted to buy it. His - Trept ra^. 503 sqq. Cp. below,
tomb and that of his brother existed pp. 254, 261.
here in the following century {Gout. ^ In the performance of his function
Th. 109). Pargoire {Boradion, 456 sqq., as regent during Imperial absences,
473-475) has shown that the suburban the praepositus was designated as 6
quarterofAnthemios was near Anadoli- dii-rrwv or 6 diroiJ.ovev^. Cp. Bury, /mp.
Hissar — north of Brochthoi, whicli was Acbn. Syste7n, 124.
near Kandili, and south of Boradion, * The ladies perhaps returned to the
which was near Phrixu-limen = Kanlija city.
(for these districts see Hammer, Con- ^ The meadow of the Kofi^ivocrricnov.
128 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, iv
with variegated hangings ^ and purple and silver ornaments.
The long Middle Street, through which the triumphal train
would pass, from the Golden Gate of victory to the place of
the Augusteon, was strewn with flowers. The prisoners, the
tr(jphies and the spoils of war preceded the Emperor, who rode
on a white horse caparisoned with jewelled harness ; a tiara
was on his head ; he wore a sceptre in his hand, and a gold-
embroidered tunic framed his breastplate.^ Beside him, on
another white steed similarly equipped, rode the Caesar
Alexios, wearing a corslet, sleeves, and gaiters of gold, a helmet
and gold headband, and poising a golden spear. At a short
distance from the triumphal gate the Emperor dismounted
and made three obeisances to the east, and, when he crossed
the threshold of the city, the Praepositus, the Magister, and
the Prefect, now relieved of their extraordinary authority,
presented him with a crown of gold, which he carried on his
right arm. The demes then solemnly acclaimed him as victor,
and the procession advanced. When it reached the milestone
at the gates of the Augusteon, the senators dismounted, except
those who, having taken part in the campaign, wore their
armour, and, passing through the gates, walked in front of the
sovran to the Well of St. Sophia. Here the Emperor himself
dismounted, entered the church, and, after a brief devotion,
crossed the Augusteon on foot to the Bronze Gate of the
Palace, where a pulpit had been set, flanked by a throne of
gold, and a golden organ which was known as the Prime
Miracle.^ Between these stood a large cross of gold. When
Theophilus had seated himself and made the sign of the cross,
the demes cried, " There is one Holy." The city community '^
then offered him a pair of golden armlets, and wearing these
he acknowledged the gift by a speech,^ in which he described
his military successes. Amid new acclamations he remounted
his horse, and riding through the Passages of Achilles and
past the Baths of Zeuxippus, entered the Hippodrome and
reached the Palace at the door of the Skyla. On the next
■• (TKapafxdyyia. ^ to Tro\lTev/j.a, the whole body of
^ i^iXibpLKOv (op. Ducange, s.v. the citizens of the capital, of whom
\o,piKr,). The tunic was po56/3orp,s : ^^| P^'^ff^* °f ^i'V^^u"^^? *?'
does this mean that the design repre- ^^^^^f • ^e and Ins subordinates
sented roses and bunches of grapes ? "^Tj^^]^ ^oXcrapxac.
" Delivered evidently from the pul-
* Trpu3r60av/j.a. pit.
r
IC
SECT. I THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEOPHILUS 129
day, at a reception in the Palace, many honours and dignities
were conferred, and horse-races were held in the Hippodrome,
where the captives and the trophies were exhibited to the
people.
§ 2. Buildings of TheopJiilus
The reign of Theophilus was an epoch in the history of
the Great Palace. He enlarged it by a group of handsome
and curious buildings, on which immense sums must have
been expended, and we may be sure that this architectural
enterprise was stimulated, if not suggested, by the reports
which reached his ears of the magnificent palaces which the
Caliphs had built for themselves at Baghdad.^ His own
pride and the prestige of the Empire demanded that the
residence of the Basileus should not be eclipsed by the
splendour of the Caliph's abode.
At the beginning of the ninth century the Great Palace ^
consisted of two groups of buildings — the original Palace,
including the Daphne, which Constantine the Great had built
adjacent to the Hippodrome and to the Augusteon, and at
some distance to the south-east the Chrysotriklinos (with its
dependencies), which had been erected by Justin II. and had
superseded the Daphne as the centre of Court life and
ceremonial. It is probable that the space between the older
Palace and the Chrysotriklinos was open ground, free from
buildings, perhaps laid out in gardens and terraced (for the
ground falls southward). There was no architectural connexion
between the two Palaces, but Justinian II. at the end of the
seventh century had connected the Chrysotriklinos with the
Hippodrome by means of two long halls which opened into
one another — the Lausiakos and the Triklinos called after his
name. These halls were probably perpendicular to the
Hippodrome, and formed a line of building which closed in
the principal grounds of the Palace on the southern side.^
^ See below, Chap. VIII. § 2. of Japan at Kyoto, described by F.
^ Palace suggests to us a single block Brinkley, Japan, its History, Arts, and
of building, and is so far misleading, Literature, vol. i. 198-199 (1901).
though it can hardly be avoided. The "* The eastern door of the Lausiakos
Byzantine residence resembled the faced the western portico of the
oriental " palaces " which consisted of Chrysotriklinos; its western door
many detached halls and buildings in opened into the Triklinos of Justinian,
large grounds. Compare, for instance, on the west of which was the Skyla
the residence of the Heian Emperors which opened into the Hippodrome.
K
130 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, iv
It is probable that the residence of Constantine bore some
resemblance in design and style to the house of Diocletian at
Spalato and other mansions of the period.^ The descriptions
of the octagonal Chrysotriklinos show that it was built under
the influence of the new style of ecclesiastical architecture
which was characteristic of the age of Justinian. The chief
group of buildings which Theophilus added introduced a new
style and marked a third epoch in the architectural history of
the Great Palace. Our evidence makes it clear that they
were situated between the Constantinian Palace on the north-
west and the Chrysotriklinos on the south-east.^
These edifices were grouped round the Trikonchos or
Triple Shell, the most original in its design and probably
that on which Theophilus prided himself most. It took its
name from the shell-like apses, which projected on three sides,
the larger on the east, supported on four porphyry ^ pillars, the
others (to south and north) on two. This triconch plan was
long known at Constantinople, whither it had been imported
from Syria ; it was distinctively oriental. On the west side a
silver door, flanked by two side doors of burnished bronze,
opened into a hall which had the shape of a half moon and
was hence called the Sigma. The roof rested on fifteen
columns of many-tinted marble.* But these halls were only
the upper storeys of the Trikonchos and the Sigma. The
ground-floor of the Trikonchos ^ had, like the room above it,
three apses, but differently oriented. The northern side of
this hall was known as the Mysterion or Place of Whispers,
See my Great Palace in B.Z. xx. tailed description of the buildings.
(1911), where I have shown that Their situation is determined by com-
Labarte's assumption that the Lausi- bining the implications in this account
akos was perpendicular to the Triklinos with data in the ceremonial descrip-
of Justinian is not justified and has tions in Cer. I have shown {op. cit.)
entailed many errors. It has been that tlie Trikonchos was north of the
adopted by Paspates and Ebersolt and Chrysotriklinos (not west as it is placed
has not been rejected by Bieliaev. by Labarte, Ebersolt, etc.).
That the line of these buildings was ^ So-called "Roman" stone, really
perpendicular to the Hippodrome can- Egyptian {Cont. Th. 327) : red
not be strictly proved. It is bound up porphyry with white spots (Anna
with the assumption that the east- Comnena, vii. 2, ed. Reiiferscheid, i.
west orientation of the Chrysotriklinos p. 230). Cp. Ebersolt, 111.
was perpendicular to the axis of the •* From Dokimion in Phrygia, near
Hippodrome. Synnada. The stone in these quarries
^ See Ebersolt, Le Grand Palais, presents shades of " violet and white,
160 sqq., whose plan of the Con- yellow, and the more familiar brec-
stantinian palace, however, cannot be ciated white and rose-red" (Lethaby
maintained ; cp. my criticisms, op. cit. and Swainson, Sancta Sophia, 238).
^ Cont. Th. 139 sqq. gives the de- ^ Known as the Tetraseron.
SECT. II BUILDINGS OF THEOPHILUS 131
because it had the acoustic property, that if you whispered in
the eastern or in the western apse, your words were heard
distinctly in the other. The lower storey of the Sigma, to
which you descended by a spiral staircase, was a hall of
nineteen columns which marked off a circular corridor.
Marble incrustations in many colours ^ formed the brilliant
decoration of the walls of both these buildings. The roof of
the Trikonchos v/as gilded.
The lower part of the Sigma, unscreened on the western
side, opened upon a court which was known as the Mystic
Phiale of the Trikonchos. In the midst of this court stood a
bronze fountain phiale with silver margin, from the centre of
which sprang a golden pine-cone.^ Two bronze lions, whose
gaping mouths poured water into the semicircular area of the
Sigma, stood near that building. The ceremony of the
saximMeximon, at which the racehorses of the Hippodrome
were reviewed by the Emperor, was held in this court; the
Blues and Greens sat on tiers of steps of white Proconnesian
marble,^ and a gold throne was placed for the monarch. On
the occasion of this and other levees, and certain festivals, the
fountain was filled with almonds and pistacchio nuts, while
the cone offered spiced wine ^ to those who wished.
Passing over some minor buildings,^ we must notice the
hall of the Pearl, which stood to the north of the Trikonchos.
Its roof rested on eight columns of rose-coloured marble, the
floor was of white marble variegated with mosaics, and the
walls were decorated with pictures of animals. The same
building contained a bed-chamber, where Theophilus slept in
1 iK XaKapLKu>v TranTroiKiXiov (Cont. is used symbolically in the Mithraic
Th. 140). cult. Strzygovski argues that, a symbol
2 (XTpojSlXiov. Fountains in the form of fruitfulness in Assyria and Persia,
of pine-cones seem to have been com- it was taken by the Christians to
mon. There were two in the court of symbolize fructification by the divine
the New Church founded by Basil I. spirit, and he explains (p. 198) the
{Cont. Th. 327), and representations name " j/iysCic Phiale " in this sense,
occur often in Byzantine art. Such a s th, > o//i ^i
fountain has been recognised in the ,-. J^'lVf, r 7''l'''' *^' '''''*
Theodora mosaic of St. Vitale at '''^ti, i ,^1 ^P'^^^P' f^'?. °"
Ravenna. See Strzygovski, ' ' Die Pi- 1°^^ ^^^ ff^^' ^^ ^^'^ ™^:^' '''^^' ^^'""^
nienzapfen als Wasserspeier," in 3fit- 4 ' !' ■*'
theilungen des d. arch. Instituts, Rom, Kovdtros.
xviii. 185 sg^'. (1903), where the subject '^ The Pyxites and another build-
is amply illustrated, and it is shown ing to the west, and the Eros (a
that the idea is oriental. The pine- museum of arms), near the Phiale
cone occurs in Assyrian ornament, and steps, to the north, of tlio Sigma.
132 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, iv
summer ; its porticoes faced east and south, and the walls and
roof displayed the same kind of decoration as the Pearl. To
the north of this whole group, and fronting the west/ rose the
Karianos, a house which the Emperor destined as a residence
for his daughters, taking its name from a flight of steps of
Carian marble, which seemed to flow down from the entrance
like a broad white river.
In another quarter (perhaps to the south of the Lausiakos)
the Emperor laid out gardens and constructed shelters or
" sunneries," if this word may be permitted as a literal
rendering of heliaka. Here he built the Kamilas, an apart-
ment ^ whose roof glittered with gold, supported by six
columns of the green marble of Thessaly. The walls were
decorated with a dado of marble incrustation below, and
above with mosaics representing on a gold ground people
gathering fruit. On a lower floor ^ was a chamber which
the studious Emperor Constantine VII. afterwards turned
into a library, and a breakfast-room, with walls of splendid
marble and floor adorned with mosaics. Near at hand two
other houses, similar yet different, attested the taste of
Theophilus for rich schemes of decoration. One of these
was remarkable for the mosaic walls in which green trees
stood out against a golden sky. The lower chamber of the
other was called the Musikos, from the harmonious blending
of the colours of the marble plaques with which the walls
were covered — Egyptian porphyry, white Carian, and the
green riverstone of Thessaly, — while the variegated floor
produced the effect of a flowering meadow.*
If the influence of the luxurious art of the East is
apparent in these halls and pavilions which Theophilus
added to his chief residence, a new palace which his architect
Patrikes built on the Bithynian coast was avowedly modelled
on the palaces of Baghdad. It was not far from the famous
' The Karianos faced the Church of ^ /uLeadTarov, not the ground - floor,
the Lord (Cont. Th. 139), which was but the entresol (as Ebersolt renders,
in the extreme north of the palace 116). From here one had, through a
grounds, near to the south-east corner kXov^Iov, railing or balustrade {can-
of the Augusteon and to the gate celli, cp. Ducange, s.v. k\oj36s), a view
leading into the grounds of the of the Chrysotriklinos.
Magnaura. * The iMusikos had only two walls,
■■^ The Kamilas and the two adjacent east and north ; on the other sides it
houses a.rc dcMciihed as cuhicula {Oont. was columned and open {Cont. Th.
Th. I4i). 1A6}. It was thus a heliakon.
SECT. II BUILDINGS OF THEOPHILUS 133
palace of Hieria, built by Justinian. The Asiatic suburbs of
Constantinople not only included Chrysopolis and Chalcedon,
but extended south-eastward along the charming shore which
looks to the Prince's Islands, as far as Kartalimen. Proceeding
in this direction from Chalcedon, one came first to the peninsula
of Hieria (Phanaraki), where Justinian had qhosen the site of
his suburban residence. Passing by Ptufinianae (Jadi-Bostan),
one reached Satyros, once noted for a temple, soon to be
famous for a monastery. The spot chosen by Theophilus for
his new palace was at Bryas, which lay between Satyros and
Kartalimen (Kartal), and probably corresponds to the modern
village of Mal-tepe.^ The palace of Bryas resembled those
of Baghdad in shape and in the schemes of decoration.-^' The
only deviations from the plan of the original were additions
required in the residence of a Christian ruler, a chapel of the
Virgin adjoining the Imperial bedroom, and in the court a
church of the triconch shape dedicated to Michael the arch-
angel and two female saints. The buildings stood in a park
irrigated by watercourses.
Arabian splendour in his material surroundings meant
modernity for Theophilus,^ and his love of novel curiosities
was shown in the mechanical contrivances which he installed
in the audience chamber of the palace of Magnaura.* A
golden plane-tree overshadowed the throne ; birds sat on its
branches and on the throne itself. Golden griffins couched
at the sides, golden lions at the foot ; and there was a gold
^ For these identifications, and the ^ It is to be noticed that he renewed
Bithynian Trpodtrreta, see Pargoire's all the Imperial wardrobe (Simeon, i&.).
admirable Hieria. Cp. also his •* The triklinos, or main hall, of the
Rufinianes, 467 ; he would seek the Magnaura (bnilt by Constantine) was
site of the palace in ruins to the east in form a basilica with two aisles, and
of the hill of Drakos-tepe. probably an apse in the east end,
" ev crxVf^aaL Kai TroLKiXia, Cont. Th. where the elevated throne stood
98, cp. Simeon {Add. Georrj.) 798. railed off from the rest of the build-
The later source says that John the ing. See Ebersolt, 70. There were
Synkellos brought the plans from chambers off the main hall, especially
Baghdad and superintended the con- the nuptial chamber (of apse-shape :
structiou ; there is nothing of this k67X'7 toC Trao-roO), used on the occasion
in Simeon, but it is possible that of an Imperial wedding. The situa-
John visited Baghdad (see below, p. tion of the Magnaura was east of the
256). The ruins of an old temple near Augusteon ; on the north-west it was
the neighbouring Satyros supplied close to St. Sophia ; on the south-west
some of the building material for the there was a descent, and a gate led
o"
palace of Bryas. The declension of into the grounds of tlie Great Palace,
this name is both 'Rpvov and 'BpvavTos. close to the Church of the Lord and
Some modern writers erroneously sup- tlie Consistorion.
pose that the nominative is Bp(;os.
134 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, iv
organ in the room.^ When a foreign ambassador was intro-
duced to the Emperor's presence, he was amazed and perhaps
alarmed at seeing the animals rise up and hearing the lions
roar and the birds burst into melodious song. At the sound
of the organ these noises ceased, but when the audience was
over and the ambassador was withdrawing, the mechanism
was again set in motion.^
One of the most remarkable sights in the throne room of
the Magnaura was the Pentafyrgion, or cabinet of Five Towers,
a piece of furniture which was constructed by Theophilus.^
Four towers were grouped round a central and doubtless
higher tower ; each tower had several, probably four, storeys ; *
and in the chambers, which were visible to the eye, were
exhibited various precious objects, mostly of sacred interest.
At the celebration of an Imperial marriage, it was the usage
to deposit the nuptial wreaths in the Pentapyrgion. On
special occasions, for instance at the Easter festival, it was
removed from the Magnaura to adorn the Chrysotriklinos.^
If the Emperor's love of magnificence and taste for art-
impelled him to spend immense sums on his palaces, he did J
not neglect works of public utility. One of the most important
duties of the government was to maintain the fortifications of
the city in repair. Theophilus did not add new defences,
like Heraclius and Leo, but no Emperor did more than he to
strengthen and improve the existing walls. The experiences
of the siege conducted by Thomas seem to have shown that
the sea-walls were not high enough to be impregnable.*^ It il
was decided to raise them in height, and this work, though
commenced by his father on the side of the Golden Horn,^
was mainly the work of Theophilus. Numerous inscriptions
1 Two gold organs were made for artist made the golden organs and the
Theophilus, but only one of them golden tree {ih.).
seems to have been kept in the ■* Compartments, /mecroKapdia. See
Magnaura. Simeon {Add. Georrj.), 793. Cer. 582, cp. 586-587.
^ Constantine, Cer. 568-569 ; Vita I Constantine, Cer. 580, cp. 70. ^
Bas. 257 = Cont. Th. 173. For such . Geu. 7b ryv t.ix^v . . x0a/,a\u>.
contrivances at Baghdad see Gibbon, ^"^'^"/'^^ ^^ ^roXeM.o.j e.revde, ef,-
• -.Of. TrapexovT03v TO eveTriparov.
