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's heresy rested upon the sons of Leo ;
and he was consecrated on July 4, a.d. 847,^
Ignatius had spent his life in pious devotion and monastic
organization. Tonsured at the age of thirteen or fourteen, he
had made no progress in secular learning, which he distrusted
and disliked. He was not a man of the world like Methodius ;
he had the rigid notions which were bred in cloistral life and
were calculated to lead himself and the Church into difficulties
when they were pursued in the Patriarchal palace. It is
probable that he was too much engaged in his own work to
have taken any part in the disputes which troubled Methodius,
and Theodora may have hoped that he would succeed in con-
ciliating the opposing parties.^ But he was by nature an
anti-Methodian, and he showed this on the very day of his
consecration.
Gregory Asbestas, the archbishop of Syracuse, happened
to be in Constantinople at the time. A Sicilian, he was a
friend of the Sicilian Methodius, on whom he composed a
panegyric, and he was a man of some learning. There was a
charge against him of some ecclesiastical irregularity,* and it
was probably in connexion with this that he had come to the
capital. He had taken his place among the bishops who
attended in St. Sophia, bearing tapers, to acclaim the Patriarch,
and Ignatius ordered him to withdraw, on the ground that his
episcopal status was in abeyance until the charge which lay
1 Gen. 99.
2 Methodius died June 14, 847
( Vita Joannic. by Simeon Met. 92 ;
Menol. Bas., sioh die, p. 500, where he
is said to have been Patriarch for four
years three months).
* It is said that Ignatius was re-
commended to the Empress by the
hermit Joannikios {Vita Ignatii, 221).
As .Toannikios had been a strong sup-
porter of Methodius, it is probable
that Ignatius liad taken no part in
the opposition to JMethodius.
■^ According to Pseudo-Simeon, 671,
lie had irregularly consecrated Zacha-
rias — a priest whom Methodius had
sent to Rome — bishop (of Tauro-
menium). This author erroneously
states that Gregory was deposed by
Methodius.
THAP. VI PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 185
against him had been decided. This public slight enraged
Gregory, who dashed his candle to the ground and loudly
declared that not a shepherd but a wolf had intruded into the
Church. The new Patriarch certainly displayed neither the
wisdom of a serpent nor the harmlessness of a dove, and his
own adherents admit that he was generally blamed.^ He had
thus at the very outset taken pains to offend an able and
eminent prelate of the party which had supported Methodius,
and the action was interpreted as a declaration of war. The
result was a schism. Gregory had many sympathizers ; some
Ijishops had marked their disapprobation of the action of
Ignatius by leaving the church in his company.^ A schism-
atic group was formed which refused to acknowledge the new
Patriarch — a group which expressed the general tendencies of
the Methodian party and avowed an unreserved admiration for
Methodius. But it was only a small group. The hierarchy
in general supported Ignatius, as it had supported Methodius ;
for Ignatius was supported by Theodora.^ Nevertheless the
followers of Gregory, though comparatively few, were influential.
They alleged against the Patriarch that he was a detractor from
tlie merits and memory of his predecessor, and that he was
unduly rigorous and narrow in his application of the canons.
Ignatius summoned Gregory to answer the charge which still
hung over his head ; Gregory declined, and, along with others
of his party, was condemned by a synod.^ He appealed against
this judgment to Pope Leo IV., who asked the Patriarch to
send him a copy of the Acts. Ignatius did not comply, and
Leo's successor, Benedict III., declined to confirm the deposition
of Gregory, and contented himself with suspending him until
he had inspected the documents.^
^ Vita Ign. 232 ov /caXws tiiv, ws ye we must accept the continuity of the
SoKovv Tois TToXXois. party with this limitation.
* Stylianos, Ep. 428 ; Mansi, xiv.
lb. Especially Peter, bishop of io29-32. The synod was held not
Sardis, and Eulampios, bishop of later than 854, for Leo IV. died in 855.
-^Pa^ea- s stylianos, loc. cit. ; Nicolaus, Ep.
* Lebedev seems, in his exposition 9. For the fragment of a letter of
of the continuity of the two parties, Leo IV. to Ignatius, complaining that
to have missed the importance of the Patriarch had deposed certain men
Theodora's attitude. On their own without his knowledge or consent,
principles, the Methodians were bound see Ewald, " Die Papstbriefe der brit-
to support the new Patriarch, so long tischen Sammlung," in JVcues ArcMv,
as he was orthodox and was upheld v. 379 (1879). The persons in ques-
by the Emperor. The greater num- tion are undoubtedly Gregory and his
ber probably adhered to Ignatius, and fellows.
186 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vi
The schism of Gregory might be allowed to rest in the
obscurity of ecclesiastical records if it had not won distinction
and importance by the adhesion of the most remarkable man
of the age. Photius was probably born about the beginning
of the ninth century. His father, Sergius/ was a brother of
the Patriarch Tarasius,^ and through his mother he was
connected with the family of the Empress Theodora.^ His
parents suffered exile for their devotion to image-worship
under the iconoclastic sovrans,'* and it was probably in the
first years of Theodora's reign that Photius entered upon his
career as a public teacher of philosophy. He had an
attractive personality, he was a stimulating teacher, and he
soon found a band of disciples who hung upon his words.
His encyclopaedic learning, in which he not only excelled
all the men of his own time but was unequalled by any Greek
of the Middle Ages, will call for notice in another chapter.
His family connexions as well as his talents opened a career
in the Imperial service ; and he was ultimately appointed to
the high post of Protoasecretis, or First Secretary, with the rank
of a protospathar.^ It was probably during his tenure of this
important post that he was sent as ambassador to the East,
perhaps to Baghdad itself, perhaps only to some of the
provincial emirs.^ Whatever his services as an envoy may
have been, he established personal relations of friendship with
Mohammadan magnates."
Photius had a high respect for Gregory Asbestas, and
identified himself closely with the group which opposed
^ Pseudo-Simeon, 668. His brothers 800. See Papadopulos-Kerameus, 6
were named Sergius and Tarasius. Trarpidpxv^ Vibrios <hs irarTip dyios ttJs
2 Photius, 1:2). 113 BeTov 7)ixiT€pov ; "E,KK\7)aia%, p. 658 in B.Z. viii. (1909)-
Ep. 2 Tov rnxirepov irarpSdeioi'. Hergenrother's date for his birth is
3 See above, p. 156. ^^l fe 315-316).
" liie date is unknown. Hergen-
^ Photius, Ep. 113, Ep. 234 (ad rother says ".probably under Theoktis-
Tarasium fratrem), Ep. 2 (Inthronist. tus " (i. 340). Heigenrother has the
ad episc. orient.), p. 145. Cp. Acta curious idea that protospatharios
Cone. viii. 460 to^tov /cat TraxTjp means " captain of the Imperial body-
Kai firiTTip vw^p evcre^eias dOXovvres guard" (i&.).
ivaTTidavov. These passages show « See the Dedication of the
that they died in exile. Photius PAUiotheca, irpeff^eiJeLv 7]f^as ^ir'
himself was anathematized by the 'Aa-avplovs aipedevras.
same iconoclastic synod which ^ Cp. Mansi, xvii. 484. Nicolaus
anathematized his father {Ep. 164), Mysticus, Ep. 2;(Migne, cxi.), writing
and this was probably the synod of to the Emir of Crete, says that
A.D. 815. If so we cannot place the Photius was a friend of the Emir's
birth of Photius much later than father (p. 7).
CHAP. VI PHQTIUS AND IGNATIUS 187
Ignatius.^ There was a natural antipathy between Photius,
a man of learning and a man of the world, and Ignatius, who
had neither tact nor secular erudition. It is probable that
the Patriarcli even displayed in some public way his dislike
or disdain for profane learning." We can well understand
that he was deeply vexed by the opposition of a man whose
talents and learning were unreservedly recognized by his
contemporaries, and who exerted immense influence in the
educated society of the city. The synod, which condemned
Gregory, seems to have also condemned Photius, implicitly if
not by name ; and he was numbered among the schismatics.^
In order to embarrass the Patriarch, and to prove that a
training in logic and philosophy was indispensable for defend-
ing Christian doctrine and refuting false opinions, Photius
conceived the idea of propounding a heresy. He promulgated
the thesis that there are two souls in man, one liable to err,
tlie other immune from error.^ Some took this seriously and
were convinced by his ingenious arguments, to the everlasting
peril of their souls. His friend, Constantine the Philosopher,
who was afterwards to become famous as the Apostle of the
Slavs, reproached Photius with propounding this dangerous
proposition. " I had no idea," said Photius, " that it would
do any harm. I only wanted to see how Ignatius would deal
with it, without the aid of the philosophy which he rejects."
The Palace revolution which resulted in the fall of
Theodora and placed the government in the hands of Bardas
changed the ecclesiastical situation. Whatever difficulties
Ijeset Ignatius in a post which he was not well qualified to
fill, whatever vexation might be caused to him through the
active or passive resistance of his opponents, he was secure so
long as the Empress was in power. But Bardas was a friend
and admirer of Photius, and the Ignatian party must have
felt his access to power as a severe blow. Bardas, however,
was a sufficiently prudent statesman to have no desire
wantonly to disturb the existing state of things, or to stir up
^ Nicolaiis, E-p, 11. p. 163 ; Styli- ■* Anastasius, Fracf. 6 ; cp. Pseudo-
anos, Sp. 428 ; Pseudo-Simeon, 671. Simeon, 673 ; Mansi, xvi. 456. Cp.
o . . T, ^ ^ <<••!• i Herffenrother, iii. 444-446. The
Anastasius, Fracf. 6 qui scilicet doctrine had such a vogue that the
viros exterions sapientiae repuhsset. fathers of the Eiglitli Council thought
^ Lihellus Ignatii, 300 ; Metro- it expedient to condemn it (canon x.,
phanes, Ep. 415. Mansi, ih. 404).
^
188 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vi
a serious ecclesiastical controversy. If Ignatius had behaved
with discretion and reconciled himself to a regime which
personally he disliked, it is not probable that the sympathies
of Bardas with the Photian party would have induced him to
take any measure against the Patriarch.
Ignatius found in the private morals of the powerful
njinister a weak spot for attack. According to the rumour
of the town, Bardas was in love with his daughter-in-law,
and had for her sake abandoned his wife.^ Acting on this
gossip, the Patriarch admonished Bardas, who declined to take
any notice of his rebukes and exhortations." We may suspect
that he refused to admit that the accusation was true — it
would perhaps have been difficult to prove — and recommended
Ignatius to mind his own business. But Ignatius was
determined to show that he was the shepherd of his flock,
and that he was no respecter of persons. On the feast of
Epiphany (Jan. a.d. 858) he refused the communion to the
sinner. It is said that Bardas, furious at this public insult,
drew his sword; but he managed to control his anger and
vowed vengeance on the bold priest.
The ecclesiastical historians speak with warm approbation,
of this action of the Patriarch. The same prelate, who
adopted such a strong measure to punish the vices of Bardas,^
had no scruples, afterwards, in communicating with the
Emperor Basil, who had ascended to power by two successive
murders. And the ecclesiastical historians seem to regard
the Patriarch's action, in ignoring Basil's crimes and virtually
taking advantage of them to reascend the Patriarchal throne,
as perfectly irreproachable. The historian who is not an
.ecclesiastic may be allowed to express his respectful interest
in the ethical standards which are implied.
About eight months later the Emperor Michael decided
to tonsure his mother and sisters and immure them in the
monastery of Karianos. He requested the Patriarch to perform
the ceremony of the tonsure, and we have already seen that
1 Simeon (CoMi. Oeorg.)m^; Anas- ^t^mt/j/ i\e€iv. Cp. Lebedev, Istoriia,
tasius, Praef. ; Gen. 99 ; Vita Ign. 23-24.
^24. 3 ifjjg expressions which Hergen-
^ Libellus IgrMtii, 296 ; Vita Ign., ib. rother (369) applies to Bardas " ein
ws dva iraffav T7]i> ttSXiv Tr€pi^o/j.^7idr}vaf wolliistiger Hofling," "der machtige
Kal ovK &xpi. TU)v TroWQv /j.6vov aX\a Kal Wiistling," are extraordinarily in-
w^XP's aiiTov Tod apxiep^m ttjv irov-qpav felicitous.
CHAP. VI PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 189
Ignatius refused on the ground that the ladies themselves
were unwilling.^ Bardas persuaded the Emperor that his
disobedience, in conjunction with his unconcealed sympathy
with the Empress, was a sign of treasonable purposes, and a
pretended discovery was made that he was in collusion with
an epileptic impostor, named Gebeon, who professed to be the
son of the Empress Theodora by a former marriage. Gebeon
had come from Dyrrhachium to Constantinople, where he
I seduced some foolish people ; he was arrested and cruelly
executed in one of the Prince's Islands.^ On the same day the
Patriarch was seized as an accomplice, and removed, without a
trial, to the island of Terebinthos (Nov. 23).
It is evident that there were no proofs against Ignatius,
and that the charge of treason was merely a device of
the government for the immediate purpose of removing him.
For in the subsequent transactions this charge seems to
have been silently dropped ; and if there had been any
plausible grounds, there would have been some sort of formal
trial. Moreover, it would appear that before his arrest it was
intimated to the Patriarch that he could avoid all trouble by
abdication, and he would have been tempted to yield if his
bishops had not assured him that they would loyally stand
by him.^ Before his arrest he issued a solemn injunction
that no service should be performed in St. Sophia without his
consent.* A modern ecclesiastical historian, who has no high
opinion of Ignatius, cites this action as a proof that he was
ready to prefer his own personal interests to the good of the
Church,^
In the place of his banishment Ignatius was visited
repeatedly by bishops and Imperial ministers pressing on him
the expediency of voluntary abdication. As he refused to
listen to arguments, threats were tried, but with no result.^
The Emperor and Bardas therefore decided to procure the
election of a new Patriarch, though the chair was not de iure
1 Lihellus Ignatii, 296. Anastasius ^ Vita Ign., ib. Bardas called
{Praef. 2) and the Vita Ign. (224) add Ignatius " Gebobasileutos."
that he alleged the oath which he had ^ De Stait,ro2udis, 441.
taken, at his elevation, that he would ■* Anastasius, Praef. , ib.
never engage in a plot against Michael ■'' Lebedev, op. cit. 25.
and Theodora (t'^s jSacriXeias vfMwv). " Vita Ign. 226. Physical violence
Such an oath was apparently required was not employed at this stage (as the
from every Patriarch (secundum narrative in the Fi^a shows) ; Hergen-
morem, Anastas. ). rother is wrong here (373-374),
190 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vi
vacant, inasmuch as Ignatius had neither resigned nor been
canonically deposed. Such a procedure was not an innova-
tion ; there were several precedents.^ The choice of the
government and the ecclesiastical party which was opposed to
Ignatius fell upon Photius. He was not only a grata persona
at Court ; but his extraordinary gifts, his eminent reputation,
along with his unimpeachable orthodoxy, were calculated to
shed prestige on the Patriarchal chair, and to reconcile the
public to a policy which seemed open to the reproaches of
violence and injustice. Many of the bishops who had vowed
to support the cause of Ignatius were won over by Bardas, and
Photius accepted the high office, which, according to his
enemies, had long been the goal of his ambition, and which,
according to his own avowal, he would have been only too
glad to decline,^ He was tonsured on December 20 ; on the
four following days he was successively ordained lector, sub-
deacon, deacon, and priest, and on Christmas Day consecrated
bishop, by his friend Gregory Asbestas.^ For this rapid and
irregular elevation to the highest dignity of the Church,
which was one of the principal objections urged against
Photius, the recent precedents of his uncle Tarasius and
Nicephorus, as well as others, could be alleged. The ambiguous
position of Gregory, who had been deposed by a synod and
suspended by a Pope, furnished another handle against the
new Patriarch. But all the bishops who were present in
Constantinople, except five, acknowledged him,* and the five
dissentients were persuaded to acquiesce when he gave them a
written undertaking that he would honour Ignatius as a father
and act according to his wishes.^ But two months later
1 E.g. Arsacius, Atticus, Macedonius Metrophanes {loc. cit.), who was one of
II., etc. Cp. Hergenrother, i. 377. the five, saysl: " When we saw that the
2 He dwells on his reluctance to mass of the bishops had been seduced
accept the post in some of his letters ; we thought it right to acknowledge
cp. Ep. 159 ad Bardam. him in writing (5t' ibioxe'i-pov 6/j.o\oyias)
' Vita Ign. 232. as a son of our Church and in com-
^ From Metrophanes, Ep. 416, it munion with its High Priest (Ignatius),
would appear that the formality of in order that even here we might not
election by the bishops was not ob- be found in disagreement with his will ;
served ; that, after the consecration of for he (Ignatius) had directed us to
Photius, the bishops met and nomi- elect a Patriarch from our Church in
nated three candidates, of whom Christ. So when Photius signed in
Photius was not one ; but that all our presence a promise that he would
except five then went over to the hold the Patriarch free from blame
Photian side. and neither speak against him nor
^ Libellus Ign. 300 ; Vita Ign. 233. permit others to do so, we accepted
I HAP. VI
PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS
191
lie is said to have recovered the document on some pretext
and torn it up into small pieces. Then those bishops who were
really on the side of Ignatius, and had unwillingly consented
to an impossible compromise, held a series of meetings in the
church of St. Irene, and deposed and excommunicated Photius
with his adherents.^ Such an irregular assembly could not
claim the authority of a synod, but it was a declaration of
WAX. Photius immediately retorted by holding a synod in the
Holy Apostles. Ignatius, in his absence, was deposed and
anathematized ; and the opportunity was probably used to
declare Gregory Asbestas absolved from those charges which
had led to his condemnation by the ex-Patriarch (spring
A.D. 859).2
In the meantime Bardas persistently endeavoured to force
Ignatius to an act of abdication. He was moved from place
to place and treated with cruel rigour.^ His followers were
liiiwillingly, on account of the violence
of the government." It appears from
this that Ignatius, though he refused
to abdicate, would have been prepared
to do so if another than Photius had
been his successor. It is to be observed
that while the Lih. Ign. and the Vita
Ljit,. assert that Ignatius declined
throughout to abdicate, Basil, arch-
liishop of Thessalonica, a younger
contemporary of Photius, in his Vita
Eiithym. jun. 178 states that he,
p irtly voluntarily, partly under com-
pulsion, executed an act of abdication
{jii^Xlov TrapaLTrjffews rfj 'EKKKrjaiq,
irapadidioffL). Cp. Papadopulos-Kera-
nieus, 6 Trarp. (^dortos (cited above),
6.'i9-660 ; P.-K. accepts this statement.
The evidence is certainly remarkable,
but Basil, though he speaks sym-
]iathetically of Ignatius, is an ardent
adinii-er of Photius ; cp. ib. 179.
^ Metrophanes, ib. The meeting
lasted forty days.
■^ The chronology is uncertain, and
tliure is a discrepancy between Metro-
]ilianes and Vita Ign. According to
i lie latter source Ignatius was removed
io Mytilene in August (859), and was
t here when the sjmod in the Holy
Ajiostles washeld ; the other assembly
in St. Irene is not mentioned. Metro-
]ihanes implies that the two synods
Wire almost contemporary, and that
the persecution of Ignatius, prior to
his deportation to Mytilene, was sub-
sequent to the synod which deposed
him. He evidently places the synods
in the spring, for he connects the de-
position of Ignatius with the recovery
of the signed document of Photius
(8s /xerd /3pax(' Kai to liStov d^elXero
X^ipb-ypcKpov Kal KadeiKev 'lyvAriov).
As Metrophanes was himself an actor
in these transactions, and was incar-
cerated with Ignatius in the Numera,
he is the better authority. It was, no
doubt, hoped to extract an abdication
from Ignatius without deposing him,
but the assembly of St. Irene forced the
hand of Photius. It was, however, no
less desirable after the synod to procure
an abdication in view of public opinion.
^ He was removed from Terebinthos
to Hieria (where he was kept in a
goat-fold), then to the suburb of
Promotos (on the Galata side of the
Golden Horn ; see Pargoire, Boradion,
482-483), where he was beaten by
Leo Lalakon, the Domestic of the
Numeri (who knocked out two of his
teeth), and loaded with heavy irons.
Then he was shut up in the prison of
the Numera, near the Palace, till he
was taken to Mytilene, where he
remained six months (c. August 859 to
February 860). He was then permitted
to return to Terebinthos, and he is
said to have suffered ill-treatment from
Nicetas Ooryphas, who was Prefect of
the City (see above. Chapter IV. p. 144,
note). But a worse thing happened.
192 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vi
barbarously punished. The writers of the Ignatian party-
accuse Photius of having prompted these acts of tyranny, but
letters of Photius himself to Bardas, bitterly protesting against
the cruelties, show that he did not approve this policy of
violence,^ which indeed only served to increase his own
unpopularity. The populace of the city seems to have been
in favour of Ignatius, who had also sympathizers among the
Imperial ministers, such as Constantine the Drungarios of the
Watch. The monks, from whose rank he had risen, generally
supported him ; the Studites refused to communicate with the
new Patriarch, and their abbot Nicolas left Constantinople.^
Photius, as is shown by his correspondence, took great pains
to win the goodwill of individual monks and others by flattery
and delicate attentions.^
The announcement of the enthronement of a new Patriarch,
which it was the custom to send to the other four Patriarchal
Sees — Eome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem — had been
postponed, evidently in the hope that Ignatius would be
induced to abdicate. When more than a year had passed and
this hope was not fulfilled, the formal announcement could no
longer be deferred. An inthronistic letter was addressed to
the Eastern Patriarchs,* and an embassy was sent to Eome
bearing letters to the Pope from Michael and Photius. The
chair of St. Peter was now filled by Nicolas I., who stands out
among the Pontiffs between Gregory I. and Gregory VII, as
having done more than any other to raise the Papal power to
the place which it was to hold in the days of Innocent III.^
Terebinthos, like the other islands in dom on the accession of Basil. In the
the neighbourhood of the capital, was meantime a succession of unwelcome
exposed to the Russian invasion of abbots had been imj^osed on Studion.
this year (see below, p. 419). The See Vita Nicolai Stiid. 909 sqq.
enemy despoiled the monastery of ^ See the correspondence of Photius.
Ignatius, seized and slew twenty-two The material is collected in Hergen-
of his household ( Vita Ign. 233 sqq. ). rotlier, i. 396 sqq. One abbot at least
Ignatius himself {Libellus Ign., ad left his monastery to avoid the conflict,
init.) mentions his sufferings from Cp. Vita Euthym. j^m. 179.
cold, insufficient clothing, hunger, ^ The Patriarcliate of Antioch was
stripes, chains. at this moment vacant, and the com-
' See Photius, Ep. 159. munication is addressed to the
^ Nicolas of Crete had succeeded oekonomos and synkellos (^5. 2, ed.
Naukratios as abbot in 848. He re- Val.). Its tenor corresponds to the
mained seven years in exile, first at letter to the Pope.
Praenete in Bithynia, then in the ^ He was elected in April 858.
Chersonese, whence (865-866) he was Regino, Chron., s.a. 868, says of
brought in chains to Constantinople him : " regibus ac tyrannis imperavit
and incarcerated in his own monastery eisque ac si dominus orbis ten'arum
for two years. He obtained his free- auctoritate praefuit."
CHAP. VI PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 193
'A man of deeds rather than of words, as one of his admirers
says, he was inspired with the idea of the universal authority
of the Eoman See. The internal troubles in the Carolingian
realm enabled him to assert successfully the Papal pretensions
in the West ; the schism at Constantinople gave him a
welcome opportunity of pressing his claims upon the East.
But in Photius he found an antagonist, not only incomparably
more learned than himself, but equally determined, energetic,
and resourceful.
The letter of Photius to the Pope was a masterpiece of
diplomacy.^ He enlarged on his reluctance to undertake the
burdens of the episcopal of&ce, whicli was pressed upon him
by the Emperor and the clergy with such insistency that he
had no alternative but to accept it. He then — in accordance
with the usual custom in such inthronistic letters — made a
precise statement of the articles of his religion and declared
his firm belief in the seven Ecumenical Councils. He concluded
by asking the Pope, not for any support or assistance, but
simply for his prayers. He abstained from saying anything
against his predecessor. But the letter which was sent in the
Emperor's name ^ gave a garbled account of the vacation of the
Patriarchal throne, and requested the Pope to send legates to
attend a synod which should decide some questions relating to
the iconoclastic heresy. Neither the Patriarch nor the Emperor
iinvited the Pope even to express an opinion on recent events,
but Nicolas resolved to seize the occasion and assert a juris-
diction which, if it had been accepted, would have annulled
I the independence of the Church of Constantinople. He
despatched two bishops, with instructions to investigate the
facts in connexion with the deposition of Ignatius, and to
make a report.^ He committed to them letters (dated
1 Ep. 1. three bishops, who bore gifts from the
2 This letter is not preserved, but Emperor : a gold paten with precious
we know its tenor from the reply of stones {alhis, iwasinis et hyacinthinis) ;
Nicolas. It was said of Ignatius that a gold chalice from which gems hung
he had withdrawn from the duties of by golden threads ; a gold shield in-
his office voluntarily and had been laid with gems ; a gold-embroidered
deposed by a council, and it was robe with trees, roses, and sacred
suggested that he had neglected scenes, etc. {Vita Nicolai Pajme, 147).
(spreverU) his flock and contemned the The envoys reached Rome in summer
decrees of Popes Leo and Benedict 860 and were received in audience in
(Nicol. Ep. 2). The letters were jjre- S. Maria Maggiore.
sented by an embassy consisting of ^ The legates were Rodoaldus of
Arsaber, an Imperial spatharios, and Porto and Zacharias of Anagni. The
194 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vi
September 25, 860) to the Emperor and to Photius. These
letters have considerable interest as a specimen of Papal
diplomacy. The communication to the Emperor opens with
the assertion of the primacy of the Eoman See and of the
principle that no ecclesiastical difficulty should be decided in
Christendom^ without the consent of the Eoman Pontiff; it
goes on to point out that this principle has been violated by
the deposition of Ignatius, and that the office has been
aggravated by the election of a layman — an election which
" our holy Eoman Church " has always prohibited. On these
grounds the Pope announces that he cannot give his apostolic
consent to the consecration of Photius until his messengers
have reported the facts of the case and have examined
Ignatius. He then proceeds to reply to that part of the
Emperor's letter which concerned the question of image-
worship. The document concludes with the suggestion that
Michael should show his devotion to the interests of the
Church by restoring to the Eoman See the vicariate of
Thessalonica and the patrimonies of Calabria and Sicily, which
had been withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Pope by
Leo III. The short letter to Photius censures the temerity
of his elevation and declines to acknowledge his consecration,
unless the Papal messengers, when they return from Con-
stantinople, report favourably on his actions and devotion to
the Church.^
The diplomatic intent of these letters could hardly be mis-
apprehended by a novice. The innocent suggestion (put
forward as if it had no connexion with the other matters
under discussion) that Illyricum and Calabria should be
transferred from the See of Constantinople to that of Eome
would never have been made if Nicolas had not thought that
there was a reasonable chance of securing this accession to the
Pope, in his letter to Michael, ex- to the Emperor in the Roman archives,
pressly reserves the decision to himself He complains afterwards that in the
(" ac deinde cum uostro praesulatui Greek translation which was read at
significatum faerit,quiddeeo agendum the Council of 861 it was falsified by
sit apostolica sanctione diffiniamus"). interpolations and misrepresentations
The legates had only full powers in of the sense. He speaks of such falsi-
regard to the question of image- fications as characteristically Greek
worship. ("apud Graecos . . familiaris est ista
1 NicoL^j?. 2, p. 162: " qualiter . . temeritas," E-p. 9), but inadequate
nullius iusurgentis deliberationis ter- knowledge of the language must have
minus daretur." been a cause of many mistakes.
" The Pope kept a copy of his letter
CHAP. VI PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 195
dominion and revenue of his chair. It is plain that he could
not hope that the Emperor and the Patriarch would agree to
such a large concession unless they received a due considera-
tion ; and it is equally obvious that the only consideration
which the Pope could offer, was to consent to the consecration
of Photius, and crush by the weight of his authority the
schism which was so seriously distressing the church of Con-
stantinople. Notwithstanding his severe animadversions on
the uncanonical elevation of Photius, he intimated that this
was not an insuperable difficulty ; if his delegates brought
back a satisfactory report, matters might be arranged. It is
perfectly clear that Pope Nicolas proposed a bargain, in the
interest of what he calls ecclesiastica utilitas}
It is impossible to say whether the Imperial government
took into serious consideration the Pope's proposal. But there
were at all events some, probably among the moderate section
of the Photians, who thought that the best solution of the
ecclesiastical difficulty would be to agree to the bargain, and
Photius was so gravely alarmed that, in a letter to Bardas, he
complains bitterly of the desire of persons who are not named
to deprive him of half his jurisdiction.^ It would seem that
there was a chance that the diplomacy of Nicolas might have
been successful. But if Michael and Bardas entertained
any idea of yielding, they were persuaded by Photius to
relinquish it.
The two legates of the Pope were won over to the Photian
party by cajolements and threats.^ A council assembled in
May (a.d. 861),"^ remarkable for the large number of bishops
Mt is not, I think, without signi- fj.eda. The meaning was seen by
ficance, as indicating the Pope's idea, Lebedev, loc. cit.
that this plirase is used in the letter ^ On their arrival at Rhaedestos
to Michael in reference to the restitu- they had received costly dresses from
tion of the provinces (" vestrum impe- Photius. They were kept in isolation
riale decus quod in omnibus ecclesia- for three months, so that they should
sticis utilitatibus vigere audivimus "), have no converse with the Ignatian
and also in the letter to Photius (" ec- party, and only hear the Photian side,
clesiasticae utilitatis constantiam "), Threats of exile and insects ("longa
where the suggestion seems to be exilia et diuturnas pediculorum come-
that Photius can prove his devotion stiones ") induced them to transgress
to the interests of the Church by their instructions and acknowledge
comiilyiug with the wishes of the Photius. Nicolaus, Epp. 6 and 9. It
Pope. Lebedev {op. cit. 48-49) has was the Emperor who tlireatened and
apprehended that Nicolas was pro- Photius who cajoled. Stylianos, Ep.
posing a " deal." 429.
- Ep. 157, p. 492 d<j}aip€'iTa.i d<p' tj/jlCov ^ In the Church of the Apostles.
t6 ij/xKrv TTJs dpxrjs and t6 TJ/xKrv d^ripr)- This synod was called the First and
196
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. VI
who attended. The Emperor was present, and Ignatius
unwillingly appeared. Seventy-two witnesses, including both
highly-placed ministers and men of humble rank, came forward
to prove that Ignatius had been appointed to the Patriarchate,
not by free election, but by the personal act of Theodora.-^
We are in the dark as to the precise circumstances of the
elevation of Ignatius. There is no doubt that he was chosen
by Theodora, but it is almost incredible that the usual form
of election was not observed, and if it was observed, to
condemn his elevation was to condemn the elevation of every
Patriarch of Constantinople as uncanonical. For virtually
every Patriarch was appointed by the Imperial will.^ In any
case at this synod — if we can trust the accounts of the
supporters of Ignatius — the government exercised considerable
pressure. The assembly, including the representatives of
Eome, whether they were convinced or not, confirmed the
deposition of Ignatius, and declared him unworthy. The
authority of Photius was thus established by the formal act
of a large council, subscribed by the legates of the Eoman see.^
Second {Trpwrri /cat devrepa), of which
perhaps the most probable explanation
is that suggested by HergeuriJther
(i. 438), that it resumed and confirmed
the acts of the synod of 859 held in
the same church.
1 We must suppose that he had
been condemned on the same ground
in A.D. 859 at the local council ; but
this charge does not seem to have
been mentioned in Michael's letter to
the Pope, who indeed points this out in
his letter of a.d. 862 {Ep. 5) : "omni-
bus accusationibus remotis . . unum
opponentes tantummodoquod potentia
saeculari sedem pervaserit. " Seventy-
two witnesses (for the number cp.
Hergenrother, i. 426, n. 38), including
men of all ranks — senators, artisans,
fish-merchants — were produced to give
sworn evidence that Ignatius had been
uncanonically appointed. Cp. Fit.
Ign. 237. The acts of the Council
were burnt at the Council of a.d. 869 ;
and our knowledge of its proceedings
is derived chiefly from the Lihellus
Ign. and the Vit. Ign. There were 318
bishops, etc., present, the same number
as at the Council of Nicaea, as the
Photians noted with satisfaction :
Lebedev {op. cit. 53) thinks that this
was a coincidence. Ignatius had been
brought back to Constantinoj^le some
time before, and was permitted to
reside in the Palace of Posis which
had belonged to his mother, the
Empress Procopia. He unwillingly
I'esigned himself to appear before the
synod, where he refused to recognize
the authority of the Papal legates.
^ Pope Nicolas observes this {loc.
cit. ).
■^ Seventeen canons, passed by this
Council, remained in force, and are
preserved (Mansi, xvi. 535 sqq.).
Canons 16 and 17, forbidding for the
future the consecration of bishops in
the circumstances in which Photius
had been consecrated, and the sudden
elevation of a layman to the episcopate,
were calculated to conciliate the can-
onical scruples of the Pope. Canons
13-15 were aimed against schismatics
and intended to strengthen the hands
of Pliotius. Most of the other rules
dealt with monastic reform, and by
one of them (204), prohibiting members
from leaving their cloisters at their
own caprice, it is thought that Photius
hoped to prevent the Ignatians from
travelling to Rome. Cp. Lebedev, op.
cit. 63.
CHAP. VI
PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS
197
The legates had exceeded their instructions.^ When they
returned to Eome in the autumn, their action was repudiated
by the Pope, who asserted that they had only been directed to
report on the whole matter to him, and had received no power
to judge the question themselves. There is no doubt that
they had betrayed the interests of their master and suffered
themselves to be guided entirely by the court of Byzantium.
An Imperial secretary soon arrived at Eome, bearing a copy
of the Acts of the Council with letters from the Emperor and
the Patriarch.^ The letter of Photius could hardly fail to
cause deep displeasure to the Koman bishop. It was perfectly
smooth, courteous, and conciliatory in tone, but it was the
letter of an equal to an equal, and, although the question of
Eoman jurisdiction was not touched on, it was easy to read
between the lines that the writer had the will and the courage
to assert the independence of the see of Constantinople. As
for the ecclesiastical provinces of lUyricum and Calabria, he
hypocritically threw upon the government the entire responsi-
bility for not restoring them to Eome, and implied that he
himself would have been willing to sacrifice them.^
The Imperial secretary remained in Eome for some
months,^ hoping that Nicolas would be persuaded to sanction
all that his legates had done in his name. But the Pope was
now resolved to embrace the cause of Ignatius and to
denounce Photius. He addressed an encyclical letter to the
three Patriarchs of the East, informing them that Ignatius
had been illegally deposed, and that a most wicked man (Jiomo
^ This is proved by the Pope's
letter which tJiey carried to Michael,
and it is useless for Lebedev {op. cit.
54) to contest it.
^ It may be noticed here that ac-
cording to Vit. Ign. 241, some time
after tlie Council, new attempts were
made to extort an abdication from Ig-
natius by ill - treatment. He was
beaten, starved for two weeks, with
no dress but a shirt, in the Imperial
mortuary chapel (Heroon) of the Holy
Apostles, where he was stretched upon
the sarcophagus of Constantiue V.,
with heavy stones attached to his
ankles. These tortures were inflicted
by Theodore Moros, John Gorgonites,
and Nikolaos Skutelops. When he
was perfectly exhausted, one of them,
holding his hand, traced his signature
on a paper on which Photius after-
wards wrote a declaration of abdica-
tion. The other sources which mention
this, ai-e derived from Vit. Ign. ; Her-
genrother is wrong in supposing that
the account in Gen. 100 is inde-
pendent ; see Hirsch, 159. Photius,
however, seems to have made no use
of this document. The sufferings re-
corded and probably exaggerated in
the- Vita may be briefly referred to at
the end of the Lihellus Ign. [iv ivTa
yap ovTU) KoKaaOivTa r]/j.4pais daiTov,
avTTvov, aKadiarov dca/JLelvai i^iaaav),
but nothing is said of tlie signature.
=* Ep. 3.
■* Till March 862, the date of the
replies of the Pope {Epp. 5 and 6).
198
EA S TERN R OMA N EMPIRE
CHAP. VI
scelestissimus) had occupied his church ; declaring that the
Eoman see will never consent to this injustice ; and ordering
them, by his apostolical authority, to work for the expulsion
of Photius and the restoration of Ignatius.^ At the same
time he indited epistles to the Emperor and to Photius,
asserting with stronger emphasis than before the authority of
Eome as head and mistress of the churches," and declining to
condemn Ignatius or to recognize Photius.
The ambassadors of the Pope, during their visit to
Constantinople, had heard only one side. The authorities had
taken care to prevent them from communicating with Ignatius
or any of the Ignatian party, and they also attempted to
hinder any one from repairing to Eome in the interests of the
Ignatian cause. Theognostos, however, who was an ardent
partisan of the deposed Patriarch,^ succeeded in reaching Eome
in disguise, and he carried with him a petition setting forth
the history of the deposition of Ignatius and the sufferings
which he endured, and imploring the Pope, who was humbly
addressed as " the Patriarch of all the thrones," to take pity
and arise as a powerful champion against injustice.'*
1 i:p. 4, 168.
'■^ The words in which he asserts
that the laws and decrees of the
Roman see must not be set aside by
subject churches, on the plea of
different customs, are strong: "Et
ideo consequens est ut quod ab huius
Sedis rectoribus plena auctoritate
sancitur, nullius consuetudinis praepe-
diente occasione, proprias tantum
sequendo voluntates, removeatur, sad
firmius atque inconcusse teneatur."
Up. 6, 174.
^ He was an archimandrite of the
Roman Church, abbot of the monas-
tery of Pege, skeuophylax of St.
Sophia, and Exarch of the monasteries
of Constantinople. See the title of
the Libellus Ign.
* The Libellus, stating the case of
Ignatius, was written by Theognostos,
but in the name of Ignatius, with
whom were associated fifteen metro-
politan bishops, and an ' ' infinite
number " of priests, monks, etc. Per-
haps, as Hergenrother suggests (i.
462), it was the knowledge of this
despatch to Rome that prompted the
government to make another attempt
to force Ignatius, this time by reading
aloud his sentence in the ambo of St.
Sophia. Soldiers surrounded his house
on the eve of Whitsunday, May 25,
862 ; but Ignatius escaped, disguised
as a porter, and wandered for some
months from island to island in the
Propontis, eluding the pursuers who
were set on his track. In August and
September Constantinople was shaken
by terrible earthquakes for forty days,
and the calamity was ascribed by
superstition to the unjust treatment
of Ignatius. To cakn the public, the
Emperor, caused a declaration to be
made that Ignatius would be allowed
to remain unmolested in his cloister.
Ignatius revealed himself to Petronas,
the brother of Bardas, who gave him
as a safe-conduct an enkolpion (prob-
ably a jewelled cross) which the
Emperor wore on his breast. He then
had an interview with Bardas and
was dismissed to his monastery. See
Vita Ign. 241 sqq. The earthquake
referred to is probably the same as
that described in Co7it. Th. 196-197.
It did great damage in the south-
western part of the city (Hexakionion).
The earthquake in Vita Ign. 249
seems to be different.
.HAP. VI PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 199
It was probably the influence of the representations of
Theognostos and other Ignatians who had found their way
to Eome, that moved Nicolas a year later (April a.d. 863),
to hold a Synod in the Lateran/ Neither the Emperor nor
the Patriarch had vouchsafed any answer to his letter, and
as it was evident that they had no intention of yielding to
his dictation, he punished the Church of Constantinople by
the only means which lay in his power. The synod deprived
Photius of his ecclesiastical status, and excommunicated him
unless he immediately resigned the see which he had usurped ;
it pronounced the same penalty upon all ecclesiastics who had
Ijeen consecrated by Photius ; and it restored Ignatius and all
those bishops who had been deposed and exiled in his cause.^
A copy of the proceedings was sent to Constantinople.
It was impossible for Constantinople to ignore the formal
condemnation pronounced by the Lateran Synod, and Photius
v/as prepared to assert the independence of his see, by dealing
out to the Pope the same measure which the Pope had dealt out
to him. In August 865, Nicholas received a letter from the
Emperor assuring him that all his efforts in behalf of Ignatius
were useless, and requiring him to withdraw his judgment,
with a threat that, if he refused, the Emperor would march
to Rome and destroy the city. The document, which was
evidently drafted under the direction of Photius, must have
been couched in sufficiently provocative terms ; but the threat
was not seriously meant, and the writer did not expect that
the Pope would yield. The real point of the letter was the
repudiation of the papal claim to supreme jurisdiction, as the
real point of the Pope's long reply was the assertion of the
privileges of the chair of St. Peter. The Pope indeed makes
what may be represented as a concession. He offers to revise
his judgment at Rome, and demands that the two rivals
shall appear personally before him, or if they cannot come,
send plenipotentiaries. The concession was as nugatory as
the Emperor's threat, and it assumed, in an aggravated form,
the claims of the Papacy as a supreme court of appeal.^
^ Cp. Hergenrother, i. 519. synod of Nov. 864, which condemned
^ Nicolaus, jKp. 7. The acts are not his t'ellow, Rodoald.
extant. This synod condemned the ^ The tenor of Michael's letter is
faithless legate Zaeharias, and must only known from the reply of Nicolas,
not be confounded with the Lateran Ep. 8, who describes it as " tota bias-
200
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. VI
The quarrel between Eome and Constantinople was soon
augmented by the contest between the two sees for the control
of the infant church of Bulgaria/ and Photius judged that,
the time was ripe for a decisive blow. He held a local synod'
for the condemnation of various heresies which Latin clergy
had criminally introduced into Bulgaria.^ These " servants
of Antichrist, worthy of a thousand deaths," permitted the
use of milk and cheese in the Lenten fast ; they sowed the
seed of the Manichaean doctrine by their aversion to priests
who are legally married ; they had the audacity to pour anew
the chrism of confirmation on persons who had already been
anointed by priests, as if a priest were not as competent to
confirm as to baptize. But above all they were guilty of
teaching the blasphemous and atheistic doctrine that the
Holy Ghost proceeds not only from the Father, but also from
the Son.
The eloquent Patriarch can hardly find words adequate
to characterize the enormity of these false doctrines, in the
encyclical letter^ which he addressed to the three Eastern
Patriarchs, inviting them to attend a general council at
Constantinople, for the purpose of rooting out such abominable
errors. Other questions too, Photius intimated, would come
before the council. For he had received from Italy an official
communication full of grave complaints of the tyranny
exercised by the Eoman bishop in the west.
The document to which Photius refers seems to have
emanated from the archbishops of Koln and Trier, who were
at this time leading an anti-papal movement. The occasion
of this division in the western Church was the love of king
Lothar II. of Lothringia for his mistress Waldrade."^ To
marry her he had repudiated his queen, and his action was
approved by a synod at Metz, guided by the influence of the
two archbishops. But the Pope embraced the cause of the
queen, and in a synod in the Lateran (October 863), annulled
pheraiis, tota iniuriis plena." One of
Michael's demands was that the Pope
should hand over to him the Ignatians
who were at Rome.
. ' See Chap. XII.
2 Photius, Ef. 4, § 27, p. 176.
Hergenrother assigns the synod to
Lent, 867 (i. 648).
^ Ef. 4.
^ For this affair and its consequences
see Hergenrother, i. 540 sqq. ; Hefele,
iv. 240 sqq. The documents will be
found in Mansi, xv. 611 sqq., 645 sqq.,
to which must be added the Vita
Nicolai, and the chronicles of Regino
and Hincmar {Ann, Bert.).
(HAP. VI PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 201
the acts of Metz, and deposed the archbishops of Koln and
Trier. These prelates received at first support from the
Emperor Lewis II., but that vacillating monarch soon made
})eace with the Pope, and the archbishops presumed to
organize a general movement of metropolitan bishops against
the claims of the Eoman see. They distributed to the bishops
of the west a circular Protest, denouncing the tyranny,
arrogance, and cunning of Nicholas, who would " make himself
the Emperor of the whole world." ^ They sent a copy to the
Patriarch of Constantinople, imploring him to come to their
help and deliverance.^
This movement in the western church was well calculated
to confirm Photius and the Imperial government in the justice
of their own cause, and it led the Patriarch to a far-reaching
scheme which it required some time to mature. It is certain
that during the years a.d. 8 6 5-8 6 7, there were secret negotiations
l)etween Constantinople and the Emperor Lewis. It is im-
probable that any formal embassies were interchanged. But
by unofficial means — perhaps by communications between
I'hotius and the Empress Engelberta — an understanding was
reached that if the Pope were excommunicated by the
L'ustern Patriarchs, Lewis might be induced to drive him from
Rome as a heretical usurper, and that the court of Con-
stantinople would officially recognize the Imperial dignity
iiud title of the western Emperor.^
Constantinople carried out her portion of the programme.
The Council met in a.d. 867 (perhaps the late summer),* and
the Emperor Michael presided.'' The Pope was condemned
and anathema pronounced against him for the heretical
doctrines and practices which were admitted by the Eoman
Church, and for his illegitimate interference in the affairs of
the Church of Constantinople. The acts of the Synod were
1 " Dominus Nicolaus qui dicitur Lewis and his wife.
Papa et qui se Apostolum inter ■* The date is inferred from the fact
Apostolos adnunierat totiusque niundi that Zacharias, bishop of Ghalcedon,
imperatorem se facit." The text is who was deputed to carry the acts of
given Ann. Bert. 68 sqq. the Council to Italy, was still on his
^ Photius, Of;. cii.truj'oSt/cTjTtyeTrto-ToXTj journey in September, after Michael's
7rp6s T;/xas dvawe^oiTriKev, ih. /xr] TtapLoelv death, and was recalled {Vita Ign.
airovs ovtws oiKTpQis a.TroXXv/j.^i'ovs ktX. 257), Hergenriither, i. 349.
^ Previous negotiations, thougli not ^ And probably Basil with him, as
mentioned in the sources, are pre- Hergenrotheri7>. admits. Metrophanes,
supposed by the actual acclamation of op. cit, 417.
202
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. VI
afterwards burned/ and we know of it only from the brief
notices of the enemies of Photius. They insinuate that the
signature of Michael had been appended when he was drunk ;
that the signature of his colleague Basil, had been forged ; that
the subscriptions of almost all those who were present, number-
ing about a thousand, were fabricated.^ These allegations are
highly improbable, and the writers themselves are inconsistent
in what they allege. It is obvious that if the Emperors had
disapproved of the purpose of the Council, the Council could
never have met ; and it is equally clear that if the overwhelming
majority of the Council, including the Emperors, had dis-
approved of the decrees, the decrees could not have been
passed. But there seems to have been some chicanery. At
the Eighth Ecumenical Council, the metropolitan bishops whose
signatures appeared, were asked whether they had subscribed,
and they said, " God forbid, we did not subscribe." ^ Are we
to suppose that they consented to the acts and afterwards
refused to append their names ?
The scandal about the legates of the Eastern Patriarchs
is hardly less obscure. It is stated that Photius picked up
in the streets three evil men whom he foisted upon the synod
as the representatives of the Patriarchs.* They pretended to
be Peter, Basil, and Leontios. But the true Peter, Basil, and
Leontios appeared at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, where
they asserted that they had not been named as legates by the
Patriarchs, that they knew nothing about the Synod, had not
attended it, and had not signed its acts.^ It is impossible to
^ By the explicit and emphatic in-
structions of Pope Hadrian.
^ Vita Hadriani II. 811, and Anas-
tasius, Praef. Hergenrother, i. 652,
admits that there is great exaggeration
in those Latin sources. In the Vita
Hadr., it is said that the signatures
were fabricated by hired persons, who
used fine and coarse pens to vary the
handwriting. In regard to the sig-
nature of Basil, the Pope was officially
informed that it was spurious (i/'eu5ws
iyypa<privai) : cap. 4 of his Roman
Synod, in Act vii. of the Eighth
Council, Mansi, xvi. 380.
* Act viii. 01 i/Troyeypa/uL/jLevoi iv rQ
Pi.p\i(fi iKelvijj jxriTpowoKiTaL (which must
mean, exclusive of the Photians).
Anastasius says {loc. cit.), that only
twenty-one reallj^ signed, but this can
hardly be true, and the same writer
gives the total number of signatures
as "about 1000" which is absurd.
No Ecumenical Council had nearly so
many members, and why (as Lebedev
asks) should Photius have taken the
trouble to forge so many ?
* See the 6th Canon of the Eighth
Council, Mansi, xvi. 401 irovripoijs
Ttvas dydpas cltto tQv \€w<p6po)v a.yi'iQv.
^ See their examination by the
Council, Act viii. pp. 384 sqq,, also
of Leontios, George, and Sergius, Act
ix. p. 397. Peter, etc. who are
brought before the Council are de-
scribed as Tovs ^evdoTOTTOTripTiTas oOs 6
4'ciTtos irpocreKd^eTo Kara tov . . Nt/coXdou.
But if we are to make any sense of
, CilAP. VI
PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS
203
discover the truth, nor has it much interest except for ecclesi-
astical historians, who, if they are members of the Latin
Church, will readily credit Photius with a wholesale and
barefaced scheme of deception, and if they belong to the
Greek communion, may be prepared to maintain that at the
Eighth Ecumenical Council mendacity was the order of the
day.^ In either case, those who stand outside the Churches
may find some entertainment in an edifying ecclesiastical
scandal.
That the Emperors were acting in concert with Photius
is, if there could be any doubt, definitely proved by the fact
that Lewis was solemnly acclaimed as Basileus and Engelberta
as Augusta. No Council, no Patriarch, could have dared to
do what, done without the Imperial consent, or rather
command, would have been an overt act of treason. The
Patriarch sent a copy of the Acts of the Council to Engel-
berta, with a letter in which, comparing her to Pulcheria, he
urged her to persuade her husband to drive from Eome a
bishop who had been deposed by an Ecumenical Council.'^
The schism between Eome and Constantinople was now
complete for the moment. The Pope had anathematized the
Patriarch, and the Patriarch had hurled back his anathema
at the Pope. But this rent in the veil of Christendom was
thinly patched up in a few months, and the designs of Photius
for the ruin of his antagonist came to nought. On the death
of Michael, the situation was immediately reversed. When
Basil gained the sovran power, one of his first acts was to
depose Photius and restore Ignatius. It is probable that
his feelings towards Photius, the friend and relative of
Bardas, were not over friendly, but his action was doubtless
determined not by personal or religious considerations, but by
reasons of state. We cannot say whether he was already
the proceedings, this cannot be taken
literally. They cannot (unless they
lied) have been the men whom Photius
suborned ; they must be the men
whom those men impersonated. This
question is not elucidated by modern
ecclesiastical historians. Cp. Hergen-
rotlier, ii. 110 sqq., 118 sg. ; Helele,
iv. 394-395.
^ Lebedev, of. cit. 102-103, rejects the
evidence of Anastasius, Vita Hadr.,
Vita Ign., and Metrophanes against
Photius. He says, "the enemies of
Photius lied, but so immoderately
that they damaged not Photius, but
themselves." Lebedev entirely ignores
here the evidence of the Acts of the
Eighth Council.
- The messengers were recalled be-
fore tliey reached Italy, see above,
p. 201, n. 4.
204 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vi
forming projects which rendered the alienation from Eome
undesirable ; but his principal and immediate purpose was
assuredly to restore ecclesiastical peace and tranquillity in
his own realm, and to inaugurate his reign by an act of piety
and orthodoxy which would go far in the eyes of the inhabit-
ants of Constantinople to atone for the questionable methods
by which he had won the autocratic power.
Nothing proves more convincingly than Basil's prompt
reversal of his predecessor's ecclesiastical policy, that this
policy was generally unpopular. Unless he had been sure
that the restitution of Ignatius would be welcomed by an
important section of his subjects at Constantinople, it is
incredible, in view of the circumstances of his accession, that
it would have been his first important act. Photius had his
band of devoted followers, but they seem to have been a small
minority ; and there are other indications that public opinion
was not in his favour. The severe measures to which the
government had resorted against Ignatius and his supporters
would hardly have been adopted if the weight of public opinion
had leaned decisively on the side of Photius. There was,
however, some embarrassment for Basil, who only a few
months before had co-operated in the council which excom-
municated the Pope, and there was embarrassment for many
others who shared the responsibility, in turning about and
repudiating their acts. The natural instinct was to throw
all the blame upon Photius ; Basil's signature was ofiicially
declared to be spurious ; and most of those, who had taken
part willingly or unwillingly in the condemnation of the Pope,
were eager to repudiate their consent to that audacious
transaction.
The proceedings of the Eighth Council, which procured ^
a temporary triumph for Ptome, the second patriarchate of
Photius, and his second dethronement, lie outside the limits
of this volume. He died in exile,^ almost a centenarian. I
Immediately after his death he was recognized as a Father!
of the Church, and anathema was pronounced on all that
Councils or Popes had uttered against him. The rift between
1 A.D. 897. See^ Papadopulos- in Viz. Vrem. 3, 437), Feb. 6 is dis-
Kerameus 6 irarp. 4>a)Ttos, 647 sqq. tinguished by the iwhm tov ev ayiois
In tlie Synax. ecc. Opl. p. 448 (date : Trarpos tj/hQv Kai apxie-T. KiroXew
middle of tenth century, see Bieliaev, ^onLov.
CHAP. VI PHOTI US AND IGNATIUS 205
Eome and Constantinople, which Photius had widened and
deepened, was gradually enlarged, and after the final rent
(in the middle of the eleventh century), which no subsequent
attempts at union could repair, the reputation of Photius
liecame brighter than ever, and his council of 861, which
the Pope had stigmatized as a pirate synod, was boldly
described by Balsamon as ecumenical. It was recognized
that Photius was the first great champion of the inde-
|iendence of the see of Constantinople, and of the national
development of the G-reek Church, against the interference
of Eome. He formulated the points of difference between
tlie two Churches which were to furnish the pretext for the
schism ; he first brought into the foreground, as an essential
point of doctrine, the mystery of the procession of the Holy
Ghost.^
The members of the Latin and the Greek Churches are
compelled, at the risk of incurring the penalties of a damnable
heresy, to affirm or to deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from
the Son as well as from the Father. The historian, who is
not concerned, even if he were qualified, to examine the mutual
relations which exist among the august persons of the Trinity,
will yet note with some interest that on this question the
Greeks adhered to the official doctrine of the Church so far
as it had been expressed by the authority of Ecumenical
Councils. The theologians of the Second Council at Con-
stantinople (a.d. 381) had distinctly declared the procession
from the Father, and against this pronouncement it could only
be argued that they had not denied the procession from the
Son. It was not till a.d. 589 that a council in Spain added
the words " and the Son " to the creed of Nieaea, and this
addition was quickly adopted in Gaul. It corresponded to
the private opinions of most western theologians, including
Augustine and Pope Leo I. But the Greek Fathers generally
held another doctrine, which the layman may find it difficult
^ His chief work on the subject, corum opioosita, etc., in Migne, P.L.
"On the Mystagogia of the Holy 121, 228 s^'g.), for which see Draseke's
Spirit," was not written till 885-886. article, Ratramnus und Photios, in
In it he seems to have taken account B.Z. 18, 396 sqq. (1909), where it is
of the most important contemporary suggested that though Pliotius did
vindication of the Latin doctrine, not read the treatise itself, its points
written (probably after 867) by Bishop were communicated to him by Greek
Ratramnus of Corbie {Contra Grae- friends.
206 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vi
to distinguish. They maintained that the Third person pro-
ceeded not from, but through the Second. In the ninth
century, the Popes, though they repudiated the opposite
dogma, hesitated to introduce the Spanish interpolation into
the Creed, and perhaps it was not adopted till the beginning
of the eleventh. The Eeformed Churches have accepted the
formula of the Creed, as it was revised in Spain, though theyj
acknowledge only the authority of the first four Ecumenical j
Councils. It can hardly make much difference to the mass
of believers ; since we may venture to suspect that the
majority of those who profess a firm belief in the double
procession attach as little significance to the formula which
they pronounce as if they declared their faith in a fourth
dimension of space.
The beginnings of the antagonism and mutual dislike
between the Greeks and Latins, which are so conspicuous at
a later stage of history, may be detected in the Ignatian con-
troversy. In the correspondence between Pope and Emperor,
we can discern the Latin distrust of the Greeks, the Greek
contempt for the Latins. The Emperor, probably prompted'
by Photius, describes Latin as a " barbarous and Scythian "
language.^ He has quite forgotten that it was the tongue
of Constantine and Justinian, and the Pope has to remind him
that his own title is " Emperor of the Eomans " and that in j
the ceremonies of his own court Latin words are daily pro-f
nounced. But this childish and ignorant attack on thej
language of Eoman law shows how the wind was blowing,
and it well illustrates how the Byzantines, in the intense con-
viction of the superiority of their own civilization — for which
indeed they had many excellent reasons — already considered
the Latin-speaking peoples as belonging to the barbarian!
world. It was not to be expected that the Greeks, animated |
by this spirit, would accept such claims of ecclesiastical
supremacy as were put forward by Nicolas, or that the Church
of Constantinople would permit or invite a Pope's inter-
ference, except as a temporary expedient. Photius aroused
into consciousness the Greek feeling of nationality, which
throughout the Middle Ages drew strength and nourishment
from bitter antagonism to Eoman Christianity, and the modern,
' See Nicol. Ep. 8.
I
1
, HAP. VI PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 207
Hellenes have reason to regard him, as they do, with veneration
as a champion of their nationality.^
The Ignatian affair has another aspect as a conspicuous
example of the Caesaropapism which was an essential feature
ill the system of the Byzantine state. Ignatius was removed,
l)ecause he offended the Emperor, just as any minister might
be deprived of his office. It may be said that the Ignatian
party represented a feeling in the Church against such an
exertion of the secular power ; and it is doubtless true that
the party included, among its active members, some who
inherited the traditions of the opposition to the Patriarchs
Tarasius and Nicephorus and considered the influence of the
Emperors in ecclesiastical affairs excessive. But we may
besitate to believe that the party as a whole supposed that
they were protesting on principle against the authority of the
autocrat over the Church. It is more probable that they
were guided by personal ties and considerations,^ by sympathy
with Ignatius who seemed to have been most; unjustly treated,
and by dislike of Photius. It is to be observed that the
Emperor made his will prevail, and though the policy of
Michael was reversed by Basil, this was simply a change in
])olicy, it was not a change in principle. It was a concession
to public opinion and to Eome, it was not a capitulation of
the State to the Church. It was a new act of the autocrat
;is head of the ecclesiastical organization, it was not an
abdication of the Caesar-pope.
It is hardly necessary to speak of the canonical irregu-
larities of which so much was made in the indictment of the
Pope and the Ignatian synods against Photius. In regard to
the one fact which we know fully, the sudden elevation of a
layman to the episcopal office, we may observe that the Pope's
reply to the case which Photius made out is unsatisfactory
iind imperfect. The instances of Tarasius and Nicephorus
were sufficient for the purpose of vindication. In regard to
1 The Photian spirit was curiously foreign influence was behind their
riricatured in the recent struggle opponents, the vindicators of the
lietween the two language parties in vulgar tongue (known as ot fiaWiapol),
(Ireece. The advocates of the literary and that the object was to undermine
language {ij Kadapevovaa), who, headed the Hellenic nationality and the
by Professor Mistiiotes, carried the Orthodox Church. Foreigners can
day and secured the ultimate doom of only gape with wonder.
ilie popular language, asserted that
208 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vi
Tarasius, it is urged by Nicolas that Pope Hadrian protested
against his elevation, in a message addressed to the Seventh
Ecumenical Council. But the Council had not hesitated to
accept Tarasius, and it did not concern the Church of Con-
stantinople, what the Bishop of Eome, apart from the Council,
chose to think or say about the matter. In regard to
Nicephorus, the Pope said nothing because he had nothing to
say. Nicephorus was in communion with Piome ; the Popes
of his day raised no protest against his elevation. We have
seen that if the first overtures of Nicolas to Constantinople
had met with a different reception, the canonical molehills
would never have been metamorphosed into mountains. The
real value of the objections may be measured by the fact that
when Photius reascended the patriarchal throne after the
death of his rival, he was recognized by Pope John III.
The death of Ignatius had indeed removed one obstacle, but
nevertheless on the showing of Nicolas he was not a bishop
at all. Pope John recognized him simply because it suited the
papal policy at the moment.
In the stormy ecclesiastical history of our period the
monks had played a conspicuous part, first as champions of
the worship of icons and then of the cause of Ignatius, who
was himself a typical monk. In the earlier controversies over
the mystery of the incarnation, gangs of monks had been the
authors of scandal in those turbulent assemblies at Ephesus,
of which one is extolled as an Ecumenical Council and the
other branded as a synod of brigands ; at Constantinople,
they led an insurrection which shook the throne of Anastasius.
The Emperor Constantine V. recognized that the monks were
his most influential and implacable opponents and declared
war upon monasticism. But monasticism was an instinct too
deeply rooted in Byzantine society to be suppressed or ex-
terminated ; the monastic order rested on as firm foundations,
secured by public opinion, as the Church itself. The reaction
under Irene revived and confirmed the power of the cloister ;
and at the same time the Studite movement of reform, under
the guidance of Plato and Theodore, exerted a certain
influence beyond the walls of Studion and tended to augment
the prestige of the monastic life, though it was ftir from being
generally accepted. The programme of the abbot Theodore |
/
CHAP. VI PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 209
ito render the authority of the Church independent of the
autocrat was a revolutionary project which had no body of
public opinion behind it and led to no consequences. The
iconoclastic Emperors did their will, and the restoration of
image- worship, while it 'was a triumph for the monks, was
not a victory of the Church over the State. But within the
State-Church monasticism flourished with as little check as it
could have done if the Church had been an independent
institution, and produced its full crop of economic evils.
Hundreds of monasteries, some indeed with but few tenants,
existed in Constantinople and its immediate neighbourhood in
the ninth century, and the number was being continually
increased by new foundations. For it was a cherished
ambition of ordinary men of means to found a monastery, and
they had only to obtain the licence of a bishop, who con-
secrated the site by planting a cross,^ and to furnish the
capital for the upkeep of the buildings and the maintenance
of three monks. It was a regular custom for high dignitaries,
who had spent their lives in the service of the State, to retire
in old ^ge to cloisters which they had built themselves.^ It
is too little to say that this was an ideal of respectability ;
it was also probably for the Byzantine man a realization of
happiness in the present, enhanced as it was by the prospect
of bliss in the future. But the State paid heavily for the
indulgence of its members in the life of the cloister and
the cell.
' aTavpoTTTjjiov. the significant tovs dirb /xayicTTpuy
2 History furnishes numerous par- fjuovaSiKovs .in Philotheos, 176 jg.
ticular instances, but I may notice
CHAPTER VII
FINANCIAL AND MILITARY ADMINISTRATION
^ 1. Finance
The Imperial revenue in the Middle Ages proceeded from the
same principal sources as in the earlier ages of the Empire :
taxation and the profits on the Imperial estates. The
machinery for collecting the revenue had perhaps been little
altered, but the central ministries which controlled the
machinery had been considerably changed. The various
financial and cognate departments which had been subject to
the authority of the two great financial ministers and the
Praetorian Prefects, under the system introduced by Constantine,
are now distributed among eight mutually independent
ministries.^
The Logothete or Accountant of the General Treasury, or,
as he was briefly called, the General Logothete, had inherited
the most important duties of the Count of the Sacred
Largesses. He ordered and controlled the collection of all
the taxes. He was the head of the army of surveyors,
controllers, and collectors of the land and hearth taxes,^ and
of the host of commerciarii or officers of the customs.
The Military Logothete administered the treasury which
defrayed the pay of the soldiers and other military expenses,
which used to be furnished from the chests of the Praetorian
Prefects.^ The TVardrohe * and the Special Treasury ^ were
^ See Bury, Imperial Administra- '' ^effnapiov (to be distinguished
tive System, 78 sqq. from the Private Wardrobe, oiKeiaKov
, , , - , , , ., Bear., which was under the Proto-
' ^^oirral, dcocKvrai, TrpaKropes {lb. Vestiarios, an eunuch). lb. 95.
^'' ^^'- ^ t6 eldiKdv. Its master was called
^ Jb. 90. 6 iiri Tov dStKov. lb. 98.
210
SECT. I FINANCE 211
stores for all kinds of material used for military and naval
purposes ; on the occasion of a warlike expedition they supplied
sails and ropes, hides, tin and lead, and innumerable things
required for the equipment. The President of the Special
Treasury controlled the public factories, and the Chartulary
of the Wardrobe was also master of the mint.
The estates of the Crown, which were situated chiefly in
the Asiatic provinces, were controlled by two central offices.
The revenues were managed by the Chartulary of the, Sahellion,
the estates were administered by the Great Curator} The
pastures in western Asia Minor, however, where horses and
mules were reared for the military service, were under the
stewardship of another minister, the Logothete of the Herds,
while the military stables of Malagina were directed by an
important and independent officer, the Count of the Stahle?
These latter offices had been in earlier times subordinated to
the Count of the Private Estate.
The Sakellion was the central treasury of the State. "We
have no particular information concerning the methods of
disbursement and allocation, or the relations between the
various bureaux. But we may suppose that the General
Logothete, who received the income arising from taxation,
paid directly to other departments the various standing
expenses which were defrayed from this revenue, and handed
over the surplus to the Sakellion. This treasury, which
received directly the net income furnished by the rents of the
Private Estates, would thus have contained the specie available
for the expenses of military expeditions, for buildings and
public works, for the extravagances of the Court and all the
private expenses of the Emperor. The annual savings, if
savings were effected, seem to have passed into the personal
custody of the sovran, so that Irene was able to conceal the
treasure which she had accumulated.^
I The Sakellion itself was under the control of the chief
[financial minister, the Sakellarios, who acted as general
comptroller. The special financial ministries were not
subordinate to him, but he had the right and duty to inquire
^ lb. 93, 100. over the accumulated savings of her
^ lb. Ill, 113. husband's reign and lier own regency.
^ The inference is borne out by the This would not have been necessary
fact that Theodora personally handed if they had lain in the Sakellion.
212 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vii
into their accounts, and was doubtless responsible for all
disbursements from the Sakellion.^
Bullion, furnished by the State mines, came to the General
Logothete, who must have sent it to the Wardrobe to be
coined, while other bullion might be deposited before mintage
in the Special Treasury. From the Wardrobe the coins would
pass to the Sakellion.
The two principal direct taxes, on which the Imperial
finance rested, were the land-tax and the hearth-tax. These
had always been the two pillars of the treasury, for the hearth-
tax was only a modification of the old capitation, being levied,
not on the free man and woman, but on the household," The
population of cities, including the capital, did not pay the
hearth-tax, at least in the eastern provinces. The leaseholders
on the Imperial estates were not exempted from the land-tax,
which all landed proprietors and tenants paid ; and the house-
holders of Constantinople and the other cities were burdened
by an analogous charge on sites, which was known as the
" urban tribute." ^ The uniform hearth rate was probably
combined in the same schedules with the other tax and
collected by the same officials.* Other sources of income were
the toll on receipts (an income-tax of the most odious form,
which Irene was praised for abolishing), death duties, judicial
fines, and, above all, the duties levied on imports, which must
have amounted to a substantial sum.
The unpopular fiscal measures of the Emperor Nicephorus,
which are briefly recapitulated by a hostile monk, afford us
a vague glimpse into the obscure financial conditions of the
Empire. His official experience as General Logothete had
enabled him to acquire an expert knowledge of financial
details which few sovrans possessed, and he was convinced
that the resources of the State were suffering and its strength
endangered by the policy of laxity and indulgence which had
been adopted by Irene. In the first year of his reign there
was a severe taxation, which may have driven many to
embrace the cause of the rebel Bardanes.^ We may
^ Ih. 82. it probable that the ttoXltikoI (p6poL
^ Zacharia v. L. Zur Kenntniss des represent the capitatio tcrrena applied
rom. Steuerwesens, 9-13. to towns.
^ Monnier, Etudes de droit hyz. * Zacharia v. L. ib. 12.
xviii. 485, and xix. 75, 98, has made ^ See Cont. Th. 8 (t6t£ = July 803).
(
SECT. I FINANCE 213
probably conjecture that his severity consisted in restoring
wholly or partly the taxes which his predecessor had
recently abolished. We may be disposed to believe that he
acquiesced in the disappearance of the tax on receipts, for
if he had revived it, his enemies, who complained of all his
financial measures, would hardly have failed to include in their
indictment the revival of a burden so justly odious. But we may
reasonably assume that he restored the custom duties, which
were levied at the toll-houses of Abydos and Hieron, to their
former figure, and that he imposed anew upon Constantinople
the urban tribute, which Irene had inequitably remitted.
But seven years later, in a.d. 809, in view perhaps of the
imminent struggle with the Bulgarians, he prepared a for-
midable array of new measures to replenish the sinking
contents of the treasury.^
I. In all cases where taxes had been reduced in amount,
they were raised again to the original sum. It is possible
that this applied to reductions which had been allowed during
the preceding twenty years.^
II. The kapnikon or hearth-tax, which had replaced the old
capitation-tax, was a fixed annual charge of two miliarisia
(2s.).^ But monastic and religious institutions, orphanages,
hospitals, homes for the aged, although legally liable, had been
exempted from payment for many years with the connivance of
the government. We cannot hesitate to ascribe this inequit-
able favour to the policy of the pious Empress Irene. It was
monstrous that the tenants on the monastic lands should be free
from the burden which was imposed on all other farms and
estates. Eeligious institutions multiplied rapidly ; private
persons were constantly founding new monasteries ; and there
was a prospect that every year the proceeds of the hearth-tax
would suffer further diminution. Nicephorus was fully justified
in insisting that this exemption, unauthorised by law, should
cease,* and in forcing the institutions which had not contri-
^ Theoph. A.M. 6302 = A.D. 809-810. missions of A.D. 801 were not reversed
See Finlay, 98 ; Paparrhegoinilos, till now.
'laropia toO. 'EWrji/i/coO 'idvovs, ed. 2, iii. ^ See Cont. Th. 54.
565 sqq. ; but especially Monnier, op. * Both Finlay and Monnier approve
cit. xix. 67 sqq. the measure. Theoplianes specially
- This was the limit in the case of mentions Imperial monasteries, but
some other measures ; see below. it applied a fortiori to others, as
Monnier, ih. 69, thinks that the re- Monnier observes.
214 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vii
buted their due share to the maintenance of the State to pay
the arrears of the tax since the year of his own accession.
III. The land-tax, which continued to be the most important
source of revenue, was the most troublesome to adjust and to
control. Nicephorus ordered that a new survey should be
made, and that the tax should be raised in amount by the
charge of a shilling on the receipt which the tax-collector
delivered.^ In the case of large estates there was no difficulty
in collecting the duties ; the whole property ^ was liable for a
fixed sum, and if some tenants were too poor to pay, it did
not matter to the fisc. But great estates (which were to
increase in number and extent in the course of the ninth and
tenth centuries) seem at this time not to have been numerous ;
small proprietorship prevailed. The system which the govern-
ment employed to secure the treasury against loss when a
farmer failed or could not make his land yield the necessary
margin of profit did not work satisfactorily. The farms of a
commune were grouped together for this purpose, and if one
farmer was insolvent, the amount for which he was liable was
distributed as an extra-charge {eiJibolS) among the other
members of the group. For poorer members this imposition
was a considerable hardship, and the circumstance that
Nicephorus deemed it expedient to modify the system seems
to show that there were many cases of small proprietors
reduced to penury. So far as we can interpret our brief
record of his measure, he sought to devolve the responsibility
for the taxes of the poor upon their richer neighbours. The
fiscal debt of a defaulting farm no longer fell upon a whole
group, but upon some neighbouring proprietor, and this liability
was termed AlUlengyon or Mutual Security.^
^ Theoph. 486 e-rroTrrevea-dai wavras one-twelfth, but obviously dj'a means
(this would be carried out by the here each taxpayer (cp. ib. dva vofju-
eiro-n-rai of the General Logothete) Kal a/j-dTcov). The charge was simply two
aval3ipd^ecrda.i to. tovtoiv reXrj (which keratia ( = 1 miliarision), whatever the
\ueans, as Monnier rightly says, a amount of the payment. If we re-
raising of the amount), irapixovTa^ member that the kapnikon was a uni-
Kal xo-PtmtlkCji' eVe/ca dvd Kepariwv /3'. form charge of only four keratia, we
The last clause explains dva^i^d'^eadaL ■ can find no difficulty in the smallness
just as {ih. ) Trapexovras Kal kt\. ex- of the new tax.
plains i^oir\l(;'e(Teai. The context shows ^ All the holdings of which the
that the tax was only on the fiscal possessio consisted Avere termed for
acquittances, not, as Finlay says, "on fiscal purposes ofibdovXa.
public documents." Both he and '^ Theoyih. ib. -rrpoa^ra^e arpaTevecyOai.
Monnier think that dvd Kep. /3' means tovs tttuxovs Kal e^oirW^eaOai. napd twv
two keratia in the nomisma, that is bixox^poiv, trapixovra^ Kal dvd oktu-
SECT. I FINANCE 215
But what was to happen to the indigent defaulter ?
Nicephorus enrolled him as a soldier, compelling the same
more prosperous neighbour to provide for his military equip-
ment by paying the sum of eighteen and a half nomismata
(£11 : 2s.)/ We are not told whether this sum was regarded
as a price for the land, which ought to liave been transferred
to the possession of the neighbour who was held responsible
for it, or even whether the proprietor was compelled to sell it.
The growth of monastic property was an economic evil
which was justly regarded by Nicephorus with disquietude,
and he adopted the heroic measure of incorporating in the
Imperial domains the better lands of some rich monasteries.
We cannot doubt that the transaction took the form of a
compulsory sale, the price being fixed by the treasury ; it is
impossible to suppose that it was naked confiscation, which
would have been alien to the methods of Koman policy.^
But the taxes which had been paid on the entire property
continued to be exacted, according to our informant, from the
diminished estates of the monks. We know too little of the
(conditions and provisions to enable us to pronounce whether
this measure was unreasonably oppressive ; ^ but it is clear
that Nicephorus was prepared to brave the odium which
always descended upon the medieval statesman who set the
economic interests of the State above those of its monastic
parasites.
But if Nicephorus increased his domains at the expense of
i pious institutions, he also alienated portions of the Imperial
estates, and the motives of this policy are obscure. It is
KaiSeKa ri/j.i(rovs pofjua/jidTiav t(2 Srj/xoaiq) years later was pursued by Basil 11.
Kal d\Xi7Xe77(yws to, drj/xoa-La. The The same writer observes that the
passage has been elucidated by Monnier new principle tended to break down
(90 sqq.). Zacharia v. Lingenthal tlie distinction between ofxdKrjvaa and
{Gr.-roin. Recht, 235 n. 763) inter- 6/j.6dov\a as separate fiscal unities, and
preted o/j-dxi^poi. as "die Besitzer von condemns it as a triumph over "good
o/jidKrivcra," but then why not, as sense, tradition, and justice" (p. 97).
Monnier asks, o/j-ok-^vo-cov '{ The bp.b- It was certainly a defeat of tradition.
Xwpos =finiitimuii need not be ofxoKrjvaos. i q jg^g^ note
Monnier thinks that Nicephorus intro- , ' . , -j m,
duced this new principle in the appli- - If no price had been paid, Iheo-
cation of the eiripoX-n (a principle phanes would assuredly have used
"which will subsequently be united stronger language,
to the old one of cadastral solidarity ^ It is quite possible that this obli-
and will make the system more gation applied only to the first year
lenient "), in order to hit the rich after the act ; or it may have been
neighbour, whether ofxaK-qixjos or not ; taken into account in fixing the pur-
the same policy which two hundred chase money.
, 216 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vii
recorded as a hardship that he sold Imperial lands on the
coasts of Asia Minor, at a fixed price, to unwilling purchasers,
who, accustomed to sea-faring and trade, knew little or nothing
about agriculture. Here again we must remember that the
case is presented by an enemy, and that we are ignorant of
all the circumstances of the alleged coercion,
IV. In his diligent quest of ways and means, the sudden
acquisition of wealth, which we might now classify under the
title of unearned increment, did not escape the notice of
Nicephorus as a suitable object of taxation. He imposed
heavy charges upon those who could be proved to have
suddenly risen from poverty to affluence through no work or
merit of their own. He treated them as treasure-finders, and
thus brought them under the law of Justinian by which
treasure-trove was confiscated.-^ The worst of this measure
was that it opened a fruitful field to the activity of informers.
V. Death duties were another source of revenue which
claimed the Emperor's attention. The tax of 5 per cent on
inheritances which had been instituted by the founder of the
Empire seems to have been abolished by Justinian ; ^ but a
duty of the same kind had been reimposed, and was extended
to successions in the direct line, which had formerly been
exempted. The lax government of Irene had allowed the tax
to be evaded, by some at least of those who inherited property
from their fathers or grandfathers ; ^ and when Nicephorus
ordered that it should be exacted from all who had so
inherited during the last twenty years, many poor men were
in consternation.
YI. It is remarkable that a statesman possessing the
financial experience of Nicephorus should have shared the
ancient prejudice against usury so far as to forbid the lending
of money at interest altogether. The deliverance of society
from the evils attendant upon merciless usury was dearly
purchased by the injury which was inflicted upon industry
and trade. The enterprise of merchants who required capital
was paralyzed, and Nicephorus was forced to come to their
1 Theoph. 4879- The measure was ^ iraripuiv in the passage of Theo-
retrospective for twenty years. phanes. The words clearly imply
2 C.I. 6, 23, 33 ; Monnier, xix. 83. *1^^* Nicephorus was only enforcing
the payment of an old tax, which
^ Monnier, i&., has pointed out that had been probably first imposed by
the stress lies on the words iK Trdinruiv the Heraclians or Isaurians.
SECT. I
FINANCE 217
rescue. He aided them in a way which was highly advantageous
to the treasury. He advanced loans of twelve pounds of gold
about (£518), exacting the high interest of 16f per cent.^
The government was not bound by the prohibition of private
usury, which it is possible that the successor of Nicephorus
prudently abolished.^
VII. The custom duties, which were levied at Abydos and
had been remitted by Irene in her unscrupulous desire to
conciliate the favour of Constantinople, had been immediately
re-enacted by her successor. Household slaves of a superior
kind were among the most valuable chattels which reached
the capital by the route of the Hellespont, and the treasury
profited by the cooks and pages and dancers who were sold
to minister to the comfort and elegance of the rich families
of Byzantium. But there was also a demand for these
articles of luxury among the inhabitants of the Aegean coasts
and islands, who could purchase them without paying the
heavy charges that were exacted in the custom-houses of
Abydos.^ Nicephorus abolished this immunity by imposing
a tax of two gold pieces (24 shillings) a head on all such
slaves who were sold to the west of the Hellespont.
The chronicler Theophanes, whose hostile pen has recorded
these fiscal measures, completes his picture of the Emperor's
oppressions by alleging that he used to pry into men's private
affairs, employing spies to watch their domestic life and
encouraging ill-disposed servants to slander or betray their
masters. " His cruelties to the rich, the middle class, and the
poor in the Imperial city were beyond description." In the
1 Modern commentators seem to to the kommerkiarioi in the ports,
have missed the point of this measm-e. but it was a small one. Slaves who
Monnier implies that all vavKXrjpoi. were used for rough and rural work
were forced to borrow the sum of were probably, as Monnier observes,
twelve pounds from the treasury chiefly imported from the Euxine
whether they wanted it or not. This regions, by the Bosphorus. The duty
is incredible. The coercion consisted on them, which would be paid at
in compelling them, if they wanted a Hieron, was doubtless trifling. Jus-
loan, to borrow a fixed sum from the tinian established the toll - house at
State and from no other lender ; other Abydos. irapacpvXa^ d^vdiKSs or simply
lenders were excluded by the law for- d/3u5t/c6s {d^v8LTi.K6s) came to be a
bidding ymvate usury. genera] term for Xifievdpxv^- See M.
2 So Monnier, xix. 89, conjectures. Goudas in Bv^avris i. 468 sqq. (1909),
Usury was again forbidden by Basil, who cites seals of Kov/xepKidpioL /cat
but Leo VI. {Nov. 83) permitted it, djivdiKol of Thessalonica. e^a^vdl^w,
with the restriction that interest to pass Abydos, was used for sailing
should not exceed 4.1 per cent. into the Aegean ; see Simeon, Cont.
^ Some duty must have been paid Georg. ed. Mur. 638,,.
218 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vii
last two years of his reign, he excited the murmurs of the
inhabitants by a strict enforcement of the market dues on
the sales of animals and vegetables, by quartering soldiers in
monasteries and episcopal mansions, by selling for the public
benefit gold and silver plate which had been dedicated in
churches, by confiscating the property of wealthy patricians.^
He raised the taxes paid by churches and monasteries, and he|
commanded officials, who had long evaded the taxation to i
which they were liable as citizens, to discharge the arrears
which they had failed to pay during his own reign." This
last order, striking the high functionaries of the Court, seemed
so dangerous to Theodosius Salibaras, a patrician who had
considerable influence with the Emperor, that he ventured to
remonstrate. " My lord," he said, " all are crying out at us,
and in the hour of temptation all will rejoice at our fall."
Nicephorus is said to have made the curious reply : " If God
has hardened my heart like Pharaoh's, what good can my
subjects look for ? Do not expect from Nicephorus save only
the things which thou seest."
The laxity and indulgence which had been permitted in
the financial administration of the previous reign rendered
the severity of Nicephorus particularly unwelcome and un-
popular. The most influential classes were hit by his strict
insistence on the claims of the treasury. The monks, who
suspected him of heterodoxy and received no favours at his
hands, cried out against him as an oppressor. Some of his
measures may have been unwise or unduly oppressive — we
have not the means of criticizing them ; but in his general
policy he was simply discharging his duty, an unpopular duty,
to the State.
Throughout the succeeding reigns we obtain no such glimpse
into the details or vicissitudes of Imperial finance. If there
was a temporary reaction under Michael I. against the severi-
ties of Nicephorus, the following Emperors must have drawn
the reins of their financial administration sufficiently tight.
After the civil war, indeed, Michael II. rewarded the provinces
which had been faithful to his cause by a temporary remission
of half the hearth-tax. The facts seem to show that the
Amorian rulers were remarkably capable and successful in their
1 Theoph. 488-489. 2 j^ ^^y a.t). 811 {ih.).
SECT. I
FINANCE
219
finance. On one hand, there was always an ample surplus in
ithe treasury, until Michael III. at the very end of his
reign deplenished it by wanton wastefulness. On the other,
no complaints are made of fiscal oppression during this period,
notwithstanding^ the fact that the chroniclers would have
rejoiced if they had had any pretext for bringing such a charge
against heretics like Theophilus and his father.
If our knowledge of the ways and means by which the
Imperial government raised its revenue is sadly incomplete
and in many particulars conjectural, we have no information
as to its amount in the ninth century, and the few definite
figures which have been recorded by chance are insufficient to
enable us to guess either at the income or the expenditure.
It is a remarkable freak of fortune that we should possess
relatively ample records of the contemporary finance of the
Caliphate,^ and should be left entirely in the dark as to the
budget of the Empire.
We have some figures bearing on the revenue in the
twelfth century, and they supply a basis for a minimum
estimate of the income in the ninth, when the State was
stronger and richer. We learn that Constantinople alone
furnished the treasury with 7,300,000 nomismata or
£4,380,000, including the profits of taxation on commerce
and the city markets.^ It has been supposed that the rest of
the Empire contributed five times as much, so that the total
revenue would be more than £26,280,000.^ At this period
the greater part of Asia Minor was in the hands of the Seljuk
Turks, while, on the other hand, the Empire possessed Bulgaria
and Crete. It might therefore be argued that the Emperor
Theophilus, who also held Calabria and received a certain
yearly sum from Dalmatia, may have enjoyed a revenue of
twenty-seven to thirty millions.
But the proportion of 1 to 5, on which this calculation
the revenue of the whole Eni])ire heforc
the conquest, we get £26,280,000, a
figure wliich agrees with the other
result (but in both cases the propor-
tions are quite problematical). See
PaparrliegO]iulos, op. cit. iv. 44 sqq. ;
Diehl, M'wics hyzantines, 125; Andre-
ades, loc. cit. For the whole question
of tlie finances cp. also Kalligas,
MeX^rat 268 sqq.
1 See below, p. 236.
^ Benjamin of Tudela, p. 13 (ed. and
tr. M. N. Adler, 1907) ; cp. Papar-
rhegopulos, ' laropla tov 'EWrjviKov
idvovi, iii. 74.
^ Cp. Andreades, Les Finances by~.
20. In 1205 the Crusaders assured
Baldwin the daily income of 30,000
nomistuata = £6,570,000 annually.
Supposing this represents a (quarter of
220 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vii
rests, is such an arbitrary hypothesis that we must seek some
other means of forming a rough evaluation. We are told
that in the twelfth century the island of Corcyra yielded 1500
pounds of gold or £64,800 to the Imperial treasury. ■• The
total area of the Imperial territory in the reign of Theophilus
(counting Sicily as lost, and not including Calabria, Dalmatia,
Cyprus, or Cherson) was about 546,000 kilometres.^ The
area of Corcyra is 770, so that if its contribution to the
treasury was as large in the ninth as in the twelfth century,
and was proportional to its size, the amount of the whole
revenue would be about £46,000,000. But the population of
the islands was undoubtedly denser than in most regions of
the mainland, and it is probably an insufficient set-off" to have
left out of account Calabria and some other outlying Imperial
possessions, and to have made no allowance for the vast
amount contributed by Constantinople. Yet this line of
calculation suggests at least that the Imperial revenue may
have exceeded thirty millions and was nearly half as large
again as the revenue of the Caliphs.^
If we accept £25,000,000 as a minimum figure for the;
revenue arising from taxation of all kinds, we must add a
considerable sum for the profits arising from the Imperial
Estates in Asia Minor. Disregarding this source of income,
which we have no data for estimating, we must remember
that the weight of gold which if sent to the mint to-day would
be coined into twenty-five million sovereigns represented
at Byzantium a far higher purchasing power. It is now!
generally assumed that the value of money was five times as
great, and this is probably not an exaggeration.'* On this
hypothesis the Imperial revenue from taxation would corre-
spond in real value to £125,000,000.
It is impossible to conjecture how the expenditure was
1 John of Brompton, Chronicon, p. of Mcephorus Gregoras, viii. 6, p. 817
1219 (Twysden's Hist. Angl. scrip- (ed. Bonn), that in a.d. 1321 the
tores X. vol. i., 1652), states that the revenue was increased by special efforts
island of Cunfu (Corfu) yielded (of the reXQvai and <popo\6yoi) to the
" quintallos auri purissimi quindecim sum of one million nomismata
annuatim ; et pondus quintalli est (£600,000), cannot be utilized. The
pondus centum librarum auri" (a.d. conditions of the time were exceptional
■^^^0). I (Jo not understand why Zacharia v.
I have based this on the figures Lingenthal {Zur Kenntniss, 14) refers
given by Beloch in his Bevolkerung this statement to the land-tax only.
der griechisch-rmnischen Welt (1886). "» See Paparrhegopulos, loc. cit. ;
See below p. 236. The statement Diehl, loc. cit. ; Andreades, 7.
SECT. I
FINANCE 221
apportioned. Probably a sum of more than £1,000,000 was
annually spent on the maintenance of the military establish-
ment, not including the cost of campaigns. The navy, the
civil service in all its branches, religious foundations, doles to
charitable institutions, liberal presents frequently given to
foreign potentates for political purposes, represented large
claims on the treasury, while the upkeep of a luxurious Court,
and the obligatory gifts {evae^iai) on stated occasions to crowds
of ofl&cials, consumed no small portion of the Emperor's
income. Theophilus must have laid out more than a million
a year on his buildings.^ It is only for the army and navy
that we possess some figures, but these are too uncertain and
partial to enable us to reconstruct a military budget.
Perhaps the most striking evidence of the financial
I prosperity of the Empire is the international circulation of its
I gold currency. " In the period of 800 years from Diocletian to
Alexius Comnenus the Eoman government never found itself
compelled to declare bankruptcy or stop payments. Neither
the ancient nor the modern world can offer a complete parallel
to this phenomenon. This prodigious stability of Eoman
financial policy therefore secured the " byzant " its universal
currency. On account of its full weight it passed with all
the neighbouring nations as a valid medium of exchange. By
her money Byzantium controlled both the civilised and the
barbarian worlds." '^
8 2. Military and Naval Organization
I. Under the Amorian dynasty considerable administra-
tive changes were made in the organization of the military
provinces into which the Empire was divided, in order to
meet new conditions. In the Isaurian period there were five
great Themes in Asia Minor, governed by strategoi, in the
following order of dignity and importance : the Anatolic, the
Armeniac, the Thrakesian, the Opsikian, and the Bukellarian.
This system of " the Five Themes," as they were called,
lasted till the reign of Michael II., if not till that of
^ The cost of St. Sophia is said to cannot have cost less. His reign
have been 300,000 gold litrai = lasted a little more than twelve years.
£12,960,000. The buildings of Theo- '"■ Gelzer, Byz. KuUurgesch. 78.
philus, inclnding tlie Palace of Bryas,
222 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vir
Theophilus/ But it is probable that before that time the
penetration of the Moslems in the frontier regions had rendered it
necessary to delimit from the Anatolic and Armeniac provinces
districts which were known as kleisurarchies,^ and were under
minor commanders, kleisurarchs, who could take measures for
defending the country independently of the strategoi. In
this way the kleisurarchy of Seleucia, west of Cilicia, was
cut off from the Anatolic Theme, and that of Charsianon from
the Armeniac.^ Southern Cappadocia, which was constantly
exposed to Saracen invasion through the Cilician gates, was also
formed into a frontier province/ We have no record of the
times at which these changes were made, but we may suspect
that they were of older date than the reign of Theophilus.
This energetic Emperor made considerable innovations in
the thematic system throughout the Empire, and this side of
his administration has not been observed or appreciated. In
Asia Minor he created two new Themes, Paphlagonia and
Chaldia.^ Paphlagonia seems to have been cut off from the
Bukellarian province ; probably it had a separate existence
already, as a " katepanate," for the governor of the new Theme,
while he was a strategos, bore the special title of hate/pano,
which looks like the continuation of an older arrangement.^
^ Cont. Th. 6 Tbiv irevre de/ndruv tQv of Seleucia is probably due to corrup-
Kardi. Tr)v avaToXrjv, A.D. 803 ; and tion.
Theodore Stud. Epp. ii. 64, p. 1284 ■* This also is omitted in our text of
f7rt7apTcDj'7r. 6. T^^eirac, A.D. 819 (both 2^aJct. Usp., doubtless a scribe's error,
these passages record the temporary It appears as a kleisurarchy in Ibn
commission of these Themes to a Fakih's list : Brooks, Arabic Lists, 75
supei'ior /jLovoa-Tpdryiyos ; cp. above, (Koron was the seat of the governor),
p. 10). As it is tolerably certain ■' Ta^'^.f/sjj.l 11-113 enumerates seven
that no additional Themes were created Asiatic strategoi, including those of
in the last year of Leo or during the Paphlagonia and Chaldia. Tliis agrees
revolt of Thomas, it follows that A.D. with Ibn Fakih, ib. 73-76; andis borne
824 is a higher limit for the creation out by Euodios {Ada 43 Mart. Amor.
of the two or three new Themes which 65), who, referring to A. D. 838, mentions
existed in a.d. 838. Other considera- "the Seven Themes." The author of
tions make it probable that Theophilus the Vita Theodorae imp. (9) speaks of
was the innovator. crTpaTtjyol oktuj at Amorion in that year.
^ The kleisArai of Asia Minor were This (whether anachronism or not)
the passes of the Taurus, and, when cannot be pressed. Cp. Nikitin's note
the Saracens had won positions north of on Euodios (p. 244). He is wrong in
the Eastern Taurus, also of the Anti- supposing (p. 246, n.) that Ca^jpadooia
taurus. was a Theme at this time, though he
^ The existence of the kleisurarchies might have quoted Cont. Th. 120 T(p
of Charsianon and Seleucia at the arpar. Kairw., which, in view of the
beginning of the reign of Michael III. other evidence, must be explained as
is proved by Ibn Khurdadhbah, 78. an anachronism.
The former appears duly in the ^ Constantine, De adm. imp. 178 ;
Taktikon Uspenski, 123 ; the omission Ccr. 788. The simplest explanation
SECT. II MILITARY ORGANIZATION 223
The rise of Paphlagonia in importance may iDe connected
with the active Pontic policy of Theophiliis. It is not
without significance that Paphlagonian ships played a part in
the expedition which he sent to Cherson/ and we may
conjecture with probability that the creation of the Theme of
the Klimata on the north of the Euxine and that of
Paphlagonia on the south were not isolated acts, but were
part of the same general plan. The institution of the Theme
of Chaldia, which was cut off from the Armeniac Theme
(probably a.d. 837)/ may also be considered as part of the
general policy of strengthening Imperial control over the
Black Sea and its coastlands, here threatened by the
imminence of the Moslem power in Armenia. To the south of
Chaldia was the duchy of Koloueia, also part of the Armeniac
circumscription.^ In the following reign (before a.d. 863) both
Koloneia and Cappadocia were elevated to the rank of Themes.*
The Themes of Europe, which formed a class apart from
those of Asia, seem at the end of the eighth century to have
been four in number — Thrace, Macedonia, Hellas, and Sicily.
There were also a number of provinces of inferior rank —
Calabria, under its Dux ; Dalmatia and Crete, under governors
who had the title of archon ; '' while Thessalonica with the
adjacent region was still subject to the ancient Praetorian
is that Paphlagonia was a katepanate A.u. 845-847 {Ada 27, 29). The
before it acquired the rank of a strate- Emperor before his death directed
gia. Michael, Vita Thcod. Stud. -309, that Kallistos Melissenos should be
referring to the reign of Michael II., sent to Koloneia /cat ttjv tov dovKos
speaks of to difxa tCov Ua(p\ay6vu3v, but di.iireiv dpxw- Kallistos is called a
the use of Oe/j-a in such a passage can- turmarch in Simeon, Add. Georg. 805 ;
not be urged as evidence for the date. Koloneia was doubtless a turmarchy
, (3 , T -le in the Armeniac Theme. Koloneia is
See below, p. 416. ^^^^ mentioned by the Arabic writers
- The circumstances are discussed who depend on Al-Garmi or in the
below, p. 261. Chaldia may have TaU. Usp. I conclude that till after
also existed already as a separate the death of Theophilus it had not
command of less dignity under a been separated from the Armeniac
Duke. Yov Takt. f/s^;., which mentions Theme,or,in other words, that Kallistos
the strategos, names also in another ^as the first Dux. Another inference
place (119) 6 Sov^ XaXdias. I explain niay be that the Taktikon represents
this as a survival from an older official the official world immediately after
list, which the compiler neglected to the accession of Michael III.
eliminate. In the same document 4 Cont. Th. 181. Cp. Brooks, op. cit.
EpXovTes of Chaldia are also mentioned. 70, for Masudi's evidence.
These were probably local authorities s Calabria : Gay, L Italic mer. 7 ;
in some of the towns, like the archons Takt. Usp. 124. Dalmatia : 6 dpxw
ofCherson. A,, ih. Crete: ih. 119 6 fipx'^" K-
^ The evidence for a i)'/a; of Koloueia (which I interpret as a case, like that
under Theophilus is in an account of of Chaldia, where an older office is
the Amorian martyrs dating from retained in the list).
224 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vii
Prefect of Illyricum, an anomalous survival from the old
system of Constantine.^ It was doubtless the Slavonic revolt
in the reign of Nicephorus I. that led to the reorganization of
the Helladic province, and the constitution of the Peloponnesus
as a distinct Theme/ so that Hellas henceforward meant
Northern Greece. The Mohammadan descent upon Crete
doubtless led to the appointment of a strategos instead of an
archon of Crete,^ and the Bulgarian wars to the suppression
of the Praetorian prefect by a strategos of Thessalonica.* The
Theme of Kephalonia (with the Ionian Islands) seems to have
existed at the beginning of the ninth century ; ^ but the
Saracen menace to the Hadriatic and the western coasts of
Greece may account for the foundation of the Theme of
Dyrrhachium, a city which probably enjoyed, like the com-
munities of the Dalmatian coast, a certain degree of local inde-
pendence.^ If so, we may compare the policy of Theophilus
in instituting the strategos of the Klimata with control over
the magistrates of Cherson.'''
It is to be noted that the Theme of Thrace did not
include the region in the immediate neighbourhood of
Constantinople, cut off by the Long Wall of Anastasius, who
had made special provisions for the government of this
region. In the ninth century it was still a separate circum-
scription, probably under the military command of the
Count of the Walls,^ and Arabic writers designate it by the
curious name Talaya or Tafla.^
A table will exhibit the general result of all these changes :
Asiatic Themes
Strategiai
4.
6.
Anatolic. 2. Armeniac. 3. Thrakesian.
Opsikian. 5. Bukellarian.
Cappadocia. 7- Paphlagonia. 8. Clialdia.
9. Koloneia.
KleisurarcMai -
-10.
Charsianon. 11. Seleucia.
Theodore Stud. Epp. i. 3, p. 917 ^ Ih. 115 ; cp. 124 ol Hpxavres rod
{tov vwdpxov). This evidence is over- Avppaxiov.
looked by Gelzer, Themenverfassung, "^ See below, p. 417.
38 W- 8 See Bury, op. cit. 67-68.
2 First mentioned in Scr. Incert. » Talaya seems to be the best attested
336 (a.d. 813). form (Brooks, op. cit. 69, 72). Gelzer,
See below, p. 289. 86 sqq., operates withTafla and thinks
Takt. Usp. 11.5. the district was called" ^ Tdcj>pQi. The
See below, p. 324. Takl. Usp. 113. solution has not yet been discovered.
i
SECT. II
MILITARY ORGANIZATION
225
Strategiai
Ducate
Archontates
Naval Themes
1. Kibyrrhaiot. 2. Aigaion Pelagos.
European (and other) Themes
^ 1. Macedonia. 2. Thrace.
I 3. Hellas. 4. Peloponnesus. 5. Tliessalonica.
j 6. Dyrrhachiuni.
^ 7. Keplialonia. 8. Sicily. 9. Klimata.
. 10. Calabria.
, 11. Dalmatia. 12. Cyprus.
II. There were considerable differences in the ranks and
salaries of the strategoi. In the first place, it is to be noticed
that the governors of the Asiatic provinces, the admirals of
the naval Themes, and the strategoi of Thrace and Macedonia
were paid by the treasury, while the governors of the European
Themes paid themselves a fixed amount from the custom dues
levied in their own provinces.^ Hence for administrative
purposes Thrace and Macedonia are generally included among
the Asiatic Themes. The rank of patrician was bestowed as
a rule upon the Anatolic, Armeniac, and Thrakesian strategoi,
and these three received a salary of 40 lbs. of gold (£1728).
The pay of the other strategoi and kleisurarchs ranged from
36 to 12 lbs,2 but their stipends were somewhat reduced in
the course of the ninth century. We can easily calculate that
the total cost of paying the governors of the eastern provinces
(including Macedonia and Thrace) did not fall short of
£15,000.
1 Constantine, Cer. 697, referring
to the reign of Leo VI. There is every
reason to suppose that the system was
older.
2 Ibn Khurdadhbah, 85. " The pay
of the officers is at the maximum
40 lbs ; it descends to 36, 24, 12, 6
and even to 1 lb." The salaries which
obtained under Leo VI. {Cer., ih.)
enable us to apply this information.
There we have 5 classes : — (1) 40 lbs. :
Anatol., Arm., Thrakes. (2) 30 lbs. :
Opsik., Bukell., Maced. (3) 20 lbs. :
Capp., Chars., Paphl., Thrace, Kol.
(4) 10 lbs. : Kib., Saraos, Aig. Pel.
(5) 5 lbs. : 4 kleisurarchies. It is
clear that in the interval between
Theophilus and Leo VI. the salaries,
with the exception of the highest, had
been lowered {Cer., ib.). If we apply
the figures given by Ibn Khurdadhbah
to the corresponding categories in
the table of Themes under Michael
III. (36 lbs. =£1555 :4s. ; 24 lbs.
= £1036 :16s.; 12 lbs. =£518 : 8s. ;
6 lbs. =£259 : 4s.), we get for the total
amount paid to the military com-
manders £16,558 : 16s. But it must
be remembered that the reduction of
salaries may have been made under
Michael III., or even before the death
of Theophilus, and may have been
connected with the increase in the
number of the Themes. It seems, for
instance, probable that when Koloneia
became a strategia the salary may
have been fixed at 20 lbs. But the data
are sufficient for a rough estimate.
Q
226 EASTERN ROM^N EMPIRE chap, vii
In these provinces there is reason to suppose that the
number of troops, who were chiefly cavalry, was about 80,000.^
They were largely settled on military lands, and their pay was
small. The recruit, who began service at a very early age,
received one nomisma (12s.) in his first year, two in his
second, and so on, till the maximum of twelve (£7 : 4s.), or
in some cases of eighteen (£10 : 16s.), was reached."
The army of the Theme was divided generally into two,
sometimes three, turms or brigades ; the turm into drungoi or
battalions ; and the battalion into banda or companies. The
corresponding commanders were entitled turmarchs, drungaries,
and counts. The number of men in the company, the sizes of
the battalion and the brigade, varied widely in the different
Themes. The original norm seems to have been a bandon of
200 men and a drungos of 5 banda. It is very doubtful
whether this uniform scheme still prevailed in the reign of
Theophilus. It is certain that at a somewhat later period
the bandon varied in size up to the maximum of 400, and the
drungos oscillated between the limits of 1000 and 3000 men.
Originally the turm was composed of 5 drungoi (5000 men),
but this rule was also changed. The number of drungoi in
1 Ibn Kudama, 197 sqq., gives tlie ization never corresponded to this
total for the Asiatic provinces as scheme, and it has no historical value.
70,000, but the sum of his items does The figures 120,000 may indeed roughly
not correspond. The number of troops correspond to the actual total, if we
in Paphlagonia is omitted, and Gelzer include the Tagmata and all the forces
is probably right in supplying 4000 in Hellas and tlie Western provinces.
{op. cit. 98). He is also right in - Ibn Khurdadhbah makes two
observing that the figure 4000 assigned contradictory statements about the
to the Armeniacs must be wrong, but pay : (1) it varies between 18 and 12
I cannot agree with his emendation, dinars a year (84), and (2) beardless
10,000. For the number of the youths are recruited, they receive 1
Thrakesians 6000 must also be in- dinar the first year, 2 the second, and
correct ; they cannot have been less so on till their twelfth year of service,
numerous than the Bukellarians, who when they earn the full pay of 12
were 8000. I would therefore write dinars. Perhaps the explanation is
8000 for the Thrakesians, and 8000 for that the first passage only takes
the Armeniacs (not too few for this account of the "full pay." This may
Theme reduced by the separation of have varied in different Themes ; or
Chaldia and Charsianon). With these higher pay than 12 dinars may have
corrections we get the required sum been that of the Tagmatic troops, or
70,000. The same author gives 5000 of the dekarchs (corporals'). In any
for Thrace, to which we must add case Gelzer is wrong in his estimate of
another 5000 for Macedonia (but these the pay (120). Htj^^^'ommits the error
numbers may be under the mark). of taking the cUjC^i- to be equivalent
Ibn Khurdadhbah^ (84) asserts that to a franc (^S^-ather 91 pfennige).
the whole army numbered 120,000 But the dinar represents the Greek
men, and a patrician {i.e. a strategos) nomisma. The dirham (drachma)
commanded 10,000. The actual organ- corresponds to a franc.
SECT. II
MILITARY ORGANIZATION
227
the turm was reduced to three, so that the brigade which the
turmarch commanded ranged from 3000 upwards.
The pay of the officers, according to one account, ranged
from 3 lbs. to 1 lb., and perhaps the subalterns in the company
(the keiitarchs and pentekontarchs) are included ; but the
turmarchs in the larger themes probably received a higher
salary than 3 lbs. If we assume that the average bandon was
composed of 300 men and the average drungos of 1500, and
further that the pay of the drungary was 3 lbs., that of the
count 2 lbs. and that of the kentarch 1 lb., the total sum
expended on these officers would have amounted to about
£64,000. But these assumptions are highly uncertain. Our
data for the pay of the common soldiers form a still vaguer
basis for calculation ; but we may conjecture, with every
reserve, that the salaries of the armies of the Eastern Themes,
including generals and officers, amounted to not less than
£500,000.^
The armies of the Themes formed only one branch of the
military establishment. There were four other privileged and
differently organized cavalry regiments known as the Tagmata : ^
(1) the Schools, (2) the Excubitors, (3) the Arithmos or Vigla,
and (4) the Hikanatoi. The first three were of ancient
foundation ; the fourth was a new institution of Nicephorus I.,
who created a child, his grandson Nicetas (afterwards the
Patriarch Ignatius), its first commander.^ The commanders of
these troops were entitled Domestics, except that of ^he
Arithmos, who was known as the Drungary of the Vigla or
Watch. Some companies of these Tagmatic troops may have
been stationed at Constantinople, where the Domestics usually
resided, but the greater part of them were quartered in Thrace,
1 We cannot, I think, use the
evidence in the documents concerning
the Cretan expeditions of a.d. 902 and
949 (in Constantine, Ger. ii. chaps. 44
and 45) for controlling the Arabic
statements as to the pay of soldiers
and officers. For instance, we find
the detachment of 3000 Thrakesians
receiving 2 nomismata each (p. 655)
in A.D. 902 ; and men of the Sebastean
Theme receiving 4 n. each (p. 656),
while the officers of the same Theme
are paid — turmarchs 12 n., drungaries
10 n., counts 5 n. It seems probable
that these sums represent extra pay
given for special expeditions oversea,
and are outside the regular military
budget. See below. We cannot draw
conclusions from the sum of 1100
pounds = £475, 222 which was sent in
A.D. 809 to pay the army on the
Strymon, as we do not know the
number of the troops or whether the
sum included arrears.
^ See Bury, hnp. Admin. System, 47
sqq.
3 Nicet. Vita Ign. 213.
228 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vii
Macedonia, and Bithynia. The question of their numbers is
perplexing. We are variously told that in the ninth century
they were each 6000 or 4000 strong, but in the tenth the
numbers seem to have been considerably less, the strength of
the principal Tagma, the Scholarians, amounting to no more
than 1500 men. If we accept one of the larger figures for
the reign of Theophilus, we must suppose that under one of
his successors these troops were reduced in number.^
The Domestic of the Schools_^ preceded in rank all other
military (Commanders except the strategos of the Anatolic
Theme, and the importance of the post is shown by the
circumstance that it was filled by such men as Manuel and
Bardas. In later times it became still more important ; in
the tenth century, when a military expedition against the
Saracens was not led by the Emperor in person, the Domestic
of the Schools was ex officio the Commander-in-Chief.^ The
Drungary of the Watch and his troops were distinguished from
the other Tagmata by the duties they performed as sentinels
in campaigns which were led by the Emperor in person. The
Drungary was responsible for the safety of the camp, and
carried the orders of the Emperor to the generals.
Besides the Thematic and the Tagmatic troops, there
were the Numeri, a regiment of infantry commanded by a
Domestic ; ^ and the forces which were under the charge of the '
Count or Domestic of the Walls, whose duty seems to have
been the defence of the Long Wall of Anastasius.* These
troops played little part in history. More important was the
Imperial Guard or Hetaireia,' ' which, recruited from barbarians,
formed the garrison of the Palace, and attended the Emperor
on campaigns.
1 See Constantine, Cer. 666. Cp. ^ Probably organized in the course
Buiy, op. cit. 54, where, however, the of the ninth century, cp. Bury, o^;. cit.
reduction of the Excubitors and Hika- 107. They were under the command
natoi is probably exaggerated, as the of Hetaeriarchs, and associated M'ith
numbers given in Cer. seem to refer to them were small corps of Khazars and
the contingents stationed in Asia, and ' Pharganoi. These guards were so well
not to include those in Thrace and remunerated that they had to purchase
Macedonia. their posts for considerable sums, on
2 Hence the Domestic of the Schools which their salaries represented an
developed into the Domestic of the annuity varying from about 2? to 4
East. per cent (Constantine, Cer. 692-693).
3 They numbered 4000, according J°' example a Khazar who received
to Kudama. Cp. Bury, op. cit. 65. f'^^^ ^'''^, . 1'^^*^ , ^*^^' ^^^^f^f
^ •' ^ £302 : 8s. ihis system applied to
4
See above, p. 224. most of the Palace offices.
SECT. II MILITAR V ORCANIZA TION 231
\
J The care which was spent on providing for the health anO
I comfort of the soldiers is illustrated by the baths at Dorylaion,
the first of the great military stations in Asia Minor. This
bathing establishment impressed the imagination of oriental
visitors, and it is thus described by an Arabic writer : ^
Dorylaion possesses warm springs of fresh water, over wliich the
Emperors have constructed vaulted buildings for bathing. There are
seven basins, each of which can accommodate a thousand men. The water
reaches the breast of a man of average height, and the overflow is
discharged into a small lake.
j In military campaigns, careful provision was made for the
' wounded. There was a special corps of officers called deputatoi^
whose duty was to rescue wounded soldiers and ta Ee them to
thTlrear, to be tended by the^ iedical staff. They carried
flasks'^oTwater, and had twoTadders attached to the saddles of
Theirh£rges j)n the jefL side, so that, havi ng mountejLa fallen
soldier with the help of ^ne ladder^_the deputatos couM_himself_
mount insta ntly by th e oth er and rid ejoff,
I It is interesting to obser ve that_ iiot only did_th£_generals
' and "superior o fficers make^ speeches to the soldiers^ infold
BTellenic fashion, before a baitle^Jiit-Jthexe— was-^
professionaTorators, called cantatores, whose duty w as to stimu-
late th'elnen By tlieir 'eTx)g3iCTce'''dimng the acti on. Some of
the combatants themselves, if they had the capacity, might be
chosen f or this pur pose^ ATwHter on the art of war suggests
the appropriate chords which the cantatores might touch, and
if we may infer their actual practice, the leading note was
religious. " We a re fighting in God's cause ; the__i§su£_Jiea.
with hini ^nd he will not faY^ur_the_enemy because_oL-th£ij
unbelief."
III. Naval necessities imposed an increase of expenditure
for the defence of the Empire in the ninth century.^ The
navy, which had been efficiently organized under the Heraclian
dynasty and had performed memorable services against the
attacks of tlie Omayyad Caliphs, had been degraded in import-
ance and suffered to decline by the policy of the Isaurian
monarchs. We may criticize their neglect of the naval arm,
1 Ibn Khurdadhbali, 81. scribe's error but a popular corrup-
^ Deputati. The word sometimes tion. Leo, Tact. 12, § 51, 53.
appears as Seo-TroTOTOt. This is not a * See Bury, Naval Policy.
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vii
M
but we must remember that it was justified by immediate
impunity, for it was correlated with the simultaneous decline
in the naval power of the Saracens. The Abbasids who trans-
ferred the centre of the Caliphate from Syria to Mesopotamia
undertook no serious maritime enterprises. The dangers of the
future lay in the west and not in the east, — in the ambitions
of the Mohammadan rulers of Africa and Spain, whose only
way of aggression was by sea. Sicily was in peril throughout
the eighth century, and Constantine V. was forced to reorganize
her fleet ; ^ accidents and internal divisions among the Saracens
helped to save her till the reign of Michael II. We shall see
in another chapter how the Moliammadans then obtained a
permanent footing in the island, the beginning of its complete
conquest, and how they occupied Crete. These events
necessitated a new maritime policy. To save Sicily, to recover '
Crete, were not the only problems. The Imperial possessions
in South Italy were endangered ; Dalmatia, the Ionian islands,
and the coasts of Greece were exposed to the African fleets.
It was a matter of the first importance to preserve the control
of the Hadriatic, The reorganization of the marine estab-
lishment was begun by the Amorian dynasty, though its
effects were not fully realized till a later period.
The naval forces of the Empire consisted of the Imperial
fleet,^ which was stationed at Constantinople and commanded
by the Drungary of the Navy,^ and the Provincial fleets * of the
Kibyrrhaeot Theme, the Aegean,^ Hellas, Peloponnesus, and
Kephalonia.*^ The Imperial fleet must now have been increased
in strength, and the most prominent admiral of the age,
Ooryphas, may have done much to reorganize it. An armament
of three hundred warships was sent against Egypt in a.d. 853,
and the size of this force may be held to mark the progress
which had been made.'^ Not long after the death of Michael
III. four hundred vessels were operating off the coast of
Apulia.^
We have some figures which may give us a general idea
1 Amari, Storia, i. 175 n. b ^1^3 t^^^^\ Theme of Samos seems
■^ Th BaffLXiKoirXSl'fxov. *^ have been of later date than the
3 , , / Amorian period.
dpovyyapios rov irXoifiov. For 6 Paphlagonia had also a small
mm and his stall, see Bury, Im^). flotilla
Ad7n. System, 108 sqq. 7 See below, p. 292.
* 6 de/xaTiKbs <7t6\os. « Bury, JSTaval Policy, 33.
SECT. 11 NAVAL ORGANIZATION 231
of the cost of these naval expeditions. Attempts were made
to recover Crete from the Saracens in a.d. 902 and in a.d. 949,
and the pay of officers and men for each of these expeditions,
vsrhich were not on a large scale, amounted to over £140,000.^
This may enable us to form a rough estimate of the expenditure
incurred in sending armaments oversea in the ninth century.
We may surmise, for instance, that not less than a quarter of a
million (pounds sterling), equivalent in present value to a
million and a quarter, was spent on the Egyptian expedition
in the reign of Michael III.
1 See official documents in Constan- 949 we have (673 sqq.) interesting
tine, Ger. 651 sqq. and 667 sqq. The details of the prices of the articles
total in the first case seems to come to required for the equipment (e^oTrXtcrts)
£143,483, in the second to £147,287. of the vessels, and I calculate that this
In A.D. 902, there were 177 ships, and expenditure came to more than £1000.
the men numbered 47,127. For a.d.
Note
As to the surplus in the treasury on the death of Theophilus,
mentioned on p. 219, a footnote was there accidentally omitted. When
Michael III. assumed the government himself in a.d. 856, Theodora, by
way of justifying her administration, proved to the Senate that the
accumulated savings effected in the reign of Theophilus, and under her
own regime, lay in the treasury, and amounted to 190 kentenaria in gold
coin, and 300 pounds of silver (Gen. 90 = Cojif. Th. 172). The gold is
equivalent to £4,708,800 (in purchasing value upwards of £20,000,000).
CHAPTEE VIII
THE SARACEN WARS
§ 1. The Empire of the Ahhasids
In the days of Nicephorus and Charles the Great, the Caliphate
was at the height of its power and grandeur ; a quarter of a
century later the decline of Abbasid rule, a process which was
eked out through several centuries, had already begun. An
accomplished student of Mohammadan history ^ has found, even
in the reigns of Harun and his son Mamun, the last great
Caliphs, signs and premonitions of decay ; in their characters
and tempers he discovers traits of the degeneracy which was
to be fully revealed in their weak and corrupt successors.
Without presuming to decide whether Harun should be called
a degenerate because to a nature unscrupulously cruel he
united susceptibility so sensitive to music and so prone to
melancholy that he burst into tears on hearing the strains of
a boatman's song wafted over the waters of the Tigris, we can
see in his reign and that of his son the immense difficulties of
government which confronted the rulers of the Mohammadan
world, the strength of the elements of division and disruption,
and the need of sovrans of singular ability and strenuous life,
if the fabric of the Empire was to be held together.
The realm of the Abbasids, in its early period, presents
some interesting points of comparison with the contemporary
Eoman Empire. The victory of the Abbasids and their establish- '
ment on the throne of the Caliphs had been mainly due to
Persian support ; the change of dynasty marked the triumph
of Persian over Arabian influence. We may fairly compare
this change with that which attended the elevation of the
^ Von Ki'emer.
232
SECT. I THE EMPIRE OF THE ABBASIDS 233
llsaurian dynasty to the throne of the Caesars. The balance
was shifted in favour of the eastern regions of the Empire,
and influences emanating from the mountains of Asia Minor
strove to gain the upper hand over the prevailing influence of
the Greeks. If the struggle between the two spirits expressed
itself here in the form of the iconoclastic controversy, the
anti- Arabian reaction in the Caliphate was similarly marked
by a religious movement, which is called heretical because it
was unsuccessful, and has a certain resemblance to iconoclasm
in so far as it was an attempt of reason to assert itself, within
certain limits, against authority and tradition. While the
Omayyad Caliphs were still ruling in Damascus, there were
some thoughtful Mohammadans who were not prepared to
accept without reflexion the doctrines which orthodoxy imposed ;
and it is not improbable that such men were stimulated in
theological speculation by friendly disputes and discussions
with their Christian fellow-subjects.^ The sect of the Mutaza-
jlites proclaimed the freedom of the will, which the orthodox
Mohammadan regards as inconsistent with the omnipotence of
Allah, and they adopted the dangerous method of allegorical
interpretation of the Koran. Their doctrines were largely
accepted by the Shiites, and they had to endure some persecu-
tion under the Caliphs of Damascus. The first Abbasid rulers
secretly sympathized with the Mutazalites, but orthodoxy was
still too strong to enable them to do more than tolerate it.
Mamun was the first who ventured to profess the heresy, and
in A.D. 8 2 7 he issued an edict proclaiming that the Koran was
created. This was the cardinal point at issue. The Mutaza-
lites pointed out that if, as the orthodox maintained, the
Koran existed from all eternity, it followed that there were two
co-existing and equally eternal Beings, Allah and the Koran.
' The doctrine of the eternal existence of the Koran corresponds
to the Christian doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible, and in
denying it the Caliph and his fellow-heretics seemed to under-
mine the authority of the Sacred Book. There were some
who had even the good sense to assert that a better book than
the Koran might conceivably be written.^ The intellectual
attitude of the Mutazalites is also apparent in their rejection
^ Cp. Kremer, CuUurgeschichte, ii. ^99 sq.
'^ Weil, ii. 264.