"' This follows from two inscriptions
3 Simeon, ih. (cp. Pseudo-Simeon, of "Michael and Theophilus," now
627) ; it was made by a goldsmith lost ; see van Millingen, Walls, 185.
related to the Patriarch Antonius. If Other inscriptions existed inscribed
not of solid gold, it was doubtless "Theophilus and Michael," and there-
richly decorated with gold. The same fore dating from the years 839-842.
SECT. 11
BUILDINGS OF THEOPHILUS
135
— of which many are still to be seen, many others have dis-
appeared in recent times — recorded his name, which appears
more frequently on the walls and towers than that of any
other Emperor.^ The restoration of the seaward defences
facing Chrysopolis may specially be noticed : at the ancient
gate of St. Barbara (Top-kapussi, close to Seraglio Point),^ and
on the walls and towers to the south, on either side of the gate
of unknown name (now Deirmen-kapussi) near the Kynegion.^
Just north of this entrance is a long inscription, in six iambic
trimeters, praying that the wall which Theophilus " raised on
new foundations " may stand fast and unshaken for ever. It
may possibly be a general dedication of all his new fortifica-
tions.* But the work was not quite completed when Theophilus
died.^ South of the Kynegion and close to the Mangana, a
portion of the circuit remained in disrepair, and it was reserved
for Bardas, the able minister of Michael III., to restore it some
twenty years later.
§ 3. Iconoclasm
It was not perhaps in the nature of Theophilus to adopt
the passive attitude of his father in the matter of image-
worship, or to refrain from making a resolute attempt to
terminate the schism which divided the Church. But he
appears for some years (perhaps till a.d. 834) to have continued
the tolerant policy of Michael, and there may be some reason
for believing, as many believe, that the influence of his friend
John the Grammarian, who became Patriarch in A.D. 832,^ was
chiefly responsible for his resolution to suppress icons. He did
^ Gen. ib. notes the inscriptions as
a feature.
2 Van Millingen, 184. Hammer,
Constantinopolis, i. Appendix, gives
copies of inscriptions which have dis-
appeared.
3 Van Millingen, 250, 183.
* Van Millingen's conjecture. The
inscription is in one line 60 feet long.
The last verse should be restored
iLaeKjTov dK\6v7]TOV effT[7]piyfxevov].
^ I infer this from the Bardas in-
scription, which, with the restorations
of Mordtmann and van Millingen (o2J.
cit. 185-186), runs as follows :
7roX\]c<Jv Kparaiuis deairoaavTuiv tov
a\jxKov]
dW ouJSecds irpos i'l/'os t) evKOcrfiiav
TO [pX]r]6ev els yfjv reixos e^rjyepKOTOs
[Tavvi' cLKafijiTTajs Mt^aTjA 6 deawoTr]?
5i(x 'Bdp[5a TOV rjcDj* crxoXcDi' do/necrTLKOV
ijyeipe TeplTr^vov wpdeLcrpLa ttj wbXei.
Some of these supplements can hardly
be right. In 1. 1 I would read
6[p6vov] ; in 2 /cat /j.rjSei'bs, for there
is an u[)right stroke before devbs ; in
4 dKd/jLTTTws is inappropriate, perhaps
pvv dKXovrjTus. The slabs bearing the
legend were in the wall close to Injili
Kiosk, once the Church of St. Saviour
{ib. 253 sqq.).
« Cant. Th. 121, see Vasil'ev, Viz. i
Ar., Pril. 147 sqq. Before his eleva-
tion he held the office of Synkellos.
For his work under Leo V. see above,
p. 60 sq.
136 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, iv
not summon a new council, and perhaps he did not issue any
new edict ; but he endeavoured, by severe measures, to ensure
the permanence of the iconoclastic principles which had been
established under Leo the Armenian. The lack of contempo-
rary evidence renders it difficult to determine the scope and
extent of the persecution of Theophilus ; but a careful examina-
tion of such evidence as exists shows that modern historians
have exaggerated its compass, if not its severity.^ So far
as we can see, his repressive measures were twofold. He
endeavoured to check the propagation of the false doctrine by
punishing some leading monks who were actively preaching
it ; and he sought to abolish religious pictures from Constan-
tinople by forbidding them to be painted at all.^
Of the cases of corporal chastisement inflicted on ecclesiastics
for pertinacity in the cause of image-worship, the most famous
and genuine is the punishment of the two Palestinian brothers,
Theodore and Theophanes,^ who had already endured persecution
under Leo V. On Leo's death they returned to Constantinople
and did their utmost in the cause of pictures, Theodore by his
books and Theophanes by his hymns. But Michael II. treated
them like other leaders of the cause ; he did not permit them
to remain in the city.'^ Under Theophilus they were im-
prisoned and scourged, then exiled to Aphusia, one of the
' The contemporary chronicler in his account of the affair of Theodore
George gives no facts, but indulges and Theophanes, for which we have a
in vapid abuse. Simeon relates the first-hand source in Theodore's own
treatment of the brothers Theodore letter. Simeon made use of this
and Theophanes, but otherwise only source honestly ; in Cont. Th. there
says that Theophilus pulled down are marked discrepancies.) Various
pictures, and banished and tormented tortures and cruelties are ascribed in
monks {Add. Georg. 791). Genesios general terms to Th. in Acta 42
(74-75) is amazingly brief: the Mart. Amor. (F 24, a docuuient
Emperor disturbed the sea of piety ; written not very long after his death).
(1) he imprisoned Michael, synkellos - This seems to be a genuine tradi-
of Jerusalem, with many monks ; (2) tion, preserved in Cont. Th. {Vit.
branded Theodore and Theophanes ; Theoph.) cc. 10 and 13. See below.
(3) was assisted by John the Patriarch. ^ For the following account the
The lurid description of the persecu- source is the Vita Thcodori Gra/pti
tion, which has generally been adopted, (see Bibliography). See also Vit.
is supplied by the biographer of Mich. Sijnc, and Vailhe, Saint Michel
Theophilus, Cont. Th. c. IQsqq., who le Syncelle.
begins by stating that Th. sought ^ Op. cif. 201, where it is said that
to outdo his predecessors as a per- John (afterwards Patriarch) shut
secutor. The whole account is too them up in prison, and having argued
rhetorical to be taken for sober history, Avith them unsuccessfully, exiled them,
and it is in marked contrast with This is probably untrue. They lived
that of Genesios, who was not disposed in the monastery of Sosthenes (which
to spare the iconoclasts. (We can, survives in the name Stenia), on the
indeed, prove the writer's inaccuracy European bank of the Bosphorus.
SECT. Ill ICONOCLASM UNDER THEOPHILUS 137
Proconnesiaii islands.^ Theophilus was anxious to win them
over ; the severe treatment which he dealt out to them
proves the influence they exerted ; they had, in fact, succeeded
Theodore of Studion as the principal champions of icons. The
Emperor hoped that after the experience of a protracted exile
and imprisonment they would yield to his threats ; their
opposition seemed to him perhaps the chief obstacle to the
unity of the Church. So they were brought to Constantinople
and the story of their maltreatment may be told in their
own words."^
The Imperial officer arrived at the isle of Aphusia and hurried us
away to the City, affirming that he knew not the purpose of the command,
only that he had been sent to execute it very urgently. We arrived in
the City on the 8th of July. Our conductor reported our arrival to the
Emperor, and was ordered to shut us up in the Praetorian prison. Six
days later (on the 14th) we were summoned to the Imperial presence.
Conducted by the Prefect of the City, we reached the door of the
Chrysotriklinos, and saw the Emperor with a terribly stern countenance
and a number of people standing round. It was the tenth hour.^ The
Prefect retired and left us in the presence of the Emperor, who, when
we had made obeisance, roughly ordered us to approach. He asked us
" Where were ye born ? " We replied, " In the land of Moab.'' " Why
came ye here ? " We did not answer, and he ordered our faces to be
beaten. After many sore blows, we became dizzy and fell, and if I had
not grasped the tunic of the man who smote me, I should have fallen on
the Emperor's footstool. Holding by his dress I stood unmove<l till the
Emperor said " Enough " and repeated his former question. When we
still said nothing he addressed the Prefect [who appears to have returned]
in great wrath, " Take them and engrave on their faces these verses, and
then hand them over to two Saracens to conduct them to their own
country." One stood near — his name was Christodulos — who held in his
hand the iambic verses which he had composed. The Emperor bade
him read them aloud, adding, " If they are not good, never mind." He
said this because he knew how they would be ridiculed by us, since we
are experts in poetical matters. The man who read them said, " Sir, these
fellows are not worthy that the verses should be better."
They were then taken back to the Praetorium, and then
Dnce more to the Palace,* where they received a flogging in the
^ See above, p. 41. etc.) are, I believe, wrong in their
2 In tlieir letter to John of Cyzicus, conception of the Thermastra. The
juoted in op. cit. 204 sqq. evidence points, as I liave tried to
^ Three o'clock in the afternoon. show, to its being north of the
* Before they were admitted to the Lausiakos and forming the ground
Jresence they were kept in the floor of the Eidikon. The scene of
Thermastra. The writers on the the scourging is represented in a
Palace (Labarte, Bieliaev, Ebersolt, miniature in tlie Madrid MS. of
138 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, iv
Imperial presence. But another chance was granted to them.
Tour days later they were informed by the Prefect that if they
would communicate once with the iconoclasts it would be
sufficient to save them from punishment ; " I," he said, " will
accompany you to the Church." When they refused, they
were laid upon benches, and their faces were tattooed — it was
a long process — with the vituperative verses. Some admiration
is due to the dexterity and delicacy of touch of the tormentor
who succeeded in branding twelve iambic lines on a human
face. The other part of the sentence was not carried out.
The brethren were not reconducted to their own country ;
they were imprisoned at Apamea in Bithynia, where Theodore
died.^ Theophanes, the hymn writer, survived till the next
reign and became bishop of Nicaea.
Of the acts of persecution ascribed to Theophilus, this is
the most authentic. Now there is a circumstance about it
which may help to explain the Emperor's exceptional severity,
the fact that the two monks who had so vehemently agitated
against his policy were strangers from Palestine, "We can
easily understand that the Emperor's resentment would have
been especially aroused against interlopers who had come
from abroad to make trouble in his dominion. And there are
two other facts which are probably not unconnected. The
oriental Patriarchs (of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem)
had addressed to Theophilus a " synodic letter " in favour of
the worship of images,^ a manifesto which must have been
highly displeasing to him and to the Patriarch John. Further,
it is recorded, and there is no reason to doubt, that Theophilus
Skylitzes, reproduced in Beylie, graphy) was supposed by Combefis
L' Habitation byzantine, p. 122. The to be a joint composition of the
place of the punishment was the mid- three eastern Patriarclis. This is
garden, /xeaoKrjTnov, of the Lausiakos, very unlikely, but the author may
doubtless the same as the ixeaoKr)irLov have belonged to one of the eastern
near the east end of the Justiuianos, dioceses (cp. c. 30), though it would ■
mentioned in Constantine, Cer. 585. be rash to argue (with Schwarzlose,
] r> oT o^^ rr-, mi. j ■ oi ^ 1 11), from a Certain tone of authority,
« ^' ^Aj /'^- Tnf^T' ^]^ ' that he was a Patriarch. He sketches
op. Simeon, ^dd Gcorg 808 ; Mcnolog. ^j^^ ^- „f ^he controversy on
£asU. Migne 117 229 An anecdote j„^ f^.^f^^ ^he beginning to the
Ti, t-i / T^-'v^^rw ^r ^""'l^r *ieatli of Micliael II. (committing some
Theophilus so VU. ihch Sync. 252 ; chronological blunders pointed ?ut by
Narr. de Theoph absol 32), and in gchwarzlose), and exhorts Theophilus
the same passage Theoidianes IS falsely ^ follow the example of pious
described as bishop of Smyrna. Emperors like ConstLtine, Theo-
^ The Epistola synodica Orientalium dosius, Marcian, and not that of the
ad Theophilum imp. (see Biblio- godless iconoclasts.
SECT. Ill
ICONOCLASM UNDER THEOPHILUS
139
imprisoned Michael, the synkellos of the Patriarch of Jerusalem/
who had formerly been persecuted by Leo V. We may fairly
suspect that the offence of the Palestinian brethren was seriously
aggravated in his eyes by the fact that they were Palestinian.
This suspicion is borne out by the tenor of the bad verses
which were inscribed on their faces.^
There was another case of cruelty which seems to be
well attested. Euthymios, bishop of Sardis, who had been
prominent among the orthodox opponents of Leo V., died in
consequence of a severe scourging.^ But the greater number
of image-worshippers, whose sufferings are specially recorded,
suffered no more than banishment, and the Proconnesian
island Aphusia is said to have been selected as the place of
confinement for many notable champions of pictures.*
The very different treatment which Theophilus accorded
to Methodius is significant. In order to bend him to his
will, he tried harsh measures, whipped him and shut him up
1 Gen. 74 ; Vit. Mich. Sync. 238,
where he and his companion Job are
said to have been imprisoned in a cell
in the Praetorium in a.d. 834. Cp.
Vaillie, Saint Michel le Syncclle, 618.
^ The sense of the verses (which are
preserved in Vil. Theod. Or. 206 :
Add. Gcorg. 807 ; Cont. Th. 105 ;
Pseiido- Simeon, 641 ; Acta Davidis,
239 ; Fit. Mich. Sync. 243 ; Zonaras,
iii. 366, etc. — material for a critical
text) may be rendered thus :
In that fair town whose sacred streets were
trod
Once by thft pure feet of the Word of God —
The city all men's hearts desire to see —
These evil vessels of perversity
And superstition, workinj^foul deeds there,
Were driven forth to this onr City, where
Persisting in their wielded lawless ways
They are condemned and, branded on the
face
As scoundrels, hunted to their native
place.
^ There is a difficulty about Euthy-
mios. In the Acta Davidis, 237, his
death is connected with the persecu-
tion in the reign of Theophilus. In
Cont. Th. 48 it is placed in the reign
of Michael II., who is made responsible,
while the execution is ascribed to
Theophilus. This notice is derived
from Genesios (or from a common
source), who says, at the end of
Michael II. 's reign Ey^iyyutov . . Qe6<pL\os
^ovve.vpoi% xaXeTFcDs edavaTuiaev. Here
the act is ascribed entirely to Theo-
philus, so that we might assume a
misdating. It seems quite incon-
sistent with the policy of Michael.
The author of the Acta Davidis, ib.,
expressly states that the punishment
of Methodius was the only hardship
inflicted by Michael. If he had per-
mitted the scourging of Euthymios,
would it have been passed over by
George the Monk ? Pargoire, Saint
Euthymc, in ^chus d' Orierit, v. 157 sqq.
(1901-2), however, thinks the date of
the death of Euthymios was Dec.
26, 824.
* Simeon the Stylite of Lesbos (see
above, p. 75), who in the reign of
Michael II. lived in the suburb ot
Pegae, on the north side of the Golden
Horn, was banished to Aphusia (Acta
Davidis, 239), whither Theodore and
Theophanes had at first been sent.
Other exiles to this island were
Makarios, abbot of Pelckete (who was
first flogged and imprisoned, according
to Vit. Macarii, 158) ; Hilarion, abbot
of the convent of Dalmatos (A.S.,
June 6, t. i. 759, where he is said to
have received 117 stripes) ; and John,
abbot of the Katharoi {A.S., April 27,
t. iii. 496). All these men had suf-
fered persecution under Leo V. ; see
above, Chap. II. § 3 ad fin.
140
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. IV
in a subterranean prison.^ But he presently released him, and
Methodius, who, though an inflexible image-worshipper, was no
fanatic, lived in the Palace on good terms with the Emperor,
who esteemed his learning, and showed him high honour.^
Of the measures adopted by Theophilus for the suppression
of icon-worship by cutting off the supply of pictures we know
nothing on authority that can be accepted as good. It is
stated ^ that he forbade religious pictures to be painted, and
that he cruelly tortured Lazarus, the most eminent painter of
the time.^ There is probably some truth behind both state-
ments, and the persecution of monks, with which he is
charged, may be explained by his endeavours to suppress the
painting of pictures. Theophilus did not penalise monks on
account of their profession ; for we know from other facts
that he was not opposed to monasticism. But they were the
religious artists of the age, and we may conjecture that many
of those who incurred his displeasure were painters.
If we review the ecclesiastical policy of Theophilus in the
light of the few facts which are certain and compare it with
other persecutions to which Christians have at various times
resorted to force their opinions upon differing souls, it is
obviously absurd to describe it as extraordinarily severe.
The list of cases of cruel maltreatment is short. That many
obscure monks besides underwent distress and privation we
cannot doubt ; but such distress seems to have been due to
a severer enforcement of the same rule which Michael II.
had applied to Theodore of Studion and his friends. Those
1 Vit. Meth. 1, § 8. The subter-
ranean prison (with two robbers, in the
island of Antigoui : Pseudo-Simoon,
642), may be a reduplication of the
confinement in the island of S. Andreas
under Michael II. Cp. Pargoire,
Saint Mtthode, in J^chos d' Orient, vi.
183 sqq. (1903).
2 Gen. 76 ; Cont. Th. 116. Genesios
says that Theophilus was very curious
about occult lore {ra. airoKpvcpa,), in
which Methodius was an adept.
^ See above p. 136, n. 2.
'• Cont. Th. 102 : Lazarus was at
first cajoled, then tortured by scourg-
ing ; continuing to paint, his palms
were burnt with red-hot iron nails
(T^TaXa (TLdripd aTravdpaKwdivTo), and
he was imprisoned. Released by the
intercession of Theodora, he retired
to the cloister of Phoberon, where he
painted a picture of John the Baptist
(to whom the cloister was dedicated),
extant in the tenth century. After the
death ofTheophilus he painted a Christ
for the palace-gate of Chalke. It seems
incredible that he could have con-
tinued to work after the operation on
his hands. Lazarus is mentioned in
Lib. Pont. ii. 147, 150, as bearer of a;
present which Michael III. sent to
St. Peter's at Rome, and is described
as genere Chazarus. The visit to
Rome is mentioned in Synaxar. Cpl.
233, where he is said to have been
sent a second time and to have died
on the way.
SECT. Ill
ICONOCLASM UNDER THEOPHILUS
141
who would not acquiesce in the synod of Leo V. and actively
defied it were compelled to leave the city. The monastery
of Phoberon, at the north end of the Bosphorus, seems to have
been one of the chief refuges for the exiles.^ This brings us
to the second characteristic of the persecution of Theopbilus,
its geographical limitation. Following in his father's traces,
he insisted upon the suppression of pictures only in
Constantinople itself and its immediate neighbourhood.