234 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
of the doctrine, which the orthodox cherished, that in the
next world God would reveal himself to the faithful in a visible'
shape. Mamun may have hoped to bring about a general
reform of Islam, but his enlightened views, which his two
successors, Mutasim and Wathik, also professed and endeavoured
to enforce, probably made few converts. These Caliphs, like
the iconoclastic Emperors, resorted to persecution, the logical
consequence of a system in which theological doctrine can be
defined by a sovran's edict. When Wathik died, in consequence
of his dissolute life, in a.d. 847, his successor Mutawakkil
inaugurated a return to the orthodox creed, and executed
those who persisted in denying the eternity of the Koran.
The genuine interest evinced by the Caliphs of this period
in poetry and music, in literature and science, was the most
pleasing feature of their rule. It was a coincidence that the
brilliant period of Arabic literature, developing under Persian
influence, was contemporary with the revival of learning and
science at Constantinople, of which something will be said in
another chapter. The debt which Arabic learning owed to j
the Greeks was due directly to the intermediate literature of
Syria ; but we must not ignore the general effect of influences
of culture which flowed reciprocally and continually between!
the Empire and the Caliphate.^ Intercourse other than war- ■
like between neighbouring realms is usually unnoticed in
medieval chronicles, and the more frequent it is, the more
likely it is to be ignored. But various circumstances permit
us to infer that the two civilizations exerted a mutual influence
on each other ; and the historians record anecdotes which,
though we hesitate to accept them as literal facts, are yet,
like the anecdotes of Herodotus, good evidence for the social;
or historical conditions which they presuppose. It must not^
be thought that the religious bigotry of the Moslems or the
chronic state of war between the two powers were barriers or
obstacles. At that time the Mohammadan society of the
middle classes, especially in the towns, seems to have been
permeated by a current of intellectual freedom : they were
not afraid to think, they were broad-minded and humane.^
On the other hand, while the continuous hostilities on the
1 See below, Chapter XIV.
''' Kremer, CuUurgescMchte, i., p. vi.
SECT. I THE EMPIRE OF THE ABBASIDS 235
frontiers do not appear to have seriously interrupted the
commercial traffic between Europe and Asia, the war directly
contributed to mutual knowledge. In the annual raids and
invasions by which the Eomans and Saracens harried each
other's territories, hundreds of captives were secured ; and
there was a recognized system of exchanging or redeeming
them at intervals of a few years. The treatment of these
prisoners does not seem to have been very severe ; distinguished
Saracens who were detained in the State prison at Constanti-
nople were entertained at banquets in the Imperial palace.^
I Prisoners of the better classes, spending usually perhaps five
or six years, often much longer terms, in captivity, were a
channel of mutual influence between Greek and Saracen
civilization. On the occasion of an exchange of captives in
A.D. 845, Al-Garmi, a highly orthodox Mohammadan, was
one of those who was redeemed. During a long period of
detention, he had made himself acquainted with the general
outline of Imperial history, with the government, the
geography, and the highroads of the Empire, and had obtained
[information touching the neighbouring lands of the Slavs
and the Bulgarians. He committed the results of his
curiosity to writing, and the descriptive work of Ibn
;Khurdadhbah, which has come down to us, owed much to the
compositions of the captive Al-Garmi.
In its political constitution, the most striking feature of
ithe Caliphate, as contrasted with the Eoman Empire, was the
looseness of the ties which bound its heterogeneous territories
together under the central government. There was no great
administrative organization like that which was instituted by
jDiocletian and Constantine, and survived, however changed
(and modified, throughout the ages. At Constantinople the
great chiefs of departments held in their hands the strings to
all the administration in the provinces, and the local affairs
of the inhabitants were strictly controlled by the governors
and Imperial officials. In the Caliphate, on the other hand,
the provincials enjoyed a large measure of autonomy, and
there was no administrative centralisation. For keeping their
subjects in hand, the Caliphs seem to have depended on secret
police and an organized system of espionage. An exception
1 Philotheos, in Constantine. Ger. 743, 767 ( = 157, 168, ed. Bury).
236 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
to the principle of abstaining from State interference was
made in favour of agriculture : the government considered
itself responsible for irrigation ; and the expenses of maintain-
ing in repair the sluices of the Tigris and Euphrates, indis-
pensable for the fertility of Mesopotamia, were defrayed
entirely by the public treasmy/
The small number of the ministries or divans in Baghdad
is significant of the administrative simplicity of the Saracen
State. The most important minister presided over the office
of the ground-tax, and next to him was the grand Vezir.
The duty of the Postmaster was to exercise some general
control over the administration ; and his title, though he was
not responsible for the management of the State Post, suggests
the methods by which such control was exerted.^' The chief
purpose of the Post, which, like that of the Eoman Empire,
was exclusively used by officials, was to transmit reports from
the provinces to the capital. It was carefully organized.
The names of the postal stations, and their distances, were
entered in an official book at Baghdad, and the oldest geo-
graphical works of the Arabs were based on these official itin-
eraries. The institution served a huge system of espionage,
and the local postmasters were the informers, sending reports
on the conduct of governors and tax-collectors, as well as on;
the condition of agriculture, to headquarters.^ '
We possess far fuller information on the budget of the
Caliphate under the early Abbasids than on the finances of the
later Empire at any period.'* We can compare the total
revenues of the State at various periods in the eighth and
ninth centuries, and we know the amount which each province
contributed. Under Harun ar-Eashid the whole revenue
amounted to more than 530 millions of dirhams (about
£21,000,000), in addition to large contributions in kind,
whose value in money it is impossible to estimate.'^ In the
1 Kreiner, ih. i. 200-202. Kremer, Culturgeschichte, 356 sqq. ;
- He may be compared to the head (3) in the Persian liistorian Wassaf.
of the Third Section of the Russian The relations of the three are discussed
rolice. by Kremer, ih. 12 sqq. (1) and (3)
^ Kremer, ih. 192 sqq., 201-202. agree accurately as to the gold and
* Kremer, ih. 2.56 sqq. silver items, and both state that the
■' For Haruii's reign we have three gold dinar was then (under Harun)
tax rolls : (1) in Gahsiyari's iZ^is^o?'?/ o/ equivalent to 22 silver dirhams.
the Vezirs ; published in Kremer, They are evidently copies of the same
Budget Harun ; (2) in Ibn Khaldun ; tax list. (1) and (2) agree generally.
sRCT. I THE EMPIRE OF THE ABBAS IDS 237
reign of Mamun (a.d. 819-820) it was reduced perhaps by
200 millions, and about forty years later the sources point to
a. still lower figure.^ In the following century (a.d. 915-916),
it is recorded that the income of the State, from the taxes
which were paid in gold and silver, amounted to no more
than 24 millions of dirhams.^ The sources of the revenue
were the taxes on land and property, ships and mines, mills
and factories, the duties on luxuries, on salt, and many other
things. The falling off during the ninth century may be
easily accounted for by such general causes as internal troubles
and rebellions, constant wars, the dishonesty of provincial
governors, and the lavish luxury of the Court. The Caliph
Mamun is said to have spent on the maintenance of his Court
six thousand dinars daily, which is equivalent nearly to
£1,000,000 a year.-^
The circumstances of the elevation of the Abbasid house
entailed, as a natural consequence, that the Persians should
form an important element in the military establishments.
Under the Omayyads the chief recruiting grounds were
Basrah and Kufah, and the host consisted mainly of Arabians.
In the army of Mansur there were three chief divisions — the
northern Arabs, the southern Arabs, and, thirdly, the men of
Khurasan, a geographical term which then embraced the
mountainous districts of Persia. The third division were the
privileged troops who, to use the technical Eoman term, were
ill praesenti and furnished the guards of the Caliph. But in
the reign of Mutasim, who ascended the throne in a.d. 833,
the Persians were dislodged from their place of favour by
foreigners. The Turkish bodyguard was formed by slaves
Kremer calculated the dinar from Ibn the relation of the dinar to the dirhara
Khaldun's sums as equal to 15 dir- varied. The actual totals given
liams. This list belonged to the (supposing the dinar = 15 dirhanis)
period immediately before Harun's are : Kudama, 3171 millions (over
accession (775-786). £12,706,000) ; Ibn Khurdadhbah, 293
1 We cannot depend on the totals millions (£11,720,000) — taking the
of the accounts in Kudama and Ibn dirham as a franc. — Ibn Khurdadhbah
Khurdadhbah, which are our sources was general postmaster in the district
for this decline. For Kudama's list of Gabal, and wrote between a.d. 854
is based partly on a list of 819-820, and 874. Kudama died in a.d. 948-9.
and partly on later lists up to 851-852 ., ,,. ^ ,^ , • , . • <.oi
(Kremer, CMurgescMcht^ 270) ; and ^ l^^^mev, CuUurcjescliiMc, i. 281.
Ibn Khurdadhbah gives the revenue ^ The defence of the Syrian fron^
from Khurasan for 836, but his other tier is said to have cost 200,000
ligures belong to later years (up to dinars (£120,000), sometimes 300,000
874). Further, we do not know how (£180,000).
238 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
imported from the lands beyond the Oxus, and so many came
from Farghana that they were all alike known as Farghanese.
We may suspect that many of these soldiers entered the
Caliph's service voluntarily, and it is remarkable that much
about the same time as the formation of the Turkish
bodyguard of the Caliph we meet the earliest mention of
Farghanese in the service of the Eoman Empire.^ The
unpopularity of the insolent Turkish guards among the
inhabitants of Baghdad drove Mutasim into leaving the capital,
and during the secession to Samarra, which lasted for sixty
years, they tyrannized over their masters, like the Praetorians
of past and the Janissaries of future history. Yet a fifth
class of troops was added about the same time to the military
forces of the Caliphate ; it consisted of Egyptian Beduins,
Berbers, and negroes, and was known as the African corps.
The Saracens adopted the tactical divisions of the Eoman
army.^ The regiment of 1000 men, commanded by a kaid,
was subdivided into hundreds and tcDs, and there were
normally ten such regiments under the emir, who corresponded
to the strategos of a Theme.
^ 2. Baghdad
The capital city of the Abbasids,^ from which they
governed or misgoverned Western Asia, was the second city
in the world. In size and splendour, Baghdad was surpassed
only by Constantinople. There is a certain resemblance between
the circumstances in which these two great centres of power
were founded. Saffah, the first sovran of the new dynasty, had
seen the necessity of translating the seat of government from
Syria to Mesopotamia. A capital on the navigable waters of
the Tigris or the Euphrates would be most favourably situated
for ocean commerce with the far East ; it would be at a safe
distance from Syria, where the numerous adherents of the
fallen house of the Omayyads were a source of danger ; it
would be near Persia, on whose support the risen house of the
^ Cp. Simeon, Cont. Georg. 815 work, Baghdad during the Ahhasid
Oeo^di/Tjs 6 iK ^apydvuji'. Caliphate, where references to the
- Kreniev, ib. 237. authorities are given throughout, and
^ The following description is de- the topography is elucidated by
rived from Le Strange's exhaustive numerous plans.
SKCT. II
BAGHDAD 239
Abbasids especially depended. Perhaps, too, it may have been
thought that Damascus was perilously near the frontier of the
Eoman Empire, whose strength and vigour had revived under
its warlike Isaurian rulers/ It was impossible to choose
Kufah on the Euphrates, with its turbulent and fanatical
population, and Saffah built himself a palace near the old
Persian town of Anbar, a hundred miles further up the river.
But his successor Mansur, having just essayed a new residence
on the same stream, discerned the advantages of a situation
on the Tigris. For the Tigris flows through fruitful country,
whereas the desert approaches the western banks of the
Euphrates ; and in the eighth century it flowed alone into the
Persian Gulf,^ while the Euphrates lost itself in a great swamp,
instead of uniting with its companion river, as at the present
day. Mansur did not choose the place of his new capital in
haste. He explored the banks of the Tigris far to the north,
and thouo;ht that he had discovered a suitable site not far
from Mosul. But finally he fixed his choice on the village of
Baghdad. Bricks bearing the name of Nebuchadnezzar show
that the spot was inhabited in the days of the Assyrian
monarchy ; when Mansur inspected it, he found it occupied by
monasteries of Nestorian Christians, who extolled the coolness
of the place and its freedom from gnats. The wisdom of the
Caliph's decision may be justified by the fact that Baghdad
has remained unchallenged, till this day, the principal city of
Mesopotamia. The experiments preliminary to its founda-
tion remind us of the prologue to the foundation of Con-
stantinople. When Diocletian determined to reside himself
in the East, he chose Nicomedia, and Nicomedia corresponds
to the tentative establishments of Saffah and Mansur on the
Euphrates. When Constantine decided that Nicomedia would
not suit the requirements of a new Eome, he was no less at a
loss than Mansur, and we are told that various sites competed
for his choice before he discovered Byzantium.
But the tasks which confronted the two founders were
widely different. Constantine had to renew and extend an
ancient city ; and his plans were conditioned by the hilly
1 Le Strange, 4-5. lagoons which marked its stream were
'^ In the last portion of its course it navigable (i^.).
entered the great swamp, but the
240 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
nature of the ground. The architectural inventiveness of
Mansur and his engineers was hampered by no pre-existing
town ; when they had cleared away a miserable hamlet and
the abodes of infidel monks, they had a tabula rasa, level and
unencumbered, on which they could work their will, confined
only by the Isa canal and the Tigris itself. The architects
used the opportunity and built a wonderful city of a new
type. It was in the form of a perfect circle, four miles in
circumference, surrounded by three concentric walls con-
structed of huge sun-dried bricks. In the centre stood the
Palace of Mansur, known as the Golden Gate, and close to it
the Great Mosque. The whole surrounding area, enclosed by
the inmost wall, was reserved for the offices of government,
the palaces of the Caliph's children, and the dwellings of his
servants. No one except the Caliph himself was permitted to
pass into these sacred precincts on horseback. The ring
between the inner and the middle wall was occupied by
houses and booths. The middle wall was the principal
defence of the town, exceeding the other two in height and
thickness. Through its iron gates, so heavy that a company
was required to open them, a rider could enter without
lowering his lance ; and at each gatehouse a gangway was
contrived by which a man on horseback could reach the top
of the wall. From this massive fortification a vacant space
divided the outmost wall, which was encompassed by a water-
moat. This system of walls was pierced by four series of
equidistant gates — the gates of Syria (N.W.), Khurasan
(N.E.), Basrah (S.E.), and Kufah (S.W.). The imposing gate-
houses of the middle circle were surmounted by domes. Such
was the general plan of the round city of Mansur, to which he
gave the name of Madinat as-Salam, " the City of Peace."
But if the name was used officially, it has been as utterly
forgotten by the world as Aelia Capitolina and Theupolis,
which once aspired to replace Jerusalem and Antioch.
The building of the city occupied four years (a.d. 762-766).^
Mansur also built himself another house, the Kasr-al-Khuld
or Palace of Eternity, outside the walls, between the Khurasan
1 Tabari states the cost of building which is about the equivalent of
the two outer walls and the palace, £360,000 (Le Strange, 40).
and constructing the ditch, at a sum
SECT. II
BAGHDAD 241
Gate and the river. It was here that Harun ar-Eashid
generally lived. South of the city stretched the great com-
mercial suburb of Karkh/ and the numerous canals which
intersected it must have given it the appearance of a modern
Dutch town. Here were the merchants and their stores, as
carefully supervised by the government as the traders and
dealers of Constantinople. The craftsmen and tradesmen did
not live scattered promiscuously in the same street, as in our
cities of to-day ; every craft and every branch of commerce
had its own allotted quarter. It is said that Mansur, in
laying out the town of Karkh, which was not included in his
original plan, was inspired by the advice of an envoy of the
Eoman Emperor, who was then Constantine V. When the
patrician had been taken to see all tlie wonders of the new
city, the Caliph asked him what he thought of it. " I have
seen splendid buildings," he replied, " but I have also seen,
Caliph, that thine enemies are with thee, within thy city."
He explained this oracular saying by observing that the
foreign merchants in the markets within the walls would have
opportunities of acting as spies or even as traitors. Mansur
reflected on the warning, and removed the market to the
suburbs.
This is not the only anecdote connecting Byzantine
envoys with the foundation of Baghdad. We may not give
these stories credence, but they have a certain value for the
history of culture, because they would not have been invented
if the Saracens had not been receptive of Byzantine influences.
It was said that a Greek patrician advised Mansur on the
choice of his site ; and a visitor who walked through the
western suburb and was shown the great " water-mill of the
patrician " might feel convinced that here was an undoubted
proof of the alleged debt to Byzantine civilization. His guide
would have told him that the name of the builder of the mills
was Tarath, who had come on behalf of the Eoman Emperor
to congratulate the Caliph Mahdi on his accession to the
throne (a.d. 775). Tarath, who was himself fifth in descent
from the Emperor Maruk, offered to build a mill on one of the
canals. Five hundred thousand dirhams (about £20,000)
1 The name still survives in Karchiaka, wliicli the Turks apply to western
Baghdad (Le Strange, 66).
K
242 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
were supplied for the cost, and the patrician guaranteed that
the yearly rents would amount to this sum. When the
forecast was fulfilled, Mahdi gratefully ordered that the rents
should be bestowed on the patrician, and until his death the
amount was transmitted to him year by year to Constantinople.
The story sounds like a pleasing invention, called forth by the
need of explaining the name of the mill ; and it has been
suggested that the name itself was originally derived, not
from " Patrician," but from " Patriarch," and that the mills,
older than the foundation of the city, were called after the
Patriarch of the Nestorians.^ The name Tarath, however,
is evidently Tarasius, while in his Imperial ancestor Maruk
it is easy to recognize the Emperor Maurice ; and it is
to be observed that the age of the fifth generation from
Maurice (who died in a.d. 602) corresponds to the reign
of Mansur.
The trafi&c of Baghdad was not confined to Karkh ;
there were extensive market-places also in the region outside
the western wall, and in the north - western suburb of
Harbiyah, beyond the Syrian Gate. The quarters in all
these suburbs which encompassed the city were distinguished
for the most part by the names of followers of Mansur, to
whom he assigned them as fiefs.
Although Baghdad was to live for ever, the Eound City
of the founder was destined soon to disappear. The Palace of
the Golden Gate was little used after the death of Mansur
himself, and four generations later the rest of the court and
government was permanently established on the other side of
the Tigris. At the very beginning, three important suburbs
grew up on the opposite bank of the river, which was spanned
by three bridges of boats. This region has aptly been described
as a fan-shaped area, the point of radiation being the extremity
of the Main Bridge, which led to the gate of Khurasan, and
the curve of the fan sweeping round from the Upper Bridge
to the Lower Bridge.^ But these quarters of Eusafah, Sham-
masiyah,^ and Mukharrim were not destined to be the later
^ Le Strange, 145. Batrik = 7raTpi/cios Aramaic word, meaning "deaconry"
should differ in the final guttural and pointing to Christian origin— was
from batrik = 7raTpidpx'7S (»*• note). the Christian quarter, known as the
^ Le Strange, 169. Dar ar-Rum or House of the Romans.
•■' In theregionofShanmiasiyah— an Here were churches of the Jacobites
>;f,ct. II BAGHDAD 243
city of the Abbasids ; their interest is entirely connected with
the events of the earlier period. Mansur built a palace in
liusafah for his son Mahdi, in whose reign this quarter, in-
h;ibited by himself and his courtiers, became the most fashion-
able part of the capital. More famous was the palace of Ja'far
the Barmecide in the quarter of Mukharrim.^ It was given
by its builder as a free gift to prince Mamun, who enlarged it,
built a hippodrome, and laid out a wild beast park. When
Mamun came to the throne, he generally lived here, whenever
he was in Baghdad, and from this time we may date the up-
ward rise of Eastern Baghdad. For the decline and destruc-
tion of the Eound City of Mansur had been initiated in the
struggle between Mamun and his brother Amin, when its walls
and houses were ruined in a siege which lasted for a year.
Mamun rebuilt it, but neither he nor his successors cared to
live in it, and the neglect of the Caliphs led to its ultimate
ruin and decay. For a time indeed it seemed that Baghdad
itself might permanently be abandoned for a new residence.
The Caliph Mutasim, who had built himself a new palace in
Mukharrim, was forced by the mutinies of the Turkish Guards
to leave Baghdad, and Samarra, higher up the river, was the
5eat of the court and government of the Commander of the
Faithful for about sixty years (a.d. 836-94). Once indeed,
during this period, a caliph took up his quarters for a year in
Baghdad. It was Mustain, who fled from Samarra, unable to
mdure his subjection to the Turkish praetorians (a.d. 865).
But he came not to the city of Mansur, but to the quarter of
Rusafah, which he surrounded with a wall to stand the siege
)i the rival whom the Turks had set up. This siege was as
atal to the old quarters of Eastern Baghdad as the earlier
lege was to the Eound City and its suburbs. When the
Jourt finally returned from Samarra, thirty years later, new
i; daces and a new Eastern Baghdad arose farther to the south,
)u ground which was wholly beyond the limits of the suburbs
if Mansur 's city.
^nd of the more inHuentialNestonans, Catholicus of the Nestorians lived in
'oth of whom lived unmolested under the adjacent monastery, the Dayr ar-
he rule of the Abbasids. The Rum {ih. 208).
•i^estorian church is said to have i Ih. 243 sqq.
eiiu large, solid, and beautiful ; the
I
244 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
3. The Frontier Defences of the Em^nre and the Cali'phate
I
\
The sway of the Caliph extended from the northern shores
of Africa to the frontiers of India, but after the year 800 his
lordship over northern Africa was merely nominal, and the
western limits of his realm were virtually marked by Cyprus
and Egypt. For Ibrahim, son of Aghlab, who was appointed
governor of Tunis, announced to the Caliph Harun that he
was prepared to pay a yearly tribute but was determined to
keep the province as a perpetual fief for himself and his
descendants. Harun, who was at the moment beset by war
and revolts elsewhere, was compelled to acquiesce, and the
Aghlabid dynasty was thus founded in Africa. The whole
Caliphate was divided into some fifteen administrative provinces,
and the Asiatic provinces alone formed a far larger realm than
the contemporary Koman Empire.
The circumscriptions of Syria and Armenia were separated
from Eoman territory by frontier districts, which were occupied
by forts and standing camps. The standing camp, or fttst&t,
was an institution which had been developed under the |
Omayyads, and was continued under the early Abbasids. The
ancient towns of Tarsus, Adana, and Mopsuestia were little
more than military establishments of this kind. If we survey
the line of defences along the Taurus range from the Euphrates
to the frontier of Cilicia, our eye falls first on Melitene
(Malatia) which lies at the meeting of the great highroads
leading from Sebastea (Sivas) and Caesarea to Armenia and
northern Mesopotamia, not far from the loop which the river
describes below the point at which its parent streams^ uni|te
their waters. The road from Melitene to Germanicia, across
the Taurus, was marked by the fastnesses of Zapetra (at Viran-
shahr) and Hadath or Adata,^ both of which were frequently
attacked by the Eomans. Germanicia and Anazarbos were
strongly fortified by the Caliph Harun, and between these
1 Tlie Euphrates (Kara-su) and Minor he equates Hadath with Pav-
Arsanias (Murad-su). rali, north of Inekli. The roads
■■' For a demonstration of the site of across Commagene to Samosata, from
Zapetra (the ancient Sozopetra), and Zapetra and from Germanicia, were
for the position of Hadath (near defended respectively by the forts of
Inekli) see Anderson, Campaign of Hisn Mansur or Perrhe and Bahasna
Basil I., in Classical Eevieio, x. 138-9 (for which cp. Anderson's Map).
(April 1896). In his Map of Asia
SECT. Ill FRONTIERS OF EMPIRE AND CALIPHATE 245
main positions, in the hilly regions of the upper Pyramus,
were the forts of Kanisah and Haruniyah.-^ This line, from
]\Ielitene (which gave his title to the Emir of the district) to
Anazarbos, formed the defence against invasion of Mesopotamia.
The province of Syria was secured by another line, in which
the chief points were Mopsuestia (Massisah), Adana and
Tarsus. When the coast road, emerging from the Syrian
Gates, had swept round the bay of Issus, it turned inland to
Mopsuestia, and thence ran due westward to Tarsus, passing
Adana, which it entered by the old bridge of Justinian across
the Sarus. Under Harun, Tarsus was garrisoned by eight
thousand soldiers, and it was fortified by double walls sur-
rounded by a moat.
Of the Taurus mountain passes, through which the
Christians and Moslems raided each other's lands, the two
chief were (1) the defiles, known from ancient times as the
Cilician Gates, through which the Saracens, when Tarsus was
their base, carried the Holy War into the central regions of
Asia Minor, and (2) the pass which connected Germanicia
with Arabissos.
The pass of the Cilician Gates, famous in ancient as well
as in medieval history, is about seventy miles in length from
the point where the ascent from the central plateau of Asia
]\Iinor begins, south of Tyana, to the point where the southern
foothills of Taurus merge in the Cilician plain.^ Near the
northern extremity of the pass, a lofty isolated peak rises to
the height of about a thousand feet, commanding a wide view
both of the southern plains of Cappadocia and of the northern
slopes of Taurus. On this impregnable height stood the
fortress of Lulon,^ which, though it could defy armed assault,
yet, whether by treachery or long blockades, passed frequently
backwards and forwards from the Saracens to the Eomans. It
was the key of the Cilician pass. Wliile it was in the hands
(jf the Eomans, it was difficult for a Saracen army to invade
1 These have uot been identified, pass is derived from Ramsay, Cilicia.
The hitter, built by Harun (a.d. 799) ^ The Arabic authorities call it both
was a day's march to the west of Lulon and al-Safsaf, "the willow."
Germanicia, and Kanisah- as -Sawda, For the identification see Ramsay, ib.
" the black church," was about twelve 405. It is supported by the fact that
miles from Haruniyah. Le Strange, Tabari calls the pass "the pass of al-
Eastern Caliphate, pp. 128-9. Safsaf" (A.H. 188).
2 The following description of the
I
246 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
Cappadocia ; while the Saracens held it, an Imperial army-
could not venture to enter the defiles.^ The northern road to
Tyana and the western road to Heraclea meet close to Lulon
at the foot of the pass, so that the fort commanded both these
ways.
The road winding first eastward and then turning south
ascends to the oval vale of Podandos, called the " Camp of
Cyrus," because the younger Cyrus encamped here on his
march against his brother." The path rises from Podandos
through steep and narrow glens to the summit of the pass ;
and on the east side, high up on the mountain, it was
commanded by a stronghold, built of black stone, known as
the Fortress of the Slavs.^ Prom the summit, marked by a
little plateau which is now called Tekir,'* a descent of about .
three miles leads to the rocky defile which was known as the
Cilician Gates and gave its name to the whole pass. It is a
passage, about a hundred yards long and a few yards wide,^
between rock walls rising perpendicular on either side, and
capable of being held against a large force by a few resolute
men. Above, on the western summit, are the remains of an
old castle which probably dates from the times when Greeks
and Saracens strove for the possession of the mountain frontier.
In the period with which we are concerned Podandos and
the pass itself seem to have been durably held by the Saracens.
Lulon frequently changed hands. When the Romans were inj
possession, it served as the extreme station of the line of^
beacons, which could flash to Constantinople, across the
highlands and plains of Asia Minor, the tidings of an .
^ Op. Ramsay, Asia Minor, 354. called the fort Rodentos (Constantine,
2 Ramsay {Cilicia, dSQ sqq.) shows TAewics, 19, where it is mentioned with
that Cyrus and Xenophon did not Lulon and Podandos). The L'utrentum
march through the Cilician Gates of the Crusaders may be, as Ramsay
proper. From Podandos (Bozanti) suggests, a contamination of Poc^awc^os
they took a south-easterly path, which and Rodentos.
followed the course of the Chakut-Su •* Ramsay points out that this is in
and was the direct way to Adana but modern warfai-e strategically the most
a considerably longer route to Tarsus. important point of the j^ass. In
^ Hisn as-Sakalibah. The ruins are ancient times the places of most im-
known as Anasha Kalahsi ; they stand portance, becausemost easily defensible
high on Mt. Anasha (Ramsay, ib. 383). by a small body, were the Gates south
In the reign of Justinian II. there was of the summit and the narrow glen
a large desertion of Slavs to the Arabs descending to Podandos, north of the
(Theoph. A.M. 6184), and doubtless summit.
these or similar deserters were placed ^ The Roman road was about 11 feet
as a garrison in this fort. The Greeks wide (Ramsay, 379).
SECT. Ill FRONTIERS OF EMPIRE AND CALIPHATE 247
impending invasion.^ The light which blazed from the lofty-
hill of Lulon was seen by .the watchers on the peak of Mount
Argaios — not the Argaios which looks down on Caesarea, but
another mountain, south-east of Lake Tatta. It travelled in
its north-westward course across the waters of the lake, to be
renewed on the hill of Isamos, and the signal was taken up on
the far-off height of Aigilos. The beacon of Aigilos, visible to
the great military station of Dorylaion which lies on the river
Tembris some thirty miles to the north-west, signalled to
Mamas, a hill in the south-eastern skirts of Mount Olympus,
and another fire passed on the news to Mokilos. The light of
Mokilos crossed the Bithynian Gulf, and the last beacon on
the mountain of St. Auxentios transmitted the message to
those who were set to watch for it in the Pharos of the Great
Palace.
Such telegraphic communication had been devised in
remote antiquity, and had been employed by the Eomans
elsewhere. But the mere kindling of beacons could only
convey a single message, and if the line of fires in Asia Minor
was established as early as the eighth century, they were
probably lit solely to transmit the news that a Saracen
incursion was imminent. But a simple plan for using
the beacons to send as many as twelve different messages is
said to have been contrived by Leo the mathematician^
jand adopted by the Emperor Theophilus. Two clocks
were constructed which kept exactly the same time and were
set together; one was placed in the palace, the other in the
fortress nearest to the Cilician frontier. Twelve occurrences,
which were likely to happen and which it was important to
know, were selected ; one of the twelve hours was assigned to
each ; and they were written on the faces of both clocks. If
at four o'clock the commander of Lulon became aware that
the enemy were about to cross the frontier, he waited till the
1 The list of the stations is given in Olympus, Const., (6) Kyrizos, C. Tlu,
Constantine, llept rai. 492, and C. Th. Const. (Kirkos, Cedr.), (7) MwkcXos, C.
197 = Cedrenus, ii. 174. See Ramsay, Th., Mti/ctXXos, Cedr. MovklKos iwdvui
Asia Minor, jjp. 352-3 and 187 (cp. tG)v JlvkCiv, Const., (8) S. Auxentios
his maps of Galatia and Bitliynia). (Kaich-Dagh), (9) Palace. I have
The stations are given thus in the followed Ramsay's general identifica-
texts : (1) Lulon, (2) Argaios, (7. Th., tion of the route. He conjectures
Cedr. ; Ai7^as/3oi'j'6s, Const., (3) Isamos that Kyrizos is Katerli Dagh, and
(Samos, Const.), (4) Aigilon (Aigialos, identiiies Mokilos with Samanli Dagh.
Cedr.), (5) Mamas, C. Th., Cedr.; ^ ggg bejo^^^ Chap. XIV. § 2.
^
248 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
hour of one and then lit his beacon ; and the watchers in the
Palace, seeing the light on Mount, Auxentios, knew at what
hour the first fire was kindled and therefore what the signal
meant. A signal made at two o'clock announced that
hostilities had begun, and a three o'clock despatch signified a
conflagration.^
In expeditions to Commagene and Mesopotamia, the
Imperial armies generally followed the road from Arabissos
(Yarpuz) which, crossing the Taurus, descends to Germanicia.
The troops of the Eastern Asiatic Themes met those which
came from the west at Caesarea, and a road crossing the
Antitaurus range by the Kuru-Chai pass ^ took them to Sirica
and Arabissos. But at Sirica (perhaps Kemer) they had an
alternative route which was sometimes adopted. They
could proceed southward by Kokusos (Geuksun) and reach
Germanicia by the Ayer-Bel pass.^
At the beginning of the ninth century, a great part of
Cappadocia east and south-east of the upper Halys had become
a frontier land, in which the Saracens, although they did not
occupy the country, had won possession of important strong-
holds, almost to the very gates of Caesarea. If they did not
hold already, they were soon to gain the forts in the
Antitaurus region which commanded the roads to Sis, and
Kokusos which lay on one of the routes to Germanicia."^ To
the north, they seem to have dominated the country as far
west as the road from Sebastea to Arabissos. And, south of
the Antitaurus range, Arabissos was the only important place
of which the Empire retained possession.^ The fact that the
1 Pseudo - Simeon 681 sg-. is the the Paulicians, is another indication,
authority for the wpoXoyca dvo ^^ laov It seems probable that they had
Kdfj.vovTa. achieved this position in Eastern Asia
2 Ramsay, Asia Minor, 271 ; for Minor before the end of the 8th
Sirica, 274. century. Ramsay {Asia Minor, 278)
^ Anderson, Road System {28), where exaggerates when he says that after
all the routes over the Taurus are 780 "the Greek arms were probably
described. There were two ways from never seen again in Eastern Cappa-
Caesarea southward to Sis and Ana- docia till Basil's expedition in 880";
zarbos, ib. 29. at least, the frequent Roman expedi-
* The penetration of Cappadocia by tions to Commagene passed through
the Arabs before 873 can be partly south-eastern Cappadocia.
inferred from the details of the cam- ^ Ramsay {ib. 276) infers from
paigns of Basil I., who undertook to Basil's campaign in 877 that Arabissos
drive them out of the country. Cp. was then in the hands of the Saracens.
Anderson, Campaign of Basil I. {cit. I doubt whether the inference is
supra) and Eoad System, Si sq. The justified; Basil's march to Germanicia
position of Amara, where they settled by the western pass seems to have
SECT. IV
SARACEN WARS, A.D. 802-833
249
Charsian province was designated as a Kleisurarchy is a
significant indication of the line of the eastern frontier.
It was the business of the Charsian commander to defend
the Meisurai or passes of the Antitaurus hills.
^ 4. The Warfare in the Reigns of Harun and Mamun
(A.D. 802-833)
Till the middle of the tenth century when the Emperor
Nicephorus Phocas made a serious effort to drive the Moslems
from Syria, the wars between the Empire and Caliphate are
little more than a chronicle of reciprocal incursions which
seldom penetrated very far into the enemy's country. The
chief events were the capture and recapture of the fortresses
in the Taurus and Antitaurus highlands ; occasionally an
expedition on a larger scale succeeded in destroying some
important town. The record of this monotonous warfare is
preserved more fully in the Arabic than in the Greek
chronicles. It would be as useless as it were tedious to
reproduce here the details of these annual campaigns. It will
l^e enough to notice the chief vicissitudes, and the more
important incidents, in a struggle whose results, when the
Amorian dynasty fell, showed a balance in favour of the
Saracens.
During the last few years of the reign of Irene, the
warfare slumbered ; ^ it would seem that she purchased
immunity from invasion by paying a yearly sum to the Caliph.
One of the first decisions of Nicephorus was to refuse to
continue this humiliating tribute, and the Arab historians
({uote letters which they allege to have passed between the
Emperor and the Caliph on this occasion.^ Nicephorus
demanded back the money which had been paid through
" female weakness." The epistle, if it is authentic, was
been dictated by other considerations.
In any case, Arabissos must have been
Imperial during most of the Amorian
period.
1 According to Michael Syr. 12,
however, there were two Saracen in-
vasions after the deposition of Con-
stantine VI. : in the first, Aetius gained
a victory, in the second the Romans
were defeated.
^ They are given by Tabari (as well
as later writers). Translations in
Gibbon, chap. 52, and Weil, ii. 159.
Brooks regards them as spurious, and
thinks that the story of the peace with
Irene (Rina), which is not mentioned
by Theophanes, was an Arab invention.
It is not mentioned by Michael Syr.,
who, however, states that Nicephorus
sent a letter to Harun (16).
250 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
simplj a declaration of war. Harun was so incensed with
fury that no one could look at him ; he called for an inkpot
and wrote his answer on the back of the Imperial letter.
Harun, Commander of the Faithful, to the Greek dog. I have read
thy letter, son of an unbelieving mother. Thou shalt not only hear my
answer but see it with thine eyes.
The Caliph marched immediately to chastise the insolent
Eoman, but Nicephorus, who, occupied with the revolt of
Bardanes, was not prepared to meet him, offered to pay tribute,
if the array, which had advanced from the Cilician Gates to
Heraclea, would retire. Harun, satisfied with the booty he
had collected and the damage he had inflicted, agreed to the
proposal ; but when he had reached the Euphrates, the news i
arrived that the Emperor had broken the compact, and
notwithstanding the severe cold, for it was already winter, he
retraced his steps and raided the lands of his enemy again.
Each succeeding year during the reign of Harun, and
under his successor till a.d. 813, witnessed the regular incur-
sions of the Moslem commanders of the frontier.^ We may
notice particularly an expedition led by the Caliph himself,
who wore a pointed cap inscribed " Eaider and pilgrim," in
the summer of a.d. 80G. His army numbered 135,000
regular soldiers, with many volunteers, and besides capturing
a number of important forts he took Heraclea and its subter-
ranean grain stores. He seized Tyana, which lies north of
Lulon on the road to Caesarea, and converted it into a
permanent post of occupation, building a mosque, which the
Greek chronicler designates as " the house of his blasphemy."
The Emperor, who seems to have been unable to send a
sufficient force to take the field against the invader, at length
induced him to withdraw for the sum of 50,000 dinars.^
^ In A.D. 804 Nicephorus in person Saracen period, showed himself so
opposed the invaders and was wounded brave and brilliant in war." In 807
(Tabari, s.a. 188). According to Nicephorns fought a pitched battle
Michael Syr. (16), the Romans in with the Saracens and was routed
this year entered Cilicia, pillaged the (Kitab al-'Uyun, Brooks, 747).
regions of Mopsuestia, Anazarbos, and ^ For this campaign we have both
Tarsus ; see also next note. This Theophanes and Tabari. They agree
writer (who becomes more valuable in saying that the tribute was a sort
for chronology in the reign of Theo- of ransom for Nicephorns, his son, his
pliilus) has a curious estimate of ])atricians, and the other Romans,
the military talent of Nicephorus : Tabari says that four dinars were
" No Roman Emperor, throughout the for Nicephorus, two for Stauracius
SECT. IV SARACEN WARS, A.D. 802-833 251
During the last two years of Harun's reign (a.d. 808-9)
insurrections in his eastern dominions^ prevented him from
prosecuting the war against Eomania with the same energy,
and after his death the struggle of his sons for the throne was
the signal for new rebellions, and secured the Empire for some
years against any dangerous attack." Harun had obliged his
three sons to sign a document, by which the government of
the realm was divided among them, but Amin succeeded to
the supreme position of Caliph and Mamun was designated
as next in succession. Amin was younger than Mamun, but
he was the son of the Princess Zubaidah who had Mansur's
blood in her veins, while Mamun's mother was a slave. Civil
war broke out when Amin attempted to violate the paternal
will by designating his own son as heir apparent to the
throne. It was decided by the long siege of Baghdad and
the execution of Amin (a.d. 813).
The twenty years of Mamun's reign were marked by
internal rebellions and disaffection so grave that all the
military forces which he commanded were required to cope
with these domestic dangers. The governors of Egypt were
already aspiring to an independence which they were after-
wards to achieve, and Ba/bek, an unconquerable leader, who
belonged to the communistic sect of the Hurramites, defied
the Caliph's power in Adarbiyan and Armenia. The army
of Mamun was annihilated by this rebel in a.d. 829-30, and
the task of subduing him was bequeathed to the Caliph's
successor. These circumstances explain the virtual cessation
of war between the Empire and the Caliphate for a space of
sixteen years (a.d. 814-829). There was no truce or treaty;
the two powers remained at war ; there were some hostilities ; ^
(Brooks, Byzantines and Arabs, i. that a Roman embassy came to Mamun
746); Theophanes says three for him- in a.h. 210 = April 825- April 826, to
self, three for his son. Michael Syr. negotiate a peace, that Mamun de-
places the capture of Heraclea in A.u. clined and ordered the commanders on
804 (16). the frontiers to invade the Empire,
1 Aur -1 •• ifi'? ^'i*^ *'''^*' they were victorious,
wen, u. ibd. Vasil'ev, Viz. i Ar. 36, accepts the
2 Perfunctory raids are recorded by statement that Zapetra was taken in
Ibn Wadhih each year till a.h. 197 Michael's reign, on the ground that
( = September 12, 812-August 31, 813). Baladhuri was a contemporary. He
Brooks, op. cit. 747. died in 892-3, and may have been a
^ Notably on the occasion of the child in Michael's reign ; but I think
revolt of Thomas. Baladhuri (4), we may take it that he has misplaced
however, records that the Romans de- an event which belongs to the first
stroyed Zapetra, Mamun restored it, year of Theophilus. See below.
252 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
but the Saracens seem to have desisted from their yearly
invasions, and the Emperors Leo and Michael were less eager
to take advantage of Mamun's difficulties by aggressions on
their side than glad to enjoy a respite from the eastern war.^
This long suspension of the Holy War was chequered, indeed,
by Mamun's actions during the rebellion of Thomas, which
showed that he cherished designs upon the Empire which
only necessity held in abeyance. We saw how the Saracens
took advantage of that crisis, first invading the Empire, and
then supporting Thomas the Slavonian. The Caliph, whether
he had made secret conditions with the pretender or not,
undoubtedly hoped to augment his territory in Asia Minor.
If the Caliph had espoused the cause of Thomas, the
Emperor had an opportunity of retaliating by supporting the
rebel Babek. And as a matter of fact, the renewal of the
war seems to have been caused by the opening of negotiations
between Babek and the Emperor Theophilus. It must have
been immediately after Theophilus ascended the throne that
a considerable number of Hurramite insurgents passed into
Eoman territory and offered to serve in the Eoman armies.^
It is probable that the negotiations with Babek were arranged
with the help of a notable officer, of Persian origin, who had
been brought up at Constantinople and bore a Greek name^
Theophobos.^ Theophilus appointed him commander of the
^ The silence of the Greek and that the fugitives were Christians
Arabic chroniclers proves at least who feared Mamun and Babek alike,
that the war was very languidly It should be borne in mind that these
prosecuted in the reign of Leo. But so-called H^po-at must have been mainly
there seem to have been hostilities, Persarmenians.
for we have a record of an eastern ^ The difficulties connected with
campaign of that Emperor. See Theo- Theophobos have not been fully
doi-e Stud. Ef. 213 (Cozza-L.), pp. cleared up, or even realised, by
180-1 /xero. to iKaTparevaai top jSacrtXea, modern historians. He is mentioned
referring to a.d. 817. Moreover, in only in the Greek sources : Gen. 52-57 ;
A.D. 816 a campaign was contem- Cont. Th. 110-112; Simeon {Add.
plated: see Anon. A. Vita The oiihanis, Georg. 793). "While it is admitted
2916 ; Anon. B. Vita Theojihanis, 396. that the stories told of his descent
Cp. Pargoire, St. TMophane, 73-81. from the Persian kings, and of his
^ See Michael Syr. 50 and 73 (who early life, are suspicious from their
describes them as Khordanaye, i.e. general nature and the fact that there
Hurramites), and Greek sources cited are conflicting versions — their legeud-
in next note. Simeon gives the ary character is established by their
number of the " Persian " refugees as inconsistency with chronology and
14,000; according to Cont. Th. they other errors (Hirsch, 139) — it has been
had increased to 30,000 in a.u. 837. generally assumed that Theophobos
That there was an influx in the inter- and his father were followers of Babek
veniug years is borne out by Tabari, 28 and came to Sinope with the other
(SM&A.D. 833). Finlay (ii. 153) thinks fugitives (so e.cj. Finlay and Vasil'ev).
SECT. IV SARACEN WARS, A.D. 802-833 253
army of eastern fugitives, to whom his descent and knowledge
of their language naturally recommended him. But the
attachment of the soldiers to Theophobos was possibly based
on a higher and transcendent claim.
The Hurramites cherished the firm belief that a Mahdi or
Guide of their own race would appear who would guide them
to faith in himself, would transmit his Empire to another, to
be followed by a perpetual line of successors. Such a divine
leader had recently arisen amongst them, but he was caught
and executed.^ If Theophobos was recognised as his successor,
we should understand both the ascendency which he exercised
over them, and the motive of the legends which grew up
about his origin. But the fact which suggests this explan-
ation is the belief current among the " Persians " in later
generations that Theophobos had never tasted death.''
The foreigners had come to Sinope, having evidently
followed the coast road by Trapezus, as they could not pass
through the Saracen province of Melitene. Quarters were
assigned to them here and at Amastris, but some years later
they seized their commander and proclaimed him Emperor
against his will (a.d. 837). Theophobos, whose services had
been rewarded by the rank of patrician and the hand of a
lady who was sister either to Theophilus himself or to
Theodora,^ was a loyal subject, and he managed to send a
If so, Theophobos must have been a Gen. 54). The tale that the Persians
most distinguished and important became aware of his existence, by
figure in the Babek movement, other- astrology or otherwise, and wanted to
wise he would hardly have married make him their king, is connected
into the Emperor's family ; and we with the part he played in the negoti-
should expect to find him mentioned ations with Babek ; it is quite prob-
in our Oriental sources. His Greek able that he went as envoy to Babek
name, his orthodoxy, on which the in Armenia, though in Gen. and Cont.
chroniclers compliment him, and the Th. the personal interview is at Sinope.
trust reposed in him by Theophilus, (The improbable statement that Babek
all suggest that he was a Byzantine came himself to Sinope is rejected by
subject and Imperial officer; and the Finlay and Vasil'ev. ) Yet this is
stories preserve the fact that he was hardly a sufficient 9;io<i/ for the legend-
born and educated at Constantinople. ary anecdotes, which would, I tliink,
These stories were based on the three be accounted for by the conjecture
circumstances that he was a citizen of which I have ventured to put forward
the Empire, that he belonged to a in the text.
"Persian" family, and that he was ^ Michael Syr. 50. For the Hur- '
appointed commander of the Hurram- ramites (Kop^drot), see also Weil,
ites. They let out the circumstance ii. 235. 1
that his father (who may have been "^ Gen. 60.
the first of the family to settle in ' Simeon {Add. Georg. 793) says
Byzantium) served in the Imperial "a sister of Theodora"; Gen. 55 =
army ('Pw/xaiwi' ovra rots KaraXoyois, Cont. Th. 112, says " the sister of the
254 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
secret message to the Emperor. Theophilus pardoned the
troops, but took the precaution of distributing them among
the armies of various Themes, in regiments of 2000, which were
known as " the Persian turms."
We may pass briefly over the meagre details of the warfare
during the next three years, noticing only the sack of
Zapetra by Theophilus (a.d. 830), his victory in Cilicia
(a.d. 831) which he celebrated by a triumphal entry into
Constantinople, and the Saracen capture of the important
fortress of Lulon.^ But we may linger longer over the over-
tures for peace which Theophilus addressed to the Caliph.
Defeated in a battle, in the autumn of a.d. 831, the
Emperor wished for peace and from his camp he sent an
ecclesiastic with a letter to Mamun. The Caliph received
him in his camp," but on observing the superscription of the
letter, he returned it to the envoy saying " I will not read his
letter, which he begins with his own name." The ambassador
retraced his steps, and Theophilus was compelled to rewrite
his epistle and place the name of the Caliph before his own.
The story may be an insolent invention of the Saracens,^ but
it is certain that Mamun rejected the offers of Theophilus
who proposed to give him 100,000 dinars and 7000 captives,
if he would restore the fortresses whicli he had conquered and
conclude a peace for five years. The time of the summer
campaign, however, had drawn to a close, and Mamun retired
into his own territories (September).
The capture of Lulon after a long siege was an important
success for the arms of Mamun. The value of this fortress,
the key to the northern entrance of the Cilician Gates, has
Emperor " (of wliom otherwise we do outside of the document, while the
not hear). Against Simeon is the Emperor's name came first inside. If
detailed notice of the family of Theo- this style was usual before the time of
dora in Gont. Th. 175, where the wife Theophilus, his secretary committed
of Theophobos is not mentioned. a breach of etiquette. The forms of
^ The details are discussed in address used in the tenth century
Appendix VIII. were : outside, rt^ fxeyoKoir peveaTaTij)
'^ Yakubi, 7, designates the envoy evyefeaTdTifi kuI TrepijiXinTq} (name)
as a bishop. See below, Appendix VIII. wpwrocrv/xISovXii) Kai dLardKropc tQv
** It is possible, however, that the 'AyaprjvCbi' diro (name) rov ttkttov avro-
Caliph was only insisting on a recog- Kpdropos Avyovarov /leydXav ^aaiXius
nised convention. In the tenth cen- 'Pu/xaiwv. Inside : (name) Tnarbs iv
tury it was the official style of the 'KpiaTU! tu) Oei^ avTOKpdrwp AvyovcxTos
East Roman Chancery, in letters from /j^yas ^aaiXevs ' Fu/xaiuii' tc^ jueyaXo-
the Emperor to the Caliph, to give irpeiretTTdTiii ktX. (as on outside). Con-
the Caliph's name precedence on the stantine, Cer. 686.
MXT. IV SARACEN WARS, A.D. 802-833 255
already been explained. After its surrender, Theophilus
addressed a letter to the Caliph/ which according to an
Arabic historian, was couched in the following phrases :
Of a truth, it is more reasonable for two antagonists, striving each for
his own welfare, to agree than to cause injury to each other. Assuredly,
you will not consent to renounce your own welfare for the sake of
another's. You are suiRciently intelligent to understand this without a
lesson from me. I wrote to you to propose the conclusion of peace, as I
earnestly desire complete peace, and relief from the burden of war. We
will be comrades and allies ; our revenues will increase steadily, our
trade will be facilitated, our captives liberated, our roads and uninhabited
districts will be safe. If you refuse, then^for I will not dissimulate or
Hatter you with words — I will go forth against you, I will take your
Ijorder lands from you, I will destroy your horsemen and your footmen.
And if I do this, it will be after I have raised a flag of parleys between
us. Farewell.
To this epistle the Caliph disdainfully replied in terms
like these :
I have received your letter in which you ask for peace, and in
mingled tones of softness and severity try to bend me by referring to
commercial advantages, steady augmentation of revenues, liberation of
caj^tives, and the termination of war. Were I not cautious and deliberate
before deciding to act, I would have answered your letter by a squadron
of valiant and seasoned horsemen, who would attenq^t to tear you from
your household, and in the cause of God would count as nought the pain
which your valour might cause them. And then I would have given
them reinforcements and supplies of arms. And they would rush to
drink the draughts of death with more zest than you would flee to find
a refuge from their insults. For they are promised one of two supreme
Ijlessings — victory here or the glorious future of paradise. But I have
deemed it right to invite you and yours to acknowledge the One God
and to adopt monotheism and Islam. If you refuse, then there shall be
a truce for the exchange of captives ; but if you also decline this
proposition, you will have such personal acquaintance with our qualities
as shall render further eloquence on my part needless. He is safe who
follows the right path.
If these letters represent the tenor of the communications
which actually passed ^ it is clear that Mamun, encouraged by
' This is the embassy briefly re- (Date, a.b. 832.) They are not quite
corded by Michael Syr. 75 (a.d. 832), consistent, however, with the account
who says that Mamun uttered fierce of Michael, who says (tT*.) that JMamun
threats when Manuel left his service replied, "Acknowledge my sovranty
and tliat these threats frightened over you, pay me a tribute, however
Theophilus. small, and I will agree to your re-
^ They are given by Tabari, 25, 26, quest " (cp. Bar-Hebr. 154).
and accepted as genuine by Vasil'ev.
256 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
the successes of the three past years, had no wish to bring the
war to a close. He looked forward, perhaps, to the entire
subjugation of the Empire.^ But his days were numbered.
In the following summer he crossed the frontier,^ took some
fortresses, and returned to Podandos, where he was stricken
down by a fatal fever. He died on August 7, a.d. 833, and
was buried at Tarsus.
§ 5. The Emhassy of John the Grammarian and the Flight
of Manuel
It was probably in the first months of his reign that the
Emperor sent to the Caliph an embassy which made such an
impression on popular imagination that it has assumed a
more or less legendary character. The fact seems to be, so
far as can be made out from the perplexing evidence, that
John the Synkellos, commonly known as the Grammarian, a
savant who, it may well be, was acquainted with Arabic, was
sent to Baghdad, to announce the accession of Theophilus.^
He carried costly presents for the Caliph, and large sums
of money ■* for the purpose of impressing the Saracens by
ostentatious liberality. The imagination of the Greeks dwelt
complacently on the picture of an Imperial ambassador
astonishing the Eastern world by his luxury and magnificence,
and all kinds of anecdotes concerning John's doings at
Baghdad were invented. It was said that he scattered gold
like the sand of the sea, and bestowed rich gifts on anyone
who on any pretext visited him in his hostel.
An additional interest was attached to the embassy of
John the grammarian by the link, whether actual or fictitious,
which connected it with the adventures of a famous general
of the time, and this connection led Greek tradition to mis-
date the embassy to a later period in the reign. Manuel, who
under Leo V. had been strategos of the Armeniac Theme, was
distinguished for his personal prowess, and under Michael II.
^ So Yakubi, 9, who says he pur- with new proposals of peace. See
posed to besiege Amorion, and settle Masudi, Prairies d'or, vii. 94-6, ed.
the Arabs of the desert in the towns Barbier de Meynard ( = Vasil'ev, 66).
of the empire. 3 ^^^^^ ^'A. 95 preserves the truth.
- While he was at Podandos, before This was iirst pointed out by Brooks,
he crossed the frontier, an envoy of See Appendix VIII.
Theophilus is said to have arrived * Over £17,000, Cont. Th. 96.
SECT. V EMBASSY OF JOHN THE GRAMMARIAN 257
he had apparently again acted as strategos, perhaps of the
same Theme. He was of Armenian descent, and the Empress
Theodora was his brother's daughter.^ In the Saracen war
his boldness and determination saved the Emperor's life. It
was related that Theophilus, in a battle which he fought and
lost (a.d. 830) against the forces of Mamun, was hard "pressed
and sought safety among the Persian troops " who formed the
intention of handing over his person to the enemy and making
terms for themselves. Manuel, who knew their language,
became aware of the contemplated treachery, rushed through
their ranks, and seizing the bridle of Theophilus dragged him,
angry and reluctant, from the danger which he did not suspect.
The Emperor rewarded his saviour with such lavish marks of
favour that the jealousy of Petronas, the brother of the
Empress, was aroused. Theophilus was informed that Manuel
was aspiring to the throne, and he believed the accusation,
based perhaps on some unguarded words. Made aware of his
ianger, Manuel crossed over to Pylae, and making use of the
Imperial post reached the Cilician frontier. He was joyfully
ivelcomed by the Saracens, and the Caliph, who was wintering
^n Syria, gladly accepted the services of his enemy's ablest
^eneral.^ The countrymen of Manuel, who were vainer of
lis reputation for warlike prowess than they were indignant
it his desertion to the Unbelievers, relate with complacency
ihat he performed great services for the Caliph against the
[Bctaries of Babek and the rebellious population of Khurasan.*
^ For liis career see Cont. Th. 110 ^ Simeon's account of the circum-
his Armenian descent is also noted stance {Add. Georg. 796) is superior
n Geu. 52). For his relationship to to Gen. and Cont. Th. The person
Theodora, ih. 148, deZos airb warpos. who brought the charge against
(''asil'ev (Index, 171), and others Manuel was Myron, Logothete of the
[istinguish two Manuels, but there Course, otherwise of no note in his-
an in my opinion be no question tory ; but he was the father-in-law of
hat Manuel, the magister, who Petronas, and it might therefore be
•layed an important part after the conjectured that Petronas was behind
.eath of Theophilus, is the same as the attempt to ruin his uncle. The
he Manuel whom Theophilus created fact that Petronas was Manuel's
magister. See A))pendix VIII. nephew does not militate against
'^ I have followed tlie briefer and this supposition.
lore intelligible version of Simeon ■• See Cont. Th. 118. I infer that
Add. Georg. 802 = 710 ed. Mur.) : so this piece was based on a good source,
""asirev, 86. In Gen. 61 (followed from the mention of the Hurramites
1 Cont. Th. 116), the incident is im- (Kop/xdroi). This was not a familiar
roved with details, and the danger name to the Greeks, and points to
(heightened; the Emperor is rescued special information. Cp. also Gen.
ot from the Persians, but from the 72.
aracens themselves.
S
258
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. VIII
But in the meantime it had been proved to the Emperor that
the charges against his general were untrue/ and he was
desirous to procure the return of one whose military talent he
could ill afford to lose. It is said that John the Grammarian
undertook to obtain a secret interview with Manuel and convey
to hiifi the Emperor's assurance of pardon, safety, and honour,
if he would return to Constantinople.^ The ambassador
executed this delicate mission successfully ; lie carried an
Imperial letter with the golden seal, and the cross which
Theophilus wore on his breast ; ^ and Manuel, reassured by
these pledges, promised, at the first opportunity, to return to
his own country. He accompanied the Caliph's son to invade
the Empire, and succeeded in escaping somewhere near the
frontier.* Theophilus immediately conferred on him the post
of Domestic of the Schools, and raised him from the rank of
a Patrician to that of a Magister.^
The whole story has a basis in fact. There is no doubt
that Manuel fled to the Saracens, and afterwards returned.
And it is not improbable that John the Grammarian was
instrumental in communicating to him the assurances which
led to his return. But if we accept the story, as it is told by
the Greek writers, we have to suppose that Manuel deserted
from the Caliph in a.d. 830, and returned in a.d, 832, and
therefore to date the embassy of John to the winter of
A.D. 831-2. Such a conclusion involves us in several
difficulties ; and the most probable solution of the problem
appears to be that Manuel fled from the Court not of
Theophilus, but of his father, and returned to Constantinople
^ Their falsehood was exposed
by the eunuch Leo, protovestiarios
(Simeon, Add. Georg. 796).
2 Simeon {Add. Gcorg. 796-7),
represents this mission as the primary
purpose of John's journey to Sj'ria.
^ Tov evvwoypacpov \byov nal to (fivXa-
KTbv TOV ^acnXews, Simeon ib. { = t6
XpvcropovWiov and to tov ^. ^yKdXinov
in Cont. Th. 119 [cp. Gen. 63], where
an anecdote is told of John's visiting
Manuel in the guise of a ragged
pilgrim).
* The versions vary both as to the
place and the circumstances. Simeon
{Add. Georg. 798), says vaguely that
it was near the Anatolic Tlieme :
Manuel managed to separate himself
and the Caliph's son (Abbas) in a
hunting expedition from the rest of
the party, kissed the prince, and
took an affecting leave of him.
According to Genesios, when the
Saracens attacked a place called
Geron, he went over to the Christians
and escaped into the town ; Ramsay
places Geron between Germanicia and
Mambij {Asia Minor, 301). In Cont.
Th. 120, he is said to have arranged
a plan of escape with the strategos of
Cappadocia. From Yakubi we learn
that in 830 Manuel was with Abbas
at Resaina (cp. Appendix VIII.).
^ Gen. 68, Cont. Th. 120.
sFXT. V EMBASSY OF JOHN THE GRAMMARIAN 259
in A.D. 830.^ Both John's embassy and Manuel's adventures
interested popular imagination, and in the versions which
have come down to us the details have been variously
embroidered by mythopoeic fancy. Even the incident of
the rescue of Theophilus by Manuel may be said to be open
to some suspicion, inasmuch as a similar anecdote is recorded
<»f a battle thirty years later, in which Michael III. plays the
part of his father.^
^ 6. The Campaigns of A.D. 837 and 838
During the first years of Mamun's brother and successor,
Mutasim, there was a suspension of hostilities,^ for the forces
i»f the new Caliph were needed to protect his throne against
internal rebellions, and he was bent on finally quelling the
still unconquered Babek. The desire of Theophilus for peace
was manifest throughout the war with Mamun ; it was
probably due to the need of liberating all the strength of his
resources for the task of driving the Saracens from Sicily.
l>ut at the end of four years he was induced to renew the
war, and Babek again was the cause. Pressed hard, and
seeing that his only chance of safety lay in diverting the
Caliph's forces, the rebel leader opened communications with
Theophilus and promised to become a Christian.'* The move-
ment of Babek was so useful to the Empire, as a constant
^ See Appendix VIII. statement of Michael Syr. 88, that
'^ Gen. 93 (op. Vasil'ev,' 194). The (apparently in 835-836) " most of the
I liief difference is that the Persian companions of Babek, with the general
auxiliaries play no part on the later Nasr, reduced to extremities by the
"oeasion. The presence of the Persians war, went to find Theophilus and
• xplains the situation in the earlier became Christians." Nasr, a sup-
l>attle ; and perhaps it is more prob- porter of Mamun's brother Emin and
iMe that Manuel saved the life of a violent anti-Persian, had been in
Theophilus, and that the same story rebellion against Mamun from a.d.
was applied to Michael, than that 810 to 824-825, when he submitted.
iioth anecdotes are fictitious. There See Michael Syr. 22, 53, 55, who relates
is also the story of the rescue of the (36-37) that he wrote (apparently c.
Kiuperor by Theophobos {Cont. Th. 821) to Manuel the Patrician proposing
^^1^2. sq.), which Vasil'ev rejects {Pril. an alliance with the Empire. Michael
ii- 136). II. sent envoys to him at Kasin, his
■* Interrupted only by a raid of headquarters ; but Nasr's followers
Omar, the Emir of Melitene, recorded were indignant, and to pacify tliem he
liy Michael Syr. 85, in a.d. 835. killed the envoys. There is a chrono-
Tlieophilus at first defeated him, but logical inconsistency, for the chronicler
\ as afterwards routed. We shall meet says that this happened when Nasr
U)aar again, twenty-five years later. heard that Mamun was coming to
■* Tabari, 29. We must evidently Baghdad ; but Mamun came to Bagh-
connect this notice of Tabari with the dad {ib. 45) in A.w. 818-819.
260
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. VIII
claim on the Caliph's forces, that it was obviously to the
interest of Theophilus to make an effort to support it, when
it seemed likely to be crushed. On grounds of policy, it must
be admitted that he was justified in reopening hostilities in
A.D. 837.^ In choosing the direction of his attack he was
probably influenced by the hope of coming into touch with
the insurgents of Armenia and Adarbiyan.^ He invaded the
regions of the Upper Euphrates with a large army.^ He
captured and burned the fortress of Zapetra, putting to
death the male population and carrying oft" the women and
children. He appeared before Melitene, threatening it with
the fate of Zapetra if it did not surrender. The chief men of
the place, however, induced him to spare it ; they came forth,
offered him gifts, and restored to liberty Roman prisoners
who were in the town. He crossed the Euphrates, and
besieged and burned Arsamosata.* But of all his achieve-
ments, the conquest of Zapetra was regarded by both the
Moslems and the Christians as the principal result of the
campaign.^
The expedition of Theophilus into western Armenia
deserves particular notice, for, though the Greek writers/]
I
1 Michael Syr. 88 (Ann. Sel. 1148
= A.D. 836-837). Tabari and Yakubi
erroneously place this expedition in the
following year. a.d. 837 had already
been adopted by Weil and Vasil'ev.
2 Michael, i6., says that he sent into
Great Armenia, demanding tribute,
and threatening to devastate it in
case of refusal. The tribute was paid.
^ Tabari, 29, says, " 100,000 accord-
ing to some ; while others say that
the fighting men exceeded 70,000."
* Michael, 89. (Yakubi and Bala-
dhuri mention only Zapetra ; Tabari
mentions Melitene also. ) Simeon (^c^c?.
Georg. 798, vers. Slav. 96) names r-qv
re Tiawerpov koI to 'Za/xoaaroi', con-
founding Arsaraosata with Saniosata.
That Arsamosata is meant is shown
by Michael's statement that the in-
vaders entered Hanazit, i.e. Auzitene.
The position of the town is discussed
by Gelzer in Georgius Cypriiis, 171-172.
It lay on the road leading eastward
from Melitene to Aklat on Lake Van ;
east of Kharput and near the left bank
of the Murad - Cliai (Arsanias). It
corresponds to the modern Shimshat.
Melitene was attacked when the
Emperor returned from the excursion
into Armenia. Cont. Th. is here well
informed ; Zapetra is mentioned dWas
re d6o 7r6Xefs (124).
® Having taken Arsamosata the
Romans passed into Armenia and
ravaged there (Michael, ib.). This
probably means Little Sophene, north
of Anzitene and the Murad-Chai ; for
the Armenian historians relate that he
took the fort of Chozan (Stephen of
Taron, 108 ; Samuel of Ani, 707). For
the district of Chozan, cp. Constantine,
Dc adm. imp. 226 ; Gelzer, ib. 173 ;
Adonts, Armeniia v ejjokhu lustiniaim
(1908), 38, where the distinction be-
tween Little Sophene to the north-
west, and Great Sophene to the south-
east, of Anzitene, is clearly explained.
Samuel (ib.) says that, having taken
Zapetra, Theophilus went to Armenia
and took Palin (a fort in Paline, which
lies east of Chozan), Mezkert (in
Sophene, on the Murad-Su), and Ankl
(in Degik = Digisene, which lay be-
tween Sophene and Sophanene).
si<;cT. VI
CAMPAIGN OF A.D. S37
261
betray no consciousness of this side of his policy, there is
some evidence that the situation in the Armenian highlands
and the Caucasian region constantly engaged his attention
and that his endeavours to strengthen the Empire on its
north-eastern frontier met with considerable success. In
A.D. 830 he had sent an expedition under Theophobos and
Bardas against Abasgia, which had proclaimed itself inde-
pendent of the Empire, but this enterprise ended in failure.^
He was more fortunate elsewhere. We may surmise that it
is to the campaign of A.D. 837 that an Armenian historian^
refers who narrates that Theophilus went to Pontic Chaldea,
captured many Armenian prisoners, took tribute from
Theodosiopolis, and conferred the proconsular patriciate on
Ashot, its ruler.^ It was probably in connexion with this
expedition that the Emperor separated eastern Pontus from
the Armeniac province, and constituted it an independent
Theme,^ under a strategos who resided at Trapezus. The
Theme of Chaldia reached southward to the Euphrates,
included Keltzene and part of Little Sophene, while to the
north-east, on the Boas (Chorok-Su), it embraced the district
of Sper.^ It is at least evident that the Imperial conquests
of A.D. 8 3 7 in Little Armenia would have furnished a motive
for the creation of a new military province.
The triumph with which Theophilus celebrated the
devastation which he had wrought within the borders of
his foe was a repetition of the pageants and ceremonial
1 Cont. Th. 137.
2 Stephen of Taron, 107. Cp. Mar-
quart, Streifziigc, 421, who connects
this notice with the disastrous Abas-
gian expedition of 830. But Theo-
philus did not accompany that ex-
pedition.
^ " Ashot the son of Shapuh," pre-
sumably the nephew of Ashot who
founded Kamakh, as the historian
Vardan records. See Marquart, ib.
404. Stephen's Tlieodosiopolis may
be Kamakh (in Daranalis), not Er-
zerum. The dignity bestowed on
Ashot is described as " the Consulate,
i.e. the Patriciate apuhiupat" {awb
VTrdruv) : this may mean the title
Hypatos (patriciate being a mistake
of Stephen) or the proconsular patri-
ciate, avdinraros Kal TrarpiKios, for which
cp. above, p. 126. Stephen relates
that in the same year Theophilus in-
vaded Syria, took the town of Urpeli,
and vanquished the Arabs at Almulat.
Then turning eastward to Armenia he
took several fortresses in the region
of Gelam and made the "Fourth
Armenia a waste deserted by men and
beasts" (108).
■* For the evidence, see above, p. 223.
^ Constantine, Thenus, 30. He de-
scribes the inland parts of Chaldia as
irpoolfua of Little Armenia, and men-
tions Keltzene (for which see above,
p. 176), 2wpiT7?s, which I suppose to
mean Sper or Sber, and rb Toi^dvov,
which I take to be Chozan in Sophene.
Note that Stephen of Taron, loc. cit.,
says that Theophilus left Ashot in the
district of Sper.
262
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. VIII
which had attended his return, six years before, from the
achievement of similar though less destructive victories.
Troops of children with garlands of flowers went out to
meet the Emperor as he entered the capital.^ In the
Hippodrome he competed himself in the first race, driving
a white chariot and in the costume of a Blue charioteer ; and
when he was crowned as winner, the spectators greeted him
with the allusive cry, " Welcome, incomparable champion ! " -
In the autumn of the same year, Babek was at last
captured and executed,^ and the Caliph Mutasim was free ^
to prepare a scheme of revenge for the destruction of Zapetra
and the barbarities which had been committed.^ He resolved
to deal a crushing blow which would appear as a special
insult and injury to the present wearer of the Imperial crown.
Amorion was the original home of the family of Theophilus,*^
and he. resolved that it should be blotted out from the number
of inhabited cities. But apart from this consideration, which
may have stimulated his purpose, the choice of Amorion was
natural on account of its importance. The Saracens considered
its capture the great step to an advance on Constantinople.
In the seventh century they took it, but only for a moment ;
in the eighth they attempted it three times in vain.'^ In the
year of his death, Mamun is said to have intended to be-
An Arabic chronicler describes it as the eye of
siege it.
^ Constantine, iTtpl ra^. 508. The
triumph is also mentioned in one text
of the Acta 42 Mart. Amor. (40-42).
^ Simeon {Add. Georg.) 799 /caXws
iJX^es, CLffvyKpLTe (paKTiopdpr].
3 Michael Syr. 90 ; he fled to Ar-
menia, on his way to the Empire, and
was betrayed by "a patrician named
Stephanos," in whose house he found
a lodging. Cp. Weil. ii. 301.
* Michael, 89, records some minor
hostilities of Mutasim in the winter
of 837-838.
* That these barbarities were chiefly
committed by the orientals who had
joined Theophilus (cp. Weil, ii. 310)
may possibly be inferred from an in-
cidental remark of Michael Syr. 96,
"Nasrwho had devastated Zapetra,''
but this may relate to an act durin"
Nasr's earlier rebellion. Masudi says
that Theophilus had with him Burjans,
Bulgarians, and Slavs (67). From
the same writer we learn that a cer-
tain Ibrahim declaimed a poem before
the Caliph, exciting him to revenge.
^ Greek writers say that the region
of Zapetra was the home of the an-
cestors of the reigning Caliph. This
is stated in Gen. 64, Cont. Th. 124.
Simeon [Add. Georg. 798) ascribes
this honour to l^afioaarov. A work
composed soon after a.d. 845 (Acta 43
Mart. Amor. 40) leaves it open :
irepiipaveis TroXets ^vda kt\. There
seems to be no foundation for this ;
the motive of the myth was to balance
the destruction of the cradle of the
Emperor by that of the cradle of the
Caliph. Cp. Vasil'ev, 116. Nikitin
(Acta citt. 191) attempts an explana-
tion of the fable. Apart from its
connexion Avith the reigning dynasty,
the selection of Amorion can be ex-
plained by its importance.
7 Theoph. 351, 386, 452, 470.
* See above, p. 256.
m:ct. VI CAMPAIGN OF A.D. 838 263
Christendom/ and a Greek contemporary writer ranks it next
to the capital."
Mutasim left his palace at Samarra in April (a.d. 838),
and the banners of his immense army ^ were inscribed with
the name of Amorion. The Caliph was a warrior of indis-
putable bravery, but we know not whether it was he or his
generals who designed the strategical plan of the invasion.
The two most eminent generals who served in this campaign
were Ashnas and Afshin. The former was a Turk, and his
prominence is significant of the confidence which Mutasim
rt'posed in his new corps of Turkish guards, Afshin had
distinguished himself by suppressing rebellion in Egypt, and
he had done much to terminate the war against Babek which
had been so long drawn out.
The city of Ancyra was fixed upon as the first objective of
tl le invasion. An army of the east, under the command of Afshin ,
advanced by way of Germanicia, and crossed the frontier by the
I'ass of Hadath on a day which was so fixed as to allow him
time to meet the army of the west in the plains of Ancyra.
The purposes of the Caliph were not kept secret. The
dispositions of the Emperor show that he was aware of the
designs on Ancyra and Amorion. He left Constantinople
probably in May ; and from Dorylaion, the first great military
station on the road to the Saracen frontier, he made provisions
for the strengthening of the walls and the garrison of Amorion.
The duty of defending the city naturally devolved upon Aetius,
tlie strategos of the Anatolic Theme, for Amorion was his
otficial residence. The plan of the Emperor was to attack the
forces of the enemy on their northward march to Ancyra.
Knowing nothing of the eastern army under Afshin, he crossed
tlie Halys and encamped with his army not far from the
river's bank in the extreme south of the Charsian district,
^ " And more valued by the Greeks negroes. Masudi (68) says that the
than Constantinople" (Tabari, 30); numbers were exaggerated by some to
(p. Masudi, 74. 500,000 and reduced by others to
- yicto c?:«. 425 (cp. 11,3). 200,000. Tabari (30) says that no
•' According to Michael Syr. 95, Caliph had ever made preparations for
:\Iutasim's army numbered 50,000, war on such a gigantic scale. These
Afshin's 30,000. He mentions also statements illustrate the value of
•".11,000 merchants and providers, numbers in medieval writers. We
no, 000 camels, 20,000 mules. Bar- can only trust intelligent contem-
liobraeus (159) says that Mutasim led poraries. Here the numbers of the
-!20,000 men. The Armenian version combatants given by Michael, i.e.
iif Michael (274) mentions 30,000 Dionysios, are moderate and credible.
264 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chak viii
probably near Zoropassos, where there was a bridge. He
calculated that the enemy would march from the Ciliciaii
Gates to Ancyra by the most direct road, which from Soandos
to Parnassos followed the course of the river, and he hoped
to attack them on the flank.^ The Caliph's western army
advanced northward from Tyana in two divisions, and Ashnas,
who was in front, was already near the Halys before the
Emperor's proximity was suspected. The Caliph ordered a
halt till the position and movements of the Eomans should be
discovered. But in the meantime Theophilus had been in-
formed of the advance of the eastern army, and the news
disconcerted his plans. He was now obliged to divide his
forces. Taking, probably, the greater portion with him,^ he
marched himself to oppose Afshin, and left the rest, under the
command of a kinsman, to check or harass the progress of the
Caliph. Afshin had already passed Sebastea (Sivas), and was
in the district of Dazimon, when he was forced to give battle
to the Emperor.^ Dazimon, the modern Tokat, commands the
great eastern road from Constantinople to Sebastea, at the
point where another road runs northward to Neo-Caesarea.
The town lies at the foot of a hill, at one extremity of which
the ruins of the ancient fortress are still to be seen.*^ Situated
near the southern bank of the Iris, it marks the eastern end
of a fertile plain stretching to Gaziura (now Turkhal), which
in the ancient and middle ages was known as Dazimonitis ;
the Turks call it Kaz-Ova. It was probably in this plain
that the Saracens encamped.^ The Emperor, who may have
^ For details of the march of is "Thursday, Shabaii 25." But
Mutasim and Ashnas, see Bury, Shaban 25 = July 22 fell on Monday.
Mv.tasim's March. Tabari's account ■* For the plain of Dazimon, Avhich
of the campaign is fuller than any seems to have been once part of an
other. Imperial estate, see Anderson, Htud.
2 30,000 (Michael Syr. 95, who Font. i. 68 ; for Tokat itself and the
gives no topographical indications). fortress, Cumont, ib. ii. 240-243.
Afshin is evidently meant by Simeon's ^ Afshin had been reinforced by the
curious Sudee (Sundei, vers. Slav. 97 ; forces of Armenia led by Bagarat,
'Lovbeij, Add. Georg. ed. Mur. 712 ; lord (ishkhan) of Vaspurakan, the
'LoyUfi, Leo Gr. 224). "prince of jirinces." This title was
•* Gen. 67 ot (the Saracen com- rendered in Greek by Spxaw tSiv dpx&v-
ma.nders) Kararbv Aa^ifiu>va<Tvi'rjx9riaap twj/ (Constantine, Cer. 687). Genesios
crTpaToiredevcrdfMevoi. Tabari's date (45) has split him into two persons (67)
for the battle, July 22, can hardly auTou tov dpx- dpx- Kai toO Becnrapa-
be right. A longer time must surely Kavirov (I am not quite sure whether
have elapsed before the beginning of Marquart follows him, op. cit. 463).
the siege of Amorion (Aug. 1). More- Cont. Th. 127 rightly mentions only
over, Tabari refutes himself. His date one person. Bagarat M'as a son of
SECT. VI CAMPAIGN OF A.D. 838 265
arrived on the scene by way of Zela and Gaziura, halted near
Anzen, a high hill, from whose summit the position of the
enemy could be seen. This hill has not been identified ; we
may perhaps guess, provisionally, that it will be discovered to
the south of the plain of Dazimonitis.^ The fortune of the
ensuing battle at first went well for the Greeks, who defeated
the enemy, on one wing at least, with great loss ; but a heavy
shower of rain descended, and the sudden disappearance of the
Emperor, who at the head of 2000 men had ridden round to
reinforce the other wing of his army, gave rise, in the over-
hanging gloom, to the rumour that he was slain. The Eomans,
in consternation, turned and fled, and, when the sun emerged
from the darkness, the Emperor with his band was surrounded
by the troops of Afshin. They held the enemy at bay, until
the Saracen general brought up siege-catapults to bombard
them with stones ; then they fought their way, desperately
but successfully, through the hostile ring."
The Emperor, with his handful of followers, fled north-
westward to Chiliokomon, " the plain of a thousand villages "
(now Sulu-Ova),^ and then, returning to his camp on the
Halys, found to his dismay that his kinsman had allowed, or
been unable to forbid, many of the troops to disperse to their
Ashot {oh. 826), on whom the Caliph companions because their bow-strings
had conferred the government of were wet ; this, in turn, explains the
Iberia. Leo V. bestowed on him the employment of stone-hurling machines
title curofolatcs (frequently conferred mentioned by Michael. According to
on the Iberian princes), and in a.d. Tabari (]35), who professes to give
820 he besought Leo's help against a the evidence of a Christian captive
rebel. (Cp. Marquart, ib. 404.) present at the battle, the fortune of
Bagarat was also lord of Taron (the the day was retrieved by the Saracen
district west of Lake Van and north cavalry. It may be suspected that
of Arzanene, from which it is separ- the discomfiture of the Romans,
ated by the Antitaurus. Vaspura- whether by archers or cavalry or both,
kan is east and north-east of Lake occurred on that wing which the
Van). Emperor with his 2000 rode round to
^ Anzen recurs in a later battle in reinlbrce. Gen. 68-69 {Cont. Th. 128)
the same region ; see below, p. 282, relates that Theophilus was rescued
for the topographical data. by Manuel from the contemplated
■•^ I have followed the account of treachery of his Persian regiments.
Michael Syr. 95. Genesios (68) agrees The story is highly suspicious (cp.
as to the first success of the Romans, Hirsch, 145), as it was also told, with
but attributes their flight to the little variation, of a battle in a.d. 830
archery of the Turks. He describes (above, p. 257). But the life of
the surrounding of Theophilus, with Theophilus was certainly in danger,
whom were Manuel, the Persians, and as we know from Michael. According
the commanders of the Tagmatic to Masudi (68), having lost many of
troojis. He also mentions the rain his officers, he owed his life to the
and explains that the Turkish archers protection of Nasr.
could not shoot at Theophilus and his ^ See Cumont, o;?. cit. 144.
266
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. VIII
various stations. Having punished the commander for his
weakness, and sent orders that the soldiers who had left the
camp should be beaten with stripes, he dispatched a eunuch ^
to Ancyra, to provide, if there were still time, for the defence
of that city. But it was too late ; for the western army of
the invaders was already there.^ Ancyra ought to have
offered resistance to a foe. Its fortifications were probably
strengthened by Nicephorus I.^ But the inhabitants,
thoroughly alarmed by the tidings of the victory of Afshiu,
deserted the city and fled into the mountains, where they were
sought out by Ashnas and easily defeated. Thus the town fell
without a blow into the hands of the destroyer.* The Emperor,
at this crisis, did not disdain to humble himself before the
Caliph. He sent an embassy, imploring peace, and offering to
rebuild the fortress of Zapetra, to release all the captives who
were in his hands, and to surrender those men who had com-
mitted cruel outrages in the Zapetra campaign. The overtures
were rejected, with contempt and taunts, by the Caliph,^ and
Theophilus betook himself to Dorylaion ^ to await the fate of
^ Doubtless Theodoros Krateros, one
of the Amorian martyrs, who, as
Nikitin conjectures, may have been
strategos of the Bukellarian Theme
{Ada 42 Mart. Amor. 205).
^ It had marched northward by the
route west of the Halys (see above,
p. 264). Michael Syr. 95 records that
Mutasim found Nyssa, which lay on
his road, deserted, and destroyed its
walls.
3 Theoph. 481. In 806 Haruu
marched within sight of the city {ib.
482). It is generally said that the
walls were restored by Michael II.
(so Vasil'ev, 124). But the inscrip-
tions on which this statement is based
{O.I.G. iv. 8794, 8795, pp. 365-366)
have, I think, been wrongly inter-
preted. The second (consisting of
fifteen iambic trimeters) tells how
Michael
MixarfK 6 decnrdr-qs
fi^yas /3acriXei)s v[iKrjT'\r]s aTe<p7](f)opos
has raised Ancyra from her ruins.
The document begins :
Trivdei (pSapeicra /cat <KXt>^etcra :rp[6s
X]e,ocrij' VTT e[ ] fuaKpdvoKOs, [fx]
TrdXat,
vvv [dvey]dpov tQiv kukQiv dveifj.&Ti.
[I read irivdei, Boeckh irevdei. He
reads ix^p^v rais in line 2, but the
traces do not point to this.] Now, as
no destruction of Ancyra is recorded
between a.d. 805 (the restoration of
Nicephorus) and A.r. 829, Michael II.
cannot be meant. The storm must
refer to the event of 838, and the
restoration must belong to the reign
of Michael III. Moreover, in the case
of Michael II. (except in the first five
months of his reign), Theophilus
would have been associated with him
in such an inscription. The fact that
Michael III. is named alone, without
Theodora, points to a date after a.d.
856, and this is confirmed by TrdXat.
The other inscription (ten iambic tri-
meters), though it does not mention
the disaster, is evidently of the same
date, and, as Boeckh thinks, probably
by the same (local) "poet."
■* A poet, Husain, sang in honour
of Mutasim : "Of Ancyra thou didst
spare nought, and thou didst demolish
the great Amorion." Ibn Khur-
dadhbah, 101, 74 ; Vasil'ev, 129, n. 2.
^ Yakubi, 9 ; Gen. 64.
^ Michael Syr. 95 relates that a
report was spread in Constantinople
that the Emperor was slain in the
battle with Afshin, that a plot was
SECT. VI
CAMPAIGN GF A.D. 8^8
267
Amorion, for the safety of which he believed that he had done
all that could be done.
The army of the Saracens advanced westwards from
Ancyra in three columns, Ashnas in front, the Caliph in the
centre, and Afshin behind, at distances of two parasangs.
Kavaging and burning as they went, they reached Amorion
in seven days. The siege began on the first of August.-^
The city was strong ; its high wall was fortified by forty-four
bastions and surrounded by a wide moat ; ^ its defence had
been entrusted by Theophilus to Aetius, strategos of the
Anatolic Theme ; and reinforcements had been added to
its garrison, under Constantine Babutzikos, who had married
a sister of the Empress Theodora and was Drungary of the
-Watch, and the eunuch Theodore Krateros^ and others.
But there was a weak spot in the fortification. Some time
formed to elect a new Emperor, and
that Theophilus, informed of the
matter by a message from his mother
(? stepmother), hastened thither from
Amorion and punished the conspira-
tors. Genesios (69) mentions his
being at Nicaea, and Vasil'ev suggests
that this may confirm the Syriac
record.
1 Tabari, 45 ; Acta 42 Mart. 42
(etVi6j'Tos Tov AvyovffTov /j.7]v6s). The
city was taken on Tuesday in Rama-
dhan, i.e. August 13, according to
Yakubi, 10. This accords with Michael
Syr. 100, who says that the city was
taken in 12 days, and can be recon-
ciled with the statement of Euodios
{Ada citt. 65) that the siege lasted
is days. For Ashnas arrived at
Amorion on Thursday, August 1, the
Caliph was there on j'riday, August
2, and Afshin came ou Saturday
(Tabari, 37). Thus the duration might
be described as either of 12 or of 13
days (or of 11, since active oi)erations
did not begin till August 3). See
Nikitin {ad Acta citt. 243), who wrongly
equates the Thursday with July 31.
Tabari's equation (45) of Friday with
the 6th of Ramadhan is false ; Thurs-
day =Ramadhan 7 (see Mas Latrie,
Trisor, p. 566). The same scholar
rightly points out that a wrong de-
duction has been drawn by Weil and
Vasil'ev from Tabari's statement (45)
that Mutasim returned 55 days after
the beginning of the
They
took this to mean that the siege lasted
55 days, and so placed the capture on
September 23 or 24. But Tabari
obviously means his return to Tarsus,
and the 55 days include his march
from Amorion, which was slow and
interrupted. According to George
Mon. 797, the siege lasted 15 days in
August ; this is nearly right.
^ Ibn Khurdadhbah.
^ The names in Simeon {Add. Gcorg.
805 ; vers. Slav. 98) and Gont. Th. 126
must be controlled by the Acta of the
42 Martyrs. The identity of the
officers has been examined by Nikitin
{Acta, 202-219), who has proved, in
my opinion, that Constantine the
Patrician is Constantine Babutzikos.
In one document he is described as
(ipxwj' tGiv Tay/xoLTuiv {Synaxar, ecc.
Const. 516), whence Nikitin infers
that he was commander of one of the
"guard regiments." But Simeon's
dpovyydpLos shows at once that he
commanded the Arithmos (Vigla),
the only one of the four Tagmata
whose commander was so named. The
other officers were Theophilus, a
strategos, and Bassoes, d 8pofj.evs the
runner. Nikitin (208 sqq.) has shown
that this does not mean a courier
here, but a victor in the foot-race
{■n-€^o5p6fj.Lov). Constantine, Cer. 358,
mentions Bambaludes, d twv llpaaivoju
BpopLevs, c]iamj)ion of the Greeks, in
the reign of Michael III.
268 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
before, the Emperor, riding round the city, had observed
that in one place the wall was dilapidated, and had ordered
the commander of the garrison to see that it was repaired.
The oiScer delayed the execution of the command, until,
hearing that Theophilus was marching from Constantinople
to take the field against the Saracens, he hastily filled up
the breach with stones and made the place, to outward view,
indistinguishable from the rest of the wall. This specious
spot, well known to the inhabitants, was revealed to the
enemy by a traitor who is said to have been a Mohammadan
captive converted to Christianity.^ The Caliph directed his
engines against the place, and after a bombardment of two
days ^ the wall gave way and a breach was made. Aetius
immediately dispatched a letter to the Emperor, communi-
cating to him what had befallen, explaining the hopelessness
of further defence, and announcing that he intended to leave
the city at night and attempt to escape through the enemy's
lines. The letter was entrusted to two messengers, one of
whom spoke Arabic fluently. "When they crossed the ditch,
they fell into the hands of some Saracen soldiers, and
pretended to be in the Caliph's service. But as they did not
know the names of the generals or the regiments they were
suspected as spies, and sent to the Caliph's tent, where they
were searched and the letter was discovered.
The Caliph took every precaution to frustrate the inten-
tions of escape which the intercepted letter disclosed. Troops
of cavalry sat all night in full armour on their horses
watching the gates. But it was easier to hinder escape
than to take the city. The breadth of the ditch and the
height of the walls rendered it difficult to operate effectively
with siege - engines, and the usual devices of raising the
ballistae on platforms and filling up the ditch were tried
without success. But the breach in the wall was gradually
1 There were two acts of treachery treachery, Nikitin {Ada cilt. 194)
during the siege. This first act (not infers that Manikophagos was the
mentioned by Michael Syr. ) is related name of the first traitor. Cont. Th.
by Tabari (37), who is supported in ascribes both acts to Boiditzes.
one of the Acta 42 Mart. (12 vtrb ^ Michael Syr. 98. There had
Tivwv — 7rpoSe5cj/c6rw;'), by Cont. Th. already been fighting for three days
130, and Simeon, who s])eaks of two {ih.), and before this some days must
traitors, Boiditzes and Manikophagos have been occupied by the construc-
{Add. Georg. 805). As Boiditzes per- tion of the Saracen entrenchment {ib.
petrated the later and decisive act of 97).
SECT. VI CAMPAIGN OF A.D. S38 269
widening, and the Greek officer to whom that section of the
defence was entrusted despaired of being able to hold out.
The Arabic historian, to whom we owe our information
concerning the details of the siege, states — what seems almost
incredible — that Aetius refused to furnish additional forces
for the defence of the dangerous spot, on the ground that
it was the business of each captain and of no one else to
■ provide for the safety of his own allotted section. But he
saw that there was little hope, and he sent an embassy to
Mutasim, offering to capitulate on condition that the in-
habitants should be allowed to depart in safety. The envoys
were the bishop of Amorion and three officers, of whom one
was the captain of the weak section of the walls. His name
was Boiditzes.^ The Caliph required unconditional surrender,
and the ambassadors returned to the city. But Boiditzes
went back to Mutasim's tent by himself and offered to betray
the breach. The interview was protracted, and in the
meantime the Saracens gradually advanced towards the wall,
till they were close to the breach. The defenders, in
obedience to the strict orders of their officer to abstain from
hostilities till his return, did not shoot or attempt to oppose
them, but only made signs that they should come no farther.
At this juncture, Mutasim and Boiditzes issued from the
pavilion, and at the same moment, at a signal from one of
Mutasim's officers, the Saracens rushed into Amorion. The
Greek traitor, dismayed at this perfidious practice, clutching
his beard, upbraided the Caliph for his breach of faith,
but the Caliph reassured him that all he wished would be
his.^
A part of the unfortunate population sought refuge in
^ BotS^rfr/s, Simeon and Cont. Th., Boiditzes i-eturned to the city by liini-
locc. citt.; Boci5?7y, Euodios (^cto a'W. ), self and signalled from the walls to
71 ; Vendu, Tabari, 41, who explains the besiegers that he had withdrawn
the name as meaning a steer ; Bodin, the defenders. This is incompre-
Michael Syr. 98. Genesios, 65, does hensible, for it was clear to his fellow
not give the name, but says that he envoys that he meant treachery, and
derived a nickname from an ox, on if he had returned to the city he
account of some quarrel between the would have beenarrested, unless Aetius
Jews and Christians. was in the plot (which there is no
'^ The Greek sources do not explain good ground for suspecting). I have
how the traitor communicated with therefore here followed the narrative
the enemy ; in Tabari he goes alone of Tabari. But the details are very
to Mutasim. Michael Syr. 98 gives uncertain. Mutasim gave the traitor
what is evidently the true account 10,000 darics (Miciiael, 99).
as to the embassy, but he implies that
270 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
a large church, in which after an obstinate resistance they
perished by fire/ The walls were rased to the ground and
the place left desolate ; and the Caliph, finding that the
Emperor was not preparing to take the field, slowly returned
to his own country, with thousands of captives.^ The fate
of these Amorians was unhappy. The land was suffering
from drought ; the Saracens were unable to procure water,
and some of the prisoners, exhausted by thirst, refused to go
farther. These were at once dispatched by the sword ; but
as the army advanced, and the need grew more urgent, the
Caliph gave orders that only the more distinguished captives
should be retained ; the rest were taken aside and slaughtered.^
The siege of Amorion had lasted for nearly two weeks.*
But for the culpable neglect of the officer responsible for the
integrity of the walls and the treachery which revealed the
weak spot to the besiegers, the city could probably have
defied all the skill and audacity of the enemy. Its fall seems
to have made a deep impression on both Moslems and
Christians;^ and popular imagination was soon busy with the
treachery which had brought about the catastrophe. The
name of the culprit, Boiditzes, is derived from ho'idion, an ox ;
and, according to one story, he wrote a letter to the Saracens
bidding them direct their attack close to the tower, where
they saw a marble lion carved on the face and a stone ox
{ho'idion) above.^ The ox and the lion may have been there ;
but if the ox was a coincidence, the lion furnished a motive to
^ Michael, 99; Tabari, 42 ; cp. Acta judgments of God." Many captives
43 Mart. 44; Skylitzes (Cedr.) ii. 136. were sold to slave - dealers, but the
^ Masudi, 68, says that 30,000 were parents were not separated from their
killed in Amorion. If there is any children (100).
foundation for the number it may 3 Tabari, 44-45, mentions Badi-'l-
represent the total of the inhabitants, janr as the region where the captives
military and civil. Euodios {Acta ^^ere slain. It evidently means the
citt. 60 gives the ridiculous figure of pjain of Pankaleia, the wide desert
naore tha,n / 0,000 for the soldiers plain to the east of Amorion (Ramsay,
alone; this would represent nearly ^^.-^ j/-^-,^or, 231); for in one of the
the whole Asiatic army. But the older ^cte .^^ il/ar<. (44) " Pankallia "
number was large, lor after the jg named as the scene of these events,
massacres the captives were so numer- . „ , „_.,
ous that at the distribution of the See above, p. 26/, n. 1.
spoil Mutasim slew 4000. See Michael ' Cp. Michael Syr. 100.
Syr. 100. This writer relates (99) ^ Cont. Th. 130 ^oWiov Uvudev
that more than a 1000 nuns who Xldivov 'i^uidev 5k \itav iK fj.ap/jLdpov i(t>-
survived the massacre were delivered Iffrarai. Vasil'ev has an appendix on
to the outrages of the Turkish and the name of the traitor (150 sg^g.), but
Moorish slaves, and curiously adds : does not observe the significance of
" glory to the incomprehensible this passage.
SECT. VI CAMPAIGN OF A.D. 838 271
myth. Boiditzes was said to be a pupil of Leo the Philosopher/
and an Arabic writer calls him Leo.^
A sequel of the siege of Amorion rendered it memorable
in the annals of the Greek Church. Forty-two distinguished
prisoners were carried off to Samarra and languished in captivity
for seven years. The Caliph ^ attempted in vain to persuade
them to embrace Islam, and finally the choice was offered
to them of conversion or death. According to the story,
Boiditzes, who had betrayed Amorion, became a Mohammadan,
and was sent at the last moment to represent to his countrymen
the folly of resisting. But they stood stedfast in their faith,
and on the 6th March 845 they were led to the banks of the
Tigris and beheaded. Their bodies were thrown into the
river, and miraculously floated on the top of the water. The
renegade traitor Boiditzes shared their fate — at least in the
legendary tale ; for the Saracen magnates said to the Caliph :
" It is not just that he should live, for if he was not true to
his own faith, neither will he be true to ours." Accordingly
he was beheaded, but his body sank to the bottom. This was
the last great martyrdom that the Greek Church has to record.
Before two years passed, it was fashioned by the pens of Greek
hagiographers into the shape of an edifying legend.* The
deacon Ignatius, who wrote the life of the Patriarch Nicephorus,
celebrated it in a canon, and the Forty-two Martyrs of
1 Pseudo-Simeon, 638. In his text, province, and imprisoned along with
the second traitor, named Mai't/co(/)d7os the Amorian captives. For the govern-
by Simeon {Add. Gcorg. 805, vers. Slav. ment of Koloneia cp. above, p. 223.
98), appears as MavLKocpav-q's. We may ^ The material will be found in tha
suspect that this name implies some ^c-to edited by Vasilievski and Nikitin.
connexion with the Manichaean {i.e. As to the dates of these documents
Paulician) heresy. Nikitin's conclusions (cp. 272 sqq. ) are
Ti/r J- ^o <(ii T) + ;„; „ T^„" as follows: The Canon of the Deacon
- Masudi, 68, the ratncian Leo. t .■ ,, . -n ^ r.\ 1
' ' Ignatius (texts H and 9) was composed
^ Wathik, who succeeded Mutasim before or about the middle of a. d. 847 ;
in 842. Of the forty-two, six are it was subsequent to text F, the author
mentioned by name in the Acta. Five of which (who is specially interested
of them are the officers named above, in Kallistos) mentions that the Martyrs
p. 267 (Aetius, Constantine, Theodore, had been already celebrated in writing.
Theophilus, and Bassoes). The sixth To these earlier works B and A belong,
was not properly an Amorian martyr, and A is probably earlier than B.
for he was not at the siege. He was Euodios (text Z, of which A is an
Kallistos Melissenos, described as duke abridgment) perhaps wrote his version
of Koloneia (Simeon, Add. Gcorg. 805 in the reign of Basil I., certainly after
has divided him into two persons). 867. In my references to the Acta
His career is related in one of the Acts I have not distinguished the earlier
(F, see next note), from which we texts, which belong to a.d. 845-847,
learn that he was captured in his own but I have always indicated Euodios.
272 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, vii
Amorion, established as " stars in the holy finnament of the
Church," ^ inspired some of the latest efforts of declining Greek
hymnography."^
The fact that a number of distinguished captives, who had
been carried from Amorion to the Tigris, were executed by
Mutasim's successor admits of no doubt. But it would be
rash to consider it merely an act of religious intolerance. We
may rather suppose it to have been dictated by the motive
of extorting large ransoms for prisoners of distinction. The
Caliphs probably hoped to receive an immense sum for the
release of the Amorian officers, and it was adroit policy to
apply pressure by intimating that, unless they were ransomed,
they could only purchase their lives by infidelity to their
religion.^ The Emperor, immediately after the catastrophe,
had indeed made an attempt to redeem the prisoners. He
sent Basil, the governor of the Charsian frontier district,*
bearing gifts and an apologetic letter to the Caliph, in which
the Emperor regretted the destruction of Zapetra, demanded
the surrender of Aetius, and offered to liberate his Saracen
captives. He also gave Basil a second letter of menacing
tenor, to be delivered in case the terms were rejected.
Mutasim, when he had read the first, demanded the surrender
of Manuel the patrician, whose desertion he had not forgiven,
and Nasr the apostate. The envoy replied that this was
impossible, and presented the second missive. Mutasim
angrily flung back the gifts.'''
^ Ih. 79 : Genesios, 66, knows nothing of the
doT^pes ciSurot letters (which, as Vasil'ev suggests,
iv rw (reTTTcS arepeuj^iaTi ^^Y b*3 an anecdote), but says that
rns 4KK\v(Tias Iheophilus offered him 20,000 lbs. of
gold (£864,000). The Caliph dis-
2 Krumbacher, Die Erzdhlungcn, dained this large sum, remarking that
944-952. the expedition had cost him 100,000 ;
^ In support of this view, it may be ^"^ i" '^ont. Th. 131 his reply is
urged that they were detained seven different, and again in Pseudo-Simeon,
years before they were put to death. ^^- Tlie figures for the off"er of
Compare the case of the patrician for Theophilus differ m different texts,
whom Michael III. paid a ransom of ^^'^^- ^^- ^"^^ Pseudo-Simeon agree
1000 captives in a.d. 860. See below, ^T'^h Genesios ; Skylitzes (Cedrenus,
p 281 11- 137 ; vers. Gabii 22 mrso ; cp.
"^ Michael Syr. 96 calls Basil the ^"'^'^^'f' ^^- 2^' ^.^^ ^^ ""j/ ^400
patrician of Karshena. But Charsianon ^'"' discrepancy is noteworthy (not
It this time was only a kleisurarchy ^■^"I'^'-ked by Hirsch) ; and the small
(see above, p. 222), and Basil could '""'' ^'^"^^'^ ^^ Skylitzes from some
not have had patrician rank. unknown source, looks as it it might
^ be right. The words of Gen. ai/v a
5
So Michael, ib. (Bar-Hebraeus, 161). iKarovra^wv are not clear.
SECT. VII SARACEN WAR A.D. SS9-S47 273
§ 7. The Warfare 0/ A.D. 839-867
The disastrous events of the invasion of Mutasim, along
with the steady advance of the African Moslems in the island
of Sicily, not to speak of the constant injuries which the Arabs
of Crete inflicted on the Empire, convinced Theophilus that
the Empire was unable to cope alone with the growing
power of Islam in the Mediterranean, and he decided to
seek the alliance and co-operation of other powers. He
sent an embassy, which included a bishop and a patrician,
to the Western Emperor, Lewis the Pious, asking him to send
a powerful armament, perhaps to attack Syria or Egypt, in
order to divert or divide the forces of the Caliph.^ The
envoys were welcomed and honourably entertained at Ingelheim
(June 17, 839), but the embassy led to no result."^ Equally
fruitless was the attempt to induce the ruler of Spain, Abd ar-
Kahman II., to co-operate with the Empire against his rival
the Eastern Caliph. Spain was in such a disturbed state at
this time that it was impossible for him to undertake a distant
expedition beyond the seas. His good-will was unreserved,
and in reply to the Imperial Embassy he sent to Constantinople
his friend the poet Yahya al-Ghazzal with promises to dispatch
a fleet as soon as internal troubles permitted him.^ But those
troubles continued, and the fleet never sailed.
Meanwhile the fall of Amorion had led to no new
permanent encroachment on Eoman territory. The Emir of
Syria raided the Empire more than once with little success,^
and in A.D. 841 the Imperial forces took Adata and Marash,
and occupied part of the territory of Melitene.^ It was
^ Gen. 72 xtipw!' re Kal w6\eojv ricds '^ Ann. Bert., ib.
'2apaKT]vi.KQi' tuji' /xera^i) AijBvrjs Kal ^ Makkari (ii. 115) says that Yahya
'AaloLS KaTaX-rjiaaaOai. If 'Acta means succeeded in forming an alliance be-
Asia Minor, this points to Syria. If tween the two sovrans.
Libya means the realm of the Fatimids •* The first raid of Abu Said,
and Idrisids, it may point to Egypt. governor of Syria and Mesopotamia,
The chief envoy was the patrician was perhaps in the last months of
Theodosius Babutzikos, according to a.d. 838 ; he was opposed by Nasr,
Genesios ; but Prudentins {Ann. Bert. who lost his life. The next recorded
19) states that the envoys were Theo- were in A.D. 840-841 (Michael Syr. 96
dosius, bishop of Chalcedon, and Theo- 102). In A.D. 838-839, Maniun's nephew
phanes, a spatharios. Theodosius the Abbas entered into treasonable com-
patrician had been sent at an earlier munication with Theophilus. The in-
date to Venice, and seems to have trigue was discovered, and he perished
proceeded direct from there to Ingel- by torture and hunger {ib. 101).
heini. Cp. Vasil'ev, 146. ^ Ih. 102.
274 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
perhaps in the previous year that a Eoman fleet appeared off
the coast of Syria and pillaged the port of Antioch.^ These
successes inclined Mutasim to be gracious, when Theophilus
again proposed an exchange of captives, and he displayed
insolent generosity. " We," he said, " cannot compare the
values of Moslems and Christians, for God esteems those more
than these. But if you restore me the Saracens without ask-
ing for anything in return, we can give you twice as many
Eomans and thus surpass you in everything." Aetius and his
fellows were not included in the exchange, but a truce was
concluded (a.d. 841).^
It was only a truce, for Mutasim cherished the illusory
hope of subjugating the Empire. He revived the ambitious
designs of the Omayyad Caliphs, and resolved to attack Con-
stantinople. The naval establishment had been suffered to
decay under the Abbasids, and, as a powerful fleet was in-
dispensable for any enterprise against the city of the
Bosphorus, some years were required for preparation. The
armament was not ready to sail till the year 842, when 400
dromonds sailed from the ports of Syria. Mutasim, who died
in the same month as Theophilus, did not live to witness
the disaster which befell his fleet. It was wrecked on the
dangerous Chelidonian islets off the south-eastern cape of the
coast ; only seven vessels escaped destruction.^
Mutasim's unpopular successor, Wathik, was throughout
his short reign (842-847) so embarrassed by domestic troubles
— religious strife, risings in Damascus and Arabia, discontent
in Baghdad — that he was unable to prosecute the Holy War.*
1 Michael Syr. 101. No precise date against them, at Mauropotamon.
IS given ; we have only the limits, 838 Vasil'ev (155) supposes that the Kara-
and 841. Su, a tributary of the Halys, north of
\ 1^- 102. Mount Argaios, the MeXas of Strabo,
George Mon. 801 (copied in Vil. is the Mauropotamos here meant.
Theodorae, 11). Schlosser (556 n.) The weight, however, of MS. authority
thinks that this was an expedition of is in favour of rb MavpoTrSrafiov, a
the Moslems of Crete. But in that place (of course on a river), not 6
case it would not have been wrecked Mavpoworafios, a river. Cp. de Boor,
off Cape Hiera (Selidan-Burnu), which ib. n. 1. Theoktistos was also unlucky
is far away from the course to Con- in an expedition, by sea, against the
stantinople. The commander was Abu Abasgians ; the fleet was wrecked.
Dinar i'ATTodelvap). Cont. Th. 203. From this passage it
There seems to have been only would appear that the date was prior
one campaign, viz. in a.d. 843 or to the Cretan expedition, which Simeon
844 (Simeon, Add. Georg. 815). The {Cont. Georg.) 8U puts in spring a.d.
Saracens invaded Cappadocia and 843. Ace. to Cont. Th. there were
defeated Theoktistos, who was sent two solar eclipses before the Abasgian
SECT. VII
SARACEN WAR A.D. 839-847
275
The two powers exchanged their prisoners, and, though no
regular peace was made, they desisted from hostilities for
several years.
The exchange of prisoners from time to time was such a
characteristic feature of the warfare between the Empire and
the Caliphate, that the formal procedure by which such
exchanges were conducted is not without interest. A full
account has been preserved of the redemption of captives in
the year 845.^ In response to an embassy which the Eoman
government sent to Baghdad, a plenipotentiary arrived at
Constantinople in order to obtain exact information as to the
number of the Mohammadans who were detained in captivity.
They were estimated as 3000 men, and 500 women and
children; according to another account, they were 4362 in
all.^ The Greek prisoners in the Saracen prisons were found
to be less numerous, and in order to equalise the numbers, the
Caliph bought up Greek slaves in Baghdad, and even added
some females who were employed in the service of his palace.
The place usually chosen for the interchange of prisoners of
war was on the banks of the river Lamos, about a day's march
from Tarsus and close to Seleucia. Here the Greeks and the
Saracens met on September 16. The two Greek officers who
were entrusted with the negotiation were alarmed to see that
the other party was attended by a force of 4000 soldiers.
They refused to begin business till the Saracens consented to
an armistice of forty days, an interval which would permit
the redeemed prisoners to return to their homes without the
risk of being recaptured. There were preliminary disputes as
to the method of exchange. The Romans declined to accept
children or aged persons for able-bodied men, and some days
were wasted before it was agreed to purchase man with man.
enterprise. There was a total eclipse
in 840 (April 5) visible at Cple., and in
841 (Oct. 18) an annular eclii^se, which
an astronomer could have well observed
at Khartum, and which might have
been just partially visible at Cple.
These data are obviously not satis-
factory. If the expedition belonged
to the reign of Theophilus, the only
eclipses I can find which might come
under consideration are the total of
A.D. 833 (Sept. 17) and the annular
of 834 (March 14), of which the latter
might possibly have been seen in
Asia Minor. See Oppolzer, Canon der
Finstcrnisse (p. 196 and) Blatt No. 98
for the tracks of these obscurations.
^ Tabari, 47 sqq.
2 Bar-Hebr. 194. After the death
of Mutasim, Michael Syr. has no
information about the Saracen wars,
and very little about anything else
till the reign of Romanus I. His
source, the chronicle of Dionysios (who
died A.D. 845), came to an end at this
point.
276 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
Two bridges were thrown across the river, and at the same
moment at which a Christian passed over one, a Mohammadan
traversed the other in the opposite direction. But the un-
fortunate Mohammadans were subjected to a religious test.
The Caliph had appointed a commission to examine the
theological opinions of the captives. Himself an adherent,
like Mamun and Mutasim, of the pseudo-rationalistic school
which denied the eternity of the Koran and the visible
epiphany of Allah in a future life, he commanded that only
those should be redeemed who denounced or renounced these
doctrines. Many refused to sacrifice their convictions, and
the application of the test was probably not very strict. The
exchange was carried out in four days, and more than 4000
Saracens were redeemed, including women and children, as
well as Zimmi, that is, Christian or Jewish subjects of the
Caliph.^
Between the religious bigotry of rulers of Islam like
Wathik and Mutawakkil and that of Christian sovrans like
Theophilus and Theodora there was little to choose. For
the persecution of the Paulicians, which must be regarded,
as one of the greatest political disasters of the ninth century,!
Theophilus as well as Theodora was responsible, though the
crime, or rather the glory, is commonly ascribed entirely to'
her. This sect, widely diffused throughout Asia Minor, from
Phrygia and Lycaonia to Armenia, had lived in peace under
the wise and sympathetic iconoclasts of the eighth century.
They have been described as " the left wing of the iconoclasts " ; ^
their doctrines — they rejected images, pictures, crosses, as
idolatrous — had undoubtedly a great influence on the genera-
tion of the iconoclastic movement ; it has even been supposed
^ Hostilities were resumed in A.D. Anazarbos. D. MacRitchie's Account
851. In that year, and the two follow- of the Gypsies of India {London, 1886)
ing, Saracen raids are recorded. In contains a translation of an article by
855 the Greeks attacked Anazarbos De Goeje on the history of the Gipsies
in northern Cilicia, and took captive (published in the Memoirs of the
the Zatts or Gipsies who had been Amsterdam Academy of Sciences,
settled there since a.d. 835. The 1875). See also Bataillard, Sur les
Caliph Muawia had settled in Syria origines des BoMmiens ou Tsiga7ies
these emigrants from India. Walid (Paris, 1876). Vasil'ev, 177-178.
and Yazid II. assigned them settle- ^ ConyhGAxe, Key of Truth, cv\. For
ments at Antioch and Mopsnestia. Sergius the leader, who was active in
In the ninth century the Zatts behaved propagating,' Paulicianism in the first
as if they were an independent people, quarter of the ninth century, see ib.
and were suppressed with difficulty Ixviii., Ixix.
by Ujaif They were then moved to
SECT. VII PERSECUTION OF PA ULICIANS 2Y7
that Constautine V. wa,s at heart a Paulician/ We saw how
they had been favoured by Nicephorus, and how Michael I.
was stirred up by the ecclesiastics to institute a persecution.
Michael committed the execution of his decree in Phrygia and
Lycaonia to Leo the Armenian, as strategos of the Anatolic
Theme ; ^ while the suppression of the heresy in Cappadocia
and Pontus was enjoined on two ecclesiastics, the exarch or
visitor of the Patriarchal monasteries in those parts, and the
bishop of Neo-Caesarea.^ The evidence leaves us in doubt
whether Leo, when he came to the throne, pursued the policy
of which he had been the instrument. Did the reviver of
iconoclasm so far desert the principles of his exemplar,
Constantine V., as to pursue the Paulicians ? It is not in-
credible that he may have adopted this course, if it were only
to dissociate himself from a sect which the Church maliciously
or ignorantly branded as Manichaean ; for it is certain that
the Paulicians were persecuted by Theophilus.'* It was either
in the reign of Theophilus or during the earlier persecution
that Karbeas, a Paulician who held an office under the general
of the Anatolic Theme, led 5000 men of his faith to the
region beyond Cappadocia, and placed himself under the pro-
tection of the Emir of Melitene. He is said to have been
moved to this flight by the news that his father had been
hanged.^ It is probable that there were already Paulicians in
^ Conybeare, ih. cxvi. sqq. Theophilus, meets there some " Pauli-
^ Theoph. 495. Photius (c. Man. c. anasts or Manichaeans " condemned to
24 = Peter Sic. 52) says that Michael death. And it is suggested by the evi-
and Leo his successor sent to all parts dence relating to Karbeas ; see next
of the Empire and put heretics to note.
death. This naturally implies that ^ Covt. Th. 166. It can now be
Leo persecuted as Emperor ; but we shown that there is a grave chrono-
cannot be certain, for the statement logical error in the account of this
may have arisen from the fact that writer. The flight of Karbeas is
Leo was associated with Michael's represented as a consequence of the
persecution. persecution of Theodora. Butadocu-
^ Photius, ib. Parakondakes, the ment dating from a.d. 845-846 {Acta
exarch, was, of course, not the Patri- .^^ 7J/ar<. ^mor. F 29) shows that at the
archal exarch, but a provincial in- end of the reign of Theophilus, or im-
spector (cp. Ducange, s.v. i^apxos). mediately after, Karbeas and his peojile
Afterwards some Paulician killed him, were already settled in the East under
and the bishop was slain by the Saracen protection. We learn there
Kynochoritae (the position of Kynos- that Kallistos, appointed by Theo-
chora, . a Paulician stronghold, is philus governor of the district of
unknown). Koloneia (Kara-hissar), tried to convert
* We have an incidental proof of someof his officers who were Paulicians.
tills in the Vita Macarii, 159. They betrayed him to tlie Paulicians
Makarios, abbot of Pelckete (cp. above, of Karbeas (tois vw6 tt]v i^ovalav toO
p. 139, n. 4), thrown into prison by TptrdXai'os Kap/3^a reXoOcri — diroardTan),
278 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
the districts north and west of Melitene;^ new fugitives]
continually arrived; and in their three principal cities,'
Argaus, Tephrike, and Amara/ these martial heretics proved a
formidable enemy to the State of which their hardy valour!
had hitherto been a valuable defence.
Seeing that even iconoclasts sought to suppress a religion
with which they had important points in common, the
Paulicians could expect little mercy after the triumph of
image- worship. It was a foregone conclusion that Theodora, i
under the influence of orthodox ecclesiastical advisers, would !
pursue her husband's policy with more insistent zeal, and]
endeavour to extirpate the " Manichaean " abomination. A'
fiat went forth that the Paulicians should abandon their i
errors or be abolished from the earth which tliey defiled. An i
expedition was sent under several commanders to carry out |
this decree, and a wholesale massacre was enacted.^ Victims i
were slain by the sword, crucified, and drowned in thousands ;^!
those who escaped sought shelter across the frontier. The'
property of the Paulicians was appropriated by the State — a
poor compensation for the loss of such a firm bulwark as the
persecuted communities had approved themselves.
It is just after the fall of the Empress Theodora from'
power that we find the Paulicians effectively co-operating with i
the enemies of the Empire. Her brother Petronas, who was |
then strategos of the Thrakesian Theme, was entrusted with
the supreme command of the army,^ and in the late summer]
and he was presently taken to Arabissos and Germanicia. See his
Samarra by the Calipli's orders and MaiJ of Asia Minor (in wliich he has
associated with the Amorians (see corrected his former identifications of
above). It follows that the fliglit of Euspoina and Lykandos).
ThPoTiir'* ^' 1^*"^ ^^l^' T^"" "^. ' We have a good sonrce here in
MiSi !Le:V!'" " "" *"" °' T- r^- ]'' ^^P- fT^' '''^' o'"^
1 p,i u^r.^^^4- n- D 7-7 ■ "^^ chronology is left vague. Our
117-?18 ^^"^^P^*' ^'' PccuhHaner, text seems to be incomplete, for the
2 A ' ' A ^ . ^^ ., names of the commanders are given
novftlTM^T^^'"' '^"''1 l^ "''"' ™°»-« f^^lly i" Skylitzes (Cedrenuf), ii.
nortn oi Melitene ; see Anderson le^A • "'a ' /si •^ a; i \ .
Moacl-sysiem, 27. Tephrike is Devrik' - a r^^P'^T" *f ^^f, Z^^^* r' "
much further northf and abour 60 "> ^^^ (J^-^' C'o"^- ^^'O ( A.5p6...os)
TTiiloc c.1,,+1. ^„c4- ^f <a 1 '^"""'' "" Kai o Zov8a\is. 1 he names m brackets
Le StrZ^P rt -t ? f'^^^- A H- ^^^ ^"""e'i in C-o^ii Th., of which
Le btiange, Journal of R. Asiatic otherwise the text of Skvlit^es i<! no
Society, 1896, p. 733 son.) Anderson "^'^^^fi^^ ^'■^^ text ol bkylitzes is no
i^-h Qo\ 1 '"^^(/(/.; Aiiuerson more than a transcript.
{lb. 32) has made it probable that . ^
Amara or Abara lay near the modern 100,000, Cont. Th., a number
Manjilik, about 25 miles north of which, of course, has no value.
Gunin, on the road from Sebastea to ^ g^^^^^ rpj^_ jgy^
SECT. VII SARACEN WAR UNDER MICHAEL III. 279
(a.d. 856), having made successful raids into the districts of
Samosata and Amida, he proceeded against Tephrike, the
headquarters of Karbeas, who had been actively helping the
Emir of Melitene and the governor of Tarsus to waste the
Eoman borders. In this year begins a short period of
incessant hostility, marked on one hand by the constant
incursions of the commanders of Melitene and Tarsus, in
co-operation with Karbeas, and on the other by the appear-
ance in the field of the Emperor Michael himself, as well as
his uncles Bardas and Petronas. The first expedition of
Michael, who had now reached the age of twenty years, was
directed against Samosata, under the guidance of Bardas.^
His army was at first successful, and the town was besieged.
But the garrison made a sudden sally on a Sunday, choosing
the hour at which the Emperor was engaged in the ceremonies
of his religion. He escaped with difficulty, and the whole
camp fell into the hands of the Saracens (a.d. 859).^ It was
said that Karbeas performed prodigies of valour and captured
a large number of Greek officers.^
In the ensuing winter negotiations were opened for the
exchange of captives, and the Saracen envoy, Nasr, came to
Constantinople. He wrote an interesting account of his
mission.^ As soon as he arrived, he presented himself at the
Palace, in a black dress and wearing a turban and a sword.
Petronas (but it is not improbable that Bardas is meant) ^
informed him that he could not appear in the Emperor's
presence with a sword or dressed in black. " Then," said
Nasr, " I will go away." But before he had gone far he was
recalled, and as soon as the Emperor, who was then receiving
a Bulgarian embassy, was disengaged, he was admitted to the
hall of audience. Michael sat on a throne which was raised on
another throne, and his patricians were standing around him.
When ISTasr had paid his respects, he took his place on a large
chair which had been set for him, and the gifts which he had
^ Bardas was now curopalates (see the Greeks had met the forces of the
above, p. 161). Emir of Melitene, with whom Karbeas
2 Gen. 91 records the disaster; used to act, and had driven them into
Tabari, 55, only the (initial) success. Samosata. _ _
p„ v„ ;iv„ iQT ,1/1 Tabari has preserved It (57).
bp. Vasil ev, lo5, n. 4. '■, n ^ ^ c\\ ti
^ •' Petronas was general ot the ilira-
^ Gont. Til. 176-177 (otherwise a re- kesians from 860 to 863. I suspect
production of Genesios). The presence that Nasr wrote " his uncle " and that
of Karbeas at Samosata suggests that Tabari added Petronas.