Iconoclasm was the doctrine of the Emperor and the Patriarch,
^but they did not insist upon its consequences beyond the
: precincts of the capital. So far as we can see, throughout
the second period of iconoclasm, in Greece and the islands
and on the coasts of Asia Minor, image-worship flourished
without let or hindrance, and the bishops and monks were
unaffected by the decrees of Leo V. This salient ftict has not
been realised by historians, but it sets the persecution of
Theophilus in a different light. He would not allow pictures
in the churches of the capital ; and he drove out all active
picture-worshippers and painters, to indulge themselves in
their heresy elsewhere. It was probably only in a few
exceptional cases that he resorted to severe punishment.
The females of the Emperor's household were devoted to
images, and the secret opinion of Theodora must have been
well known to Theophilus. The situation occasioned
anecdotes turning on the motive that the Empress and her
mother Theodora kept a supply of icons, but kept them well
out of sight. The Emperor had a misshapen fool and jester,
named Denderis, whose appearance reminded the courtiers of
the Homeric Thersites." Licensed to roam at large through
the Palace, he burst one day into Theodora's bedchamber and
found her kissing sacred images."^ When he curiously asked
^ €VKT7}pi.ov Upodpouov (St. John
Baptist) rb ovtw Ka\oi''/j.€vov toO
^o^epou Kara fov EiJ^eti'oi' TrbvTov {Cont.
Tk, 101). Tlie monks of the Abraamite
monastery (which possessed a famous
image of Christ impressed on a
cloth, and a jiicture of the Virgin
ascribed to St. Luke) were expelled to
Phoberon, and said to have been beaten
to death {ib.). The monastery of St.
Abraamios was outside tlie city, near
the Golden Gate (Leo Diaconus, 47-48).
It was called the AcheiropoiMos, from
the miraculous image. Legend as-
cribed its foundation to Constantine
(cp. Ducange, Const. Ghr. iv. 80),
but it was probably not older than
the sixth century. Cp. Pargoire, " Les
debuts de monachi.sme a Constanti-
nople " {Revue des questions historiques,
Ixv., 1899) 93 sqq.
2 Cont. Th. 91.
" Tlie scene is represented in the
Madrid Skylitzes, and reproduced by
lieylid, L' Habitation hyzantine, 120.
142
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. IV
what they were, she said, " They are my pretty dolls, and
I love them dearly." He then went to the Emperor, who
was sitting at dinner. Theophilus asked him where he had
been. " With nurse," ^ said Denderis (so he used to call
Theodora), " and I saw her taking such pretty dolls out of a
cushion." The Emperor comprehended. In high wrath he
rose at once from table, sought Tiieodora, and overwhelmed
her with reproaches as an idolatress. But the lady met him
with a ready lie. " It is not as you suppose," she said ; " I
and some of my maids were looking in the mirror, and
Denderis took the reflexions for dolls and told you a foolish
story." Theophilus, if not satisfied, had to accept the ex-
planation, and Theodora carefully warned Denderis not to
mention the dolls again. When Theopliilus asked him
one day whether nurse had again kissed the pretty dolls,
Denderis, placing one hand on his lips and the other on
his posterior parts, said, " Hush, Emperor, don't mention
the dolls."
Another similar anecdote is told of the Emperor's mother-
in-law, Theoktiste, who lived in a house of her own," where
she was often visited by her youthful granddaughters. She
sought to imbue them with a veneration for pictures and to
counteract the noxious influence of their father's heresy. She
would produce the sacred forms from the box in which she
kept them, and press them to the faces and lips of the young
The house was
She had bought
^ irapa ttjj' fiavav
2 Cont. Th. 90.
known as Gastria.
it from Nicetas, and aftei'wards con-
verted it into a monastery. It was in
the quarter of Psamathia, in the south-
west of the city. Paspates (Buf. yweX.
354-357) has identified it with the
ruinous building Sanjakdar Mesjedi (of
which he gives a drawing), which lies
a little to the north of the Armenian
Church of St. George (where St. Mary
Peribleptos used to stand). Gastria
is interpreted as flower-pots in the
story told in the ndrpia KttX. 215,
where the foundation of the cloister is
ascribed to St. Helena, who is said to
have brought back from Jerusalem the
flowers which grew over the place
where she had discovered the cross,
and planted them iji pots {yaffrpas) on
this spot. Paspates points out that
the abundance of water in the grounds
below the Sanjakdar mosque favours
the tradition that there was a flower-
garden there, and this would explain
the motive of the Helena legend.
Mr. van Millingen is disposed to
think that the identification of
Paspates may be right, but he sug-
gests that the extant building was
originally a library, not a church.
The good Abbe Marin, who accepts
without question all the monastic
foundations of Constantinian date,
thinks there was a monastic founda-
tion at Gastria before Theoktiste.
The evidence for Constantinian mon-
asteries has been drastically dealt'
with by Pargoire, " Les Debuts de
monachisme a Constantinople," in the
Revue des questions Mstoriqnes, Ixv. 67
sqq. (1899).
SECT, in
ICONOCLASM UNDER THEOPHILUS
143
girls,^ Their father, suspecting that they were heing tainted
with the idolatrous superstition, asked them one day, when
they returned from a visit to their grandmother, what presents
she had given them and how they had been amused. The
older girls saw the trap and evaded his questions, but Pulcheria,
who was a small child, truthfully described how her grand-
mother had taken a number of dolls from a box and pressed
them upon the faces of herself and her sisters. Theophilus
was furious, but it would have been odious to take any severe
measure against the Empress's mother, who was highly
respected for her piety. All he could do was to prevent his
daughters from visiting her as frequently as before.
§ 4. Death of Theo'philus and, Restoration of Icon Worship
Theophilus died of dysentery on January 20, a.d. 842."
His last illness was disturbed by the fear that his death
would be followed by a revolution against the throne of his
infant son. The man who seemed to be the likely leader of
a movement to overthrow his dynasty was Theophobos, a
somewhat mysterious general, who was said to be of Persian
descent and had commanded the Persian troops in the
Imperial service.^ Theophobos was an " orthodox " Christian,*
but he was one of the Emperor's right-hand men in the
eastern wars, and had been honoured with the hand of his
sister or sister-in-law.^ He had been implicated some years
before in a revolt, but had been restored to favour and lived
in the Palace.*^ It is said that he was popular in Con-
stantinople, and the Emperor may have had good reasons for
thinking that he might aspire with success to the supreme
power. From his deathbed he ordered Theophobos to be cast
into a dungeon of the Bucoleon Palace, where he was secretly
decapitated at night.''
^ Theoktiste is represented giving
an icon to Pulcheria, the other
daughters standing behind, in a
miniature in the Madrid Skylitzes
(see reproduction in Beyli^, op. cit. 56).
2 Cont. Th. 139.
^ See below, p. 252 sq.
* Simeon, Add. Georg. 803 (cp. Gen.
alio)-
s lb. 793. See below, p. 253.
« Gen. 59.
■^ Gen. 60, and Add. Georg. 810,
where Petronas, M'ith the logothete
(i.e. Theoktistos), is said to have per-
formed the decapitation. The alter-
native account given by Gen. 60-61 has
no value, as Hirsch pointed out, p.
142, but it is to be noticed that
Ooryphas is there stated to have been
drungarios of the watch. We meet a
144
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAr. IV
Exercising a constitutional right of his sovran authority,
usually employed in such circumstances/ the Emperor had
appointed two regents to act as his son's guardians and assist
the Empress, namely, her uncle Manuel, the chief Magister,
and Theoktistos, the Logothete of the Course, who had proved
himself a devoted servant of the Amorian house. It is
possible that Theodora's brother Bardas was a third regent,
but this cannot be regarded as probable.^ The position of
Theodora closely resembled that of Irene "during the minority
of Constantine. The government was carried on in the joint
names of the mother and the son, but the actual exercise of
Imperial authority devolved upon the mother provisionally.
Yet there was a difference in the two cases. Leo IV., so far
as we know, had not appointed any regents or guardians of his
son to act with Irene, so that legally she had the supreme
power entirely in her hands ; whereas Theodora was as unable
to act without the concurrence of Manuel and Theoktistos as
they were unable to act without her.
It has been commonly thought that Theophilus had
hardly closed his eyes before his wife and her advisers made
such pious haste to repair his ecclesiastical errors that a
council was held and the worship of images restored, almost
as a matter of course, a few weeks after his death. The
person or persons of this name
holding different offices under the
Amorians: (1) Ooryphas, in command
of a fleet, under Michael II. (see
below, Chap. IX. p. 290); (2) Ooryphas,
one of the commanders in an Egyptian
expedition in a.d. 853 (see below.
Chap, IX. p. 292) ; (-3) Ooryphas, Prefect
of the City in a.d. 860 (see below,
Chap. XIII. p. 419) ; (4) Ooryphas,
" strategos " of the fleet at the time
of the death of Michael III. ; see Vat.
MS. of Omit. Gtorg. in Muralt, p. 752
= Pseudo-Simeon, 687. The fourth of
these is undoubtedly Nicetas Ooryphas
whom we meet in Basil's reign as
drungarios of the Imperial fleet. He
may probably be the same as the
second, but is not likely (from con-
siderations of age) to be the same as
the first. In regard to (3), it is to be
noted that according to Nicetas, Vit.
Ign. 232, Nicetas Ooryphas, drungarios
of the Imperial fleet, opju'essed Ignatius
in A.D. 860. Such business would
have devolved on the Prefect, not on
the admiral, and I conclude that
Nicetas Ooryphas was prefect in a.d.
860, and drungarios in a.d. 867 (such
changes of office were common in
Byzantium), and that tlie author of
Vit. Ign. knowing him by the later
office, in which he was most distin-
guished, described him erroneously.
Ooryphas the drungarios of the watch
maybe identical with (1) ; but I suspect
there is a confusion with Ir'etronas, who
seems to have held that office at one
time in the reign of Theophilus (see
above, p. 122).
^ In the same way the Emjieror
Alexander appointed seven guardians
{iiTLTpoTroi) for his nephew Constantine,
A.D. 913. The boy's mother Zoe was
not included. Cont. Th. 380.
^ It is safest to follow Gen. 77.
Bardas was j^robably added by Cont.
Th. (148) sua Marte, on account of his
jirominent position a few years later.
So Us])enski, OeherM, 25.
SECT. IV RESTORATION OF ICON WORSHIP 145
truth is that more than a year elapsed before the triumph
of orthodoxy was secured.^ The first and most pressing
care of the regency was not to compose the ecclesiastical
schism, but to secure the stability of the Amorian throne ;
and the question whether iconoclasm should be abandoned
depended on the view adopted by the regents as to the
effect of a change in religious policy on the fortunes of the
dynasty.
For the change was not a simple matter, nor one that
could be lightly undertaken. Theodora, notwithstanding her
personal convictions, hesitated to take the decisive step. It is
a mistake to suppose that she initiated the measures which
led to the restoration of pictures.^ She had a profound belief
in her husband's political sagacity ; she shrank from altering
the system which he had successfully maintained ; ^ and there
was the further consideration that, if iconoclasm were con-
demned by the Church as a heresy, her husband's name would
be anathematized. Her scruples were overcome by the
arguments of the regents, who persuaded her that the restora-
tion of images would be the surest means to establish the
safety of the throne,* But when she yielded to these reasons,
to the pressure of other members of her own family, and
probably to the representations of Methodius, she made it a
condition of her consent, that the council which she would
^ The old date was in itself impos- /xaKapiT-qs ao(pias dpKouvTws e^eixeTo Kai
sible : the change could not have ovSev tQv deovrwv avri^ e\e\ri6ei' Kal
been accomplished in the time. The ttws tQv eKeivov diaTay/j.dTcop ci.fjiV7ifj.ov7j-
I right date is furnished by Sabas, Vit. davres eh eripav Siayix)y7iv iKTpaTrd7]fxev ;
I Joannic. 320, where the event is ^ The chief mover was, I have no
J definitely placed a year after the doubt, Theoktistos. His name alone
accession of Michael. This is con- is mentioned by the contemporary
firmed by the date of the death of George Mon. 811 (cp. Vita Theodorae,
Methodius, who was Patriarch for four 14). In Gen. he shares the credit
years and died June 14, 847 {Vit. with Manuel (78), and in Cont. Th.
./oa?wwc. by Simeon Met. 92 ; the same (148-150) Manuel appears alone as
date can be inferred from Theophanes, Theodora's adviser. But the part
De ex. S. Niceph. 164). All this was played by Manuel is mixed up with
shown for the first time by de Boor, a hagiographical tradition, redound-
A7igriff der Jihos, 4:50-^53 ; the proofs ing to the credit of the monks of
ihave been restated by Vasil'ev, Viz. Studion, whose prayers were said to
ffl. Arab., Pril. iii. ; and the fact is have saved him from certain death
low universally accepted by savants, by sickness, on condition of his promis-
though many writers still ignorantly ing to restore image -worship when
repeat the old date. ho recovered. (For the connexion of
^ Her hesitation comes out clearly Manuel with the Studites, cp. also
in the tradition and must be accepted Vita Nicolai, 916, Avhere Nicolaus is
IS a fact. said to have healed Helena, Manuel's
^ Gen. 80 6 e'/x6s dvifp ye Kai ^aaiXevs wife. )
146 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, iv
have to summon should not brand the memory of Theophilus
with the anathema of the Church/
Our ignorance of the comparative strength of the two
parties in the capital and in the army renders it impossible
for us to understand the political calculations which
determined the Empress and her advisers to act in accordance
with her religious convictions. But the sudden assassination
of Theophobos by the command of the dying Emperor is a
significant indication ^ that a real danger menaced the throne,
and that the image -worshippers, led by some ambitious
insurgent, would have been ready and perhaps able to over-
throw the dynasty.^ The event seems to corroborate the
justice of their fears. For when they re-established the cult
of pictures, iconoclasm died peacefully without any convulsions
or rebellions. The case of Theoktistos may be adduced to
illustrate the fact that many of those who held high office
were not fanatical partisans. He had been perfectly contented
with the iconoclastic policy, and was probably a professed
iconoclast,* but placed in a situation where iconoclasm
appeared to be a peril to the throne, he was ready to throw it
over for the sake of political expediency.
Our brief, vague, and contradictory records supply little
certain information as to the manner in which the govern-
ment conducted the preparations for the defeat of iconoclasm.^
It is evident that astute management was required ; and a
considerable time was demanded for the negotiations and
intrigues needful to facilitate a smooth settlement. We may
^ This is an inevitable inference (78) says of him that he wavered {5ta
from the traditions. tiiffov nvb^ TrapefxjreadvTos dtwKKaffep),
2 Cp. Uspenski, ib. 59. ^^i* ^^\^ ^^^ms to imply that he at
„ _,, nrst shared the hesitation of the
•* The story of Genesios (/7-/8) that Empress,
Manuel addressed the assembled s y^^ '^^^^^ assume that Theodora,
people in the Hippodrome, and de- before a final decision was taken, held
manded a declaration of loyalty to the a silention at which both the Senate
government, and that the people— ex- and ecclesiastics were present. Such
pectmg that he would himself usurp a meeting is recorded in Tlieophanes,
the throne— were surprised and dis- De ex. S. Niceiih. 164, and in Skylitzes
appointed when he cried, " Long life (Cedrenus), ii. 142. The assembly
to Michael and Theodora," seems to declared in favour of restoring images,
be also significant. and ordered that passages should be
* The interest of the Studites in selected from the writings of the
Manuel (see above, p. 14.5, n. 4) Fathers to support the doctrine. The
argues that he was at heart an image- former source also asserts that Theo-
worshipper, as the other relatives of dora addressed a manifesto to the
Theodora seem to have been. Gen. people.
SECT. IV
RESTORATION OF ICON WORSHIP
147
take it for granted that Theodora and her advisers had at
once destined Methodius (who had lived for many years in the
Palace on intimate terms with the late Emperor, and who, we
may guess, had secretly acted as a spiritual adviser to the
Imperial ladies) as successor to the Patriarchal chair. To
him naturally fell ^ the task of presiding at a commission,
which met in the official apartments of Theoktistos ^ and pre-
pared the material for the coming Council.^
Before the Council met, early in March (a.d. 843), the
Patriarch John must have been officially informed by the
Empress of her intention to convoke it, and summoned to
attend. He was not untrue to the iconoclastic doctrine which
he had actively defended for thirty years, and he declined to
alter his convictions in order to remain in the Patriarchal
chair. He was deposed by the Council,* Methodius was elected
^ Cp. Uspenski, op. cit. 33. That
Methodius took the leading part in
the preparations, and that tlie success
of the Council was chiefly due to his
influence and activity is a conclusion
wliich all the circumstances suggest ;
without the co-operation of such an
ecclesiastic, the government could not
have carried out their purpose. But
a hagiogi-aphical tradition confirms
the conclusion. It was said that
hermits of Mount Olympus, Joannikios,
who had the gift of prophecy, and
Arsakios, along with one Esaias of
Nicomedia, were inspired to urge
Methodius to restore images, and that
at their instigation he incited the
Empress {Narr. de Theophili absol. 25).
This story assumes that Methodius
played an important part. According
;to Vit. Mich. Stjnc. A 249, the
Empress and Senate sent a message
tto Joannikios, who recommended
Methodius. The same writer says
\{ib.) that Michael the synkellos was
Jdesignated by popular opinion as
iJohn's successor. But the hagio-
[graphers are unscrupulous in making
Istatements which exalt their heroes
['see below, p. 148, n. 1). He seems
have been made abbot of the Chora
jonvent {ib. 250) ; he died January 4,
346 (cp. Vailhe, Saint Michel, 314).
2 Gen. 80.
^ The preparation of the reports for
,he Council of a.d. 815 had occu-
ned nearly a year (see above, p. 60).
Hie Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council supplied the Commission with
its material.
^ In the sources there is some varia-
tion in the order of events. Theo-
phanes, De ex. S. Niceph., represents
the deposition of John (with the
measures taken against him) as an act
of the Council which restored ortho-
doxy. George Mon. (also a contem-
porary) agrees (802), and the account
of Genesios is quite consistent, for he
relates the measures taken against
John after the Council (81). According
to Cont. Th. John received an ultimatum
from the Empress before the Council
met (150-151), but this version cannot
be preferred to that of Genesios. After
the act of deposition by the Council,
Constantine, the Drungary of the
AVatch, was sent with some of his
officers, to remove John from the
Patriarcheion. He made excuses and
would not stir, and when Bardas went
to inquire why he refused, he displayed
his stomach pricked all over with
sharp instruments, and alleged that
the wounds were inflicted by the
cruelty of Constantine (an Armenian)
and his officers, whom he stigmatized
as pagans (this insult excites the wrath
of Genesios who was a descendant of
Constantine). But Bardas saw through
the trick. Genesios does not expressly
say that the wounds were self-inflicted,
but his vague words suggest this in-,
ference to the reader (cp. Hirsch, 153).