280 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
brought from the Caliph — silk robes, about a thousand bottles
of musk, saffron, and jewels — were presented.^ Three inter-
preters came forward, and Nasr charged them to add nothing
to what he said. The Emperor accepted the gifts, and Nasr
noticed that he did not bestow any of them on the interpreters.
Then he desired that the envoy should approach, graciously
caressed him, and gave orders that a lodging should be found
for him in or near the Palace.^ But the business on which
Nasr had come did not progress rapidly. He mentions that
a message arrived from the garrison of Lulon, which consisted
of Mohammadan Slavs, signifying their desire to embrace
Christianity and sending two hostages. It will be remem-
bered that this important fortress had been captured by
Mamun in a.d. 832,^ and the opportunity for recovering it
was welcome. For four months^ Nasr was detained at
Constantinople. Then new tidings arrived from Lulon,
which prompted Michael to settle the question of the
captives without delay. He had sent a patrician,^ who
promised the garrison a handsome largess ; ^ but they repented
of their treachery, and handed over both the place and the
patrician to a Saracen captain. The patrician was carried
into captivity and threatened with death if he did not
renounce his religion. It would seem that the Emperor was
seriously concerned for his fate, for, as soon as the news came,
the exchange of captives was promptly arranged with Nasr.
It was agreed that both sides should surrender all the
prisoners who were in their hands. Nasr and Michael's
uncle '^ confirmed the agreement by oath in the Imperial
presence. Then Nasr said : " Emperor, your uncle has
sworn. Is the oath binding for you ? " He inclined his head
in token of assent. And, adds the envoy, " I did not hear a
single word from his lips from the time of my arrival till my
departure. The interpreter alone spoke, and the Emperor
listened and expressed his assent or dissent by motions of his
^ Cp. Bar-Hebr. 169. b Tabari, 56, says liewas a logothete
^ "Not far from himself." It is (perhaps Logothete of the Com-se).
not clear whether this means in the e ^ thousand dinars each, according
lalace notfarfromtheChrysotnldmos, ^^ tabari. This can hardly be true
or not lar irom the Palace. . ^.i ] • i. c ^^
3 mu • r .A thousand nomismata tor all seems
^ IheixB IS no reason for suni)osine \ \^ i j. ^ * i
/,.,;<^i, 17- -p io^\ ii 4. -J- i i. "^ '» more probable, but we do not know
(with Vasil ev, 186), that it was in the +i ' i f V, ; „
i,„.^ <• 4-1 r. 1 • or^ the number of the garrison,
hands of the Greeks in a.d. 857.
■* December 859 to March 860. ' Evidently Eardas.
SECT, vii SARACEN WAR UNDER MICHAEL III.
281
head. His uncle managed all his affairs." The Emperor
received 1000 Greek captives in return for 2000 subjects of
the Caliph, but the balance was redressed by the release of the
patrician whom he was so anxious to recover.^
Not many weeks later," committing the charge and
defence of his capital to Ooryphas, the Prefect,^ Michael
again set forth to invade the Caliph's dominions. But even,
as it would seem, before he reached the frontier,^ he was
recalled (in June) by the alarming news that the Eussians
had attacked Constantinople. When the danger had passed,
he started again for the East, to encounter Omar, the Emir of
Melitene, who had in the meantime taken the field. Michael
marched along the great high-road which leads to the Upper
Euphrates by Ancyra and Sebastea. Having passed Gaziura,^
he encamped in the plain of Dazimon, where Afshin had
inflicted on his father an overwhelming defeat." Here he
awaited the approach of the Emir, who was near at hand,
advancing, as we may with certainty assume, from Sebastea.
An enemy marching by this road, against Amasea, had the
choice of two ways. He might proceed northward to Dazimon
^ This is not explained in the
narrative of Nasr, but follows from the
statement of Tabari elsewhere (56),
that the Emperor wrote offering 1000
Moslems as a ransom.
■^ The exchange was effected on the
banks of the Lamos in April to May.
Michael must have left Coustantino}>le
about the beginning of June.
3 Simeon {Add. Gcorg.) 826. Cp.
above, p. 144. At the time of Michael's
death Ooryphas seems to have been
drungarios of the Imperial fleet (see
the addition to Simeon's text in the
Vatican MS. of Cont. Gcorg. ed.
Muralt, 752 = Pseudo-Simeon, 687),
but it does not follow i that, as de
Boor {Der Angriff der lilios, 456) as-
sumes, he held this post in 860. Had
he been drungarios he would have been
absent with the fleet in the west.
'• He had reached Mauropotamon
(Simeon, vers. Slav. 106, and Cont.
Georg. ed. Mur. 736). The other pub-
lished Greek texts have a corrupt
reading which implies that the Russians
were at Mauropotamon : ttjv twu ddiuu
'Pojs iiujvvaev dcpi^Li/ yeyevrjfi^vovs ijSi]
/caret rbv [leg. rb] M. {Cont. Georg. ed.
B. 826 = Leo Gr. 240 = Th. MeL 168) ;
we must correct to yeyevrifx^uov.
Pseudo-Simeon (674 top ^acriX^a ijdyj
TO M. KaToKa^bvTa) had a good text of
the original before liim. Mauropotamon
is the unknown place on some road to
the region of Melitene where Theo-
ktistos was defeated (see above, p. 274).
The true date of the campaign is
determined by that of the Russian
episode (see de Boor, op. cit. 458).
Genesios wrongly implies the date 861
(91, two years after the campaign of
859). Tabari records that in a.d. 860
Omar made a summer raid and took
7000 captives (56), and does not
mention a raid of Omar in the follow-
ing year. According to Genesios, the
Imperial army numbered 40,000 in-
cluding Macedonian and Thracian
troops, and that of the Emir 30,000.
^ This might be reached from
Ancyra by (northern route) Euchaita-
Amasea, or (southern) by Taviou,
Verinopolis, and Zela. (Euchaita is
Elwan-Chelebi: Anderson, /S'^wf?. Pont.
i. 9.)
" He reached Dazimon (Tokat) and
encamped in the meadow of Kellarion
(Gen. 92).
282
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. VIII
and then westward by Gaziura ; or he might turn westward at
Verisa (Bolous) ^ and reach Amasea by Sebastopolis (Sulu-serai)
and Zela. On this occasion the first route was barred by the
Eoman army, which lay near the strong fortress of Dazimon,
and could not be advantageously attacked on this side. It
would have been possible for Omar, following the second
route, to have reached Gaziura from Zela, and entered the
plain of Dazimon from the west. But he preferred a bolder
course, which surprised the Greeks, who acknowledged his
strategic ability. Leaving the Zela road, a little to the west
of Verisa, he led his forces northward across the hills (Ak-
Dagh),^ and descending into the Dazimon plain occupied a
favourable position at Chonarion, not far from the Greek camp.
The battle which ensued resulted in a rout of the Imperial
army, and Michael sought a refuge on the summit of the same
steep hill of Anzen which marked the scene of his father's
defeat.^ Here he was besieged for some hours, but want of
water and pasture induced the Emir to withdraw his forces.
It is possible that the victorious general followed up his
success by advancing as far as Sinope.* But three years
^ For Verisa = Bolous, see Anderson,
lb. 37-38.
"^ If we could identify Kellarin and
Chonarion, there would be no difficulty
in understanding the brief description
in Gen. and Cont. Th. of the strategic
movement of Omar. But I submit
that the logical interpretation of their
words is that on which I have ventured.
Gen. 92 6 hk "A^ep crTpaTrjyiKws
TrapeK^aTLKihrepov SieXdwv ttJs dTrayova7]s
odou irpbs tt]v TiiXicrav (which un-
questionably means Zela) ; Cont. Th.
177-178 apTL St] "Afiep avT(^ Kara-
<TTpaTT]yu>v TToppuiripu} ttjs TeTpi/j,fjL4vr]s
rjei 65ov ; i.e. Omar left the higli-road
to Zela in order to reach a position
close to the Roman army which was
near Dazimon. The map seems to
leave no alternative to the general
course which I have indicated.
^ Cp. above, p. 265. The hill was
six miles from the scene of the battle.
Vasil'ev has the strange notion (194,
n. 2) that XcjvdpLov may be a shortened
form of Strabo's Kaivbv Xcopiov (781,
ed. Teubner), which he thinks suits
the description of Anzen. On etymolo-
gical grounds alone tliis is unaccept-
able ; but in any case Chonarion is not
Anzen, and is probably on the south
side of the Dazimonitis. Hamilton's
identification of Kaivbi' Xupiov with
Yildiz Dagh {Researches in Asia Minar,
i. 348), which is east of Verisa, south-
east of Tokat, cannot be maintained ;
see Cumont, Stud. Pont. ii. 231-223.
■* The notice of Omar reaching Sinope
is in Simeon {Cont. Georg.) 824.
Ramsay connected it with the expedi-
tion of 863 ; but it is noted by Simeon
as a distinct expedition. The difficulty
in connecting it with the expedition
of 860 lies (1) in the words viriarpixpe
1X7) KaTaXrjcpdds vtto rod 'PwfiaiKov
(TTpaTov (words which forbid its con-
nection with 863), and (2) in the fact
thatthewriterrelatessubsequently(out
of chronological order) Michael's march
to Mauropotamon and the Russian
peril (826). Perhaps it is best to
assign it to 861 or 862. In any case
Amisus or Sinope was probably the
goal of Omar in 860. This year was
also marked by incursions of Karbeas
and of Ali ibn Yahya, and by the
capture of a maritime stronghold (the
MS. text of Tabari has Antiochia, but
probably Attalia is meant). Tabari,
56. See Vasil'ev, 195, n. 4.
SECT. VII SARACEN WAR UNDER MICHAEL III. 283
later, Omar revisited the same regions, devastated the
Armeniac Theme, and reached the coast of the Euxine (a.d.
863). His plan seems to have been to march right across
the centre of Asia Minor and return to Saracen territory by
the Pass of the Cilician Gates.^ He took and sacked the
city of Amisus (Samsun), and the impression which the
unaccustomed appearance of an enemy on that coast made
upon the inhabitants was reflected in the resuscitation of an
ancient legend. Omar, furious that the sea set a bound to
his northern advance, was said, like Xerxes, to have scourged
the waves. The Emperor appointed his uncle Petronas, who
was still strategos of the Thrakesian Theme, to the supreme
command of the army ; and not only all the troops of Asia,
but the armies of Thrace and Macedonia, and the Tagmatic
regiments, were placed at his disposal. When Omar heard at
Amisus of the preparations which were afoot, he was advised
by his ofiicers to retire by the way he had come. But he
determined to carry out his original plan, and setting out
from Amisus in August, he chose a route which would lead
him by the west bank of the Halys to Tyana and Podandos.
The object of Petronas was now to intercept him. Though
the obscm'e localities named in the chronicles have not been
identified, the general data suggest the conclusion that it was
between Lake Tatta and the Halys that he decided to surround
the foe. The troops of the Armeniac, Bukellarian,^ Paphla-
gonian, and Kolonean Themes converged upon the north,
after Omar had passed Ancyra. The Anatolic, Opsikian, and
Cappadocian armies, reinforced by the troops of Seleucia and
Charsianon, gathered on the south and south-east ; while
Petronas himself, with the Tagmata, the Thracians, and
Macedonians, as well as his own Thrakesians, appeared on the
west of the enemy's line of march. A hill separated Petronas
from the Saracen camp, and he was successful in a struggle
to occupy the height. Omar was caught in a trap. Finding
it impossible to escape to the north or to the south, he
^ For this campaign, see Bury, - Nasar was strategos of the Bukel-
Mutasim's March, I2i sqq. Tabari, 61- larians (George, Bonn, 825). He dis-
62, says that, before starting, Omar tinguished liimself subsequently in
communicated with Jafar ibn Dinar, the reign of Basil. Simeon {Cont.
who seems to have been governor of (?eorr7.,i6.) inaccurately or proleptically
Tarsus. The date, A.D. 863, is fixed describes Petronas as o-rparT^XciTT;? t?)?
by Tabari. avaroXris.
284 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
attacked Petronas, who held his ground. Then the generals
of the northern and southern armies closed in, and the Saracen
forces were almost annihilated. Omar himself fell. His son
escaped across the Halys, but was caught by the turmarch of
Charsianon. The victory of Poson (such was the name of the
place)/ and the death of one of the ablest Moslem generals
were a compensation for the defeat of Chonarion. Petronas
was rewarded by receiving the high post of the Domestic of
the Schools," and the order of magister.^ Strains of triumph
at a victory so signal resounded in the Hippodrome, and a
special chant ** celebrated the death of the Emir on the field
of battle, a rare occurrence in the annals of the warfare with
the Moslems.
It would appear that this success was immediately
followed up by an invasion of Northern Mesopotamia. We
know not whether the Greek army was led by Petronas, but
another victory was won, somewhere in the neighbourhood of
Martyropolis, and this battlefield was likewise marked by the
fall of a Saracen commander who, year after year, had raided
Eoman territory — Ali ibn Yahya.^
These victories are the last events worthy of record '' in
the Eastern war during the reign of Michael III. While the
young Emperor was sole Augustus, and Bardas was the
virtual ruler, the defence of the Empire in the east was
^ The place, which has not been showed, Ceremowm?J5oo^', p. 434) in the
identified, was also marked by the a/cra iirl tieyiaTavifi dfxeipq. iv iro\4/jup
stream of Lalakaon and the meadow 7]tt7]94i>ti. Kal dvaipedivTi (Const. Cer. i.
of Gyrin. Tabari gives the name of 69, p. 332). It runs : "Glory to God
the place as "— rz (the first letter is who shatters our enemies ! Glory to
aleph), in Marj-Uskuf." In the article God who has destroyed the godless !
cited above I have attempted to show Glory to God the author of victory !
that the region indicated lay north of Glory to God who crowned thee, Olord
Nazianzus and Soandos. The date of of the earth! Hail, Lord, felicity of tlie
the battle was September 3. Tabari, Romans ! Hail, Lord, valour of thy
62. army ! Hail, Lord, by whom (Omar)
2 Petronas had represented {iK was laid low ! Hail, Lord (Michael),
irpocrunrov) his nephew Antigonus, who destroyer ! God will keep tliee in the
was a boy (see above, p. 161). Co7it. Th. purple, for the honour and raising up
I8O3, 183jB. According to Genesios, of the Romans, along with the honour-
he was made Domestic before the able Augustae [Eudocia, Theodora,
victory (95,). Thecla] in the purple. God will
^ Gen. 97. The statement of "some" hearken to your people ! "
(lbs U TLves) that Bardas took part in ^ Yakubi, 11 ; Tabari, 62 : in the
the battle, and was rewarded by being month of Ramadan = October 18 to
created Caesar at Easter 862, is incon- November 16, 863. Cp. Bar-Hebr. 171.
sistent with chronology. 6 garacen raids are noted by Tabari
•* This has been preserved (as I in 864 and 865.
SECT. VII SARACEN WAR UNDER MICHAEL III. 285
steadily maintained. Michael had himself marched to the
front, and the Saracens had won no important successes
while his uncle was at the helm. It was probably after
the death of Bardas that an incident occurred which has
stamped Michael as supremely indifferent to the safety of his
Empire. One evening as he was preparing in his private
hippodrome in the Palace of St. Mamas to display his skill
as a charioteer, before a favoured company, the spectators
were alarmed and distracted by seeing a blaze illuminated in
the Pharos of the Great Palace, which announced tidings
flashed from Cappadocia, that the Saracens were abroad
within the Eoman borders. The spectacle was not discon-
tinued, but the attention of the onlookers languished, and the
Emperor, determined that such interruptions shovild not again
occur, commanded that the beacon signals in the neighbour-
hood of Constantinople should be kindled no more.^ It might
be thought that the signal system had been abandoned for
some serious reason, connected perhaps with the loss of Lulon,^
and that this anecdote, illustrating the Emperor's frivolity,
had been invented to account for it. But the very moderation
of the story may be held to show that it had a basis of fact.
For it does not suggest that the beacon messages were dis-
continued ; on the contrary, it expressly states that the
lighting of the beacons in or close to Constantinople, that is
at the Pharos and on Mt. Auxeutios, was forbidden.^ This
Imperial order, though dictated by a frivolous motive, need
not have caused a very serious delay in the arrival of the
news at Constantinople, nor can it be alleged that Michael
endangered thereby the safety of the provinces.
On the whole, the frontiers between the two powers in
Asia Minor had changed little under the rule of the Amorian
dynasty. The Moslems had won a few more fortresses ; and
what was more serious, in Cappadocia east of the Halys their
position was strengthened by the invaluable support of the
Paulician rebels. The Amorians bequeathed to their successor
the same task which had lain before them and which they had
1 Cont. Th. 197-198. 3 Qg^^i_ ^/;_ jgg ^^^^^^ ^^i^j 7rXi?<rm-
'^ But the loss of Lulon did not ^ovras (pavovs evep-ydv irpoaira^ev.
renderthe signals useless or impossible. Modern writers have not attended to
Mt. Argaios would become the first the limitation irXrjaid^'ovTas,
station.
286 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, viii
failed to achieve, the expulsion of the enemy from Cappadocia;
but the difficulty of that task was aggravated by the disastrous
policy of the Paulician persecution for which Theophilus and
Theodora were responsible.
In the last years of the reign of Michael the Caliphate was
troubled by domestic anarchy, and offered a good mark for the
attack of a strenuous foe. The Caliph Mustain writhed under
the yoke of the powerful Turkish party, and he desired to
return from Samarra to the old capital of Baghdad. But he
was compelled to abdicate in favour of Mutazz, whom the
Turks set up against him (January 866). The best days of
the Abbasid dynasty were past, and the Caliphate had begun
to decline, just as the Empire was about to enter on a new
period of power and expansion.
CHAPTEE IX
THE SARACEN CONQUESTS OF CKETE AND SICILY
^ 1. The Saracen Conquest of Crete
Since the remote ages which we associate with the un-
certain name of Minos, when it was the home of a brilliant
civilization and the seat of an Aegean power, the island of
Crete played but a small part in Greek and Eoman history.
In the scheme of administration which was systematized in the
eighth century, it formed, along with some neighbouring islands,
a distinct theme ; but its name rarely occurs in our chronicles ^
until its happy obscurity is suddenly disturbed in the reign
of Michael II. by an event which rendered it, for long years
to come, one of the principal embarrassments and concerns of
the Imperial Government. The fate of Crete was determined
by events in a distant Western land, whose revolutions, it might
have seemed, concerned the Cretans as little as those of any
country in the world.
The Omayyads in Spain no less than the Abbasids in
the East, Cordova no less than Baghdad, were troubled by
outbreaks of discontent and insurrection, in which the rational-
istic school of theology also played its part. The Emir Al-
Hakam ^ dyed his hands in the blood of insurgents, and finally
when the inhabitants of one of the quarters of Cordova rose
against him, he commanded those who escaped the edge of
his sword to leave Spain with their families in three days
(a.d. 814). Ten thousand men, as well as women and children,
sailed to Egypt, and, placing themselves under the protection
^ It did not, however, altogether is mentioned in the Vita Andreae Cre-
escape the visitations of the Omayyad tensis (Papadopulos-Kerameus, 'AvaK.
fleets in the 7th century ; see Theo- 'lepocr. v. 177).
phanes, A.M. 6166. A Saracen descent ^ a.d. 796-822.
287
288 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
of a powerful Beduin family, settled in the outskirts of Alex-
andria. Soon they felt strong enough to act for themselves,
and under the leadership of Abu Hafs ^ they seized the city
(A.D. 818-819).
At this time the governor of Egypt had availed himself of
the revolts with which the Caliph Mamun had to cope in the
eastern provinces of his dominion to declare himself inde-
pendent. The Spanish fugitives held Alexandria for six years
before Mamun had his hands free to deal with Egypt. At
length (a.d. 825) he sent Abdallah ibn Tahir to compel the
submission both of the rebellious governor and of the Anda-
lusian intruders. The governor was overthrown by one of his
officers before Abdallah arrived, and the Spaniards readily
submitted to the representative of the Caliph and obtained
permission to leave Egypt and win a settlement within the
borders of the Empire. In the previous year they had made
a descent on the island of Crete, and their ships had returned
laden with captives and booty ; ^ and they now chose Crete as
their place of permanent habitation. They sailed in forty
ships, with Abu Hafs as their leader, and anchored probably
in the best harbour of the island, in the bay of Suda.^ Abu
Hafs commanded his followers to plunder the island and return
to the port in twelve days, retaining twenty men to guard each
ship. It would appear that no serious resistance was offered
by the islanders, who perhaps had little love for the Imperial
government, which, besides being oppressive, had in recent years
been heretical.* It is related that when the Spaniards returned
^ Abu Hafs Omar ibn Shuaib. Cp. {Gont. Georcj. 789) merely notices the
Dozy, Histoire des Musuhnans fact of the conquest of Crete, which,
d'Esj)a(jne, ii. 68-76. along with that of Sicily, he ascribes
^ Thisdescent is recorded by Genesios to the rebellion of Thomas, with which
(46), who dates it as occurring in the Michael was fully occupied. But
time of the rebellion of Thomas. He Thomas had been suppressed before
says that the conquest occurred in the the occupation of Crete or the invasion
followingyear, 'i.e. A.D. 825, as weknow of Sicily. Hopf ((rr. Gcsch. 121) and
from the Arabic sources. Therefore Amari {Storia, i. 163) placed the con-
the first descent was in a.d. 824. Cp. quest of Crete in 823, Muralt {Chron.
Vasil'ev, 47. Genesios knew nothing byz. 410) in 824.
about the Egyptian episode, and sup- ^ Thechief Arabic source is Humandi
posed that Abu Hafs {' Air6xo.\f/) and his (11th cent. ) who used an older writer,
people came directly from Spain. The Mohammad ibn Huzaw. Conde, Arabs
account in Cont. Th. 73 sqq. is derived in Simin, i. 263. Genesios places the
from Genesios, but the writer's remark landing at Charax, distinguishing it
maybe noted that the Saracens of Spain from Chandax (47). I can find no trace
had come in the course of time to be of Charax.
called Spaniards ('I(T7rdcoi)73i8. Simeon ■* Vasil'ev, 48.
SECT. I THE SARACEN CONQUEST OF CRETE 289
to the port, they were dismayed to find that their ships had
disappeared. They had been burned by the orders of Abu
Hafs. To their loud and mutinous complaints that they were
now irrevocably severed from their wives and children whom
they had left in Egypt, he replied by bidding them marry the
women of the island whom they had taken captive. We may
question the truth of the story ,^ but it seems to point to the
fact that there was a considerable fusion by marriage between
the invaders and the natives.
The modern capital of Crete was founded by Abu Hafs.
He chose, to be the seat of his dominion, a site on the northern
shore of the island, not far from the hill of Knossos, the ancient
stronghold of Minos. The new town was central ; it looked
towards the isles of the Aegean which the conquerors of Crete
hoped to plunder ; but it had the disadvantage of having no
harbour or natural shelter for ships. It was surrounded by a
deep moat {handak), from which it derived its name Chandax
or Candia. Twenty-nine towns were taken and their inhabi-
tants reduced to slavery. One alone was excepted from this
general fate by a special capitulation, and in it the Christians
were permitted freely to celebrate the rites of their religion.^
The Emperor Michael and his successors did not under-
estimate the danger with which Crete in the possession of the
Moslems menaced the Empire. Michael appointed Photeinos,
the governor of the Anatolic Theme, to be strategos of Crete,^
and not many months after the Saracen occupation this
general arrived at the island. But he found that his forces
^ The story is told in Gen. and CoH(!. founded on Genesios, enables us to
Th. (same source), and curiously, almost restore it (cp. Latin version). — Genesios
in the same words by Humandi (cp. (48)recordsthatCyril,bishopofGortyn,
Hirscli, Byz. Stud. 136 ; Vasil'ev, 48 was slaughtered, and that liis blood
n. 2). This coincidence has not been still remains liquid and acts as a
explained, but points to a common miraculous unguent. This probably
Cretan source. Aniari (»SYori«, i. 163) comes from lost Acta of Cretan martyrs
suggested that the foundation of the (I cannot agree that Kadws nves (paaif,
story may have been that Abu Hafs as Hirsch {op. cit. 137) suggests, proves
burned some ships which were useless. an oral source ; the words may have
If we are to hazard guesses, it is pos- been in the source of Genesios).
sible that one ship caught fire accident- ^ Photeinos was great-grandfather,
ally and the conflagration spread of Zoe, fourth wife of Leo VL That
(rod TTvev/jLaTos eiraKud^ovTos, Cont. Th. he went as strategos of Crete, I infer
75). from Cont. Th. 11. ^ His expedition is
^ The inhabitants of this town were recorded only in this source. Its date
called viro\6yioL. The word is omitted must be early in 826, if not in 825 ;
in the text ofGenesios 4728, but Pseudo- for Photeinos was appointed strategos
Simeon (6237), whose narrative is of Sicily in 826.
U
290 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
were unequal to his task, and at his request Damianos, Count
of the Stable, was sent with reinforcements. The Saracens
routed the Greek army, Damianos was wounded, and Photeinos
escaped to the little island of Dios which faces Candia. A
second expedition was sent soon afterwards, under Krateros,
in command of a fleet of seventy ships.^ A battle was fought
where the troops landed, and the Greeks were victorious, but
instead of following up their success they celebrated it by a
night of carousal, and in their sleep they were attacked and
almost annihilated by the enemy. Krateros escaped and was
pursued by the Arabs to Cos, where they caught him and
hanged him on a cross.
It was not only for the recovery of Crete, but also for the
protection of the islands of the Aegean that the Imperial
government was concerned. A third armament which Michael
despatched under the command of Ooryphas cleared the enemy
out of a number of small islands which they had occupied,
but it is not recorded that he renewed the attempt to recover
Crete. The Arabs did not confine their attacks to the islands
in the immediate vicinity of Crete ; they extended far and
wide, on both sides of the Aegean, depredations of which only
stray notices have been preserved by chance. We know that
Aegina was cruelly and repeatedly devastated ; ^ we know
that, some two generations later, Paros was a waste country,
which attracted only the hunter of the wildgoat.^ Just after
the death of the Emperor Michael, an expedition from Crete
pillaged the coasts of Caria and Ionia, and despoiled the
monastery of Mt. Latros.* Constantine Kontomytes, the
^ Consisting partly of the Kibyrr- Ooryphas, because it is recorded in
haeot fleet (for Ivrateros was strategos Gont. Th. before the Sicilian affair,
of the Kibyrrhaeot Theme) and partly The writer finishes what he has to say
of ships from the other naval themes of Crete before he goes on to Sicily,
(the Aegean and Hellas ?). This we AVe can only date the expedition of
learn from Cont. Th. (79), whose Ooryphas to the three years 827-829.
narrative otherwise coincides with For Ooryphas see above, Chap. I\'.
that of Genesios. The date of the p. 144.
expedition may be 826 (so Miiralt and 2 yit. Theodorae Thess. 2, cp. 26.
Vasil'ev) or 827. From Cont. Th. we yu, Lucae Jun. (Migne, 111, 441),
can only infer that it was " about the ras cvvexeh {<p68ovs twv fV r^s'Aya/).
same time" as the revolt of Euphemios, „ -.. ^,. „, . ^ ,
but Kark Tbu avTbv KaipSu (Slje) is too , Nicetas, r li. Theodistae Lesb. 8-9.
vague to fix the date more precisely. ^ °^^^ ^^^"^ reference to Vasil ev.
It seems to me that Vasil'ev goes too * On the monasteries of Latros cp.
far in postulating 827 or end of 826 Delehaye, Analecta Bollaindiana, xi,
for the subsequent enterprise of 14 sqq. (1892).
SECT. I THE SARACEN CONQUEST OF CRETE 291
strategos of the Thrakesian Theme, surrounded the depredators
with a superior force and cut them to pieces. But about the
same time a Eoman fleet was completely destroyed in a battle
at Thasos/ and the Cretans for some years seem to have
worked their will unhindered in the Aea-ean Sea.^ Their
attacks on Mt. Athos compelled the monks to abandon their
cells.^
If the story is true that the original fleet of the Cretan
Arabs was burnt, it is clear that they had, however, speedily
furnished themselves with a considerable naval establishment.^
At the same time, Sicily was in great danger. The Moslems
of Spain had hardly conquered Crete before the Moslems of
Africa descended upon the western island and set themselves
to accomplish a conquest which would give them a unique
position for winning the maritime lordship of the Mediter-
ranean. To rescue Sicily, to recover Crete, and to defend the
islands and coast which were exposed to the depredations of a
piratical enemy to the very precincts of the capital itself, a far
stronger naval equipment was necessary than that which the
Empire possessed. The navy which had saved Asia Minor
and the Aegean under the successors of Heraclius from the
Saracens in the first tide of their conquests, had been allowed
to decline, and the Amorian Emperors reaped the fruits of
this neglect. The naval question suddenly became the most
pressing interest of Imperial policy ; and, as we have seen, the
revival of the navy was begun by the efforts of the Amorian
dynasty. No further attempt, however, to recover Crete seems
to have been made in the reign of Theophilus, who may have
thought, perhaps justly, that it would be better to employ all
his available strength upon curbing the advance of the Arabs
in the island of Sicily. But after his death, Theoktistos
organized a great Cretan expedition which sailed in March
(a.d. 843) under his own command.^ It seems to have been
far more powerful than those which had been despatched by
Michael II., and when it appeared the Saracens were in
consternation. But they found a means of playing upon the
^ Cont. Th. 137, October 829. ^ Simeou (Cont. Georg., 814), who is
^ lb. ; cp. Vit. Tlieodorae Imp. 9. the source, states that Tlieodora sent
'' Vasil'ev, 77. the expedition on the Sunday after
* Probably many of the ships of tlie Proclamation of Orthodoxy, i.e.
Photeinos and Krateros fell into their on March 18, 843.
hands.
292 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
general's fears for his own influence at the court of Theodora.
They bribed some of his ofl&cers to spread the rumour, or to
insinuate to Theoktistos, that the Empress had raised one of
his rivals to be the colleague of herself and her son. The
general, deeply alarmed, hastened to Constantinople, leaving
his army to do nothing, if not to meet with disaster.^
Abu Hafs and his successors were virtually independent,
but they may have found it expedient to acknowledge the
overlordship of the Caliph, and to consider Crete as in some
sense affiliated to the province of Egypt. In any case they
continued to maintain relations with Egypt and to receive
supplies from Alexandria. It was probably in view of this
connexion that the government of Theodora decided on an ex-
pedition beyond the usual range of the warfare of this period.^
Three fleets, numbering in all nearly three himdred ships,
were equipped. The destination of two of these armaments
is unknown ; perhaps they w^ere to operate in the Aegean or
off the coast of Syria.^ But the third, consisting of eighty-
five vessels and carrying 5000 men, under an admiral whose
true name is concealed under " Ibn Katuna," the corruption
of an Arabic chronicler, sailed to the coast of Egypt and
appeared before Damietta (May 22, 853).
In the ninth century Damietta was closer to the sea
than the later town which the Sultan Bibars founded in the
thirteenth."* The city lies on the eastern channel of the Nile
about seven miles from the mouth ; and less than a mile to
the east is Lake Menzale, which a narrow belt of sand severs
from the sea. When the Greek fleet arrived, the garrison
was absent at Eustat, attending a feast to which it had been
siunmoned by the governor Anbas, the last ruler of Arabic
descent. The inhabitants hastily deserted the undefended
1 KaraXL-K^Lv rhv arpo-Tov fiaxaLpas 85 ships. The two accounts are in-
ipov, loc cit. If It had been actually dependent. We may take it that 300
destroyed, probably more would have is a round number.
been said.
2 The sources are Tabari (51-52) and /^ Vasil'ev guesses they went to
Yakubi (10). It is significant for the Sicily (173); but the natural in-
character of the Greek chronicles that ference from Tabari is that they
they utterly ignore the episode of operated in the east. One of them
Damietta. Tabari says that there ^^*^ commanded by Ooryphas, the
were 300 ships, 100 under each com- °ther by M— r— d (Tabari]^ 51). For
mander. But Yakubi, who only Ooryphas cp. above. Chap. IV. p.
mentions the fleet which attacked 1^'^-
Damietta, says that it consisted of ■< Cp. Vasil'ev, 171.
■SECT. I THE SARACEN CONQUEST OF CRETE 293
city, which the Greeks plundered and burned. They captured
six hundred Arab and Coptic women/ and discovered a store
of arms which was destined for the ruler of Crete.^ The
spoiling of Damietta detained them only two days, and they
sailed eastward to the island of Tinnis ; but fearing sand-
banks, they did not pass farther, and proceeded to the fortress
of Ushtum, a strongly walled place with iron gates. Burning
the war-eucrines which he found there, " Ibn Katuna " returned
home from an expedition which fortune had singularly
favoured.^
If the conquests of Crete and Sicily taught the Eomans
the necessity of a strong navy, the burning of Damietta was a
lesson which was not lost upon the Saracens of Egypt. An
Arabic writer observes that " from this time they began to
show serious concern for the fleet, and this became an affair
of the first importance in Egypt. Warships were built, and
the pay of marines was equalized with that of soldiers who
served on land. Only intelligent and experienced men were
admitted to the service." Thus, as has been remarked,^ the
Greek descent on Damietta led to the establishment of the
Egyptian navy, which, a century later, was so powerful under
the dynasty of the Eatimids.
In the later years of Michael III. the Cretan Arabs
pursued their quests of plunder and destruction in the
Aegean." We learn that Lesbos was laid waste, and that
monks were carried away from their cells in the hills of
Athos.*^ The last military effort of Michael and Bardas was
^ Yakubi gives a much larger ^ According to Makrizi, the Greeks
number. again made a successful descent on
2 Abu Hafs (Tabari). Doubts have Damietta with 200 ships in the follow-
beenfelt if he was still alive. Genesios ing }"ear. Vasil'ev, Pn7. 124.
gives the succession of Cretan rulers 4 ggg y_ -^ Rozen, Vasilii Bolga-
(47-48) as: Abu Hafs ; Sai pes, his son; rohoitsa, 273-274, and YasU'ev, 173-
Babdel, son of S. ; Zerkunes, brother 174^ ^ho quote the passage of Makrizi
of B. ; the successor of Zerkunes was which I have abbreviated.
Emir in the time of Genesios. He . t c^n ^1 j 4.1 «
1 ■ 1- +1 4- r> 1,^ 1 „ In A.D. 860 they ravaged the
also implies that isabdel was con- /-> t j j -i j 4.1 u 4-u„
. f T i-T 1 1 ^ Cvclades and sailed through the
temporary of Leo VI., and we know t," „ , ^ -r, °
otherwise (Co^--.. Th. 299) that Saip ^f''Tfoc^''^ f as Proconnesus
was Emir in the reign of Michael. They had 20 cumhapu t galleys, and
rpi • -J ° f ui <•« some satyrai. Cone. In. 19o.
This evidence seems favourable to ^
Tabari 's statement that Abu Hafs « Apparently c. A. D. 861-862. See
was alive in 853. For the Arabic forms Vit. Euthym. iun., 185 sq. Some
of the names (Shuaib, Abu Abdallah, years later they descended on the
Shirkuh) see Hopf, Gr. Gcsch. 123 ; island of the Keoi, near Mt. Athos ;
Hirsch, 136, n. 2. ih. 188 sqq. Cp. Vasil'ev, 204.
294 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
to organize a great Cretan expedition, which was to sail from
the shores of the Thrakesian Theme, a central gathering-place
for the various provincial fleets, and for those regiments of the
Asiatic themes which were to take part in the campaign.
We saw how this enterprise was frustrated by the enemies
of the Caesar, Another generation was to pass before the
attempt to recover Crete and secure tranquillity for the
Aegean was renewed.
-'&^
^ 2. The Invasion of Sicily
In the two great westward expansions of the Semite, in
the two struggles between European and Semitic powers for
the waters, islands, and coasts of the Mediterranean, Sicily
played a conspicuous part, which was determined by her
geographical position. The ancient history of the island,
when Greeks and Phoenicians contended for the mastery,
seems to be repeated ^ when, after a long age of peace under
the mighty rule of Eome, it was the scene of a new armed
debate between Greeks and Arabs. In both cases, the Asiatic
strangers were ultimately driven out, not by their Greek
rivals, but by another people descending from Italy. The
Normans were to expel the Saracens, as the Eomans had ex-
pelled the Phoenicians. The great difference was that the
worshippers of Baal and Moloch had never won the whole
island, while the sway of the servants of Allah was to be
complete, extending from Panormos to Syracuse, from Messina
to Lilybaeum.
A fruitful land and a desirable possession in itself, Sicily's
central position between the two basins of the Mediterranean
rendered it an object of supreme importance to any Eastern
sea-power which was commercially or politically aggressive ;
while for an ambitious ruler in Africa it was the stepping-
stone to Italy and the gates of the Hadriatic. As soon as
the Saracens created a navy in the ports of Syria and Egypt,
it was inevitable that Sicily should be exposed to their attacks,
and the date of their first descent is only twenty years after
the death of Mohammad.^ But no serious attempt to win a
^ This was pointed out by Grote, and the motif was developed by Freeman
in his characteristic manner. 2 ^_p_ gf;2.
SECT. II SARACEN INVASION OF SICILY 295
permanent footing in the island was made till a century later.
The expeditions from Syria and Egypt were raids for spoil
and captives, not for conquest. The establishment of the
Saracen power in Africa and in Spain changed the situation,
and history might have taught the Eoman Emperors that a
mortal struggle in Sicily could not be avoided. It was, how-
ever, postponed. The island had to sustain several attacks
during the first half of the eighth century, but they came to
little ; and the design of Abd ar-Eahman, governor of Africa,
who (a.d. 752) made great preparations to conquer both Sicily
and Sardinia, was frustrated by the outbreak of domestic
troubles. There was no further danger for many years, and
in the reign of Nicephorus there might have seemed to be
little cause for alarm concerning the safety of the Sicilian
Theme. Ibrahim, the first ruler of the Aghlabid dynasty,^ con-
cluded (a.d. 805) a ten years' peace with Constantine the
governor of Sicily." Just after this, Tunis and Tripoli cast
off their allegiance to Ibrahim and formed a separate state
under the Idrisids.^ This division of Africa between Idrisids
and Aghlabids must have been a welcome event to the Imperial
government ; it afforded a probable presumption that it would
be less easy in the future to concentrate the forces of the
African Moslems against the tempting island which faced
them. In the meantime, commerce was freely carried on
between the island and the continent; and in a.d. 813 Abu
1- Abbas, the son and successor of Ibrahim, made a treaty with
Gregory, the governor of Sicily, by which peace was secured
for ten years and provision was made for the safety of
merchants.'*
It was after the expiration of this ten years' peace that
the temptation to conquer Sicily was pressed upon the African
ruler by an invitation from Sicily itself. The distance of the
island from Constantinople had once and again seduced
ambitious subjects into the paths of rebellion. The governor,
Sergius, had set up an Emperor in the reign of Leo III., and
more recently, under Irene, Elpidios had incurred the suspicion
of disloyalty and had fled to Africa, where the Saracens
^ Lane-Poole, Moh. Dijn. 36. Cp. ^ See Lane-Poole, ih. 35.
above, p. 244. ■* Aniari, Storia, 229.
'■^ Aniari, Storia, i. 225.
296 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
welcomed him as Eoman Emperor and placed a crown on his
head.^ He does not appear to have had a following in the
island ; nor is there evidence that the inhabitants were
actively discontented at this period against the government
of Constantinople. The rebellion of Thomas the Slavonian
may have awakened hopes in the breasts of some to detach
Sicily from the Empire,^ but there is nothing to show that
there was any widespread disaffection when, in the year 826,
an insurrection was organized which was destined to lead to
calamitous consequences.
A certain Euphemios was the leader of this movement.
Having distinguished himself by bravery, probably in maritime
warfare, he was appointed to an important command, when an
incident in his private life furnished an excuse for his disgrace,
and this, a reason for his rebellion. Smitten with passion for
a maiden who had taken the vows of a nun, he persuaded or
compelled her to marry him ; and the indignant brothers of
Homoniza repaired to Constantinople and preferred a complaint
to the Emperor.^ Although the example of Michael's own
marriage with Euphrosyne might have been pleaded in favour
of Euphemios,* Michael despatched a letter to the new strategos
of Sicily, Photeinos, bidding him to investigate the case and,
if the charge were found to be true, to cut off the nose of the
culprit who had caused a nun to renounce her vow.^
Photeinos, whom we have already met as the leader of a
disastrous expedition to Crete, had only recently arrived in
Sicily (perhaps in the spring of a.d. 826). He had already
appointed Euphemios commander of the fleet, with the official
title of turmarch, and Euphemios had sailed on a plundering
expedition to the coasts of Tripoli or Tunis.'' He returned
laden with spoil, but to find that an order had gone out for
his arrest. He decided to defy the authority of the strategos,
and, sailing to the harbour of Syracuse, he occupied that city.
1 A.D. 781-782. Theoph. 456. •» Cp. Com<. TA. 81 21-
^ Aimari {%b. 249 sqq.) thinks that •' Kara Tr\v tov vofiov aKpl^eiav, ih.
there was a rebellion in the early years 82 g. See Ecloga, 17, 2-3 ; E2Mnagoge,
of Michael ; but the evidence is in- '40, 59.
sufficient. For the sources for the " As it appears from the subsequent
revolt of Euphemios see Appendix IX. negotiations of Euphemios with the
^ Cont. Th. 82. The woman's name Aghlabid Emir that the peace with
is preserved in Chron. Salem., p. 498. the Aghlabids had not been violated,
For the date of the marriage see it may be inferred that Euphemios
Appendix IX. attacked the territory of the Idrisids.
SECT. 11 SARACEN INVASION OF SICILY 297
His fleet was devoted to him, and he gained other adherents
to his cause, inchiding some military connnanders who were
turmarchs like himself.^ Photeinos marched to drive the
rebel from Syracuse, but he suffered a defeat and returned to
Catana. The superior forces of Euphemios and his confederates
compelled him to leave that refuge, and he was captured and
put to death.
Compromised irretrievably by this flagrant act of rebellion,
Euphemios, even if he had been reluctant, had no alternative
but to assume the Imperial title and power. He was pro-
claimed Emperor, but he was almost immediately deserted by
one of his most powerful supporters. This man, whom he
invested with the government of a district, is designated by
the Arabic historians as Palata — a corrupt name which may
denote some palatine dignity at the Court of the usurper.-
Palata and his cousin Michael, who was the military com-
mander of Panormos, repudiated the cause of Euphemios
and declared for the legitimate Emperor. At the head of a
large army they defeated the tyrant and gained possession of
Syracuse.
Too weak to resist the forces which were arrayed in
support of legitimacy, and knowing that submission would
mean death, Euphemios determined to invoke the aid of the
natural enemy of the Empire. His resolve brought upon
Sicily the same consequences which the resolve of Count
Julian had brought upon Spain. It may be considered that
it was the inevitable fate of Spain and of Sicily to fall a prey
to Saracen invaders from Africa, but it is certain that the
fate of each was accelerated by the passion and interests of
a single unscrupulous native.
Euphemios crossed over to Africa^ and made overtures to
Ziadat Allah, the Aghlabid Emir. He asked him to send an
army over to Sicily, and undertook to pay a tribute when his
own power was established in the island. The proposal was
debated in Council at Kairawan.'* The members of the
Council were not of one mind. Those who were opposed to
granting the request of Euphemios urged the duty of observing
Cont. Th. 82 g. Saracen fleet sailed to Sicily in June
- See Appendix IX. 827.
* Probably early in A.r>. 827, as the * Riad an-Nufus, 77.
298 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
the treaty which the Greeks, so far as was ascertained, had
not violated.^ But the influence of the Cadi Asad, who
appealed to texts of the Koran, of which he was acknowledged
to be an authoritative interpreter, stirred the religious
fanaticism of his hearers and decided them in favour of war.
Ziadat named Asad to the command of the expedition, and
he was allowed to retain the office of Cadi, although the
union of military and judicial functions was irregular.^
The fleet of Euphemios waited in the bay of Susa till the
African armament was ready, and on the 14th day of June,
A.D. 827,^ the allied squadrons sailed forth together, on an
enterprise which was to prove the beginning of a new epoch
in Sicilian history. The forces of the Moslems are said to
have consisted of ten thousand foot soldiers, seven hundred
cavalry, and seventy or a hundred ships. In three days they
reached Mazara, where they were expected by the partisans
of Euphemios. When Asad disembarked his forces, he
remained inactive for some days. A skirmish between some
Greek soldiers who were on the side of Euphemios, and Arabs
who mistook them for enemies, was an evil omen for the
harmony of this unnatural alliance. It was desired that the
friends of Euphemios should wear a twig in their headgear
to avert the repetition of such a dangerous error ; but Asad
declared that he did not need the help of his confederate,
that Euphemios and his men should take no part in the ]■
military operations, and that thus further accidents would be ]
avoided. The intention of the Moslem commander to take
the whole conduct of the campaign in his own hands and to
use the Greek usurper as a puppet, was thus shown with
little disguise.
It was not long before the general, whom in ignorance of
his true name we are compelled to distinguish as Palata,
appeared in the neighbourhood with forces considerably
superior to those of the invaders. Mazara, now Mazzara del
Vallo, lies at the mouth of a like-named stream, to the south-
east of Lilybaeum. South-eastward from Mazara itself, a
^ This argument proves that the ten =' Nuwairi, 174. oi'Xtw in Camlridge
years' treaty of a.d. 813, which ex- Chron. 24, must be a mistake for
pired in a.d. 823, had been renewed lovviu}. Riad an-Nufus and other
or extended. Arabic sources agree with Nuwairi as
^ lli. 78. to the month.
SECT. II SARACEN INVASION OF SICILY 299
coast plain stretches to the ruins of Selinus/ and this was
perhaps the scene of the first battle-shock in the struggle
between Christendom and Islam for the possession of Sicily.
Asad marched forth from Mazara, and when he came in sight
of the Greeks and marshalled his army, he recited some verses
of the Koran in front of the host and led it to victory.
Palata fled to the strong fort of Castrogiovanni, and thence
to Calabria, where he died.
The first object of the victors was the capture of Syracuse.
Leaving a garrison in Mazara, they advanced eastward along
the south coast." At a place which their historians call
Kalat-al-Kurrat, and which is perhaps the ancient Acrae,^ a
strong fort in the hills, between Gela and Syracuse, an embassy
from Syracuse met them, offering to submit and pay tribute,
on condition that tliey should not advance farther. Asad
halted for some days ; we do not know why he delayed, but
the interval was advantageous to the Greeks, whose overtures
were perhaps no more than a device to gain time to strengthen
the defences and bring provisions and valuable property into
the city. In the meantime Euphemios had repented of what
he had done. He had discovered too late that he had loosed
a wind which he could not bind. What he had desired from
the ruler of Africa was a force which he could himself direct
and control. He found himself a puppet in the hands of a
fanatical Mohammadan, whose designs and interests did not
coincide with his own, and who, as he could already surmise,
aimed not at establishing his own authority but at making a
new conquest for Islam. We are not told whether he
accompanied Asad in the march across the island, but he
entered into negotiations with the Imperialists and urged
' Nuwairi, ih., says that the plain (the ancient Phintias). A church de-
where the battle was fought bore the dicated to S. Euphemia was founded
name of Balata. Amari observes that in Sicily towards the end of the 8th
this points to the word platea, which century by Nicetas Monomachos (cp.
is common in local designations in Baronius Ann. ecc. ed Pagi, xiii. 316).
Sicily. He notes that the Punta di Another station, which Amari tran-
Granitola, some eight miles south of scribes as the Church of al-Maslaquin,
Mazara, is called Cape Balat by Idrisi, is quite uncertain,
so that the identification of the plain ^ So Amari and Vasil'ev. Acrae
"Balata" has some plausibility. still preserves its name in Palazzolo
Amari, Storia, i. 266. Acreide. The Arabs would naturally
^ They passed on their march the leave the coast at Gela (Terranova),
"Church of Euphemia," a point on and march to Syracuse by Biscari,
the coast, which Amari seeks at Licata Chiaramonte-Gulfi, and Acrae.
300 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
them to resist the foes whom he had himself invoked against
them. Seeing that further delay would only serve the Greeks,
Asad advanced on Syracuse, where he was joined by his fleet.
He burned the vessels of the Greeks and closed the greater
and the lesser Harbours with his own ships. The fortifica-
tions were too strong to be assaulted without siege engines,
with which the Arabs were not provided, and Asad could
only blockade the town, while he waited for reinforcements
from Africa. He encamped among the quarries, south of
Achradina.
As all the provisions had been conveyed into the city from
the surrounding country, the Saracen army suffered from want
of food, and the discontent waxed so great that a certain Ibn
Kadim advised the general to break up his camp and sail
back to Africa ; " The life of one Musulman," he said, " is
more valuable than all the goods of Christendom." Asad
sternly replied, " I am not one of those who allow Moslems,
when they go forth to a Holy War, to return home when
they have still such hopes of victory." He quenched the
mutiny by threatening to burn the ships and punishing with
stripes the audacious Ibn Kadim.^ Presently reinforcements,
and probably supplies, arrived from Africa.^
Meanwhile the Emperor had taken measures to recall
Sicily to its allegiance. The story was told that when the
tidings of the rebellion of Euphemios reached him, he sum-
moned the magister Irenaeus and said, " We may congratulate
ourselves, Magister, on the revolt of Sicily." " This, sir,"
replied Irenaeus, " is no matter for congratulation," and turn-
ing to one of the magnates who were present, he solemnly
repeated the lines : —
" Dire woes will fall upon the world, what time
The Babylonian dragon 'gins to reign,
Greedy of gold and inarticulate." ^
^ Riad an-Nufus, 78. from Spain, without the authority of
2 Also from Spain : Ibn Adari, 146, the Omayyad government.
Nuwairi, 174. Vasil'ev believes that ^ Pseudo-Simeon, 622 :
the Spaniards were really some of the , , « , ,9x„,^,?,„, n-^ ^a^,,,}
Cretan Arabs (who were originally s'a,! Kardp^vrrjs Bal3v\Q.os Spd^^v
from Spam) arguing the improbability S6<Ty\u.JoV &p5v>' Kai <p^\6xpvaos \ia.u.
01 co-operation at this time between 7^ /v,
the Aghlabids and Omayyads. So We may conjecture that these verses
Aniari, Storia, i. 274, 11. 1. But are an oracle invented in the earlier
surely adventurers may have come ages of the Sassanid wars.
SFXT. II SARACEN INVASION OF SICILY 301
The anecdote may be apocryphal, invented in the light of
subsequent disasters, as a reflexion on the ruler in whose reign
such grave losses had befallen the Empire. But if Michael,
who sent fleet after fleet to regain Crete, and was even then
perhaps engaged in organizing a new expedition, jested at the
news from Sicily, the jest was bitter. The pressing concern
for Crete and the Aegean islands hindered him from sending
any large armament to the west. The naval establishment
was inadequate to the defence of the Empire ; this had been
the consequence of its neglect since the days of Leo the
Isaurian. The loss of Crete and the jeopardy of Sicily were
to bring home to the Imperial government the importance
of sea-power, and the strengthening of the navy was one of
the chief tasks which successors of Michael II. would be
forced to take in hand.
Some troops were sent to Sicily, but the Emperor at this
crisis looked for help from a western dependency, whose own
interests were undoubtedly involved in not suffering the
Moslem to gain a footing on Sicilian soil. The proximity
of such a foe to the waters of the Hadriatic sea would be
a constant distress and anxiety to the city of Venice. It
was therefore a fair and reasonable demand, on the part of the
Emperor, that Venice should send a squadron to cope with the
invaders of Sicily, and it is not improbable that she was bound
by definite agreement to co-operate in such a case. The Duke,
Justinianus, sent some warships, but it does not appear that
they achieved much for the relief of the Syracusans.^
The besiegers had in the meantime entrenched themselves,
surrounding their camp with a ditch, and digging in front of
it holes which served as pitfalls for the cavalry of the
Greeks. The besieged, finding themselves hard pressed, sought
to parley, but their proposals were rejected, and the siege
was protracted through the winter, till the invaders were
confronted with a more deadly adversary than the Greeks.
Pestilence broke out in their camp, and Asad, their in-
domitable leader, was one of its victims (a. d, 828). The
army itself elected a new commander, a certain Mohammad,
but fortune had deserted the Arabs ; the epidemic raged
among them as it had raged among the Carthaginians of
1 Dandulus, Chron. 170 (a.d. 827).
302 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
Hamilcar who had sought to master Syracuse twelve hundred
years before. The new reinforcements came from Constant!-
si
nople, and a second squadron was expected from Venice.^
The besiegers despaired and decided to return to Africa.
They weighed anchor, but found that they were shut in by
the ships of the enemy. They disembarked, set fire to
their ships, and, laden with many sick, began a weary march
in the direction of Mineo.
Euphemios served them as a guide. He had not parted
from his foreign friends, though he had, for a time at least,
secretly worked against them. But now that they were
chastened by ill-success and no longer led by the masterful
Asad, he expected to be able to use them for his own purpose.
The town of Mineo surrendered, and when the army recovered
from the effects of the plague, it divided into two parts, of
which one marched westward and captured Agrigentumi. The
other, accompanied by Euphemios, laid siege to the im-
pregnable fortress which stands in the very centre of the island,
the massive rock of Henna, which was called in the ninth
century, as it is to-day, Castrogiovanni.
The garrison of Castrogiovanni opened negotiations with
Euphemios, offering to recognise him as Emperor and to cast
in their lot with him and his Arab confederates. But these
overtures were only an artifice ; the men of Castrogiovanni
were loyal to the Emperor Michael. Euphemios fell into the
trap. At an appointed hour and place, he met a deputation
of the townsmen. While some fell down before him, as their
sovran, and kissed the ground, others at the same moment
stabbed him from behind.^
With the disappearance of Euphemios from the scene, the
warfare in Sicily was simplified to the plain and single issue
of a contest between Moslem and Christian for the lordship
of the island. It was a slow and tedious contest, protracted
for two generations ; and although the advance of the Moslems
1 Joannes, Chron. Ven. 10^ " iter um (Nuwairi, 175). The Greek story is
imperatore efflagitante exercituni ad different, attributing his death to the
Siciliam preparaverunt ; qui etiam plot of two brothers and placing it at
reversus est absque triumpho." The Syracuse. But it is not suggested (as
last clause suggests that the Venetians Vasil'ev thinks, p. 71) that these
arrived after the raising of the siege brothers were the brothers-in-law of
and did not take part in forcing the Euphemios. Cont. Th. 83 dvo rives
Saracens to burn their ships. ddeXtpoi.
^ Such is the Arabic account
s ECT. II SAJ^A CEN IN VA SION OF SICIL V 303
was steady, it was so slow that an observer might have
forecast its result as an eventual division between the two
races, a repetition of the old division between Greeks and
Phoenicians. But history did not repeat itself thus. The
Greek states in the days of Gelon and of Dionysios were of
different metal from the provincials who were under the
protection of the Eastern Emperors. The Arabs were to do
what the Phoenicians had failed to do, and make the whole
island a portion of Asia in Europe.
The record, which has come down to us, of the incidents
of the warliire chronicles the gradual reduction of town after
town, fort after fort, but is so meagre that it offers little
instruction or interest We may note the most important
stages in the conquest and observe the efforts made by the
Imperial government to drive out the invaders. The forces
which had been sent by the Emperor Michael to the relief of
Syracuse were commanded by Theodotos, a patrician who was
not without military talent.^ He followed the enemy to
Castrogiovanni, where he was defeated ^ and driven to take
refuge in the fortress, which the Arabs, after the death of
Euphemios continued to besiege.^ But Theodotos soon had
his revenge. Sallying forth and gaining a victory, he
surrounded and besieged the camp of the besiegers. They
tried to escape at night, but the Greek general, foreseeing
such an attempt, had secretly abandoned his own camp, and
laid an ambush. Those who escaped from his trap made
their way to Mineo, where he blockaded them so effectively
that they were reduced to eating the flesh of dogs.
The Arab garrison in Agrigentum, seeing that the tide
had turned, withdrew to Mazara ; and in the summer of
A.D. 829 only Mazara and Mineo, far distant from each other,
were held by the invaders. At this moment a powerful
armament from Constantinople might have been decisive.
But no reinforcements were sent. The successes of Theodotos
' A seal of Theodotos {5i.ainrd.Tui "Patrician'' is used veiy loosely by
iraTpLKM pa(r(.\iK(^ irpiiirocnradapicfi Arabic writers, and here can naean no
5ioLKT]Tri SixeXitts) is preserved, and as it more than officer. Vasil'ev seems to
may be referred to the ninth century take it literally (74).
probably belongs to this Theodotos. ^ During the siege Mohammad died
Schlumberger, Sig. 215. and the army elected Zuhair to the
^ Nuwairi (175) says that ninety command,
"patricians" were taken prisoners.
304 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
were probably taken to show that he would be able to complete
his task alone, and then the death of Michael intervened.
But if the government reckoned thus, it reckoned without
Africa and Spain, Two hostile fleets sailed to the Sicilian
shores. Ziadat Allah sent a new armament \ and a Spanish
squadron came to join in the warfare, for the sake of plunder,
not of conquest, under Asbag ibn Wakil.^' The African
Moslems, hard pressed at Mineo, proposed common action to
the Spanish adventurers, and the Spaniards agreed on con-
dition that Asbag should be the commander-in-chief and that
the Africans should provide horses. But the confederates
carried on their operations separately. Asbag and his men
marched first to Mineo, which, still blockaded by Theodotos,
must have been suffering the last distresses of hunger. They
defeated the besiegers and Theodotos fell in the battle.^
Asbag burned Mineo, but his career was almost immediately
cut short, A pestilence broke out among his troops while he
was besieging another stronghold,"* and, like Asad, he fell a
victim to the infection. His followers returned to Spain.
Meanwhile the Africans had laid siege to Panormos.
This city held out for a year, but it seems to have been an
easier place to besiege than Syracuse or Castrogiovanni. In
the autumn of a.d. 831 the commander of the garrison
surrendered,^ having bargained for the safety of himself, his
•family, and his property. The inhabitants were treated as
prisoners of war.*" The bishop of Panormos escaped to )
Constantinople, bearing the news of the calamity,^ The
anxiety of the Emperor Theophilus to come to terms with the
1 Ibn al-Athir, 94 (a.d. 829). He s The siege began Aug. 830
adds "the general number of ships (Nuwairi, i&. ) : the date of the capitu-
reached 300." Amaii, Storia, i. 288. lation was Sept. 831. See 1. Ibn
2 The Arabic writers are not clear al-Athir, 94, in the month corre-
about the date. They mention the sponding to Aug. 14-Sept. 12, 831 ;
arrival of the Andalusians under a.h. and 2. Cambridge Chronicle, 24, A. M.'