In Cont, Th. the story is elaborated, and
the manner in which John wounded
148 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, iv
in his stead, and the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council were confirmed. The list of heretics who had been
anathematized at that Council was augmented by the names
of the prominent iconoclastic leaders who had since troubled
the Church, but the name of the Emperor Theophilus was
omitted. We can easily divine that to spare his memory was
the most delicate and difficult part of the whole business.
Methodius himself was in temper a man of the same cast as
the Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus ; he understood the
necessities of compromise, he appreciated the value of
" economy," and he was ready to fall in with the wishes of
Theodora. We may suspect that it was largely through his
management that the members of the Council agreed, appar-
ently without dissent, to exclude the late Emperor from the
black list ; and it is evident that their promises to acquiesce
in this course must have been secured before the Council met.
According to a story which has little claim to credit, Theodora
addressed the assembly and pleaded for her husband on the
ground that he had repented of his errors on his death-bed, and
that she herself had held an icon to his lips before he breathed
his last.-^ But it is not improbable that the suggestion of a
death-bed repentance was circulated unofficially for the purpose
of influencing the monks who execrated the memory of the
himself is described. See also Acta was to shift the responsibility to the
Davidis, 248 (where the instrument is evil counsels of the Patriarch John ;
a knife used for paring nails). In the see e.g. Nicetas, Vit. Ign. 222 and
contemporary De ex. S. Niceph. of 216. According to the Acta Davidis
Theophanes, another motive is alleged : Theodora had a private interview with
the revolution threw John into such Methodius, Simeon the Stylite saint
despondency that he almost laid violent of Lesbos, and his brother George, and
hands on himself. It is impossible to intimated that some money (ei;Xo7/a,
extract the truth from these state- a douceur) had beeu left to them by
ments ; but Schlosser and Finlay may the Emperor, if they would receive him
be right in supposing that John was as orthodox. Simeon cried, "To per-
really wounded by soldiers, and that dition with him and his money," but
his enemies invented the fiction of finally yielded (244-246). This work
self-inflicted wounds. In any case, so characteristically represents Simeon
far as I can read through the tradition, as playing a prominent role in the
there is no good ground for Uspenski's whole business, as disputing with
conclusion [op. cit. 39) that " the pro- John in the presence of Tlieodora and
cess against John was prior to the Michael, and as influential in the
Council." This view (based on Cont. election of Methodius. It is also
Th.), also held by Hergenrbther (i. stated that he was appointed Synkellos
294) and Finlay (ii. 163), is opposed to of the Patriarch {vevfiaTi. ttjs Avyovffrris,
the other older sources (besides those 250). On the other hand the bio-
cited above) : Vita Meth. (1253) and grapher of Michael, synkellos of
Vita Ignatii {221) ; cp. Hirsch, 211. Jerusalem, claims that he was made
1 Cont. Th. 152-153. One way of ^ynkaWon {Vit. Mich. Sync. 250).
mitigating the guilt of Theophilus
SECT. IV RESTORATION OF ICON WORSHIP 149
last imperial iconoclast. It seems significant that the monks
of Studion took no prominent part in the orthodox reform,
though they afterwards sought to gain credit for having
indirectly promoted it by instigating Manuel the Magister.^
We shall hardly do them wrong if we venture to read between
the lines, and assume that, while they refrained from open
opposition, they disapproved of the methods by which the
welcome change was manoeuvred.
But the flagrant fact that the guilty iconoclast, who had
destroyed icons and persecuted their votaries, was excepted
from condemnation by the synod which abolished his heresy,
stimulated the mythopoeic fancy of monks, who invented divers
vain tales to account for this inexplicable leniency.^ The story
of Theodora's personal assurances to the synod belongs to this
class of invention. It was also related that she dreamed that
her husband was led in chains before a great man who sat on
a throne in front of an icon of Christ, and that this judge,
when she fell weeping and praying at his feet, ordered Theo-
philus to be unbound by the angels who guarded him, for the
sake of her faith.^ According to another myth, the divine pardon
of the culprit was confirmed by a miracle. Methodius wrote
down the names of all the Imperial heretics, including Theo-
philus, in a book which he deposited on an altar. Waking up
from a dream in which an angel announced to him that pardon
had been granted, he took the book from, the holy table, and
discovered that where the name of Theophilus had stood, there
was a blank space.^
Of one thing we may be certain : the Emperor did not
repent. The suggestion of a death-bed repentance ^ was a
falsification of fact, probably circulated deliberately in order
to save his memory, and readily believed because it was
edifying. It helped to smooth the way in a difficult situation,
Ijy justifying in popular opinion the course of expediency or
■ economy," which the Church adopted at the dictation of
Theodora.
After the Council had completed its work, the triumph of
^ See above, p. 145, n. 4. those suspicious phenomena which,
" Cp. Uspenski, op. cit. 47 sqq. even when there is no strong interest
■* Narr. de Theophili absol. 32 sq. for alleging it, cannot be accepted
■* Ibid. without exceptionally good evidence
^ A death-bed repentance is one of at iirst hand.
150
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. IV
orthodoxy was celebrated by a solemn festival service in St.
Sophia, on the first Sunday in Lent (March 11, a.d. 843).
The monks from all the surrounding monasteries, and perhaps
even hermits from the cells of Athos, flocked into the city,^
and we may be sure that sacred icons were hastily hung in
the places from which others had been torn in all the churches
of the capital.^ A nocturnal thanksgiving was held in the
church of the Virgin in Blachernae, and on Sunday morning
the Empress, with the child Emperor, the Patriarch and clergy,
and all the ministers and senators, bearing crosses and icons
and candles in their hands, devoutly proceeded to St. Sophia.^
^ Gen. 82 mentions Olympus, Ida,
Athos, and even t6 Ka.Tk Kvfiivdv
ffvfiTrXripiafxa, monks from Mt. Kyminas
in Mysia. This passage is important
as a chronological indication for the
beginnings of the religious settlements
on Mount Athos, which are described
in K. Lake's The Early Days of
Monasticism on Mount Athos, 1909.
He seems to have overlooked this
passage. As he points out, there were
three stages in the development (1)
the hermit period ; (2) the loose organ-
izations of the hermits in lauras ; (3)
the strict organization in monasteries.
In A.D. 843 we are in the first period,
and the first hermit of whom we know
is Peter, whose Life by a younger con-
temporary, Nicolaus, has been printed
by Lake. Peter had been a soldier in
the Scholae, and was carried captive
to Samarra (therefore after a.d. 836,
see below, p. 238) by the Saracens,
possibly in Mutasim's expedition of
A.D. 838 ; having escaped, he went to
Rome to be tonsured, and then to
Athos, where he lived fifty years as a
hermit. The first laura of which we
know seems to have been founded at
the very end of the reign of Michael
III. (see Lake, p. 44), by Euthymius
of Thessalonica, whose Life has been
edited from an Athos MS. by L. Petit
( Vie et office de Saint- Euthy me le Jeune,
1904). The earliest monastery in the
vicinity was the Kolobu, founded by
John Kolobos in the reign of Basil I. ; it
was not on Mount Athos, but to the
north, jDrobably near Erissos (Lake,
60 sqq. ), and there were no monasteries
on the mountain itself till the coming
of Athanasius, the friend of the
Emperor Nicephorus II. — There was
a Mount Kyminas close to Akhyraos
(George Acrop.i. 27-28. ed. Heisenberg)
which corresponds to Balikesri in
Mysia, according to Ramsay, Asia
Minor, 154, and Tomaschek, Zur his-
torischen Topocjra^jhie von Kleinasien
im Mittelalter, 96. But the evidence
of the Vita Michaelis Maleini (ed.
Petit, 1903) and the Vita Mariae iun.
(cited by Petit, p. 61) seem to make it
probable that Mount Kyminas of the
monks was in eastern Bithynia near
Prusias ad Hypion (Uskub ; cp.
Anderson, Ma])), and Petit identifies
it with the Dikmen Dagh.
" New icons soon adorned the halls
of the Palace. The icon of Christ
above the throne in the Chrysotriklinob
was restored. Facing this, above the
enti'ance, the Virgin was represented,
and on either side of her Michael III.
and Methodius ;, around apostles,
martyrs, etc. See Anthol. Pal. i. 106
(cp. 107), U. 14, 15 :
6dev KoKov/xev xp'^o'TorpiKXivov viov
Tov irplv \ax6vTa Kk'^aeus x/5ucrwi'i//iou.
TrpdeSpos, 1. 10, is the Patriarch as
Ebersolt has seen {Le Grand Palais,
82). Coins of Michael and Theodora
were issued, with the head of Christ on
the reverse. This had been introduced
by Justinian II., and did not reapj^ear
till now. The type is evidently copied
from coins of Justinian. Wroth, xliv.
^ Narr. de Theoph. absol. 38. An
official description of the ceremony,
evidently drawn up in the course of
Michael's reign (with later additions at
the end), is preserved in Constantine,
Ger. i. 28. The Patriarch and the
clergy kept vigil in the chiirch at
Blachernae, and x'roceeded in the
morning to St. Sophia, 5ia tov d-q/jioaiov
ifi^6\ov (from the church of the
SECT. IV RESTORATION OF ICON WORSHIP 151
It was enacted that henceforward the restoration of icons
should be commemorated on the same day, and the first
Sunday of Lent is still the feast of Orthodoxy in the Greek
Church.
All our evidence for this ecclesiastical revolution comes
from the records of those who rejoiced in it ; we are not
informed of the tactics of the iconoclastic party, nor is it
hinted that they made any serious effort to fight for a doomed
cause. We can hardly believe that the Patriarch John was
(juiescent during the year preceding the Council, and silently
awaited the event. But the only tradition of any counter-
movement is the anecdote of a scandalous attempt to discredit
Methodius after his elevation to the Patriarchate. The icono-
clasts, it was said, bribed a young woman to allege publicly
that the Patriarch had seduced her. An official inquiry was
held, and Methodius proved his innocence, to the satisfaction
of a curious and crowded assembly, by a cynical ocular demon-
stration that he was physically incapable of the offence with
which he was charged. He explained that many years ago,
during his sojourn at liome, he had been tormented by the
stings of carnal desire, and that in answer to his prayer
St. Peter's miraculous touch had withered his body and freed
him for ever from the assaults of passion. The woman
was compelled to confess that she had been suborned, and
the heretics who had invented the lie received the mild
punishment of being compelled every year, at the feast of
orthodoxy, to join the procession from Blachernae to St.
Sophia with torches in their hands, and hear with their own
cars anathema pronounced upon them.^ There was some
Apostles to the Augusteon, the street mother of Metrophanes, afterwards
liad porticoes ; we know nothing about bishop of Smyrna, who was prominent
the road from Blachernae to the in the struggle between Photius and
'oo*
Apostles). The Emperor went to St. Ignatius. There must have been
Sophia from the Palace. some link of connexion between her
^ The story is told by Gen. 83-85, and Methodius. A second motif
and repeated, with the usual elabora- probably was the impotence of the
tion, in Cont. Th. 158-160. It was Patriarch. The story had the merit
unknown to the author of the Vita of insulting the repentant iconoclastic
Methodii, and his silence is a strong clergy, who, as a condition of retaining
external argument for rejecting it their posts, were obliged to take part
entirely. But that there was a motif in the anniversary procession. We
behind, which we are not in a position cannot put much more faith in the
to discover, is proved, as Hirsch lias anecdote that the ex-Patriarch John,
pointed out (154), by the fact that who was compelled to retire to a
Genesios identifies the woman as monastery at Kleidion on the Bos-
ir>2
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
cnAi'. IV
kernel ol" tnitli in ilii.s edifying fiction, bnt it i.s impossible! to
disentangle it.
It would seem that the great majority of the iconoclastic
bishops and clergy professed repentance of their error and
were allowed to retain their ecclesiastical dignities. Here
Methodius, who was a man of moderation and compromise,
followed the precedent set by Tarasius at the time of the first
restoration of image-worship.' But the iconoclastic heresy
was l)y no means immediately extinguished, thougli it never
again caused more tlian administrative trouble. Some of
those who repented lapsed into error, and new names were
added, twenty-five years later,^ to the list of the heretics who
were held up to public ignominy on the Sunday of Orthodoxy,
and stigmatized as Jews or pagans.^
The final installation of icons among the sanctities of the
Christian faith, the authoritative addition of icon-worship to
the superstitions of the Church, was a triumph for the religious
spirit of the Gre(!ks over the doctrine of Eastern heretics
whose Christianity had a more Semitic flavour. The strugfi-le
had lasted for about a hundred and twenty years, and in its
latest stage had been virtually confined to Constantinople.
Hero the populace seems to have oscillated between the two
extreme views," and many of the educated inhabitants probably
belonged to that moderate party whicli approved of images in
Churches, but was opposed to their worship. Of the influence
of the iconoclastic movement on Byzantine art something will
be said in another chapter, but it must be noticed here that
in one point it won an abiding victory. Tn the doctrine laid
down by the Council no distinction was drawn between
sculptured and painted representations ; all icons were legiti-
mized. But whereas, before the controversy began, religious
art l)ad expressed itself in botli forms, after the Council of
])horus (Simeon, Conl. Ocorg. 811),
ordered a .servant to (loke out the eyes
of an icon in tliu (^liureli of tliat cloister,
and for tliisoircnee received 200 stripes
by tins eonmiand of tlie Empress (Gen.
82)._ Cont. Th. 161 says tlmt he was
banislied to liis subnrban liouse called
Tct SI'ixd (there was another ]ilace of
this name near the Fonnn of Constan-
tine, CouL Th. -120). I'robalily I'sicha
was at Kleidion, wiiich is the modern
Defterdan Burnu, a little north of
Ortakeni, on the European side of the
l{os])horus.
' For the policy of Methodius and
the disa])])roval which it aroused, see
below, p. 182.
^ Condemned by the Council of A. d.
869 (Mansi, xvi. ;i89).
^ ^at'T-oi'S TJj tC)v' \ov5aiwv Kal'¥i\\r)ViA>v
fxepiSi KaOvTropaWo/n^voii, Us])enski,
op. cil. 98. "ViK\7]v is here used for
pagan.
•* Cp. Brehier, lO.
MXT. IV RESTORATION OF ICON WORSHIP 153
A.T). 843, sculpture was entirely discarded, and icons came to
mean pictures and pictures only. This was a silent surrender,
never explicitly avowed by the orthodox Church, to the
damnable teaching of the iconoclasts ; so that these heretics
Lcin claim to have so far influenced public opinion as to
induce their victorious adversaries to abandon the cult of
L,a"aven images. After all, the victory was a compromise.
I
CHAPTEE V
MICHAEL III
A.D. 842-867
§ 1. The Regency
Michael III. reigned for a quarter of a century, but he never
governed. During the greater part of his life he was too
young; when he reached a riper age he had neither the
capacity nor the desire. His reign falls into two portions.
In his minority, the Empress Theodora held the reins, guided
by the advice of Theoktistos, the Logothete of the Course, who
proved as devoted to her as he had been to her husband.
During the later years, when Michael nominally exercised the
sovranty himself, the real power and the task of conducting
the administration devolved upon her brother Bardas. In
the first period, the government seems to have been competent,
though we have not sufficient information to estimate it with
much confidence ; in the second period it was eminently
efficient.
The Empress Theodora^ occupied the same constitutional
position which the Empress Irene had occupied in the years
following her husband's death. She was not officially the
Autocrat, any more than her daughter Thecla, who was
associated with her brother and mother in the Imperial
dignity;^ she only acted provisionally as such on behalf of
1 At the beginning of the reign cp. above, p. 150, n. 2.
coins were issued with the head of 2 ^^^^ 42 Mart. Am. 52 (a.T). 845)
Theodora (despoma) on one side, on the ^acnXevovros ttjs 'Pwfiaiwv dpxvs MixaTjX
other the child-Emperor and his eldest /cat BeoBibpas Kal Q^KXyjs. Cp. Wroth,
sister Thecla robed as Augusta. A 431 (PL xlix. 19) Mtxa7?X Qeodwpa Kal
few years later Michael and Theodora G^/cXa e/c ^(eoO) ^aaiXeis 'Pufxalwv on
appear together on the obverse ; on reverse of silver coins,
the reverse is the head of the Saviour,
154
MiCT. I THE REGENCY 155
her son. The administration was conducted in their joint
names ; but she possessed no sovran authority in her own
right or independently of him. Her actual authority was
formally limited (unlike Irene's) by the two guardians or
co-regents whom Theophilus had appointed. To find two
men who would work in harmony and could be trusted not
to seek power for themselves to the detriment of his son was
difficult, and Theophilus seems to have made a judicious
choice. But it was almost inevitable that one of the two
.should win the effective control of affairs and the chief place
in the Empress's confidence. It may well be that superior
talent and greater political experience rendered Theoktistos
a more capable adviser than Manuel, her uncle, who had
probably more knowledge of warfare than of administration.
Theoktistos presently became the virtual prime minister,^ and
Manuel found it convenient to withdraw from his rooms in
the Palace and live in his house near the Cistern of Aspar,
though he did not formally retire from his duties and
regularly attended in the Palace for the transaction of
business.^
Her uncle's practical abdication of his right to a voice in
the management of the Empire corresponds to the policy
which Theodora pursued, under the influence of the Logothete,
towards the other members of her own family. Her brother
Petronas, who was a competent general and had done useful
work for her husband, seems to have been entrusted with no
important post and allowed no opportunity of winning dis-
tinction under her government ; he proved his military
capacity after her fall from power. Her more famous and
Ijrilliant brother Bardas was forced to be contented with an
inactive life in his suburban house. Theodora had also three
sisters, of whom one, Sophia, had married Constantino
Babutzikos. Another, Calomaria, was the wife of Arsaber,
^ TTapahwaarevijiv, Simeon {Cont. garden, within the Palace. Manuel
Georg.), 815. converted his house into a monastery,
^ Gen. 86, where it is explained that the church of which is now the Kefele
Theoktistos schemed to get rid of mosque, a little to the west of the
Manuel by a charge of treason, but Chukur Bostan or Cistern of Aspar.