214 = A.D. 829 March-830 Feb. (Ibn 6340, ind. 10, which began Sept. 1,
Adari, 146, Ibn al-Athir, z6.), but from 831. These notices together fix the
Ibu Adari's narrative we may probably date between the 1st and 12th of Sept.
date it (with Amari and Vasil'ev) to Cp. Vasil'ev, 107,
A.H. 215. On the other hand, there e a^ t -nt aot t^ n
c i J.- See Joann. Neap. 430 ; De S.
seems no reason lor not accepting t>j,;i..~. / / i i. ^ j ^.i % •
A.D. 829 as the date of the sendin| ^JliZ^ ^ 8 T^ ^ 3 ^^^ ""
of the reinforcements from Africa. • ■ • P , . i. /j ,^
3 July-August : Nuwairi, 175. '^ He was accompanied by Simeon,
^ G. 1-wali (IbnAdari, ife.) Perhaps a spatharios (it has been conjectured
Calioniana = Caltanisetta (Vasil'ev, that he was the governor, cp. Vasil'ev,
106). 107). Joann. Neap. 430.
SECT. II SARACEN INVASION OF SICILY 305
Caliph Mamun/ points to his desire to concentrate the forces
of the Empire on the defence of Sicily. But though he failed
''• to secure peace in the East, we should expect to find that he
made some extraordinary effort on the news of the fall of
Panormos. There is, however, no record of the despatch of any
new armament or relief to the western island at this time,
, The winning of such an important basis and naval
station marks the completion of the first stage in the Moslem
conquest. If the operations hitherto had been somewhat of
the nature of an experiment, the African Emir was now con-
firmed in his ambitious policy of annexing Sicily, and
Panormos was the nucleus of a new province over which he
appointed Abu Fihr as governor. It is probable that during
the next few years progress was made in reducing the western
districts of the island, but for nine years no capture of an
important town or fortress marked the advance of the
invaders. Abu Fihr and his successors^ won some battles,
and directed their arms against Castrogiovanni, which on one
occasion almost fell into their hands.^ Kephaloedion, on the
north coast, now called Cefalu, was attacked in a.d. 838,
but timely help arriving from Constantinople forced the
enemy to raise the siege.* It is probable that the success of
the Greeks in stemming the tide of conquest was due to the
ability of the Caesar Alexios Musele, who was entrusted with
the command of the Sicilian forces.^ He returned to Con-
stantinople (perhaps in a.d. 839) accused of ambitious designs
against the throne, and after his departure the enemy made
a notable advance by reducing the fortresses of Corleone,
Platani, and Caltabellotta — the ancient Sican fortress of
PKamikos (a.d. 840)." Two or three years later, Al-Fald
^ See above p. 255. ^ Simeon {Cont. Georg. 794) ffTparr]-
2 Fald ibn Yakub and Abu 'l-Aghlab ^'^^'?': ''''' 1°^"'' ^^^ ^''''^^'''- „ '^^'?
Ibrahim (\D 835) appointment seems to have lolJowed
soon after the marriage with Maria
=* A.D. 837. Vasil'ev, 113. Some (c. a.p. 836, .see Appendix VI.). Ace.
fortresses were taken (apparently on to Cont. Th. 108, Alexios was sent to
the north coast) in A.i). 836, 837. " Longobardia."
Ibn al-Atliir, 95 ; Ibn Adari, 147 6 Kurlun, Iblatanu, Hisn al-Ballut
(whose M-d-nar IS taken by Amari to (ibn al-Athir, ib.) He adds Marw,
represent Tyndaris ; Amari af^oc. and while Nuwairi (175) adds M.r.a. and
Stona, 1. 305-306). The Arabs also H.rha. The last is supposed to be
operated in the region of Etna in a.d. Gerace. M.r.a or Marw has been con-
836, Ibn al-Athir, ib. jectured to be Marineo, or Calatamauro.
•* Ibn al-Athir, ib. " large maritime See Vasil'ev, 149. Amari, Storia,
forces of the Greeks arrived in Sicily." i. 310.
306 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
achieved the second great step in the conquest, the capture''
of Messina. Aided by Naples, which had allied itself to the
new power in Sicily, he besieged the town by land and sea,
and after all his assaults had been repelled, took it by an
artifice. Secretly sending a part of his forces into the
mountains which rise behind the city, he opened a vigorous
attack from the sea-side. When all the efforts of the
garrison were concentrated in repelling it, the concealed
troops descended from the hills and scaled the deserted
walls on the landward side. The town was compelled to
capitulate.-^
The invaders had now established themselves in two of
the most important sites in Sicily ; they were dominant in
the west and they held the principal city in the north-east.
In a few years the captures of Motyke ^ and its neighbour
Eagusa ^ gave them a footing for the conquest of the south-
east. An army which the Empress Theodora sent to the
island, where a temporary respite from the hostilities of the
Eastern Saracens had been secured, was defeated with great
loss ; ^ and soon afterwards the warrior who had subdued
Messina captured Leontini. When Al-Fald laid siege to it,
the Greek strategos marched to its relief, having arranged
with the garrison to light a beacon on a neighbouring hill
to prepare them for his approach. Al-Fald discovered that
this signal had been concerted, and immediately lit a fire
on three successive days. On the fourth day, when the
relieving army ought to have appeared, the besieged issued
from the gates, confident of victory. The enemy, by a
^ The siege began in 843 or end of that the Greek army was largely
842 (in A.H. 228 whicli began Oct. 16, composed of troops of the Charsian
842, Ibnal-Athir, 95). Inthesameyear province. The army would have been
M.s.kan was taken: Aniari {Storia, sent soon after the exchange of
i. 314) identifies it with Alimena, captivesin a.d. 845 (seeabove, p. 275),
north-west of Castrogiovanni. and the battle may have been fought
2 Modica, a.d. 845. Cambridge early in 846 (Vasil'ev). It is probably
Chron. 26, ind. 8 iviaadTtaav to. to be identified with the battle which
KacTT^Wio. TTJs TovpaKivalas /cat 6 dyLos Ibn al-Athir (96) records in a.d.
'Avavias TTJsMovTiKas. Can Turakinaia 843-844, for he says that more than
conceal Trinakia ? 10,000 Greeks fell, and ace. to the Cam-
, n^o T> /'r. f\ i bridge Chron. 9000 were slain. Ibn
^ A.D. 848. Ragusa(Po7oO seems to ^j./^j^j^ mentions the place of the
be the ancient Hybla. ^^^^j^ ^^ gj^.^..^. . ^j^^^'^.. ^^^ ^^^_)
* Cambridge Chron. ind. 9 (Sept. would identify it with Butera north of
845-Aug. 846) iyivero 6 ir6\€fios rod Gela. The Saracen general was
Xap^aviTt, which Amari and Vasil'ev Abu '1-Aghlab al-Abbas, afterwards
explain with probability by supposing governor.
SECT. 1 1 SA RA CEN INVA SION OF SICIL V 307
feigned flight, led them into an ambush, and the city, mean-
while, was almost undefended and fell an easy prey.^
The irregularity in the rate of progress of the conquest
may probably be explained, at least in part, by the fact that the
Moslems were engaged at the same time in operations in
Southern Italy, which will presently claim our attention.
For more than ten years after the fall of Leontini, the
energy of the invaders appears to have flagged or expended
itself on smaller enterprises ; ^ and then a new period of
active success begins with the surrender of Kephaloedion
(a.d. 857-858).^ A year or so later, the mighty fortress of the
Sicels ■* and now the great bulwark of the Greeks in the centre
of the island, Castrogiovanni,^ was at last subdued. The
capture of this impregnable citadel was, as we might expect,
compassed with the aid of a traitor. A Greek prisoner
purchased his life from the Arab governor, Abbas, by under-
taking to lead him into the stronghold by a secret way.
"With two thousand horsemen Abbas proceeded to Castro-
giovanni, and on a dark night some of them penetrated into
the place through a watercourse which their guide pointed
out. The garrison had no suspicion that they were about to
be attacked ; the gate was thrown open, and the citadel was
taken (Jan. 24, a.d. 859). It was a success which ranked in
importance with the captures of Panormos and Messina, and
the victors marked their satisfaction by sending some of the
captives as a gift to the Caliph Mutawakkil.
The fall of Castrogiovanni excited the Imperial govern-
ment to a new effort.^ A fleet of three hundred warships
* Date : between Aug. 846 and Aug. In the following year the Arabic
vl7 : Ibn al-Athir, ib., Cambridge, writers chronicle depredations and
L'hron. 26. tlie captures of unnamed forts.
Mn 851 Caltavuturo (in the * A. H. 243 = April 857- April 858.
iiountains south of Cefalii) was taken. "* The Cambridge Chronicle calls it
[u the same year the governor Abu by its old name : "Ewe (28).
1-Aghlab Ibrahim died and Abu ^ The strategos of Sicily had re-
1-Aghlab Abbas was elected in his moved his headquarters from Syracuse
tcad. A.D. 854 was marked by the to Castrogiovanni, as a safer ])lace,
;iegeof Butera (Boffrjp) : the Cambridge Ibn al-Athir, 97.
' 'A/-o?iicZ(;, 28, states that it was taken " In A.D. 858 a naval battle was
lien, l)ut Ibn al-Athir (103) that fought, in which the Greeks were
iftor a siege of five or six months victorious. The Greek vessels, forty
he inliabitants bought themselves in number, were commanded by " the
ilF. So Ibn Adari (147 and in Cretan " (Nuwairi 175) whom Vasil'ev
/asil'ov, Fril. 114), who adds that proposes to identify witli Joannes
^'-/.7t (or m)-r-n was taken. Amari Creticus, strategos of Peloponnesus
'injec-turcs Kamarina {Sioria, i. 324). under Basil I. {Cont. 7%. 303). The
308 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
arrived at Syracuse in the late autumn under the command
of Constantine Kontomytes.^ The army hxuded, but was
utterly defeated by Abbas, who marched from PanormosJ
The coming of the Greek fleet incited some of the towns in
the west to rebel against their Arab lords, but they were
speedily subdued, and Abbas won a second victory over the
Greek forces near Cefalu. This was the last effort of the
Amorian dynasty to rescue the island of the west from the
clutch of Islam. Before the death of Michael III. the
invaders had strengthened their power in the south-east by
the captures of Noto ^ and Scicli, and in the north-east the
heights of Tauromenium had fallen into their hauds.^
Syracuse was still safe, but its fall, which was to complete
the conquest of Sicily, was only reserved for the reign of
Michael's successor."*
§ 3. The Invasion of Southern Italy
As a result of the Italian conquests of Charles the Great,
two sovran powers divided the dominion of Italy between
them. The Eastern Empire retained Venice, a large part of
Z'- Campania, and the two southern extremities ; all the rest of
the peninsula was subject to the new Emperor of the West.
But this simple formula is far from expressing the actual
situation. On one hand, the nominal alleg-iance to
sources differ as to this battle, Ibn Taken in 864 it had to be retaken in 866
al-Athir and Ibn Adari representing (Cambridge Ghron. 30). During these
the Moslems as victorious, while the years (862-867) Hafaja ibn Sufyan was
Cambridcje Chronicle says (28) eVid- governor. Abbas had died in 861 at
crd-qaav to. Kapd/jna toD 'AXtj. Nuwairi q-r-q-nah (Ibn al-Athir, 97 ; Calta-
acknowledges the defeat, but places girano ? Vasil'ev), where he was
it at Crete. buried. The Greeks dug up his
^ Cambridge Chron. 28 (ind. 8 = 859- corpse and burned it.
QQ) .MTrfKdev oKovSvariTrm. The Arabic 3 ti,,, „i a+i.,-„ no a • i a, ■
' ■ 1 ,,,, u J -1 J J '> ILna al-Atlnr, 98. Aniari iStoria,
version has the iandami landed. j 3^7^ ^j^^^^j^^ j^ -^^^ that Troina
I suspect that Qandamt (Kondy- (west of Etna) is n.eant. But Vasil'ev
me[tes]) was intended The letters j^^^ „^ ^^^^^^^ ^j^^^ Taormina is in-
fa and r;a/ difter only by a dot jj^^t^^^ Envoys from Taormina met
Constantine kontomytes, strategos of jj^jv^-^ ^^^^ jf^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^
S^'Jily' /^.pi'^^tioned in Cont. Th. '^ ^^^.^^^^ H^,^j^ ^^^^ j^j^ \^.^^^
175. Vasil ev distinguishes him irom „,^ ,„„ . <-i, „„■;<. / a t. ^
--,,,. T- 4. . 1, ana son to the city and a treaty was
Constantine Kontomytes, who was „^„„i„j„^i r„+ +1, ,• v, 1 v >- \ i„
, ,A £. ,, rpi 1 • rni concluded, but the inhabitants broke
strategos of the Thrakesian Theme ^j^^ ^^.^^^ ^^^^ ^1,^ j^.
under Theophilus {Cont. Th. 13/). I ,„„ ^-^l', ■. ^. -f^^,,^ . , _ .„„..
see no reason for not identifying them «„ y,,^ al-Athir
^ Td Neros (between Syracuse and
So Ibn al-Athir.
Motyke), north of the modern Noto. '' May 878.
SECT. Ill SARACEN INVASION OF SOUTH ITALY 309
Charles which the great Lombard Duchy of Beneventum
pretended to acknowledge, did not affect its autonomy or
hinder its Dukes from pursuing their own independent policy
in which the Frankish power did not count ; on the other
hand, the cities of the Campanian coast, while they respected
the formal authority of the Emperor at Constantinople,
virtually, like Venice, managed their own affairs, and were
left to protect their own interests. The actual power of
Charles did not reach south of the Pontifical State and the
Duchy of Spoleto ; the direct government of Nicephorus
extended only over the southern parts of Calabria and
Apulia. These relatively inconsiderable Byzantine districts
were now an appendage to Sicily ; they were administered
by an official entitled the Duke of Calabria ; but he was
dependent on the Sicilian strategos. In Calabria — the
ancient Bruttii — the northern boundary of his province was
south of Cosenza and Bisignano, which were Lombard ; ^ in
Apulia, the chief cities were Otranto ^ and Gallipoli. These
two districts were cut asunder by the Lombards, who were lords
of Tarentum ; so that the communications among the three
territories which formed the western outpost of the Eastern
Empire — Sicily, Calabria, and Apulia — were entirely maritime.
In the eighth century the city of Naples was loyally
devoted to Constantinople, and the Emperors not only
appointed the consular dukes who governed her, but exercised
a real control over her through the strategoi of Sicily. It
seemed probable that under this Byzantine influence, Naples
would, like Sicily and Calabria, become Graecised, and her
attitude was signally hostile to Eome. But in the reign
of Irene, a duke named Stephen played a decisive role in
the history of the city and averted such a development.
He aimed at loosening, without cutting, the bonds which
attached Naples to Constantinople, and founding a native
dynasty. His regime is marked by a reaction in favour of
Latin ; he is determined that the Neapolitan clergy shall
inherit the traditions of Latin and not of Greek Christendom.^
And if he is careful to avoid any rupture with the Empire
^ The most important places in Lombards. Cod. Carolinus, Ep. 17,
Byzantine Calabria were Reggio, p. 515 {M.G.H., Eiyp. Mer. et Kar.
Cotrone, Rossano and Amantea. aevi, i. ed. Gundlach).
^ Recovered c. a.d. 758 from the ^ Gay, V Italic mir. 18-19.
310 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix i
and to secure the Imperial assent to the succession of his son
Stephen II., the head of the Emperor soon disappears from
the bronze coinage of Naples and is replaced by that of
Januarius, the patron saint of the city.^ This assertion of
independence was followed by years of trouble and struggles
among competitors for the ducal power, which lasted for a
generation, and once in that period the authority reverted
briefly to representatives of the Imperial government. Weary
of anarchy, the Neapolitans invited the Sicilian governor to
nominate a duke, and for three years the city was subject to
Byzantine officials. Then (in a.d. 821) the people drove out
the protospatharios Theodore, and elected a descendant of
Stephen.^ But twenty years more elapsed before the period
of anarchy was finally terminated by the strong arm of
Sergius of Cumae, who was elected in a.d. 840.
Gaeta ^ and Amalfi belonged nominally to the Duchy of
Naples, and, like Naples, to the Eastern Empire. But they
were virtually independent city states. Gaeta lay isolated
in the north. For Terracina belonged to the Pope, and
Minturnae, as well as Capua, with the mouths of the Liris
and Vulturnus, belonged to the Lombard lords of Beneventum.
The great object of the Lombards was to crush the cities of
the Campanian coast, and the struggle to hold her own
against their aggression was the principal preoccupation of
Naples at this period. In this strife Naples displayed
wonderful resourcefulness, but the Lombards had all the
advantages. The Duchy of Beneventum comprised Samnium,
the greater part of Apulia, Lucania, and the north of Calabria ;
moreover it came down to the coasts of Campania, so that
Naples and Amalfi were isolated between Capua and Salerno.
If the Beneventan power had remained as strong and con-
solidated as it had been in the days of Arichis, there can be
small doubt that Naples and her fellows must have been
absorbed in the Lombard state. They were delivered from
the danger by the outbreak of internal struggles in the
Beneventan Duchy.
The Lombards had never had a navy ; but Arichis, the
1 For examples see Capasso, ii. 2, ^ The chief magistrate of Gaeta was
251-253. entitled hijimtus, op. Capasso, i. 263
2 Chron. episc. Neap. (Capasso, i.), (document of a.d. 839).
205, 207.
SECT. Ill SARACEN INVASION OF SOUTH ITALY 311
great Prince who dominated southern Italy in the reign of
Constantine V. and Irene (a.d. 758-787), seems to have
conceived the plan of creating a sea-power, and he made a
second capital of his Principality at Salerno, where he often
resided. The descent of Charles the Great into Italy, and the
need of furnishing no pretext to that sovran for interfering in
South - Italian affairs, prevented Arichis from pursuing the
designs which he probably entertained against Naples and
the Campanian cities. He hoped to find at Constantinople
support against the Franks and the Eoman See which regarded
him with suspicion and dislike ; and this policy necessarily
involved peace with the Italian cities which were under the
Imperial sovranty. Shortly before his death, he sent an
embassy to the Empress Irene, requesting her to confer on
him the title of Patrician and offering to acknowledge her
supremacy.^ Her answer was favourable, but the Prince was
dead when the ensigns of the Patriciate arrived. In connexion
with this Greek policy of Arichis, we may note the fact that
Byzantine civilisation was exercising a considerable influence
on the Lombard court at this period.^
Though the son of Arichis was compelled to accept the
suzerainty of Charles the Great, his Principality remained
actually autonomous. But his death (a.d. 806) marked the
beginning of a decline, which may be imputed to the growing
power of the aristocracy.^ Insisting on their rights of election,
the nobles would not recognise a hereditary right to the office
of Prince, and the struggles of aspirants to power ended in
the disruption of the state. The most important Princes of
this period were Sicon and Sicard,* and their hands were
heavy against the Campanian cities. Amalfi was pillaged
and reduced for some years to be a dependency of Salerno.
Naples was compelled to avert the perils and miseries of a
siege by paying tribute ; she sought repeatedly, but in vain,
the succour of the western Emperor; at length she turned to
another quarter.
It was less than ten years after the Moslems of Africa
began the conquest of Sicily, that the Moslems of Sicily were
1 See Letter of Pope Hadrian to » Ih. 43-44.
Charles in a.d. 788, Cod. Carol, p. •* Sicon, a.d. 817-831 ; Sicard, a.d.
617. 831-839.
* Gay, op. cit. 46-48.
312 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
tempted to begin the conquest of southern Italy ; and here,
as in the case of Sicily, their appearance on the scene was
provoked by an invitation. Naples, besieged by Sicard, sought
aid from the Saracen governor of Panormos. A Saracen fleet :
was promptly despatched, and Sicard was compelled to raise
the siege and conclude a treaty.^ The alliance ^ thus begun
between Naples and Panormos was soon followed by active
aggression of the Moslems against the enemy of their Christian
allies. Brundusium was the first sacrifice. The Moslems
suddenly surprised it ; Sicard marched to expel them ; but
they dug covered pits in front of the walls, and drawing the
Lombard cavalry into the snare gained a complete victory.
Sicard prepared for a new attempt, and the Arabs, feeling
that they were not strong enough to hold out, burned the
city and returned to Sicily.^
The assassination of Sicard shortly after this event was
followed by a struggle between two rivals, Sikenolf his brother
and Eadelchis. The Principality was rent into two parts ;
Salernum was ranged against Beneventum ; and the contest
lasting for ten years (a.d. 839-849) furnished the Moslems
with most favourable opportunities and facilities for laying the
foundations of a Mohammadan state in southern Italy.
Tarentum fell into their hands,* and this led to the interposi-
tion of the Emperor Theophilus, whose possessions in Italy
were now immediately threatened. He did not send forces
himself, but he requested or required his vassal, Venice, to
deliver Tarentum. He could indeed appeal to Venetian interests.
The affair of Brundusium may have brought home to Venice
that the danger of Saracen fleets in the Hadriatic waters, of
Saracen descents on the Hadriatic coasts, could no longer be
ignored. In response to the pressure of the Emperor, a
Venetian armament of sixty ships sailed to the Gulf of Tarentum
(a.d. 840), where it encountered the powerful fleet of the
Arabs who had lately captured the city.^ The Venetians were
1 A.D. 836. Joann. Neap. 431 (Cap- surrounded by Arabic letters. Vasil'ev,
asso, i. 210). Text of treaty between 144, who refers to D. Spinelli, Monde
Sicard and Andrew, Duke of Naples : cufiche hattute da prmcipi longobaidi,
Capasso, ii. 2, 147-156. Andrew is normanni, esvevi, p. xxvi. (Naples,
entitled magister milihim in this in- 1844) ; cp. Capasso, i. 80.
strument (149). ' Chron. Sakrn. 503. The date is
- An interesting memorial of this uncertain (perhaps 838, Vasil'ev).
confederacy is a gold coin inscribed ■* Chron. Sal. 508
with the name of (Duke) Andreas, '' Joann. Yen. 114; Dand.C/wwi. 175.
SECT. Ill SARACEN INVASION OF SOUTH ITALY 313
utterly defeated, and a few months later (April, a.d. 841), the
first expedition of the enemy up the Hadriatic proved that
the Mohammadan peril was no idle word, but might soon reach
the gates of St. Mark's city. The town of Ossero on the isle
of Cherson off the Dalmatian coast, and on the Italian shore
the town of Ancona, were burned ; and the fleet advanced as
far as the mouth of the Po.^ A year later the Arabs renewed
their depredations in the gulf of Quarnero, and won a complete
victory over a Venetian squadron at the island of Sansego.^
The strife of two rivals for the principality of Beneventum
furnished the Moslems with the opportunity of seizing Bari.^
The governor of that city in order to aid his master
Kadelchis, had hired a band of Saracens. One dark night
they fell upon the sleeping town, and, killing the governor,
took it for themselves. The capture of Bari (a.d. 841)"^ was
as important a success for the advance of the Mohammadans
in Italy as that of Panormos for the conquest of Sicily. But
their aggression in Italy was not as yet organized. It is
carried out by various bands — African or Spanish, — who act
independently and sometimes take opposite side in the
struggles of the Lombard princes. The Saracens of Bari, who
had wrested that place from Eadelchis, become his allies ; ^
but the chief of Tarentum supports his enemy, Sikenolf.
Another Saracen leader, Massar, is employed by Eadelchis to
defend Beneventum against Sikenolf s Lombards of Salerno.
If the civil war in the Lombard Principality was favourable
to the designs of the Saracens, it was advantageous to Naples
and her neighbours. No sooner did the struggles break out than
Amalfi recovered her independence ; and Naples, relieved from
the pressure of Lombard aggression was able to change her
policy and renounce the alliance with the Moslems with
whom she had not scrupled to co-operate. She had helped
them to take Messina, but she realised in time that such a
friendship would lead to her own ruin. Duke Sergius saw
clearly that the Saracens, who were occupying the Archipelago
1 Locc. citt. Lentz, B.Z. iii. 71, dates 177 ; Sansego is near Lussin.
these events to A.D. 840; and so Gay. 3 Erchempert, 240; Chron. Casin.
51.Vasil'ev adopts 839, and so Kretsch- 223, 225 ; Amari, Storia. i. 360-1
mayr, 93. Diimniler, Slaii-cn in Dal- i a c^ \ ■
■nvitien, 399, places the capture of ^^"^ Schipa, Salerno, 99.
Tarentum in 843. ^ They wasted Sikenolf's lands and
2 Joann. Yen. ih. ; Dand. Chron. burned Capua, ib. 99-100.
314 \EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
of PoDza and were active on the coast south of Salerno, were
an imminent danger to the Campanian cities. Through his
exertions, an alliance was formed by Naples with Surrentum,
Amalfi, and Gaeta to assist the aggression of the power which
they now recognized as a common enemy (a.d. 84 5y The
confederate fleet won a victory over a Sicilian squadron near
Cape Licosa.^ Eome too seems to have been aware that the
unbelievers might at any moment sail against the great city
of Christendom. Pope Gregory IV. had built a fort at Ostia
and strengthened the town by a wall and foss.^ Not long
after his death, they took Ostia and Porto and appeared before
the walls of Eome (August a.d. 846).'* It is probable that
their quest was only booty and that they had not come with
the thought of besieging the city. They were driven off by
the Margrave of Spoleto, but not till they had sacked the
churches of St. Peter and St. Paul outside the walls A large
body encamped before Gaeta (September),^ where a battle was
fought, but the arrival of Caesarius, son of Duke Sergius, with
a fleet forced them to retreat to Africa.*"
Three years later the Eomans were disturbed by the
alarming news that the enemy had equipped a great fleet to
make another attack upon their city. Pope Leo IV. concluded
an agreement with the league of Gaeta, Amalfi, and Naples,
for the defence of Eome. The naval forces of the four powers
gathered at Ostia, and the leaders of the confederates swore
solemnly in the Lateran palace to be true to the cause. But
their task proved unexpectedly easy, for the forces of the
elements charged themselves with the defence of the city of
the Popes. The hostile fleet arrived and the battle began,
but a storm suddenly arose and scattered the Arab ships. The
Italians had little to do but to pick up captives from the
\^^ waters. This success must have contributed much to establish
the power and authority of Duke Sergius at Naples.
In the same year (a.d. 849) the domestic dissensions in
' Capasso, i. 212 : Joann. Neap. 432. rovius, Hist, of Rome, iii. 87 sqq.
^ Ih. ; the Sicilian Emir revenged Amari, Storia, i. 365 sqq. See also
himself by sending an expedition to Bohmer-Miihlbacher, Regesta Imperii,
pillage the neighbourhood of Naples. i- 419 sq. (1889).
Misenum was destroyed. ^ Lih. Pont. ii. 99-101 ; Joann. Neap.
' lib. Pont. ii. 82. He died in 844. ^^"433 ; Capasso, i. 212 ; Chron. Cas.
* Cp. Ann. Bert., s.a. 846. Grego- « Cp. Schipa, ib. 104.
SECT. Ill SARACEN INVASION OF SOUTH ITALY 315
the Lombard state were terminated by a treaty of partition.
It was divided into two independent States, the Principality of
Beneventum, and the Principality of Salerno. The latter
included, along with Lucania and the north of Calabria,
Capua and the greater part of Lombard Campania. But the
Counts of Capua refused to acknowledge the authority of the
Prince of Salerno, and thus three independent States arose
from the disruption of the old Principality of Beneventum.
The Western Emperors, Lewis the Pious and Lothar, much
occupied with other parts of their wide dominions, had hitherto
kept aloof from South Italian afi'airs. But the danger which
threatened Eome at the hands of the infidels moved Lothar to
an intervention which appeals from Naples for help against
the Lombards, or from one Lombard power for support against
another, or from the Eastern Emperor for common action
against the Saracens, had failed to bring about. Towards the
end of A.D. 846 he decided to send an expedition against the
Moslems. It was led by his son Lewis, who appeared with an
army, chiefly recruited from Gaul, and was active within the
Lombard borders during the following years (a.d. 847-849).
At the same time he doubtless helped to arrange the
agreement between the Lombard rivals. He was bent upon
making his authority real, making South Italy a part of
his Italian kingdom in the fullest sense, and he was bent upon
driving the Saracens out. He expelled them from Beneventum,
but this was only the beginning of his task. The Saracens of
Bari, whose leader took the title of Sultan, dominated Apulia,
in which he was master of twenty-four fortresses and from
which he ravaged the adjacent regions. Bari was strongly
fortified, and Lewis was beaten back from its walls (a.d. 852).
Eor fourteen years he seems to .have been able to make no
further effort to cope with the invaders. North Italian
affairs, and especially his struggle with Pope Nicolas I., claimed
his attention, and it was as much as he could do to maintain
authority over his Lombard vassals. During this time the
Saracens were the terror of the South ; but the confederate
fleet of Naples and her maritime allies appears to have secured
to those cities immunity from attack.^
1 In Constantino Them. 62 the 150 strongholds in Italy before the
Saracens are said to have possessed Christians began to recover the land in
316 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, ix
As against the Saracens, the interests of the Eastern and the
Western Empires were bound together, and, when Lewis once
more set himself earnestly to the task of recovering Apulia, he
invoked the co-operation of Constantinople. How he succeeded,
and how his success turned out to the profit of his Greek allies,
is a story which lies beyond our present limits.
the reign of Basil I. But in the name puzzled historians (cp. Hirsch,
parallel passage in Genesios (116) the 169), but I have shown that it was a
number 150 tnay include their con- stronghold on the Liris, and explains
quests in Sicily, and thus is possibly the modern name of that river, Gari-
right. Genesios says that Gallerianon gliano {The Treatise Be adm. imjj.
IS not counted in this enumeration. The 550).
CHAPTEK X
RELATIONS WITH THE WESTERN EMPIRE. VENICE
When Nicephorus I. ascended the throne, he was confronted
on the western borders of his dominion by the great Western
State which was founded by the genius of Charles the Great.
It included the whole extent of the mainland of western
Europe, with the exception of Spain and the small territories
in Italy which still belonged to the lord of Constantinople.
It was far larger in area than the Eastern Empire, and to
Charles it might well have seemed the business of a few short
years to drive the Byzantine power from Venetia, from the
southern extremities of Italy, and from Sicily itself. He had
annexed Istria ; he had threatened Croatia ; and his power
had advanced in the direction of the Middle Danube. But
his Empire, though to himself and his friends it might appear
as a resurrection of the mighty empire of Augustus or
Constantine, was not built up by the slow and sure methods
which the Roman republic had employed to extend its sway over
the world. Though it was pillared by the spiritual influence
and prestige of Eome, it was an ill-consolidated fabric which
could not be strengthened and preserved save by a succession
of rulers as highly gifted as Charles himself. A few years
after his death the disintegration of his Empire began ; it had
been a menace, it never became a serious danger, to the
monarchs of Constantinople.
A treaty had been concluded between Charles and Irene
in A.D. 798, by which the Empress recognised the lordship of
the King in Istria and Beneventum, while he probably acknow-
ledged her rights in Croatia.^ Soon afterwards, induced
1 Ann. r. F., s.a. See Harnack, Die Bczichungen, 39.
317
318 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, x
perhaps by overtures from a disloyal party in the island,
Charles seems to have formed a design upon Sicily, and in
A.D. 800 it was known at Constantinople that he intended to
attack the island ; ^ but his unexpected coronation led him to
abandon his design.
Unexpected ; when the diadem was placed on his head in
St. Peter's on Christmas Day, and he was acclaimed Imperator
by the Eomans, he was not only taken by surprise, but even
vexed.^ The Pope, who performed the coronation, was merely
in the secret ; he consented to, but he did not initiate, a
scheme, which was far from being obviously conducive to the
interests of pontifical policy. It has been shown ^ that the
scheme was conceived and carried through by friends and
counsellors of the king, who were enthusiastic admirers of
their master as a conqueror and a statesman. In poems and
letters, these men — Alcuin, Theodulf, Angilbert, Paulinus, Arno
— ventilated, as we may say, the Imperial idea, not formulating
it in direct phrases, but allusively suggesting it. Thus
Angilbert wrote :
Rex Karolus, caput orb is, amor populique decusque,
Europae venerandus apex, pater optimus, lieros,
Augustus.*
It was not enough for the authors of the scheme to assure
themselves of the co-operation of Pope Leo, for they were
sufficiently versed in the Imperial theory to know that the
constitutional legitimacy of a Eoman Emperor depended not
on his coronation but on his election. It was essential to
observe the constitutional form : the Emperor must be
acclaimed by the Eoman Senate, and army, and people.
There was no Senate in the old sense, but the term senatus
was applied to the Eoman nobles, and this sufficed for the
purpose.^ There were soldiers and there was a populace. It
^ The evidence (op. Harnack, 40) is : '- Einhard, Vita Karoli, 28.
Ann. r. F., s.a. 799, an envoy of i d ti • i t'et ■
Michael, the governor of Sicily, vis^ited 'Jl ^l^aT}^^'^' n r*""' '"'''"i"
Charles and "vas dismissed with great ^«^^*f> 169-192. On the general
ii^„^„^ . Tiv,„„^i, „ r, Qfin ni 1 aspect ot the event consult Bryce,
honour; Theoph., s.a. 800, Charles Holv Roman Emnlrf
was crowned Kal ^ovX-qOeh Kara :2iKe\iau ^^ ^oman ±.mpire.
irapaTCL^affdaL (rroXcfi ixeTe^Xr^dTi ; Ann. ^ Poetae Latmi aevi Karolini, ed.
r.i^., s.a. 811, Leo, a spa thar, a Sicilian, Diimmler, i. 368, vv. 92-94. Cp.
fled to Charles at Rome in 801, and re- Alcuin, Ep. 174 {E'pp. Kar. aev. pp.
mained with liini till 811, when peace 288-289).
was concluded between the Empires. ^ See Kleinclausz, 196.
CHAP. X CORONA TION OF CHARLES THE GREA T 319
was necessary to prepare the Eomans for au exercise of sovran
authority, which had long ceased to be familiar to them.
When they assembled in the Church of St. Peter to celebrate
mass on Christmas Day, there was perhaps no one in the
great concourse except Charles himself, who was unaware of
the imminent event. When the Pope placed the crown on
the head of the King, who was kneeling in prayer, the con-
gregation — the Senate, and the Eoman people — acclaimed him
three times, " Life and victory to Charles, Augustus, crowned
by God, great and pacific Emperor of the Eomans." ^ The
Pope, who had simply fulfilled the same function as a Patriarch
of Constantinople in a similar case, fell down and adored him
as a subject.
If the first emotions of the new Emperor, who had thus
been taken unawares, were mixed with anxiety and disquiet,
one of the chief causes of his misgiving was probably the
ambiguous attitude which he now occupied in regard to
Constantinople. The legitimacy of the Emperors who ruled
in the East as the successors of Constantine had never been
questioned in Europe ; it had been acknowledged by Charles
himself; it was above all cavil or dispute. The election of
Charles — it mattered not whether at Eome or elsewhere —
without the consent of the sovran at Constantinople was
formally a usurpation. It was all very well to disguise or
justify the usurpation by the theory that the Imperial throne
had been vacant since the deposition of Constantine VL,
because a woman was incapable of exercising the Imperial
sovranty ; " but such an argument would not be accepted in
Byzantium, and would perhaps carry little weight anywhere.
Nor would Irene reign for ever ; she would be succeeded by a
man, whose Imperial title would be indisputable, Cliarles
saw that, elected though he was by the Eomans and crowned
by the Pope, his own title as Eoman Imperator and Augustus
could only become perfectly valid if he were recognised as a
colleague by the autocrat of Constantinople. There are many
" empires " in the world to-day ; but in those days men could
only conceive of one, the Eoman imperium, which was single
^ Ann. r. F., s.a. 801, ]>. 112. cessabat de parte Graecorum nomen
^ Ann. Laureshamcnses {M.Ct.H., iniperatoiis et femiiieum inipeiium
Scr. i. ), p 38: "quia iam tunc apud se abebant. "
320 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, x
and indivisible ; two Eoman Empires were unimaginable.^
There might be more than the one Emperor ; but these others
could only be legitimate and constitutional if they stood to
him in a collegial relation. If, then, the lord of Constantinople,
whose Imperial title was above contention, refused to acknow-
ledge the lord of Eome as an Imperial colleague, the claim of
Charles was logically condemned as illegitimate.
That Charles felt the ambiguity of his position keenly is
proved by his acts. To conciliate Constantinople, and obtain
recognition there, became a principal object of his policy. He
began by relinquishing the expedition which he had planned
against Sicily. A year later (very early in 802) he received
at Aachen envoys from Irene. The message which they bore
is unknown, but when they returned home they were accom-
panied by ambassadors from Charles, who were instructed to
lay before the Empress a proposal of marriage.^ It is said
that Irene was herself disposed to entertain the offer favour-
ably, and to acquiesce in the idea of a union between the two
realms, which would have restored the Empire to something
like its ancient limits. The scheme was a menace to the
independence of the East, and Irene's ministers must have
regarded it with profound distrust. They had no mind to
submit to the rule of a German, who would inevitably have
attempted to impose upon Byzantium one of his sons as
successor. The influence of the patrician Aetius hindered
Irene from assenting,^ and before the Frankish ambassadors
left the city they witnessed her fall. This catastrophe put
an end to a plan which, even if it had led to a merely
nominal union of the two States, would have immensely
strengthened the position of Charles by legalising, in a signal
way, his Imperial election. It was, however, a plan which
was in any case doomed to failure ; the Greeks would never
have suffered its accomplishment.
Nicephorus, soon after his accession, sent an embassy with
some proposals to Charles. We do not know what the points
at issue were, but Charles agreed, and at the same time wrote
^ The theory is quite consistent ^ Ann. r. F., s.a. 802. Theoph.,
with the convenient expression oWcwteZe a.m. 6294.
et occidentalc imperium, which first ^ " Indeni Aetius die Vermalung
occurs in the letter of Charles to verhindertc, rettete er die Selbst-
Michael 1. See Harnack. 55. stiindigkeit desOstens" (Ilarnack, 43).
CHAP. X CHARLES THE GREAT AND NICEPHORUS 321
a letter to the Emperor.^ This letter is not preserved, but we
may conjecture, with high probability, that its purport was
to induce Nicephorus to recognise the Imperial dignity of
the writer.^ Nicephorus did not deign to reply, and peace
between the two powers was again suspended (a.d. 803).
Active hostilities soon broke out, of which Venetia was the
cause and the scene.
We are accustomed, by a convenient anticipation, to use
the name Venice or Venetia in speaking of the chief city of
the lagoons long before it was thus restricted. For it was not till
the thirteenth century that " Venice " came to be specially
applied to the islands of the Rialto, nor was it till the ninth
century that the Eialto became the political capital. Venetia
meant the whole territory of the lagoon state from the Brenta
to the Isonzo. Till the middle of the eighth century the
centre of government had been Heracliana ^ on the Piave, which
had taken the place of Oderzo when that city (c. 640) was
captured by the Lombards. No traces remain to-day of the
place of Heracliana, which sank beneath the marshes, even
as its flourishing neighbour Jesolo, which was also peopled by
fugitives from Oderzo and Altino, has been covered over by
the sands. In a.d. 742 — an epoch in the history of Venice—
the direct government of the Venetian province by Masters of
Soldiers was exchanged for the government of locally elected
Dukes, and at the same time the seat of oftice was transferred
from Heracliana to the island of Malamocco. The noble
families of Heracliana and Jesolo followed the governor, in
such numbers that Malamocco could not hold them, and the
overflow streamed into the islands known as Eivus Altus —
the Eialto. The first consequence of this movement was the
foundation of a bishopric in the northern island, the see of
Olivolo, which has been signalized as the first act in the
foundation of the city of Venice.'*
But Malamocco, the seat of government and the residence of
the prominent families, was not the centre of commerce or the
^ See letter of Charles to Nicephorus fidence from the whole context of
iu Efi). Kar. aev. 547 ; A7in. r. F., events (cp. Harnack, 44).
sa. 803. In Ann. Sithicnscs [MG.H., 3 The same as Civita Nova, TMira
Scr. xiu.), p. 37, It IS asserted that ^iSa, in Const. De adm. imp. 125.
j>eace was made ' per conscriptionem
pacti." * Kretschmayr, GescMchte von Vene-
- We can deduce this with con- diij, 52.
Y
322 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, x
seat of ecclesiastical power. The northern lagoon -city of Grado,
originally built as a port for Aquileia, was the residence of the
Patriarch, and doubtless surpassed in the luxuries of civiliza-
tion, as it certainly excelled in artistic splendour, the secular
capitals Heracliana and Malamocco. For the superabund-
ance of wealth at this time was in the coffers of the Church.^
The centre of trade was Torcello, well protected in the
northern corner of the lagoons, and it did not surrender to
the Eialto its position as the great Venetian market-place till
the tenth or eleventh century. The home products which the
Venetians exported consisted chiefly in salt and fish, and their
only native industry seems to have been basket-work. The
commercial importance of Venice in these early ages lay in
its serving as a market-place between the East and the West ;
and its possession had for Constantinople a similar value to
that of Cherson in the Euxine. Greek merchants brought to
Torcello the rich products of the East — silk, purple, and linen
— peacocks, wines, articles of luxury ; and Venetian traders
distributed these in Italy, Gaul, and Germany. The Greek
exports were paid for by wood, and metals, and slaves. The
traffic in slaves, with Greeks and Saracens, was actively
prosecuted by the merchants notwithstanding the prohibitions
of the Dukes.^
The Dukes remained unswervingly loyal to the Empire
throughout the eighth century. In a.d. 778 the Duke
Maurice introduced into the Dukedom the principle of
co-regency, similar to that which was customary in the Imperial
office itself; he appointed his son as a colleague, and this was
a step towards hereditary succession. This innovation must
have received the Emperor's sanction; Maurice was invested
with the dignities of stratelates and hypatos, and his official
title ran, magister militum, consul et imperialis dux Venetiarum
provinciae.^
The Italian conquest of Charles the Great and his advance
1 Kretschmayr, 80 sqq. For tlie contributory help from Greek carvers."
cathedral Basilica of Grado, built in The capitals of the columns of the
the last quarter of the sixth century, nave are Byzantine,
see Rivoira {Lonihardic Architecture, 2 77 '-e o^
i. 94-95), who considers it— as well as
the small adjacent Church of Sta. » Cp. Kretschmayr, 51. I take it
Maria delle Grazie-as "probably a that Tuag. mil. translates the title
work of the School of Ravenna, with ffTpaTijXdrijs, conferred 8ia j3pa^€lov.
CHAP. X VENICE 323
to the north of the Hadriatic threatened to interrupt the
peaceful development of Venice and to rob the Empire of a
valuable possession. Tlie bishops of Istria were subject to the
Patriarch of Grado. When Charles conquered Istria (a.d.
787-788), he transferred them to the See of Aquileia ; he had
already promised the Pope to submit to his spiritual dominion
both Istria and Venetia (a.d. 774). At Grado he won an
adherent in the Patriarch himself, who, however, paid the
penalty for his treason to the Empire. The young Duke
Maurice sailed to Grado and hurled the Patriarch from the
pinnacle of a tower (c. a.d. 802). This act of violence did
not help the government ; it gave a pretext to the disaffected.
Fortunatus, a friend of Charles the Great, was elected Patriarch
(a.d. 803), and with some Venetians, who were opposed to the
government, he seceded to Treviso, and then went by himself
to Charles, with whom he discussed plans for overthrowing
the Imperial Dukes. The disloyal party at Treviso elected a
certain Obelierius to the Dukedom ; the loyal Dukes fled ;
and Obelierius with his adopted brother took unhindered
possession of the government in Malamocco.
This revolution (a.d. 804) was a rebellion against
Constantinople, and the new Dukes signalized their hostility
to the Empire by a maritime attack on the Imperial province
f)f Dalmatia. At first they seem to have contemplated the
design of making their State independent both of the Frank
and of the Greek, for they refused to allow Fortunatus, the
confidential friend of Charles, to return to Grado.^ But they
soon abandoned this idea as impracticable ; they submitted
unreservedly to the Western potentate and visited him at his
Court (Christmas, a.d. 805). He conferred upon them the
Duchy of Venetia as a fief, and when he divided the Empire
prospectively among his sons (Feb. a.d. 806) he assigned
Venetia, Istria, and Dalmatia to Pippin.^
It is not improbable that in making this submission
Venice hoped to induce Charles to remove the embargo which
he had placed upon her trade in a.d. 787, but if she counted
on this, she was disappointed.^ It may be that Charles himself
did not calculate on the permanent retention of Venetia, and
it belonged to his Empire for little more than a year. In
^ See Kretschmayr, 55-56. '^ Simson, Karl, 347. ^ Lentz, i. 32.
324 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, x
the spring of A.D. 807 the Emperor Nicephorus dispatched a
fleet to recall the rebellious dependency to its allegiance. The
patrician Nicetas, who was in command, encountered no
resistance ; the Dukes submitted ; Obelierius was confirmed in
his office and created a spathar ; his brother ^ was carried as a
hostage to Constantinople along with the bishop of Olivolo.
Fortunatus, who had been reinstated at Grado, fled to Charles.
Thus Venice was recovered without bloodshed. Pippin,
who, with the title of King, was ruling Italy, was unable to
interfere because he was powerless at sea, and he concluded a
truce with the Byzantine admiral till August 808. But the
trial of strength between the Western and the Eastern powers
was only postponed. Another Greek fleet arrived, under the
patrician Paulus, strategos of Kephallenia, wintered in Venice,
and in spring (809) attacked Comacchio, the chief market of
the Po trade. The attack was repelled, and Paulus treated
with Pippin, but the negotiations were frustrated by the
intrigues of the Dukes, who perhaps saw in the continuance
of hostilities a means for establishing their own independence
between the two rival powers." Paulus departed, and in the
autumn Pippin descended upon Venetia in force. He attacked
it from the north and from the south, both by land and by
sea. His operations lasted through the winter. In the north
he took Heracliana, in the south the fort of Brondolo on the
Brenta ; then Chioggia, Palestrina, and Albiola ; ^ finally
Malamocco.* The Dukes seem to have fallen into his hands,
and a yearly tribute was imposed "■ (a.d. 810). Paulus again
appeared on the scene, but all he could do was to save
Dalmatia from an attack of Pippin's fleet.
The news quickly reached Constantinople, and Nicephorvis
sent Arsaphios, an officer of spathar rank, to negotiate with
Pippin. When he arrived, the King was dead (July 810),
and he proceeded to Aachen (October).^
Charles was now in a better position to bargain for his
recognition as Imperator than seven years before. He had
now a valuable consideration to offer to the monarch of
^ Beatus ; he returned to Venice, imf. 124).
with the title of hypatos, in 808 ; and "* Constantine, ih., describes the
he and Obelierius adopted their brother siege of Malamocco, which he says
Valentine as a third co-regent Duke. lasted six months,
" Lentz, i. 37. ^ Ih.
^ 'Aei.p6\ai (Oonstantine, De adm. ^ Cp. A7in. r. F. p. 133.
(HAP. X VENICE 325
Constantinople, and he proved, by what he was ready to pay,
how deeply he desired the recognition of his title. He agreed
to restore to Nicephorus Venetia, Istria, Liburnia, and the
cities of Dalmatia which were in his possession. He entrusted
to Arsaphios a letter to the Emperor, and handed over to him
the Duke Obelierius to be dealt with by his rightful lord.-'
Arsaphios, who was evidently empowered to make a provisional
settlement at Venice, returned thither, deposed the Dukes,
and caused the Venetians to elect Agnellus Parteciacus,
who had proved his devotion and loyalty to the Empire
(Spring 811).-
In consequence of the death of Nicephorus in the same
year, the conclusion of peace devolved upon Michael I. He
agreed to the proposals, his ambassadors saluted Charles as
Emperor — Basileus — at Aachen (812), and Charles, who had
at last attained the desire of his heart, signed the treaty.
The other copy was signed by the successor of Michael and
received by the successor of Charles (814).^ This transaction
rendered valid retrospectively the Imperial election of a.d. 800
at Eome, and, interpreted strictly and logically, it involved
the formal union of the two sovran realms. For the recognition
of Charles as Basileus meant that he was the colleague of the
Emperor at Constantinople ; they were both Eoman Emperors,
but there could be, in theory, only one Eoman Empire. In
other words, the Act of a.d. 812 revived, in theory, the position
of the fifth century. Michael I. and Charles, Leo V. and
Lewis the Pious, stood to one another as Arcadius to Honorius,
as Valentinian III. to Theodosius II. ; the im-perium Romanum
stretched from the borders of Armenia to the shores of the
Atlantic. The union, of course, was nominal, and glaringly
unreal, and this has disguised its theoretical significance. The
bases of the civilizations in east and west were now so different,
the interests of the monarchs were so divergent, that there
could be no question of even a formal co-operation — of issuing
laws, for instance, in their joint names. And even if closer
1 Ann. r. F., ad duminum suum, p. forms. As Charles, not Lewis, had
134. The letter of Charles is extant : been recognized by Leo, Lewis sent
Epp. Kar. aev. 546-548. two envoys (along with the Greek am-
2 Cp. Lentz, i. 43. bassadors) to Constantinople, to obtain
^ About July A.D. 814. Simson, a new document {ih. 32). They re-
Ludioig, i. 30. It is worth noting turned with it towards the end of 815
the punctiliousness of the diplomatic {ib. 63).
326 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, x
intimacy had been possible, there was no goodwill on the part
of Constantinople in conceding the Imperial dignity, for which
a substantial price had been paid. Nor did the Eastern
Emperors consider that the concession was permanent. It
became hereafter a principle of their policy to decline to
accord the title of Basileus to the Western Emperor, unless
they required his assistance or had some particular object to
gain. Thus in diplomatic negotiations they had the advantage
of possessing a consideration cheap to themselves, but valuable
to the other party.
To return to Venice, the treaty between the two sovran
powers contained provisions which were of high importance
for the subject state. The limits of its territory were probably
defined ; the embargo on its trade in the empire of Charles
was at last removed ; and its continental possessions, in the
borders of Frankish Italy, were restored to it, on the condition
of paying a yearly tribute of about £1550 to the Italian king.^
Commercially, this treaty marks the beginning of a new period
for Venice ; it laid the foundations of her mercantile prosperity.
Not so politically ; " the state of things which had existed
before the Frankish intervention was restored. The Venetians
gladly acquiesced in the rule of Constantinople. They had
felt the conquest of Pippin as a profound humiliation ; their
historians afterwards cast a veil over it.^ Their long and
obstinate defence of Malamocco showed their repugnance to the
Franks. A Greek writer'* tells us that, when Pippin called
upon them to yield, they replied, " We will be the subjects of
the Emperor of the Eomans, not of thee." This, at all events,
expresses their feeling at the time. There are signs that
dming the following years the Imperial government manifested
a closer and more constant interest in Venetian affairs and
perhaps drew the reins tighter. Two yearly tribunes were
appointed to control the Duke.^ On the accessions of Leo V.
1 36 lbs. of gold ; it was still paid Dandulus, Chron. 151, 163 ; Lentz, i.
ry KarixovTL to pyjyaTov ttjs 'IraXias 45.
iJToi IlaTrias (Pavia) in tlie 10th cent. ^ Cp. Lentz, i. 47.
See Constantine, Z)ea(im. M/ijo. 124-125, ^ Kretsclimayr, 58.
wlio considers it a continuation, * Constantine, ib.
diminished in amount, of the tribute ■'' Such tribunes had been appointed
(TrXera-ra wdKra) exacted by Pippin. before when Monegarius was duke in
For the provisions of the treaty see a.d. 756. Kretschmayr, 51, 61, 423.
1
CHAP. X CHARLES THE GREAT AND MICHAEL L 327
and Michael II., Agnellus sent his son ^ and his grandson to
Constantinople to offer homage. The Venetians were also
called upon to render active aitl to the Imperial fleets against
the pirates of Dalmatia who infested the Hadriatic and against
the Saracens in Sicilian waters.
The Frankish occupation was followed by a change which
created modern Venice. The Duke Agnellus moved the seat
of government from Malamocco to the Eivus Altus (a.d. 811),
and in these islands a city rapidly grew which was to take
the place of Torcello as a centre of commerce, and to over-
shadow Grado in riches and art.^ The official house of
Agnellus stood on the site of the Palace of the Doges, and hard
by, occupying part of the left side of the later Church of St.
Mark, arose the Chapel of St. Theodore, built by a wealthy
Greek. The Emperor Leo V. himself took an interest in the
growth of the Kialto ; he founded at his own expense, and sent
Greek masons to build, the nunnery of S. Zaccaria, which
stands further to the east.^ Soon afterwards St. Mark, perhaps
replacing St. Theodore, became the patron saint of Venice.
Leo V. had issued an edict forbidding the merchants of his
empire to approach the ports of the infidels in Syria and
Egypt. This command was enforced by the Dukes ; but not-
withstanding, about A.D. 828, some Venetian traders put in
at Alexandria, and stole what they supposed to be the corpse
of Mark the Evangelist. When the precious remains, which
Aquileia vainly claimed to possess, reached the Eialto, they
were hidden in a secret place in the Duke's house until a
fitting shrine should be prepared to receive them. The Duke
Justinian bequeathed money for the building, and before seven
years had passed, the first Church of St. Mark had been reared
between the Chapel of St. Theodore and the ducal palace, by
Greek workmen, a purely Byzantine edifice.* The Cathedral of
S. Piero in the south-eastern extremity of Castello was erected
in these years, which also witnessed the building of S. Ilario,
1 Justinian, who was duke 827-829, see Cattaneo, Architecture in Italy
and styled himself Imperialis hypatus from the Sixth to the Eleventh Cent^iry,
et humilis dux Venetiae. Lentz has Eng. tr. 1896. Kretschmayr, op. cit.
shown (i. 52 sqq.) the part which 85-87.
Byzantine influence played in the ^ See the charter in Tafel and
struggle between Justinian and his Thomas, Urkundenzuraltcrcjilfandcls-
brother John for the ]iosition of co- ti7id Staatsgcschichtc der Repuhlik
regent duke. Venedig (1856), i. 1-3.
'^ On the early buildings in Venice, ■* See Cattaneo, op. cit. 285 sqq.
328 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, x
on the mainland due north of Eialto, a basilica with three
apses, of which the ground plan was excavated not long ago.^
A conspiracy (a.d. 836) terminated the rule of the\
Parteciaci. The last duke was relegated to a monastery at
Grado, and he was succeeded by Peter Trandenicus, an illiterate,
energetic man, under whose memorable government Venice!
made a long leap in her upward progress. Por she nowj
practically asserted, though she did not ostentatiously proclaim,
a virtual independence. There was no revolution ; there was
no open renunciation of the authority of the Eastern Empire ;
the Venetians still remained for generations nominally Im-
perial subjects. But the bonds were weakened, the reins
were relaxed, and Venice actually conducted herself as a
sovran state. Her independence was promoted by the duty,
which fell upon her of struggling against the Croatian
pirates ; the fleet of the Empire, occupied with the war in
Sicily, could not police the upper waters of the Hadriatic.
Hitherto Venice had used the same craft for war and
trade ; Peter Trandenicus built her first warships — chelandia
of the Greek type. Theophilus created him a spathar;
he styled himself " Duke and Spathar," but he did not,
like his predecessors, describe himself as "submissive" {humilis)\
presently he assumed the epithet of "glorious." It is
significant that in the dates of public documents anni
Domini begin to replace the regnal years of the Emperor.^
But the most important mark of the new era is that Venice
takes upon herself to conclude, on her own account, agree-
ments with foreign powers. The earliest of these is the con-
tract with the Emperor Lothar (Feb. 22, 840), which among
other provisions ensured reciprocal freedom of commerce by
land and sea, and bound the Venetians to render help in
protecting the eastern coasts of Prankish Italy against the
Croatian pirates. This, the oldest monument, as it has been
called,^ of independent Venetian diplomacy, may be said to
mark the inauguration of the independence of Venice.'^
If Venice was thus allowed to slide from under the con-
> See Cattaneo, op. cit. 235 sqq. Kretschmayr, 95.
^ Caintularia, n. 233, p. ISO sqq. ■* For the change in the position of
(cp. Lentz, ii. 112 sqq.). Venice summarised in this paragraph,
^ Along with the Praeccptuni of and the dukedom of Peter, see Lentz,
Lothar, A.D. 841 [Capilularia, n. 2:34), ii. 64 sqq. ; Kretschmayr, 92 sqq.
CHAP. X THE EASTERN AND WESTERN EMPIRES
329
trolling hand of the Emperors, without scandal or ill-feeling,
she retained her supreme importance for Byzantine commerce,
and for the next two centuries she was probably as valuable
to the Empire, of which she was still nominally a part, as if
she had remained in her earlier state of strict subordination.
The conquest of Istria by the Franks affected not only
the history of Venetia, but also that of Dalmatia. The realm
of Charles the Great was now adjacent to the province of
Dalmatia, which included the Eoman cities and islands of the
coast, from Tarsatica in Liburnia to Cattaro, and also to the
Slavs of the " hinterland " who were in a loose subjection to
the government of Constantinople. In the treaty of a.d. 798,
the Franks acknowledged the Imperial rights over the Slavs ; ^
l)ut in the following years both the heads or zupans of these
Slavs, and even the Koman communities of the coast, seem to
have discerned, like the Venetians, in the rivalry between the
two Imperial powers an opportunity for winning independence.
The duke and the bishop of Zara ^ went to the court of Charles,
along with the duke of Venice, in A.D. 806, and paid him
homage. About the same time some of the more northern
Slavonic tribes submitted to him, a submission which was
nominal and involved no obligations.^ But this, like the
corresponding political change in Venice, was only transient.
By the treaty of a.d. 812 the old order was formally restored
and the Franks undertook not to molest or invade the
Dalmatian communities. Some particular questions concerning
the boundaries in the north were settled in the reign of Leo V.,^
and no further attempts were made by the Western Empire to
seduce Dalmatia from its allegiance. But this allegiance was
^ Just after this, iu a.d. 799, the
.Margrave of Friuli was slain near
Tarsatica (Tersatto, Trsat), " insidiis
"ppidanorum," ^?i.ri. r. F. p. 108, and
ihree years later there was a revolt in
tliis region against Nicephorus (on
liis accession) led by one Turcis.
The Emperor destroyed (?) Tarsatica
("tantumodo solum Tarsaticum de-
struere potuit ") ; the rebel submitted
iiid was pardoned. Joann. Ven. 100.
On Tersatto, cp. Jackson, Dalmatia,
iii. 166 sqq.
^ The circular cliurch of San Donato
.It Zara is a memorial of this bishop,
Donatus. Rivoira {Lomhardic Archi-
tecture, i. 152) agrees that it dates
from his time, and points out that it
was "inspired directly by San Vitale
at Ravenna."
^ Especially the Slavs of Liburnia
(Einhard, Vit. Kar. 15), cp. Harnack,
48.
^ Leo sent an envoy, Nicephorus, to
Lewis in a.d. 817, "de finibus Dalnia-
torum Romanorum et Sclavorum "
{Ann. r. F., s.a. ), and another embassy
in A.D. 818. See Simson, Lndivig, 78
and 110 ; Harnack, 60. Nicephorus
and Cadolah, the Margrave of Friuli,
were sent to arrange a settlement on
the spot.