Manuel anticipated the trouble by a See Paspates, Bv^. fj.e\. 304 ; Mil-
voluntary semi-retirement. Simeon, lingen, Walls, 23 ; Strzygovski, Die
ib. 816, mentions that Theoktistos hyz. JVasserbehiiltcr von Kpel (1893),
built himself a house with baths and 158
156
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. V
a patrician, who was elevated to the higher rank of
magister.^ On his death Calomaria lived in the Palace
with her sister, and is said to have worn mean raiment and
performed the charitable dnty of paying monthly visits to
the prisons^ and distributing blessings and alms to the
prisoners.
Michael was in his seventeenth year when his mother
decided to marry him. The customary bride -show was
announced throughout the provinces by a proclamation
inviting beautiful candidates for the throne to assemble on
a certain day in the Imperial Palace.^ The choice of the
Empress fell on Eudocia, the daughter of Dekapolites (a.d. 855).
We know nothing of this lady or her family ; she seems to
have been a cipher, and her nullity may have recommended
her to Theodora. But in any case the haste of the Empress
and Theoktistos to provide Michael with a consort at such an
early age was prompted by their desire to prevent his union
with another lady. For Michael already had a love affair
with Eudocia Ingerina, whom Theodora and her minister
regarded as an unsuitable spouse. A chronicler tells us that
^ The text of the passage in Cont.
Th. 175 seems perfectly right as it
stands, but has been misunderstood
both by the later historian Skylitzes
(see Cedrenus, ii. 161) and by modern
critics. The text is t] U KaXo/xapia
'Apaaj37]p ry . . /xayicrTpu), ry Eipyjvrjs
TTJs /MTjTpbs rod /uLfTa Tavra rbv Trarpi-
apxi-KOv dpovov avTiXa^ofjiivov ^ut'iov
dde\<p(fi. The translation is: "Calo-
maria married Arsaber, the brother of
Irene, who was the mother of Photius,
afterwards Patriarch." There is no
Tarasius.
difficulty about this. But because
Theodora had three sisters, it was
assumed that all three were married,
and that the husbands of all three are
mentioned. Irene was the name of
the third sister, and Skylitzes says
that she {Elprjvri de) married Sergius,
the brother of Photius. Hirsch
criticizes the passage on the same
assumption (215). The relationship
of Photius to Theodora and the text
of Cont. Th. will be made clear by a
diagram.
Marines = Theoktiste.
i
Sergius = Irene.
Arsaber = Calomaria. Theodora. Irene.
Photius. Tarasius. Sergius. Stephen. Bardas.
2 The Chalke and the Numera in ^ ^i^g evidence for this bride-show
the Palace, and the Praetorium in the is in the Vit. Irenes, 603-604. Irene,
town. She was accompanied by the a Cappadocian lady, was one of the
Count of the Walls, the Domestic of competitors. Her sister— apparently
the Numeri, or the Prefect of the also a candidate— afterwards jnarried
City. Co7it. Th. ib. Bardas.
SKCT. I THE REGENCY 157
they disliked her intensely " on account of her impudence " ; ^
which means that she was a woman of some spirit, and they
feared her as a rival influence. The young sovran was obliged
to yield and marry the wife who was not of his own choice,
!)ut if he was separated from the woman he loved, it was
only for a short time. Eudocia Ingerina did not disdain to
be his mistress, and his attachment to her seems to have
lasted till his death.
But the power of Theodora and her favourite minister
was doomed, and the blow was struck by a member of her
own family (a.d. 856, January to March).^ Michael had
reached an age when he began to chafe under the authority
of his mother, whose discipline had probably been strict ; and
his uncle Bardas, who was ambitious and conscious of his own
talents for government, divined that it would now be possible
to undermine her position and win his nephew's confidence.
The most difficult part of his enterprise was to remove
Theoktistos, but he had friends among the ministers who
were in close attendance on the Emperor. The Parakoe-
momenos or chief chamberlain, Damianos (a man of Slavonic
race), persuaded Michael to summon his uncle to the Palace,
and their wily tongues convinced the boy that his mother
intended to depose him, with the assistance of Theoktistos, or
at all events — and this was no more than the truth — that he
would have no power so long as Theodora and Theoktistos
co-operated.^ Michael was brought to acquiesce in the view
that it was necessary to suppress the too powerful minister,
and violence was the only method. Theophanes, the chief of
the private wardrobe, joined the conspiracy, and Bardas also
won over his sister Calomaria.* Some generals, who had
^ Simeon {Cont. Georg.), 816, the from the ofBcial description in Con-
source for Michael's marriage. The stantiue, Cer. 213.
[irobable date, A.D. 855, is inferred ^ For date see Appendix VII.
from the fact that the marriage pre- ^ So Simeon (Cojiit. Georg.), 821. Ac-
ceded the death of Tlieoktistos, com- cording to Gen. 87, Bardas suggested
bined with Michael's age. The bridal to Michael that Theodora intended
ceremony of an Emperor was performed to marry herself, or to find a husband
iu the church of St. Stephen in the for one of her daughters, and de230se
Palace of Daphne. The chronicler {ib. ) Michael, with the aid of Theoktistos.
notes that the bridal chamber {to * The part played by Caloniaria is
iracTTov) was in the palace of Magnaura, recorded by Genesios, whose informa-
• md the marriage feast, at which the tion was doubtless derived from his
senators were present, was held in the ancestor Constantine the Armenian,
hall of the Nineteen Couches. This who was an eye-witness of the murder.
was the regular habit, as we learn For Theophanes of Farghana see p. 238.
158 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap.
been deposed from their commands and owed a grudge to
Theoktistos/ were engaged to lend active assistance. It was
arranged that Bardas should station himself in the Lausiakos,
and there attack the Logothete, whose duties frequently obliged
him to pass through that hall in order to reach the apart-
ments of the Empress.^ Calomaria concealed herself in an
upper room, where, through a hole, perhaps constructed on
purpose,^ she commanded a view of the Lausiakos, and could,
by signalling from a window, inform the Emperor as soon as
Bardas sprang upon his victim.
Theoktistos had obtained at the secretarial office* the
reports which he had to submit to the Empress, and as he
passed through the Lausiakos he observed with displeasure
Bardas seated at his ease, as if he had a full right to be there.
Muttering that he would persuade Theodora to expel him from
the Palace, he proceeded on his way, but in the Horologion, at
the entrance of the Chrysotriklinos, he was stopped by the
Emperor and Damianos. Michael, asserting his authority
perhaps for the first time, angrily ordered him to read the
reports to himself and not to his mother. As the Logothete
was retracing his steps in a downcast mood, Bardas sprang
forward and smote him. The ex-generals hastened to assist,
and Theoktistos drew his sword.^ The Emperor, on receiving
a signal from his aunt, hurried to the scene,^ and by his orders
1 A grudge : this is a fair inference ^ Gen. 88, Bardas threw Theoktistos
from the fact that they were selected down {KaTairpyivi^as), kuI evd^us iindLdo-
for the purpose. rai adu Kov\e(^ awdOrj ivufiios, ■^c Trpbs
~ The apartments of Theodora seem dTrorpoTrrji/ tvavrluv eyvfjivuaev. Simeon,
to have been in the Chrysotriklinos. ib. 822, says that Bardas began to
The eastern door of the Lausiakos strike him on the cheek and pull his
faced the Horologion which was the hair ; and ManiakcfS, the Drungary of
portal of the Chrysotriklinos. the Watch, cried, "Do not strike the
•*Gen. 87 e^ virepripov Terprifxivov Logothete." Maniakes was therefore
oIk'ktkov dLOTTTupav Karaa-TricTavTes. We tlie surname of Constantino the
niay imagine this room to have been Armenian.
in the Eidikon, to which stairs led up « Gen. 88 KaracrrjimiveTai ^aaiXeiis
from the Lausiakos. The Eidikon, vpos i^^Xevcnv tt^v dia x^^'^kv'^o-t'^''
which was over the Thermastra, ad- irvXiiv Ti^epiov rod dvaKTOs, Kai crras
joined the Lausiakos on the north side. e/ceto-e kt\. This gate, not mentioned
■* Ttt d(xriKpTjT€M, Simeon, ib. 821. elsewhere so far as I know, was prob-
The accounts of the murder in this ably a door of the Chrysotriklinos
chronicle and in Genesios are inde- palace, which, we know, Tiberius IL
pendent and supplement each other. improved. If Calomaria was, as I
Simeon gives more details before the suppose, in the Eidikon building,
assault of Bardas, Genesios a fuller de- she could have signalled from a win-
scnption of the murder and the part dow on its eastern side to the Chryso-
played by his own grandfather. trikliuos.
SECT. I THE REGENCY 159
Theoktistos was seized and dragged to the Skyla.^ It would
seem that Bardas did not contemplate murder, but intended to
remove the Logothete to a place of banishment.^ But the
Emperor, advised by others, probably by Damianos, that nothing
short of his death would serve, called upon the foreign Guards
(the Hetairoi) to slay Theoktistos. Meanwhile the Empress
had heard from the Papias of the Palace that the Logothete's
life was in danger, and she instantly rushed to the scene to
save her friend. But she was scared back to her apartments
by one of the conspirators, a member of the family of Melissenos,
who cried in a voice of thunder, " Go back, for this is the day
of strikers." ^ The Guards, who were stationed in the adjoining
Hall of Justinian, rushed in ; ^ one of them dragged the victim
from the chair under which he had crawled and stabbed him
in the belly (a.d. 856).
Of the two offices which Theoktistos had held, the less
onerous, that of Chartulary of the Kauikleion,^ was conferred on
Bardas, while his son-in-law Symbatios — whose name shows
his Armenian lineage — was appointed Logothete of the Course.^
The reign of Theodora was now over. She had held the reins
of power for fourteen years, and she was unwilling to surrender
them. She was not an unscrupulous woman like Irene, she
did not aspire to be Autocrat in her own right or set aside her
son ; but well knowing her son's incapacity she had doubtless
looked forward, to keeping him in perpetual tutelage and
retaining all the serious business of government in her own
1 Cont. Th. 170, whose narrative family see above, p. 25, n. 3.
varies in particulars, represents Theo- •* Gen. {ib.) states that Constantine,
ktistos as making an attempt to ilee the Drungary of the Watch, tried to
to the Hippodrome through the Asek- save Theoktistos by holding the doors
reteia, "for at the time the oihce of between the Skyla and the Triklinos
the Asekretai was there." The secre- of Justinian, hojung that he would be
tarial offices were probably in the same condemned to banishment before the
building as the Eidikon (cp. Ebersolt, guards appeared. But Michael called
Le Grand Palais, 124), and were them, and Constantine was obliged
reached through a door on the north unwillingly to give way. It is clear
side of the Lausiakos. Theoktistos from the narrative that Theoktistos
was doubtless returning thither. was not taken through the Triklinos
^ Gen. 89. of Justinian ; therefore he must have
^ This is told by Gen. 88, and prob- been dragged through a door on the
ably comes from his grandfather. The north side of the Lausiakos, into the
identification of the ex-general who Thermastra, and thence to the Skyla
scared the Empress as a Melissenos is by way of the Hippodrome,
in favour of the incident. Simeon ^ Cont. Th. 171.
does not mention this, but states that ^ This seems probable, though
the Papias informed Theodora {Cont. Symbatios is not mentioned till some
Georg. 822). For the Melissenos years later.
160 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, v
hands. The murder of Theoktistos cut her to the heart, and
though the Emperor endeavoured to pacify and conciliate her,
she remained unrelenting in her bitterness.^
The Senate was convoked, and that body applauded the
announcement that Michael would henceforward govern alone in
his own name.^ Bardas was elevated to the rank of magister
and was appointed Domestic of the Schools. It would appear
that for nearly two years Theodora resided in the Palace,
powerless but unforgiving, and perhaps waiting for a favourable
opportunity to compass the downfall of her brother. It is
said that her son plagued her, trying perhaps to drive her into
voluntary retirement. At last, whether his mother's proximity |
became intolerable, or she involved herself in intrigues against I
Bardas,^ it was decided that she should not only be expelled
from the Palace but consigned to a nunnery. The Patriarch
Ignatius, who owed his appointment to her, was commanded
to tonsure her along with her daughters, but he absolutely
declined on the sufficient ground that they were unwilling to
take the monastic vow. The hair of their heads was shorn by
other hands, and they were all immured in the monastery of
Karianos (autumn a.d. 858).
It was probably soon afterwards that the Empress, thirsting
^ Simeon {Cont. Georg.), 822-823. inconsistent with Nicetas, only the
Cont. Th. 171 describes her lamenta- authorhas confused the monastery with
tion and anger as that of a tragedy the palace of Karianos (and has been
<iu6en. followed in this by Finlay, ii. 173,
2 Simeon (ih.) f/.6vos avTOKparopd and Hergenrother, i. 348). The jjalace
(the technical phrase). of Karianos was within the precincts
s For the chronology see Appendix of the Great Palace (see above, p. 132),
VII. The sources here cause:difficulty ; and as Theophilus built it for his
I have followed Nicetas ( Fit. Ign. 225), daughters, it is very probable that they
who says : Tr)c tx-qTepa Kal ras dSeXcpas lived there before they were expelled.
Karayayihv iv roh ^iapiavod Xeyo/iivoLs But they could not be "driven from
avevexQwo-L KeXeveL Kal Kap^vai. Ac- the Palace to the palace of Karianos."
cording to Simeon (iJ.) the three eldest to. Kapiavov in Nicetas and Simeon is
sisters were expelled from the palace obviously the Convent of Karianos,
and placed ets rd Kapiavov. Pulcheria, whicli we can, I think, approximately
as her mother's favourite, was sent to locate from the data in the Ildrpia KttA.
the convent of Gastria ; Theodora re- 241. Here buildings along the Golden
mamed in the palace, but was after- Horn, from east to west, are described
wards also sent to Gastria. Gen. 90 thus : (1) Churches of SS. Isaiali and
says simply that they were all ex- Laurentios, south of the Gate Jubali
pelled to Gastria. Cont. Th. 174 Kapussi ; (2) house of Dexiokrates,
states that they were tonsured by evidently near the gate of Dexiokrates
Petronas and sent "to the palace of =Aya Kapu ; (3) rd Kapiapov ■ (4)
Karianos," but after Theodora's death Church of Blachernae. It follows that
the daughters were confined in Gastria the Karianos was in the region between
and their mother's corpse was taken Aya Kapu and Blachernae. For this
thither. This last account is not region c^x van Millingcn, /FaZZs. c. xiv.
SECT. I THE REGENCY 161
for revenge if she did not hope to regain power, entered into a
plot against her brother's life. The Imperial Protostrator was
the chief of the conspirators, who planned to kill Bardas as
he was returning to the Palace from his suburban house on
the Golden Horn. But the design was discovered, and the
conspirators were beheaded in the Hippodrome.^
§ 2. Bardas and Basil the Macedonian.
Bardas was soon raised to the high dignity of C%Lro])alatesf
which was only occasionally conferred on a near relative of the
Emperor and gave its recipient, in case the sovran died childless,
a certain claim to the succession. His position was at the
same time strengthened by the appointments of his two sons to
important military posts. The Domesticate of the Schools,
which he vacated, was given to Antigonus who was only a boy,^
while an elder son was invested with the command of several
western Themes which were exceptionally united.^ But for
Bardas the office of Curopalates was only a step to the higher
dignity of Caesar, which designated him more clearly as the
future colleague or successor of his nephew, whose marriage
had been fruitless. He was created Caesar on the Sunday
after Easter in April a.d. 862.^
I The government of the Empire was in the hands of Bardas
'for ten years, and the reluctant admissions of hostile chroniclers ^
show that he was eminently fitted to occupy the throne. A
1 The source is Simeon, ih., and we the command almost immediately, as
can hardly hesitate to accept his Petronas died shortly after. Vogt
statement as to the implication of {Basile I"^) is wrong in supposing that
Theodora, to whom he was well dis- Petronas succeeded Bardas in this
posed. He speaks of her part in an post.
apologetic tone, as if she were not * Simeon, ib. The wife of this son
responsible for her acts : ddvfxia was her father-in-law's mistress. For
fierewpLaOeTaa TOf vow Kal iiwb iKw\-q- other examples of such extended com-
fews d(paipe9elcra Kal to (ppovelv, dvd^ia mands see pp. 10, 222.
iavTTjs KaraaKevd^ei ^ovKr]v Kara Bdpda ^ The year is given by Gen. 97, the
§ov\evoiJiAv7]. day by Simeon, ib., 824. No known
* It appears from Cunt. Th. 176, facts are incompatible with this date
that he was already Curopalates when (which Hirsch accepts), and we must
he took part in the expedition against decisively reject the hypotheses of
Samosata, the date of which we ot^ier- Aristarchos (a.d. 860), Vogt (a.d. 865
wise know to be 859 (see below, p. or 866), and others.
279). ^ The concession of Nicetas {Vit.
^ Simeon {Cont. Georg.) 828. Ac- Ign. 224) is, among others, especially
cording to Cont. Th. 180, Petronas significant ; awovdaZov /cat dpacrrripiov
succeeded him in 863 as Domestic ; wepl Ty)v tQiv ttoXitckuiv Trpa.yiJ.dTuv
but if this is true, he was restored to fj.eTaxdpL<nv.
M
162 ' EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, v
brilliant success won (a.d. 863) against the Saracens, and the
conversion of Bulgaria, enhanced the prestige of the Empire
abroad ; he committed the care of the Church to the most
brilliant Patriarch who ever occupied the ecclesiastical throne
of Constantinople ; he followed the example of Theophilus in
his personal attention to the administration of justice ; ^ and he
devoted himself especially to the improvement of education and
the advancement of learning. The military and diplomatic
transactions of this fortunate decade, its importance for the
ecclesiastical independence of the Eastern Empire, and its
significance in the history of culture, are dealt with in other
chapters.
Michael himself was content to leave the management of
the state in his uncle's capable hands. He occasionally took
part in military expeditions, more for the sake of occupation,
we may suspect, than from a sense of duty. ' He was a man of
pleasure, he only cared for amusement, he had neither the
brains nor the taste for administration. His passion for horse-
races reminds us of Nero and Commodus ; he used himself to
drive a chariot in the private hippodrome of the Palace of
St. Mamas." His frivolity and extravagance, his impiety and
scurrility, are held up to derision and execration by an imperial
writer who was probably his own grandson but was bitterly
hostile to his memory.