330
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. X
unstable and wavering. The Slavonic zupans acknowledged
no lord in the reign of Michael III. or perhaps at an earlier
date.^ The Eoman communities of the coast, which were
under their ov^n magistrates, subject to an Imperial governor
or archon, are said to have asserted their autonomy in the time
of Michael II. — and this may well have happened when he
was engaged in the struggle with Thomas.^ But the control
of Constantinople was soon reimposed, and Dalmatia continued
to be a province or Theme, under an archon, though the cities
enjoyed, as before, a measure of self-government, which re-
sembled that of Cherson.^
The settlement of another question in the reign of Michael
II. tended to pacify the relations between the two empires.
The Istrian bishops who were subjects of the Western
Emperor had been permitted by the Peace of a.d. 812 to
remain under the Patriarch of Grado, who was a subject of
the Eastern Emperor. This was an awkward arrangement,
which probably would not have been allowed to continue if
the Patriarch Fortunatus had not proved himself a good
friend of the Eranks."* But it was satisfactory to both
Emperors to transfer the Istrian churches from the See of
Grado to that of Aquileia, so that the ecclesiastical juris-
dictions were coincident with the boundaries between the two
realms. This settlement was effected in a.d, 827 by a synod
held at Mantua.^
1 Gont. Th. ( Vita Basilii), 288 ; Cou-
stantine, De adm. imp. 128. Note
that in the former passage only the
revolt of the Slavs is mentioned, while
in the latter the emphasis is on the
Dalmatian provincials, who are said
to have become autonomous in the
reign of Michael II. See next note.
- This date is accepted by Hopf
(Griechische Geschichtc, 119), and Mur-
alt (410) ; and is defended by Harnack,
70, against Hirsch, who (198) argues
that in De adm. imp. (and Cont. Th.
84) Michael II. is confounded with
Michael III. The passage in Gont.
Th. 288, is not really inconsistent
with the assertion of autonomy by the
Slavs before the reign of Michael III.
^ See above, p. 223.
* Fortunatus seems to have been a
born intriguer. He was accused of
rendering secret support to Liudewit,
when that leader raised the Croatians
of Pannonia in rebellion against the
Franks ; and when Lewis summoned
him to answer the charge, he fled to
Zara and thence to Constantinople
(a.d. 821). He accompanied Michael's
embassy to Lewis in 824, and was
sent on to the Pope, but died on the
way. See Ajm. r. F., s. 821 and 824 ;
Michael, Bp. ad Lud. 419 ; Joann.
Ven. 108.
•' Mansi, xiv. 493 sqq. Cp. Harnack,
67-69. The question was probably one
of the objects of the embassies which
passed between Michael II. and Lewis
in A.D. 827, 828. The Oekonomos of
St. Sophia was the head of the Greek
embassy, which presented to the
Western Emperor a Greek text of the
works of Dionysios the Areopagite.
The Frank envoys, who were honour-
ably received, brought back from
CHAP. X THE EASTERN AND WESTERN EMPIRES 331
The letter which the Emperor, Michael II., addressed to
Lewis the Pious has already demanded our attention, in
connexion with the iconoclastic controversy. Although his
recognition of the Imperial title of Lewis was grudging and
ambiguous, Lewis, who consistently pursued the policy of
keeping on good terms with Constantinople, did not take
offence.^ Under Theophilus the relations between the two
great powers continued to be friendly. The situation in the
Mediterranean demanded an active co-operation against the
Saracens, who were a common enemy ; Theophilus pressed for
the assistance of the Franks ; but the Western Empire was
distracted by the conflicts between Lewis and his sons.^ In
the last year of his life, Theophilus proposed a marriage
between Lewis, the eldest son of Lothar, and one of his own
daughters (perhaps Thecla), and Lothar agreed. But after
the Emperor's death the project was allowed to drop, nor can
we say whether Theodora had any reason to feel resentment
that the bridegroom designate never came to claim her
daughter.^ There seems to have ensued a complete cessation
of diplomatic intercourse during the reign of Michael III.,
and it is probable that there may have been some friction in
Italy."* But, as we have already seen, the struggle between
Photius and the Pope led to an approximation between the
Byzantine court and the recreant bridegroom, who was pro-
claimed Basileus in Constantinople (a.d. 867). During the
following years, the co-operation against the Saracens, for
which Theophilus had hoped, was to be brought about ; the
Emperor Lewis was to work hand in hand with the generals
of Basil in southern Italy. ^
Constantinople valuable relics, wliich This was the "tragedy" which the
were placed in the Cathedral of envoys witnessed, according to Vit.
Cambrai. See Ami. r.F., s. 827, 828. Hludov. {M.G.H., Scr. ii.) 49, p. 636
Simsou, op. cit. 278-279. — a passage wliich Hirsch (148) has
1 He showed his goodwill in a small misunderstood ; cp. Harnack, 69. (2)
matter which arose in southern Italy, a.d. 839, Ann. Bert., s.a. See above,
between Naples and Beneventum : p. 273, and below, p. 418. (3) a.d.
Ercherapert, c. 10, and Ann. r. F., s.a. 842, see next note.
826; Harnack, 67. ■'' An7i. Bert., s. 8i2 and 85S : "Graeci
■2 Three embassies from Theophilus contra Hludovicum . . . concitantur
to the Franks are recorded : (1) in propter filiam imp. Cplitani ab eo
a.d. 833 ; the object is not stated, desponsatani sed ad eius nuptias
but we know that the envoys bore venire ditferentem" (i.e. Hludovicum);
gifts for Lothar, which they delivered, Gen. 71, Con«. T/t. 135. Also Dandu-
and for Lewis, whicli tlioy could not . lus, Ghron. 176.
deliver, as he was his son's captive. ■* Ann. Bert., s. 853, loc. cit.
CHAPTEE XI
BULGARIA
S 1. Tlce Bulgarian Kingdom
The htll-ridge of Shumla, which stretches from north-west to
south-east, divides the plain of Aboba from the plain of
Preslav, and these two plains are intimately associated with
the early period of Bulgarian history. It must have been
soon after the invaders established their dominion over
Moesia, from the Danube to the Balkans, that they transferred
their capital and the seat of their princes from a marshy
fortress in the Dobrudzha to a more central place. Their
choice fell upon Pliska. It is situated north-east of Shumla,
in the plain of Aboba, and near the modern village of that
name.^ Travellers had long since recognized the site as an
ancient settlement, but it was taken for granted that the
antiquities which the ground evidently concealed were of
Eoman origin, and it has only recently been discovered by
excavation that here were the great entrenched camp and
the royal palace of the early khans of Bulgaria.
The camp or town formed a large irregular quadrilateral,
and some idea of its size may be conveyed, if it is said that
its greatest length from north to south was four miles, and
that its width varied from two miles and a half to about
one mile and three-quarters. It was enclosed by a fortification,
consisting of a ditch outside a rampart of earth, the crown of
which appears to have been surmounted by a wooden fence.
Although early destruction and later cultivation have done
' This account of Pliska is based on Constantinople, cited as Aboba (see
the publication of the excavations of Bibliography).
the Russian Archaeological Institute of
332
sFXT. I THE BULGARIAN KINGDOM 333
what they could to level and obliterate the work, the lines
can be clearly traced, and it has been shown that the town could
be entered by eleven gates. Near the centre of the enclosure
was an inner stronghold, and within this again was the palace
of the Khans. The stronghold, shaped like a trapezium, was
surrounded by thick walls, which were demolished at an
ancient date, and now present the appearance of a rampart
about ten feet high. Four circular bastions protected the
four angles, and two double rectangular bastions guarded each
of the four gates, one of which pierced each of the four walls.
The walls were further strengthened by eight other pentagonal
bastions. The main entrance was on the eastern side.
Within this fortress stood a group of buildings, which is
undoubtedly to be identified as the palatial residence of the
Khans. The principal edifice, which may be distinguished as
the Throne-palace, was curiously constructed. A large room
in the basement, to which there seems to have been no
entrance from without, except perhaps a narrow issue under-
neath a staircase, points to the fact that the ground-floor was
only a substructure for an upper storey. This storey con-
sisted of a prodomos or entrance-hall on the south side, to
which the chief staircase ascended, and a hall of audience.
The hall was nearly square, and was divided by rows of
columns into three parts, resembling the nave and aisles of
a church. The throne stood in a round apse, in the centre
of the northern wall. Not far from this building stood a
rectangular temple, which in the days of Krum and Omurtag
was devoted to the heathen cult of the Bulgarians, but was
converted, after the adoption of Christianity, into a church.
The fortress and the palace, which seem to have been
built much about the same time, certainly belong to no later
period than the first half of the ninth century. The archi-
tecture of the Throne-palace bears the impress of Byzantine
influence, and has a certain resemblance to the Trikonchos of
Theophilus, as well as to the Magnaura.^ It was doubtless
constructed by Greek masons. The columns may have been
imported from Constantinople ; it is recorded that Krum,
^ It resembled the Triklinos of the an upper storey and in being entered
Magnaura by its throne-apse and the through the prodomos, as the Trikon-
rows of columns in the "nave" ; it chos was entered through the Sigma,
resembled the Trikonchos in being to which external stairs ascended.
334
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. XI
when he attacked that city, carried off works of art from the
suburban buildings.
The title of the rulers of Bulgaria was hanas uvegc,
" sublime khan," ^ but even while they were still heathen, they
did not scruple to have themselves described sometimes in their
official monuments as " rulers by the will of God." - Of the
political constitution of the kingdom little can be ascertained.
The social fabric of the ruling race was based on the clan
system,^ and the head of each clan was perhaps known as a
zupan. From early ages the monarchy had been hereditary in
the clan of Dulo, but in the middle of the eighth century,
Kormisos, who belonged to another family, ascended the throne,
and after his death Bulgaria was distracted for some years by
struggles for the royal power. We may probably see in these
events a revolt of the clans against the hereditary principle
and an attempt to make the monarchy elective. There were
two ranks of nobility, the boilads and the bagains,* and among
the boilads there were six or perhaps twelve who had a con-
spicuous position at the court. When a Bulgarian ambassador
arrived at Constantinople, etiquette required that the foreign
minister should make particular inquiry first for "the six
^ Kavas ijBrjy-fi, preceding the name
(frequent in the inscriptions). vj3r]yri
has been satisfactorily equated (by
Tomaschek) with the Cuman - Turk
oweghu="high, glorious"; op. Mar-
quart, Streifzuge, 495 ; Chro7i. 40.
- Omurtag in the Chatalar inscrip-
tion{A.T>.82l-822),eK eeov dpxiiv,Aboba,
545 ; and Malaniir, o ck d. d., ib. 230
( = C.I. G. 8691). The use of the title
by Omurtag disproves Uspenski's con-
jecture {ib. 197-198) that the Roman
government conferred it on Malamir
because Christianity had spread in
Bulgaria in his reign. Marquart's
view is {Qhron. 41-42) that the title was
meant as a translation of the Turkish
Tangridd bohny's qan, " heaven-
created khan." It was the regular
style of the Christian princes, cp.
Constantine, Ce?: 681.
^ So among the Magyars (^x^' S^
eKd(7Trj yevea dpxovra. Const. De adm.
imp. 174). Besides the clans of Dulo,
Ukil, and Ugain, mentioned in the
Regnal list, we have various yeveal
recorded in ninth cent, inscriptions,
e..?. Kvpiyrjp, Kov^idprjs {Jboba, 190-
192). Okhsun, of the family of Kuri-
ger, is described as o ^oinrdv (190);
Okorses as 6 KOTravbs (where k seems
to be an error for f, ib. ) ; and in an-
other inscription (No. 7, p. 192) in
honour of some one yevea.'s 'Ep . . . dp-qi,
I would supply at the beginning
^oinrav]os. As the title Zhupan was
used by South Slavonic peoples for
the head of a tribe, it is a reasonable
conjecture that it designated a tribal
prince among the Bulgarians. See
Uspenski, ib. 199. The word is sup-
posed to occur in the form '^oanav in
the early inscription of Marosh in
Hungary, which is believed to relate
to the Gepids {ib.).
* Cp. C.I.G. 8691&, Kal tovs /3ot\d5as
/cat ^ayabovs ^dwKev /j.eyd\a ^^ulo.. Cp.
Uspenski, Aboba, 201-202. Borlas, in
Mansi, xvi. 158, has been rightly
corrected to boelas {^orjXds, usual form
in the inscriptions) by Marquart
{Ohron. 41). Vagantus or vaganlus,
in the same passage, is doubtless
vaganius {^ayaCvos), cp. Uspenski, op.
cit. 204. l3oT]\ds passed into Slavonic
as boliarin (the Russian boiar).
SECT. I
THE BULGARIAN KINGDOM
335
great boilads," and then for the other boilads, " the inner and
the outer." ^ There were thus three grades in this order.
We do not know whether the high military offices of tarkan
and kaukhan " were confined to the boilads. The khan himself
had a following or retinue of his own men/ which seems to
have resembled the German comitatus. The kingdom was
divided into ten administrative divisions, governed by officers
whose title we know only under the equivalent of count}
The Bulgarians used the Greek language for their official
documents,^ and like the ancient Greeks recorded their public
acts by inscriptions on stones. Mutilated texts of treaties and
records of important events have been discovered. They are
composed in colloquial and halting Greek, not in the diplomatic
style of the chancery of Byzantium, and we may guess that they
were written by Bulgarians or Slavs who had acquired a
smattering of the Greek tongue. Among these monuments
are several stones inscribed by the khans in memory of valued
officers who died in their service. One of them, for instance,
met his death in the waters of the Dnieper, another was
drowned in the Theiss.^ This use of the Greek language for
^ In Constantine, Ce7'. 681, we find
the six great boilads (tenth cent.),
but in De adm. imp. 154, we learn of
the capture of "the twelve great
boilads " by the Servians (ninth cent. ).
It seems jilain that inner and outer
simply mean a higher and lower grade.
For we find exactly the same terms,
great, inner, and outer applied to the
three Bulgarias. There were the
Great Bulgarians on the Danube, the
Inner Bulgarians on the Sea of Azov,
and the Outer Bulgarians on the
Volga. See below, p. 410 sq.
'^ The rapKavos (inscriptions) was un-
doubtedly a military commander. We
meet this Turkish title in Menander's
account of an embassy of the Turkish
Khan Dizabul to Justin II. (fr. 20).
The ambassador's name was Tagma,
a^lwfxa ok avTifi Tapxav. See also Cont.
Th. 413, KoXovrepKCLvos {leg, KaXoi<
repKavos), and Const. Cer. 681, 6
j8oi<Xi'as rapKavos. See Uspenski, 0^5.
cit. 199-200 ; Marquart, Chro7t,. 43-44.
For the Kauxdvos see inscriptions,
Aboba, 220, 2;53, and Simeon (Co7it.
Georg. ed. Muralt, 819, ed. Bonn 893),
&/xa KavKOLvai. Other dignities were
^ayarovp or ^oyorop (inscrijjtions ; also
17)
Const. Porph. De adm. imj). 158
a\o-^oyoTovp, as Marquart corrects
for aXoyo^oToijp), the Turkish bagadur,
from which the Russian bogatyr
( = hero) is derived ; and i;ovpyov (zerco,
in Mansi, xvi. 158 ; see Uspenski, ib.
204). KoXoPpos (/coi)Xoi)/3pos) seems to
have been a title of rank, not a jDOst
or office ; Tomaschek equates it with
Turkish qolaghuz, a guide, and Mar-
quart {Chron.'^l) compares ^ovKoXa^pas
in Theoph. Simocatta, i. 8. 2, who
exjilains it as fidyos or iepevs.
•' dpevToi dvOpuTTOL, frequent in the
inscriptions. See Uspenski's long dis-
cussion, ib. 204 sqq.
* Ann. Bert., sub a. 866 (p. 85), " intra
decern comitatus." Silistria was the
chief place of one of the counties :
inscription, Simeon, Izv. Kid. iii. 186,
KbfiT^s ApiffTpov. Cp. also Theophy-
lactus, Hist, mart., P.G., 126, 201, 213.
See Aboba, 212.
^ Some mysterious epigraphic frag-
ments have also been discovered,
written, partly at least, in Greek letters,
but not in the Greek tongue. They
are very slight and little can be made
of them. See Aboba, c. viii.
« Aboba, 190-194.
336 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
their records is the most striking sign of the influence which'
was exercised on the Bulgarians by the civilization of Con-
stantinople. We can trace this influence also in their buildings,
and we know that they enlisted in their service Greek engineers,
and learned the use of those military engines which the Greeks
and Eomans had invented for besieging towns. Notwith-
standing the constant warfare in which they were engaged
against the Empire, they looked to Constantinople much as
the ancient Germans looked to Eome. Tervel had been created
a Caesar by the gratitude of Justinian II., and two of his
successors found an honourable refuge in the Imperial city
when they were driven by rivals from their own kingdom.
Tserig fled to the court of Leo IV. (a.d. 777), accepted baptism
and the title of Patrician, and was honoured by the hand of
an Imperial princess.^ It might be expected that the Bulgarians
would have found it convenient to adopt the Eoman system of
marking chronology by indictions or even to use the Eoman
era of the Creation of the world, and we actually find them
employing both these methods of indicating time in their
official records.^ But they had also a chronological system of
their own. They reckoned time by cycles of sixty lunar years,
starting from the year a.d. 659, memorable in their history as
that in which they had crossed the Danube and made their
first permanent settlement in Moesia.^ For historical purposes,
this system involved the same disadvantage as that of Indictions,
though to a much smaller degree ; for instance, when an event
was dated by the year sliegoT alem or 48, it was necessary also
to know to what cycle the year referred. But for practical
purposes there was no inconvenience, and even in historical
records little ambiguity would have been caused until the
Bulgarian annals had been extended by the passage of time
into a larger series. It is possible that the Bulgarian lunar
years corresponded to the years of the Hijra, and if so, this
would be a remarkable indication of Mohammadan influence,
which there are other reasons for suspecting. We know that in
the ninth century there must have been some Bulgarians
who were acquainted with Arabic literature.*
1 Krum's sister married a Greek * Responsa Nicolai, § 103, " libri
deserter. profani quos a Saracenis vos abstulisse
2 See ^&o&a, 227 and 546. ' ■ ■ . - -
See Bnry, Ghronol. Cycle.
ac ajDud vos habere perhibetis." Cp.
Jirecek, Geschichtc, 134.
SECT. I
THE BULGARIAN KINGDOM
337
But the Bulgarians had other neighbours and foes besides
the Eomans, and political interests in other directions than in
that of Constantinople. It is recorded that the same prince
who crossed the Danube and inaugurated a new period in
Bulgarian history, also drove the Avars westward/ and the
record expresses the important fact that in the seventh century
the Bulgarians succeeded to the overlordship which the Avar
khans had exercised over Dacia in the reigns of Maurice and
Heraclius. This influence extended to the Theiss or beyond.
Eastward, their lordship was bounded by the Empire of the
Khazars, but it is impossible to define the precise limit of its
extent. There can be no doubt that in the seventh and
eighth centuries Bulgaria included the countries known in
later times as Walachia and Bessarabia,^ and the authority of
the khans may have been recognised even beyond the Dniester.
At all events it appears to be certain that in this period
Bulgarian tribes were in occupation of the coastlands from
that river wellnigh to the Don, and this Bulgarian continuity
was not cleft in twain till the ninth century. The more
easterly portion of the people were known as the Inner
Bulgarians, and they were probably considered to belong to
the Empire of the Khazars, But we cannot decide whether it
was at the Dniester or rather at the Dnieper that the authority
of the Khazars ended and the claims of the Great Bulgarians
of Moesia began.
South of the Danube, the kingdom extended to the Timok,
which marked the Servian frontier.^ The Bulgarians lived on
terms of unbroken friendship with the Servians, and this may
perhaps be explained by the fact that between their territories
the Empire still possessed an important stronghold in the city
of Sardica.
For the greater security of their country the Bulgarians
reinforced and supplemented the natural defences of mountain
1 [Moses of Chorene], Geography
(seventh cent. ), cited in Westberg, Bei-
trdge, ii. 312 ; Marquart, Chron. 88.
- Scr. Incertus, -345. Boi/X7apiai'
tKeWev Tov "Icrrpov noTafiov ( = Pseudo-
Simeon, 615). There is no reason to
suppose that when Isperikh settled
in the Dobrudzha, he abandoned Bess-
arabia. Till the ninth century there
was no power but that of the Khazars
to limit the Bulgarians on their eastern
frontier, and there is no probability
that the Khazars ever exerted author-
ity further than the Dniester, if as
far.
^ One point on the frontier (Con-
stantine, De adm. imp. 155) seems to
have been Rasa (Novi Bazar, Jire^ek,
Geschichte, 150).
338 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
and river by elaborate systems of fortification and entrench-
ment.^ Their kingdom, almost girt about by an artificial
circumvallation, might be compared to an entrenched camp,
and the stages in its territorial expansion are marked by
successive ramparts. Beyond the Danube, a ditch and earthen
wall connected the Pruth with the Dniester in northern
Bessarabia, and a similar fence protected the angle between
the mouths of the Sereth, the Danube, and the Pruth.^ The
early settlement of Isperikh at Little Preslav, near the mouth
of the Danube, was fortified by a rampart across the
Dobrudzha,^ following the line of older Koman walls of earth
and stone, but turned to confront a foe advancing from the
south, while the Eoman defences had been designed against
barbarians descending from the north. When the royal
residence was moved to Pliska, a line of fortifications was con-
structed along the heights of Haemus ; and a trench and
rampart from the mountains to the Danube marked the
western frontier. When their successes at the expense of the
Empire enabled the conquerors to bestride the mountains, a
new fence, traversing Thrace, marked the third position in
their southward advance.'* The westward expansion is
similarly separated by two more entrenclunents connecting
the Haemus with the Danube, while the right bank of that
river was defended by a series of fortresses and entrenchments
from Little Preslav to the neighbourhood of Nicopolis.
The main road from Constantinople to the capital of the
Bulgarian kings crossed the frontier, east of the Tundzha, near
the conspicuous heights of Meleona,^ which, still covered with
1 The following brief description is in Southern Bessarabia between the
based on Shkorpil's, in Aloha, c. xx. Pruth and Lake Kunduk ; ih. 524.
503 sqq. ; cp. also Prilozli. ii. 566-569. See Schuchhardt, Arch. - ep. Mitthei-
Masudi describes the "dominion" lungen, \k. 21Q sqq. {\?,?>b).
of the Bulgarians as .surrounded by ^ Schuchhardt, i^>. 87 s??. ; Tocilesco,
a thorn fence, with openings like FouiUes et recherches archMoyiques en
wooden windows, and resembling a ^OMma?wc, 1900 (Bucharest),
wall and canal (Harkavi, Skazaniia, * See below, p. 361.
126). _ Uspenski (Aboba, 15) takes ^ ^^ote, 564-565, 514, the heights of
clominion to mean the royal aula, Bakadzhik. Shkorpil remarks tiiat
and relates the description to Aboba. they "could serve as a natural
This is a strained interpretation ; but boundary, before the construction of
possibly Masudi's source mentioned the Erkesiia." It is certain that bv
both the circumvallation of the king- the middle of the eighth century a't
doin and the fortifications of Pliska, latest the Bulgarian frontier had
and Masudi confused them. moved south of Mount Haemus. The
- riiere was also an entrenchment text bearing on this question is Theoph.
^ECT. I THE BULGARIAN KINGDOM 339
the remains of Bulgarian fortifications, marked an important
station on the frontier, since they commanded the road. To
the north-west of Meleona, the Bulgarians held Diampolis,
which preserves its old name as Jambol, situated on the
Tundzha. The direct road to Pliska did not go by Diampolis,
l)ut ran northward in a direct course to the fortress of
Marcellae, which is the modern Karnobad.^ This stronghold
possessed a high strategic importance in the early period of
Bulgarian history, guarding the southern end of the pass of
Veregava,^ which led to the gates of the Bulgarian king. Not
far to the west of Veregava is the pass of Verbits, through
which the road lay from Pliska to Diampolis. The whole
route from Marcellae to Pliska was flanked by a succession of
fortresses of earth and stone.
S 2. Krum and Nicejphorus I.
In the wars during the reign of Irene and Constantine
VI., the Bulgarians had the upper hand ; king Kardam
repeatedly routed Eonian armies, and in the end the Empress
submitted to the humiliation of paying an annual tribute to
the lord of Pliska. A period of peace ensued, lasting for
about ten years (a.d. 797-807). We may surmise that the
!97, who relates that Kruni sought to Kormisos, Jirecek iu the ninth century
riuew with Michael I. (see below) (cp. Aboba, 568). See below p. 361.
the treaty concluded "in the reign ^^&o&«, 564, cp. 562. Jiredek (^rc/i.-
of Theodosius of Adramyttion and ep. Mitth. x. 158) wished to place
the patriarchate of Germanus " with Marcellae at Kaiabash. His identifica-
Kormisos, "then ruler of Bulgaria." tion is based on Anna Comnena, i. 244
There is an error here, as Tervel was and ii. 71 (ed. Reifl'erscheidj, and
the Bulgarian king iu the reign of he places Lardeas at Karnobad. But
Theodosius III., and Constantine V. Shkorpil finds Lardeas at the pass of
was Emperor in the reign of Kormisos Marash (565). Both place Goloe (also
(74-3-760). If we accept Theodosius, mentioned by Anna) near Kadirfakli.
the treaty was in a.d. 716 : if we Kadirfakli, Kaiabash, and the Marash
arcept Kormisos, it was a generation defile lie in this order on the south-
later. My view is that the treaty on ward road from the Verbits pass to
which Krum based his negotiations Jambol.
was between Kormisos and Constantine - The identification of the KKetaovpa
v., but that in the text of that treaty Bepeyd^uv with the Rish Pass is un-
au older treaty between Theodosius questionably right. Cp. Aboba, 564 ;
and Tervel was referred to. The Jiredek, Ileeresstrassc, 14:9-150. Jirecek
decision of this question does not, of also identifies Veregava with the Tri'Xat
lourse, decide the date of the Erkesiia, (ndrjpai ov ^LSrjpS. of Greek historians,
IS Meleona (Toys 6povs dirb MrjXedjfUJi/ but Shkorpil (^6o6«, 565) fakes -£57;/)a
rfjs Qp4K7]i, ib.) may have been the to be the Verbits yiass. I am inclined
liouudary many years before its con- to agree with JireCek. The two
t ruction. Zlatarski dates it in the neighbouring passes are together
nign of Tervel, Shkorpil in that of known as the Gyrlorski Pass {ib. 548).
340 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
attention of the Bulgarian king was at this time preoccupied
by the political situation which had arisen in the regions
adjacent to the Middle Danube by the advance of the Frank
power and the overthrow of the Avars. On the other hand,
Nicephorus who, soon after his accession, was embroiled in war
with the Saracens, may have taken some pains to avoid
hostilities on his northern frontier. It is at all events
significant that he did not become involved in war with
Bulcfaria until the tide of the eastern war had abated. We
do not know what cause of provocation was given, but so far
as our record goes, it was the Eoman Emperor who began
hostilities. Kardam had in the meantime been succeeded by
Krum,^ a strong, crafty, and ambitious barbarian, whose short
reign is memorable in the annals of his country.
It was in a.d. 807 that Nicephorus set forth at the head
of an army to invade Bulgaria." But when he reached
Hadrianople a mutiny broke out, and he was compelled to
abandon his expedition. The next hostile movement of which
we hear — we cannot say which occurred — was the appearance
of a Bulgarian army in Macedonia, in the regions of the
Strymon, towards the close of the following year.^ Many
regiments of the garrison of the province, with the strategos
himself and the officers, were cut to pieces, and the treasury
of the khan was enriched by the capture of 1100 lbs. of gold
(£47,5 20) which had been destined to pay the soldiers. It
would seem that the Eomans had not expected an attack so
^ We are quite ignorant of the that the statements of Theojilianes
internal history of Bulgaria from 797 more naturally point to the last months
to 807, and know neither in what year of 808 (a.m. 6301 = September 608-
Krum acceded nor whether he was August 609). For after describing
the immediate successor of Kardam. the affair of tlie Strymon the chronicler
Jirefiek places his accession in 802-807 proceeds ry 5' avn^ ^rei irpb ttjs eoprrjs
{Gcschichtc, 143). For the various tov Ddcrxa KpovfxpLos kt\. Now if the
forms of Krum's name, in Greek, Latin, Bulgarians had immediately proceeded
and Slavonic sources, cp. Loparev, against Sardica, Theophanes would
Dvie Zamictki, 341, n. 1. That Krum hardly have written t^j 5' avT(^ h-ei,
is the right form is shown by the which implies that two events are
Shumla inscription (KpoO/xos : Ahoha, independent or separated in time ;
233 ; cp. Shkorpil, Arch.-ej). Mitth. and it is clear that as the capture of
xix. 243). On the alleged legislation Sardica took place before Easter 809,
of Krum (Suidas, s.v. 'Ro^XyapoC) see it must have been immediately pre-
G. Kazarow, B.Z. xvi. 254-257 (1907). ceded by the victory on the Strymon,
■^ Theoph., A.M. 6299 = 806-807. i" ''^^^ ^¥^ ^i^^^o^^ ^^^ ^^°° ^° *'}*'
same spring. 1 therefore conclude
3 Theoph., A.M. 6301. This event is that 808 is the right date; and it
placed by all historians in 809 (Jire^ek, seems more natural that the soldiers
Geschichte, 144). But it seems to me should have been paid before winter.
>F,CT. II KRUM AND NICEPHORUS I. 341
late in the year ; but the presence of a considerable force in the
Strynion regions points to the fact that the Bulgarians had
already betrayed their designs against Macedonia. In the
ensuing spring (809) Krum followed up his success on the
Strymon by an attack on the town of Sardiea, which seems at
this time to have been the most northerly outpost of the Empire
towards the Danube. He captured it not by violence, but
by wily words, and put to death a garrison of six thousand
soldiers and (it is said) the population of the place. It does
not appear that he had conceived the idea of annexing the
plain of Sardiea to his realm. He dismantled the fortifications
and perhaps burned the town, which was one day to be the
capital of the Bulgarian name. When the tidings of the calamity
arrived, Nicephorus left Constantinople in haste on the Tuesday
before Easter (April 3). Although the monk, who has related
these events, says nothing of his route, we can have no doubt
that he marched straight to the mountains by Meleona and
Marcellae, and descended on Pliska from the Veregava Pass.
For he dispatched to the city an Imperial letter in which he
mentioned that he spent Easter day in the palace of the
Bulgarian king.^ The plunder of Pliska was a reprisal for
the sack of Sardiea, to which Nicephorus then proceeded for
the purpose of rebuilding it. We are not told what road he
took, but he avoided meeting the victorious army of the
enemy. It is said that some officers who had escaped the
massacre asked Nicephorus in vain for a promise that he
would not punish them, and were forced to desert to the
lUilgarians.
The Emperor desired to rebuild Sardiea as speedily and
as cheaply as possible, and, fearing that the soldiers would
be unwilling to submit to a labour which they might say
was not a soldier's business, he prompted the generals and
officers to induce the soldiers to address a spontaneous request
to the Emperor that the city might be rebuilt. But the men
saw through this stratagem, and were filled with indignation.
They tore down the tents of their superiors, and, standing in
front of the Emperor's pavilion, cried that they would endure
1 Theophanes malevolently insinu- ttjc ^aa-iXiSa Tr6\i.v Treideiu ^a-jrovda^ev-
ates a doubt of the truth of the 6tl kt\. (485i4).
Emperor's statement : aaKpais ivdpKOLS
342 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
1
his rapacity no more. It was the hour of noon and Nicephorus
was dining. He directed two patricians to attempt to tran-
quillise the army ; the noise abated ; the soldiers formed a
company on a hillock hard by, " and, forgetting the matter in
hand, kept crying, ' Lord, have mercy ! ' " This unorganized
\ mutiny was soon quelled by Imperial promises,^ and the ',
officers were all on the Emperor's side. Punishment, however, i
was afterwards inflicted on the ringleaders.
Nicephorus viewed with anxiety the western provinces of
his Empire in Macedonia and Thessaly. The Slavs, on whose
fidelity no reliance could be placed, were predominant there, and
it was the aim of the Bulgarians to bring the Macedonian
Slavs under their dominion. To meet the dangers in this
quarter the Emperor determined to translate a large number
of his subjects from other parts of the Empire and establish
them as Eoman colonists in what was virtually a Slavonic
land. They could keep the Slavs in check and help in
repulsing Bulgarian aggression. The transmigration began
in September 809 and continued until Easter 810. It seems
to have been an unpopular measure. Men did not like to
leave the homes to which they were attached, to sell their
property, and say farewell to the tombs of their fathers. The
poor cling far more to places than the rich and educated, and
it was to the poor agriculturists that this measure exclusively
applied. Some, we are told, were driven to desperation and
committed suicide rather than go into a strange and distant
land ; and their richer brethren sympathized with them ; in
fact, the act was described as nothing short of " a captivity."
But though it may have been hard on individuals, it was a
measure of sound policy ; and those who on other grounds
were ill-disposed to the government exaggerated the odium
which it aroused. Nicephorus, who, as we are told, prided
himself greatly on this act," seems to have realised the danger
that the Slavonic settlements in Macedonia and Greece might
eventually be gathered into a Bulgarian empire ; and these
new colonies were designed to obviate such a possibility.
' On the next day Nicephorus made says "most" were punished by
a speech full of asseverations of his stripes, banishment, or compulsory
goodwill to the soldiers and their tonsure, and the rest were sent to
children. He then returned to Cple., Chrysopolis (486).
leaving Theodosius Salibaras to " Theoph. 496,
discover the ringleader.s. Theophanes
SECT. II KRUM AND NICEPHORUS I. 343
Meanwhile the Emperor was preparing a formidable
expedition against Bulgaria, to requite Krum for his cruelties
and successes. In May 811 the preparations were complete,
and Mcephorus marched through Thrace at the head of a
large army. The troops of the Asiatic Themes had been
transported from beyond the Bosphorus ; Eomanus, general of
the Anatolics, and Leo, general of the Armeniacs, were
summoned to attack the Bulgarians, as their presence was no
longer required in Asia to repel the Saracen. When he
reached Marcellae, at the foot of the mountains, where he
united the various contingents of his host, ambassadors arrived
from Krum, who was daunted by the numbers of the Eomans.^
But the Augustus at the head of his legions had no thought
of abandoning his enterprise, and he rejected all pleadings for
peace. He knew well that a humiliating treaty would be
violated by the enemy as soon as his own army had been
disbanded ; yet nothing less than a signal humiliation could
atone for the massacres of Sardica and the Strymon. The
march, difficult for a great army, through the pass of Veregava,
occupied some time, and on the 20th of July the Eomans
approached the capital of Krum. Some temporary consterna-
tion was caused by the disappearance of a trusted servant of
the Emperor, who deserted to the enemy with the Imperial
apparel and 100 lbs. of gold.
No opposition was offered to the invaders, and the Koman
swords did not spare the inhabitants. Arriving at Pliska,
Xicephorus found that the king had fled ; he set under lock
and key, and sealed with the Imperial seal, the royal treasures,
as his own spoil ; and burned the palace. Then Krum said,
" Lo, thou hast conquered ; take all thou pleasest, and go in
^ It is supposed by Uspenski that certainly more probable that Niceph-
the, Kady-keui inscription {Aboba, orus is the-Emperor, than, for instance,
228) may relate to the war of Nicephorus, an engineer, who took
Nicephorus with Krum, on account service under the Bulgarian king (see
of the words Kal elarjXeev 6 Nu-7?0[6pos Theoph. 498). If the Emperor is meant,
(1. 3). In 1. 2 we have tovs TpiKovs I conjecture that the events described
eis UapK[e\\as and 11. 6-10 are may be connected with his abortive
concerned with the actions of a expedition in a.d. 807 and the
certain Ekusoos, whom " the Greeks military mutiny. This is suggested
met" and who "went to Hadrian- by 11. 5, 6, ex- Trup^as aiVoO (apparently
ople." It is impossible to restore referring to Nicephorus — "in his
a connected sense, without some ex- anger ") /xt] cruipe6 [aco<nv dvi>dfj.€LS ?] . . .
ternal clew, and tlie supplements of oi VpaiKoi Kal irdXii' £ffJ}p€v[(ra,v.
Uspenski ar<' quite in the air. It is
344 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
peace." But the victor disdained to listen. Perhaps it was
his hope to recover Moesia and completely to subdue the
Bulgarian power. But if this was his design it was not to
be realised ; Nicephorus was not to do the work which was
reserved for Tzimiskes and Basil Bulgaroktonos. He allowed
himself to be drawn back into the mountain where Krum and
his army awaited him. It is generally supposed that an
obvious precaution had been neglected and that the Eomans
had not taken care to guard their retreat by leaving soldiers
to protect the mountain pass behind them. But it seems
probable that the pass of Veregava was not the scene of the
disaster which followed, and the imprudence of Nicephorus
did not consist in neglecting to secure the road of return. So
far as we can divine, he permitted the enemy to lure him into
the contiguous pass of Verbits, where a narrow defile was
blocked by wooden fortifications which small garrisons could
defend against multitudes. Here, perhaps, in what is called
to-day the Greek Hollow,^ where tradition declares that many
Greeks once met their death, the army found itself enclosed as
in a trap, and the Emperor exclaimed, " Our destruction is
certain ; if we had wings, we could not escape." The Bulgarians
could conceal themselves in the mountains and abide their
time until their enemies were pressed by want of supplies ;
and as the numbers of the Eoman army were so great, they
would not have to wait long. But the catastrophe was
accelerated by a successful night attack. The defiles had been
fortified on Thursday and Friday, and on Sunday morning
just before dawn the tent in which Nicephorus and the chief
patricians were reposing was assailed by the heathen. The
details of the attack are not recorded ; perhaps they were
never clearly known ; but we must suppose that there was
some extraordinary carelessness in the arrangements of the
Roman camp. The Roman soldiers, taken unawares, seem to
have been paralysed and to have allowed themselves to be
massacred without resistance. Nicephorus himself was slain,
and almost all the generals and great officers who were with
him, among the rest the general of Thrace and the general
of the Anatolics.^
' Groshki-Dol, between the heights as to the scene of the battle I have
of Kys-tepe and Razboina : Slikorpil adopted.
Aboba, 564, and 536), whose view ^ The others specially mentioned
SECT. II
KRUM AND NICEPHORUS I.
345
This disaster befell ou the 26th of July. It seemed more
shameful than any reverse that had happened throughout the
invasions of the Huns and the Avars, worse than any defeat
since the fatal day of Hadrianople. After the death of
Valens in that great triumph of the Visigoths, no Koman
Augustus had fallen a victim to barbarians. During the
fifth and sixth centuries the Emperors were not used to fight,
Ijut since the valour of Heraclius set a new example, most of
the Eoman sovrans had led armies to battle, and if they were
not always victorious, they always succeeded in escaping.
The slaughter of Nicephorus was then an event to which no
parallel could be found for four centuries back, and it was a
shock to the Eoman world.
Krum exposed the head of the Emperor on a lance for a
certain number of days. He then caused the skull to be
hollowed out in the form of a large drinking bowl,-' and lined
with silver, and at great banquets he used to drink in it to
the health of his Slavonic boliads with the Slavonic formula
" zdravitsa." ^
A memorial of this disaster survived till late times at
Eskibaba in Thrace, where a Servian patriarch of the seventeenth
century saw the tomb of a certain Nicolas, a warrior who had
accompanied the fatal expedition of Nicephorus and seen a
strange warning dream. The Turks had shrouded the head of
the corpse with a turban.^
\ 3. Krum, and Michael I.
Sated with their brilliant victory, the Bulgarians did
not pursue the son and son-in-law of the Emperor, who
escaped from the slaughter, and they allowed the Eomans
ample time to arrange the succession to the throne, which,
are the patricians Aetius, Peter,
Sisinnios Triphyllios, Theodosius
Salibaras, and the Prefect (it is very
strange to find the Prefect of the City
— who can only be meant — taking
]iart in a campaign) ; also the
Doniesticus of the Excubitors ; the
Drungarios of the Watch ; and many
other officers. Theoph. 491. In what
manner Nicephorus was slain him-
self no one coiild tell. Some of his
comrades were burnt alive in a con-
flagration of the wooden palisades
(ry TTjs aovoas irvpi).
1 Cp. Herodotus iv. 65, and 26.
See Blasel, Die Wanderziige der
Langoharden, 112 sq.
^ crdpdjBiT^a.
^ In the diary of a journey to
Jerusalem by Arseny Cernojevic (a.d.
1683), published in the Glasnik (33,
189) ; see Jire6ek, o'p. cit. 144.
346 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
as we have seen, was attended by serious complications.
But Michael I. had not been many months established in
the seat of Empire, when he received tidings that the enemy
had invaded Thrace (a.d. 812). The city which Krum first
attacked was near the frontier. On an inner curve of the
bays, on whose northern and southern horns Anchialus and
Apollonia faced each other, lay the town of Develtos. It
might pride itself on its dignity as an episcopal seat, or on
its strength as a fortified city. But its fortifications did not
now avail it, nor yet its bishop. Krum reduced the place,
and transported inhabitants and bishop beyond the mountains
to Bulgaria. The Emperor meanwhile prepared to oppose
the invader. On the 7th day of June he left the capital,
and the Empress Procopia accompanied him as far as
Tzurulon,^ a place which still preserves its name as Chorlu,
on the direct road from Selymbria to Hadrianople.
It does not seem that Michael advanced farther than to
Tzurulon. The news of the fate of Develtos came, and a
mutiny broke out in the army. It was thought that the
Emperor had shown incompetence or had followed injudicious
advice. While we can well understand that little confidence
could be felt in this weak and inexperienced commander, we
must also remember that there was in the army a large
iconoclastic section hostile to the government. The Opsikian
and Thrakesian Themes played the most prominent parts in
the rioting. A conspiracy in favour of the blind brothers of
Constantine V. followed upon this mutiny, and Michael re-
turned to the City. The field was thus left to the Bulgarians,
who prevailed in both Thrace and Macedonia. But the alarm
felt by the inhabitants caused perhaps more confusion than
the actual operations of the invaders. It does not indeed
appear that the Bulgarians committed in this year any
striking atrocities or won any further success of great moment.
But the fate of the Eoman Emperor in the previous year
had worked its full effect. The dwellers in Thrace were
thoroughly frightened, and when they saw no Eoman army
1 It was a town on a hill close to by the terrible hordes of Zabergan ;
the trilnitary of the Erginus, which and in the reign of Maurice, the
is called Chorlu - su. See Jirecek, valiant general Prisons was besieged
Heerstrasse, 51, 101. In the days of in this fortress by the Avars.
Justinian, Tzurulon had been stormed
I
SECT. Ill KRUM AND MICHAEL I. 34V
in the field they had not the heart to defend their towns.
The taking of Develtos brought the fear home to neighbouring
Anchiakis on the sea. Anchialus had always been one of the
firmest and strongest defences against the barbarians- — against
the Avars in olden days and against the Bulgarians more
recently. Fifty years ago the inhabitants had seen the
Bulgarian forces defeated in the neighbouring plain by the
armies of the Fifth Constantine. But Michael was not like
Constantine, as the men of Anchialus well knew ; and now,
although the defences of their city had recently been restored
and strengthened by Irene, they fled from the place though
none pursued. Other cities, not only smaller places like
Xicaea and Probaton, but even such as Beroe and the great city
of Western Thrace, Philippopolis, did likewise. The Thracian
Nicaea is little known to history ; it seems to have been
situated to the south - east of Hadrianople. Probaton or
Sheep -fort, which is to be sought at the modern Provadia,
north-east of Hadrianople, had seen Eoman and Bulgarian
armies face to face in a campaign of Constantine VI. (a.d. 791).
Stara Zagora is believed to mark the site of Beroe, at the
crossing of the Eoman roads, which led from Philippopolis
to Anchialus and from Hadrianople to Nicopolis on the
Danube. It was in this neighbourhood that the Emperor
Decius was defeated by the Goths. The town had been
restored by the Empress Irene, who honoured it by calling
it Irenopolis ; ^ but the old name persisted, as in the more
illustrious cases of Antioch and Jerusalem. Macedonian
Philippi behaved like Thracian Philippopolis, and those
reluctant colonists whom Nicephorus had settled in the
district of the Strymon seized the opportunity to return to
their original dwellings in Asia Minor.-
Later in the same year (812) Krum sent an embassy to
the Eoman Emperor to treat for peace.^ The ambassador
whom he chose was a Slav, as his name Dargamer * proves.
The Bulgarians wished to renew an old commercial treaty which
seems to have been made about half a century before between
king Kormisos and Constantine V. ; ^ and Krum threatened that
' For restoration of Anchialus and ^ In October : cp. Theoph. 497, 498.
Beroe see Theoph. 457 ; for Constaji- 4 That is, Dragomir.
tine VI. at npo;8drou Kaffrpov, ib. 46/.
^ See above, p. 342. '"' See above, p. 339.
348
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. XI
he would attack Mesembria if his proposals were not immediately
accepted. The treaty in question (1) had defined the frontier
by the hills of Meleona ; (2) had secured for the Bulgarian
monarch a gift of apparel and red dyed skins to the value
of £1350 ; (3) had arranged that deserters should be sent
back ; and (4) stipulated for the free intercourse of merchants
between the two states in case they were provided with seals
and passports ; ^ the property of those who had no passport
was to be forfeited to the treasury."
After some discussion the proposal for the renewal of this
treaty was rejected, chiefly on account of the clause relating
to refugees. True to his threat, Krum immediately set his
forces in motion against Mesembria and laid siege to it about
the middle of October (812). Farther out on the bay of
Anchialus than Anchialus itself, where the coast resumes
its northward direction, stood this important city, on a
peninsula hanging to the mainland by a low and narrow
isthmus, about five hundred yards in length, which is often
overflowed by tempestuous seas.^ It was famous for its
salubrious waters ; it was also famous for its massive fortifica-
tions. Here had lived the parents of the great Leo, the
founder of the Isaurian Dynasty. Hither had fled for refuge
a Bulgarian king, driven from his country by a sedition, in
the days of Constantine V. Krum was aided by the skill
of an Arab engineer, who, formerly in the service of Nicephorus,
had been dissatisfied with that Emperor's parsimony and had
fled to Bulgaria.* No relief came, and Mesembria fell in a
fortnight or three weeks. Meanwhile the promptness of'
Krum in attacking had induced Michael to reconsider his
decision. The Patriarch was strongly in favour of the proposed
peace ; but he was opposed by Theodore, the abbot of Studion,
who was intimate with Theoktistos, the Emperor's chief
adviser. The discussion which was held on this occasion
(November 1) illustrates how the theological atmosphere of
Sict cnyiWlcov /cat acppayidoov.
" This clause is not in our extant
MSS. but is preserved in the Latin
translation of Anastasius.
* Cp. Jirecek, Fiirstenthum, 526.
^ Nicephorus settled him in Hadrian-
ople, and when he grumbled at not
receiving an adequate remuneration
for his services, struck him violently
(according to Theophanes). He in-
structed the Bulgarians in every poli-
orcetic contrivance {irdaav /xayyavLKTjp
Tixvy)v). Theophanes mentions also
the desertion of a certain spathar
named Eumathios, who was ix7)X0LviKrj'5
^fjLTreipos, in the year 809 ; but there is
no reason for supposing that these two
were the same person.
SECT. Ill KRUM AND MICHAEL /. 349
the time was not excluded from such debates. The war party-
said, "We must not accept peace at the risk of subverting
the divine command ; for the Lord said, Him who cometh
unto me I will in no wise cast out," referring to the clause
concerning the surrender of refugees. The peace party, on
their side, submitted that in the first place there were, as a
matter of fact, no refugees, and secondly, even if there were, the
safety of a large number was more acceptable to God than the
safety of a few ; they suggested, moreover, that the real motive of
those who rejected the peace was a short-sighted parsimony,-^ and
that they were more desirous of saving the 30 lbs. worth
of skins than concerned for the safety of deserters ; these
disputants were also able to retort upon their opponents passages
of Scripture in favour of peace. The war party prevailed.
Four days later the news came that Mesembria was taken.
The barbarians had found it well stocked with the comforts
of life, full of gold and silver ; and among other things they
discovered a considerable quantity of " Eoman Fire," and
thirty-six engines (large tubes) for hurling that deadly sub-
stance. But they did not occupy the place; they left it,
like Sardica, dismantled and ruined. It would seem that,
not possessing a navy, they judged that Mesembria would
prove an embarrassing rather than a valuable acquisition.
All thoughts of peace were now put away, and the
Emperor made preparations to lead another expedition against
Bulgaria in the following year. In February (813) two
Christians who had escaped from the hands of Krum announced
that he was preparing to harry Thrace. The Emperor
immediately set out and Krum was obliged to retreat, not
without some losses. In May all the preparations were ready.
'The Asiatic forces had been assembled in Thrace, and even
the garrisons which protected the kleisurai leading into Syria
had been withdrawn to fight against a foe who was at this
moment more formidable than the Caliph. Lycaonians,
^ Sol interpret Theophanes, TrXoKTe?;/ peace, and this is an instnictive case
and iJ-iKohv K^pdos (498). The majority of the autocrat being overruled by the
at least of the Senate were opposed opinion of the Senate. Cp. Bury,
to the peace, Utottov i(f>6.vr} to tQv irpocx- Constitution of L.R.E., 31. The Con-
<p{iyo)v Toh TTJs crvK\r]Tov ^ovXfjs {Cont. tinuator of Theophanes remarks that
Theo2)h. 13) ; the opinion of Theo- the Bulgarian kings feared lest all
ktistos probably weighed heavily. the population should by degrees
Michael himself was in favour of migrate to Roman territory {ih.).
350 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
Isaurians, Cilicians, Cappadocians, and Galatians were compelled
to march northwards, much against their will, and the Armeniacs
and Cappadocians were noticed as louder than the others in
their murmurs. As Michael and his generals issued from the
city they were accompanied by all the inhabitants, as far as
the Aqueduct.^ Gifts and keepsakes showered upon the
officers, and the Empress Procopia herself was there,
exhorting the Imperial staff to take good care of Michael and
" to fight bravely for the Christians."
Michael, if he had some experience of warfare, had no
ability as a general, and he was more ready to listen to the
advice of the ministers who had gained influence over him in
the palace than to consult the opinion of two really competent
military men who accompanied the expedition. These were
Leo, general of the Anatolics, whom, as we have already seen,
he had recalled from exile, and John Aplakes, the general
of Macedonia. During the month of May the army moved
about Thrace, and was little less burdensome to the inhabitants
than the presence of an enemy. It was specially remarked
by contemporaries that no attempt was made to recover
Mesembria. Early in June Krum entered Eoman territory
and both armies encamped near Versinicia,^ a place not. far
from Hadrianople. At Versinicia, nearly twenty years before,
another Emperor had met another Khan. Then Kardam had
skulked in a wood, and had not ventured to face Constantine.
Krum, however, was bolder than his predecessor, and, contrary/^
to Bulgarian habit, did not shrink from a pitched battle.
Eor fifteen days they stood over against one another, neither!
side venturing to attack, and the heat of summer rendered,]
this incessant watching a trying ordeal both for men andij
for horses. At last John Aplakes, who commanded one wing,j
composed of the Macedonian and Thracian troops, lost hisl
patience and sent a decisive message to the Emperor : " How
long are we to stand here and perish ? I will strike first int
the name of God, and then do ye follow up bravely, andj
we can conquer. We are ten times more numerous thanf
^ For the position of Keduktos see ment of Scriptor Incertus. The latter
above, p. 101. is the fuller, and from it we learn tlie
'•^ Theopli. 500. Of this affair we details of the courage of John Aplakes I
liave two independent accounts, one (337 sqq.) Jirecek {GeschicJtte, 145)|
by Theophanes, the other in the Frag- wrongly places the battle in July.
SECT. Ill KRUM AND MICHAEL I. 351
they." The Bulgarians, who stood on lower ground in the
valley, fell before the charge of Aplakes and his soldiers who
descended on them from a slight elevation ; but the brave
strategos of Macedonia was not supported by the centre and
the other wing.^ There was a general flight without any
apparent cause, and the Anatolics were conspicuous among
the fugitives. Aplakes, left with his own men, far too few to
hold their ground, fell fighting. The enemy were surprised
and alarmed at this inexplicable behaviour of an army so far
superior in numbers, so famous for its discipline. Suspecting
some ambush or stratagem the Bulgarians hesitated to move.
But they soon found out that the flight was genuine, and
they followed in pursuit. The Eomans threw away their
weapons, and did not arrest their flight until they reached
the gates of the capital.
Such was the strange battle which w^as fought between
Hadrianople and Versinicia on June 22, a.d. 813. It has
an interest as one of the few engagements in which an army
chiefly consisting of Slavs seems to have voluntarily opposed
a Koman host on open ground. As a rule the Slavs and
Bulgarians avoided pitched battles in the plain and only
engaged in mountainous country, where their habits and their
equipment secured them the advantage. But Krum seems to
have been elated by his career of success, and to have conceived
for his opponents a contempt which prompted him to desert
the traditions of Bulgarian warfare. His audacity was rewarded,
but the victory was not due to any superiority on his side in
strategy or tactics. Historians have failed to realise the
difficulties which beset the battle of Versinicia, or to explain
the extraordinary spectacle of a Eoman army, in all its force,
routed in an open plain by a far smaller army of Slavs
and Bulgarians. It was a commonplace that although the
Bulgarians were nearly sure to have the upper hand in moun-
tainous defiles they could not cope in the plain with a Eoman
army, even much smaller than their own. The soldiers knew
this well themselves,^ and it is impossible to believe that the
1 Our sources do uot .'itate the order and, perhaps, tlie Cappadocians ; the
of battle, but we may conclude that Opsikians,Armeniacs, and others would
Michael commanded the centre, have been in the centre.
Aplakes and Leo the two wings. ^ vScr. Incert. 338, ^^uidev 5t iirl
Leo's wing consisted of the Anatolics Kafxirov viKrjaai avroiis ^x^Mf-
352 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
Anatolic troops, disciplined by warfare against the far more
formidable Saracens, were afraid of the enemy whom they met
in Thrace.
The only reasonable explanation of the matter is treachery, /
and treachery was the cause assigned by contemporary report.'^^i
The Anatolic troops feigned cowardice and fled ; their flight
produced a panic and the rest fled too. Others may have
been in the plot besides the Anatolics, but the soldiers of Leo,
the Armenian, were certainly the prime movers. The political
consequences of the battle show the intention of the Asiatic
troops in courting this defeat. The Emperor Michael lost
credit and was succeeded by Leo. This was what the Asiatic
soldiers desired. The religious side of Michael's rule was
highly unpopular in Phrygia and the districts of Mount Taurus,
and Michael himself was, probably, a Thracian or Macedonian.
The rivalry between the Asiatic and European nobles, which
played an important part at a later period of history, was
perhaps already beginning ; and it is noteworthy that the
Thracians and Macedonians under Aplakes were the only troops .
who did not flee. Eeviewing all the circumstances, so far as
we know them, we cannot escape the conclusion that the
account is right which represents the regiments of Leo, if not
Leo himself, as guilty of intentional cowardice on the field of
Versinicia. It was planned to discredit Michael and elevate
Leo in his stead, and the plan completely succeeded.
^ The question really is, how far of Leo's conduct, one adverse and one
Leo was himself privy to the conduct favourable : (a) that Leo's retreat was
of his troops. Hirsch acquits Leo of treacherous ; (/3) that he was posted
ideXoKada (p. 125). The data are as at a distance from the army by
follows: (1) Theophanes does not hint Michael and bidden not to take part
at intentional cowardice on the part in the combat — at least this seems to
of either general or soldiers. But we be the meaning. Hirsch thinks that
must remember that Theophanes (a) was derived from some pasquinade
wrote the end of his history just at or Spottgedicht. (5) In Cont. Th. (14),
the time of Leo's accession, and says there are likewise two accounts : (a)
nothing unfavourable to that monarch. Leo led the flight, t7]v ^aaiXelav dei
(2) The Scriptor Incertus accuses the ttcjs iwi^r)Twv. This the author pro-
G^^a tQv avaTokiKGiv, without specially fesses to have got from a written
mentioning the commander. As the source, ^yypd<poos (from Ignatius ?).
author is violently hostile to Leo, (j3) Leo and his soldiers stood their
this silence is in Leo's favour. (3) ground bravely ; it was the soldiers
Ignatius, Vita Nicephori, c. 31, ac- commanded by the Emperor who fled,
cuses Leo as the author of the defeat My conclusion from all this is that
(p. 163) : TT]s fiTTTis A^wi' Trpu}T€pydr7)s Leo was really in the plot, but played
yfi'6/j.ei'os wavTi rep <TTpa.Towi5^3 tt)v /xer his cards so cleverly that nobody could
alcrxvvrjs (pvyT]v ifiaLivaaTo. (4) Genesios prove anything against him, although
states that there were two reports there were the gravest suspicions.
1
SECT. IV BULGARIAN SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE 353
§ 4. Tlie Bulgarian Siege of Constantinople (a.d. 813)
After his victory over the army of Michael, the king of
the Bulgarians resolved to attempt the siege of two great
cities at the same time. He had good reason to be elated by
his recent successes against the Koman Empire ; he might well
dream of winning greater successes still. He had achieved
what few enemies of the Empire in past time could boast that
they had done. He had caused the death of two Emperors
and the downfall of a third ; for he might attribute the
deposition of Michael to his own victory ; and within two
years he had annihilated one Roman army and signally defeated
another. In point of fact, these successes were due rather to
luck than to merit ; the Bulgarian king had shown craft
but no conspicuous ability in generalship ; the battles had not
been won by superiority in tactics or by signal courage. But
the facts could not be ignored ; the head of a Eoman
Emperor was a drinking-cup in the palace of Pliska, and a
large Eoman army had been routed near Hadrianople.
It was an ambition of Leo the Armenian, as has been
already noticed, to emulate the great Isaurian Emperors of
the previous century ; and fortune gave him, at his very
accession, an opportunity of showing how far he could approach
in military prowess the Fifth Constantine, whom the Bulgarians
had found so formidable. Krum left his brother to blockade
the city of Hadrian, and advanced himself to lay siege to the
city of Constantine. He appeared before it six days after the
accession of the new Emperor. In front of the walls he made
a display of his power, and in the park outside the Golden
Gate he prepared sacrifices of men and animals. The Eomans
could see from the walls how this " new Sennacherib " laved
his feet on the margin of the sea and sprinkled his soldiers ;
they could hear the acclamations of the barbarians, and witness
the procession of the monarch through a line of his concubines,
worshipping and glorifying their lord.^ He then asked the
Emperor to allow him to fix his lance on the Golden Gate as
lan emblem of victory ; and when the proposal was refused he
^ These details are given by the church of SS. Cosnias and Damian
Scriptor Incertus (342). Krum's head- (ib. 343).
Iquarters seem to have been near the
2 A
354 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
retired to his tent.^ Having produced no impression by his
heathen parade, and having failed to daunt New Ronie, he
threw up a rampart and plundered the neighbourhood for
several days. But there was no prospect of taking the queen ^
of cities where so many, greater than he, had failed before, and
he soon offered terms of peace, demanding as the price a large
treasure of gold and raiment, and a certain number of chosen
damsels.^ The new Emperor Leo saw in the overtures of the,
enemy a good opportunity to carry out a design, which in the
present age public opinion would brand as an infamous act of
treachery, but which the most pious of contemporary monks, |
men by no means disposed to be lenient to Leo, regarded aSj
laudable. The chronicler Theophanes, whom Leo afterwards!
persecuted, said that the failure of the plot was due to our sins.^ '
The Emperor sent a message to Krum : " Come down to
the shore, with a few unarmed men, and we also unarmed will
proceed by boat to meet you. We can then talk together
and arrange terms." The place convened was on the Golden
Horn, just north of the seawall ; and at night three armed
men were concealed in a house * outside the Gate of Blachern,
with directions to issue forth and slay Krum when a certain
sign was given by one of Leo's attendants.
Next day the Bulgarian king duly rode down to the shore,
with three companions, namely his treasurer,^ a Greek deserter,
Constantine Patzikos, who had married Krum's sister, and the
son of this Constantine. Krum dismounted and sat on the
ground ; his nephew held his horse ready, " saddled and
bridled." ^ Leo and his party soon arrived in the Imperial
barge, and while they conversed, Hexabulios,'^ who was with
Leo, suddenly covered his face with his hands. The motion
offended the sensitive pride of the barbarian ; highly offended
he started to his feet and leaped upon his horse. Nor was
he too soon ; for the gesture was the concerted sign, and the
^ Theoph. 503. Simeon transcribes ^ Theophanes, however, clearly
Theophanes with inconsiderable verbal wrote these pages in the first years of
changes (Leo Gr. 207). Leo's reign.
ihese tacts and the details of the 5 \ ■ ai
attempt to slay Krum are recorded by \oyo6iT7]s.
the Scriptor Incertus. Loparev (ojo. cr<. ^ (rrpwuivov xa^""*'/"'^''*"' (Scr. Inc.
345) suggests that Krum was insist- 343).
ing on the fulfilment of the treaty of "^ Doubtless John Hexabulios (see
Kormisos or, as he thinks, of Tervel. above, p. 27).
1
SECT. IV BULGARIAN SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE
355
armed ambush rushed out from the place of hiding. The
attendants of Krum pressed on either side of him as he rode
away, trying to defend him or escape with him ; but, as they
were on foot, the Greeks were able to capture them. Those
who watched the scene from the walls, and saw, as they
thought, the discomfiture of the pagan imminent, cried out,
" The cross has conquered " ; the darts of the armed soldiers
were discharged after the retreating horseman ; but though
they hit him he received no mortal wound,^ and escaped, now
more formidable than ever, as his ferocity was quickened by
the thirst of vengeance. His treasurer was slain ; his brother-
in-law and nephew were taken alive.
On the next day the wrath of the deceived Bulgarian
blazed forth in literal fire. The inhabitants of the city, look-
ing across the Golden Horn, witnessed the conflagration of the
opposite suburbs, churches, convents, and palaces, which the
enemy plundered and destroyed.^ They did not stay their
course of destruction at the mouth of the Golden Horn. They
burned the Imperial Palace of St. Mamas, which was situated
opposite to Scutari, at the modern Beshik-tash, to the south of
Orta Keui.^ They pulled down the ornamental columns, and
carried away, to deck the residence of their king, the sculptured
images of animals which they found in the hippodrome of the
palace and packed in waggons,'* All living things were
butchered. Their ravages were extended northwards along
the shores of the Bosphorus, and in the inland region behind.^
But this was only the beginning of the terrible vengeance. The
suburbs outside the Golden Gate, straggling as far as Khegion,
were consigned to the flames, and we cannot suppose that
their energy of destruction spared the palace of Hebdomon.
^ Ann. r. F., a.d. 813 "graviter
vulneratum. " The notice in these
annals of the Bulgarian War and the
accession of Leo was derived from the
Grreek ambassadors who visited the
30urt of Lewis in a.d. 814. Cp- Neues
Archiv, 21, 55.
'^ Scr. Inc. 344, clearly designates
ihe locality by avrnr^pav ri^s irdXeus.
Some of the larger churches here had
)een recently restored by Irene, Nice-
ihonis, and Michael.
■* The position of the palace, as to
frhich totally false ideas were current
(some placing it near Blachernae),
has been demonstrated by Pargoire,
S. Mamas.
* Scr. Inc. ib. to, ^codia. Theophanes,
503, gives details : a bronze lion, a
bear, and a serpent, and other fidp/xapoi
^irlXeKTOL. Shkorpil asserts {Aboba,
116), that according to our sources
Krum also carried away some marble
columns. He may have done so, but
our sources do not say so. Scr. Inc.
says that the Bulgarians toi>s Kiovas
KariKXaaai'.
^ Scr. Inc. ib. Kal ttjv duu.
356 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
The fort of Athyras and a bridge of remarkable size and
strength ^ over the river of the same name, which flows into
the Propontis, were destroyed. Along the western highroad
the avenger advanced till he reached Selymbria, where he
destroyed the churches and rased the citadel. The fort of
Daonin " was levelled, and the first obstacle in the path of
destruction was the strong wall of Heraclea which had once
defied Philip of Macedon. Unable to enter it the Bulgarians
burned the suburbs and the houses of the harbour. Continu-
ing their course, they rased the fort of Ehaedestos ^ and the
castle of Apros. Having spent ten days there, they marched
southward to the hills of Ganos,* whither men and beasts
had fled for concealment. The fugitives were easily dislodged
from their hiding-places by the practised mountaineers ; the
men were slain ; the women, children, and animals were sent
to Bulgaria, After a visit of depredation to the shore of the
Hellespont, the desolater returned slowly, capturing forts as
he went, to Hadrianople, which his brother had not yet
succeeded in reducing by blockade. Poliorcetic engines were
now applied ; hunger was already doing its work ; no relief,
was forthcoming ; and the city perforce surrendered. All the
inhabitants, including the archbishop Manuel, were trans-
ported to "Bulgaria" beyond the Danube,^ where they were
permitted to live in a settlement, governed by one of them-*i
selves and known as " Macedonia." ^
It was now the turn of the Imperial government to make
overtures for peace, and of the victorious and offended!
Bulgarian to reject them. Leo then took the field himself '^
^ Trapd^evov ovaav /cat ttolvv oxvpw- Simeon {ib. 817) numbers the cap-
TdTr]v. For the locality see above, tives as 10,000 men, as well as women.
P- 102. The Chronography of Theophanes
^ The old Daunion teichos on the ends with the capture of Hadrianople
road from Selymbria to Heraclea. —Kal Tair-qv iXwv. The capture of
^ At this point the road left the the Archbishop Manuel we learn from
coast and reached the fort of Apros, the history of Basil I. by Constantiiie
more than twenty Roman miles W. of Porphyrogennetos, forming the 5th
Rhaedestos (Bisanthe). See Kiepert's Book of the Continuatio Theophanis,
Map of niyricum and Thrace. 216. The parents of Basil lived in
■* On the coast of the Propontis, Hadrianople and were on this occasion
over against Proconnesus. carried into captivity.
^ Scr. Inc. 345 eh BovXyapiau eKeTdev ^ See below, p. 370.
rod "la-rpov iroTa/xov. Simeon {Cord. ■? This campaign is not noticed by
Gcorg. 765), Kal fxerd Xaov irXeiffTov George or by the Scriptor Incertns.
Statrepda-as tQ)v t€ evyevQv MaKedovcov, Our authority is the combined testi-
KareaKrjvuaev iv rep i^avov^ltf iroTafiif. mony of Co7it. Th. (24-25) and Genesios
SECT. IV BULGARIAN SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE 357
and by a stratagem, successfully executed, he inflicted an
overwhelming defeat on the army of the enemy, or a portion of
it which was still active in the neighbourhood of Mesembria.
Entrenching himself near that city and not far from the
Bulgarian camp, he waited for some days. The Konian troops
had command of abundant supplies, but he soon heard that the
Bulgarians were hard pressed for food. Confiding his plan
only to one officer, Leo left the camp by night with a company
of experienced warriors, and lay in ambush on an adjacent hill.
Day dawned, and the Eomans, discovering that the Emperor
was not in the camp, imagined that he had fled. The tidings
reached the camp of the enemy before evening, and the
barbarians thought that their adversaries were now delivered
an easy prey into their hands. Intending to attack the
Eoman camp on the morrow, and meanwhile secure, they left
aside the burden of their arms and yielded to the ease of sleep.
Then Leo and his men descended in the darkness of the night
and wrought great slaugliter. The Eoman camp had been
advised of the stratagem just in time to admit of their co-
operation, and not soon enough to give a deserter the
opportunity of perfidy. The Bulgarians were annihilated ;
not a firebearer, to use the Persian proverb, escaped. This
success was followed up by an incursion into Bulgaria ;
and Leo's policy was to spare those who were of riper
(12-13), who drew here from a common bearing on the question, as his chronicle
source which is most fully reproduced ends with the capture of Hadrianople,
in Cont. Tli. The campaign must be and Leo's expedition was certainly
placed in the late autumn of A. D. 813, later. George's notices of military
after the capture of Hadrianople, events are so scrappy and meagre that
which probably determined Leo to his silence proves nothing. The Scr.
sue for peace. Jirecek assigns it to Inc. says that during the Bulgarian
A.D. 814 {Gesehiehte, 146), placing ravages which he has described Leo
Krum's death in A.u. 815. But it is did not leave the city (346 Kal toijtuv
clear from the narrative of the Script. yevofxiviav b Miav Tr)s woK^wz ovKi^rjXdev).
Inc. that only one winter passed be- This was literally true, but the author,
tween Leo's accession and Krum's death bitterly hostile to Leo, cannot be
(346 sq. ). Hirsch (125-126) regards considered incapable of having deliber-
this episode as a legend, suggesting ately suppressed a subsequent success,
that it was invented to explain the and his silence is not a convincing
name powbs A^ovtos. His grounds argument. The imputation of Ignatius
seem to be the silence of Theophanes came similarly from the hostile camp,
and Simeon, a statement of the Scr. which employed every weapon of
Inc. "liber den ungiinstigen Verlauf calumny against the iconoclast. The
des Feldzuges," and the charge of details in Cont. Th. do not suggest a
inactivity brought against Leo in legend, and the account has been
Ignatius, Vit. Niccph. c. 34. But accepted by all historians (including
these arguments have no weight. Finlay, Hopf, and Hertzberg).
The silence of Theophanes has no
358 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
years, while he destroyed their children by dashing them
against stones.
Henceforward the hill on which Leo had lain in ambush
" was named the hill of Leo/ and the Bulgarians, whenever
they pass that way, shake the head and point with the finger,
unable to forget that great disaster."
The ensuing winter was so mild, and the rivers so low,
that an army of 30,000 Bulgarians crossed the frontier and
advanced to Arcadiopolis. They passed the river Erginus and
made many captives. But when they returned to the river,
they found that a week's rain had rendered it impassable, and
they were obliged to wait for two weeks on the banks. The
waters gradually subsided, a bridge was made, and 50,000
captives were led back to Bulgaria, while the plunder was
carried in waggons, loaded with rich Armenian carpets,
blankets and coverlets, raiment of all kinds, and bronze
utensils." His censorious critics alleged that the Emperor was
remiss in not seizing the opportunity to attack the invaders
during the enforced delay.
Shortly after this incursion, tidings reached Constantinople
that it was destined soon to be the object of a grand Bulgarian
expedition. Krum was himself engaged in collecting a great
host ; " all the Slavonias " were contributing soldiers ; and, from
his Empire beyond the Danube, Avars as well as Slavs were
summoned to take part in despoiling the greatest city in the
world. Poliorcetic machines of all the various kinds which
New Eome herself could dispose of were being prepared for
the service of Bulgaria. The varieties of these engines, of
which a list is recorded, must be left to curious students of
the poliorcetic art to investigate. There were " three-throwers "
and "four-throwers," tortoises, fire-hurlers and stone-hurlers,
rams, little scorpions, and "dart-stands," besides a large
supply of balls, slings, long ladders, levers, and ropes (opvai),
and the inevitable " city-takers " (eXeTroXei?).^ In the stables
of the king fed a thousand oxen destined to draw the engines,
and five thousand iron-bound cars were prepared. The attempt
which had been made on his life still rankled in Krum's
2 /3?i'';os Aecj'Tos. XaXfc6-"ara ifpbprwaav iravTa eh d^d^as.
^ Emptor Incertus, p. 347 'ApfMeuia- He calls the Erginos the 'Fvylva.
riKo. ffTpayXofiaXwTdpia Kal vaKordirriTa » jj_
d.vd}T€oa. Kal IfxaTLOfxov iro\i,v Kal
SECT. IV BULGARIAN SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE
359
memory, and he determined to direct his chief efibrts against
Blachernae, the quarter where the arrow had wounded
him.
Leo had taken measures for the defence of the city. He
employed a large number of workmen to build a new wall ^
outside that of Heraclius, and he caused a wide m.oat to be
dug. But, as it turned out, these precautions proved un-
necessary ; and, indeed, the work was not completed when
the death of Krum changed the situation. The most formid-
able of the Bulgarian monarchs with whom the Empire had
yet to deal died suddenly through the bursting of a blood-
vessel on the 14th of April 814,^ and his plan perished
with him.
§ 5. The Reign of Omurtag
After the death of Krum, Bulgaria was engaged and
distracted by a struggle for the throne. Of this political
crisis we have no clear knowledge,^ but it appears that it
ended by the triumph of a certain Tsok over one, if not two,
rivals. The rule of Tsok is described as inhumane. He is
said to have required all the Christian captives, both clerical
and lay, to renounce their religion, and when they refused,
to have put them to death. But his reign was brief. It
^ See above, p. 94.
^ dopdrujs (T(payiaa6eis, streams of
blood issuing from mouth, nose, and ears
(Scr. Incert. 348). Tliecause of Attila's
death was similar. The date, accord-
ing to Roman captives who returned
from Bulgaria, was "the great Fifth
of Paschal," that is Holy Thursday =
April 14, 814 (Krug, Kritischer
Versueh, 156 ; Loparev, Dvie Zamiethi,
348). The date 815 maintained by
Schafarik and Jire^ek cannot be
accepted in view of the data in Scr. Inc.
(see above, p. 357, n. 8).
' In the Slavonic Prologue (ad.
Moscow, 1877, under Jan. 2, p. 42)
it is stated that after Krum's death
Dukum seized the throne, but died
and was succeeded by the cruel
Ditseng, who mutilated the hands of
Archbishop Manuel (see above, p. 356),
and was succeeded by Omurtag. In
the Menologion of Basil II., TfoKoy
6 ddewTaros is named as the successor
of Krum, and his persecution of the
Christian captives noticed (Pars ii.,
Jan. 22, in Migne, P.G. 117, 276-277).
Loparev (o^a cit. 348-349) thinks that
Dukum, Ditseng, and Tsok were only
military leaders who played an im-
portant role. I am disposed to
conjecture that Ditseng (who is
described as cruel and was slain) and
Tsok were one and the same. These
intermediate reigns are not mentioned
in the Greek chronicles, and Theo-
phylactus (as well as Gont. Th. 217)
represents Omurtag as Krum's successor
{Hist. XV. mart. 192). The name Tsok
occurs in the form Tfu/cos in an in-
scription found north of Aboba, and
dated to the year a.m. 6328 = a. d. 819-
820, but so mutilated that little can be
madeofit(^6o6a, 226-227). According
to the Mcnol. Bus. it was Krum who
mutilated Archbishop Manuel, who
(ace. to Cont. Th. 217) was put to
death by Omurtag.
360 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
was possibly before the end of the year (a.d. 814) that he
was slain, and succeeded by Omurtag, the son of Krum.^
The first important act of the sublime Khan Omurtag " was
to conclude a formal treaty of peace with the Eoman Empire
(a.d. 815-816). It is probable that a truce or preliminary
agreement had been arranged immediately after Krum's death/
but when Krum's son ascended the throne negotiations were
opened which led to a permanent peace,* The contracting
parties agreed that the treaty should continue in force for
thirty years, with a qualification perhaps that it should be
confirmed anew at the expiration of each decennium.^ A
fortunate chance has preserved a portion of what appears to
be an official abstract of the instrument, inscribed on a
marble column and set up in the precincts of his residence at
Pliska by order of the Bulgarian king.^ Provision was made
for the interchange and ransom of captives,''' and the question
of the surrender of deserters, on which the negotiations
between Krum and Michael I. had fallen through, was settled
in a manner satisfactory to Omurtag. All the Slavs who
had been undoubtedly subject to the Bulgarians in the period
before the war, and had deserted to the Empire, were to be
sent back to their various districts. The most important
articles concerned the delimitation of the frontier which
1 That Omurtag was son of Krum expiration (o-weTrX-^poi'j' (rxe56f, Gen.
is directly affirmed by Theophylactus loc. cit.). Jirecek dates the treaty a.d.
{Joe. cit.) ; and would be probable from 815, Loparev and Zlatarski 816. I
the fact that Omurtag's son Malamir am inclined to believe that 815-816
calls Krum " my grandfather " (inscrip- is right (not 814, as I argued o^j. cit.).
tion in Aboba, 233)— the alternative AVe must not press too far the ffx^^o"
being that Omurtag was Krum's son-in- of Genesios ; and other evidence makes
law. it likely that the twentieth year of
^ The true form of the name, attested the period determined c. 836, and the
by his inscriptions {'iifMovpTay), is thirtieth c. 846.
preserved in Latin sources (Omortag). * This seems to be implied in the
Theophylactus (ffisi.ajuwiari. 192) calls passage of Genesios.
him 'G/x^pirayos, the Greek chronicles ^ The inscription of Suleiman-keui
ha.veMopTayuij'OTMovTpdyuv. [Aboba, 220 sqq.). Uspenski jjroposed
^ I have conjectured {Bulgarian to refer it to the beginning of the
Treaty of A.D. 81%, ^T^. 286-287) that a reign of Michael II. I have shown
fragment of such an agreement may {op. cit.) that it contains a text or
be preserved in the inscription of abstract of the Thirty Years' Treaty.
Eski-Juma {Aboba, 226). ^ The common people (private
■* Cont. Th. expressly ascribes the soldiers) were to be interchanged,
treaty to Omurtag (658 irpbs airrbv), man for man. A ransom of so much a
Genesios (41 irphs avroijs) leaves it open. head was to be paid for Roman officers.
For the further evidence of the in- A special arrangement was made for
scription of Malamir see my article on the redemption of Greeks who had
the treaty {oji. cit.). In 823 the first been found in forts which the com-
decennium of the thirty years was near manders had deserted.
SECT. V
THE REIGN OF OMURTAG
361
divided Thrace between the two sovrans.^ The new boundary
ran westward from Develtos to Makrolivada, a fortress situated
between Hadrianople and Philippopolis, close to the junction
of the Hebrus with its tributary the Arzus. At Makrolivada
the frontier-line turned northward and proceeded to Mt.
Haemus. The Bulgarians, who put their faith in earthworks
and circumvallations, proposed to protect the boundary, and
give it a visible form, by a rampart and trench. The Imperial
government, without whose consent the execution of such a
work would have been impossible, agreed to withdraw the
garrisons from the forts in the neighbourhood of the frontier
during the construction of the fortification, in order to avoid
the possibility of hostile collisions.
The remains of the Great Fence,^ which marked the
southern boundary of the Bulgarian kingdom in the ninth
and tenth centuries, can be traced across Thrace, and are
locally known as the Erkesiia.^ Some parts of it are visible
to the eye of the inexperienced traveller, while in others the
line has disappeared or has to be investigated by the diligent
attention of the antiquarian. Its eastern extremity is near
the ruins of Develtos,'* on that inlet of the Black Sea whose
horns were guarded by the cities of Anchialus and Apollonia.
It can be followed easily in its westward course, past
Rusokastro, as far as the river Tundzha, for about forty miles ;
beyond that river it is more difficult to trace,^ but its western
extremity seems to have been discovered at Makrolivada, near
the modern village of Trnovo-Seimen.^ The line roughly
^ It is possible that some new
small district was conceded to the
Bulgarians. Michael Syr. 26 states
that Leo made peace with them, sur-
rendering to them the marsh for which
they fought.
^ jj-eydXt} crov5a, Cedrenus, ii. 372.
^ So called from theTurkish_;'crA:esc?t,
a cutting in the earth. The eastern
part of its course is described by
Jirecek, Fiirstenthum, 505 sq. Sur-
viving legends as to the origin of the
structure are mentioned by Jirecek
{Arch.-ep. Mitth. x. 137) and Shkorpil
(Aboba, 542). Jirecek heard at Ruso-
kastro the tradition that the rampart
was sinor ((xvvopov) — a boundary (be-
tween the dominions of two brothers :
Shkorpil) ; it was wrought, by a tsar's
orders, by men and women, and so
pressing was the work that only one
woman was left at home to take care
of nine children. The same story is
told elsewhere among the Slavs, of the
erection of great buildings.
■* Colonia Flavia Pacis Deulteusium,
or Deultum, founded by Vespasian,
was called in Byzantine times Ae/SeXris.
The traces of the "wall " begin at the
west end of the lagoon of Mandra,
^ The length of the western section
from the Tundzha is 64 kils., a little
less than the eastern.
^ Near the junction of R. Hebrus and
R. Arzus, now called Sazly-dere. The
Roman station Arzus is doubtless to
be identified with the ruins at Teke-
Musachevo, and here the rampart was
362 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
corresponds to the modern boundary between Turkey and
Bulgaria. The rampart was on the north, the ditch on the
south, showing that it was designed as a security against the
Empire ; the rampart was probably surmounted, like the wall
of Pliska, by timber palisades,^ and the Bulgarians maintained
a constant watch and ward along their boundary fences.^
In the eastern section, near the heights of Meleona, the line
of defence was strengthened by a second entrenchment to
the south, extending for about half a mile in the form of a
bow, and locally known as the Gipsy Erkesiia, but we do not
know the origin or date of this fortification.^ It would seem
that the Bulgarians contented themselves with this fence, for
no signs have been discovered of a similar construction on the
western frontier, between Makrolivada and the mountains.
Sanctity was imparted to the contract by the solemn
rites of superstition. Omurtag consented to pledge his faith
according to the Christian formalities, while Leo, on his part,
showing a religious toleration only worthy of a pagan,
did not scruple to conform to the heathen customs of the
barbarians. Great was the scandal caused to pious members
of the Church when the Eoman Emperor, " peer of the
Apostles," poured on the earth a libation of water, swore
upon a sword, sacrificed dogs, and performed other unholy
rites.* Greater, if possible, was their indignation, when the
cut by the great military road from i Cp. Theopli. 490, the use of
Hadnanople to Philippopolis. The i6\i.va. oxvpicfiara.
western section was cut by another 2 Nicolaus, Responsa, 25.
road which branched off from the » Ahoba, 542-543. Tradition says
mihtary road at Lefke and led over that the Tsar's soldiers were called
the Balkans to Nicopolis on the away before they had completed the
Jantra; and also by the road from chief entrenchment, and ordered the
Hadnanople to Kabyle (Sliven), which gipsies to finish it. The gipsies de-
tollowed the right bank of the fleeted the line to the south, and the
iundzha {Aboha, 539-540). Shkorpil soldiers when they returned continued
thinks that the frontier continued their entrenchment in its previous
westward (no traces of the wall are direction.
found beyond Teke - Musachevo) to " Ignatius, Vit. Nic. p. 206. This
Oonstantia (S. Kostenets) in the passage is ignored by Bulgarian his-
northern foothills of Rhodope, and torians, though it points to some
thence northward to the ]jass of Succi curious and obscure customs, ev ah
[LovXyapLKT] KXfcais) near Ichtiman ; {crvfj-^da-eai) ^v 6pav tov jSaaiXia'Pup.aiwi'
whence beyond the mountains it fol- « kvXikos iJdt^p Kara yT/s emXdBoura,
lowed the_ line of the middle entrench- iwiadyfjiaTa I'ttttwi/ avrovpyiis dvaarpi-
ment of W' est Bulgaria (from Khairedin <povTa, indvTcov ivTpirwv airrbtievov, Kal
to Kiler-bair-kale on the Danube). xoprof ds v^os a'ipovra /cat did navTuiv
But Lonstantia, which is mentioned to(,twv eavrbv e-rrapdifievov. For the
in the inscriptions as on the frontier, sacrifice of dogs see Cont. Th. p. 31 ;
was probably a different place. Jirecek, GeschicMe, p. 132.
SECT. V THE REIGN OF OMURTAG 363
heathen envoys were invited to pollute by their touch a
copy of the Holy Gospels ; and to these impieties earth-
quakes and plagues, which happened subsequently, were
attributed/
This peace, which the Bulgarians considered satisfactory
for many years to come,^ enabled Omurtag to throw his
energy into the defence of his western dominions against the
great German Empire, which had begun to threaten his
influence even in regions south of the Danube. The Slavonic
peoples were restless under the severe yoke of the sublime
Khan, and they were tempted by the proximity of the
Franks, whose power had extended into Croatia, to turn to
the Emperor Lewis for protection. The Slavs of the river
Timok, on the borders of Servia, who were under Bulgarian
lordship, had recently left their abodes and sought a refuge
within the dominion of Lewis.^ Their ambassadors presented
themselves at his court in a.d. 818, but nothing came of the
embassy, for the Timocians were induced "* to throw in their
lot with Liudewit, the Croatian zupan, who had defied the
Franks and was endeavouring to establish Croatian inde-
pendence. It seemed for a moment that the Croatian leader
might succeed in creating a Slavonic realm corresponding to
the old Diocese of Illyricum, and threatening Italy and Bavaria;
but the star of Liudewit rose and declined rapidly ; he was
unable to cope with the superior forces of Lewis, and his
flight was soon followed by his death (a.d. 823).^ The
Franks established their ascendency in Croatia, and soon after-
wards Bulgarian ambassadors appeared in Germany and
sought an audience of the Emperor (a.d. 824).*^ It was the
first time that a Frank monarch had received an embassy
from a Bulgarian khan. The ambassadors bore a letter from '
Omurtag, who seems to have proposed a pacific regulation of
^ Gen. 28. raised that he would fix his sword ets
^ It was doubtless renewed at the rr;;/ x«^'<'^'' aXwa t??? auXijs ai'Twc — •
expiration of the decennial and even if it had any value — obviously
vicennial j^eriods. Michael Syr. 50 (cji. refers to the situation before the jjeace
73) says the Bulgarians submitted to [Epist. Synod, ad Theoph. 368).
Theophilus. This, if it means any- , ^,^,^_ ^ ^^,_ g^g ^^g^
thing, probably means that on the 4 za oin ko
accession of Theophilus the peace was ^ ■'"• °^^' P' ■'^^*^*
confirmed. As to hostile designs of ^ i&. p. 161.
Leo against Bulgaria after the treaty, ^ lb. ]>. 164. The embassy arrived
there is no evidence. The anecdote at the beginning of the year, and re-
that Sabbatios (see above, p. 59) pro- turned at Christmas (p. 165).
364 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
the boundaries between the German and Bulgarian dominions.^
Their empires touched at Singidunum, which was now a
Croatian town,^ under its new Slavonic name of Belgrade,
the " white city," and the Bulgarian ruler probably claimed
that his lordship extended, northward from Belgrade, as far
perhaps as Pest, to the banks of the Danube. The Emperor
Lewis cautiously determined to learn more of Bulgaria and
its king before he committed himself to an answer, and he
sent the embassy back along with an envoy of his own.^
They returned to Bavaria at the end of the year. In the
meantime an embassy arrived from a Slavonic people, whose
denomination the German chroniclers disguised under the
name Praedenecenti.* They were also known, or were a
branch of a people known, as the Abodrites, and must be
carefully distinguished from the northern Abodrites, whose
homes were on the Lower Elbe. This tribe, who seem to
have lived on the northern bank of the Danube, to the east
of Belgrade, suffered, like the Timocians, under the oppressive
exactions of the Bulgarians, and, like them, looked to the
advance of the Franks as an opportunity for deliverance.
Lewis, whom they had approached on previous occasions,^
received their envoys in audience, and kept the Bulgarians
waiting for nearly six months. Finally he received them at
Aachen, and dismissed them with an ambiguous letter to their
master.®
It is clear that Lewis deemed it premature to commit his
policy to a definite regulation of the boundaries of the south-
eastern mark, or to give any formal acknowledgment to the
Bulgarian claims on the confines of Pannonia and Croatia ;
but he hesitated to decline definitely the proposals of the
^ To. " velut pacis faciendae " ; 167, denecenti is a corruption of a name
" de terminis ao finibus inter Buigaros connected with Branitschevo, which
ac Francos constituendis." lay on the Danube, where the Mlava
" Constantine, Be adm. iiivp. 151, flows in, and corresponded to the
enumerates to BeXoypaSoi' among the ancient Viniinacium. The site is
Croatian towns. Cp. ISSg. marked by the ruins of Branitschevats
^ Ann. r. Tr. p. 164, "ad explo- and Kostolats. See Schafarik, ii. 209 ;
randam diligentius insolitae et nun- Diimmler, Slaiven in Dahn. 376 ; Sim-
quam prius in Franciara venientis son, Ludwicj der Fr. i. 139.
legationis causam." s In a.b. 818 (Ann. r. Fr. 149) and
* /6. 165, "Abodritorum qui vulgo a.d. 822 (ib. 159). Cp. Diimmler,
Praedenecenti vocantur et contermini Sudostl. 3Iarken, 28.
Bulgaris Daciam Danubio adiacentem " lb. 167. Astronomus, VitaEludo-
incolunt." It is supposed that Prae- vici, c. 39 [M.G.IL, Scr. ii.).
SECT. V THE REIGN OF OMURTAG 365
Khan. Omurtag, impatient of a delay which encouraged the
rebellious spirit of his Slavonic dependencies, indited another
letter, which he dispatched by the same officer who had been
the bearer of his first missive (a.d. 826y He requested the
Emperor to consent to an immediate regulation of the frontier ;
and if this proposal were not acceptable, he asked that,
without any formal treaty, each power should keep within
his own borders. The terms of this message show that the
principal object of Omurtag was an agreement which should
restrain the Franks from intervening in his relations to his
Slavonic subjects. Lewis found a pretext for a new postpone-
ment. A report reached him that the Khan had been slain
or dethroned by one of his nobles, and he sent an emissary
to the Eastern Mark to discover if the news were true. As
no certain information could be gained," he dismissed the envoy
without a letter.
The sublime Khan would wait no longer on the Emperor's
pleasure. Policy as well as resentment urged him to take
the offensive, for, if he displayed a timid respect towards the
Franks, his prestige among the Slavs beyond the Danube
was endangered. The power of Bulgaria was asserted by an
invasion of Pannonia (a.d. 827). A fleet of boats sailed from
the Danube up the Drave, carrying a host of Bulgarians who
devastated with fire and sword the Slavs and Avars of Eastern
Pannonia. The chiefs of the Slavonic tribes were expelled
and Bulgarian governors were set over them.^ Throughout
the ninth century the Bulgarians were neighbours of the
Franks in these regions, and seem to have held both Sirmium
and Singidunum.^ We may be sure that Omurtag did
not fail to lay a heavy hand on the disloyal Slavs of
Dacia.
The operations of Omurtag in this quarter of his empire
are slightly illustrated by an incidental memorial, in a stone
recording the death of Onegavon. This officer, who was one
of the king's " men " and held the post of tarkan, was on his
^ Ih. 168. parently in summer.
2 This was early in the year. As * Cp. Dlimmler, Sudostl. Markcn,
late as June notliing certain could be 28-29, and Slawen in Dahn. 46 sqq. ;
ascertained {ib. 170). Tliis illustrates Schafarik, ii. 176. For Singidununi
the lack of communications between (Belgrade) cp. Pope John VIII. Letter
Bulgaria and the West. to Boris, Mansi, xvii. 64 ; Vita Clemen-
3 Ib. 173. The expedition was ap- tis, ed. Miklosich, c. 16, p. 22,
366 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
way to the Bulgarian camp and was drowned in crossing the
river Theiss.^
A similar memorial, in honour of Okorses, who in proceed-
ing to a scene of war was drowned in the Dnieper,^ shows
that the arms of Omurtag were also active in the East. The
situation in the Pontic regions, where the dominion of the
Bulgarians confronted the empire of the Khazars, is at this time
veiled in obscurity. The tents of the Magyars extended over
the region between the Don and the Dnieper.^ The country to
the west was exposed to their raids, and not many years later
we shall find their bands in the neighbourhood of the Danube.
The effect of the Magyar movement would ultimately be to
press back the frontier of Great Bulgaria to the Danube, but
they were already pressing the Inner Bulgarians into a small
territory north of the Sea of Azov, and thus dividing by an
alien and hostile wedge the continuous Bulgarian fringe
which had extended along the northern coast of the Euxine.
Although the process of the Magyar advance is buried in
oblivion, it is not likely that it was not opposed by the
resistance of the lords of Pliska, and it is tempting to surmise
that the military camp to which the unlucky Okorses was
bound when the waters of the Dnieper overwhelmed him was
connected with operations against the Magyars.
From the scanty and incidental notices of Omurtag which
occur in the Greek and Latin chronicles, we should not have
been able to guess the position which his reign takes in
the internal history of Bulgaria. Bub the accidents of
time and devastation have spared some of his own records,
which reveal him as a great builder. He constructed two new
palaces, or palatial fortresses, one on the bank of the Danube,
the other at the gates of the Balkans, and both possessed
strat3gic significance. Tutrakan, the ancient Transmarisca (to
the east of Eustchuk), marks a point where the Danube,
divided here by an island amid-stream, offers a conspicuously
convenient passage for an army. Here the Emperor Valens
built a bridge of boats, and in the past century the Eussians
have frequently chosen this place to throw their armies across
' Aboba, 191 '^vtya^ov . . . [a.Tr]eXe(l}v - lb. 190 '^Koparjs 6 Koirav6s.
[et's] jrd (pova-aTow (Trvlyrjv eis Tri[v] ^ For the Hungarians see below, p.
'Hrja-av rbv TroTa/Mdv. 423 and Appendix XII.
SECT. V
THE REIGN OF OMURTAG
367
the river.^ The remains of a Bulgarian fortress of stone and
earth, at the neighbouring Kadykei,^ probably represent the
stronghold which Omurtag built to command the passage of
Transmarisca.^ On an inscribed column/ which we may still
read in one of the churches of Tyrnovo, whither the pagan
monument was transported to serve an architectural use, it is'
recorded that " the sublime Khan Omurtag, living in his old
house (at Pliska), made a house of high renown on the
Danube." But the purpose of this inscription is not to
celebrate the building of this residence, but to chronicle the
construction of a sepulchre which Omurtag raised half-way
between his " two glorious houses " and probably destined for
his own resting-place. The measurements, which are carefully
noted in the inscription, have enabled modern investigators to
identify Omurtag's tomb with a large conical mound or
kurgan close to the village of Mumdzhilar.^ The memorial
concludes with a moralising reflexion: "Man dies, even if he
live well, and another is born, and let the latest born, con-
sidering this writing, remember him who made it. The name
of the ruler is Omurtag, Kanas Ubege. God grant that he
may live a hundred years."
If the glorious house on the Danube was a defence, in
the event of an attack of Slavs or other enemies coming
from the north, Omurtag, although he lived at peace with the
Eoman Empire, thought it well to strengthen himself against
his southern neighbours also, in view of future contingencies.
The assassination of Leo and the elevation of Michael II.,
whose policy he could not foresee, may have been a determin-
ing motive. At all events it was in the year following this
change of dynasty *" that Omurtag built a new royal residence
and fortress in the mountains, on the river Tutsa,*^ command-
1 Cp. Aloha, 562.
^ Uspenski, ib, 552, identifies
Kadykei with the Roman Nigrinianae.
Under the remains of the Bulgarian
fortress there is a stratum of Roman
work.
•' The inscription (see next note)
gives 40,000 dpyvlai as the distance
between the old and the new palace.
This (45 kilometres) coiTesponds to
the distance of Pliska from Silistria
and from Kadykei. The Bulgarian
fortress at the latter place and the
discovery of an official inscription there
(Aboba, 228) justify the identification
of Uspenski. See z6. 519, 551-552.
■* Printed by JireCek, Gcschichtc,
148 ; by Uspenski, with improved
text, in drevn. gor. Tyrnova, 5.
Jirecek's translation is in several
points incorrect.
•' Aboba, 553.
^ A.D. 821-822. See inscription
translated below.
^ Now called the Great Kamchiia.
It is mentioned by Theophanes (4362),
368
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. XI
ing the pass of Veregava, by which Eoman armies had been
wont to descend upon Pliska, as well as the adjacent pass of
Verbits. We do not know how the new town which the King
erected in front of the mountain defiles was called in his own
tongue, but the Slavs called it Preslav, " the glorious," a name
which seems originally to have been applied to all the palaces
of the Bulgarian kings.^ It is not probable that Omurtag
intended to transfer his principal residence from the plain to
the hills," but his new foundation was destined, as Great Pre-
slav, to become within a hundred years the capital of Bulgaria.
The foundation of the city is recorded on a large lime-
stone column which was dug out of the earth a few years ago
at Chatalar,^ about four miles from the ruins of Preslav. " The
sublime Khan Omurtag is divine ruler in the land where he
was born. Abiding in the Plain * of Pliska, he made a palace
(aule) on the Tutsa and displayed his power to the Greeks and
Slavs.^ And he constructed with skill a bridge over the
Tutsa. And he set up in his fortress ^ four columns, and
between the columns he set two bronze lions.'^ May God
grant that the divine ruler may press down the Emperor with
his foot so long as the Tutsa flows,^ that he may procure
where the texts give eicrrfKBev (sc.
Constantine V.) et's BovXyaplav ?ws tov
Tft/cas, but one MS. has Totjv^as. In
Anna Comnena (7. 3) it is called
Bir^iva. See Aboba, 547.
^ Preslav corresponds to irdp(p-rj/j.os,
the adjective applied to the house on
the Danube and to Pliska in the
Tyrnovo inscription (tov 5vo vko top
nav(pT]/xov, a genitive plural wrongly
taken for oIkov tov it. by Jirecek ; see
Bury, App. 10 to Gibbon, vi.). The
palace on the Danube is also called
VTripcprj/xos {ib.). Cp. to apxaioTaTov
vw^p(f>rifjLov and [i^Tr^p] dwaaav (prjix-qv in
an inscription ot'Malamir {Aboba, 233).
This word, like freslav, evidently
translated a Bulgarian appellative.
- Uspenski thinks that the use of
axiki] in the inscription implies the
" transference of the capital " {Aboba,
547). But why should not the Khan
have two av\al ?
•'' See Aboba, 546 sqq., for the inscrip-
tion and the circumstance of its
discovery. Chatalar is close to the
railway station of Preslav-Krumovo.
* IS Tis llXaKus TOV Ka{ii)irov. Doubt-
less KCL/jLTTos designates not the whole
ireoiov of Aboba, but the fortified
enclosure of Pliska.
® Kttt [ ] TTJV 5vvafJ.lv TOV [ts]
TpaiKovs Kdl S/cXd/Sous. Uspenski
supjjlies iwriye. But Omurtag lived at
peace with the Greeks. I would supply
iSei^e (^5i|e) or some equivalent, and
restore h = ds (Uspenski iirl).
" IJLiT[r)veyKtv'\ Kal ^crTri[<x€v} eh avTO
t[6 Kd<TT]pov (Uspenski). KacTTpov, I
think, is right, but ixeT-qveynev very
doubtful.
"^ I read /cat [ni(r']a [twJj/ aTvXuv. The
four columns marked a space in the
centre of which were the two lions, or
else two columns were on either side
of a gateway and the lions between
them. Uspenski restores Kal [et's ^v]a
("and placed two lions on one of the
columns "), an arrangement which
sounds too inartistic to be credible.
^ juLe TOV 7r6[5a] avTov tov /SacrtXe'a
Kd[/j.\peiv ews Tpe]x[??] V ToOxj'a. I
read Kdn^piv (the future is required) ;
Uspenski gives Kd/xirTeiv. KaTa^aXeiv
might also be thought of
SECT. V
THE REIGN OF OMURTAG
369
many captives for the Bulgarians/ and that subduing his foes
he may, in joy and happiness, live for a hundred years. The
date of the foundation was the Bulgarian year shegor alem, or
the fifteenth indiction of the Greeks" (a.d. 821-822). In
this valuable record of the foundation of Preslav, we may
note with interest the hostile reference to the Eoman Emperor
as the chief and permanent enemy of Bulgaria, although at
this time Bulgaria and the Empire were at peace. It was
probably a standing formula which had originally been
adopted in the reign of some former king, when the two
powers were at war.
It has been already related how Omurtag intervened in
the civil war between Michael and Thomas, how he defeated
the rebel on the field of Keduktos, and returned laden with
spoils (a.d. 823). This was his only expedition into Eoman
territory ; the Thirty Years' Peace was preserved inviolate
throughout his reign. The date of his death is uncertain.^
^ 6. The Reigns of Malamir and Boris
Omurtag was succeeded by his youngest son Presiam,^
though one at least of his elder sons was still living.
Presiam is generally known as Malamir, a Slavonic name which
he assumed, perhaps toward the end of his reign. The
adoption of this name is a landmark in the gradual process of
the assertion of Slavonic inflvience in the Bulgarian realm.
We may surmise that it corresponds to a political situation in
which the Khan was driven to rely on the support of his
Slavonic subjects against the Bulgarian nobles.
We have some official records of the sublime Khan
Malamir,* though not so many or so important as the records
^ /cat [5]6(t[7; aix/xaXwJroi/s 7roXXoi)s
^ovKy6.\_p\Ls. I translate this extremely
uncertain restoration of Uspenski, only
substituting 5b<nv, i.e. dibcreiv, for his
Su<T7].
^ Later than A.D. 827. See above,
p. 365. Zlatarski dates the reign as
814-831/2 (see Aboba, 236).
* The evidence, as I hold, points to
the identity of Presiam with Malamir ;
see Appendix X. Enravotas, also
called liotVos (is this Bulgarian Baian
or Slavonic " warrior " ?)> was the
eldest son and survived Omurtag, ac-
cording to the story told by Theophy-
lactus, 02). cit. 192. See below, p. 382.
■* We know that Malamir was ruler
of Bulgaria in the reign of Theophilus
from Simeon [Cont. Georg. 818). The
veis. Slav. 101 calls him Vladimir,
and so the Cod. Par. 854 and Vatic.
1807 ; the printed texts of Cont.
Georg., Leo Gr., and Theod. Mel.
have Ba\5i/x€p. The error may have
arisen from confusion with a later
Klian Vladimir, who succeeded Boris,
2 B
370
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. XI
of his father. We have a memorial column of Tsepa, a boilad
and king's liegeman who died of illness.^ From another
stone we learn that Isbules, the kaukhan, who was one of the
king's old boilads, built an aqueduct for Malamir at his own
expense. This aqueduct was probably to supply one of the
royal palaces. Malamir celebrated the occasion by giving a
feast to the Bulgarians, and bestowing many gifts upon the
boilads and bagains.^
There was some risk that the treaty with the Empire
might be denounced during the reign of Theophilus.
The Thracian and Macedonian captives who had been
transported by Krum to regions beyond the Danube ^ formed
a plan to return to their homes. This colony of exiles, who
are said to have numbered 12,000 not counting females, were
permitted to choose one of their own number as a governor,
and Kordyles, who exercised this function, contrived to make
his way secretly to Constantinople and persuaded Theophilus
to send ships to rescue the exiles and bring them home.
This act was evidently a violation of the Thirty Years' Peace,
and at the same moment the Bulgarian ruler was engaged in a
return of the captives in this chronicle
is confused, but has no legendary
details and is evidently based upon
genuine facts. One difficulty lies in
the position of Kordyles. He is
described as (TTparrjXdTTjs eV MaKeSoviq.,
and he left his son "to govern the
Macedonians beyond the Danube"
instead of himself. Then, after their
failure to escape across Bulgaria, the
captives, who arc throughout called
"the Macedonians," make Kordyles
and Tzantzes their leaders. It seems
clear that there is a confusion between
Macedonia and the "Macedonian"
settlement in Bulgaria, and that
Kordyles was not strategos of Mace-
donia, but governor of the Macedonian
exiles. This is confirmed by the state-
ment that Kordyles had to use a device
{ixera fx.rjxai'fjs rivds) to reach Theo-
philus ; if he had been strat. of
Macedonia, this would be inexplicable.
We can infer the interesting fact that
the captives were established as a
colony with a governor of their own,
and that as a large number of these
were Macedonians, the region which
and Zlatarski suggests that the
narrative was derived by Simeon
from a hagiographical work (where
such a confusion would not be sur-
prising). But it may be suggested
that Simeon or his source wrote
MaXi/x^p ; the form of fi in tenth-cent.
MSS. was liable to confusion with j3,
and if the word was read BaXifiep the
further corruption was almost inevit-
able. In any case the identification
is certain. Simeon states that
" Baldimer " was grandson of Krum,
and Malamir was Omurtag's son. In
the inscriptions his name is written
MaXafiTjp and MaXafxtp. Zlatarski
(who distinguishes Presiam from M.)
thinks that M. reigned from 831/2 to
836/7 ; cp. Appendix X.
1 Aboba, 191.
^ lb. 230-231. di'd/3puT0J' is the word
which I follow Zlatarski and Uspenski
in interpreting "aqueduct." The in-
scription concludes with the prayer
that "the divine ruler may live a
hundred years along with Isbules the
kaukhan."
* Simeon (Co7U. Georg, 818 ; vers.
Slav. 101-102). The account of the
they inhabited
Macedonia.
was known as
SECT. VI THE REIGN OF MALAMIR 371
hostile action against the Empire by advancing to Thessalonica.
It can hardly be an accident that the date to which our
evidence for their transaction points (c. a.d. 836) coincides
with the termination of the second decad of the Peace, and
if it was a condition that the Treaty should be renewed at the
end of each decad, it was a natural moment for either ruler
to choose for attempting to compass an end to which the other
would not agree. We cannot determine precisely the order of
events, or understand the particular circumstances in which
the captives effected their escape. We are told that the whole
population began to cross over a river,^ in order to reach the
place where the Imperial ships awaited them. The Bulgarian
Count of the district ^ crossed over to their side to prevent
them, and being defeated with great loss, sought the help of
the Magyars, who were now masters of the north coast of the
Euxine as far as the Bulgarian frontier. Meanwhile the
Greeks crossed, and were about to embark when a host of
Magyars appeared and commanded them to surrender all their
property. The Greeks defied the predatory foe, defeated them
in two engagements, and sailed to Constantinople, where they
were welcomed by the Emperor and dismissed to their various
homes.^
We have no evidence as to the object of the expedition
to Thessalonica, but it has been conjectured ^ that the Mace-
donian Slavs, infected by rebellious movements of the Slavs
in Greece,^ were in a disturbed state, and that the Bulgarian
monarch seized the opportunity to annex to his own kingdom
by peaceful means these subjects of the Empire. In support
of this guess it may be pointed out that not many years later
his power seems to have extended as far west as Ochrida,*^
and there is no record of a conquest of these regions by arms.
And a movement in this direction might also explain the war
^ oiavepdv, Simeon (Leo Gr. 232). The year of his birth is fixed to A.D.
The chronicler probably meant the 812/3, as he was born in the reign of
Danube (the only river mentioned in Michael I. {Cont. Georg. 817) and was
1 the narrative), and if this is right, the in swaddling-clothes when his parents
captives crossed from the left to the were carried off from Hadrianople in
[right bank. a.d. 813 {Cont. Th. 216). He was
'^ Perhaps the officer who was called 25 years old when the captives re-
Ithe Count of Durostorum (Aporpop). turned {Cont. Georg. 819). This gives
ICp. Uspenski, Staroholg. nadp. 230. a.d. 837/8 as the year of escape.
* The approximate date can be * Zlatarski, op. cit. 38.
[inferred from data as to the age of * See below, p. 379.
iBasil I., who was one of the captives. ^ Cp. Zlatarski, 40, and below, p. 384.
372 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xi
which broke out between Bulgaria and Servia in the last years
of Theophilus.
About this time the Servians, who had hitherto lived in a
loose group of independent tribes, acknowledging the nominal
lordship of the Emperor, were united under the rule of
Vlastimir into the semblance of a state. If it is true that
the extension of Bulgarian authority over the Slavs to the
south of Servia was effected at this epoch, we can understand
the union of the Servian tribes as due to the instinct of self-
defence. Hitherto they had always lived as good neighbours
of the Bulgarians, but the annexation of western Macedonia
changed the political situation. Vlastimir 's policy of con-
solidating Servia may have been a sufficient motive with
Malamir to lose no time in crushing a power which might
become a formidable rival, and he determined to subjugate it.
But it is not unlikely that the Emperor also played a hand in
the game. Disabled from interfering actively by the necessities
of the war against the Moslems, he may have reverted to
diplomacy and stirred up the Servians, who were nominally
his clients, to avert a peril which menaced themselves, by
driving the Bulgarians from western Macedonia. The prospect
of common action between the Empire and the Servians would
explain satisfactorily Malamir 's aggression against Servia.^ The
war lasted three years, and ended in failure and disaster for
the Bulgarians.^
These speculations concerning the political situation in
the Balkan peninsula in the last years of Theophilus depend
on the hypothesis, which cannot be proved, that the Bulgarians
had succeeded in annexing the Slavonic tribes to the west of
Thessalonica. In any case, whatever may have occurred, the
Thirty Years' Peace had been confirmed, and remained inviolate
till its due termination in a.d. 845-846. It was not renewed,
and soon afterwards a Bulgarian army under the general
Isbules seems to have invaded Macedonia and operated in the
regions of the Strymon and the ISTestos ; ^ while the Imperial
^ For these conjectures, see Jire6ek, stantine, De adm. imp. 154 ; he calls
ArcMv filr slavische Philologic, xxi. the Bulgarian ruler Upeaidix, the only
609 sq. ; Zlatarski, op. cit. 40 sqq. evidence we have for the name.
Z. supposes that Theophilus offered Vlastimir's date is given by Schafarik .
the Servians an acknowledgment of as a.d. 836-843 (ii. 250).
their complete independence. ^ I adopt Zlatarski's interpreta-
'"= The source for tlie war is Con- tion (49 sq.) of the Villoisou inscrip-
SECT. VI
BORIS
373
government retaliated by reinforcing the garrisons of the
frontier forts of Thrace in order to carry out a systematic
devastation of Thracian Bulgaria.^ This plan released
Macedonia from the enemy ; Isbules was recalled to defend his
country. The absence of the Thracian and Macedonian troops,
which these events imply, is explained, if they were at this
time engaged in reducing the Slavs of the Peloponnesus.^
These hostilities seem to have been followed by a truce,^
and soon afterwards Malamir was succeeded by his nephew
Boris {c. A.D. 852).* This king, whose reign marks an
important epoch in the development of Bulgaria, was soon
involved in war with the Servians and with the Croatians.
He hoped to avenge the defeats which his uncle had suffered
in Servia.^ But the Servians again proved themselves
superior and captured Vladimir, the son of Boris, along with
the twelve great boliads. The Bulgarian king was compelled
to submit to terms of peace in order to save the prisoners, and
fearing that he might be waylaid on his homeward march he
asked for a safe-conduct. He was conducted by two Servian
tion {G.I.G. iv. 8691b) found near
Philippi. Its obvious meaning is
that the Bulgarian king sent Isbules
with an army and that he operated in
the district of the Smoleanoi, who, we
know, lived on the middle course of
the Nestos. Cp. Appendix X.
1 Simeon {Cont. Georg. 821). This
notice comes immediately after that
of the death of Methodius, which
occurred in June 847. Zlatarski, 43
sq., has made it quite clear that
Simeon refers here to different events
from those recorded by Genesios, 85
sq. (see below). He is almost certainly
right in referring the important in-
scription of Shumla {Aboba, 233) to
operations at this period in Thrace
(51 sq,), though otherwise I cannot
accept his interpretation (see
Appendix X.). The forts of Proba-
ton and Burdizos which are mentioned
in it would be two of the Kdarpa
referred to by Simeon, with whose
notice the words v ypvKv eprj/xocrd (oi
TpaiKol eprifjLojaav) are obviously in
accordance.
" There is no independent evidence
as to the date of the Peloponnesian
war (see below, p. 379).
^ Zlatarski, 53.
* The date of the accession of Boris
is determined by Zlatarski, 46-47. He
reigned thirty -six years (Theophy-
lactus. Mart. 201), his successor
Vladimir four years {ib. 213). Vladi-
mir was still alive in 892 {Ann. Fuld.,
s.a.), but was succeeded by Simeon
not later than 893. This gives 852-
853 for accession of Boris (Golubinski
and Jire6ek had already dated it to
852-856). 852 is rendered probable by
the Bulgarian embassy sent to Lewis
the German in that year {Ann. Fuld.,
s.a.), which was probably to announce
the accession and confirm the treaty
of 845 {ib., s.a.).
^ Constantine, De adm. imp. 154-
155 (Servian war), 150 (Croatian war :
unsuccessful and followed by jieace).
Zlatarski dates these wars to 854-860
(55). Diimmler {Slawen in Dalvi.
397) conjectures that the Croatian
war was successful, and that the
Croatians ceded Bosnia to Boris. He
bases this guess on the apparent fact
that about this time the Croatian
power seriously declined. He supjioses
that soon after the conquest, 13oris
was defeated in his war with the
Servians and compelled to surrender
Bosnia to them.
374
EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
CHAP. XI
princes to the frontier at Kasa, where he repaid their services
by ample gifts, and received from them, as a pledge of friendship,
two slaves, two falcons, two hounds, and ninety skins.^ This
friendship bore political fruits. The two princes were sons of
Muntimir, one of three brothers, who, soon after the Bulgarian
invasion, engaged in a struggle for supreme power, and
when Muntimir gained the upper hand he sent his rivals to
Bulgaria to be detained in the custody of Boris.
During the reign of Boris peace was maintained, not-
withstanding occasional menaces,^ between Bulgaria and the
Empire ; and before the end of the reign of Michael III. the
two powers were drawn into a new relation, when the king
accepted Christian baptism. But the circumstances of this
event, which is closely connected with larger issues of
European politics, must be reserved for another chapter.
^ Genesios, 85-86, says that the
Bulgarian ruler (unnamed) threatened
to invade Roman territory, but Theo-
dora declared that she would lead an
army in person against him. " It
will be no glory to you to defeat a
woman ; if she defeats you, you will
be ridiculous." The Bulgarian thought
better of his purpose, and remained
quiet in his own country. Cont. Th.
162 says (1) that the king was Boris
{Biliyoipis), and (2) that he purposed to
break the treaty, but renewed it ; (3)
brings the incident into connexion
with the conversion of the Bulgarians.
Zlatarski (54 sq.) accepts the king's
name from Cont. Th. and gives reasons
for dating the incident to a.d. 852.
He thinks that this writer has com-
bined the passage in Genesios with
another source — the same from which
he drew the stories about Theodore
Kupharas, the sister of Boris, and the
painter Methodios. I doubt whether
the anecdote has any value ; but it
may be based on the circumstance
that Boris on his accession renewed
the truce with Byzantium.
CHAPTEE XII
THE CONVERSION OF THE SLAVS AND BULGARIANS
§ 1. The Slavs in Greece
The ninth century was a critical period in the history of the
Slavonic world. If in the year a.d. 800 a political prophet
had possessed a map of Europe, such as we can now construct,
he might have been tempted to predict that the whole eastern
half of the continent, from the Danish peninsula to the
Peloponnesus, was destined to form a Slavonic empire, or at
least a solid group of Slavonic kingdoms. From the mouth of
the Elbe to the Ionian Sea there was a continuous line of
Slavonic peoples — the Abodrites, the Wilzi, the Sorbs, the
Lusatians, the Bohemians, the Slovenes, the Croatians, and the
Slavonic settlements in Macedonia and Greece. Behind them
were the Lechs of Poland, the kingdom of Great Moravia,
Servia, and the strongly organized kingdom of Bulgaria ; while
farther in the background were all the tribes which were to
form the nucleus of unborn Eussia. Thus a vertical line from
Denmark to the Hadriatic seemed to mark the limit of the
Teutonic world, beyond which it might have been deemed
impossible that German arms would make any permanent
impression on the serried array of Slavs ; while in the Balkan
peninsula it might have appeared not improbable that the
Bulgarian power, which had hitherto proved a formidable
antagonist to Byzantium, would expand over Illyricum and
Greece, and ultimately drive the Greeks from Constantinople.
Such was the horoscope of nations which might plausibly
have been drawn from a European chart, and which the history
of the next two hundred years was destined to falsify. At
375
376 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xii
the beginning of the eleventh century the Western Empire of
the Germans had extended its power far and irretrievably
beyond the Elbe, while the Eastern Empire of the Greeks had
trampled the Bulgarian power under foot. And in the meantime
the Hungarians had inserted themselves like a wedge between
the Slavs of the north and the Slavs of the south. On the
other hand, two things had happened which were of great
moment for the future of the Slavonic race : the religion of
the Greeks and the Teutons had spread among the Slavs, and
the kingdom of Eussia had been created. The beginnings of
both these movements, which were slow and gradual, fall in
the period when the Amorian dynasty reigned at New Eome.^
It was under the auspices of Michael III. that the unruly
Slavonic tribes in the Peloponnesus were finally brought under
the control of the government, and the credit of their subjuga-
tion is probably to be imputed to Theodora and her fellow-
regents. The Slavs were diffused all over the peninsula, but
the evidence of place-names indicates that their settlements
were thickest in Arcadia and Elis, Messenia, Laconia, and
Achaia.^ In the plains of Elis, on the slopes of Taygetos, and
in the great marshlands of the lower Eurotas, they seem almost
entirely to have replaced the ancient inhabitants. Somewhere
between Sparta and Megalopolis was the great Slavonic town
Veligosti, of which no traces remain. Of the tribes we know
only the names of the Milings and the Ezerites. The Milings
had settled in the secure fastnesses of Taygetos ; the Ezerites,
or Lake-men, abode in the neighbouring Helos or marshland,
from which they took their name.^ Living independently
under their own zupans, they seized every favourable opportunity
of robbery and plunder. In the reign of Nicephorus (a.d. 807)
they formed a conspiracy with the Saracens of Africa^ to
1 The introduction of Christianity undoubtedly Albanian, from ixoXKj,
among the Croatians and Servians was "mountain," as Philippson points out
of older date. {H, 8). Gox^tsa is often enumerated
2 See Phihppsou, i. 3-4; Grego- among the Slavonic names, but it
rovius, Ath&n, i. 113 sqq. ; G. Meyer, may come from A-goritsa (d7opd).
AufscitzeundSf:udie7i{lS85),liO. The But there are jilenty about which
place-names still require a thorough- there can be no doubt (such as
going investigation. Not a few, which Krivitsa, Garditsa, Kamcnitsa).
have been taken for Slavonic, may be ^ Bze.ro, Slavonic for lake.
Greek or Albanian. E.g. Male vo— the * The source is Constantine, Be adm.
name ot Parnon and other mountains imp. c. 49. He says that the story
—was explained as Slavonic by Fall- was told orally {ayp<i<pw) during
rrevayer and Gregorovius, but it is their lifetime by contemporaries to
SECT. I THE SLA VS IN GREECE 377
attack the rich city of Patrae. The strategos of the province
whose residence was at Corinth, delayed in sending troops
to relieve the besieged town, and the citizens suffered from
want of food and water. The story of their deliverance
is inextricably bound up with a legend of supernatural aid,
vouchsafed to them by their patron saint. A scout was sent
to a hill, east of the town, anxiously to scan the coast road
from Corinth, and if he saw the approach of the troops, to
signal to the inhabitants, when he came within sight of the
walls, by lowering a flag ; while if he kept the flag erect, it
would be known that there was no sign of the help which was
so impatiently expected. He returned disappointed, with his
flag erect, but his horse slipped and the flag was lowered in
the rider's fall. The in 