Little confidence can be placed in the anecdotes related by
the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogennetos and his literary
satellites, but there is no doubt that they exhibit, in however
exaggerated a shape, the character and reputation of Michael.
We may not be prepared, for instance, to believe that the fire-
signals of Asia Minor were discontinued, because on one
occasion he was interrupted in the hippodrome by an in-
opportune message ; ^ but the motive of the story reflects his
genuine impatience of public business. The most famous or
infamous performance of Michael was his travesty of the
mysteries and ministers of the Church. One of his coarse
boon-companions, a buffoon known .as the " Pig," was arrayed
1 Cp. Cont. Th. 193. —confined to invited members of the
^ Gen. 112, Cont. Th. 197. It does Court. Higli officials took part in
not appear that he ever drove in the these amateur performances (Co/ii. Th.
Great Hippodrome himself. At St. 198). #
Mamas the spectacle would be private ^ Cont. Th. 197. *J
SF.CT. II BARD AS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN 163
as Patriarch, while the Emperor and eleven others dressed
themselves in episcopal garments, as twelve prominent bishops.
With citherns, which they hid in the folds of their robes and
secretly sounded, they intoned the liturgy. They enacted the
solemn offices of consecrating and deposing bishops, and it
was even rumoured that they were not ashamed to profane the
Eucharist, using mustard and vinegar instead of . the holy
elements.^ A story was current that one day the mock
Patriarch riding on an ass, with his execrable cortege, came
face to face with the true Patriarch Igna,tius, who was con-
ducting a religious procession to a suburban church. The
profane satyrs raised their hoods, loudly struck their in-
struments, and with lewd songs disturbed the solemn hymns
of the pious procession. But this was only a sensational
anecdote, for we have reason to believe that Michael did not
begin to practise these mummeries till after the deposition of
Ignatius.". Mocking at the ecclesiastical schism, he is said to
have jested " Theophilus (the Pig) is my Patriarch, Photius
is the Patriarch of the Caesar, Ignatius of the Christians."^
How far mummeries of this kind shocked public opinion in
Constantinople it is difficult to conjecture.
^ These mummeries are described by this connexion, I may refer to the curi-
Constantine Porph. {Cont. Th. 244 ous (thirteenth or fourteenth century)
sqq.). They are not referred to by composition called the Mass of the
Simeon, but are mentioned in general Spanos {i.e. Beardless), a parody of the
terms by Nicetas {Vit. Ignatii, 246, rites of the Church, and doubtless
where the proper name of Gryllos= connected with Satanic worship. See
the Pig is given as Theophilus), and Krumbacher, G.B.L. 809 sqq. ; A.
are attested by the 16th Canon of the Heisenberg, in B.Z. xii. 361.
Council of869-870, which describes and ^ rpj^e anecdote is told in Cont. Th.
condemns them (Mansi, xvi. 169). In 244 {VUa Bas.), but not in Vit. Ign.
tliis canon Michael himself is not said where {loc. cit.) the profanities are re-
to have participated in the parodies, corded as happening after the fall of
which are attributed to "laymen of Ignatius, and Photius is blamed for
.senatorial rank under the late Em- not protesting and putting a stop to
I'cror." These men, arranging their them. The author also reports (p. I
hair so as to imitate the tonsure, and 247) that Simeon, a Cretan bishop
arrayed in sacerdotal robes, with epis- (who had left the island on account )
coiial cloaks, used to travesty the of the Saracen invasion), remonstrated!
ceremonies of electing, consecrating, with Michael, and begged him to'
and deposing bishops ; one of them discontinue his sacrilegious conduct.
used to play the Patriarch. The canon The Emperor knocked his teeth out
obviously insinuates that Photius had and had him severely beaten for his
not done his duty in allowing such temerity. In the Madrid Skylitzes
profanities to go on. But it does there is a representation of the Patri-
nut speak of the profanation of the arch and the Synkellos standing in the
Kucharist, nor is this mentioned in portico of a church, outside which are
nt. Ign. I therefore think this must Gryllos and the mummers with musi-
be regarded as an invention — an almost cal instruments (Beylie, op. cit. 91),
'nnvitable addition to the scandal. In ^ Fit. Ig7i. 2i6.
164 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, v
The Imperial pleasures were costly, and Michael's criminal
o-enerosity to his worthless companions dissipated large treasures.
He made it a practice to stand sponsor at the baptisms of
children of his jockeys, and on such occasions he would bestow
upon the father a present varying from £1296 to £2160,
occasionally even as much as £4320 — sums which then re-
presented a considerably higher value than to-day.^ Not only
was no saving effected during the eleven years in which he
was master of the Empire, but he wasted the funds which had
been saved by his father and by his mother, and towards the
end of his reign he was in such straits for ready money that
he laid hands upon some of the famous works of art with
which Theophilus had adorned the Palace. The golden plane-
tree, in which the mechanical birds twittered, the two golden
lions, the two griffins hammered out of solid gold, and the
organ of solid gold, all weighing not less than 200 pounds,
were melted down; but before they were minted, Michael
perished." It seems probable that it was in the last year or
two of his reign that his extravagance became excessive and
ruinous. For there is no sign that the Empire was in financial
difficulties during the government of Bardas, who seems to
have been able to restrain his nephew within certain bounds.
The weak point of the position of the Caesar lay in the
circumstance that he had to share his influence over the
Emperor with boon companions ; for there was always the
danger that a wily schemer, concealing ambition under the
mask of frivolity, might successfully use the opportunities of
intimate intercourse to discredit him and undermine his power.
The fact that he retained for ten years the unshaken, almost
childish confidence of his nephew is a striking proof of his
1 The sums mentioned are 30, 40, (rai/Tas refers to crroXas). Hirscli did
50, 100 litrai, Cont. Th. 172. See not observe this distinction, and
further, Chapter VII. p. 220. thought that the contradiction was
2 There is an inconsistency here complete. Basil rescued the robes,
between the Vita Basilii and the Vita but coined the melted gold, and called
Michaelis in Cont. Th., but it is not the nomisma of this coinage a se?icrt<o?i.
so serious as Hirsch thinks (244). The name, I suppose, was given be-
According to the former source (257) cause the lions, plane-tree, etc., were
Michael melted down the plane-tree, iv t($ aivT^ip (Constantine, Cer. 569).
lions, etc., and the gold on the Imperial The Vita Bas. was a source of the
and senatorial state-robes ; according Vita Mich. ; here the author of the
to the latter (173) the plane-tree, etc., latter seems to correct an inaccuracy
were melted, but the robes were found of Constantine VII., the author of the
still untouched on Michael's death former.
SECT. II BARD AS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN 165
talent and tact ; and when at last he was overthrown, his
supplanter was one of the two ablest men who arose in the
Eastern Empire during the ninth century.
Basil the Macedonian, who now comes on the stage, is the
typical adventurer who rises from the lowliest circumstances
to the highest fortune. His career, wonderful in itself, was
made still more wonderfvil by mythopoeic fancy, which con-
verted the able and unscrupulous upstart into a hero guided
by Heaven. He was bom about a.d. 812,^ of poor Armenian
parents, whose family had settled in the neighbourhood of
Hadrianople. His Armenian descent is established beyond
doubt," and the legend that he was a Slav has no better a
foundation than the fiction which claimed Slavonic parentage
for the Emperor Justinian.^ But his family was obscure ; and
the illustrious lineage which his descendants claimed, connect-
ing him through his grandfather with the Arsacids and by his
grandmother with Constantino the Great and Alexander, was
an audacious and ingenious invention of the Patriarch Photius.*
In his babyhood he was carried into captivity, along with his
parents, by the Bulgarian Krum, and he spent his youth in the
region beyond the Danube which was known as " Macedonia." ^
1 In the reign 'of Michael I. (811- that Basil's father would beget a son
813), Gont. Georg. 817. Pankalo was named Beklas, whose description un-
liis mother's name (Constantine, Cer. mistakably pointed to Basil, and who
648). would have a long and happy reign.
^ It is now generally admitted : the Photius gave this document to a con-
most decisive evidence is a passage in federate, one of the palace clergy, who
tlie Vita E'uthymii, ed. de Boor, p. 2. deposited it in the palace library and
The whole question has recently been then seized an opportunity of showing
discussed fully by Vasil'ev {Prois- it to the Emperor as an ancient book
khozMenie, etc., see Bibliography). full of secret lore, which no one but
^ The sole foundation of tlie Slavonic Photius could interpret. Photius was
theory is the fact that Arabic writers summoned. His explanation easily
ilesignate him as a Slav. But this is imposed on the Emperor's simplicity
explained by the Arabic view that and vanity. How could Basil resist
Macedonia was Slavonic; "Slav" is the interpretation of Beklas as a
simply the equivalent of "Mace- mysterious acrostich containing the
(Ionian " (cp. Vasil'ev, op. cit. 15). initial letters of the name of himself,
■* Vita Ignatii, 283. This case of his wife, and his four sons (B-asil,
a fictitious genealogy is interesting. E-udocia, K-onstantine, L-eo, A-lex-
I'hotius after his deposition cast about ander, S-tephen)? The genealogy was
for ways of ingratiating himself with accepted by Basil's house ; it is re-
Basil, and conceived the idea of pro- corded in Gen. and Cont. Th.
viding this son of nobody with an •' See below, p. 370. When Simeon
illustrious lineage. He invented a speaks of Hadrianople as in Macedonia,
line of descendants from Tiridates, it is only to explain Basil's designation
king of Armenia, stopping at Basil's as the Macedonian. It is in passages
father. He wrote this out in uncial where Basil is in question that the
characters (ypd/x/Li.aai.v 'AXe^av 5 pLvoL?) on geographical term Macedonia was ex-
old parchment, and added a prophecy tended to include Thrace.
166 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, v
We may conjecture that he derived his designation as Basil
the Macedonian from his long sojourn in this district, for
" Macedonian " can hardly refer to his birthplace, which was
in Thrace. He was twenty-five years old when the captives
succeeded (as is related in another Chapter ^) in escaping from
the power of the Bulgarians and returning to their homes.
Basil obtained some small post in the service of a strategos,^
but seeing no hope of rising in the provinces he decided to
seek his fortune in Constantinople. His arrival in the city
has been wrought by the storyteller into the typical form of
romance. On a Sunday, near the hour of sunset, he reached
the Golden Gate, a poor unknown adventurer, with staff and
scrip, and he lay down to sleep in the vestibule of the adjacent
church of St. Diomede.^ During the night, Nicolas, who was
in charge of the church, was awakened by a mysterious voice,
saying, "Arise and bring the Basileus into the sanctuary."
He got up and looking out saw nothing but a poor man asleep.
He lay down again, and the same thing was repeated. The
third time, he was poked in the side by a sword and the voice
said, " Go out and bring in the man you see lying outside the
gate." He obeyed, and on the morrow he took Basil to the bath,
gave him a change of garments, and adopted him as a brother.*
So much is probable that Basil found shelter in St.
Diomede, and that through Nicolas he was enabled to place
his foot on the first rung of the ladder of fortune. The
monk had a brother who was a physician in the service of
Theophilus Paideuomenos, or, as he was usually called,
Theophilitzes, a rich courtier and a relative of the Empress
Theodora. The physician, who saw Basil at St. Diomede, and
admired his enormous physical strength, recommended him to
1 See p. 371. with a portion of the name of Diomed
2 Tzantzes, Strat. of the Theme of were employed." Simeon rightly de-
Macedonia, Simeon, ih. 819. signates Nicolas as caretaker, Trpocr-
^ A parochial church situated be- fiovdpios { = Trapa/j.ovdpLos, sexton), and
tween the Golden Gate and the sea, carefully explains that the church was
at Yedikule. Some remains have then parochial (KaOoXiKri). Genesios
been found which are supposed to miscalls him Ka6i5770(//xej'oj. St. Diomede
mark its site. See van Millingen, was converted into a monastery, almost
JValls, 265: "The excavations made certainly by Basil, but as in many
in laying out the public garden beside other cases the foundation was attri-
the city walls west of the Gas Works at buted to Constantine (cp. Pargoire, Eev.
Yedi Koule, brought to light sub- des questions Mstoriqucs, \x\. 1^ sqq.).
structures of an ancient edifice, in the ^ ^^ro/T/o-e;/ dSeX^oiroL-qaiv, Simeon, ih.
construction of which bricks stamped 820. Simeon tells the whole story
with the monogram of Basil I. and more dramatically than Genesios.
SECT. II BARD AS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN 167
his employer, who hired him as a groom.^ Basil gained the
favour of Theophilitzes, who was struck by the unusual size
of his head ; " and when his master was sent on a special
mission to the Peloponnesus, Basil accompanied him.^ Here
he met with a singular stroke of good fortune. At Patrae he
attracted the attention of a rich lady, who owned immense
estates in the neighbourhood. Her name was Danelis. When
Theophilitzes had completed his business and prepared to
return, Basil fell ill and remained behind his patron. On his
recovery Danelis sent for him, and gave him gold, thirty
slaves, and a rich supply of dresses and other things, on the
condition of his becoming the " spiritual brother " of her son.'*
The motive assigned for her action is the conviction, on the
strength of a monk's prophecy, that he would one day ascend
the throne ; and Basil is said to have promised that, if it ever
lay in his power, he would make her mistress of the whole
land. But whatever her motive may have been, there is no
doubt that she enriched Basil, and she lived to see him
Emperor and to visit his Court.
It is said that the munificence of the Greek lady enabled
Basil to buy estates in Thrace and to assist his family. But
he remained in his master's service, till a chance brought him
under the notice of the Emperor.^ Michael had received as
a gift an untamed and spirited horse. His grooms were
^ Gen. 109 says nothing of the youths, and there was rivalry between
physician, and makes Theophilitzes them and the youths in the employ-
visit the monastery himself. ment of the Emperor and the Caesar
^ eiriayovpov /cat ixeyaXrjv Ke(paK7)v One day Theophilitzes gave an enter-
^Xwra, hence he called him Kephalas tainment for the purpose of a wrestling
{Cont. Georg. 820). match ; Bardas was not present, but
^ The Peloponnesian episode comes was represented by his son Antigonus.
iiova.Consta.utine's Vita Bas., Cont. Th. The champions of the Emperor and
226 sqq. If th« author is accurate in the Caesar defeated the others, until
saying that Theophilitzes was sent by Basil who had not taken part was
Michael and Bardas, we may place it summoned to wrestle with the strongest
in A.D. 856, when Basil was about 44. of the adversaries. Constantine the
He returned from captivity about Armenian (Drungary of the Watch)
A.D. 837, but we have no evidence as intervened to sprinkle the floor with
to the date of his arrival at Constanti- chaff, fearing that Basil might slip,
nople. Basil threw his opponent by a grip
■* TTvev/jLaTLK-qs dde\<f>6TT]Tos avvdecr/jLov which was called by the Slavonic term
lb. 228. podreza. Antigonus reported this
^ So Simeon, ib. 816 (followed by achievement to his father, who told
Cont. Th.2'60). Gen. 110 connects the Michael, and Basil was summoned to
entry into the Emperor's service with the Emperor's presence. Constantine
another exploit of Basil in the capacity Porph. gives a different version of the
of wrestler. Theophilitzes maintained story and places the event before the
a company of strong and comely taming of the horse (which Genesios
168
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. V
unable to manage it, and Michael was in despair, when his
relative Theophilitzes suggested that his own groom, Basil,
might be able to master it. Basil knew how to charm horses,
and when he held its bridle with one hand and placed the
other on its ear, the animal instantly became amenable. The
Emperor, delighted with this achievement and admiring his
physical strength, took him into his own service and assigned
him a post under the Hetaeriarch or captain of the foreign
guards of the Palace, His rise was rapid. He was invested
with the dignity of a strator,^ and soon afterwards he received
the important office of Protostrator, whose duties involved
frequent attendance upon the Emperor (a.d. 858-859 ^).
So far the wily Armenian adventurer, whose mental powers
were little suspected, had owed his success to fortune and his
physical prowess, but now he was in a position to observe the
intrigues of the Court and to turn them to his own advantage.
Damianos, the High Chamberlain, who had assisted Bardas in
the palace revolution which had overthrown Theodora, became
hostile to the Caesar, and attempted to discredit him with the
Emperor. The crisis came when, as Bardas, arrayed in the
Caesar's purple skaramangion and accompanied by the mag-
nates of the Court, was passing in solemn procession through
the Horologion, Damianos refrained from rising from his seat
and paying the customary token of respect.^ Bardas, over-
whelmed with wrath and chagrin at this insult, hurried
into the Chrysotriklinos and complained to the Emperor, who
immediately ordered Damianos to be arrested and tonsured.
does not mention). According to this
account, Antigonus, Domestic of the
Schools, gave a banquet in the Palace
in honour of his father the Caesar.
Bardas brought with him senatorial
magnates and some Bulgarian envoys
who happened to be in the city.
Theophilitzes was one of the guests.
Tlie Bulgarians bragged about a
countryman who was in their suite and
was an invincible wrestler. Theophi-
litzes said to Bardas, "I have a man
who will wrestle with that Bulgarian."
The match was made, and (Constantine
r.he Armenian having sprinkled the
bran — this detail is taken from
Oenesios) Basil threw the Bulgarian,
squeezing him like a wisp of hay.
"From that day the fame of Basil
began to spread through the city."
Though based doubtless on a true
incident (remembered by Constantine
the Armenian), the story in either
version breaks down chronologically.
For Basil was transferred to the
Emperor's service not later than 858,
and at that time Bardas was still
Domestic of the Schools and Antigonus
a small boy.
1 Cont. Th. 231.
^ This promotion was connected
with the conspiracy against Bardas in
which Theodora was concerned. The
protostrator, who was involved in it,
was executed, and Basil replaced him
{Cont. Georg. 823-824). Hence my
date, see above, pp. 160-1.
2 Simeon, ih. 827.
SECT. II BARD AS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN 169
But the triumph of Bardas was to turn to his hurt. Basil
was appointed to fill the confidential post of High Chamber-
lain ^ (with the rank of patrician), though it was usually-
confined to eunuchs, and Basil the Armenian was to prove a
more formidable adversary than Damianos the Slav.^
The confidential intimacy which existed between Michael
and his Chamberlain was shown by the curious matrimonial
arrangement which the Emperor brought to pass. Basil was
already married, but Michael caused him to divorce his wife,^
and married him to his own early love, Eudocia Ingerina.
But this was only an official arrangement ; Eudocia remained
the Emperor's mistress. A mistress, however, was also
provided for Basil, of distinguished rank though not of
tender years. It appears that Theodora and her daughters
had been permitted to leave their monastery and return to
secular life,* and Thecla, who seems to have been ill-qualified
for the vows of a nun, consented to become the paramour of
her brother's favourite. Thus three ladies, Eudocia Ingerina,
I Eudocia the Augusta, and Thecla the Augusta, fulfilled between
them the four posts of wives and mistresses to the Emperor and
his Chamberlain. Before Michael's death, Eudocia Ingerina
bore two sons, and though Basil was obliged to acknowledge
them, it was suspected or taken for granted that Michael was
I their father.^ The second son afterwards succeeded Basil on
the Imperial throne, as Leo VI. ; and if Eudocia was faithful
to Michael, the dynasty known as the Macedonian was really
I descended from the Amorians. The Macedonian Emperors took
pains to conceal this blot or ambiguity in their origin ; their
^ Parakoimomenos. been then about 43 years old.
^ The date is not recorded, but it ^ Simeon {Cont. Gcorg. 835, and
seems probable that it was not very 844) states that Michael was the
long before the fall of Bardas. father, as if it were a well-known fact,
•* Maria ; she was sent back to and witliout reserve. In the case of
"Macedonia" {i.e. probably Thrace) such an arrangement ci trois, it is, of
well provided for. course, impossible for us, knowing so
^ For the evidence, see Hirsch, 66, little as we do, to accept as proven
and below, p. 177. Thecla became the such statements about paternity,
mistress of John Neatokometes after Eudocia may have deceived her lover
Basil's accession. When Basil learned with her husband ; and as Basil seems
this, he ordered the latter to be beaten to have been fond of Constantine and
and tonsured ; Thecla was also beaten, to have had little affection for Leo
and her property confiscated. Simeon, (whom he imprisoned shortly before
ib. 842. She died bedridden (kXlvo- the end of his reign), we might be led
TTETTjs) in her house at Blachernae, to suspect that the eldest born of
Cont. Th. 147. If she became Basil's Eudocia was his own son, and Leo
mistress in 865-866, she might have Michael's.
170 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, v
animosity to the Amorian sovrans whose blood was perhaps
in their veins, and their excessive cult of the memory of Basil, "
were alike due to the suspicion of the sinister accident in their
lineage.
Such proofs of affection could not fail to arouse the
suspicion and jealousy of Bardas, if he had, till then, never
considered Basil as a possible rival. But he probably under-
estimated the craft of the man who had mounted so high
chiefly by his physical qualities. Basil attempted to persuade
the Emperor that Bardas was planning to depose him from
the throne. But such insinuations had no effect. Michael,
notwithstanding his frivolity, was not without common sense.
He knew that the Empire must be governed, and believed
that no one could govern it so well as his uncle, in whom he
reposed entire confidence. Basil was the companion of his
pleasures, and he declined to listen to his suggestions touching
matters of state. Basil then resorted to a cunning device.
He cultivated a close friendship with Symbatios — an Armenian
like himself — the Logothete of the Course and son-in-law of
Bardas. He excited this ambitious minister's hope of becoming
Caesar in place of his father-in-law, and they concocted the
story of a plot ^ which Symbatios revealed to Michael. Such
a disclosure coming from a minister, himself closely related to
Bardas, was very different from the irresponsible gossip of the
Chamberlain, and Michael, seriously alarmed, entered into a
plan for destroying his uncle.
At this time — it was the spring of a.d. 866 — pre-
parations were being made for an expedition against the
Saracens of Crete, in which both the Emperor and the Caesar
were to take part.^ Bardas was wide-awake. He was warned
^ I follow mainly Simeon [ih. 828), Originally, it had been arranged with-
which is obviously the most impartial out any arriere pens^e on either side ;
source. Nicetas, Vit. Ign. 255, then the conspirators decided to avail
describes the plot as only a pretext. themselves of the opportunity which
^ The official account was that it might furnish. Bardas, warned
Bardas prepared the expedition, in that a design was afoot against him,
order to find an opportunity of killing and that Basil was the arch plotter,
Michael (Simeon, ih. 832). Simeon drew back, and it was necessary to
represents Michael and Basil planning reassure him. The chroniclers tell
the expedition for the purpose of stories of various prophecies and signs
killing Bardas (as it would have been warning him of his fate. His friend
difficult to dispatch him in the city). Leo the Philosopher is said to have
Genesios is evidently right in the tried to dissuade him from going. His
simple statement (103) that Michael sister Theodora sent him a dress too
and Bardas organized an expedition. short for him, with a partridge worked
!
SECT. II BARD AS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN 171
by friends or perhaps by a change in the Emperor's manner,
and he declined to accompany the expedition. He must have
openly expressed his fears to his nephew, and declared his
suspicion of Basil's intentions ; for they took a solemn oath
in order to reassure him. On Lady Day (March 25) the
festival of the Annunciation was celebrated by a Court proces-
sion to the church of the Virgin in Chalkoprateia ; after the
ceremonies, the Emperor, the Patriarch, the Caesar, and the
High Chamberlain entered the Katechumena of the church ;
Photius held the blood of Jesus in his hands, and Michael and
Basil subscribed with crosses, in this sacred ink, a declaration
that the Caesar might accompany them without fear.
The expedition started after Easter,^ and troops from the
various provinces assembled at a place called the Gardens
(Kepoi) in the Thrakesian Theme, on the banks of the
Maeander. Here Basil and Symbatios, who had won others
to their plot,^ determined to strike the blow. A plan was
devised for drawing away Antigonus, the Domestic of the
Schools, to witness a horse-race at a sufficient distance from
the Imperial tent, so that he should not be at hand to come
to his father's rescue.^ On the evening before the day which
was fixed by the conspirators, John Neatokometes visited the
Caesar's tent at sunset, and warned Procopius, the Keeper
of his Wardrobe, " Your lord, the Caesar, will be cut in pieces
to - morrow." Bardas pretended to laugh at the warning.
" Tell Neatokometes," he said, " that he is raving. He wants
to be made a patrician — a rank for which he is much too
young ; that is why he goes about sowing these tares." But
he did not sleep. In the morning twilight he told his friends
what he had heard. His friend Philotheos, the General
in gold on it. He was told, when he was the circumstance that Bardas
asked the meaning of this, that the pitched his tent on a higher eminence
shortness signified the curtailment of than that of the Emperor's,
his life, and the guileful bird ex- ^ Gen. {%b.). He also records (105)
pressed the vengeful feelings which that Bardas had ordered Antigonus to
the sender entertained on account of lead his troops to Constantinople, and
the murder of Theoktistos (Gen. 104). that Antigonus delayed to do so. He
1 Easter fell on April 7. ascribes this order to the fear which the
^ Simeon {ib. 830) gives the names gift of Theodora (see above, p. 170)
of five, of whom one John Chaldos aroused in Bardas, and inconsistently
Tziphinarites is also mentioned by states that the gift reached him at
Genesios (106). This writer thought Kepoi. It is obvious that Antigonus
that the plan was first conceived at and his troops were a difficulty to the
Kepoi, and that its immediate occasion conspirators ; cp. Cont. Th. 236.
172 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, v
Logothete, said, " Put on your gold peach-coloured cloak and
appear to your foes, — they will flee before you." Bardas
mounted his horse (April 21) and rode with a brilliant
company to the Emperor's pavilion. Basil, in his capacity
of High Chamberlain, came out, did obeisance to the Caesar,
-and led him by the hand to the Emperor's presence. Bardas,
sitting down beside the Emperor, suggested that, as the troops
were assembled and all was ready, they should immediately
embark. Suddenly looking round, he saw Basil making
threatening signs with his hand. Basil then lunged at him
with his sword, and the other conspirators rushed in and
hewed him in pieces. Their violent onrush frightened and
endangered the Emperor, who mutely watched, but Constantine
the Armenian protected him from injury.^
The role of Constantine, who still held the post of
Drungary of the Watch, is that of a preventer of mischief,
when he appears on the stage at critical moments only to
pass again into obscurity. He attempted to save Theoktistos
from his murderers ; and now after the second tragedy, it is
through his efforts that the camp is not disordered by a
sanguinary struggle between the partisans of Bardas and the
homicides.^
The Emperor immediately wrote a letter to the Patriarch
Photius informing him that the Caesar had been convicted
of high treason and done to death. We possess the Patriarch's
reply.^ It is couched in the conventional style of adulation
repulsive to our taste but then rigorously required by Court
etiquette. Having congratulated the Emperor on his escape
from the plots of the ambitious man who dared to raise
his hand against his benefactor, Photius deplores that he
^ This incident comes, of course, idpidfi^evov). Constantine Porphyro-
from Genesios. In the rest I have gennetos has yet another version, per-
foUowed the account of Simeon. haps devised by himself. He is more
Genesios entirely suppresses the part subtle. Instead of cutting the knot,
played by Basil (just hinting, 107„, like Genesios, he assigns a part in the
that his interests were involved). murder to his grandfather, but so as
According to him, when Bardas was to minimise his responsibility. Ac-
sitting with Michael, Symbatios came cording to this account, Michael is
m and read the reports (which the tlie organizer of the plot ; he gives a
Logothete regularly presented). As sign to Symbatios to introduce the
he went out he made the sign of the assassins ; they hesitate, and Michael,
cross as a signal to the conspirators fearing for his own safety, orders Basil
who were in hiding. Gen. adds that to instigate them {Vita Bas. c. 17).
the corpse was barbarously mutilated 2 Qgj^_ jq?.
'to, ToijTov aldola Kovrifi Siapr-^o-avTes •* ^«. 221.
SECT. II BARD AS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN 173
was sent without time for repentance to the tribunal in
another world. The Patriarch owed his position to Bardas,
and if he knew his weaknesses, must have appreciated his
merits. We can detect in the phraseology of his epistle,
and especially in one ambiguous sentence, the mixture of his
feelings. " The virtue and clemency of your Majesty forbid
me to suspect that the letter was fabricated or that the
circumstances of the fall of Bardas were otherwise than it
alleges — circumstances by which he (Bardas) is crowned and
others will suffer." ^ These words intimate suspicion as
clearly as it could decently be intimated in such a case.
It was impossible not to accept the sovran's assurance of
the Caesar's guilt, if it were indeed his own assurance, yet
Photius allows it to be seen that he suspects that the Imperial
letter was dictated by Basil and that there was foul play.
But perhaps the most interesting passage in this composition
of Photius — in which we can feel his deep agitation under
the rhetorical figures of his style — is his brief characterization
of the Caesar as one who was " to many a terror, to many a
warning, to many a cause of pity, but to more a riddle." ^
Photius concluded his letter with an urgent prayer that
the Emperor should instantly return to the capital, professing
that this was the unanimous desire of the Senate and the
citizens ; and shortly afterwards he dispatched another brief
but importunate request to the same effect.^ It is absurd to
suppose that this solicitude was unreal, or dictated by motives
of vulgar flattery. We cannot doubt the genuine concern of
the Patriarch ; but in our ignorance of the details of the
situation we can only conjecture that he and his friends
entertained the fear that Michael might share the fate of his
uncle. The intrigues of Basil were, of course, known well
to all who were initiated in Court affairs ; and modern partisan
writers of the Eoman Church, who detest Photius and all
his works,"* do not pause to consider, when they scornfully
animadvert upon these " time-serving " letters, that to have
^ hi Siv fKeivos fJ-ev aricperaL dWoi ■* Jager, ib. 115. Hergenrother, i.
5^ KoypovTai. The paraphrase of the 589. Valettas, in his apology for
Abbe Jager {Hist, de Photius, 116) Photius (note to E2}. 221, p. 536), says
entirely omits this. that Ph. calls Basil iu woXcl Xrjarrjv,
, ,,. , 1 . 1 1 T -7 nT etc., in ^». 190; but Basil, Prefect of
2 Mistranslated by Jager, tb. 117. the City, to whom this letter is ad-
^ Ep. 222. dressed, is a different person.
174 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, v
addressed to Michael holy words of condemnation or reproof
would have been to fling away every chance of rescuing him
from the influence of his High Chamberlain. We know not
whether the Emperor was influenced by the pressing messages
of the Patriarch, but at all events the Cretan expedition was
abandoned, and he returned with Basil to Constantinople.
§ 3. Tlie Elevation of Basil and the Murder of Michael
The High Chamberlain promptly reaped the due reward
of his craft and audacity. He was adopted as a son by the
childless Emperor, and invested with the order of Magister.^
A few weeks later, Michael suddenly decided to elevate him
to the throne. We can easily understand that this step
seemed the easiest way out of his perplexities to the Emperor,
who felt himself utterly lost when Bardas was removed from
the helm. Basil, firm and self-confident, was a tower of
strength, and at this moment he could exert unlimited influence
over the weak mind of his master. The Court and the city
were kept in the dark till the last moment. On the eve of
Pentecost, the Chief of the Private Wardrobe waited on the
Patriarch and informed him that on the morrow he would
be required to take part in the inauguration of Basil as
Basileus and Augustus.
On Whitsunday (May 26), it was observed with surprise
that two Imperial seats were placed side by side in St. Sophia.
In the procession from the Palace, Basil walked behind the
Emperor, in the usual guise of the High Chamberlain ; but
Michael on entering the church did not remove the crown
from his head as was usual. He ascended the ambo ^
wearing the diadem, Basil stood on a lower step, and below
him Leo Kastor, a secretary, with a document in his hand,
while the Praepositus, the demarchs, and the denies stood
around. Leo then read out an Imperial declaration : " The
Caesar Bardas plotted against me to slay me, and for this reason
induced me to leave the city. If I had not been informed of
the plot by Symbatios and Basil, I should not have been alive
now. The Caesar died through his own guilt. It is my will
^ Cont. Th. 238. Descr. Amlonis, 60 sqq. (ed. Bonn,
^ There were two flights of steps up p. 51).
to the ambo, described by Paul Silent. ,
SECT. Ill THE ELEVATION OF BASIL 175
that Basil, the High Chamberlain, since he is faithful to me
and protects my sovranty and delivered me from my enemy
and has much affection for me, should be the guardian and
manager of my Empire and should be proclaimed by all as
Emperor." Then Michael gave his crown to the Patriarch,
who placed it on the holy table and recited a prayer over it.
Basil was arrayed by the eunuchs in the Imperial dress (the
divetesion and the red boots),and knelt before the Emperor. The
Patriarch then crowned Michael, and Michael crowned Basil.^
On the following day (Whitmonday) Symbatios, the
Logothete of the Course, deeply incensed at the trick that
Basil had played on him and disappointed in his hopes of
promotion to the rank of Caesar, requested Michael to confer
upon him the post of a strategos. He was made Strategos of
the Thrakesian Theme, and his friend George Peganes was
appointed Count of the Opsikian Theme.^ These two con-
spired and marched through the provinces, ravaging the crops,
declaring their allegiance to Michael and disowning Basil.
The Emperors ordered the other strategoi to suppress them,
and Nicephorus Maleinos, by distributing a flysheet, induced
their soldiers to abandon them. When Peganes was caught,
his eyes were put out and he was placed at the Milestone in
the Augusteon, with a plate in his hand, into which the
passers-by might fling alms — a form of public degradation
which gave rise to the fable that the great general Belisarius
1 The description of the coronation is Constitution of the later Roman E7n]}ire,
given by Simeon (Ootj^. G'tforf)'. 832-833). p. 16. To the ofBcial description in
This text (cp. also ed. Muralt, 744) Cer. the text of Simeon adds the fact
is in error when it is said that Photius that the crKijirTpa were lowered just
"took the crown from the Emperor's before the act of crowning (tr/c. weabv-
head and placed it on Basil's"; the rwv, ws i6o$). The skeptra, skeue,
writer meant to say, "gave it to the and banda were arrayed on both sides
Emperor," and T^SBao-tXe/y is obviously of the anibo, and the demes did obei-
an error for ry ^acnXel. The same sance to them {Cer. ih.). The corona-
mistake is found in the vers. Slav. tion of Eudocia Ingerina as Augusta
108, but Leo Gr. 246 iiviSuKev avrb must have soon followed that of Basil,
ry jSacrtXe?, and Theod. Mel. 172 as a matter of course.
diridojKev avTi^ /SatriXet are closer here ^ Simeon, ib. 833, Co7it. Th. 238,
to the original text. The ceremony 240. Hirsch (238) observes an ap-
is described in Constantine, Cer. 194 jiarent contradiction between these
TrpuTov fxev (xrecpeL 6 irarp. rbv /x^yap sources : Cont. Th. assigns the Tlirak.
jSatnX^a, elra iindidwai rt^ /xey. /JacrtXe? Theme to Symbatios, the Opsikian
t6 (TTipLfia Kal (TTi(pei 6 ^aaiXevs rbv to Peganes, "whereas according to
veoxn-poTovriTov /3a<rtX^a. The senior the other account Symbatios receives
Emperor always crowned the colleague the latter province." But kclkcIvos
whom he created, unless he were uu- Kb/x-qi tov 'Qyj/. in Simeon refers to
able to be present ; then he assigned Peganes more naturally than to
the office to the Patriarch. See Bury, Symbatios.
176 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, v
ended his days as a beggar. A month later Symhatios, who
had fled across Asia Minor, was caught in an inn in Keltzene.^
His right hand was cut off and he was blinded of one eye,^ and
placed outside the palace of Lausos in Middle Street, to beg
like his comrade. At the end of three days, the two offenders
were restored to their abodes, where they were kept under arrest.
The joint reign of Michael and Basil lasted for less than
a year and a half. Michael continued to pursue his amuse-
ments, but we may suspect that in this latest period of his
life his frivolous character underwent a change. He became
more reckless in his extravagance, more immoderate in his
cups,^ and cruel in his acts. The horror of his uncle's murder
may have cast its shadow, and Basil, for whom he had not the
same respect, was unable to exert the same kind of ascendency
as Bardas. We cannot suppose that all the essential facts of
the situation are disclosed to us in the meagre reports of our
chronicles. The following incident can only have marked the
beginning of the final stage of intensely strained relations.*
Michael held a horse-race in the Palace of St Mamas. He
drove himself as a Blue charioteer, Constantine the Armenian
drove as a White, other courtiers as Green and Eed. The
Emperor won the race, and in the evening he dined with
Basil and Eudocia Ingerina, and was complimented by the
patrician Basiliskianos ^ on his admirable driving. Michael,
delighted by his flattery, ordered him to stand up, to take the
^ Simeon, ih. 834. Keltzene is the ^ In late writers, the Emperor is
classical Akilisene, called Ekeleseue designated as Michael the Drunkard
by Procopius {B.P. i. 17) ; 'E/ceXevf^i'j'Tj, (jue^uo-rjjs), e.g. Glycas, ed. Bonn, 541,
Mansi, xi. 613 ; KeXtrf?;!'^, Nova 546. Cp. Gen. 113 oli'o<p\vylas, and
Tadica, ed. Gelzer, 78. It lies on the Cont. Th. 251-252.
left bank of the Euphrates, north of ■* Our only useful source here is
Sophene, east of Dardanalis ; its chief Simeon. Gen. and Cont. Th. slur
town was Erez, now Erzinjan, north- over the murder of Michael, and
east of Ani (Theodosiopolis). For a exonerate Basil. According to Gen.
geographical description see Adonts, 113, Basil's friends advised him to
Armeniia v epokhv, lustmiana, 48, slay Michael, but he declined, and
52 sqq. According to Co7it. Th. 240, they did the deed themselves.
Symbatios occupied the fort ttjs ® In Co7it. Th. 250, he is called
■n-Xareias irirpas ; we do not know Basilikinos, where we learn that he
where this was. Simeon, ib., states was a brother of Constantine Kap-
that when Symbatios arrived in the nogenes who was afterwards Prefect
capital, Peganes was brought to meet of the City, and that he was one of
him, holding a clay censer in his hand Michael's fellows in his religious nium-
with sulphur to fumigate him, — a nieries. According to this source
mysterious performance. (Constantine Porph. ), Michael arrayed
'^ According to Co7it. Th. 241, of him in full Imperial dress and intro-
both eyes, and according to this duced him to the Senate with some
source the nose of Peganes was slit. doggrel verses.
1
SECT. Ill
THE ELEVATION OF BASIL
177
red boots from his own feet and put them on. Basiliskianos
liesitated and looked at Basil, who signed to him not to obey.
The Emperor furiously commanded him to do as he was bidden,
and turning on Basil cried with an oath, " The boots become
him better than you. I made you Emperor, and have I not
the power to create another Emperor if I will ? " Eudocia
in tears, remonstrated : " The Imperial dignity is great, and
we, unworthy as we are, have been honoured with it. It is
not right that it should be brought into contempt." Michael
replied, " Do not fear ; I am perfectly serious ; I am ready to
make Basiliskianos Emperor." This incident seriously alarmed
Basil. Some time later when Michael was hunting, a monk
met him and gave him a paper which purposed to reveal a
plot of Basil against his life. He then began to harbour
designs against his colleague.^ He had small chance against
such an antagonist.
Basil struck the blow on Sept. 24, a.d. 867.^ Michael
had bidden him and Eudocia to dinner in the Palace of St.
Mamas. When Michael had drunk deeply, Basil made an
excuse to leave the room, and entering the Imperial bed-
chamber tampered with the bolts of the door so that it could
not be locked. He then returned to the table, and when the
Emperor became drunk as usual, he conducted him to his bed
and kissing his hand went out. The Keeper of the Private
Wardrobe, who was accustomed to sleep in the Emperor's room,
was absent on a commission,^ and Basiliskianos had been
commanded to take his place. Michael sank on his bed in
1 Cont. Th. 249 (cp. 209) asserts
an actual attempt on Basil's life in
the hunting-field.
2 lb. 210.
^ The Empress Theodora (who was
now at liberty, see above, p. 169) had
invited her son to dinner in the
liouse of Anthemios, and Michael had
ordered Rentakios, Keeper of the
Wardrobe, to kill some game to send
to his mother. Hirsch (66) has mis-
apprehended this, for he says, "Theo-
dora giebt ja im Palaste des Anthemios
jenes Gastmahl, nach welchem Michael
ermordet wird." It is clear that
Theodora's dinner was to be held on a
subsequent day ; it is mentioned by
Simeon only to account for the absence
of the Protovestiarios. Michael was
murdered in the Palace of St. Mamas.
That Theodora had been restored to
liberty, though not to power, by A.D.
866, is illustrated by the letter which
Pope Nicolas addressed to her (Nov.
866). But we can fix the resumption
of her honours as Augusta to an
earlier date, A.D. 863, for in triumphal
S.KTa in Constantine, Cer. 332, which
belong as I have shown to that year,
"the honourable Augustae " are
celebrated ; see below, p. 284, n. 4.
The house of Anthemios (ra 'AvdefjiLov)
means perhaps not a "palace," but
(as Pargoire thinks, Boradion, 474)
the monastery founded by her son-in-
law Alexios in the suburban quarter
of Anthemios (see above, p. 127).
N
178 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, v
the deep sleep of intoxication, and the chamberlain on duty,
discovering that the door could not be bolted, divined the
danger, but could not waken the Emperor.
Basil had engaged the help of eight friends, some of whom
had taken part in his first crime, the murder of Bardas.^
Accompanied by these, Basil opened the door of the bed-chamber,
and was confronted by the chamberlain, who opposed his
entrance. One of the conspirators diving under Basil's arm
rushed to the bed, but the chamberlain sprang after him and
o-ripped him. Another then wounded Basiliskianos and
hurled him on the floor, while a third, John Chaldos (who
had been prominent among the slayers of Bardas), hewed at
the sleeping Emperor with his sword, and cut off both his
hands. Basil seems to have stood at the door, while the other
accomplices kept guard outside. John Chaldos thought that
he had done enough ; he left the room, and the conspirators
consulted whether their victim should be despatched outright.
One of them ^ took it upon himself to return to the bed where
Michael was moaning out piteous imprecations against Basil,
and ripped up his body.
Through the darkness of a stormy night the assassins rowed
across the Golden Horn, landing near the house of a
Persian named Eulogies, who joined them. By breaking
through an enclosure ^ they reached a gate of the Great Palace.
Eulogios called out to his fellow-countryman Artavasdos, the
Hetaeriarch, in the Persian tongue, " Open to the Emperor, for
Michael has perished by the sword." Artavasdos rushed to the
Papias, took the keys from him by force, and opened the gate.
In the morning, Eudocia Ingerina was conducted in state
from St. Mamas to the Great Palace, to take, as reigning
1 Those who shared in both crimes Kparrja-as Bao-iXetoj dvo t&v fier avrov
were John Clialdos, Peter the Bulgarian, 6vtwv km XaKriaas /car^a^e ttjj' TrXd/ca (cat
Asylaion, Maurianos, Constantine Tox- elarj'Kdov fJ.ixp'- '''V^ 7ri/Xr;s rod waXarlov
aras, Symbatios, cousin of Asylaion. (Simeon, ib. 838). t6 relxos seems to
The other two were Bardas (father of be the wall of the Palace, round which
Symbatios) and Jakovitzes, a Persian. at this point there was a brick en-
Several of them probably belonged to closure. The palace of Marina was on
the Hetaireia or foreign guard, the the sea side of the Great Palace (since
captain of which, Artavasdos, may it was in the First Region, cp. Ducange,
have been initiated in the plot. Const. Chr. ii. p. 113), but we do not
2 Asylaion. know whether it was north of the
^ From the house of Eulogios they Bucoleon, and therefore we have no
reached the palace of Marina. irXa^ means of conjecturing at what gate
M J)v Trepi<ppd.cy<rov(ra to re'ixo^ /cat Basil found Artavasdos.
SECT. Ill THE MURDER OF MICHAEL 179
Augusta, the place of the other Eudocia, who was restored to
her parents. A chamberlain was sent to provide for the
burial of the late Emperor. He found the corpse rolled up in
a horsecloth, and the Empress Theodora, with her daughters,
weeping over her son. He was buried in a monastery at
Chrysopolis, on the Asiatic shore.
Such is the recorded story of the final act which raised
Basil the Macedonian to supreme power. It is probably
correct in its main details, but it not only leaves out some of
the subordinate elements in the situation, such as the attitude
of Eudocia — was she in the secret ? — but fails to make it clear
whether Basil was driven to the assassination of his benefactor
by what he conceived to be a political necessity, or was
prompted merely by the vulgar motive of ambition. No plea
could be set up for the murder of Bardas on the ground of the
public good, but the murder of Michael is a different case.
The actual government had devolved on Basil, who was equal
to the task ; but if the follies and caprices of Michael, who
was the autocrat, thwarted his subordinate colleague, the
situation might have become well-nigh impossible. If we
could trust the partial narrative of Basil's Imperial grandson,
who is concerned not only to exonerate his ancestor, but to
make out a case to justify the revolution, Michael had become
an intolerable tyrant.-^ In his fits of drunkenness he issued
atrocious orders for the execution and torture of innocent men,
— orders which he had forgotten the next day. In order to
raise money, he began to make depredations on churches and
religious houses, and to confiscate the property of rich people.
There was nothinsf for it but to kill him like a noxious snake.
" Therefore the most reputable of the ministers and the wise
section of the Senate took counsel together, and caused him to
be slain by the Palace guard." Allowing for some exaggeration
and bias in this picture of the situation, we may be right in
believing that Michael had become unmanageable and mis-
chievous, and that it was to the general advantage to sup-
press him. The vigorous reign of Basil proves that he was
deeply interested in the efficiency of the government. It is not
our business either to justify or to condemn the murder of
Michael III. ; we are only concerned to understand it.
1 Cont. Th. 251-252, 254.
CHArTEE VI
PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS
Under the rule of the iconoclasts, the differences which divided
the " orthodox " had been sufitered to slumber ; but the defeat
of the common enemy was the signal for the renewal of a
conflict which had disturbed the peace of the Church under
Irene and Nicephorus. The two parties, which had suspended
their feud, now again stood face to face.
The fundamental principle of the State Church founded by i
Constantine was the supremacy of the Emperor ; the Patriarch
and the whole hierarchy were subject to him ; he not only
protected, he governed the Church. The smooth working of
this system demanded from churchmen a spirit of compromise
and " economy." It might often be difficult for a Patriarch to
decide at what point his religious duty forbade him to comply
with the Emperor's will ; and it is evident that Patriarchs, like
Tarasius and Nicephorus, who had served the State in secular
posts, were more likely to work discreetly and harmoniously
under the given conditions than men who had been brought
up in cloisters. We saw how the monks of Studion organized
an opposition to these Patriarchs, whom they denounced for
sacrificing canonical rules to expediency. The abbot Theodore
desired to subvert the established system. He held that the
Emperor was merely the protector of the Church, and that
the Church was independent. He affirmed, moreover, the
supremacy of the Eoman See in terms which no Emperor and
few, if any. Patriarchs would have endorsed. But by their
theory, which they boldly put into practice, the Studites were
undermining Patriarchal and episcopal authority. They
asserted the right of monks to pass an independent judgment
180
CHAP. VI PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 181
on the administration of their bishop, and, in case his
actions did not meet with their approval, to refuse to com-
municate with him. A movement of independence or in-
subordination, which was likely to generate schisms, was
initiated, and the activity and influence of Theodore must
have disseminated his views far beyond the limits of his own
community.
Thus there arose two antagonistic sections, of which one
approved more or less the doctrines of Theodore of Studion,
while the other upheld Patriarchal authority and regarded
Nicephorus as an ideal Patriarch. One insisted on the strictest
observation of ecclesiastical canons and denounced the sudden
elevations of Nicephorus and Tarasius from the condition of
laymen to the episcopal office ; the other condoned such
irregularities which special circumstances commended to the
Imperial wisdom. One declined to allow any relaxation of
canonical rules in favour of the Emperor ; the other was
prepared to permit him considerable limits of dispensation.
There were, in fact, two opposite opinions as to the spirit and
method of ecclesiastical administration, corresponding to two
different types of ecclesiastic. Both sides included monks ;
and it would not be true to say that the monks generally
rallied to the section of the Studites. There were many
abbots and many hermits v/ho disliked the Studite ideal of a
rigorous, disciplinary regulation of ihonastic life, and many
who, like Theophanes of Sigriane, were satisfied with the
State Church and had no sympathy with the aggressive policy
of Theodore and his fellows.
Methodius had always been an ecclesiastic, and the Studites
could not reproach him for any irregularity in his consecration
as bishop. He had been a martyr in the cause of image-
worship, and he had effectively assisted in its triumph. But
his promotion to the Patriarchate was not pleasing to the
Studite monks. His sympathies were with the other party,
and he was prepared to carry on the tradition of Tarasius and
jSTicephorus. We can well understand that his intimacy with
the Emperor Theophilus, with whom he agreed to differ on the
iconoclastic question, was far from commending him to the
stricter brethren. The Studites were prepared to be critical,
and from the very beginning his administration was the subject
182 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vi
of adverse comment or censure.^ He desired to conciliate them,
and the bones of their revered abbot Theodore were brought
back for interment at Studion, with great solemnity. But the
satisfaction of the monks at this public honour to their abbot
was mitigated, if it was not cancelled, by the translation, at
the same time, of the remains of Nicephorus to the Church of
the Apostles.^ They recalled his uncanonical consecration, they
recalled his condonation of " adultery." But if he could not
conciliate them, the Patriarch was determined to crush their
rebellious spirit. He called upon them to anathematize all
that Theodore had written against Tarasius and Nicephorus,
and he urged that Theodore had himself practically revoked
his own strong language, had been reconciled with Nicephorus,
and in fact changed his opinion. But the Studites obstinately
refused, and Methodius asserted his Patriarchal authority.
" You are monks," he said, " and you have no right to question
the conduct of your bishops ; you must submit to them." ^ He
pronounced against the rebellious brethren not the simple
anathema, but the curse, the katathema, of the Church. The
struggle seems to have ended with concessions on the part of
the Patriarch.*
The difficulties which troubled the short administration of
Methodius ^ possess a significant bearing on the more serious
ecclesiastical strife which marked the reign of his successor,
and which led, indirectly, to the great schism between the
Eastern and the Western Churches. The two opposing parties
of Ignatius and Photius represent the same parties which dis-
tracted the Patriarchate of Methodius, and the struggle is thus a
1 Methodius was blamed especially ^ Dobschiitz, 47.
for too indulgent treatment of re- ^ His difficulties are illustrated by
pentant iconoclasts, and for ordaining a despondent letter which he wrote
new bishops and priests without a to the Patriarch of Jerusalem (see
sufficient investigation of their quali- Bibliography). He expresses his dis-
lications. For the disputes see Vita appointment at the unbecoming and
Joannicii, c. 51, 52, 57, and Vita insolent conduct of the repentant
Methodii, 257-260. They are discussed iconoclastic clergy. His Patriarchate
byUspenski, Oc^cr^-^■, 83s2'g'.;Lebedev, Avas also troubled by the heresy of
Istoriia, 17-19 ; • Hergenrother, i. 352 Zelix, or Lizikos, an Imperial secretary
sqq. ; but best by Dobschiitz, Meth. u. (Gen. 85 ; Vita Method. 282), who con-
die Stud. sidered Jesus Christ to be a creature
2 See Theophanes, De exsilio Nice- {KTiaixa), refused the title of Theotokos
iihori ; Methodius, Ad Studitas, 1293- to the Virgin, and rejected the vivi-
98 (and the Synodica in Pitra, Jur. ficous cross. These dangerous opinions
ecc. Gr. 2, 361); Dobschiitz, ^2 sqq. were suppressed, and Zelix and his
3 Narratio de Tar, et Nicepli. 1853. followers reconciled to orthodoxy.
CHAP. VI PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 183
continuation of the same division which had vexed Tarasius
; and Nicephor us, although the immediate and superficial issues are
different/ When we apprehend this continuity, we are able to
see that the particular question which determined the course
of the conflict between Photius and Ignatius only rendered
acute an antagonism which had existed for more than half a
century.^
Methodius seems to have availed himself of the most
popular kind of literature, edifying biographies of holy men,
for the purpose of his struggle with the Studites. Under
his auspices, Ignatius the Deacon composed the Lives of
Tarasius and Nicephorus, in which the troubles connected
with the opposition of Studion are diligently ignored. The
ecclesiastical conflicts of the period are, indeed, reflected, more
by hints and reticences than direct statements, in the copious
hagiographical productions of the ninth century,^ to which
reference is frequently made in this volume.
On the death of Methodius, the Empress Theodora and
her advisers chose his successor from among three monks of
illustrious birth, each of whom, if fortune had been kind,
might have worn the Imperial crown. Nicetas, a son of the
Emperor Michael I., had been tonsured after his father's death,
had taken the name of Ignatius, and had founded new
monasteries in the Islands of the Princes, over which he
presided as abbot.'* Here he and his family, who had not
been despoiled of their wealth, afforded refuge to image-
worshippers who were driven from the capital. The sons of
^ Hergenrother (i. 353) saw that relating to the period are fully re-
there was a connexion between the viewed from this point of view. For
quarrels which vexed Methodius and the dating of the Lives by Ignatius to
those which troubled his successor. A.D. 843-845, see his remarks p. 54.
The continuity of the parties has been Ignatius also wrote a Life of Gregory
worked out by Uspenski, oj;. cit. 81 Dekapolites, which exists in MS.,
sqq., and more fully by Lebedev, of, but has not been printed.
cit. § 1. 4 Nicetas, Vita Ign. 217, Plate,
^ It is noteworthy that Methodius Hyatros and Terebinthos. Hyatros
was a Sicilian, and that a Sicilian — (or latros) is nowcalledNiandro, a tiny
Gregory Asbestas — was to play a lead- islet south of Prinkipo. Terebinthos
ing part in the opposition to Ignatius. is Anderovithos, about two miles to
For at an earlier period we find traces the east of Prinkipo. See Pargoire,
of antagonism between Sicilian monks Les Monasteres de S. Ignace, 62 sqq.
and the Studites (Michael, F^i<a T/;co()?. He has shown that the monastery of
312 ; cp. Uspenski, op. cit. 81-82). Satyros, dedicated by Ignatius, on
^ See the illuminating article of v. the opposite coast (see above, p. 133),
Dobschiitz (referred to in the preced- to the Archangel Michael, was not
ing notes), where the hagiographies founded till a.d. 873.
184
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. VI
the Emperor Leo V., to whom the family of Ignatius owed its
downfall, had been cast into a monastery in the island of Prote ;
they renounced the errors of their father, and won a high
reputation for virtue and piety. When the Patriarchal throne
became vacant, these monks of Imperial parentage, Basil and
Gregory, the sons of Leo, and Ignatius, the son of Michael,
were proposed for election.^ Ignatius was preferred, perhaps
because it was felt that notwithstanding their own merits the
shadow of their father 
